Don’t call it “Rock”tober

BY JEFF LEVEN

While I can’t take myself seriously using the word “Rocktober,” it should suffice to say that this particular month is one of the key periods in the touring calendar for most bands and that this year is no exception. Yes, you may have “interviews” (none of which, I assume, take place on Saturday nights) and yes you may have “memos to write,” but here are a month full of reasons to take off the suits and drop the books for at least one night on the town:

October 4: Bruce Springsteen & the E. Street Band (Fleet Center) — Hard to know how to bill one of the foremost musical voices in America. Aside from the fact that his latest album The Rising probably represents the nation’s best artistic attempt to come to grips with the tragedy of 9/11, Bruce has always been rock’s foremost big-tent revivalist, with his three-hour shows taking the most painful ambiguities of American life and politics and making you want to dance to them. In this time when so much healing is needed, one can be forgiven for thinking that Bruce is part of the answer.

October 6: Nelly (Tweeter Center) — Okay, so “Hot in Here” is on the radio approximately every 18 seconds, but the thought of shaking your booty to it at a place other than the Kong may be reason enough to take the trek to the Tweeter. Those less interested in persistent booty-shaking with the high school crowd should check out the classic Britpop of the Chameleons UK at the Middle East.

October 7: Tribute to Timothy White featuring Sting, Don Henley, James Taylor, Sheryl Crow, Billy Joel, John Mellencamp and Roger Waters (Fleet Center) — Yes, you are reading this right, and don’t ask me why you haven’t heard about this yet. A celebrity tribute to one of rock’s most important journalists, with benefits going to his family, this concert may be the biggest assemblage of talent Boston has seen in some time. Raw baby-boomer-oriented adult contemporary?

Undoubtedly, but when was the last time you saw members of the Eagles, the Police, and Pink Floyd on the same stage? Oh, and James Taylor and Billy Joel aren’t so bad, either….

October 8: Ryan Adams (Orpheum) — An oft-talked about up-and-comer (in these pages and others), Adams has kept a lower profile of late — his newest album of outtakes, Demolition, came out last week to muffled fanfare. This tour promises to be a more intimate and less bombastic affair than his previous rock revues.

October 9: Gov’t Mule (Orpheum) — Probably the best jam band still in existence, Gov’t Mule is now more than just a vehicle for Warren Haynes’ dazzling Southern guitar workouts — it’s a virtual institution. With Widespread Panic in mourning for Michael Houser and the Allman Brothers aging fast, expect Haynes and company to carry the flag for those for whom tie-dye and cowboy hats were never a contradiction.

October 10: Joshua Redman/John Scofield (Orpheum) — Two of modern jazz’s premier artists pair up for an all-too-rare night of top-flight jazz. A tenor saxophone player in the mold of Gene Ammons, former Harvard undergrad (and almost Yale law student) Joshua Redman is now more likely to haunt the legendary jazz clubs of downtown NYC. Scofield, meanwhile, is one of the foremost modern jazz guitarists, and also has a connection with Boston, having studied at Berklee. A triumphant homecoming, indeed.

October 14: Sleater-Kinney (the Roxy) — Okay, so I guess I’m supposed to call them “riot grrrls” and make some sort of limp “girl power” comment. Frankly, though, I’ve always thought Sleater-Kinney deserved a little more dimension than that label could ever provide. You see, unlike Bikini Kill, Huggy Bear, or others of similar political stripe, Sleater-Kinney’s anger always seems to result in a wash of beautiful ambient guitar din and complex vocal harmonies in a way that is more reminiscent of Sonic Youth than Bratmobile. Their new release One Beat is a case in point, and undoubtedly their show at the Roxy will provide the uninitiated (even guys) a chance to hear them at the top of their craft.

October 15: Stone Temple Pilots, Staind, Static-X, Linkin Park et. al (Orpheum) — With Weiland apparently sober at the moment and back on the road for the first time in quite a while, STP sits curiously atop a bill of faceless MTV fashion-rock drones, the best of which is Linkin Park. Aside from pondering to reflect why the top grossing rock band of 2000 (no joke — Linkin Park was the biggest album seller of 2000) is midway in the midst of a bill of also-rans, it is also interesting to note that drug-addled chaos and all, STP remains a defiant survivor of rock’s last big revolution long after many of the bands that it followed, and occasionally copied, have burnt out or faded away.

October 17: Apples in Stereo/Clinic (Roxy) or Supersuckers (Middle East) or Kim Richey (House of Blues) — Variety night on the Boston club scene. People who like their indie rock smart and poppy would do well to check out the Apples in Stereo, replete with the scrub-garbed Clinic in tow. Those looking for more of a scummy Guns N’ Roses-meets-Lynyrd Skynyrd sound should check out Seattle’s Supersuckers. Closer to home, Kim Richey brings her acoustic guitar, angelic voice, and pathos-laden ballads to the House of Blues.

October 18: Billy Bragg (Somerville Theater) — Perhaps best known in the States for his Mermaid Avenue albums with Wilco (and Natalie Merchant), Bragg is, like Paul Weller, known to English music fans as the poetic rebel voice of a generation. Usually armed only with an electric guitar and a lot of European leftie idealism, Bragg’s music has documented the social ills and discontents of English society and the wears and tears of boyish love with equal depth and fervor. Love, politics, poetry, humor and a huge Cockney accent to round out the bill — not a bad night, if you ask me.

October 19: Wilco (Orpheum) — Still touring on the glorious collage that is Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and fresh in the wake of their silver screen debut in I Am Trying to Break Your Heart — a film about their trials and tribulations in making said album — Wilco returns to Boston with nothing in particular to prove and a nice big room to fill with the faithful.

October 20: Mooney Suzuki, Sahara Hotnights, Apollo Sunshine (Middle East) — Mooney Suzuki are one of the New York garage band scene’s most incendiary acts. Sahara Hotnights are four punky Swedish girls who play blistering rock (Donnas anyone?), and Apollo Sunshine are poppy local rockers. Bring earplugs.

October 21: Elvis Costello/NRBQ (Orpheum) — Still on the road with his recent return-to-classic-form rocker When I Was Cruel, these days Elvis and the Imposters are winning converts, playing rarities, and taking names. And they’re all out of bubblegum…. Perennial and somewhat ancient good time rockers NRBQ open.

