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

Robert Reich speaks at Harvard

BY CLINTON DICK

Shortly before losing last night’s Massachusetts gubernatorial primary to State Treasurer Shannon P. O’Brien, former labor secretary Robert Reich wrapped up his campaign for the Democratic nomination with a speech to an eager crowd of over 100 Harvard students in the University’s Science Center. Reich marked the address with a strong emphasis on what he saw as three crises in Massachusetts. He began with an issue familiar to most candidates seeking political office this year: fiscal responsibility.

“The state,” Reich said, “has chosen to balance the budget on those with the least political power.” He argued that with taxes high and quality of government low, there is an opportunity for real reform in the system.

Reich also highlighted the cynicism of the electorate toward government, which he saw as the biggest enemy for reforming the system, underscoring the challenge he would have as governor in keeping the public motivated and engaged in the political realm.

The final crises Reich accentuated were the social injustices that he sees as contributing to the ever-widening chasm between rich and poor. Reich argued that in more and more families, both spouses are working full time but are still below the poverty line. He urged the assembled crowd “to spend at least part of your life . . . in battle for social justice.”

At one point in his speech, Reich imparted how he was influenced to run for governor after visiting a University religion class at the end of last year. As he walked out of the class into Harvard Yard thinking about September 11th and the life of the mind, Reich said he decided then and there to run for governor of Massachusetts.

Reich concluded his comments with a look to the election. “The public is yearning . . . for somebody who is telling it like it is, has ideas . . . and is taking some stands that may not be popular,” such as gay marriage and raising the capital gains tax, he said. “I cannot guarantee we will win on Tuesday, but I can say I feel a great wind at my back.”

Initial reactions from several students after the speech were positive. “I was particularly impressed by his desire to champion the cause of grass-roots organizations and to bring a sense of responsibility to individual communities and their ideals,” 1L Danielle Osler said.

Mike McCarthy, an undergraduate at Harvard, admitted that going into the speech he unsure about Reich as a candidate. But, he said, “the more I hear him speak, the more I am inclined to vote for him.”

Sonia Kastner, president of Harvard College Democrats, said she was pleased with Reich’s comments on budget changes and on what constitutes a leader. “I was extremely impressed with him.”

After his defeat, a message on Reich’s web site sounded a conciliatory note. “Every one of you should be proud of what we accomplished,” it said. “We didn’t attack, didn’t resort to negatives, always kept our eyes on the ideas and vision we shared for the future, stayed honest, brought thousands of people into politics who’d never been involved before or who hadn’t been involved in many years, and raised issues that needed to be raised.”

RECORD editorial: JAG issue demands action

BY

Though quite rare for Harvard Law School, public opinion on the JAG issue seems near-unanimous. Most students are against “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and would prefer that HLS be able to enforce its non-discrimination policy in full — meaning that JAG could not be part of the on-campus interviewing process. Indeed, most are outraged that the Bush administration chose, via a reinterpretation of the Solomon Amendment, to muscle the University into allowing JAG on campus.

Perhaps most surprising, though, is the degree to which students have accepted Dean Robert Clark’s justification for allowing JAG back without a legal battle.

Clark rightfully described the issue as one of money — to say anything else would insult the community’s intelligence.

And the issue concerned quite a lot of money. By threatening to withold $328 million in University funds, the Bush administration offered HLS and the University a choice — to either allow JAG on campus, or face, almost literally, its extinction. Government grants not only comprise 16 percent of the University’s total budget, but make up a vastly higher portion of the budget of certain schools, such as the Medical School, which receives a majority of its funds from government grants. Losing this money, as far as the University’s future was concerned, was simply not an option.

The choices for HLS were limited. The Law School could thumb its nose at the government’s threat and continue to keep JAG out of OCI. It could try to fight the government in the courts. Or, the Law School could concede, as it did, and try to attack the issue in other ways.

Apparently, Lambda and the general population have accepted the logic of pursuing the third option. Fighting the issue in court was unrealistic — Clark and the the University’s lawyers were convinced that HLS could lose. Similarly, a game of “chicken,” in which the Law School would dare the government to withold funds, would be equally ineffective, as well as totally irresponsible.

Word on the inside has it that Clark has taken this issue very personally. This decision was made over a long period of time, and included meetings at the highest levels of the University and the U.S. government, including a Washington, D.C. rendezvous with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. HLS did what it could, and, it appears, it lost.

