Home Blog Page 2

Harvard Law Student Government Calls for Divestment from Institutions Complicit in Gaza Atrocities

Harvard Law School
Harvard Law School (Tobi Omotoso, 2024)

Friday morning, Harvard Law School’s Student Council passed R.-207-001, 12-4 with three abstentions. The resolution encourages the Harvard Management Company, the entity responsible for managing the university’s endowment and related financial assets, to “divest completely from weapons manufacturers, firms, academic programs, corporations, and all other institutions” supporting the alleged ongoing genocide against Palestinians.   

This is another chapter of action on Harvard campus related to the crisis in Gaza, in which Israel continues its retaliatory campaign following Hamas’ October 7th attacks. Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 70,000 injured in the past 174 days. 

The Israeli military has been accused of numerous human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, manufacturing a famine, and firing on civilians seeking humanitarian aid. Israeli soldiers have also reportedly recorded themselves mocking Palestinians and destroying property in Gaza in social media posts.

R.-207-001 cited several past actions by the university, such as “selective divestment” from apartheid South Africa in 1986 and its issuance of an Anti-Genocide Policy regarding investment. The document also mentions various universities with student governments that have passed similar resolutions, including Columbia University, University of Michigan, Pomona College, and University of Virginia.

Posters and cake at celebration of R.-207-001
Posters and cake at celebration of R.-207-001. (Zachari Curtis, 2024)

The statement is expected to be met with controversy, in light of the previous doxing and inaccurate media coverage of Harvard students associated with anti-Israel statements. Earlier in the week, the Council amended its bylaws to allow the vote to continue in secret to avoid targeting or harassment of voters.

Harvard Jewish Law Students Association released a statement denouncing the resolution as divisive and antisemitic. “We denounce a resolution singling out the only Jewish state – this student government does not represent us nor many of the hundreds we represent.”

A joint statement by various pro-Palestine campus groups, including Law Students for a Free Palestine and Harvard Graduate Students 4 Palestine, celebrated the resolution. Addressing the Harvard Management Company directly, they called on the institution to “honor our demand” to divest from institutions associated with the Israeli military.

Earlier this week, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire to the conflict over the course of Ramadan (which concludes on the evening of April 9). In the following three days, however, the major military operations in the region have continued, further obstructing the flow of aid into Gaza.

2024 You Are Not Alone Testimonials

Below is a compilation of testimonials from various public-interest oriented students who did not participate in the Harvard Law School Early Interview Program (EIP). EIP is described by the HLS website as “Harvard’s signature law firm recruiting event, where more than 700 law firm offices from across the country (and some international) seek to hire HLS students. “EIP” includes EIP Preview and EIP Week.It largely involves large-scale, lucrative firms which primarily represent corporate clients.

(March 29, 2024)Editor’s Note: A previous version of this piece made included a claim about the funding practices of OCS that was not properly verified. We apologize for the inconvenience/mischaracterization.

Having a full summer to relax, do my wonderful PI internship in DC, and recover from 1L was absolutely priceless. Also, did you know BigLaw firms pay OCS based on how many interviews students do?

-Samara Trilling, JD ‘25

“I came to law school to do public interest work and I am privileged enough so that I can pursue that without having to do EIP.”

-Owen Averbuch, JD ‘25

“I chose not to do EIP after speaking to attorneys in BigLaw to learn about their work. It sounded awful – I could not imagine spending day after day making motions to dismiss civil rights and tort claims, facilitating fossil fuel extraction, covering for corporate misconduct, and helping companies grow larger so they can impose higher prices while providing worse products. I feel so fortunate that I’ll be doing work that aligns with my values following graduation.”

-Swap Agrawal, JD ‘24

“Not doing EIP is a great choice! We should all feel empowered to choose jobs we love that will (even in small ways) make the world a more just and equal place. PSLF makes this a real option financially.”

-Joelle Boxer, JD ‘24 

“Corporations that do terrible things hire Big Law firms to evade consequences. I want no part of that.

-John Fry, JD ‘25

“I simply wouldn’t be in law school (and taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans) if not for my hope to use a law degree to represent vulnerable people and affect positive change in the world. Doing EIP/pursuing a career in big law would run counter to that goal.”

-Sarah Berton, JD ‘25

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

EIP funnels students into an industry that defends and upholds corporate greed.

-Anne DeLong, JD ‘24

“I believe that the work Big Law firms do is immoral.”

-Vinny Byju, JD ‘25

“I had to keep remembering my why for law school and not get caught up in the wave of what everyone was doing. I came to law school for criminal, racial, social, and poverty justice, not to make tons of money. Those were my guiding principles and eip didn’t fit into that.”

-Alexia Roberts, JD ‘25″

“I came to law school to try and do my part to advance justice. I don’t want to be shunted down the path of least resistance, I want to hold fast to that commitment and pursue a career in public interest.”

-Holden Hopkins, JD ‘25

“LIPP rocks! Student activism paved our way <3”

-Luisa Graden, JD ‘26

To do meaningful work that I am passionate about!