October 22: Badly Drawn Boy (Avalon) — Like Beck, Badly Drawn Boy had the experience of having the critical press in the UK fall all over themselves naming him the next big thing and, like Beck, he has thus far weathered the praise with amazing aplomb. His most recent work, the soundtrack to the Nick Hornby-adaptation About A Boy, was, excusing the obvious pun, a self-effacing affair, elegant in its subtlety. Expect something of the same mix of taste and genius in this rare Stateside appearance.

October 25: Violent Femmes (Avalon) — When I’m-a-walkin’-I-strut-my-stuff….do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do
-do-do-do-do-dododo-do (bang bang, bang bang)…. ‘Nuff said.

October 28: Beck, Flaming Lips (Orpheum) or Rush (FleetCenter) — With Beck’s brilliant new album challenging listeners everywhere, and the Flaming Lips quickly rising into their status as rock’s favorite surrealists, this gig at the Orpheum promises to be one of the true treats of the year. Those less interested in acoustic musings proceeded by a symphony of bleeps, blurps and tape-delayed whines, however, might prefer to see the mighty Rush back on tour at the FleetCenter for a night of drums, power anthems, drums, and high-pitched Geddy Lee whines.

October 29: Calexico/Black Heart Procession (Paradise) — If you’re into atmospheric, eclectic, consistently rich indie rock, it’s hard not to like Calexico. When they’re on a bill in a small room with the dirgy, panoramic, ethereal Black Heart Procession, that should pretty much seal the deal. Find a friend who did college radio or something and give it a shot.

October 31: Wow…Halloween has become such a huge concert night, and this year in Boston you have a variety of choices. You could throw on your scariest black pants and make the pilgrimage to see one of the world’s best trance DJ’s Paul Van Dyk at the Avalon. You could also go local, dress as Nomar, and check out Lou Barlow (of Sebadoh and later Folk Implosion) at the Middle East Upstairs. Or, of course, you could also dress as a rhinestone-encrusted Elvis imitator and go see rockabilly’s own high priest the Reverend Horton Heat at the Middle East Downstairs. My pick, though? Alice Cooper. Hands down. It’s Halloween. It’s Alice Cooper. Put on Kiss makeup or something and give in.

RECORD Editorial: Keeping perspective during OCI

BY

Like the Red Sox choking at the end of a season, the early October reappearance of HLS students in suits is one of those regular events that nonetheless always merits some comment.

Brand-new 2Ls, fresh off a 1L year that, as the previous year’s 2Ls told them, wasn’t as bad as they thought it would be, find themselves attacking the OCI process with the same agitated, often misguided fervor they threw into their first 1L semesters.

Despite all the advice to the contrary, students still schedule scores of interviews they do not need. For the typical HLS student, getting a big law firm job seems to require little more than the ability to groom oneself, stand up straight and speak in complete sentences. A typical interview — consisting of little more than open-ended questions about what type of work one likes or softball questions about one’s summer job — should hardly be the source of much stress. If anything, students should be comforted knowing that, despite the extremely soft job market, their chances of getting any job they want stand near 100 percent. Indeed, an HLS student complaining about her job woes ought to remind herself that she is one of the most privileged individuals in the world. The Office of Career Services has simplified the job search to essentially ordering from a menu, and the Law School’s reputation continues to attract as many employers as are able to afford the trip.

This year, 2Ls can take comfort in the fact that they do not face the challenge of applying for clerkships and law firm jobs at the same time. The judges responsible for getting the clerkship crush pushed back deserve students’ collective thanks.

The more difficult challenge of the OCI process, of course, is asking tougher, more fundamental questions about personal goals, expected lifestyles, ego and achievement.

Putting the hyperbole of both camps aside, the truth is that law firm careers are a fine choice for some people. Students whose personalities and goals are suited to law firm work should not be disparaged for choosing it, just as students who choose what they consider nobler routes also deserve respect for their decisions.

What is unfortunate, however, is that some students end up choosing the law firm life because it is easy to do so. OPIA, clerkships and other choices do not have the luxury of offering an OCI-like process. But students claiming that the ease of OCI lures them away from other kinds of work do not deserve sympathy for their laziness. Getting public interest jobs is certainly not impossible, and is made easier by a dedicated (but overworked) staff, and LIPP can compensate for some financial difficulties.

What is more difficult for many students to resist, it seems, is the lure of wanting what others want. Students arrive here with myriad goals, dreams and ideas, yet by the end of 1L year, find themselves reciting the names of law firms as if they were sports teams. Part of the problem is the competitive nature of law school in general. Part of it, no doubt, is the general lure of materialism. And though some would argue that HLS is at fault for making OCI the powerful force it is, few would argue that OCI should be eliminated. Rather, HLS should continue to try to find ways to encourage students to pursue their dreams irrespective of the OCI process.

And for their part, students should try to look back to the beginning of 1L year, before $125,000 salaries and hours spent with aggressive classmates clouded their vision, and remember why they’re here.

So instead of whining about the difficulty of very easy OCI interviews, or lamenting a lack of options, students should remember that they are among the luckiest people alive, with the most options possible. If that look back reminds you that you never planned to spend your life in a pinstripe suit, remember that your history is short, life long, and your opportunities limitless. It is your job to make the most of them.

Letters: Defending OPIA, clarifying torture, and HLS parents

BY

OPIA Director defends Associate Director hiring process

I am writing to address a major error in your article and related editorial about OPIA’s staffing. The article makes it sound as though 1Ls will face waits as bad as or worse than last year. This is not true.

As I told the author of the article, I had already taken steps to try to avoid the waits of last year. We have hired additional part time staff to ensure that 1Ls will have quick access to public interest advising appointments. It is true that our hiring process for the Assistant Director has taken a long time because we want to be sure we select the right candidate; but it should not mean 1Ls will have trouble getting advising appointments with our office.

This past summer, I hired two new part-time attorney advisers for our “peak” season which starts after November 1. In fact, the eight attorney advisers your author refers to in the article include these two additional attorney advisers. Just yesterday, after learning that there would be additional office space available to OPIA so that I would have space to accommodate new people, I hired a third new part-time adviser. I have taken these steps even though it means more management and oversight for me and more logistical considerations for the rest of our staff (since everyone part-time must share offices, calendars, etc.), just so that first year students will be able to have as easy access as possible to public interest advising. We are even arranging for some of the advising to be done in the evenings to provide a broader array of options.

Because of the boom nature of career advising for 1Ls (there tends to be a mad rush after November 1st), additional part-time advisers would have been necessary even if we had hired an Assistant Director already. One new person – especially one who would have to devote some time to the other work of our office such as running events – would not be able to provide enough advising slots to accommodate the increased demand for public interest advising. Therefore, I staffed up for this period, even if we are able to bring an Assistant Director on board by November 1. While I cannot predict the amount of student demand this year, I think you do a great disservice to 1L anxiety by not accurately noting the steps we have taken this year to provide increased advising opportunities to 1Ls.

