Home Blog

Amicus Curious: “the signage is lousy”

By
Elie Honig
-
0

The first thing you need to know is that your legal career won’t be linear. The second thing you need to know is that that’s a good thing. 

It wasn’t long ago that I was like you. (Actually, it was long ago – 23 years – though it doesn’t feel like it.) So I get it. We’re all HLS folks. We’re full-blast, type-A, hyper-competitive, mega-achievers. You’ve probably got it all mapped out in your head: prestigious clerkship, elite law firm for a bit, maybe stay and make partner, maybe head off into finance or politics or public service. Hopefully cram in a family somewhere along the line. 

It won’t play out that way, most likely. (Again: this is good.) I’ll use myself as an example. During my 1L summer, I applied for Law Review. I didn’t expect to make it, but I thought I had a puncher’s chance. Turned out, my instinct was right. The school’s most prestigious publication politely declined me. Instead, I poured myself into clinicals – primarily, Harvard Defenders. That unexpected experience absolutely lit me up. I knew it from my first case (involving a fistfight between roommates in Dorchester that started when my client ate the other guy’s leftovers out of the fridge): this was what I wanted to do. 

At some point, I planned to clerk for a federal judge, but I didn’t get the right offer in the right city at the right time. Nonetheless, I started my career in fairly conventional HLS manner, at an elite, Vault-approved, top-whatever-number law firm in Washington DC. I thought I’d hate it – the stodgy partners, the billables, the corporate clients, the crazy hours. I was wrong. I had a great experience. I met warm, wonderful, people who became lifelong friends. I got to travel all over the country. They let me spend hundreds of hours working on pro bono matters, including a death penalty defense. Sure, any law firm gig necessarily entails some drudgery; I handled my share of Fourth Amended Supplemental Interrogatory Responses (pro tip: everyone denies everything) and moldy-basement document reviews. But, all in all, it was an unexpectedly satisfying way to start my career. 

Still, after three years at the firm, I decided to make a run at the job I knew I wanted: Assistant United States Attorney for the Department of Justice. I applied first to my hometown U.S. Attorney’s Office, in Philly. Candidly, I thought I’d be a shoo-in: local kid, HLS, when do I start? Turned out: never. They, like Law Review years before, politely declined. And so did a couple other U.S. Attorneys. Finally, with a blend of chutzpah, bravado, and nothing-left-to-lose, I applied to the most prestigious and selective U.S. Attorney’s Office in the country, the Southern District of New York.

I haven’t told this story publicly, but I will for you. (You have my permission, in advance, to laugh at me.) On the day of my final interview at the SDNY, an administrator called me and said they hadn’t yet received one of my required recommendation letters, from a partner at my law firm. They told me to just get a hard copy from the recommender and bring it up with me. So I called up the partner and asked him to email the letter to me. He did, and I printed it out just as I walked out the door of my apartment to catch a train into New York for my final interview.

None of it was planned, all of it happened

Now, nobody ever said this explicitly, but I kinda knew I wasn’t supposed to see the letter. But there it was, right in my hand. I had to take a peek. (Really: you wouldn’t?) As I sat on the train, I read the first line, which went something like this: “While Elie isn’t necessarily among the most intellectual of associates, he is outstanding at dealing with people and he’s great on his feet.” So, basically: he’s dumb but you’ll like him. I didn’t know what to do. Throw the letter out and pretend I never got it? Instead I figured, well, nothing I can do now. So I handed the letter to the administrator and hoped for the best.

Turned out, the U.S. Attorney at the time hadn’t gone to some elite law school, and he didn’t give a crap about intellectualism. He was much more concerned with whether the applicant was a decent person and a hard worker who could deal with real people. The letter, it turned out, couldn’t have been more perfectly tailored to the guy making the big decision. I got the gig. 

I spent the next fourteen years as a prosecutor – eight and a half with the SDNY, then five and change leading the criminal division of the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office. I did things I’d never have imagined: tried mafia bosses for murder and racketeering; argued cases in the federal court of appeals; built a case that resulted in the rescue of over seventy human trafficking victims; had gangsters’ families spit venom at me and call me names in the press (though “Hotshot Honig” was really more of a compliment, if you ask me); helped reform our criminal justice system in New Jersey. None of it was planned. It all happened.  

And then, five years ago, I was ready to move on from the prosecutor’s office and found myself at another moment of uncertainty. The traditional path would’ve been to go back to a big law firm and make a boatload of money. Instead, I took a job teaching at Rutgers, my undergrad alma mater. And, just days into that job, I did my first tv spot for CNN.

It’s maddeningly circuitous, and the signage is lousy

I had zero intention to go into media. It just happened that this was the summer of 2018, at the apex of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation, and the cable channels needed former prosecutors who could explain what it all meant. I liked it, I was good at it – though I needed plenty of work – and they kept bringing me back. A few months later, I signed with CNN. Now, I’m on air every day, and it’s the core of what I do. I even get to use those dormant trial skills when I break down complicated facts and law into digestible, relatable segments; I used to have the luxury of a couple hours to explain it all to a jury, and now I have maybe four to five minutes to do the same thing on air.  

Even now, nothing moves along a straight line. I tried for a few years to write a book, but no publisher was interested. Then one summer day in 2020, out of nowhere, an editor for Harper Collins contacted me through a one-sentence Twitter direct message. Two days later, we had a deal. Eight months later, we had a book. A year and a half after that, we had another. 

People sometimes ask me how to follow my career path into the world of television and legal journalism. My answer is that, while this is a great career, it’s also not exactly a “path” – or, if it is, it’s maddeningly circuitous and the signage is lousy. 

So I can’t guide you down whatever route you’ll go someday. You’ll figure that out as you go. I can tell you this: it won’t go as expected, and you’ll be grateful for that.   

 

Big Law Bargain? How The Law Firm Transparency Project takes aim at Corporate Defense

By
Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25
-
0
Credit: Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

According to Harvard University’s “Our Mission and Culture” page, the mission of Harvard Law School is to “advance[] the cause of justice all over the world through excellence and leadership in legal education and scholarship.” However, according to the class of 2022 employment report, of the 590 law students who graduated, only 8% worked in public interest—down about 3-4% from the prior two years. Rather than taking jobs to advance the cause of justice, the vast majority of HLS graduates work in “BigLaw”, a colloquial term for the “largest, most high-powered firms in the country.” These firms lavish new recruits with salaries above $200,000 fresh out of law school so that they will put up with miserable conditions and often handle cases with legal theories ranging from the objectionable to the depraved. Many HLS students, saddled with significant student loan debt (recent estimates say students graduate from HLS with close to $170,000), see no other option other than to make a Faustian bargain with BigLaw firms in order to pay off their loans, get a proper return on their investment, and live a joyful adulthood (if not immediately, perhaps a few years down the line). 

A new organization, founded this year by Harvard Law students, seeks to provide law students with insight about the human cost of corporate defense work, as well as start a practical conversation regarding potential alternatives. On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 7pm in Belinda Hall, that group of student organizers launched the Law Firm Transparency Project, which, through an informative website and other advocacy measures, seeks to prove 3 main points:

  1. Legal work has an enormous impact on the lives, liberties, and livelihoods of individuals and communities. 
  2. Law is adversarial. 
  3. There are justice-oriented, human-centered, well-paying alternatives to Big Law. 

At the launch event, the student organizers illustrated these points through a candid, gentle conversation about the struggles of planning a legal career with antiracist, egalitarian sympathies. Discussion of the financial realities facing graduates from HLS is “a nuanced and complicated conversation,” noted Kiese Hansen, HLS ‘23, a co-founder of the project. Correspondingly, Dylan Hosmer-Quint, HLS 23’, another leader of the Project, made clear both at the outset and throughout that the “point of the event [was] not to shame anyone,” but was more to make sure people were aware of the ramifications of committing to a BigLaw job. 

The Project started the discussion with focus on the first point, that, in Hosmer-Quint’s words, “people most affected by the decisions of lawyers are often not lawyers, and that includes career decisions.” Often corporate defense firms will obfuscate their participation in systemic injustices through emphasis on their pro bono work; major players in the legal field tout the application of their abundant resources to matters of social justice, such as representation of tenants, incarcerated people, and other underprivileged clients.  Simultaneous with their pro bono work, the same firms represent clients who exacerbate these harms on a much larger scale. Hosmer-Quint told an anecdote of how Sidley Austin promoted its work to win 1,000 incarcerated people their release from prison during the COVID-19 pandemic, but just 10 years prior represented California prisons in an attempt to prevent 46,000 inmates from being released from overcrowded prisons.

After emphasizing the effects of corporate defense work, Hosmer-Quint brought the discussion to the Project’s second point. “Law is adversarial: when you win money for your client, or protect your client from liability, the other side loses,,” he said. Discussions about BigLaw practice typically focus on neutral topics like experience, hours, and vague notions of professionalism, but the form of the work is meant to draw attention away from the substance. One example mentioned was the widespread practice of deflecting criticism of BigLaw work by saying “I’m only doing transactional work” (rather than corporate defense litigation); the statement implies that helping companies with mergers, acquisitions, and bankruptcies is less likely to contribute to systemic harm. The Project provides examples of how transactional work can be just as harmful, such as Skadden’s representation of Johnson and Johnson in their efforts to avoid liability through creative bankruptcy filings. 

For first-year law students, there is serious “institutional pressure,” as one 3L put it, towards BigLaw, and that pressure can crowd out alternatives. Most 1Ls participate in the Early Interview Program (EIP), through which Harvard facilitates interviews between prospective interns and corporate firms. Many voices at the event noted the disparity between structures facilitating entry into BigLaw positions and those for the ostensibly less secure, less lucrative public interest paths. They commented that this dichotomy created an air of “negativity” around public interest. One 3L described it as “a bubble” where things are overblown, and people describe “making $50,000 ” as poverty wages; meanwhile, beyond the “bubble”, as many as 25.2% of Americans lived on less than $35,000 as of 2021.

“Law when you win money for your client, or protect your client from liability, the other side loses,,”

Students noted that this culture of negativity has the effect of reducing apprehension towards corporate law positions, which participants of the event described as more costly than it appears. One 3L, who spent their 2L summer splitting time between a BigLaw firm and a public interest job, described deep feelings of shame for doing problematic work. The student cautioned other public interest-inclined 1Ls who work with corporate firms to be certain about foregoing “good work” to do a BigLaw summer, even if it is noncommittal. Additionally, summer associate programs are notorious for not reflecting the actual day-to-day of a first-year associate at a law firm. Katie Super, HLS 23’, who helped co-sponsor the event as a member of the Program on Law and Political Economy, recalled from her experience as a legal assistant how corporate firms sheltered summer associates from the actual day-to-day of full-time attorneys. 

One major elephant in the room addressed at the event was the discussion of graduating with debt and its relation to the agency of individual law students. Many students committed to public interest work noted that they were on the higher end of indebtedness amongst HLS students, with some well above the average and deep into the $200,000s. Other attendees alleged that some law students hide behind the general notion of graduating with “loads of debt” to take a BigLaw job, while having comparatively low indebtedness. There was a sense that a number of attendees took issue with BigLaw track HLS students attempting to avoid moral scrutiny by describing their choice as ostensibly coercive.

“people most affected by the decisions of lawyers are often not lawyers, and that includes career decisions”

These points all lead to the third point promoted by the Project: there are real alternatives to BigLaw work that make fiscal sense for HLS students. The Project seeks to rebut the false dichotomy of lucrative corporate defense work vs. modest public interest work. Organizers pointed out that public interest jobs can be quite profitable. They contended that “[students] don’t have to go into corporate defense to have a meaningful, financially secure career.” 

One example of such work is plaintiffs’ side law, which concerns representation of parties seeking to redress injuries, often marginalized groups. The average salary for a plaintiffs’ lawyer varies widely depending on the source, but most place the number around $80-120k, well above the 2017-2022 median American per capita income of $37,638. A number of plaintiffs’ firms even pay over $200,000 in starting salaries to junior attorneys, BigLaw wages.  Many government attorney jobs, meanwhile, far exceed local salary averages, and often come with benefits that significantly reduce law school debt. In addition to LIPP (Harvard’s program to financially augment relatively lower paying public interest jobs),  public defense and plaintiffs’ lawyers may apply to federal and state loan repayment assistance programs(LRAPs) in 24 respective states. While the organizers do not claim that these alternatives are a substitute for the potential windfall of a BigLaw job, they argue that foregoing a career in BigLaw may not be as costly as it appears. 