-Katrina Weinert, JD ‘26

It may be cliche, but I am always reminded of a line from a Mary Oliver poem – “What will you do with your one wild and precious life?” I am unwilling to use my wild and precious life to entrench the economic and political systems that have so profoundly harmed my family, my communities, and the world I live in. In short, I am not willing to spend any amount of my finite time making rich people richer.

-Luna Floyd, JD ‘24

I came to law school knowing that I wanted to do public interest work. Despite pressure from some to participate in EIP, I knew that the best way for me to gain relevant experience and engage in my chosen career path was to spend as much time as I can working for public interest organizations, both during and after law school. It’s a decision I have never regretted.

-Jacqueline Landry, JD ‘24

“I came to law school to directly advocate for people going through a difficult and traumatic time in their lives. While I’ll be earning less than my classmates, people still get by, start families, and have happy lives on an attorney’s salary, and with less than that too.”

-Alis Yoo, JD ‘25

“The professional ideal constantly told to us is that a lawyer is a crusader for justice, yet it often seems like the field pushes us all away from that. You are not alone in that sensation and pushing against it is worth it.

-Oluwatobi Omotoso, JD ‘25

Big Law and the clients that they profit off of are on the wrong side of history. Harvard makes it seem like it is the only option: it is not. I don’t know shit about the firm hiring process, and I never considered EIP or Big Law because I believe it is unethical. I’m employed, fulfilled, and will be making a very reasonable salary. You have options.

-Lea Kayali, JD ‘24

I knew I wanted to work against mass eviction and mass incarceration, not help achieve those grave injustices as a corporate attorney!

-Matthew Rock, JD ‘24 

I’ve chosen to serve my country in the United States Coast Guard as an attorney in the Coast Guard’s JAG Corps.

-Austin Fullmer, JD ‘24

I’m excited for a career in public service and am grateful to have found a community of like-minded students at HLS.

-Dee Um, JD ‘24

I feel as if there was so much pressure and expectations placed on us as 1Ls to follow the same “path to success.” I remember having a disenchanting experience with OCS when I expressed my desire to work in a smaller market. I got really lucky and had a great experience with the firm I worked for 1L summer, and felt no compelling reason to go through the stress of EIP when I knew where I wanted to be.

-Alleah Thornhill, JD ‘25

“My labor is my time. My time is priceless. Big law can’t afford me.”

-Anonymous

“I’d rather not contribute to the climate catastrophe, opioid epidemic, white collar crime. etc etc etc

-Anonymous

“EIP does not help me in any way in my chosen career, and I reject the HLS narrative that a firm job is always a step on the legal pathway to success. I care too much about public interest work to spend my time at a big firm.”

  • Anonymous

“I came to law school believing I could make a difference. Uncertainty and loans shouldn’t change that.”

-Anonymous 

“I came to law school because I was passionate about workers rights and the ways law could be used to create a more just economy . By opting out of EIP, I am staying true to myself and my goal of advancing people’s interests rather than corporate profits.”

-Anonymous 

“Even though I’ve had to make large financial contributions to support my family in the last few years (and expect to continue doing so after graduation), I’ve committed to finding other ways of meeting my family’s needs—ways that don’t involve perpetuating systems of harm and power.”

-Anonymous

“I wanted something different for myself”

-Anonymous 

“I want to use my degree to advocate for my community and know I can best do that through public interest.”

-Anonymous

“Client work brings me so much joy!”

-Anonymous

“I came to law school to work for my community, not for corporations”

-Anonymous 

“I didn’t know where I was going to be working for 2L summer until January. This summer internship won’t be giving me a job offer. I have no idea where I’ll be after graduation and that gives me space to keep exploring how I can best use my legal education in my community. Success, for me, is being able to look myself in the eye at the end of the day and know I didn’t make the world worse.”

-Anonymous 

“Law school, to me, should be about pursuing justice. Spending all my waking hours helping rich companies hoard their wealth seems, to me, antithetical to that goal.”

-Anonymous

Interview with Patrick Healy, Candidate for HLS Director of Student Organizations

Patrick Healy, HLS '26, candidate for Director of Student Organizations
Patrick Healy, HLS '26, candidate for Director of Student Organizations

Interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.  Any grammatical errors should be attributed to The Record editors and not to the candidates.

Why do you want this position?

Healy: I want this position because I think it’s the best way for me personally to serve student organizations in this campus. I think as a 1L I’ve been lucky to go to a lot of events put on by student organizations. Lunch talks, evening events, and even on weekends like Apple picking and things like that. It’s kind of like why I want to become a lawyer. I felt that becoming a lawyer was the best way for me to make change in the world and serve my community given my skills and my interest. And it’s the same with the DSO position; this position requires someone who is very efficient, understanding of a lot of organizations, and is an active participant with the student organizations. I don’t think there’s any way to be a good DSO without going to their events and enjoying them. I think it would be really hard to have motivation to the logistical work of a DSO without going to the events as a student.

What qualifies you for this role? Do you have any experience with roles like this?