I do want to also note that even last year, despite some resource constraints, we added advising and events to meet the increased demand for public interest advising. I had already added one more part time adviser last year. We had additional group job search strategy sessions. For the first time, we even held one job search session in the Spring for to reach those who wanted but did not get a law firm job. One-Ls and 2Ls were very successful in landing public interest jobs – over 300 HLS students worked a full summer of public interest work this past year, an HLS record.

Finally, I want to assure you that we are not “dallying”. No one could possibly want this new hire as much as me. We’ve moved as fast as we could with the hiring process while simultaneously trying to run programs, publish books and advise 2Ls, 3Ls and alums with the existing staff. We hope to have the Assistant Director in place soon but – as everyone has advised me – we do not want to compromise just to have a live body in place. I am trying hard to balance the immediate needs of this year’s class against the long term need of the school to have the right person in the Assistant Director position.

I hope that you will correct The RECORD and tell the 1Ls that they do not have to worry: I have worked to make sure that we have sufficient advisers in place for 1L advising season.

– Alexa ShabecoffDirector, OPIA

Students defend OPIA director

Last week’s paper unfairly criticized the Office of Public Interest Advising. The language of the article detailing OPIA’s search for an Associate Director, the tone of the editorial and the inclusion of an ill-informed op-ed piece on OPIA’s attitude about corporate culture reveal a perplexing hostility towards one of the most beloved administrative offices on campus.

Anyone who has had contact with OPIA knows how deeply Director Alexa Shabecoff and her staff care about students. Despite cramped quarters and limited resources, the OPIA staff bends over backwards to offer unparalleled advising services. On a consistent basis, the staff members of OPIA have demonstrated commitment and dedication to students on not only a professional but also a highly personal level. OPIA staff members stay late, sacrificing time with their families, to hold special advising sessions and host public interest events and panels. They open their homes to students for public interest potlucks.

To characterize Alexa’s actions in searching for an Associate Director as “dallying” is counterintuitive. Why, after fighting so hard to get the funding for this much-needed position, would she simply drag her feet to be picky at the expense of the students to whom she is so dedicated? The difficulty in finding an Associate Director who can best serve students’ needs should not be so flippantly dismissed. Most students would gladly wait for the right candidate to come along rather than have a warm, barely-adequate body filling the position.

In addition, Adam White’s op-ed characterizing OPIA’s attitude toward firms is as antagonistic as it is inaccurate. OPIA gives candid and supportive advice to students interested in trying out a firm and has a nuanced understanding of how to integrate private sector and public interest work. It helps coordinate the Pro Bono Panel, and has authored a leading Pro Bono Guide. The staff at OPIA knows that career choices are difficult and personal. To suggest that the office’s ethos simply polarizes careers into public good and private evil is absurd.

We hope that in the future, the Record will strive to more accurately characterize this invaluable and vital resource at Harvard Law School.

– Adam Stofsky, 2L

Justice for janitors

BY CLIFFORD GINN

On Monday evening, janitors from the Service Employees International Union’s Local 254 went on strike, in what may ultimately be the largest labor strike in Boston’s history. The janitors are asking for full-time work, health insurance, and what would essentially be a living wage. Currently, only three out of four Boston janitors have health insurance and most are only given part-time jobs, making $39 in a four-hour shift. These janitors must work two or three jobs to survive, and cannot spend meaningful time with their families. Because a doctor’s visit costs $79 — two days’ pay — workers often must choose between food and medical care.

For now, the strike is targeting UNICCO, which employs roughly 5,000 area janitors and holds contracts to clean 27 percent of all office space cleaned in Boston. UNICCO did propose increasing wages to roughly $12 an hour over the next four years (safely under a living wage), but refused to expand full-time employment opportunities or health-care coverage. UNICCO argues that the wage increase constitutes a substantial improvement over what exists. However, even with this increase, Boston will lag far behind many of the nation’s cities, despite being one of the most expensive cities in which to live. Furthermore, the janitors’ current pay rate hardly constitutes a reasonable baseline — UNICCO kept wages low by capitalizing on union corruption. Local 254 was actually taken into receivership recently because its leadership had deliberately failed to represent its members’ interests.

The Boston community is rallying to the janitors’ cause. Senators Kennedy and Kerry have spoken out in support of the workers’ demands, as have gubernatorial candidates Jill Stein and Shannon O’Brien, Boston’s City Council and Mayor Menino, religious organizations, immigration advocates, progressive groups and thousands of citizens who are contributing to a fund to support the janitors. Boston-area workers will honor the strike, and the employee pension funds in New York and California have agreed to support the janitors.

The affected building owners are also calling on UNICCO to make a better offer, although they have not yet offered to cut their own profits (the Boston real estate industry pulls in $4.8 billion in rents annually) in order to fund such an offer.

As is so often the case in union struggles, UNICCO is resorting to illegal tactics to strengthen its position. Workers have been sent home or even fired for wearing union buttons. In the months leading up to the strike, active union members were singled out for harassment and intimidation, a violation of both federal and international law.

However, UNICCO certainly has grounds for believing that the federal government will look the other way. Non-enforcement of the nation’s labor laws has been the norm in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and during the Reagan administration, the rate of unlawful firings in representation elections rose from eight percent to 33 percent. Employers have always closed factories after successful organizing drives, but the rate at which they do so tripled in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s passage. The February 1997 Economic Report of the President, which touted the Clinton administration’s economic achievements, noted that “the changes in labor market institutions and practices” contributed to the “significant wage restraint” that played such an important role in the economic growth that took place in the 1990s. Since 1985, U.S. labor costs have fallen to the lowest in the industrial world, after the U.K.

At the national and international level, leaders are doing everything they can to load the dice against the working poor. It is clear that these leaders care little about creating a free market, if such a thing could even exist. Free trade rules are applied selectively: What can a poor nation do when U.S. farm subsidies destroy its agricultural industry? How a market operates, and who wins and loses, are dictated by background rules that are neither natural nor fair. It is easy to see how a confrontation between a multinational behemoth with freedom to move operations and capital where it wishes and a worker with few alternatives is likely to end.