Yet there still appears to be a lack of outrage on behalf of students. While allowing JAG on campus is largely symbolic — the HLS Veterans’ Association was already bringing military recruiters to campus — most students seem unconcerned with the government’s strong-arm tactics. They are right not to be outraged at the administration, but, regardless of where one stands on the JAG issue, there ought to be a sense of outrage.

As for what comes next, it appears that student protesters will likely fill all of JAG’s OCI slots, rendering their participation meaningless. It is an unfortunate situation for the JAG recruiters themselves, who, like the rest of the military, have absolutely no control over the congressionally dictated “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Hopefully protesting students will express their anger and disapproval for the policy appropriately, remembering to direct their anger at those with the power to do something about it.

HLS also should take steps to protect the rights of those students who are genuinely interested in JAG. Those students have every right to serve their country, and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity as well. If all JAG OCI slots are taken, the Law School should take steps to make alternate interviewing arrangements for students who are caught in the ideological crossfire.

Letter: Gun club aims at politics, not just targets

BY

In the Sept. 12 issue of The RECORD, Sasha Volokh responded to an op-ed that I wrote last spring. My piece discussed how I have no problem with gun clubs that simply take their members target-shooting. The HLS Target Shooting Club, however, declares in its constitution that it aims to help students “intelligently contribute to the public policy and constitutional debate on firearms.” I believe that Sasha’s club has made unhelpful contributions to this debate, and that it can do better.

The club’s main contribution so far has been Sasha’s public encouraging of conservatives to thumb their nose at liberals by supporting gun usage. For example, Sasha told the Harvard Law Bulletin that he started the club to see if he “could get some people steamed up” in Harvard’s “quite liberal” environment. In The Economist, he discussed his view that “enthusiasm for guns is a form of counter-cultural rebellion, rather like smoking cigars.” In the Harvard Crimson, Sasha stated that he “was hoping for some outrage” when he founded the club.

I believe that Sasha’s club can make a far more valuable contribution to the gun debate by de-emphasizing the political and cultural divisions that surround guns and instead encouraging substantive discussions on gun policy. The club began this process by holding a debate last spring, and I hope that process continues. Though Sasha and I have divergent views on the benefits and risks of guns, I think we agree that the gun debate will benefit from a less confrontational and more substantive level of discussion.

However, I must decline Sasha’s invitation to go shooting with his organization. If the club were merely a target-shooting club, I might be interested. But the club is also an advocacy organization that has adopted numerous public stances with which I disagree. Furthermore, nearly every news article on the club provides a tally of its “membership.” I do not want to be counted as a member of an organization whose leader publicly promotes gun use as a way to “get some people steamed up.” I would rather join Sasha in sponsoring intelligent debates than in shooting off.

— Daniel Swanson, 3L

Artificial selection: LSAT bias affects us all

BY AARON SALAYMEH

It’s easy for students here to believe they are the product of a Darwinian selection process that culminates in their anointment as the best and brightest, as future leaders of America. The Law School reifies its choices by praising its incoming 1Ls, who “deserve” to be here. In analyzing this claim, we would like to unpack the most critical (and, in some cases, sole) admissions criterion: the LSAT.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the LSAT is a biased exam that disadvantages women and minorities, yet law schools continue to rely on the LSAT score to differentiate between applicants. While some may argue that affirmative action balances the LSAT bias, this is contradicted by the facts. As researcher William C. Kidder has noted, “Even when diversity is a factor in admission decisions, the negative impact of the LSAT is so severe that among applicants with approximately the same GPAs, whites consistently have the greatest chance of being accepted into ABA law schools.”

Further, the differences in LSAT scores along racial and gender lines cannot be explained as matters of qualitative “deficiency” because, according to at least one study, racial and ethnic gaps on the LSAT are found to be larger than differences in undergraduate grades, law school grades or measures of subsequent success in the legal profession.

If qualitative differences do not account for differentiation in LSAT scores along race and gender lines, then, how can we explain that differentiation? It’s actually quite simple: Every question on the exam is pre-tested to ensure that minorities and women do not have a statistical advantage. Doubtful? In his expert report submitted on behalf of intervening defendants in Grutter v. Bollinger, Jay Rosner, Executive Director of the Princeton Review Foundation explained:

“The actual task that Law Services performs, year-in and year-out, is accumulating a test full of individually chosen LSAT questions with foreseeable cumulative effects, which are that, on average: whites will score higher than blacks, men will score higher than women, and wealthy students will score higher than poor students. This occurs not by chance; on the contrary, it arises from the fact that virtually all of the individual questions chosen to appear on the LSAT have, in pre-testing, favored whites and men and the wealthy.”