Healy: Yeah, I think there’s two things that specifically I’ll talk about that qualifies me as I kind of mentioned before, there’s someone who has to be someone who’s very efficient and for me that that means being on top of things, being proactive. I know as a student organization leader, one of the most frustrating things is when an entity has money or it has something that you need, they’re willing to give it to you, and they just don’t get back to you in time for an event to go on.

In addition to efficiency, it’s someone who has empathy to understand what it’s like to be a club leader and knows the value that clubs bring to this campus.

You asked about qualifications, and in college I led 3 clubs and so of course I’m very familiar with working with fellow students or clubs and advocating on their behalf to student government at my college and to the college offices.

What do you see this role as?

Healy: I think this role is really interesting because it’s one of only three student body wide elected positions. And so with the campus of you know a few thousand students, I think this role has to be very responsive to students. It takes on a lot in terms how many different clubs, organizations, and affinity groups that a DSO has to be aware of.

Additionally, as DSO you kind of have two constituencies. You have both the student body who elects you, but then also you don’t work directly with students, instead you work with students organization leaders. So I think you’ll be able to balance that kind of those two constituencies of clubs and also keeping every club and every student in mind as well.

What is your leadership style?

Healy: I think this is a difficult question to depend on because there’s obviously a lot of different things that a leader needs. I’m a sucker for alliteration, so I’ll say I think there are two things that I bring to the table: persistence and patience.

For me as DSO and for any club leader, you’re elected for a year, which isn’t that long in the grand scale of life, for sure. But as a club leader, I know it can definitely feel much longer, definitely at the start of a term. So I think I bring the persistence in that I keep at it, no matter the frustrations of a role.

In terms of patience, things can get tough and tense among other student leaders and student orgs. For example, if funding isn’t great or there’s frustrations with miscommunication.

I guess for me as a leader, what a leader should be as someone who is consistent and they bring that same level of energy no matter what. If the group is really excited about something, it’s making sure that that excitement turns into action and specific results for the club. But at the same time, if people are tired, it’s also someone who brings up the energy. It’s someone who can, you know, bring up the energy and make sure people are continuing to put on events even if people are feeling tired. 

How should student orgs be allowed to exercise free speech? And where ?

Healy: This is a question that the student body has been grappling with the past year and I’ve only been here a year, but it sounds like the past decade and really decades right now on college campuses. But the way I feel that, free speech is a founding principle of our country, but like if free speech isn’t allowed and especially encouraged at university, then where else would it be encouraged?

 There’s other institutions in our lives like the government and the workplace where free speech might be legal, but there’s definitely a lot of disincentives against it. Whereas a university should be the place for dissent and should be the place for new ideas to emerge and if you look at the history of our country, that’s how it’s happened. A lot of times, new ideas have begun at universities, even if they’re outside the mainstream and it’s begun with young people.

So I think it’s hard to make a general rule for free speech, I mean, the Supreme Court has grappled with that for centuries and that it can’t doesn’t have a perfect rule for that. But I think for me, especially at a university, free speech should be presumptively allowed and there should be a really good reason to not allow it. Basically, I think the causal connection between my speech and how it affects someone else’s should have to be really tight before my speech is curtailed.

Does the presence of HUPD officers make student org events safer? How do you propose making student org events safe? 

Healy: That also relates to a national conversation we’ve been having, at least the past four years, and certainly much, much longer than that. I know the HUPD team, I know some of the officers from Securitas, and they’re nice people. But I know that certainly as the national conversation has revealed, [police being] nice people alone doesn’t mean that police are necessary in a certain place. It’s a hard question to answer. I think there’s certainly no bright line rule for how many police officers should be at a place. Maybe campus leadership should be more responsive to that going forward and really seeking out student feedback for what they need because ultimately the police are here to protect us. Of course it’s important for the buildings themselves to be secure, but I mean, the whole point of the university is really its students. And so I think our feedback should be taken into account more going forward to see what level is appropriate.

How do you envision the relationship with the Dean of Students (DoS) and student orgs? 

Healy: I think it’s really easy to say, like of course you know, they should play a role. It’s also easy to say, like students should have complete freedom over money because you know, as I just articulated, we’re the whole point that the college exists. I’m very pro-students having power and authority, especially because if we can’t be trusted with, you know, thousands of dollars…well, some of us and many of us are going to have positions of influence. Lawyers alone, no matter the title. have a lot of discretion over people’s lives. So I think we should be trusted with called budgets as a way to, you know, practice having that authority because we’re going to have that going forward. You know, we’re young people will become the leaders of our, you know, in our society going forward.

One thing that the DOS for sure brings to the table is institutional memory and kind of a security check in terms of budgets. By institutional memory, I mean the vast majority of students are only here for three years. So DOS, their employees, their office has been around much longer than any one of us students, and that’s something they can bring to the table, by kind of remembering what clubs were around at a certain point, what they were like. That’s really important.

And also I think [DOS] can play a role in just ensuring that club money is spent wisely within; I think students should be given great bounds of discretion, but also the point of organizations is its members. We want to make sure that student leaders don’t just blow money. So I think having DOS can make sure certain orgs are not wild with expenditures.