However, Local 254 and their community supporters are demonstrating that Americans retain their basic values. There are still people who believe that all human beings are entitled to live with dignity, and that workers should be able to earn enough to feed, clothe, house and educate their children, and provide them with essential medical care. Even if the rules governing our market were neutral or fair, Americans understand that there still would be no logical relationship between the price the market is willing to pay for a janitor’s services and the amount a janitor needs to live with dignity.

Missing dessert: Women at HLS

BY JONATHAN SKRMETTI

Last Friday, my female housemates commandeered my apartment and cast me into the streets. I was not permitted to attend the women’s dessert party they were hosting. At first I wanted to stay, but eventually they convinced me that the party would in fact not include a bevy of young ladies in skimpy negligees engaged in a pillow fight, so I agreed to make myself scarce.

I have come to agree with their reasoning. Women need time to bond away from the influence of men. This holds especially true at Harvard Law School, where femininity seems under constant assault.

Women are no longer bound by the close confines of traditional gender roles. For several decades, a woman has been able to pursue a career, to choose to enter any field and aim for the top. This is a good thing. Arbitrary restrictions on thought and opportunity based on gender are the hallmark of repressive regimes. Women are not bound by strict rules anymore, and are free to be as like or unlike traditional ideals of femininity as they want to be. This means, incidentally, that those who believe that womanhood is defined as much by a commitment to abortion and Democrats as by biology are just as odious as the barefoot and pregnant sect.

Despite the freedom to act however they want, many women choose to remain feminine. If you look at the average woman’s dorm room, for instance, you’ll find more frills, more stuffed animals, different DVDs and CDs than you’d find in the average man’s room. Nobody forces women to like romantic comedies, but a lot of women do.

The problem is that the Law School does not appreciate a good John Hughes movie. There is a lot of pressure here on women, and it comes in two flavors. The first is a pressure for women to act like men; the second is an institutional reluctance to embrace (not literally) women at the law school.

Women in law are expected to embrace the core idiocies of masculinity, things like working too hard and not caring about the kids. I know there was a protracted struggle for the right to work at top jobs, but just because you have the opportunity to work 100 hours a week doesn’t mean you should. If your one burning passion is corporate law, then go for it, but a lot of people here are herded by a system of incentives along the path of least resistance to end up at certain jobs without considering whether that’s what they want. The big firm culture is not one that appreciates maternalism. Many women are inclined to be maternal and less inclined to be ruthless; the conflict between their assumed identity as vicious litigators (or tax lawyers, or appellate lawyers, or whatever) and their inclination to be decent people creates a lot of stress.

Kids add to that stress. In most cultures it’s been mandatory for women to undertake primary responsibility for childrearing. Today we do not force such duties on anybody — not having children has become an acceptable life choice, as has contracting out care. However, around HLS, things have moved beyond having a choice. Any woman here willing to sacrifice career advancement to spend time with her family seems to be treated like a sellout to the patriarchy. Women should not be forced to stay at home, but if a woman wants to, her choice should be respected. We ought to wholeheartedly support parents taking more time for the kids: Real commitment to children (in practice, not just policy) is something elite America is sorely lacking.

As if women here don’t have enough problems trying to lead a normal life against the pressure to be a super-masculine corporate gunner, they get treated like second-class students around the Law School. There are plenty of professors complicit in this who subtly patronize women in the classroom. This behavior is almost certainly not intentional, but it’s there nevertheless. The recent Law Review competition results should also give us pause — graded blindly, exams written by women tended to fare poorly. Does this mean that scholarship from a feminine point of view is not taken seriously? Do the subtle differences between male and female thinking doom female analysis to second place? The outcome of the competition is troubling at an already troubled law school.

Given all the pressures on women at the law school, the existence of an occasional safe haven where women can stop being measured and simply be themselves is a good thing. Next time my roommates want to have a women’s dessert party at my place, I won’t even think about it. I’ll just say, “Let them eat cake.”

Entertainment law journal nixed

BY MATHEW PARKE

The dark basement of Hastings is home to many journals, but a journal on entertainment won´t be one of them.

Students’ hopes to bring the Law School a journal focused on sports and entertainment law were dashed last week. In a September 24 e-mail, the Journals Committee informed the petitioners for the new journal that the resources required to house and staff another publication are not available. The administration also claimed to be bound by a 1981 moratorium on adding new journals, though several journals have been added since then.

The Committee for Sports and Entertainment Law launched the initiative for the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law early last year with the support of Prof. Paul Weiler. CSEL submitted its proposal to the Journals Committee last Spring and hoped to get approval in time to publish the inaugural issue next Fall. It now appears they will have to wait much longer.

In its rejection letter, the Journals Committee wrote that it did not review the substance of the proposal, but rather based its decision on the already-limited resources available for existing publications. The Journals Committee cited a lack of space, not enough full-time publications staff and a “responsibility to see that the journals published at the School reflect well on Harvard.” The letter also explained that in the past, editors-in-chief of smaller, existing journals have worried about the effect the addition of another journal to the Harvard roster would have on student recruitment efforts.

Students involved in the petitioning process expressed concern about the current journal certification process. “It’s something the students want, and it seems unfair that they would reject it without even considering its substance,” said 2L Marina Bonanni, who chairs the CSEL Journals Committee and helped write the petition. “They claim they don’t have the staff or room, but we’re not asking for any of that.”

CSEL’s petition says the journal’s finances were to be modeled on the Journal of Law and Technology – designed to be self-supporting, with funding to come from law firms, practitioners and alumni/ae involved in sports and entertainment. The petition asks the Law School, however, to provide JSEL with space to operate as well as basic office furniture and technology. Since submitting the petition, students involved in the effort to bring the journal to campus have said all they really want from the school is Harvard’s name.

When asked whether a firm policy exists as to whether new journals could be added to those already publishing under the HLS name, head of the Journals Committee Prof. Harry Martin explained that a moratorium was placed on additional journals in 1981, but added that, “we have added three or four journals since then.” According to Martin, the Committee approved those journals because they were “unsupported,” meaning that they did not receive funding or operating space from the Law School. They were, however, allowed to use the Harvard name and recruit law students to staff them. The committee later decided to end the practice of “unsupported” journals, and funding was offered to all existing journals – although some declined to accept.

Martin says conditions will have to change before any new journals can be approved, at which time the Journals Committee would decide exactly how many journals HLS can handle. The subject still seems open for debate, however, if a journal more to the Journals Committee’s liking is proposed.

When elaborating on whether or not a firm policy against new journals exists, Martin said: “If somebody were to propose something like Duke’s Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, that might be something the committee is interested in. Specialty journals don’t offer the same appeal.”