Rosner explains that, in addition to question selection, another reason for LSAT score bias is the expensive preparatory classes that generally advantage wealthy and non-minority students. By training students to take the LSAT, these classes provide essential test-taking strategies to those students who can afford it. Rosner concludes that “all (or nearly all) of the individual pre-tested questions selected for use on the LSAT favor whites over African Americans. Disparate results occur not by happenstance, but by design.” Law school administrators have been aware of the LSAT’s discriminatory effects for years, but they continue to report the high scores of their students in an effort to maintain their ranks. This discriminatory exam injects its poison into the law school admissions procedure, perverting the outcome so that the “merit” it creates embodies preexisting privilege rather than a more substantively accurate assessment of the ability to excel in law school.

Unfortunately, there are significant social consequences to the use of these purposefully discriminatory test results as the primary criterion in law school admissions. “Research shows a negative correlation between social activism and performance on the LSAT for the national pool of test takers,” Kidder has explained.

Students with high LSAT scores, who are more likely to be accepted at elite schools, are less likely to use their influence, knowledge and connections to contribute to social causes. Take a moment, then, to consider HLS. The effect of “elite” admissions criteria is the explicit selection against diversity and social activism, which means that members of certain groups are effectively prevented from using legal power to benefit their communities. It is our solemn responsibility, as beneficiaries of this regressive diagnostic tool, to consider its effects upon our discourse and refuse to submit to the reflexive self-worship and praise of alma mater.

Summer lunches, Baghdad style

BY GREG LIPPER

A wild-eyed Donald Rumsfeld skipped out early from his daily press briefing to lead a squadron of B-1 bombers into Cambridge. The pilots prepped to drop a laser-guided smart-bomb through the Harvard University bank account. Dean Clark and President Summers engaged in what Clark’s community memo described as “intense discussion and careful deliberation,” with the latter hoping to prevent $328 million in federal research grants from following West and Appiah over to Princeton.

Since adopting a policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, Harvard Law School has banned the military from recruiting through on-campus interviewing. (I will assume that being denied access to Mark Weber’s sunny platitudes is a punishment, not a reward, but I reserve the right to reconsider this question.) A federal statute enacted in 1996, known as the Solomon Amendment, denies certain federal funds to any educational institution that “prohibits or in effect prevents” military recruiting. In 1998, after being pressed by the Air Force, Dean Clark convinced the military it would be able to recruit effectively through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Yet in December 2001, the Air Force, now under Republican management, raised the issue again. In May 2002, the Air Force notified Clark that it no longer viewed HLS’s policy as compliant with federal law and its implementing regulations, and threatened to recommend to the Office of the Secretary of Defense that Harvard University’s DOD funding — $328 million— be denied. This time, Dean Clark backed down. OCS is now being painted camouflage.

Protesters have spared HLS leadership of any blame. Lambda’s Lindsay Harrison told the New York Times that “Dean Clark had no choice but to cave.” Stanford Law professor George Fisher wrote in last Saturday’s Times that “the military is forcing [schools] to bend their principles.” And the Boston Phoenix declared that HLS “had no choice but to acquiesce.” The military flexed its muscles, say commentators, and the Dean had no but choice to retreat into a foxhole.

Granted, HLS would have been better situated to take on the military back when we still had a faculty member named Slaughter. But maybe we did not need to wave the white flag so quickly.

For starters, did anyone consider taking this to court? The Air Force changed its interpretation of the Solomon Amendment, and the Law School had a plausible argument that they were wrong. Sure, the Dean is more the transactional, Ropes & Gray type, but surely he could have persuaded Larry Tribe to teach the Pentagon a thing or two about trench warfare. And how about the odds of success, given a Supreme Court comprised of five HLS alumni? Maybe such an effort — one just a bit more strenuous than the Dean’s heartfelt “Memorandum to the Harvard Law School Community” — would have sent a message that the HLS leadership truly did “recognize the pain that some members of the community… will endure because of the change in practice.” And maybe, even if ultimately unsuccessful, such an effort would have started a more serious national debate about how much the nation is willing to pay in order to promulgate the continued regulation of sexual orientation by the military.

Even if it lost in court, why couldn’t HLS call the DOD’s bluff? Yes, it’s a post 9/11 world, and in the eyes of the public, the military can do no wrong. But then again, this really has nothing to do with the war on terror. HLS students aren’t being recruited to defend the nation against Osama Bin Laden; they are being recruited to defend pot smokers against court martials. We’re not talking Tom Cruise in Top Gun; we’re talking Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men.