Do you think student orgs should be able to use Belinda Hall for events ? 

Healy: I think I want to find a way. This relates to the free speech question for sure. I understand students who, unlike me, live off campus and want a space in between classes to stay. They might say it’s not fair to kind of use it for events, or that there’s other spaces for that.

I also understand that Belinda Hall is an important space for events. And I think, you know if other students want quiet spaces, you know there are other quiet spaces on campus. Like, really quiet, like, Langdell is oppressively quiet in my opinion. Like I said before, it should be (not to use this word again, I’m stuck on 1L brief wording), presumptively allowed to be used for a lot of different purposes.

Because I think university life, there’s plenty of other places in our life where it’s very clean and we have to follow the rules in terms of being fired or put in jail. Like there’s many areas in our life that are like that, and I think university is one place where we can be a little more free. Like I said, university life can be a little messy and I think it’s important to err on the side of allowing events. Again, it’s hard to have a bright line rule, but I think in general, it should be allowed.

I want to find a way to accommodate both students who want to use it to hang out and also organizations and groups of students who want to use it to make change on this campus.

To what degree, in your opinion, should the Office of Community Engagement, Equity, and Belonging (CEEB) be involved in the finances of student organizations on campus? How does the philosophical independence of student organizations factor into your analysis?

Healy: Yeah, I think this is related to what I said about DOS. It’s just hard for any organizations to work together with students or CEEB. So like I said before, I think students should be given a lot of leeway with student organizations, especially because there are other students, like for example, my position, who are there to help out and make sure that you know there’s no mistakes made with money and things like that. So CEEB can be kind of another layer of protection, but that can’t be turned into another layer of bureaucracy that prevents events, especially if they use that discretion and that authority in a biased way or in a way that isn’t supporting what students want. If they use it to color what student organizations do, that would definitely be problematic. 

What, if anything, do you think needs improvement about student organizations?

Healy: It’s hard to say one answer for all student organizations. I think in my position specifically, something I’m really excited about is that I’ll be in a position to work with a bunch of different student organizations. And I think one thing that’s unique about my role is that I’ll be one of the only roles on campus that’s working with all of them. And so If I’m elected, I’ll get to work with all of them and see what works best to solve common problems. I’m not saying, of course, that  everything about one organization applies to another. Of course not. I just don’t want each organization to be solving the same problem over and over, I want to help them learn from each other. And when there’s an easy solution that’s been found by another organization, I think I can help brainstorm and coordinate solving common problems between campus organizations.

What is your biggest concern, if any, about this role?

Healy: I’ve alluded to this, but it’s definitely the fact that there’s just so many student organizations. It’s great that we have so many student organizations. I think my biggest concern is that it’s one position and so it’s a lot of ground to cover. I’ll certainly lean on my fellow members of student government if I’m elected and I have a great relationship with the current people who are running for positions, but nevertheless the buck stops with me in terms of work with student organizations and student government. So my biggest concern is definitely just managing every organization while working with student government, CEEB, and even DOS. It’ll just be a lot of work and I think I’m prepared for that, but nevertheless that’s a concern for anyone taking on this position.

What do you think is the purpose of student organizations, broadly speaking?

Healy: I think organizations are very valuable and I’ve always been a big proponent of joining local organizations like back home in my community, I joined town commissions and committees. As I mentioned, I was a member of many clubs and I helped lead clubs in undergrad.

I think external organizations, where maybe it’s a church or like a political organization that you join and everyone there have been lifelong members and you kind of need to make more of an effort to kind of join their community, clearly you kind of have to agree with them to join. I think here, what makes student organizations special, I think it’s a lot easier to experiment and try different things; there’s no judgment if you go to an ideological organization’s event that you don’t necessarily agree with. You might go to their lunch talk and there’s no stigma (I certainly believe there’s no stigma), or you might try out a different interest that you’ve never heard of.

For example I joined the intellectual property club at the start and I realized I had an interest in it. I was able to try that out without having to make a big effort because they put on a lunch talk so that I could go talk to people interested in it. So, it’s a way to kind of experiment with different interests and be in community with people who also share that interest, but who are also just trying it on. We’re all pretty young and so it’s a way to get to know other people who are also in that stage of our life. We’re not fully committed to any one pursuit or interest or even political philosophy, but we’re trying things on in a safe way with much less stigma than there in the external world. I think that’s what makes student organizations special. The way we can try different things with fellow students and be on the same journey together.

Interview with Alex Friedman, Candidate for Director of Student Organizations

Alex Friedman, HLS '26, candidate for Director of Student Organizations
Alex Friedman, HLS '26, candidate for Director of Student Organizations

Interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.  Any grammatical errors should be attributed to The Record editors and not to the candidates.

Why do you want this position?