With or without Allston, HLS plans construction

BY EMILY BEARG

The Everett Street parking lot could be the next HLS building to fall in the name of improvement.

Whether the Law School is headed to Allston or not, it is about to solidify plans for new building projects at the campus here in Cambridge. According to Director of Communications Michael Armini, the Law School is looking to build in the North Yard area as a short-term solution to serve multiple purposes, even if the planned move to Allston goes through relatively soon.

During the Law School’s Strategic Planning Process, which commenced in the fall of 1998 and concluded with a report in December of 2000, the faculty and administration “identified a number of space needs for the school,” according to Prof. Daniel Meltzer, a member of the committee overseeing the possibilities for development in the North Yard.

With the help of Polshek Partners, a professional planning firm that studied the Law School operations and facilities, it was concluded that the Law School would need “over 100,000 additional square feet just to do what it does today adequately,” Armini said.

In addition, some of the new programs adopted under the Strategic Planning Process added further space needs to the existing ones. For example, the Law School’s goal of hiring between ten to fifteen more professors over the next few years will require more office space, as will an increased number of foreign scholars and the new Pro Bono program. Meltzer also described the need for more classrooms, staff offices, space for student organizations and athletic facilities.

In response to the question of why such a project would be undertaken if the Law School is planning an eventual move to Allston anyway, Armini conceded that the Allston move is “at least a decade off and probably more than that.”

In addition, the final decision about the Allston move has not yet been made, nor will it be for at least a year. “This is really independent of all that,” Armini said. “We’ve got to figure out what our options are right away.”

Furthermore, even if the Law School does end up vacating its Cambridge location, Armini noted, “anything the Law School developed could be used by the rest of the University if needed.”

“The Cambridge side of Harvard University is pressed for space,” he added. “Cambridge is not a particularly hospitable environment for new building projects.”

Meltzer added that the Law School would be “unwise to put everything on hold” or waste time “treading water” while there are important issues to be addressed now.

Dean for Administration Julie Englund heads the new committee, which will focus on the feasibility of development in the North Yard area of the campus. “We’re involved in an iterative process to give some more precise estimates as to the square footage needed,” Meltzer said.

An important element of the process entails discussing community concerns about the project with the Law School’s neighbors. Meltzer said the range of sites under consideration for development include the Everett Street garage, Wyeth Dormitory, the frame house at 23 Everett Street, the surface parking space at North Hall, and the building that currently houses Three Aces Pizza.

Meltzer underlined that in the event that the Three Aces building were to be used, “we would work with neighbors to preserve retail businesses,” speculating that the space in front of North could eventually become store fronts.

“These are ongoing discussions,” Meltzer said. “The garage is an eyesore. Wyeth is an eyesore…. They wall off the Law School campus.”

He suggested that the committee envisions “an academic quadrangle of much more attractive buildings,” which would meet the space requirements raised in the Strategic Plan. The dormitory space lost from Wyeth would be compensated for in the new buildings. Meltzer added that such a quadrangle, similar to those of Harvard College, would be more inviting for neighboring residents to walk through.

The committee is currently in the process of interviewing architects, and a decision should be made some time in November. According to Meltzer, the financial resources for the project will be raised through a broader Law School fund drive, although at this point the committee does not have a clear idea of what amount will be budgeted.

Although Meltzer said the committee is trying to move as quickly as it can, factors such as building and engineering requirements, as well as the process for community approval, prevent them from setting a fixed date for breaking ground.

Armini reiterated that this process will take some time, although he hopes the development will be able to address the short term needs of the Law School over the next five to 10 years.

1L Experience: Thanks for the advice!

BY JEREMY BLACHMAN

A room full of 1Ls, and the conversation is fairly predictable. Six basic questions. “What’s your name?” “What section are you in?” “Where are you from?” “Where’d you go to school?” “How long ago did you graduate?” and “Which of the twenty-five pre-approved corporate law firms do you one day hope to work for?”

Okay, maybe not the last question. But it’s probably coming soon. Put a 2L or a 3L in the room, however, and the conversation changes. Invariably, within forty-five seconds, the upperclassman is holding court, being pelted with questions about which brand of highlighter lasts the longest, and urged to share his or her infinite wisdom with us eager first-years.

And, really, the advice is quite helpful:

“Brief the cases. Don’t brief the cases. Go to class. If you want. Your grades are very important. Your grades are completely random and unpredictable. Gilbert’s, Emanuel’s, nutshells, hornbooks, restatements, treatises, outlines, flash cards, review tapes, Bar-Bri classes, private tutors, rent-a-2L, bribe professors, crimes of passion, transfer to Thomas Cooley Law School and Tackle Shop, the answer is always ‘C,’ read Glannon’s book for civil procedure.”

Maybe the most confusing advice I’ve gotten is regarding study groups. I’ve heard everything from, “I had a study group first-year, and we met every day of the semester from midnight until 4 a.m. going over the day’s reading and taking sample exams. Except we took one day off for Thanksgiving. And did a conference call instead,” to, “At about 11:00 the night before my first exam, I ran into this guy at the 7-11 in Harvard Square. He looked familiar, but I’m not sure if he was in my section or just a panhandler. I asked him if he understood section 2-718 of the Uniform Commercial Code and he shook his head. That was pretty much my only time trying a study group.”

I think I was most disturbed by a piece of advice I got from a particularly hard-core upperclassman. “Just remember,” he said. “You’re not here to make friends. You’re here to get a job.” I have two issues with that statement. The first is that I’m not “here to get a job.” Just the reverse: I’m here NOT to get a job! If I really wanted to get a job, I wouldn’t be here. I’d have a job. I’m here to hide from that, at least for three more years.

My second concern is about the not-making-friends part. Unless the job you’re here to get is kicking babies and tripping the elderly (and since it’s not corporate, that counts as public interest work, right?) I don’t see why you can’t be here to make friends, too. I can’t think of a more dismal outcome from three years here than to leave and not have made a corporate jet-load of friends. Actually, that’s not totally true. I can think of three more dismal outcomes: flunking out, felony-murder, and interest rates on student loans rising to 400 percent compounded daily. But not having any friends is certainly close to the top of the list.

Worst of all about getting advice from 2Ls and 3Ls is that they never tell you how well their strategies worked. You never hear, “Don’t brief your cases. I didn’t! And now I work at Au Bon Pain.” Or, “You don’t need to make your own outlines. I used ones I found on the ground in front of CVS. I’m gonna be a summer associate at the Hark.”