In launching their new project, Hosmer-Quint and his colleagues attempt no small feat. Simply put, the prestige and financial benefits of BigLaw work are significant and impossible to ignore in any honest conversation about career choices post-graduation. However, the general mood amongst the students at the initial Law Firm Transparency Project event was one of optimism, rather than concern. Only time will tell if this launch and website is as far as the Project will go, or if they represent the early developments of a greater shift in the discourse.

 

Current HLS Students Share Why They Chose to Skip EIP (2023)

By
Public Interest-Minded Students at Harvard Law School
-
0
picture of the you are not alone poster 2023

Have a response to this collection of testimonials that you’d like to share?  Letters to the editor are always welcome; send submissions to editor@hlrecord.org.

As the poet Mary Oliver wrote, “Tell me, what is it you plan to do/with your one wild and precious life?” I simply couldn’t imagine spending mine defending the often nefarious, usually boring, and never world-improving actions of corporations. – Liz Turner, JD ‘23

Despite what this institution would lead students to believe there are options for you that do not involve working for the least-deserving causes imaginable. EIP is not for your benefit, these organizations will use you, and the cost is the real-world harm you will perpetuate. I refused to participate in this institutional pipeline, and I would encourage you to think critically about who, and what, you want to lend your labor to. – Alex Brown, JD ‘23

abolish capitalism – anonymous

In the rarefied environment of HLS, EIP feels like the “safe” option that I might have – in a nearby alternate reality – turned to out of fear that my public interest aspirations wouldn’t work out. I do not have generational wealth to fall back on, and if I did, I would have gone to art school instead of this place. But part of my logic in choosing HLS was that this degree would enable me to choose a career that gives me fulfillment *and* gives society some sort of good while also paying me a regular salary. As HLS students, we already have a substantial safety net in that we will probably always be able to find a job to pay our bills. This safety net should inspire us to be brave and to reach for what we believe in, rather than to just reach for the next-highest safety net. Having said this, I acknowledge that different people have different family support obligations, and that for them the extra safety net maybe seems necessary in a way that it doesn’t to me. I have friends who did EIP, and they are still my friends. How can I judge them when I have, on so many occasions, asked myself whether I made a mistake by forgoing EIP? But the closer I get to graduation, the more I become grateful that I took what, at the time, felt like a risk in order to stay truer to myself. You have to remember that EIP is a safety net that comes with a lot of strings attached (whether explicit or implicit), and then ask yourself whether you’re really going to make the effort to untangle yourself from the web once you’ve ventured to get caught up in it. – Katie Super, JD ‘23

 

I chose not to do EIP because I care about making the world a better and fairer place. To that end, I came to law school to challenge corporate power/economic inequality and to struggle for labor rights and distributive justice. 

Big law firms directly serve the interests of corporations and the rich at the expense of virtually every value and principle and aspiration held by progressive people (and anybody interested in building a better world)—things like economic justice, racial justice, criminal justice, environmental justice, etc. To work for a big law firm is, simply stated, to directly contribute to the perpetuation and extension of all the existing systems of oppression and inequity and exploitation and injustice operating in our society. 

There exist plenty of legitimate and rewarding career paths that a progressive law student might pursue that challenge rather than contribute to inequality and injustice. Doing EIP is far from inevitable; it is, and always will be, a choice, and one that none of us has to make. – Jason Vazquez, JD ‘23 

If you attend HLS, you’re handed Big Law on a silver platter. What you’re not told, with that offer, is the structural and systemic harm to which a career in Big Law actively contributes. I did not do EIP because I am committed to structural and systemic justice, and I want my post-graduate work to contribute to that goal.  – Samantha Perri, JD ‘23

 

Quoting Nadia Ben-Youssef, Professor William P. Quigley once wrote, “Lawyers are either servants of the people or predators.” Choosing not to do EIP was a very easy decision. – Marisa Wright, JD ‘24

 

Eight years ago, I worked at a sweatshop where the supervisors would expect us to keep working with blood dripping off our hands. Virtually everyone there was an immigrant worker; most were making minimum wage even after working there for decades. As I organized a union with my coworkers, I had my first real experience fighting against injustice. Since I left that sweatshop, I told myself I’d never forget the horrors I experienced for only a brief period while working there—horrors that people around the world are subjected to day after day—and what it felt like to fight against them. I promised to the world that I would use whatever power and privilege I arrived at in this life to fight against the injustice that I experienced. Working in big law would mean perpetuating these injustices, consolidating even more power into the hands of corporations like the one that made me go home crying every day while I worked at its sweatshop eight years ago. – Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, JD ‘24

I was not interested in big law. I wanted to go to a smaller, family-friendly firm with a mixed portfolio of public service, government, and government-adjacent work, as well as some private client work. – Carlos Rosende, JD ‘23

I am committed to a career in environmental law and policy. – Shashank Vura, JD ‘24

As Harvard Law students, we owe it to our communities to reallocate the tremendous access and privilege engendered by being affiliated with this institution. – anonymous

I’m not interested in pursuing personal wealth at the direct and significant cost of so many others. – Ash Tomaszewski, JD ‘23

I did not do EIP because I do not believe that the practice of law is value-neutral. We are morally responsible for how we leverage the immense privilege and mobility that we gain through our affiliation with HLS. I did not do EIP because I do not want to profit off of the extraction of wealth from marginalized communities and the working class; I do not want to defend, buttress, and legitimize corporate law’s role in this process.  – Alex Ropes, JD ‘23

Before law school, I worked in a high-paying, high-stress job analogous to big law and found it to be physically, mentally, and spiritually demoralizing. I was deeply unhappy on a day-to-day basis, and worse, ashamed of the impact of my work overall. I cannot go back to living that way. I feel so blessed to be able to firmly refuse from engaging in EIP and to be able to pursue more meaningful work. I admit that part of why I am able to firmly refuse is because I accumulated financial resources in my first job — but I also think the experience gave me perspective on both how much money I need to live and how the work I do impacts myself and those around me. 

Above all, I resent Harvard Law School, the wealthiest educational institution in the world with an ever-increasing endowment, for creating structures that fuel big law and deepen wealth inequality. Shame on Harvard. Thank you to the dedicated group of students organizing for a more realistic and livable LIPP and for other structural changes that support PI and/or low-income students, including a return of third-year free tuition for PI students and 100% funded financial aid. – anonymous

I am not interested in private law. – Vinny Byju, JD ‘25

I came to law school hoping for a career in public service. I did not see EIP as the best use of my time in pursuing that goal. – Sebastian Miller, JD ‘24

Our time on Earth is short. I don’t want to spend multiple years of my life working 60-80 hour weeks in a career that provides me no fulfillment and makes the world a worse place. The big law salary is tempting, but for me, the joy I can find outside of big law is worth so much more. – Ethan Judd, JD ‘24

Big law is a prison of the mind and the soul. I am rejecting the industry out of self preservation. The good news is, there is so much more out there for all of us. – anonymous

EIP couldn’t give me a job that I think is fulfilling, purposeful, or in the business of building a better world. It couldn’t give me a workplace that values me, people, and the planet more than it values my grinding productivity protecting profits and power for the already rich and powerful. The money it offered couldn’t increase my quality of life without first stealing my happiness, work-life balance, and the opportunity to be of service in the communities I came to law school for. Nothing EIP had to offer was worth giving that up.

Still, it wasn’t easy or fun to delete daily EIP reminder emails from OCS and watch what felt like all of my classmates walk the gilded, well paved, well lit path to big law. My class was coming away from a fully remote school year when we made these choices, and I felt so alone because I had no idea how many of us had opted out. We didn’t have this poster. I hope we’re the last class who ever has to say that. – Malia Gesuale, JD ‘23

I am committed to the field of public defense, and fortunate enough that I do not feel immense financial pressure to go the big law route. I wish HLS gave all students enough financial support to have true freedom over their career choices.  – anonymous

I didn’t come to law school to serve corporations. I came to law school to serve people. – Matthew Rock, JD ‘24

I believe there are other pathways that will leave me more fulfilled and happy than going through EIP.  – anonymous

It was important to me to spend my summers experiencing different types of roles in government work to feel out possible career paths. Basically, I decided it was worth it to focus on the kind of work I came to law school hoping to go into, even though I made less money and didn’t come away from my summers with a law firm return offer like so many people do. I think I ended up getting more substantive work experience than I might’ve if I had found jobs through EIP, and I wouldn’t change anything if I had the chance to do it again. – Taylor Broadbent JD ‘23

I came to law school to fight capitalism, not perpetuate it! – John Fry, JD ‘25

I came to law school knowing I wanted to do public interest work. Lots of well-meaning people encouraged me to do EIP anyway, but I knew that I wanted to spend my time in law school getting as much experience with different kinds of public interest litigation as possible, so doing EIP just didn’t make sense for me. I have no regrets about my choice. – anonymous

I have the privilege of being at Harvard Law School, and I intend to use that privilege to combat and dismantle unjust and oppressive systems. Big law firms actively work to uphold those very systems and to cause harm to marginalized communities and the environment. I refuse to be complicit in that harm.  – Emilie Montgomery, JD ‘23

I came to law school to make the world a better place— not to be a trained legal mercenary who protects corporate interests. I am also tremendously lucky to be from an upper middle class family and have no undergraduate debt. To enter big law is to betray the very morals that brought me to Harvard, and I am in a position where I can act on those morals. The actual numbers of HLS students who leave their firms for PI work are dismal, and I recognize that I would most likely be the rule, not the exception. I am still on track to pay my law school loans in a job that will at least help in dismantling the oppressive systems that hurt the communities I care deeply about. No matter what, my future career in plaintiffs’ law will far exceed the earnings of my own parents, who were able to provide me with every opportunity a child could want. The future may be uncertain, and to be honest, it can be a lonely and challenging road. But I remind myself that the road to Harvard was not an easy one. I remind myself of the supportive PI community at Harvard that inspires me to put service before self every day. I remind myself to strive to live authentically, to do no harm, and to be the kind of lawyer 6-year-old me would have been proud of. – anonymous

I want to pursue work on the issues I’m most passionate about! – Sabrina Ochoa, JD ‘24

I choose not to do EIP because working at a big law firm that uses the law to line the pockets of major corporations and further wealth inequality does not align with my values. As a first-generation college graduate, the opportunity to pursue a legal education is a tremendous privilege. For generations, my family has worked hard, laying the foundation for me to break down this barrier. I am committed to using this privilege to push the boundaries of the law ideally to make our society more just, and at a bare minimum not to perpetuate harm. Without a doubt, the pull to participate in EIP is strong—from the ease of securing a 2L summer and postgraduate job thanks to Harvard’s status as an elite institution, to the massive salary that would alleviate the burden of student loans and other financial hardships, to the entrenched institutional culture to conform. But the pull, and our collective obligation, to use the law ethically and responsibly is greater.  – Rachel Landry, JD ‘23

I came to law school to work in the public interest, not to go to a firm and work against it.  – anonymous

I think life is too short to work 80 hrs/wk for the man when we have shit to do (aka making this world livable for our kids)! – Lea Kayali, JD ‘24

I did not do EIP because the positions offered there were not the lawyer I wanted to be. I recognize that I am incredibly privileged in having what felt a real choice not to do EIP – I don’t share this to shame people who do the program and take Big Law jobs, I only share to encourage others to recognize when you truly do have a choice. Don’t let HLS tell you you need a Big Law job to get training or to be effective. You can be the effective advocate/lawyer/person you want to be right out of graduation, so don’t give up that precious opportunity. – anonymous

The brokenness of our legal system creates unfathomable harm and suffering. I do not want to join those breaking it to help the wealthy and powerful so that I can be wealthy or powerful. I want to be—I am—on the other side. – Tamara Shamir, JD ‘25

I didn’t come to law school to serve the interests of capital. – anonymous

I want to be part of just solutions, not pedantic defenses that serve corporate interests. – Aaron Nytes, JD ‘24

I came to law school to help people. I never want to become part of the corporate power structure that is a large part of the reason our system of law is so unjust. Corporate law firms cause so much harm and represent some really reprehensible clients, and if you work at a firm, you can’t opt out of that representation. Going to work in public interest, I know I can choose the representation I take on to make sure it fits with my vision of a more just world. Practicing law is not morally neutral–it can cause a lot of harm or do a lot of good. The choices we make now will have real effects in the world, and we should always be cognizant of that. – Samantha Nagler, JD ‘23

My entire motivation for coming to law school was to work on issues that matter to me in the public interest sphere – namely housing, education, and civil rights. Without this interest, I simply wouldn’t be in law school – I’d be earning a salary somewhere else! It is important for my own success (and survival) here that I remain grounded in my purpose and what brought me to HLS. – Sarah Berton, JD ‘25

I want to use my legal education to help people that need it, not corporations that don’t. – anonymous

I came to law school to use my power and privilege to work on behalf of and alongside currently and formerly incarcerated individuals. Even though I am first-gen and don’t come from a wealthy background, I always knew that using my law degree to advance justice was far more important to me than money or prestige. Big law causes real harm to our communities and it would be against my values to participate! I am so excited to work in legal aid and help people access housing, employment, and licenses after incarceration! – Lexi Gray, JD ‘23

Like so many of us, I applied to law school because I was excited about the power of the law as a tool to make the world a more just and equitable place. Sometimes the day-to-day of law school and financial and social pressures can make that belief seem naive, idealistic, and plain wrong. But, with the help of the public interest community at HLS (students, advisors, and alumni), I’m able to remember why I’m here. An HLS education is an incredibly powerful tool for social justice and we should all feel empowered to use our degrees accordingly. – Joelle Boxer, JD ‘24

Join The Record

    By
    The Record
    -
    0

    Enjoying the paper?  You might not recognize it, but The Harvard Law Record is the oldest law school-affiliated newspaper in the United States.  It’s an independent and nonpartisan paper that has been published since 1946.  And we’re looking for new team members!