Friedman: Let me let you in on a little secret, I’m not a great law student. In fact, why am I sitting here answering your questions when I should be working on my brief tomorrow? Because the most enriching part of my experience has not been my property class or my civil procedure class, no matter how entertaining Glenn Cohen is. But the students I’ve met and the events I’ve attended. Trust me, in 10 years, you will not remember all the elements of adverse possession, but you will remember the students you met, a speaker who had an impact on you, when you were a part of a student organization that gave you a sense of community. So I wanna support that aspect of the school experience and make it easier for student orgs to carry out that mission.

What qualifies you for this role? Do you have any experience with roles like this?

Friedman:  In law school, I am treasurer for the Harvard Law Alliance for Israel, a 1L representative for the Jewish Law Students Association, Harvard Democrats; I am also an editor for Harvard Journal on Legislation and the Harvard National Security Law Journal. 

My role as treasurer for a student organization has really given me a front row seat to the intricacies of CEEB financial rules and how student organizations operate. 

Outside the law school, my most relevant experience to the role of Director of student organizations, was my work in my hometown of Baltimore (which is the greatest city in America, and I invite all Harvard Law School  to come and visit) where I served this campaign manager for a successful Baltimore City Council candidate. I managed a large operation of dozens of volunteers, and strategized how to best utilize our campaign finances. I think most importantly the role involved, connecting working people of all backgrounds and beliefs across the council district, which is something I hope to do as Director of student organizations as well.

What do you see this role as?

Friedman: I’m gonna give you an answer that I don’t think any candidate for office should ever give: 

I do not see this role as anything or have any specific priorities for student organizations on campus. That’s not my job, and any candidate who tells you otherwise is not being truthful. At the end of the day, the powers of student government are limited and most of the major decisions are made by CEEB. If student government really did play a major role on campus, would every single position except for one be non-competitive? However, the Director of Student Organizations does have two real powers, to manage and appoint students to the student funding board and to vote on the approval of clubs. In exercising those roles, I will not seek to impose my own priorities as I rightfully shouldn’t, but rather seek to enable student organizations to carry out their priorities most easily and effectively.

What is your leadership style?

Friedman: I am as transparent as it comes, and I never hide the ball. Given that, in everything I do as Director of Student Organizations, I will seek to do it collaboratively and transparently. Historically, the decisions behind funding and approval for student organizations have been made behind closed doors. I don’t think anyone knows how much money the student funding board has to give, how they are allocating the funds,  whether it’s in an equitable way, or what’s even the criteria or system they use for deciding these questions.

I’m pretty sure the student funding board met this past week, but did they invite the student body to observe them or give testimony? These funds come from our tuition dollars, and we have a right to know how they are being used. If elected, I will work to have a transparent and open process, giving every student a seat at the table.

How should student orgs be allowed to exercise free speech? And where? 

Friedman: I think student organizations should and have been able to exercise free speech in a number of ways, including hosting events, holding protests, making public statements, and utilizing social media, but in all of these activities they cannot interfere with students’ enjoyment and use of the educational resources and activities that we all pay to receive.

I have looked through the Record’s previous candidate questionnaires and I haven’t seen this question asked before, so let’s address the elephant in the room. This question is of course a response to the deep divisions and pain that has shook our community since October 7th and its aftermath. I want everyone reading this article to stop what you are doing, go to the Harvard Law School events calendar, and search for Israel and then Palestine in the search box. What you will see is at least two dozen events over this past year organized by students from each side of the issue, events that could not be more opposing in their views on the conflict. That is what free speech looks like and a demonstration of how and where free speech can thrive on this campus!

Editor’s Note: Typing “Israel” into the HLS events calendar yields 51 results; the database lists 27 hosted by explicitly pro-Israel organizations since the beginning of 2023. There were 7 of such events in the fall semester of 2023 (all following October 7th) and 7 in the 2024 Spring semester as of March 24, 2024.  11 events by pro-Israel organizations are listed in the Spring semester of 2023. 

Typing “Palestine” in the HLS events calendar yields 29 results; the database lists 15 events hosted by explicitly pro-Palestinian organizations since the beginning of 2023. There were 5 of such events in the 2023 fall semester (0 after October 7th) and 7 in the 2024 spring semester as of March 24, 2024.  3 events by pro-Palestinian organizations are listed in the Spring semester of 2023.

Does the presence of HUPD officers make student org events safer? How do you propose making student org events safe? 

Friedman: First, I think the second part of your question has a false premise. I believe the vast majority of students on campus would agree that events at HLS are already safe. If they were not, do you think there would be an average of around a dozen events on this campus every day? Regarding your first question, I think that’s up to every student organization to determine for themselves and what best fits their needs. If there is a controversial speaker coming to campus, I could understand why a student organization would want security there, yet I can also understand why a student organization may feel that having security may exacerbate the tensions. Again, it’s a judgment call given each scenario, and as Director of Student Organizations, I would be happy to talk it through with any student leader when these cases arise.

How do you envision the relationship with Dean of Students (DoS) and student orgs? 