I gave myself some advice the other day about listening to other people’s advice. I’ll nod, and smile, and occasionally say “uh huh,” or “sure,” or “replevin,” but I’m not really listening. Instead, I’m collecting cans for the five-cent deposit so I can earn enough money to buy every hornbook in the Coop. Because the guy in 7-11 said that was a good idea.

LSC Election Results

BY

1L
Section 1:
Carrie Reilly
Section 2:
Holly Hogan &
Chris Murray
Section 3:
Daniell Newman (1st place) & Garrett Bradford (2nd place)
Section 4:
Mike Ghaffary
Section 5:
Lauren Sudeall
Section 6:
Gail Altman &
Tiffany Benjamin
Section 7:
Daniel Riehenthal

2L
Maya Alperowicz
John Doulamis
Chrystie Perry
Tony Phillips

3L
Tony Chan
Joi Chaney
Bryan Daley
Greg Parets

L.L.M.
Agata Mazuraeska-Rozdeicrei

I.T.P.
Zvi Altman

S.J.D.
No candidates ran.

Chimpanzee expert urgers broader animal rights

BY CLINTON DICK

jane.jpg

On Monday, world-renowned ethologist Dr. Jane Goodall came to the Law School to argue for legal rights for chimpanzees. Goodall was the keynote speaker at the Law School Symposium on The Evolving Legal Status of Chimpanzees. Goodall’s discoveries, some have argued, virtually laid the foundation for all future primate studies.

Knowing that other speakers would be addressing the legal questions posed by animal rights, Goodall focused on the emotional and behavioral aspects of chimpanzees. She shared with the audience how chimpanzees, like their human relatives, are capable of compassion and joy as well as aggression and sadness. She allowed a glimpse into their world with fascinating stories on human-chimpanzee interaction, and argued for alternatives to using animals in medical research. In short, her speech was an attempt to humanize the chimpanzee by expanding traditional definitions of culture, behavior and emotions in order to include other animals within their meanings.

After a warm introduction by HLS Student Animal Legal Defense Fund co-president Dominque Castro, Goodall immediately captured her audience’s attention with her own imitation of chimpanzee sounds. She brought the chimpanzee’s voice to the halls of Harvard Law in the same way she brought it to the United Nations, the European Union and to countless schools and colleges across the world over the many decades that her work has spanned. Human language, she argued, has led to human domination, which in turn has meant that the world has been subjected to our pollution, our warfare and our destruction of animal and plant species. But our focus on spoken language as a sign of cognitive ability, Goodall contended, means that we have ignored other vital signs of thinking process. “Chimpanzees are capable of sophisticated cooperation,” Goodall observed, “When they hunt, they share food. They are capable of using many different objects as tools.” This last insight into the use of tools was one of Goodall’s earliest breakthroughs in her field of research.

One of the most interesting parts of Goodall’s speech came when she told of her encounters with chimpanzees in the wild. When she first came upon one group of chimps they all ran away because, in her words, “they had never seen a white ape before.” But one chimp in particular she called David was the first to lose his fear of her. While following him through the wild one day, Goodall emerged through the brush to find him sitting on the ground next to some nuts. Cautiously, Goodall offered David a nut, but he dropped it and embraced her hand instead. “We communicated with a language that predated spoken language,” Goodall fondly remarked, “It was an old language between humans and chimps.”

“They also have a dark side to their nature,” Goodall admitted as she explained an aggressiveness that resembles that found in humans. She told of chimps patrolling their outer boundaries, where they would sometimes brutally attack strangers. On another occasion, a split among one group of chimps erupted into a civil war, with one side completely annihilating the other side’s males.

Lest such images of aggression dominate her address, Goodall relayed stories involving real sympathy on the part of the chimp. “There are very strong [signs] of love and compassion in chimps,” she said, describing the story of Mel, a chimp that lost his mother and was adopted by an older male not biologically related to him. Discounting an evolutionary reason for the adoption, Goodall speculated that since the older male had lost his ancient mother in the same epidemic that took Mel’s mother, he sought to fill the void left by her absence with the chimp. “I can sympathize because I lost my mother,” Goodall stated. “When you lose someone who was your best friend for sixty-five years, it can leave an empty space.”

Goodall also raised important considerations about the use of chimpanzees in medical research. She explained that there are alternatives to such research, but “until there is a law mandating the use of alternative techniques, people will still use animals because that is the way it is done.”

She ended with a story of Old Man, a chimp who lost his mother to hunters at an early age, and was sent to the United States to undergo medical experimentation. At the age of fifteen, Old Man was released to a small island with three other females, where he soon became a father. Goodall mentioned that another researcher named Mark, who was visiting the island, accidentally fell and scared the baby chimp. The three females, thinking he was a threat to the baby, attacked him and bit him on his neck and wrists. The researcher looked up to see Old Man charging toward him, and he thought he was going to die. But Old Man knocked away the female chimps and allowed Mark to escape.

“If a chimp who has been abused by people can reach across the divide that separates us from them,” Goodall stated, “then surely we as humans can do the same.” Goodall’s speech was funded by the Bob Barker Endowment for the Study of Animal Rights, which the Price Is Right game show host donated to HLS in July 2001. The Symposium was one of the largest events funded thus far by the $500,000 grant.

Former Irish President speaks on human rights

BY CLINTON DICK

After an incredible journey during the 1990s as president of Ireland and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson told an assembled crowd of students at the Kennedy School of Government Monday that they need to start paying attention to human rights. Robinson’s speech, “Making Human Rights Matter: Eleanor Roosevelt’s Time Has Come,” was a defense of human rights as a legal and moral issue that must be protected and enforced in the new age of globalization.

“It is the first time in many years that I can speak not as a head of state, but as Mary Robinson, concerned citizen.” It is no surprise that the KSG chose Robinson as the first speaker in a year-long series on the state of society and the future of rights. Robinson’s speech sought to move the ideals embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into the twenty-first century. She praised both the work of non-governmental organizations and their collaboration in recent years in building an international civil society. She also spoke of challenging events during her last year as High Commissioner, including the aftermath of September 11 and the World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa.

Robinson was introduced by University President Lawrence Summers, who echoed her words in describing the 1990 presidential election in Ireland: “I was elected president by the women of Ireland who, instead of rocking the cradle, rocked the system.”

Robinson thanked the assembled crowd with a warm note of praise for the university itself, “I cannot think of a better place to give my first address after leaving my position than Harvard University,” she said.