    The Record publishes news and opinion pieces on all topics in and around Harvard Law School, ranging from the local issues of student life to the national and global issues of law and policy.  On a law school campus that already has an official news organization, Harvard Law Today, as well as ideological journals spanning the political spectrum, The Record serves two crucial roles.

    First, The Record provides a space for law students and professors to write investigate news stories that are not sanctioned by the law school administration.

    Second, The Record supplies a space for students, professors, and alumni to respectfully debate and discuss opinions spanning the entire political spectrum.  In this way we are able to engage in dialogue not subject to classroom limitations of time, subject matter, or abstraction.

    In furtherance of our second role, The Record has a relatively open publishing policy and is committed to publishing a multitude of views, so long as they are not harmful.  We humbly take instruction from Robert Jones, Jr. here: “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”  If you see an opinion piece you disagree with, we encourage you to submit a response for consideration — if it is well-written, respectful and interesting, it will likely be published.

    Want to write a piece?  Join the editing team?  Help with layout?  Contribute photography? Design a crossword?  The Record is looking for team members who are passionate about legal journalism.  To apply, send us a note at hlrecord1946@gmail.com!

    The printed version of this article misidentified the originator of the quotation as James Baldwin, not Robert Jones, Jr.  The Record regrets the error.

    Raise SPIF!

    By
    Mina Ezikpe, HLS ’23, Malia Gesuale, HLS ’23, Amelia Keyes, HLS ’23, Delaney King, HLS ’23, and Elena Vázquez, HLS ’23
    -
    0

    Dear Dean Manning, Assistant Dean Onken, & Dean Soban:

    We are a group of current HLS students, dedicated to pursuing careers in public interest. We came to law school committed to careers working alongside and on behalf of marginalized and directly impacted communities.

    Public interest careers are often regarded as noble work, requiring immense personal sacrifice. But these are also jobs, and we expect these jobs to allow us to make a living while making a difference. We have accepted the limits on lifestyle that come with salaries in the public interest arena even as the pay disparity between big law firm salaries and the average public interest salary grows increasingly wide. We do not ask that HLS shoulder the burden of changing this condition of public interest lawyering. We do, however, ask that HLS not continue to create additional financial barriers for its students pursuing work in public interest.

    Unfortunately Harvard Law School, as a leader in the global legal community, does perpetuate inequity in its own support, or lack thereof, of public interest students, specifically through its insufficient funding for summer public interest internships through SPIF. 

    Currently, SPIF is anywhere from $3600 to $6875, depending on if a student is a 1L or 2L, whether a student is or is not on need-based financial aid, and how many weeks a student works during the summer. However, the award is typically $5500 for a student on need-based financial aid who works full-time for at least eight weeks out of a 14-week summer.

    This amount is not nearly enough to cover basic living expenses anywhere in the United States, let alone the cities where many HLS students spend their summers. It is also far below the $8200 summer living allowance, the amount that HLS concedes is the bare minimum that an individual can live on during the summer. It is also less than the $3100 per month student living allowance during the academic school year.

    In order to survive in the summers, students must borrow more money in the form of loans, rely on parents or other family members if possible, or even work second or third jobs in addition to their full-time internships. Some students may feel they cannot accept summer positions with organizations who cannot supplement the SPIF income, thus limiting their search.  Financial constraints limit students’ access to reliable housing and other basic necessities. Constant financial insecurity undermines students’ ability to show up in formal, professional workplaces, such as courtrooms.

    While we understand that most law schools provide no guaranteed funding to students who pursue non-paying law jobs or internships during the summer, we also argue that comparison to “most” other schools is not the standard to which HLS should hold itself. We expect HLS to be a leader amongst peer institutions by not only offering a generous summer funding relative to other schools, but offering a truly equitable summer funding program, one that gives students what we need and what we deserve. 

    HLS’s history of cutting public interest funding further demonstrates why comparison to its current program is the wrong metric. Since 2010, when HLS lowered its SPIF funding amount in response to the recession and in response to increased student interest, the award offered to 2L students receiving financial aid has not increased when adjusted for inflation in the last twelve years. Even as the school grows its wealth, it stagnates with regard to public interest student support.

    On the other hand, law schools such as Yale and Northwestern currently offer their students more than $8000 of guaranteed grant funding for pursuing public interest summer jobs.

    Furthermore, in addition to the low amount of grant funding, there are unfair procedural hurdles to participating in SPIF. Most egregious are the constant threats from the administration that students will be billed their entire SPIF award if we are unable to get a supervisor to sign off on all the hours we worked. This demoralizing and paternalistic action creates immense fear and anxiety amongst students. It further demonstrates HLS’s lack of support and even distrust and disdain for students who choose public interest work during the summer.

    We acknowledge other student efforts to reform how HLS through its Student Financial Services assesses student summer contributions. Both that effort and ours are a critique of how HLS’s funding decisions operate under a false framework: one that assumes every student is white, upper class, single/childless, able-bodied, financially dependent on family, and carries no other financial responsibilities other than meeting their own bare subsistence.

    Ultimately, what we are asking for is not simply more money in absolute terms, but really, more choice in what we do with our summers and what we do with our legal careers long-term. The privilege to have real choice about what we do with our law degrees is what attracted many of us to Harvard Law School. Especially for those of us pursuing public interest work, the value of our degrees is not the amount of money we can make after we graduate. It is the ability to do the work most meaningful to us, in communities most meaningful to us, without excessive debt and low-paying entry-level salaries forcing us to forgo the passions, interests, and commitment to social justice that brought us to law school in the first place.

    While HLS is not totally responsible for the larger inequities that exist in the legal profession or in society as a whole, it plays a major role in perpetuating these inequities by creating consequences for its students’ long-term career decisions through its summer funding scheme. Summer internships are critical opportunities for students to explore their options and decide whether a public interest career is right for them. By making it so difficult for students to take public interest internships, HLS is further tipping the scales against public interest careers. Further, if students are disincentivized from taking summer positions they would otherwise accept if they had sufficient funding, then HLS has failed to provide its students with the full opportunity to network and build community in the legal landscapes they want to enter. For aspiring public interest lawyers, this is a serious impediment to our professional development.

    Our demand is simple: Raise SPIF to $8500. This is one immediate action HLS can take to move in the right direction. This will put SPIF on par with peer institutions, match the student summer living allowance, bring more parity to public interest and firm internships, and give students more choice in how we spend our summers and how best to prepare for our future legal careers.

    —————————————————————————————-

    We are still collecting signatures and testimony. Student voices are essential: please join us by adding your name, writing a statement of support, or sharing a story on why HLS should raise SPIF.

    For the full list of signatories and to sign on, click here.

    HLS Admin Appears to Suppress Referendum on Library Bans

    By
    Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25
    -
    0
    Student protestors wearing white shirts with red text stating
    Student protestors wearing white shirts with red text stating "We were banned from Harvard Library for dreaming of a Free Palestine." (anonymous, 2024)

    Over the past year, Harvard Law School’s Student Government (HLS SG) has faced the unenviable task of responding to student discontent surrounding Israel’s alleged genocide in the Levant, and Harvard’s ongoing investment in entities connected to the Israeli government.  After passing a contentious divestment resolution in the Spring, and another pair of resolutions condemning the new use of space policy and the series of sanctions levied on participants in silent protests this fall, the HLS SG has passed another resolution attempting to address the unrest. 

    In a special session on Saturday, November 16, HLS SG passed R.-208-003 by a vote of 15 Yes, 1 No, and 2 Abstain. The resolution approved student-wide referendum on December 4. The referendum asks whether the HLS student populace condemns the disciplinary action taken against students for silent protests in the library and calls for these punishments “to be removed from any disciplinary record held by the University.”

    This is yet another chapter in the fallout at institutions of higher education since the October 7th attacks by Hamas, which have been described as “atrocious by Amnesty International. The totality of Israel’s actions in Gaza since that day have been described as “consistent with the characteristics of genocide” by a UN special committee established to investigate the matter.

    A white prayer book in a student's hand stating "Praying for Palestinian Liberation" in italicized text, followed by a caption "A solidarity pray-in led by Jewish students demanding Harvard's divestment from genocide and an end to censorship on campus."
    A white prayer book in a student’s hand stating “Praying for Palestinian Liberation”. Students reading from these prayer books in Harvard libraries were temporarily banned from using the areas they displayed them in (Holden Hopkins, HLS ’25, 2024).

    Heated discourse about the culpability of parties involved in the conflict and the involvement of social and corporate entities with the Israeli government, in light of plausible allegations of its carrying out a genocide, have led to a multitude of controversies across US college campuses over the last year. 

    This sudden attention, often motivated by misinformation about university personnel, has often jeopardized student safety and is largely to blame for the resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay earlier this year. The resulting tensions culminated in the dramatic encampment in support of Palestine at Harvard, along with encampments at many other universities in Boston and across the United States. 

    In response to the tumult of the previous school year, Harvard University unveiled newly restrictive policies regarding the use of common spaces around campus, prompting significant criticism from students and student organizations. Pro-Palestine student organizers have attempted to delicately navigate the policies enshrined by the school to keep attention on the conflict in Gaza and its expansion into Lebanon. 

    Throughout this semester, several students have hosted silent protests in various libraries at the university. At these events, students have studied, prayed, or read books while displaying condemnation of Israel’s alleged genocide. Under the apparent authority of the new policy, a plethora of students have faced temporary bans from libraries as punishment for wearing communications denouncing university policy or adorning their reading materials with messages about the ongoing atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. In addition to bans, some participants  have been referred to the Harvard administrative board for possible discipline (the “AdBoard” retains discretion to levy punishments ranging from reprimands up to expulsion).

    The passage of the recent referendum is meant to capture student opinion regarding this recent application of the use of space policy against pro-Palestine student activists. However, in order to notify the student body of the coming referendum via the student-wide email list, the Student Government must obtain the approval of the Dean of Students (DoS). 

    A student protestor wearing a white shirt with red text stating "We were banned from Harvard Library for dreaming of a Free Palestine" and displaying a message on their tablet in black text on white background stating "ISRAEL IS BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE" in all caps.
    A student protestor wearing a shirt commenting on the past library bans, displays a statement criticizing Israel’s military on their tablet.(Anonymous, 2024)

    SG Co-Presidents John Fossum, HLS ‘25, and Deborah Alexis, HLS ‘25, began a correspondence with Dean Stephen Ball, J.D. ‘10, on Monday, November 18 regarding email publication of the referendum. Following a zoom meeting with the co-presidents, Dean Ball agreed to distribute the referendum via a qualtrics survey, but declined to commit to advance notice via email informing students of the resolution condemning Harvard’s discipline of students or the resolution approving the referendum. In particular he took issue with the description of the sanctions imposed by Harvard administrators following silent protests, suggesting that the referendum was misguided because he claims that students had no disciplinary record and were not “disciplined” under university policy. 

    Since the November 18 meeting, Co-Presidents Fossum and Alexis have exchanged emails with Dean Ball, without commitment to a particular method of notifying the students. 

    With the Thanksgiving holiday break approaching, the next available weekday for an announcement is December 2, a mere 2 days before the referendum. Since the plebiscite serves as a reflection of student opinion regarding their policies, DoS is undoubtedly a party interested in its outcome.  Dean Ball’s potential obstruction of the process by vetoing SG’s communication of the question at issue raises concerns about democratic process.

    Mia Stone-Molloy, HLS ‘27, a Jewish 1L SG representative, decried HLS’ administration for “doing everything in its power” to obstruct “even the most officially sanctioned forms of student expression.”  