Friedman: I am a little confused with your question since most activities surrounding student organizations are dealt with by CEEB. Of course, DOS often assists CEEB in carrying out their role, and I do not see any particular problem with that. However, where I do see a good role for DOS in dealing with student organizations is through the mental health initiatives that DOS spearheads. For many students, the communities and people that they most connect to on campus are through student organizations, especially affinity groups. When a student is going through a rough time or is seeking support, student organization can play a crucial role in providing students with the mental health resources offered by DOS, and that relationship on this issue would be something I would be passionate in advocating for.

Do you think student orgs should be able to use Belinda Hall for events? 

Friedman: I do not. As demonstrated by what I previously mentioned on the Harvard Law Events Calendar, there is no shortage of spaces on campus to reserve for events. A good number of students utilize Belinda Hall, day and night, as a study space and as a place to meet with a small group of friends. Unlike reserving classrooms or other bookable places on campus, Belinda Hall is a communal area, and thus utilizing it for events interrupts the enjoyment of the space by students who are not connected to the event at all. Indeed, by allowing the space to be used for events, we are taking away the rights and benefits of some members of our community in order to give it to others. As someone who believes in an inclusive and equitable school, I cannot stand for that.

To what degree, in your opinion, should Office of Community Engagement, Equity, and Belonging (CEEB) be involved in the finances of student organizations on campus? How does the philosophical independence of student organizations factor into your analysis?

Friedman: I think student organizations should have great freedom in how and for what they decide to utilize their finances for, since they themselves know best how to achieve the mission of their organizations. Given the philosophical independence that you mention, I do not think CEEB should be micromanaging student organizations, and in all practicality, I do not think they can. We have close to 100 student organizations on campus (I promise to know and attempt to meet each one during my term if elected), so even if CEEB wanted to, there is only so much they can do. However, ultimately, it is vital that CEEB has the tools necessary to control and oversee the disbursements of funds, because if student organizations do not adhere to proper procedures of financial management, then the school can run into issues with IRS regulations, negatively affecting all organization on campus (I have not taken any tax classes yet, so I won’t even try to get into the details).

What, if anything, do you think needs improvement about student organizations?

Friedman: Running a student organization at HLS can be tough, especially considering the endless pages of regulations on the CEEB website. I’m the treasurer of a student organization, I should know. As I mentioned in my last answer, some of those regulations are necessary and something that student organizations have no choice but dealing with, but I also believe there is much unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that the administration forces student organization to go through, especially involving the running of events and creation of swag. If elected, I will work with student organizations and the administration to find ways to cut through the red tape and make the lives of student organization leaders just a little easier.

What is your biggest concern, if any, about this role?

Friedman: I’m going to be honest, maybe more honest than I should be, but it’s the absolute truth, and I wouldn’t give you anything less. I’m most concerned with working with co-presidents who do not seek to represent all students at HLS, including myself. In their candidate statement, one of the incoming co-presidents claimed to “advocate for a community where every voice is heard, and every student feels safe and valued” yet the other co-president wrote that “I’ve seen the power of student leadership,” and continued, “Students have bravely spoken out against the genocide in Palestine. That work is still ongoing.” As a student that is involved in pro-Israel work on campus, how does that make me feel. That only one side of political advocacy on this issue is brave and should be included in the voices on campus, but others should not. Because this implies that the new student government will only be supportive of certain views on campus, but not others. Let me be clear: I support the rights of every student group to politically organize, no matter how much I disagree with them. But let’s not kid ourselves. We all have biases, I certainly do. So how am I going to overcome my biases, especially in relation to the most important role of the Director of Student Organizations, which is the funding of clubs? Well, I plan to work with the student body to create a formula based on a set of criteria, in which funding will be allocated based on several pre-set factors, including membership, events held, fundraising, etc., taking myself out of the equation. This way, I won’t just be claiming to value every student on campus, I will actually mean it.

What do you think is the purpose of student organizations, broadly speaking?


Friedman: I think above all, student organizations provide people with a sense of community, especially in a school with 2000 students. I know for me personally over the difficult past few months, the Jewish Law Students Association provided me a space to connect with and lean on people who understood what I was going through. Yet, student organizations are not just places to take sanctuary with people of your own beliefs, but also to connect with students of different backgrounds. This can take place in finding common student organization of common interests or different student organizations working together. In fact, my favorite event this year was the interfaith dinner held a few weeks ago, in which students from all faith backgrounds broke bread in hopes of finding how we are more alike, rather than different. That’s what makes student organizations great and that’s what makes Harvard Law School great.

Harshit Patel Faction Takes Victory in Friday’s Futsal Bout

The Harshit Patel Faction, from top, left to right: Harshit Patel, HLS '25; Cosimo Fabrizio, HLS '25; Femi Akindumila, HLS '25; Pedro Morais y Silva, HLS '25; Hussain Awan, HLS '24; Kiyanoush Forough, HLS '25. (Not pictured: Peter Goeckner, HLS '25)

This year’s edition of the annual Harvard Law School intramural futsal league has kicked off with a bang. Weeks into the Spring 2024 season, the indoor soccer league has captivated the HLS community, drawing players and spectators alike into the spirited competition.