Robinson commented that her last visit to the University was in 1998, when she was still new to the position of High Commissioner and was still uncertain how she was going to perform her task. In her new role, she worked with NGOs throughout the world, drawing upon their research and their years of expertise in human rights. “I have witnessed the emergence of a powerful movement for change,” she said, commenting on the recent progress of NGOs in coordinating with one another on a global scale. “I saw this most profoundly last month in Johannesburg,” she said, referring to the Johannesburg Summit 2002, a United Nations event that addressed global environmental and health issues.

“I am confident in saying that progress has been made in the last five years on human rights,” Robinson assured the audience. She then went on to talk about her final year as High Commissioner and the challenges of promoting human rights against a backdrop of national interests. The first challenge, she said, was at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa. The United States and Israel withdrew from the conference because they felt the final document would contain hateful language against Israel.

Robinson argued that she took a side against singling out Israel in such a manner: “What I regret most is the hateful language used by some members during draft discussions,” she said. “I said we had to get out all the references about Zionism being racism, but we also had to include a reference about the Middle East.” In the end, she admitted, the conference did not please either side.

Robinson also admonished the United States not to let the events of September 11 outweigh human rights considerations. “Some have said that after the attacks human rights needed to be curtailed,” she said. “I do not believe that for a moment.” Robinson argued that the attacks were not only directed against the United States, but also against human rights in general. As such, Robinson argued, the attacks constituted a crime against humanity.

Robinson was educated at Trinity College and holds law degrees from the King’s Inn in Dublin and Harvard University. She served as a Senator in Ireland for 20 years before being elected president of Ireland in 1990. While in office, she sought to develop Ireland’s cultural, political and economic links with other countries. She was the first head of state to visit Rwanda after the genocide and the first head of state to visit the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Robinson was nominated and endorsed to the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 1997, a position she held until her departure this year.

HL Central raises $5,270 with Boston law school party

BY YONI ROSENZWEIG

HL Central celebrates the success of their fundraiser.

Students who anticipated a regular night at last Thusday’s bar review found the event to be more of a gala than usual, promoting a closer relationship among Boston law schools and raising money for a cause.

Billed as an “All Boston Law School Charity Bash,” the event brought over 900 students from Boston University Law, Boston College Law and Harvard Law School. The crowd, which exceeded The Big Easy Bar’s capacity by 300 people, raised $5,270 for the Morgan McDuffee Youth Violence Prevention Program.

The event’s coordinators arranged a collaboration, not only among HLS, Boston University and Boston College Law, but for the first time, between the two wings of HL Central — Events and Community Service. The special effort was principally due to the murder of Morgan McDuffee, the effect it had on the community, and the aim “to turn this tragedy into something more positive,” said 3L Ariane Decker, HL Central Community Co-chair and friend of Morgan.

Also attending were 30 of Morgan’s friends, his mother and his fiancé, Suzi Andrew.

Andrew viewed the event as part of an effort to reduce the nationwide violence among youth and said she hopes to see the benefits implemented in Boston. Murder is currently the second leading cause of death for people ages 15 to 24.

“Seeing Morgan’s family, fiancé, and friends enjoy themselves was thrilling. “ Decker said. “People from HLS and other Boston law schools worked incredibly hard because they read about Morgan, the charity and the people surrounding him.”

McDuffee was murdered in March 2002 while attempting to break up a violent conflict in Maine outside of Bates College, where he had just submitted an honors thesis and planned to graduate in two months. According to Bates’ web site, the killing sparked hundreds of letters of condolence to the college administration and brought over 1000 people to an overflowing church for his funeral

For his distinguished academic record and character, Morgan was awarded a posthumous degree, the first from Bates College since its founding in 1855.

The party certainly left people in higher spirits, as the crowd stayed at capacity until closing.

Andrews also found the jubilation uplifting, calling it, “terrific to see so many people united behind [Morgan’s] cause.” At the door, many students offered more than the $5 recommended donation. One student reportedly paid $100.

On campus, Decker helps the Morgan McDuffee Youth Violence Prevention Program to raise more donations, which continue after the event. Andrew, who left Bates after Morgan’s death to live and attend school near home in Maine, views the charity as part of Morgan’s effort to reduce the violence which ultimately lead to his death.

Vino & Veritas: Avoiding JAG and trying dessert wine

BY JOSH SOLOMON

Call me crazy, but I am going to violate a new RECORD policy. Not only must all columns now address HLS’s capitulation to the military, all apparently must take the exact same position (see last week’s identical Lipper and Ginn columns). In the spirit of dissent, I am going to write about wine.

If you generally don’t drink much wine, it is quite possible that you have never had dessert wine. And if you haven’t, you are missing out on one of the true pleasures of wine. Seriously, if I convince you of nothing else this year, go buy a bottle of dessert wine and try it. You’ll see that chocolate cake’s got nothing on a good Sauternes.

“Dessert wine” is a general term for wines that are sweet and perform well as desserts. Beyond that, they vary enormously. They come from all over the world and from all types of grapes. Perhaps the easiest way to categorize them is by the method of production. There are three types you will most likely encounter.

One is ice wine, which comes from grapes that have been left on the vines long enough so that the grapes actually freeze. The ice is separated from the grapes, leaving more concentrated juices with higher sugar content per volume. The resultant wine, which you may also see labeled as Eiswein (German), is richer and sweeter than normal wine.

A second type comes from grapes infested with Botrytis Cinerea. Botrytis, or the “noble rot,” is a fungus that will grow on grapes in certain climates. Botrytis growth has two principal effects on wine. First, it sucks the water from the grapes, leaving their juices sweeter and less diluted. Second, the Botrytis adds a flavor of its own, resulting in wonderfully complex aromas and tastes. Perhaps the most well-known of all Botrytis wines is sauternes, from the Sauternes district in the Bordeaux region of France.

The third type is fortified wine. Fortified simply means that alcohol has been added at some point. Not all fortified wines are dessert wines — some are not at all sweet. Fortified dessert wines are usually made by adding the alcohol during fermentation. Since fermentation burns sugar (my chemist friends will forgive the loose explanation), and since the added alcohol stops fermentation, wine made in this way will have leftover sweetness. Port is probably the fortified sweet wine we see most around here. Like fortified wines generally, however, port need not only be thought of for dessert. In fact, I once tried to order port for dessert in Paris. The server looked at me stunned, as if I had just suggested that HLS was right to capitulate to the military. Apparently, port is only used as an aperitif in France.

For tasting, I chose one wine from each of these categories. All prices are for half bottles (dessert wines often come in that size). I would recommend all three, in the following order of preference.