    Holden Hopkins, HLS ‘25, a Jewish 3L SG representative, described participation in the silent protests as “a moral imperative” given “Harvard’s complicity in funding Israeli genocide and violations of international law.” He was temporarily banned from the Harvard Divinity School library for reading the Mourner’s Kaddish, a traditional Hebrew prayer, from a prayer book that prominently displayed the words “praying for a free Palestine.”

    On the library bans and discipline, Stone-Molloy noted, “if [students] can’t express our opinions non-disruptively in a space we pay tuition to be in, where can we?”

    As of 2:00 PM today, Dean Ball has made no commitment to any decision on proper distribution of information regarding the December 4 referendum on the application of university policies.

    The Harvard Law Communications Office could not be reached for comment.

    Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah’s Landmark Visit to Harvard Law: Bridging Legal Worlds

    By
    Hussain Awan, HLS '25
    -
    0
    (From left to right) Hussain Awan, HLS '25, Justice Shah, Saeed Ahmad, J.D. '24, and Muhammad Hassan Ali, LLM '25 posing on the second floor of Wasserstein Hall.
    (From left to right) Hussain Awan, HLS '25, Justice Shah, Saeed Ahmad, J.D. '24, and Muhammad Hassan Ali, LLM '25. (Hussain Awad, September 2024)

    Earlier this month, Harvard Law students had the unique opportunity to engage with the jurisprudence of a developing country in the form of a visit from Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, to Harvard. Justice Shah spoke at a series of events and faculty seminars, many of which revolved around the principles of progressive jurisprudence in Pakistan and the country’s effort to fight a challenging backlog of cases through the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The visit, which spanned nearly a week, allowed HLS students and faculty alike to engage directly with a leading legal figure whose work has significantly shaped constitutional and human rights law in Pakistan in a variety of legal disciplines.

    Justice Shah’s trip began on Monday, September 9, with a well-attended information session on clerkships and internships at the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The session was moderated by three HLS students who have clerked or are set to clerk for Justice Shah: myself, Saeed Ahmad, HLS ’24, and Muhammad Hassan Ali, HLS LLM ’25. Comments by Justice Shah and myself at the beginning of the event provided a wealth of information to the attending students on the opportunities available for gaining firsthand experience at the apex level of the judiciary in Pakistan. Justice Shah’s chambers plan to soon release an application portal for HLS student internships during the Winter Term, and many in attendance expressed interest in pursuing these positions.

    Then, on Tuesday, September 10, Justice Shah’s main event with the HLS student body took place: a lunchtime presentation and Q&A session titled “Progressive Jurisprudence in Pakistan: A Conversation with Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah,” which was moderated by Ali and myself. Over 100 HLS students attended and heard about both the judge’s philosophy and his progressive legal jurisprudence on issues ranging from the protection of religious minorities to human rights to gender and environmental justice.

    The conversation centered on the role of progressive jurisprudence within Pakistan’s legal framework, a topic that Justice Shah has not only written about but has practiced through his landmark opinions on disability rights and environmental issues while on the bench of the Supreme Court. Reflecting on his judicial philosophy, Justice Shah emphasized the importance of balancing traditional legal principles with a steadfast understanding of justice, particularly in the face of societal challenges.

    For me, this set of events was particularly meaningful. As I’ve discussed in the Harvard Law Record in the past, I feel strongly that the American legal education I’ve gotten so far at Harvard Law has helped me to understand the practice of law in other contexts as well. Getting to moderate this talk at HLS with Justice Shah — a talk that was attended by so many HLS students — has been a wonderful full-circle moment for me both in terms of bringing my interests together and in terms of being able to share some of the many things I learned while clerking for the judge.

    Justice Shah’s visit highlighted not only the opportunities for cross-border legal collaboration but also the value of bringing international judicial perspectives to the HLS community. As more HLS students plan to intern at the Supreme Court of Pakistan during the upcoming Winter Term, the ties between the two institutions are likely to deepen.

    HBLSA Endorses Wilkins, Robinson, and Sullivan to replace Manning as Dean

    By
    Harvard Black Law Students' Association
    -
    0
    Harvard Law School
    Harvard Law School (Tobi Omotoso, 2024)

    In March, longtime dean of Harvard Law School John F. Manning (B.A. ‘82, J.D. ‘85) was announced as the new provost of Harvard University, leaving his position at the law school vacant. The Harvard Black Law Student Association recognizes the significance of this period of transition. Recent decisions from the Supreme Court and other tragedies, such as the police killing of Sonya Massey, impress upon us the importance of legal education.  We have noted in previous statements the importance of producing new waves of law students “with a commitment to justice” to engage the difficult problems of the day. 

    As an entity with a historical connection to socially progressive legal practice, HBLSA desires the the appointment of a Dean meeting the following criteria:

    1. A dedication to broad accessibility to legal education, especially for first generation and low-income students
    2. A dedication to avoiding marginalization of historically disadvantaged groups at Harvard Law School
    3. A dedication to the advancement of Black legal scholars and scholarship on topics impacting Black Americans.

    In addition to the aforementioned broad criteria, we also express our desire for the incoming Dean to commit themselves to the following policy goals:

    1. Continue instituting a full need-based financial aid policy
    2. Increase of the ceilings for the Low Income Protection Program (LIPP)
    3. Expand the Summer Public Interest Funding (SPIF)
    4. Codify curricula requirements surrounding the legal history of enslavement and broad disenfranchisement of people of color
    5. Expand clinical programs focused on issues surrounding racial justice.
    6. Hire another critical race theory scholar as a professor at Harvard Law School

    In line with these selection criteria, HBLSA is excited to communicate its preference amongst candidates for Dean Manning’s successor as Dean of Harvard Law School:

    David B. Wilkins (B.A. ‘77, J.D. ‘80), Lester Kissel Professor of Law

    Wilkins boasts a remarkable career, having served on the Harvard Law Review, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and co-authored Problems in Professional Responsibility for a Changing Profession, one of the eminent casebooks in legal studies today. He also has served as Harvard Law School’s Vice Dean for Global Initiatives on the Legal Profession, and as a faculty associate of the Harvard University Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, further solidifying his place as a towering figure in legal ethics.

    Stephanie Robinson (J.D. ‘94), Lecturer on Law

    Robinson carries a rare expertise across several fields including government, politics, media, and art. In the field of politics, she served as Chief Counsel to the late Senator Ted Kennedy (A.B. ‘56) and also held the title of both President and CEO of the Jamestown Project, a democracy-focused think tank. She is a respected voice in media, having contributed to leading outlets and publications, such as Washington Post, C-Span, NPR, and Fox News. In addition to her success as a criminal and civil litigator, she has also been a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Throughout her life, Robinson has demonstrated a talent for connecting with people in order to achieve meaningful, egalitarian outcomes.

    Ronald Sullivan (J.D. ‘94), Jesse Climenko Clinical Professor of Law 

    Sullivan is one of the most impressive litigators in our nation’s history, with a record of overturning thousands of wrongful convictions. Professor Sullivan has provided defense representation for such figures as President Bill Clinton, former NFL player Aaron Hernandez, and the six Black teenagers involved in the high-profile “Jena Six” case. At Harvard Law School, Professor Sullivan is the faculty director of the Harvard Trial Advocacy Workshop and Faculty Director, Emeritus, of the acclaimed Harvard Criminal Justice Institute. Sullivan’s professional life illustrates an instinctive regard for civil rights and due process.

    Any one of the three of the above individuals are fantastic candidates for the position of Dean and we would look favorably upon their selection. 

    Harvard BLSA Statement on the Police Killing of Sonya Massey

    By
    Harvard Black Law Students' Association
    -
    0

    On July 6th, 2024, Sonya Massey was viciously killed in her own home by Deputy Sean Grayson of the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office. The Harvard Black Law Students Association grieves the loss of Sonya Massey’s life and is deeply outraged by yet another tragic act of state-sanctioned violence.

    Massey had called the police to investigate “a prowler near her house in Springfield.” Massey briefly spoke with the two officers in her living room and searched through her purse to comply with their request for identification. During this conversation, Grayson also instructed Massey to remove a boiling pot from the stove. When she complied with the command, the police moved away from her. As things escalated, Massey appeared to grow fearful of the police and said, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” Grayson then “threaten[ed] to shoot her in the face and scream[ed] at her to drop the pot.” Grayson apologized and ducked, then stood up again. Grayson then fired his service pistol at her three times, including one fatal shot to her head.

    There is little to add to a description of something so horrendous. Many aspects of the apparent state-sponsored murder says much without editorialization. Massey greeted the police at the door with “don’t hurt me” and to which her eventual killer replied with “Why would we hurt you? You called us.” The Atlanta Black Star reports that she descends from William Donnegan, a man lynched by a racist white mob during the 1908 Springfield race massacre. The Guardian reports that a deputy reported to the dispatcher that Massey’s death resulted from a “self-inflicted” gunshot wound, and her family confirms that the police put forth this narrative. The Guardian also noted that Grayson “had served with six different departments since 2020” and “also has two convictions for driving under the influence.”

    In these details we see the familiar motif of law enforcement weaponizing fear of Blackness against terrified Black victims. Despite overt expressions of concern and compliance, nothing Massey did saved her from this ending. Once again, the person hired, paid, and armed to manage situations such as this was the very person who brought about the worst possible outcome. Now, Massey joins the wretched procession of names all too familiar to Black people: from Eleanor Bumpers to Eric Garner, those forever associated with their demise at the hands of law enforcement. 

    In response to this event, HBLSA issues the following declarations: 

    1. HBLSA calls on the federal government to bring an end to qualified immunity and create meaningful methods for the public to hold police accountable. 
    2. HBLSA calls on Cambridge, Somerville and other state and local governments in Massachusetts to re-evaluate its distribution of funding to police departments and explore reinvestment to social services.
    3. HBLSA demands that Harvard reassess its relationship with policing and schedule discussions regarding the Legacy of Slavery project to ensure that the enterprise is restorative to the Black community of Harvard and contributes to the mitigation of state violence against Black people.

    We use the last section of this statement to emphasize that Sonya Massey, much like Eleanor Bumpers and Eric Garner, was a person. They were more than a name and they were far more than the manner of their murder. Sonya Massey was a 36-year-old mother of two children. She lived much life and had much more life to live. There are friends who will never speak with her again, family who will never know her support again, and places that will never know her presence. The gravity of losses such as these compels our commitment as an organization to justice. We must spend our careers doing what we can to build a world where people can grow old and remain free to chase their passions unencumbered.

    Harvard BLSA’s Official Statement on the 2023-2024 Supreme Court Term

    By
    Harvard Black Law Students' Association
    -
    0

    On July 1, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in Trump v. United States, conferring absolute immunity to the President of the United States for any criminal acts committed in an official capacity. The Harvard Black Law Students’ Association expresses its deep concern about the ramifications of this holding, which Justice Sotomayor described as making “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

    The decision concludes a controversial term for the court, rife with troubling legal implications for marginalized communities nationwide. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Court issued “yet another blow to the EPA’s ability to tackle emerging problems like climate change,” potentially leaving millions of underprivileged Americans vulnerable to acute conditions. In the realm of voting rights, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP allows racist lawmakers to “cloak attempts at suppressing Black voters under the guise of partisanship.” Another case, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, narrows the legal toolkit of homelessness advocates seeking to protect the unhoused from criminalization. In light of the presidential immunity ruling, City of Grant Pass carries the added sting of contrasting the punitive treatment applied to the poor with the remarkable grace afforded those who openly attacked the American political system.

    Despite continued fears of rampant gun violence and hate crimes at scale, the Court also struck down regulations prohibiting augmentation of handguns to increase their lethal capacity in Garland v. Cargill. For Black Americans, this has two distinct harms: it exposes the Black community to more potential anti-Black terrorism and increases the likelihood of their incarceration for gun charges (between 2019 and 2023, 58.8% of people sentenced under federal firearms statute, 922(g) were Black) by dismantling preventive policies.

    As the organization representing Harvard’s Black lawyers of tomorrow, HBLSA recognizes the unique danger of rewarding explicitly racist assaults on the rule of law and electoral process with complete insulation from criminal prosecution. Historical failures by the Supreme Court to punish bigoted lawlessness in cases such as US v. Cruikshank (1876)  and The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were soon followed by even bolder manifestations of violence such as the expulsion of Black people from Comanche County in 1886 and the overthrow of the government of Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898. Today’s dereliction of constitutional responsibility may very well become tomorrow’s atrocity.