One team having noteworthy success this season is the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic — Harshit Patel Faction.” (HPF) Their name, as explained by team captain Hussain Awan, HLS ‘24 is in reference to the clinical credits of many members and the feisty on-court personality of one teammate in particular. 

Patel, HLS ’25, scored a goal and had two assists in last Friday’s 5-2 victory over the V for Victory (1-3), the 1L Section Five squad. Peter Goeckner, HLS ‘25, referred to the team’s namesake as a key part of the team’s success. Goeckner describes Patel as “the golden boy” of the team, for his contributions. 

V-For Victory, the 1L Section 5 Squad; led by Caroline Daley, HLS ’26

Patel was likewise effusive in his praise of Goeckner, describing his teammate’s recent five-goal performance. “He’s representative of the team’s fighting spirit,” said Patel. Despite being sidelined with a broken hand, Goeckner is still considered integral to team culture by his colleagues.

The strongest performer in Friday’s outing was Cosimo Fabrizio, HLS ’25, who scored a hat-trick (3 goals) during the effort. “I’m just trying to make Harshit happy” said Fabrizio. “I’m glad my performance was sufficient to accomplish this worthwhile endeavor.”

Awan described his team as “a real embodiment of the HLS community.” Most of HPF are 2Ls who have gotten to know each other through social events and their courses at HLS. “This league gives us the chance to strengthen old bonds and forge new ones.“ he continued.

Akindumila (in white) advances the ball for a potential shot.

Under the meticulous organization of Lucas Rodriguez, HLS ‘24, the league commissioner, the “futsal” season has seen an unprecedented level of participation and excitement. 

With eight teams vying for the championship, Rodriguez expressed his satisfaction with the league’s success, stating, “We’re so excited about the number of teams playing this year.”

The matches are held weekly at QRAC or Hemenway, campus gyms near the law school campus. The league’s format ensures that excitement remains high throughout the season. Six teams advance to the quarterfinals based on regular season standings. A semifinals week follows, and the season concludes with a final week where the champions are crowned.

Tori Borlase, HLS ‘25, the captain of “For the Gworls,” the only all-women’s team in the league, is also looking forward to fighting for the championship. “The league is a great way to keep playing soccer throughout the colder months,” she said, “as well as an opportunity to form a closer bond with smaller groups of players.”

As the quarterfinals approach, anticipation builds, setting the stage for a thrilling conclusion to a season that has brought the HLS community closer together through the love of “the beautiful game”. 

“These moments on the futsal court,” Awan said, “are building blocks for lifelong friendships.”

Harvard Defender’s Litman Symposium Brings Incarcerated Voices to Campus

Left to right: Hector Rodriguez (holding Loughney's drawing), Mark Loughney, and Litman Fellowship co-director Apoorva Dixit, HLS '24 (Tobi Omotoso, HLS '25)

The Harvard Defenders held their annual Jack T. Litman Symposium on Friday, with a day-long agenda that endeavored to bring the voices of incarcerated people to campus through artistic expression.

Planned by Litman Fellowship co-directors Apoorva Dixit, HLS 24′ and Deborah Alexis, HLS 25′, the symposium centered  four artists engaged in anti-carceral artwork: Mary Enoch Elizabeth Baxter, a playwright and artist famous for her musical about her pregnancy while incarcerated; Mark Loughney, an artist responsible for a collection of 800 individual portraits of prisoners; Eric Anderson, Executive Director of Justice4Housing, a Boston-based housing justice and anti-carceral organization; and Mollie Hosmer-Dillard, an art teacher for incarcerated youth and adults through the University of Utah.

The symposium began in the morning with a display at the Smith Center of a number of paintings by Hosmer-Dillard’s students and poetry readings by Anderson. 

Two dozen audience members filled a room on the tenth floor in the Smith Campus Center to hear Anderson and look at artwork created by incarcerated people. Pieces included self-portraits, depictions of nature, and creative renderings of countries. Anderson read a number of poems, including “23 and 1,” about his years spent in solitary confinement. 

Depiction of El Salvador by one of Hosmer-Dillard’s students. (Patrick Healy, HLS 26′)

Following the morning display, a panel of all four artists answered questions  from attendees over lunch. Each artist weighed in on what brought them to their artwork. “I’ve always been an artist. It gave me an opportunity to understand what I was going through” said Baxter, whose musical “Consecration to Mary: Ain’t I a Woman?” discusses her entrance into prison nine months pregnant and her 43-hour labor while shackled.  

The panelists shared unique insights on the effects of prison, and how those who are and were incarcerated can move past their detention “Prison alienates people from a sense of touch. Much of the work I do is about community, is collaborative and is about policy–we use it to change the world,” said Baxter. Hosmer-Dillard added that sharing the work of her students is “exciting to them” and has the added benefit of  “[humanizing] the people inside.”

The afternoon included a number of workshops hosted by each of the presenters. One in particular was Loughney’s “Capturing the Human Essence,” an interactive session where he drew an original piece live for an audience. His model for the new drawing was another notable creative in the audience, Hector Rodriguez, known for his vibrant colors and participation in a project sponsored by famous prison abolitionist Mariame Kaba.

