Amicus Curiae

BY

Everyone’s favorite editors

After a tumultuous year involving intrigue and scandal or something like it, Roger Pao has decided to dedicate himself to poetry and being a regular 3L with no responsibilities. But worry not, The Record’s recent elections have deposited it in good, well-manicured hands and in the process we have noticed a pattern. First, women took over the Law Review (see interview with Aileen McGrath two issues ago). Now we introduce the new board of the Harvard Law Record: Editor-in-Chief Anna Brook, Managing Editor Andrea Saenz, and Opinion Editor Katie Mapes. And in the background, President Summers resigned and every major newspaper in the country has tapped our own Dean Kagan as a likely successor.

You know what this sounds like to us? Women are taking over this place. This was in the making for a while, but the revolution is here. As further proof we ask, “Does the men’s bathroom have any equivalent to the free tampons in the women’s (and, in Austin, not just any tampons but luxurious pearl tampons)?” We think not! Hah, do we have equality at last? Or, better yet, superiority? (We are actually curious what the guys have. Gold-plated urinals perhaps? Email us.)

It is still a tough call whether women completely took over. We hear the Law Review has a pretty good ratio this year. Then again, maybe there have traditionally been fewer women because women know better than to spend 80 hours per week checking footnotes. Women make up 65% of the Legal Aid Bureau (but according to some, helping people is not that prestigious). And yet, The Record and Law Review haven’t had too many female leaders and women were in markedly short supply in the Ames Moot Court finals.

Maybe in the future female dominance will be a standard. After all, guys had unquestionable authority for a few millennia. It is probably our turn by now. Or maybe it won’t matter who runs The Record, but for now it does matter and here’s why. Theoretically, the First Amendment gives you the right to say what you wish and as a law student, you should be able to say it in your newspaper. But guess what? We are the filter of your First Amendment rights, deciding what gets printed and what goes into the shredder. (Insert maniacal laugh here.) We have all the power, but tempting as it may be we will try not to abuse it. We can devote pages upon pages to our own megalomaniacal ravings, but that requires us to actually write. Instead, we want to hear the voice of the people (defined as the law school community, we don’t care much about outsiders). We know you have something to say, and unlike the Law Review we won’t turn you down for lack of lofty credentials. We will, however, devote an entire Lawker to you if what you send is more than 70 pages long.

Comments