    While such a prediction may appear alarmist, we need look no further than Justice Sotomayor’s dissent to demonstrate the realities of the Court’s ruling. She noted that as a matter of law, the president is now criminally immune for taking reprehensible actions such as taking “a bribe in exchange for a pardon,” ordering “the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” or even organizing “a military coup to hold onto power.” Commentators have already raised concerns that the decision is a “blueprint for dictatorship” and may serve as a signal to embolden the former president to engage in a campaign of vengeance against discrete classes of Americans.

    Many have linked the Republican nominee to Project 2025, a blueprint to radically reshape the federal government by dismissing “as many as 50,000 federal employees,” shuttering cabinet departments (page 79 of handbook), and abolishing diversity, equity and inclusion programs (throughout document, example on page 103-04). The plan also includes a stated intent to execute all 40 federal inmates currently on death row. In addition to the handbook, the candidate expressed a desire to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants and prioritize “anti-white racism” over addressing anti-Blackness. 

    Our nation finds itself in the midst of what may be its most contentious election season in history. Wars rage abroad in Congo, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine. For the last several months, campuses across the United States have called on its leaders to chart a path of safety for all. Every decision made by those tasked with navigating this period will have enormous consequences in the coming years. We believe that this slate of decisions, punctuated by this final grant of presidential immunity, jeopardizes the stability of the country at large; we believe that it violates the concept of equality under the law; we believe that it has potential to significantly harm our most vulnerable citizens; and we believe that it endangers Black people across America. 

    In times such as these, it is natural to feel an inclination towards despair. The realm of possibilities now include some fearsome and upsetting futures. But societies in much worse circumstances than this have returned from the brink of despotism to unthinkable heights. As long as there are decent people with a commitment to justice anywhere, there is hope that a better tomorrow is possible. Across American law schools are law students and professors with such commitments; across BLSAs in this country are innovative young minds with solutions not yet imagined for problems not yet understood. So long as this is true, we can overcome whatever troubles are ahead. 

    Editor’s Note: While the former president issued a statement distancing himself from Project 2025 last Friday, it should be noted that the Project is spearheaded by Paul Dans, chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the former president. Additionally, other members of his team, such as spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, have also been featured by the Project.

    Diary of a Legal Worker on Strike

    By
    Miriam Shestack, J.D. '23
    -
    0
    Mobilization for Justice (MFJ) workers picketting in front of the MFJ office in New York, NY. A large inflatable rat, a regular sight at picketting events, is displayed behhind the workers. (Miriam Shestack, 2024)
    Mobilization for Justice (MFJ) workers picketting in front of the MFJ office in New York, NY. (Miriam Shestack, 2024)

    When I started my first job out of law school, I did not expect to be on strike just four months later. I started working at Mobilization for Justice (MFJ), a legal services provider in New York, in late October 2023. As part of the Housing Rights Project, I represent tenants facing eviction in Bronx Housing Court. 

    I learned a lot in my first few months in this challenging and essential field, and I felt excited and grateful to be part of a union. The MFJ Union is a “shop” within Legal Services Staff Association (LSSA)  2320, National Organization of Legal Services Workers (NOLSW) 2320, and the United Auto Workers (UAW). Specifically, we are part of UAW region 9A, which also includes the Harvard Graduate Students Union (HGSU). 

    Although unions aren’t (yet) prevalent in legal work, some legal organizations, particularly direct service providers, are unionized. Our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expired at the end of 2023 and the process of bargaining for a new contract took place throughout the fall and early winter. 

    The following is a brief overview of that process, our union’s decision to strike for a better contract, and the strike experience. 

    Before the strike: 

    By the time I started at MFJ, the union had already used surveys and discussions to develop our demands to improve the CBA. Members of our shop also stepped up to be a part of the elected bargaining team. The union and management bargaining teams exchanged demands and counter-offers and met regularly to bargain before and after the CBA expired.  

    The union’s most significant demand is for fair salary increases for all workers and for paralegals and executive assistants. Salary has been a central demand because the cost of living has risen dramatically since the last contract was ratified in January 2021. Healthcare and remote work flexibility are also central issues. 

    When management did not come to the bargaining table with an offer that the union could accept, we held a strike authorization vote. A strike authorization vote establishes that if the union votes to reject management’s last, best, and final offer, we will automatically and immediately be on strike. 

    Unfortunately, management’s best and final contract offer included a proposed salary increase that did not come close to making up for wages lost to inflation and would put MFJ behind other New York City legal services organizations doing similar work. MFJ management’s offer also did not provide adequate work from home flexibility, particularly for non-attorney staff, and would take away the union’s decision-making authority over our health insurance plan.

    On February 23, 2024, 93% of union voters rejected management’s final offer. Before the vote the bargaining team shared their recommendations with the shop about whether to accept or reject the offer and held office hours for discussion. Volunteer members of the bargaining support committee helped build the organizing infrastructure within the shop to make a strike possible. The bargaining support committee also organized actions throughout bargaining with the hope of pressuring management to meet our demands and avoid a strike. 

    On strike! 

    Being on strike is busy! Definitely more than I and many other first-time strikers expected. A lot of logistics planning goes into pickets, which strategically change time and location. 

    After the strike vote the entire shop joined strike committees responsible for things like planning and providing food at pickets, running social media accounts, and helping shop members access government benefits. Every day shop members are busy with things like reaching out to elected officials and other unions, and strengthening morale and involvement within the shop.

    Going on strike is a real financial sacrifice, but the union offers support. When we voted to go on strike, MFJ management immediately cut off our healthcare, and of course we are not making our salaries while striking. The UAW offers some weekly strike pay and supplies substitute healthcare coverage. Shop members who have worked long enough and don’t have other jobs can also qualify for unemployment insurance in New York State. 

    Our Local union also has a hardship fund that can offer financial support to shop members with high expenses or those who don’t qualify for unemployment. As a new grad, I haven’t worked long enough to qualify for unemployment, so I’ve leaned on the hardship fund to meet expenses during the strike. A strike is a short-to-medium term sacrifice for long-term gains. When we voted to strike some shop members talked about how the union went on strike in 2003 to protect their healthcare plans–a sacrifice that we’re all still benefiting from more than twenty years later. 

    Pickets are energizing and exhausting at the same time. Every day that I march with my coworkers I feel moved by how we are showing up for each other. It also takes a lot of energy to walk and chant for long periods, sometimes in cold or wet weather, so rest is important. The strike has also required our shop to figure out new processes as we go along. We have all had to think hard about when and how to delegate tasks and decisions to smaller groups, and how to make collective decisions fairly. Just as equity is a core part of our demands, we’ve had to reflect on how to ensure equity within our shop as well. 

    Looking to the Future:

    We are now in week eight of our strike. Bargaining is ongoing but the shop is disappointed that MFJ management has not taken meaningful steps toward meeting our most important demands.

    We are also very concerned about what is happening to our clients as management struggles to handle an impossibly large docket. Concern for clients is an inherent part of withholding labor as legal services workers. At the same time, we are aware that this field and MFJ, in particular, have a major attrition problem. Therefore, we believe that making the work more sustainable is an important part of providing high-quality services to clients in the long term. Many clients support the strike and some have even joined us on the picket line. Adequately funding legal services is part of taking access to justice seriously.

    I continue to be inspired with each passing day when I see my coworkers standing up for each other and standing by the value of our work. Challenging as it is, we can and will continue to stand up until we win a contract that respects our work as much as we respect each other.

    Miriam Shestack, J.D. 23, is a movement lawyer and labor organizer, she graduated from Harvard Law School in 2023 and was involved with the Labor and Employment Action Project (LEAP) during her time at HLS.

    Statement from Harvard Law Professors Regarding Student Speech on Campus

    By
    Collective of Concerned Harvard Law Personnel
    -
    0
    The hallways of Wasserstein Hall at Harvard Law School. (Tobi Omotoso, 2023)
    The hallways of Wasserstein Hall at Harvard Law School. (Tobi Omotoso, 2023)

    At their best, academic institutions are spaces that facilitate the free flow of ideas, debate, and dissent. At their worst, academic institutions foreclose the possibility of these fruitful exchanges for fear of discomfort or disagreement. Harvard Law School has, for generations, committed itself to being a vibrant place that lives up to the former vision. Our Professors have trained students in critical inquiry and rigorous thought. Our classrooms have intended to give students the tools to uphold the rule of law in the courtroom. We believe that discriminatory enforcement of rules and viewpoint discrimination threatens the very ideals we aim to foster. As an educator at Harvard Law School, I would like to affirm my commitment to protecting student speech–even speech that I may disagree with–from unreasonably expansive and historically unfounded interpretations of protest guidelines.

    Signed,

    Patricia Alejandro, Clinical Instructor, Director of the Community Enterprise Project at the Transactional Law Clinics

    Yochai Benkler, Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies; Faculty Co-Director of Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society

    Sharon Block, Professor of Practice and Executive Director of Center for Labor and a Just Economy

    Nikolas Bowie, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law

    Alejandra Caraballo, Clinical Instructor at Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic

    Esme Caramello, Clinical Professor of Law Faculty Director, Harvard Legal Aid Bureau

    Alexander Chen, Lecturer on Law & Clinical Instructor at LGBTQ+ Clinic

    Steve Churchill, Lecturer on Law, Director of the Employment Law Clinic

    Christine Desan, Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law

    Ryan Doerfler, Professor of Law

    Rebecca Greening, Lecturer on Law and Clinical Instructor at Family Justice Clinic 

    Michael Gregory, Clinical Professor of Law at Youth Advocacy and Policy Lab

    Samir Hanna, Clinical Instructor

    Jon Hanson, Alan A. Stone Professor of Law; Director, Systemic Justice Project

    Crisanne Hazen, Lecturer on Law; Associate Director of Youth Advocacy and Policy Lab

    Duncan Kennedy, Professor Emeritus

    Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law

    Michael Klarman, Charles Warren Professor of American Legal History

    Sam Koolaq, Lecturer on Law, Director of Entertainment Law Clinic

    Adriaan Lanni, Touroff-Glueck Professor of Law

    Eloise Lawrence, Assistant Clinical Professor and Acting Faculty Director of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau

    Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership

    Beatrice Lindstrom, Lecturer on Law and Clinical Instructor in the International Human Rights Clinic

    Kenneth W. Mack, Lawrence D. Biele Professor of Law and Affiliate Professor of History at Harvard University

    Julie McCormack, Senior Clinical Instructor at the Safety Net Project of the Veterans Legal Clinic, Lecturer on Law Spring ’25

    Daniel Medwed, Visiting Professor 

    Charles Nesson, Weld Professor of Law

    Oren Nimni, Lecturer on Law and Litigation Director at Rights Behind Bars (RBB)

    Deanna Pantin Parrish, Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Instructor at the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program.

    Hannah Perls, Senior Staff Attorney with the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program (EELP)

    Ari Peskoe, Director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program

    Rebecca Richman Cohen, Lecturer on Law

    Alexa Rosenbloom, Attorney and Clinical Instructor in the Consumer Protection Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School (LSC)

    Benjamin Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry

    Emma Scott, Associate Director and Clinical Instructor of the HLS Food Law and Policy Clinic

    Jeannie Suk Gersen, John H. Watson, Jr. Professor of Law 

    Rebecca Tushnet, Professor

    Salma Waheedi, Lecturer on Law and Executive Director of the Program on Law and Society in the Muslim World (PLSMW) 

    Christian Williams, Clinical Instructor at the Criminal Justice Institute

    The collective behind the letter directs those seeking to sign on to fill out the form via this link.

    “It’s a Love Thing”: Cornel West Makes Appearance at Palestine Solidarity Rally in Science Plaza

    By
    Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25
    -
    0
    Cornel West (center, in black suit) speaking to a crowd of student activists in Harvard Science Center Plaza.
    "It's a love thing, it's love supreme of John Coltrane" said Dr. West, B.A. '74, (center, in black suit) to a crowd of student activists yesterday in his remarks regarding solidarity with Palestinians and all oppressed people. (Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25)

    Students gathered in the Harvard Science Center Plaza from 4PM to 5:15 PM on Friday for a Quds (or al-Quds) Day Rally in support of a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to “Israeli occupation” of Palestine. Quds Day is an international event in the anti-Zionist community, held yearly on the last Friday of Ramadan, “ to express support for Palestine and oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.”  Dr. Cornel West, B.A. ‘74, noted public intellectual and current presidential candidate, made an appearance and delivered a short address to the crowd. 

    The occasion is yet another expression of discontent on campus regarding the University’s relationship with Israel, which is currently accused of a number of human rights violations pursuant to its campaign in Gaza, launched in response to the October 7 Hamas attack. Globally, pressure is mounting for Israel to de-escalate, as the conflict has left 33,091 Gazans dead and 75,750 maimed. Following months of steadfast support for Israel, President Biden recently announced a desire for a ceasefire in return for the release of hostages currently held by Hamas. This comes soon after the recent controversy surrounding the IDF killing of seven aid workers in a series of airstrikes.

