To the editor:
Regarding the recent question asked of Tzipi Livni: The question was offensive. Period. I do not think the question itself was anti-Semitic, although the questioner may well be — I don’t know. But the question was a deliberate and juvenile insult, not just to Ms. Livni, and not just to Jews, but to everyone.
Disagreeing with Ms. Livni is fine. Disagreeing vehemently with her is fine. Asking a question designed to draw out what you believe exposes the wrongfulness of her positions or beliefs is fine. Asking a question that any seven year old knows is insulting, irrelevant and stupid — yes, there is such a thing as a stupid question — is obviously unacceptable. It is the antithesis of civilized discourse.
Continue reading “Letter to the Editor: A fitting punishment”
Earlier this week Harvard Law Students received an email from Dean Minow that denounced a comment made by a student at a panel event featuring Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli foreign minster.
Something accidentally left out of Ms. Livni’s bio at the event (probably) was that a British court issued a warrant for her arrest for war crimes committed during the 2008-2009 offensive on Gaza. During that offensive, 1400 Palestinians died, mostly civilians; Israel says it was defending itself against Hamas rocket fire, 13 Israelis died. We’ve all tried to get out of events we didn’t want to attend before but “soz I can’t come, I might get arrested for war crimes” is an excuse that can probably only be used by about two other people, like maybe Al-Bashir and Karadžić, tops.
There are many questions that one might have for Tzipi Livni. Why did you bomb UN schools? How can you deny the humanitarian crisis in Gaza? What moisturiser do you use to give you that youthful genocidal glow? But instead, a student asked about why the speaker was smelly.
Continue reading “A Disturbing Double Standard”
To the editor:
I want to applaud Jon Gartner, Jeremy Salinger, and Jacquie Wolpoe for their remarkable restraint and interest in comity by not publishing the name of the student responsible for the comments to Tzipi Livni this past Thursday. I hope that if the situation was reversed — and a slur (even if “only” an intentionally offensive and delegitimizing but not intentionally racist or sexist insult) was made, affected groups would show the same astounding level of restraint in the interest of furthering dialogue. As the comments were originally made (presumably?) in order to delegitimize the entire event without any substantive dialogue, I also hope that this example leads others to choose to engage in substantive dialogue rather than jumping to conclusions that do nothing to solve complicated and emotionally charged issues.
Having said that, the decision by the Harvard Law administration to release a full video of the event — yet to explicitly censor the obnoxious and senselessly immature comments — bodes poorly on our institution, and demands an explanation or justification.
Continue reading “Letter to the Editor: Applause to JLSA leaders, not Harvard”
We write to congratulate the Harvard Women’s Law Association on the publication of their most recent Shatter the Ceiling study, and to emphasize that we are in this fight together. In 2016, it is both disheartening and frustrating that women are still underrepresented on the Harvard Law Review and receive fewer academic honors than men. Yale Law Women’s recent “Speak Up: Now What?” report presented similar findings on women’s underrepresentation in traditionally prestigious academic pursuits at Yale Law School. In our prestige-conscious profession, in which women continue to earn less money and occupy fewer leadership positions than men, these imbalances matter.
Like the WLA, Yale Law Women strives to address gender disparities at our school head-on. The first step towards fixing these problems is to reveal them, in detail. There is no substitute for hard data, and the Shatter the Ceiling study and “Speak Up: Now What?” leave no question that gender inequality at top law schools is real. In the two short years since the YLW report, the data has inspired change at Yale. YLW and other affinity groups forged a partnership with the Yale Law Journal to reach out to women and other historically underrepresented groups to better facilitate their participation. We are also in constant dialogue with Yale Law School administrators and faculty about how to create a law school environment and a legal profession in which women can thrive. Together, we have made important strides, but our work is nowhere near done.
Continue reading “Speak Up & Shatter the Ceiling: A Message of Support from Yale Law Women”
A lot of people have been asking me if my campaign is serious over the last few days.