1998 Château Doisy Da

Fenno: Looking for lost sunglasses

BY

Lost: Sunglasses-Gold, rimless Cartier sunglasses last seen outside of Hauser on Wed., Sept. 11. There is a $50 reward, as the glasses are very expensive. Please contact mshah or call 493-9740 if found.

*******

To: mshah@law.harvard.edu

From: fenno@law.harvard.edu

Subject: Lost Cartier Sunglasses

Cc: record@law.harvard.edu

Bcc: womeneverywhere@yahoo.com

Dear Mike,

Fenno here. I don’t have your sunglasses, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss. It really has been awfully bright lately. And God forbid your public should recognize you. But it’s probably not as bad as all that. Just check the glove compartment of the Jag – I’m sure they packed a cheap pair of Armanis in there just in case. They’re probably hiding under your Gucci driving gloves.

I wish I did have them though: I could sure use that $50 reward; I’m soooo hungry. Oh, I have a note here you might be interested in. It says, “Shah – Go to the newspaper stand outside Montrose on Friday at 1:18 p.m. Put the money in unmarked singles under Section A of the third copy of USA Today in the newspaper vending box. Come alone. Go into Starbucks and order a grande nonfat decaf mochaccino and a biscotti. Return to the newspaper box at 1:37. If you’ve done everything right, the panhandler with the glasses will come out of Marathon Sports and hand you a jogbra. Wrap it tightly over your eyes, be sure that no light gets through, and cross Mass. Ave. back to North Hall.”

Hope this helps,

Fenno

*******

Cool breeze, tight squeeze, now you’ve got the chills. Fenno smiled in satisfaction at the good deed she’d performed. We all have to come together to face down these Cartier kidnappers, she thought. Poor Mike. It would probably help him to know that others had also suffered terrible losses of late. She pulled out her List of People in Pain (LOPP) and started cataloging. This would be sure to console him.

Loss Number One: Anne-Marie. She was brilliant. She had convictions. She really wanted to tell us about them, in a very forceful way that somehow made us feel like we’d each committed some kind of unforgivable cultural faux pas, like waving bare-handed at Greek shepherds or using a spoon to eat miso soup. And now she’s gone. Fenno pondered for a moment how fitting it was that Professor Slaughter, that champion of internationalism, of world justice, of putting issues of global importance back in the driver’s seat, was now dean of a school named for a man who was so very successful in attempting precisely the same thing.

Loss Number Two: The Yin and Yang that was Gannett House. Whichever one of those is cooler has left for Baker House. Fenno thinks that would be the yang. The Law Review has lost its yang. Many of us have long suspected that lack of yang was how they got there in the first place. And now Fenno wonders if the Law Review kids will even notice that their yang is gone, and gone for good. Will Huang and Moritz be able to fill the gap left by the departing yang? Just another question Fenno feels duty-bound to answer before this year is through. (“Hello? Yes, I realize I ended that sentence with a preposition. But it’s grammatical. . . . What? . . . Because it’s how people talk. And it’s sort of a verb there anyway, or maybe an adverb. . . . No, I didn’t look it up in the Bluebook. Jesus, Garrett, leave me alone. . . . And stop swearing at me in Latin. It’s creepy.”)

Loss Number Three: Harvard Law School’s Remaining Sense of Pop Culture, Decency, and/or Irony. While Martha Field may be happy to head up the Committee on Healthy Diversity, Fenno is pretty sure the rest of the HLS community is a little weirded out. Diversity is great. We all agree. (No we don’t.) Isn’t that great? Anyway, the name alone suggests that somewhere (maybe at Yale) there is a Committee on Unhealthy Diversity, a Committee on Diseased Diversity, or a Committee on Diversity a Little Under the Weather. Maybe that would be a school full of all the various permutations of Lesbian half-Native American, half-Irish Jewish descendants of Virgin Islands sharecroppers. Or maybe it would just be the current student body with the flu. At the very least, the administration should admit to itself that anyone who can keep a straight face while giving something the name “Committee on Healthy Diversity” has obviously been watching way too much Oprah.

Loss Number Four: Shawn McDonald. My, my, my. It has to be hard on Ariane Decker and Tara Church to do without Shawn. Those velvet ropes just don’t feel as soft when you have to wait beside them for half an hour to get into those sweaty nightclubs by yourself. And, lo and behold, ten dollar appletinis at Vox actually cost ten dollars each! But if those two have lost a “friend,” at least they’ve regained their “dignity.” And look at it this way, ladies: There’s sure to be another self-worshipping, lizard-resembling, cousin/nephew of a mega-diva in the Harvard University student body. Last year, Fenno met two or three of them every time she went to Red Line on a Saturday night.

HLS responds to racial incidents

BY CLINTON DICK

Five months after a race controversy exploded on the Law School campus, the administration debuted its formal response. In a Sept. 6 letter to the law school community, Deans Robert Clark, Suzanne Richardson and Todd Rakoff outlined several initiatives designed to improve racial tolerance and ease the tension that erupted last spring.

In what may be regarded as an attempt to set a new tone for the academic year, Clark outlined his four initiatives designed to improve the law school’s ability to communicate about race, religion and gender. The first initiative is the formation of a Dean’s Committee on Healthy Diversity, which is made up of six faculty members, including Prof. Alan Dershowitz and Dean Todd Rakoff, three other administrators and five students.

Professor Martha Field, who chairs the committee, said their goal would be to “figure out what the real problems are and how we can help resolve them.” One area she highlighted was a lack of communication between faculty and students. “Faculty can inadvertently do things that offend students,” she said, adding that she hopes the committee can find a way to resolve such problems.

Field also emphasized that the committee will not just be looking at race. “The same thing can happen with religion and sexual orientation,” she said. “Women do not necessarily feel comfortable at Harvard Law.”

When asked about the possibility of constructing a new Law School racial harassment policy, Field said that the committee will be examining the issue, but that it was more difficult than simply writing a policy. “There are questions of legality, partly because the Supreme Court has been confusing on this,” she said. “The two problems in adopting such a policy are getting faculty agreement on any formulation and sidestepping all the legal questions that are not yet settled.”

The committee will have its first meeting on Monday, and Field said that students with questions are welcome to e-mail her.

The other initiatives in the Dean’s letter include a “difficult conversations” workshop, a teaching workshop and several presentations to the Law School community on race, religion and gender. In an interview with The RECORD, Rakoff said these programs are a way “to think about the things that happened last year and to address