    Prince Aviunce Williams, BA '25, (centered, with blue shirt and sunglasses) speaks to a crowd in the Science Center plaza. (Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25)
    Prince Aviunce Williams, BA ’25, (centered, with blue shirt and sunglasses) speaks to a crowd in the Science Center plaza. (Tobi Omotoso, HLS ’25)

    Campus organizers Prince Aviunce Williams, BA ‘25, and Kojo Acheampong, BA ‘26, of Harvard’s African American Resistance Organization (AFRO), served as lead facilitators for the event, though many other students from the various graduate schools also assisted with management of the event. 

    “There is no Palestinian Liberation without the liberation of all poor and oppressed people throughout the world” commented Williams, during one of many sermons throughout the event.  

    Not all parties present supported the position espoused by the presenters during the event. A small group of counter-protesters, donning Israeli-flag scarves and presenting a poster board with the faces of Israelis held hostage by Hamas stood behind the crowd for the entire duration.  

    “Still waiting to hear the word peace,” said one counter-protestor, early on. 

    Pro-Israel counter-protestors display a poster board with the faces and names of hostages taken by Hamas following the October 7 attacks in Israel. (Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25).
    Pro-Israel counter-protestors display a poster board with the faces and names of hostages taken by Hamas following the October 7 attacks in Israel. (Tobi Omotoso, HLS ’25).

    Following opening remarks from Williams and Acheampong, Williams passed the microphone to Dr. West. “I’m just very blessed to be here” I just want to let the world know our status, solidarity with my precious Palestinian brothers and sisters,” he began. 

    Speaking in his classic homily-esque spiritual style, Dr. West pressed the importance of supporting the Palestinian cause, and connected the issue to broader concerns he identified in American life writ large. He described the country as “undergoing spiritual decay” due to a combination of “greed” and “indifference” in the upper rungs of society. 

    In his peroration, Dr. West emphasized that supporting Palestine was “no short-term affair,” and that supporters must be “faithful unto death” Palestinians and all other oppressed people. 

    Acheompong’s lively seven-minute speech combined a similar sense of enthusiastic urgency with a celebration of the perceived success of campus activism in recent months. He listed recent resolutions passed at Harvard Law School and Harvard Divinity School encouraging Harvard University to divest from Israeli-affiliates, as well as the upcoming consideration of divestment at MIT, as evidence of pro-Palestinian protest actions yielding results. He repeatedly emphasized that “it’s only a matter of time” until the University grants their demands. 

    Many of the speakers, including Williams and Acheampong, and others in attendance have been victims of incidents of doxxing and harassment  faced by pro-Palestine activists in the last several months.

    Williams put a positive spin on these consequences, noting that “repression all across this campus” is the natural response to “gaining momentum.” Referring to the infamous doxxing truck linked to conservative media group Accuracy in Media, he said defiantly “you’re putting them on that truck because they’re on the right side of history.”

    His words echo sentiments expressed by Dr. West when we spoke to him following his comments to the crowd. In response to a question of how Palestinian sovereignty factors into his campaign’s vision for the country, he referred to the Harvard motto: “veritas.”  West stated that he wants to be a “truth-teller.” 

    “The condition of truth is allowing suffering to speak, and truth is always a species of the good. So, you can’t be a truth teller if you’re not willing to fight for truth and justice. And so, I’m just here just to add my small voice with these magnificent voices of young brothers and sisters right here at Harvard just to let them know that I stand with them because they stand for the truth, and they stand against the suffering and the genocide in Gaza.”

    Transcript of Speech by Kojo Acheampong at Al Quds Day Rally (04-05-2024)

    By
    Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25
    -
    0

    A speech by Kojo Acheampong at an April 5, 2024 rally in protest of the ongoing atrocities in Gaza. Some statements may be lacking context, these were not editorial choices but the result of the limited coverage of the event. Any incoherence should be attributed to the Record, not the speaker.

    Kojo Acheampong: free free palestine 

    Audience: free free Palestine 

    Kojo Acheampong: free free free Palestine 

    Audience: free free free Palestine 

    Kojo Acheampong: Long Live Palestine 

    Audience:  Long Live Palestine 

    Kojo Acheampong: Long Live Gaza

    Audience:  Long Live Gaza

    Kojo Acheampong: I said Long Live Palestine 

    Audience:  Long Live Palestine 

    Kojo Acheampong: Long Live Gaza

    Audience:  Long Live Gaza

    Kojo Acheampong: 1 2 3 4 

    Audience: 1 2 3 4 

    Kojo Acheampong: occupation no more 

    Audience: occupation no more 

    Kojo Acheampong: 5 6 7 8 

    Audience: 5 6 7 8 

    Kojo Acheampong: Israel is a racist state 

    Audience: Israel is a racist state 

    Kojo Acheampong: I said Israel is a racist State 

    Audience: Israel is a racist state

    Kojo Acheampong: Divestment

    Audience:[Applause] 

    Kojo Acheampong:  Divestment, that is our task in the belly of the belly 

    Audience member: hell yeah 

    Kojo Acheampong:  that’s our historical duty what we see an apartheid regime 

    Audience member: that’s right 

    Kojo Acheampong: an apartheid regime cause harm to our brothers and sisters in Palestine 

    Audience member: speak on it got it 

    Kojo Acheampong: we understand that our duty was the same in South Africa 

    Audience member: that’s right 

    Kojo Acheampong: they won divestment, they won it. Why? Because of the students. It was because of the student power all across universities and right here. 

    Kojo Acheampong: And in this moment like Prince(Aviunce Williams) said you have to understand that the reason why they’re trying to repress us is because they’re noth-, they’re scared. 

    Kojo Acheampong: They’re scared, of our power. 

    Audience member: that’s right!

    Kojo Acheampong: of our power! 

    Kojo Acheampong: people all across movements, all across history are who get real change, it’s not given. Divestment is never given we work for it, we organize and organize and fight and fight and fight until we get it.

    Audience: [Applause]

    Kojo Acheampong: And so when we see our siblings at HLS pass a resolution for divestment

    Audience: [Applause]

    Kojo Acheampong: it means it’s only a matter of time! 

    Kojo Acheampong: When we see our siblings at HDS [Applause] (may be referring to resolution passed for divestment earlier that day) divestment is only a matter of time 

    Audience member: that’s right 

    Kojo Acheampong: when we see our siblings in MIT pass a referendum [applause] calling for a ceasefire, calling for divestment, calling to stop the attacks on pro-Palestinian students it’s only a matter of time 

    Kojo Acheampong: all across the nation, all across Boston, we see what mobilization does

    Kojo Acheampong:  on Saturday, on Saturday we shut down a bridge.

    Audience member: yes we did!

    Kojo Acheampong:  we shut down a whole Bridge. 

    Kojo Acheampong: we understand that all throughout this time it’s been the people, it’s been the people, who have been making change through organization

    Kojo Acheampong: that’s the only way to make change. 

    Kojo Acheampong: so right here our duty remains the same…

    Kojo Acheampong: Divest, divest, and divest

    Audience member: Divest! [applause]

    Kojo Acheampong: our comrades in the struggle, HGSU, BDS make some noise!!

    Kojo Acheampong: wrote a letter for divestment, cause we see that in 2020 the Crimson reported that Harvard had just under $200 million in is Israeli apartheid 

    Audience: Shame!!

    Kojo Acheampong: $200 million, can you imagine that? Can you fathom that? $200 million dollars!! 

    Kojo Acheampong: this impacts us at all sectors we understand the union struggle, they’re constantly trying to cut wages.

    Kojo Acheampong:  we see the fact that they don’t even want to give us hot breakfast, but then they have almost $200 million to give to an apartheid regime

    Audience: Shame!!!

    Kojo Acheampong: $200 million while Harvard gentrifies people right here 

    Audience: Shame!!!

    Kojo Acheampong: $200 million will Harvard is constantly kicking off our houseless folks, our, our community 

    Audience: Shame!!! 

    Kojo Acheampong: $200 million to go murder Palestinians that’s what it’s used for.

    Kojo Acheampong:  will we stand for that?

    Audience: No!!!

    Kojo Acheampong:  I said will we stand for that?

    Audience: No!!!

    Kojo Acheampong:  so our duty remains the same. Divest, divest, divest!  That’s it!!

    Kojo Acheampong: everybody I know you got a flyer I saw [unknown] going make making the rounds 

    Kojo Acheampong: make sure you scan that flyer 

    Kojo Acheampong: make sure you sign on to the letter. We have to show, we have to show the institution that the people will not put up for occupation.

    Kojo Acheampong: I said the people will not put up for occupation

    Kojo Acheampong: our goal is the same. our goal is the same. 

    Kojo Acheampong: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! Say what?

    Audience: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! 

    Other Audience: Say what?

    Audience: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! 

    Other Audience: Say what?

    Audience: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! 

    Other Audience: Say what?

    Audience: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! 

    Other Audience: Say what?

    Audience: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! 

    Other Audience: Say what?

    Audience: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! 

    Other Audience: Say what?

    Audience: ain’t no power like the power of the people cuz the power of people don’t stop! 

    Other Audience: Say what?

    Kojo Acheampong: free free palestine 

    Audience: free free Palestine 

    Kojo Acheampong: free free free Palestine 

    Audience: free free free Palestine 

    Kojo Acheampong: from the river to the sea 

    Audience: from The River To The Sea 

    Kojo Acheampong: Palestine will be free 

    Audience: Palestine will be free 

    Kojo Acheampong: Said Palestine will be free 

    Audience: Palestine will be free Palestine will be free 

    Kojo Acheampong: Said Palestine 

    Audience: Palestine 

    Kojo Acheampong: Will

    Audience: Will

    Kojo Acheampong: Be

    Audience: Be

    Kojo Acheampong: Free

    Audience: Free!!

    Transcript of Speech by Cornel West at Al-Quds Day Rally (04-05-2024)

    By
    Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25
    -
    0

    Speech by Cornel West, B.A. ’74, addressed to pro-Palestine activists at a rally in protest of the ongoing atrocities in Gaza. Any words unintelligible are a reflection on the recording quality of our reporter, not the eloquence of the speaker.

    00:00:05

    I appreciate you.

    00:00:09 Cornel West

    You know, I’m just very blessed to be here. I just want to let the world know our status, solidarity with my precious Palestinian brothers and sisters.

    00:00:20 Cornel West

    Through we have a magnificent gathering for the Roma people. You all know the Roma people been going through hell and high water for 800 years. Still, sister Magda, And then with Brother Rameen and Sister Thanh said we’re having a rally.

    00:00:36 Cornel West

    I said, you’re having a rally Once again, for the Palestinians? Oh I love your courage!!

    00:00:41

    Give it up again for the struggle in Gaza, genocide will never have the last word! At ALL!!

    00:00:48

    Apartheid conditions will never have the last word… Ethnic cleansing will never have the last word.

    00:00:58 Kojo Achampeong

    COME On!! Come on

    00:01:03 Cornel West

    Like my brother Prince

    00:01:05 Cornel West

    Yeah, I come from a great people.

    00:01:10 Cornel West

    Is that brother Elom right there too? Yes, it is, yes, it is.

    00:01:10 Cornel West

    See I come from a great people that put a strong imprint on my heart, mind and soul as the black folk who’ve been hated for four hundred years, dishing out love, warriors. Every generation we’ve been terrorized for four hundred years

    00:01:30 Cornel West

    But we produce freedom fighters every generation. We’ve been traumatized for 400 years. We produce wounded healers every generation, and that means I’m gonna be a small part in that way. And that means I’m in solidarity with anybody who suffering, any oppressed people.

    00:01:49 Cornel West

    It could be predatory capitalist policies coming at them. Crushing them with working people, it could be white supremacy, trying to tell them they less beautiful and less moral and less intelligent. It could be male supremacy. It could be homophobia, transphobia, It can be losing, fight, losing sight of humanity of anybody..

    00:02:06 Cornel West

    Be they Arabs, Turks, Jews,  whatever it is. It’s a human thing at the deepest level, and that’s why we stand against occupation and domination. It is a love thing. It’s the love supreme of John Coltrane.

    00:02:19 Kojo Achempeong

    Come on!! (Audience shouts in background)

    00:02:25 Cornel West

    We need anti-imperialism! [unclear]

    00:02:25 Cornel West

    The American Empire is the 68th empire in the history of the species. It will come. It will go. It is now undergoing spiritual decay and unbelievable more decadence because of organized greed at the top and indifference at the top

    00:02:39 Cornel West

    that trying to convince folk, everyday folk, to scapegoat the most vulnerable, rather than confront the most powerful

    00:02:46 Cornel West

    We won’t fall for that trap. We won’t fall for that narrow projection of what it means to be human.