Something tells me that as the Republicans gear up for campaign 2002, they may not want to be talking about why they are jeopardizing what Clark rightly called “students’ educations, faculty’s careers, significant medical and scientific research, and perhaps even cures to life-threatening diseases,” so that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson can get more beauty rest. Refusing to retreat just may have been a reasonable alternative after all.

No matter. Dick and Don will take the blame. HLS students will once again consider (and reject) joining JAG en route to Cravath. Dean Clark had no choice but to acquiesce to this result with the least amount of resistance possible. Would-be critics had no choice but to proliferate the gun-to-the-head motif.

Vino & Veritas:Serving OWGGs

BY DUNCAN CHAISANGUANTHUM

If you consider yourself an Accomplished Wine Person (AWP), you should probably stop reading now. This column is not for you. Don’t feel slighted — for two years you had Justin Dillon, who rivaled most professional enologists. (“Enology” or “oenology,” both pronounced een-ology, is the SAT vocab word for the science of wine and winemaking, from the Greek for “wine,” oinos.) Josh Solomon, the current wine columnist with whom Mike and I alternate weeks, is a closet sommelier posing as a law student (yes, he actually is a law student). Suffice it to say that you AWPs have gotten your due.

Thus, we’re writing a column for Ordinary Wine Guys and Gals (OWGGs). If you enjoy trying to discern currant from cloves from kerosene but words like “Pouilly-Fuisse” perplex you, greetings: You are an OWGG. Together we OWGGs will explore practical, affordable wine enjoyment and education, and when it’s all over the AWPs will have nothing on us.

We review two California cabernets this week, both available at the Harvard Provision Company, that are disappointments. Well, both were drinkable, much like water: No matter how much you drink, it just isn’t very interesting. The least objectionable was a 1998 Robert Mondavi. Sweet on the nose (“a little sweet, even for a woman,” noted our duly designated female), with plenty of berries and dark cherry. Deep purple in color with a slight brick overtone, medium-thick legs. Less sweet and light on the palette, and mildly astringent. With this Mondavi loser, you’ll not spend all night plumbing its intricacies. In fact, if some well-meaning person should give you a bottle, the plumbing is the most appropriate place for its contents.

The other Cali cab was a 1999 Murphy-Goode. Even more like water than the Mondavi, it was tart and acidic on the nose. The acid followed onto the palette, accompanied by hints of strawberries left in the fridge too long. If given a bottle, hit the donor on the head with it (not too hard — don’t hurt the bottle) and return it for a refund.

Knowing good cabernet sauvignon is knowing how great wine can be. We have always been partial to these reds because they contain a complexity and pretension that many reds and most whites lack. Understandably, the cab grape is the basis for some of the finest wines from California’s Napa Valley, the Bordeaux region of France and southern Australia. Cab also blends well with other grapes such as merlot (the classic Bordeaux blend), cabernet franc (known as “meritage”), and shiraz (known as “Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz”).

But like the hot girl you ogle in class that either has a boyfriend or personality issues, or not uncommonly, both, the catch is simple – cabs are expensive relative to many other varietals. Wine producing is apparently not a pro bono endeavour: wineries charge more for wines labeled as “Cabernet Sauvignon” because they can. (Incidentally, a bottle need only be comprised of 75% of that varietal to be labeled as such.) My experience has been to seek cabs in the $20-$30 sweet spot. Sure, paying more does not necessarily entail a better bottle. The $10 bin will have the occasional Anna Kournikova, but the $40 bin will also have the occasional Anna Kournikova. But there is enough consistent quality in the $20-30 range to make it useful guidance for affordable, well-made cabs.

1998 Robert Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon ($38). Widely regarded as the Yale Law of California winemaking, Mondavi disappoints today. The wine exhibits a strong nose of berries and hints of mild spice. The structure is decent with balance among alcohol, acid and its slightly tannic finish. However, the wine lacks the cornucopia of subtle flavors that distinguish exceptional wines. From first taste to finish, the Mondavi is annoyingly sweet, despite the Sweet Tarts I had before guzzling.

1999 Murphy-Goode Cabernet Sauvignon ($23). If Mondavi is the Yale Law of California winemaking, Murphy-Goode is the NYU of California reds. Typically known for its fumé blanc and other whites, Murphy-Goode is a relative newcomer to reds. Unsurprising for a young wine, this cab is very acidic and tart, unbalanced, and probably should be aged or decanted before consumption.