When the campaign started, I would’ve said no. The world has far too many real problems to take an SGA campaign too seriously. I think part of what I was, and still am, trying to say with this campaign is that maybe we should take Student Government a little less seriously. This school has real problems, and real areas for improvement, and groups like Reclaim are doing dynamic work trying to make this school, and its surrounding communities, a better place. In contrast, tinkering with the Hark and getting new furniture for the lounge, while fine ideas, do not warrant the same level of seriousness. Every year candidates for student government say the same things. And every year they are just as boring and ineffectual as the last.
Continue reading “Silverman-Roati: A campaign that means to win”
Posted below is some information about Reclaim Harvard Law, taken from our website. As you can see, we have been modeling our own Office of Diversity and Inclusion, one small space in the law school for marginalized students inspired by the school’s total failure to create any such space. In the past few days, a person who has been outspokenly opposed to our fight for racial justice from the beginning has been putting up deliberately provocative posters in our space. After extensive debate, we determined that, while all are welcome to engage with us, and we have repeatedly invited this particular individual to do so, a model of an Office of Diversity and Inclusion would certainly put up posters and information about its mission and values, but would retain control over its own decorating policy to maintain a space that reflects its values. We do not believe that free speech is implicated here (we are a group choosing what to post in its own space, without any institutional, let alone governmental, support, and there are countless other – white – spaces on the campus in which this individual can express his views, and has). However, notably, the idea that we have prevented this particular white man from putting up offensive posters in this particular space has created attention and outrage that our own claims to suppressed speech and silencing have not. This is not the first time that supposedly neutral principles of free speech have been invoked to protect white privilege – our fight is to make it the last. We have been told that the way to fight speech is with more speech. It should be obvious to everyone that this is not a level playing field, but nevertheless we are taking this advice, and will expand our campaign to spread the voices of the marginalized and the silenced throughout Harvard Law School. We wish Harvard Law School would be on the side of the oppressed and the marginalized, but can hope for no more than that it will maintain its studied neutrality. #MoreSpeech
Continue reading “A Message from Reclaim Harvard Law”
The “Belinda” of “Belinda Hall” fame was named Belinda Sutton. Although she appears in her most well-known 1783 petition as “Belinda” and as “Belinda Royal” in two document in 1785, “Sutton” was her married name, as a later petition in 1788 indicates. It has long been known that enslaved people did not always take the last names of their enslavers, and many had their own last names. “Belinda Sutton” is the only name that we can say that she, in any way, chose. Therefore, it is proper and respectful to call her by her real name. I brought this to the attention of the Royall House, and they agree wholeheartedly with me, and will use Belinda Sutton from now on. The changes are already reflected on their website.
Annette Gordon-Reed is the Charles Warren Professor of American Legal History at Harvard Law School.
On Monday a group of HLS Professors published a letter criticizing Reclaim Harvard Law’s recent protest of Dean Minow’s administration. I admit I was pleased and surprised to see a response from some HLS Faculty. To a great extent most Professors at the school have either been unfairly dismissive or entirely silent about our movement. I was also pleased to hear that the Professors are “proud of the activism, motivation and goals underlying Reclaim Harvard Law School”. Yet, although my surprise did not come without a degree of pleasure, this momentary gratification was all too quickly replaced by disappointment. I was expecting some discussion of the article I published a few weeks ago explaining our protest action. The article addresses many of the criticisms that the Professors raise, including the accusation that we “[fail] to acknowledge the enormous contributions that Dean Minow has made in the past – and continues to make today – in furtherance of the very issues of social justice that motivate Reclaim Harvard Law School’s efforts.” Indeed, in my article I titled an entire section “Reclaim’s Debt to the Dean” and pointed out how Reclaim and Dean Minow apparently have quite similar aims.