    00:02:54 Cornel West

    Nooo, no no no (through applause)

    00:02:58 Cornel West

    And we knew at Harvard University, like any other institution in the American Empire, is shot through with commodification.

    00:03:06 Cornel West

    Is shot through with corporatization is shot through with marketization and it has legacies of white supremacy and male supremacy, shot through it too, and we want to be be countervailing forces against it.

    00:03:10

    Come on.

    00:03:21 Cornel West

    Fifty-four years ago, I was in that room right there. (pointing at dorm in Harvard Yard)

    00:03:23 Cornel West

    At home worth.

    00:03:26 Cornel West

    54 years ago, when my father dropped me off. He’s gone now, God bless him.

    00:03:30 Cornel West

    And the first thing he told me was..

    00:03:33 Cornel West

    He said little corn.

    00:03:37 Cornel West

    We never seen Harvard, not from the truck outside of Sacramento, California. he said. You just make sure you be true to the love and integrity we poured into you

    00:03:53 Cornel West

    and that love and integrity had to do with Irene (his mother) and Clifton West (his grandfather), it had to do with Shiloh Baptist Church, where Revered Willie P. Cook who baptized me there.

    00:04:00 Cornel West

    It had to do with the Black Panther Party that was right next door. Working, there’s my dear sister!  (acknowledges someone in the crowd) It’s so good to see you!

    00:04:05 Cornel West

    It had to do with the Black Panther Party yes indeed, feeding the poor.

    00:04:09 Cornel West

    Tied to the incarcerated.

    00:04:12 Cornel West

    That is a moral it’s a spiritual greatness and a witness, and we all have to say, even in this vicious mood, that this is just a moment in a movement.

    00:04:23 Cornel West

    We got to be faithful unto death. This is not no short term affair. We got to be in solidarity with our Palestinian Brothers and sister (applause) and all other oppressed people (unclear)

    00:04:36 Cornel West

    The generation after generation until total, full liberation.

    00:04:47

    (rest unclear)

    Video and Transcript of Remarks by Prince Aviunce Williams at Al Quds Day Rally (04-05-2024)

    By
    Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25
    -
    0

    Excerpts of remarks by Prince Aviunce Williams, BA ’25, at an April 5, 2024 rally in protest of the ongoing atrocities in Gaza. Some statements may be lacking context, these were not editorial choices but the result of the limited coverage of the event. Any incoherence should be attributed to the Record, not the speaker.

    Williams: …everyday Americans and people around the world to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people because there is no Palestinian Liberation without the liberation of all poor and oppressed people throughout the world

    Kojo Acheampong: come on!

    Williams: so today the Harvard Coalition for Palestine is setting a new course. Creating a strategy, a campaign because we’re seeing momentum we’re anti-zionist Jewish students [Applause] (listing those in the coalition) all of us coming from different areas of life, but all understanding our love for humanity

    Williams: Our respect of people’s right to self-determination, and to never accept genocide, mass murder, dispossession cuz settler colonialism doesn’t start or end in Israel-Palestine, we sit on indigenous land today

    Audience member 1: right!

    Audience member 2: [war cry]

    Williams: we know settler colonial projects all throughout the world, and those same settler colonial projects are supporting the state of Israel and their genocide of the Palestinian people.

    Williams: But we want justice today that’s right and we’re going to build a campaign on this campus that will reverberate around Boston, around the US, and around the world calling for

    a free Palestine from The River To The

    Sea.

    Kojo said “come closer”

    Acheampong: come on move

    closer

    Williams: before I introduce our first speaker…

    Williams: it wasn’t until around 2019, 2020, I saw a lecture from a professor speaking at the University of Oregon uh the lecture was called: “What it Means to be Human,”

    Williams: and it was a part of the lecture where the professor got up in front of the the students at University of Oregon and said “Palestinian lives matter” and it was it was met with thunderous applause and I was confused, I was confused cuz why was that controversial?

    Why, why did that warrant such a a huge applause from an audience of college educated students that a group of people somewhere in the world mattered.

    Why was that the case? Why did that warrant such a reaction? And then I see this same Professor try to get tenure at Harvard University and he’s denied,

    Audience: Shame!!

    Williams: and I see news outlets that actually matter like uh, democracy matters (presumably referring to Democracy Now!”) and Al Jazeera, and these other outlets and they’re saying that this professor was denied because he stands up for the people of Palestine.

    Williams: Because he has sort of an Anti-Imperialist approach to US foreign policy.

    Williams: and I look around I’m like wow!

    Williams: This Professor denied at this University, now that I know what I know now, I know why he was denied tenure.

    Williams: I know why that audience blew up, but if you look at that period where he spoke at University of Oregon, you look at today, the consciousness of people all across this country has a different posture.

    Williams: look at Mark Lamont Hill, Mark Lamont Hill worked at CNN few years ago and he said “from the river to the Sea, Palestine will be free” at the United Nations and he was fired for it

    Audience: Shame!!

    Williams: now you have thousands of people all across this country, across the world from Boston to Beirut, (Applause) screaming, “from the river to the sea!”

    Audience: from The River To The Sea!

    Williams: Palestine will be free

    Audience: Palestine will be free

    Williams: from the River to the Sea

    Audience: from The River To The Sea!

    Williams: Palestine will be free

    Audience: Palestine will be free

    Williams: so without further Ado I’d like to welcome Dr Cornell West y’all…

    Williams: the occupation doesn’t fall with just one organization

    Acheampong: come on

    Williams: the occupation falls through concerted efforts of organizations all across this country and all across the world who have a set strategy, who have campaigns, who endure and persevere

    Williams: and once we start gaining momentum as we are now, we know what comes next

    Acheampong: come on

    Williams: repression all across this campus.

    Audience: Shame!!

    Williams: but I want to hit on a point about that repression, there’s several people in our coalition who are here today who are being targeted

    Williams: targeted because they want an end occupation, they want an end to apartheid.

    Williams: and the people who are attacking them are trying to publicly shame them for pushing for Palestinian liberation, but I want to be clear there is nothing to be ashamed of for fighting for Palestinian Liberation.

    Acheampong: nothing!! come on!!

    Williams: putting our Coalition members on a truck like there’s some pop stars

    Acheampong: come on!! come on!!

    Williams: at least be honest why you putting them on the truck

    Acheampong: ah come on!!

    Williams: you putting them on the truck because they want Liberation

    Acheampong: that’s what it is come on

    Williams: you putting them on the truck because they’re standing up for some oppressed people across the sea

    Williams: you’re putting them on that truck because they’re on the right side of History

    Acheampong: speak on It!! come on!!

    Williams: but to talk about, to talk more about our role as students and divestment I have an afro member to come up here today, Kojo!!

    Williams: don’t you cry

    Audience: Gaza, Gaza don’t you cry!!

    Williams: Palestine will never die!!

    Audience: palestine will never die!!

    Williams: Rafah, Rafah don’t you cry!!

    Audience: Rafah, Rafah don’t you cry!!

    Williams: Palestine will never die!!

    Audience: palestine will never die!!

    Williams: and we will free Palestine

    Audience: we will free Palestine

    Williams: within our lifetime!!

    Audience: within our lifetime!!

    Williams: and we want justice, you say “how?”

    Audience: and we want justice, you say “how?”

    Williams: End the siege of Gaza now

    Audience: End the siege of Gaza

    Williams: and we want justice, you say “how?”

    Audience: and we want justice, you say “how?”

    Williams: End the siege of Gaza now

    Audience: End the siege of Gaza

    Williams: free, free Palestine

    Audience: free, free Palestine

    Williams: free, free, free Palestine

    Audience: free, free, free Palestine

    Williams: free, free Palestine

    Audience: free, free Palestine

    Williams: free, free, free Palestine

    Audience: free, free, free Palestine

    “Labor Law in Real Life”: Clinical Instructors to Vote on Unionization

    By
    Patrick Healy, HLS '26
    -
    0
    Poster advertising the union election in Pound Hall. The poster also lists the hours for valid voting.
    Poster advertising the union election in Pound Hall. (By Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25)

    HLS’s clinical workers will vote on whether to unionize tomorrow, April 3. The election, supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, will be held in Pound 101 between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM and between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Specifically, the ballot will ask HLS’s 96 clinical workers whether they “wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Harvard Academic Workers,” a Harvard-wide affiliate of the UAW. 

    Rebecca Greening, Lecturer on Law and Clinical Instructor at the Legal Service Center’s Family Justice Clinic, and a leader of the unionizing efforts, described the impetus for organizing. “There has been a growing sense in our clinical community that there were no other viable options to address the challenges facing our workers than collective action.” HLS, she said, bars many workers from tenure-track or tenure-like roles who at other law schools would be eligible, lowering their pay and encouraging them to seek opportunities elsewhere. While clinical instructors are able to advance to professorial status within the clinic system, this is restricted by the university’s policy of limiting clinical faculty positions.

    She added that the law school administration has been resistant, compared to other Harvard schools, to unionization efforts. The administration, she continued, delayed nearly a month in pre-filing negotiations until the last minute negotiating with the unionizing organizers for a stipulated election agreement. If a majority of clinical workers vote yes on tomorrow’s ballot, the organizers will form a bargaining committee that will be able to more formally advocate to the administration. 

    As for the merits of organizing, Greening pointed to increasing responsibilities and stagnant pay, without the same administrative assistance as podium faculty, as reasons to organize. The lack of administrative power, she added, is inconsistent with the “increasingly critical role” clinical instructors play in students’ education. HLS’s “opaque decision-making process,” Greening said, undermines input from clinical instructors who also teach students how to be practicing lawyers.

    Other clinical instructors air similar grievances with HLS leadership. John Fitzpatrick ‘87, a supervising attorney and Senior Clinical Instructor at  the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project, said the unionization effort is an overdue response to clinicians’ dissatisfaction with HLS administrative leadership—in his words, up at “Mount Olympus.” A student member of PLAP in his time as a student in 1984 – 87, and as a clinical instructor there since the 1990s, Fitzpatrick said clinicians now “want to be allowed to sit at the HLS grown up table” for decision-making. 

    Fitzpatrick said HLS’s promotion of its 47 clinics and SPOs in its marketing materials reflects how aspiring students—and the legal community—increasingly consider this kind of experiential learning to be equal in importance to the “Langdellian learning”model that the HLS leadership still supports.  The growing recognition of the  importance of  clinical education, he said, runs counter to what he describes as clinicians’ treatment as “second-class citizens” by HLS leadership, compared to podium faculty. For instance, he described requests for clinicians to volunteer as proctors for the podium faculty’s exams last semester as a particularly demeaning task.

    To demonstrate this disparity’s impact on students, Fitzpatrick pointed to how he and a Lecturer on Law faculty member each separately supervised different students working on petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Fitzpatrick’s group received some pro bono credit; the faculty member’s” students got classroom credit for J-Term. The arbitrary difference, merely dependent on  his and the other certiorari petition supervisor’s differing titles, Fitzpatrick noted, “shortchanges our students.”

    While symbolic sleights like encouraging podium faculty, but not clinical instructors to don regalia during graduation alone (and how clinicians annually receive emails from HLS leadership “inviting” them to help out with commencement  logistics) can arouse  resentment, Fitzpatrick continued to tie the clinicians’ campaign to students’ interests. He described how a student wanted to author a paper on prison law but had to be supervised by a podium faculty member with less experience than Fitzpatrick in the area because Fitzpatrick is “only” a Clinical Instructor, not a “Professor”. 

    Generally, Fitzpatrick said clinicians aim to be treated more like podium faculty, and less like second-class underlings. These demands include comparable  tenure protections, sabbatical privileges, supported research and writing, and a direct channel of communication to administrative leadership. Pointing out clinical instructors’ and other clinicians’ (like Clinical Fellows)  expertise in experiential teaching and their demand to be treated more like podium faculty, Fitzpatrick called tomorrow’s election “labor law in real life.”

    Students Protest After New Round of Doxxing Following Divestment Resolution

    By
    Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25
    -
    0
    Five different posters on the wall levying criticism at the administration for failing to protect doxxed students from retaliation or professional harm. Posters were hung in front of the Dean of Students office by protestors.
    Posters hung in front of the Dean of Students office by protestors. (By Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25)

    Students staged a full-day sit-in at the Harvard Law School’s Dean of Students (DoS) office on Monday, starting from 9AM and concluding shortly after 5PM. The attendees camped out in protest of perceived shortcomings of the Harvard administrators in protecting students from doxxing since October. 