Continue reading “Letter to the Editor: A response to my venerable teachers”
The Harvard Corporation has endorsed the Law School’s wish to withdraw its sheaves-of-wheat seal. The seal is now damned as derived from the family crest of the father of the School’s early benefactor, Isaac Royall, Jr., an 18th-century slave-owner. In justifying its decision, the Corporation abuses historical reasoning. “When the shield was adopted [in 1936],” the Corporation notes, no “attention was given to the prospect that its imagery might evoke associations with slavery—a circumstance that, if recognized at the time, would quite likely have led to a different choice” (my emphases). In short, the Royall emblem became the Law School’s seal because its adopters back in 1936 lacked the anti-racist awareness of 2016. Had those old-timers been more alert, it is speculated, they would have behaved better—that is, like the Law School’s later-day saints—and rejected the seal. This wishful thinking echoes the classicist Benjamin Jowett’s Victorian faith that apparent homosexuality in Plato’s Phaedrus was really heterosexual; Plato’s lovely youths were actually young women, and had he “lived in our times he would have made the transposition himself.”
Continue reading “Letter to the Editor: Harvard Law School and Corporation flunk history”
On March 21, the Record published an open letter from seven faculty members attacking Reclaim Harvard Law School for unreasonably criticizing HLS Dean Martha Minow. Below is a response to that letter.
I find it troubling that a group of faculty would endorse a letter filled with the very errors they spend so much time encouraging students to correct. We are taught not to make unsubstantiated claims, but instead to connect claims with evidence, and to demonstrate logically how the evidence supports our conclusion.
Continue reading “Letter to the Editor: Faculty members unfairly dismiss Reclaim HLS”
As members of the law faculty, we have all been proud of the activism, motivation and goals underlying Reclaim Harvard Law School. We fully support the University’s decision to retire the Law School’s Shield containing the Royall Crest, and acknowledge that this result would never have occurred were it not for the actions of Reclaim Harvard Law School and other individual students and groups who have pressed the school to face up to this part of its history.
But it is equally clear that the school would not have been able to achieve this important goal without the leadership of Dean Martha Minow. Which is why we believe that it is both wrong and counterproductive that some members of the Reclaim Harvard Law School movement and other individuals and organizations have singled Dean Minow out for such sharp and unfair criticism.
Continue reading “An Open Letter to the Harvard Law School Community”
To the editor:
I was greatly heartened by Jim An’s “Talking past each other.” I agree we tend to talk past each other rather than respectfully engaging each other’s “actually held concerns” with humility. However, An did not go far enough in the critique – he did not recognize that the communication mode he advocates could itself be wrong. I’m sure I was not the only one cringing at the contrast between the respectful humility he advocates and the condescending tone taken toward the offending student. There are divisions in our country over abortion, climate change, and race. However we are also divided over how to discuss these topics – just look at the many articles (including in the Record) on both sides of the issue on political correctness, safe spaces, trigger warnings, and free speech on campus. If we believe deeply in the benefit of conversing with good faith and humility, I believe we can even apply this method to the conversation about how to converse … but I might be wrong.
Amy Gilson is a doctoral student in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University.
Editor’s note: This was submitted as a response to a recent op-ed entitled “The Least Safe Space.” You can find that article in full here.
In “The Least Safe Space”, Josh Craddock asserts his belief that life begins at conception. That belief is true because it is what he believes. That is acceptable. And he can champion his position from his moral framework.
What is unacceptable is his, and the editorial staff’s, misunderstanding of the scientific data used to support the author’s belief. As a research scientist, I am disturbed by the blending of poorly cited facts and moral opinion that characterize this article. It is symptomatic of a larger trend in scientific reportage and opinion that use the authoritative weight of apparently scientific data to hide a blatantly moral perspective. It is this cocktail of fact and opinion that continues to confuse the lay-public on topics ranging from climate change to the health benefits of the latest miracle diet.
There is no scientific consensus on when life begins. The author cites an American Medical Association report from 1859 and the author seems to believe that report is immutable and continues to be the consensus. The AMA currently takes no position on when life begins. Continue reading “A Response to “The Least Safe Space””