    The most recent slew of harassment came this most recent weekend following the passage of an HLS student government (SG) resolution calling on the University to divest from any institutions supporting the alleged ongoing genocide in Gaza. The resolution survived a procedural challenge last Friday, as student representatives approved the process surrounding the SG statement during an open meeting on Zoom. 

    On Saturday, however, it was revealed that a meeting attendee had screenshotted interactions in the chat during the Zoom call and sent them to an account with hundreds of thousands of followers on X (formerly known as Twitter).

    While consideration of the resolution by secret ballot served as grounds for procedural challenge, the concerns of those who supported the course of action are to some extent validated by the transgression. Correspondence between members of the student government and university administrators had also been leaked to the press the morning of the resolution announcement.

    The wrongdoing adds another chapter to the consternation surrounding doxxing on campus began subsequent to the October 7 Hamas attacks, after which Harvard’s Palestine Solidarity Committee published a letter signed by a number of student groups condemning Israel for maintaining an “apartheid regime” and holding them “entirely responsible” for the conflict.

    The letter was instantly the subject of controversy, and multiple external pro-Israel organizations published lists of names and sensitive information of Harvard students affiliated with the groups that signed on— including graduates and current students who did not know their organizations had signed the letter. 

    Students stationed outside HLS Dean of Students office. Faces covered to protect identity of attendees.
    Students stationed outside HLS Dean of Students office. Faces covered to protect identity of attendees. (By Tobi Omotoso, HLS ’25)

    Once student information became widely publicized, a number of different entities engaged in targeted harassment of Harvard personnel, including a truck circling campus with the personal information of Harvard students, a plane flying a “Harvard Hates Jews” banner, and a flurry of largely inaccurate reporting of particular Harvard students. 

    In addition to misinformation and harassment, many students have been targeted professionally by law firms and individual CEOs, many of them Harvard alumni.

    While Harvard administration has taken some action in response to this endangerment of its personnel, namely posting an updated guide on responding to online abuse and creation of a task force on doxxing, the university has come under fire for failing to support those harmed.  In particular, students have criticized the university for failing to take affirmative steps to defend those that have been attacked over the last several months. 

    Aashna Avachat, HLS ‘25, described the Office of Community Engagement, Equity, and Belonging (CEEB) and DoS as reluctant “to protect students who are being harassed by classmates” despite being “created after student organizing and in order to support the student body.” Avachat was one of many students who were doxxed over the weekend, her second time since October.

    The DoS event was not the only expression of mass disapproval directed at HLS administrators on Monday, as students emailed the Office of Career Services (OCS), the Bernard Koteen Office of Public Interest Advising (OPIA), and multiple administrators seeking removal of their names  “from the Who Worked Where spreadsheets and all other internal Harvard career lists” as consequence of the weekend’s doxxing affair.

    OPIA received so many messages that they issued a mass email statement announcing that the “Who Worked Where” spreadsheet was no longer accessible. The message also noted that they had received “a high volume of inquiries” and invited students to reach out if they had further concerns.

    “This is bigger than just a free speech issue” remarked Avachat, describing the doxxing as “a campaign to distract from Palestine and Palestinian freedom.” 

    Harvard Law’s Affinity Group Council has also taken steps to develop a notes bank to support fellow students who may not feel comfortable attending class or coming to campus due to the disclosure of their personal information. They have made this link public for access to the bank and public submission of notes, this form to allow request for any notes not listed in the folder, and are accepting anonymous submissions of notes at bphillips@jd24.law.harvard.edu with the subject line “AGC NOTES BANK SUBMISSION.” They request that the attachments are titled in the format “CourseName_ProfessorName.”

    Student Organizers Put Harvard Endowment “On Notice” to Divest from Israeli Affiliates

    By
    Zachari Curtis, HLS '26
    -
    0

    VIDEO TRANSCRIPT of Lea Kayali, HLS ’24, speaking at a rally of student organizers in Belinda Hall at Harvard Law School on March 29th, 2024. A few dozen law students gathered to celebrate the passage of a nonbinding resolution to urge Harvard Management Corporation to divest from its investments entities affiliated with atrocities in Gaza. The celebration was interrupted by news of a challenge to the resolution which would later be defeated. 

    LEA KAYALI: Today, an absolute majority of student government representatives of Harvard Law School took bold and necessary action to urge Harvard to divest from genocide!

    AUDIENCE: [Applause]

    LEA KAYALI: Our Student Government acted as our representatives because it is their responsibility to embody the values of the student body and we want divestment. This is a historic win because we all have a responsibility to use whatever levers of power we have to do something about the ongoing genocide.

    AUDIENCE MEMBER: That’s right. That’s right

    LEA KAYALI: and while we’re here to celebrate today, I want to pause for a moment on that last word “genocide”. Seven letters I have said so many times in the last six months feel it’s almost void of meaning. But it is not. What is happening in Gaza to my people is annihilation, evaporation, elimination. Israel’s war on Palestinian life has dropped the floor of human decency out from under us.

    Zionists have broadcast the outer bounds of conceivable cruelty on the backs of my people and every day for the last 175 days has upended my sense of reality. These Horrors should shock our conscience and jolt us into action because we cannot let genocide become routine. And what our student government did today was send the message that no one is immune from the moral imperative to stop a genocide that our government, our businesses, and our academic institutions like Harvard are complicit in.


    AUDIENCE MEMBER: That’s right!

    LEA KAYALI: This divestment bill is a critical if insufficient first step towards meeting the urgency of this moment. Divestment is critical not because we expect better from Harvard but precisely because we see Harvard for what it is–the assembly line of the status quo. Harvard is the breeding ground for profiteers of Global oppression.

    AUDIENCE MEMBERS: [ mhm ]


    LEA KAYALI: There are professors at this law school who have engineered the lawfare being wrought upon Palestinian bodies.


    AUDIENCE: [Shame! Shame!]

    LEA KAYALI: Donors to this institution are responsible for the attacks on our movement and our students.

    AUDIENCE: [Shame!]

    LEA KAYALI: The Harvard Management Corporation itself is nothing more than a glorified hedge fund, right it is a calcification of capitalism in its most unabashed form. The Harvard Management Corporation would like us to think that this place is nothing more than the money that runs it, but today we prove that that is not the case.

    [VIDEO CUTS OUT]

    at Harvard have the power and we will use it to pull this institution away from a death machine.
    This is our space and our community and this institution should answer to us

    AUDIENCE MEMBER: That’s right!

    LEA KAYALI: we can’t expect Harvard to step away from its blood lust on its own accord because war is profitable to the power holders of this University will only come to the right side of history kicking and screaming, by sheer force of our will!

    AUDIENCE: [APPLAUSE]

    LEA KAYALI: Alan Barber! John Manning! John Goldberg! You are on notice!

    AUDIENCE: [APPLAUSE]

    LEA KAYALI: We students are dissenting we condemn your complicity and we are calling on them to immediately divest from genocide!
    AUDIENCE: [APPLAUSE]

    LEA KAYALI: Students are speaking and these so-called leaders of this institution would be best served to listen to what we have to say, because one day, when we win and Palestine is free, they will come crawling back. They will be begging us to rewrite history. The ilk of the ego’d men in power at Harvard will try to use us as props as they have always done. With every student movement, that progresses our community and our society. But this time, it will be too late because there is no room on the mantle of Liberation for the cowards who did not have the courage to take action when it was needed.

    This is our story and we are co-authoring it with the resisting people of Palestine. Our student movement, our demand for divestment, is one thread in the ties of resistance of oppressed people all around the world. Those threads of resistance bind us to the right side of history and when we fight…We win!

    LEA KAYALI: When we fight…

    AUDIENCE: We win!

    LEA KAYALI: When we fight…
    AUDIENCE: We win!

    LEA KAYALI: When we fight…
    AUDIENCE: We win!

    LEA KAYALI: Free Palestine!

    Harvard Law Divestment Resolution Withstands Procedural Challenge

    By
    Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25, Deepika Singh, HLS '24, and Yasna Haghdoost, HLS '26
    -
    0
    Posters from celebration of the resolution's passage in Belinda Hall, just before the meeting regarding the procedural challenge. (Anonymous, 2024)
    Posters from celebration of the resolution's passage in Belinda Hall, just before the meeting regarding the procedural challenge. (Anonymous, 2024)

    A resolution calling for Harvard’s divestment from Israel by the law school’s Student Council survived a procedural attack leveled against it hours after its initial passage in a 12-4 vote. 

    The council held an emergency meeting at 1:30 p.m., Friday to discuss whether proper procedure had been followed when it passed the new resolution, which called on Harvard to “divest completely” from entities associated with Israel’s alleged genocide against Palestinians. If procedural violations had been found, the resolution would have been void.

    Opponents leveled two particular criticisms:

    1) Opponents claimed the vote was not sufficiently publicized to meet the tenets of an open meeting, and votes cannot occur in closed meetings (Per Student Government (SG) Constitution Article I, Section 9.b)

    2) Opponents claimed the bylaws were suspended without unanimous consent in order to vote secretly via Google form, thus invalidating the vote. (suspension requires unanimity per SG bylaws Section 7.3)

    Students were given the opportunity to speak for a minute each during the hourlong open forum, presided over by co-presidents Tolu Alegbeleye, HLS ‘24, and Swap Agrawal, HLS ‘24.

    One 1L critic of the process for passing the resolution claimed the vote was an illegitimate action within a closed meeting because using an anonymous Google form doesn’t allow for publishing the votes.

    Some members of the Harvard Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA) said they did not receive a response when they asked for meeting links or minutes of the meeting once it had passed. One opponent of the resolution, JLSA co-president Erica Newman-Corre, HLS ‘24, said after requesting information about the vote via email during the week from voting and non-voting members, only two representatives responded. 

    Another 1L critic claimed the quorum for the SG to conduct business per their bylaws was not met.

    Council member Vinny Byju, HLS ‘25, repeatedly refuted these claims, saying the process cohered with the SG Constitution and bylaws.

    Byju said the vote at the initial meeting on the process for approving the resolution was addressed via amendment, not suspension, meaning that a two-thirds vote sufficed, per the constitution (SG Constitution, Article VI, Section 5; SG Bylaws Chapter 7, section 5).  Second, Byju argued that quorum is defined with respect to members of a body meeting, and not applicable to any sort of voting process.

    During this time, many students sympathetic to Palestine claimed the attacks on procedure to pass the resolution were mere pretext.  They said opponents to the resolution were arguing in bad faith because they disagreed with the substance of the resolution, not the procedure by which it was passed. 

    Some supporters of the resolution, for example, contended that the vote was widely known about and that they did not perceive the vote as closed for that reason. Others, including co-president Swap Agrawal, HLS ‘24, remarked that the interpretation put forth by opponents of the resolution procedure would establish rules that would invalidate much of how the body has functioned without issue for multiple years (Google forms were widely used to conduct SG business during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic). 

    Others expressed frustration with the perceived hostility of the conversation and the broader divisiveness within the student body. To this, some students responded that such unity is not possible in light of the doxxing that has been occurring to predominantly Black and Brown students for the past six months.

    Cake from celebration of the resolution's passage in Belinda Hall, just before the meeting regarding the procedural challenge. (Anonymous, 2024)
    Cake from celebration of the resolution’s passage in Belinda Hall, just before the meeting regarding the procedural challenge. (Anonymous, 2024)

    The forum concluded with a vote by elected representatives on the validity of the procedure to pass Resolution No. R.-207-001. Confusion ensued on whether two members of Student Government could still vote despite their resignation earlier Friday. Regina De Nigris and Cameron Adkins, both 1L representatives, had stepped down because they “strongly disagreed with the resolution being considered by the Student Government.” 

    De Nigris contended that their resignation was contingent on the resolution being passed, and therefore they should still be allowed to vote on the fairness of the procedural process.  Co-Presidents Alegbeleye and Agrawal ultimately allowed their votes to be counted.

    The emergency meeting concluded with nine out of fourteen elected Student Government representatives affirming that the procedure to adopt Resolution No. R.-207-001 had been properly followed. 

    Though the full ramifications of the resolution have yet to be seen, campus pro-Palestinian groups are marking today as a victory.  

    “Where was your resolution condemning the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust?” The question was posed in an Instagram post by the Harvard Alliance for Israel, which described the resolution as “morally wrong, antisemitic, and counter to the student government’s stated mission.”

    “We thank our student government for representing the will of the student body,” the law school’s student organization for anti-Zionist Jews, HLS Tzedek, wrote in an Instagram post following the vote. “We condemn Harvard’s complicity in the ongoing violence, and hope the school honors the resolution swiftly.”

    123...300Page 1 of 300
    5,125FansLike
    © Harvard Law Record