More portraits from students of Hosmer-Dillard (Pat Healy, HLS 26′)

While working, Loughney took questions from the crowd about his time in prison, his creative journey, and how he has adjusted to life post-prison. “Using color is almost like a form of resistance to me,” he said. “I still have one foot in prison, you know I’m on parole, at any moment they could yank me back in.” He also shared the story behind naming his collection “Pyrrhic Defeat,” which was borrowed from a concept described in Jeffrey Reiman’s 1979 book ““The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Prison.” Loughrey described pyrrhic defeat as a theory that “suggests that the criminal justice system fails so badly that it results in a win for the people in power.” 

He believed that the phrase was a good label for a project because it was “kind of cryptic” and invites people to learn more about anti-carceralism by asking questions.

After about 50 minutes of discussion and drawing, Loughney pleased the crowd with a brand new depiction of Rodriguez’ visage. While the model admitted  the experience  of being drawn for nearly an hour was “uncomfortable,” he gleefully added that the sketch looked “a lot different from my mugshot.”

This year’s Litman symposium was exceptional in its ability to bring voices of both formerly and currently incarcerated people into Harvard’s walls. While often these narratives are told through case law, on Friday, incarcerated people used poetry and visual art to tell their stories on their own terms. 

For more of Mark Loughney’s artwork visit www.loughneyart.com or his instagram @loughneyart

Follow Mary Enoch Elizabeth Baxter at her instagram

Check out Hector Rodriguez’ artwork at https://boricreates.com/ or his instagram @boricreates

Jazz Night in Langdell

Left to right: Strong Ma, HLS '26; Cosimo Fabrizio, HLS '25; Shaan Pandiri, HLS '26 (Zachari Curtis, HLS '26)

Jazz music rang out in Langdell Hall’s reading room last Thursday evening. Although the space is usually quiet enough to hear a page turn, this musical break, organized by a spontaneously formed student-led jazz band and HLS Beyond, was a welcome break from decorum. 

Cosimo Fabrizio, HLS ’25, and Shaan Pandiri, HLS ’26, co-hosts, have known each other since grade school but fell out of touch. When they realized they had both landed at HLS, they took it as a sign to pick up their music where their friendship had left off. “We’ve known each other since 6th grade. When we found out we were both here at HLS, we knew we had to play together,” says Pandiri. 

The duo brought together a talented group of musicians last fall to entertain a crowd of a few dozen students. This week, they did it again for a crowd of students, faculty, and family. The quartet played unique arrangements of classic Jazz standards like Miles Davis’s “So, What,” and  original arrangements titled “Tea for Two” and “Body and Soul.” 

The evening came together fortuitously with the lineup of musicians coalescing just hours before the event. Pianist Ebba Dankel, an undergrad at Berkeley, and drummer Maria Marmarou, a grad student at Temple, say they just happened to be available to gig tonight. But such spontaneity is what made the evening special, and is illustrative of the music genre’s unique features.  

“One of the beautiful things about jazz is that so much is rooted in improvisation. This is the first time everyone here has played together. That’s part of what makes the music so special. We hope you can hear some of that,” says Fabrizio.

“We hoped, by putting on the first show, that we would start building a community of artists and musicians at HLS. Strong Ma (HLS ‘26) approached us at the last event and said he’d like to play with us sometime. We told him about this show, and now he’s making his jazz debut on keys.” Fabrizio continued.

Some, like vocalist Kiyanoush Forough, HLS ’25, were making their worldwide debut. 

“A couple of my friends who came here tonight don’t listen to music without words. So, in order to accommodate them, we tried to find a singer. We asked Professor Gersen, who is a co-sponsor of this event. After he said ‘absolutely not,’  the natural next step would be to reach out to Kiyanoush. He got a call at about 10 pm last night,” remarked Fabrizio.

Forough, who claims not to be a singer, wowed the crowd with “HLS blues.”The tune, written by CHATGPT and arranged by Shaan overnight, was based on law school woes like the headaches of sorting out tort law elements. The piece clearly struck a chord with the audience,  a crowd favorite that elicited a standing ovation.

“Hopefully this will be something that happens more often. We as law students, especially here at Harvard, need more music in our lives. “  says Fabrizio.

Manning is New Interim Provost, while Goldberg takes interim Dean Role at HLS

Dean Manning (center, in red) and President Garber (to the left, laughing, in red) at the inauguration of President Gay

In an email to the Harvard community Friday afternoon, interim Harvard President Alan Garber announced the appointment of John Manning, dean of Harvard Law from 2017-2024, as provost of Harvard University. John C.P. Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law, will become interim dean of Harvard Law School.  

Goldberg served as deputy dean of Harvard Law from 2017 to 2022. He has been a professor at Harvard Law since 2008, most recently teaching Section 5 Torts in Fall 2023. The Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence, Goldberg contributed to the Restatement of Torts and the Restatement of Property and is widely regarded as a foremost modern scholar of torts.  

Manning, A.B. ‘82, J.D. ‘85, has been a professor at Harvard Law since 2004 and its dean since 2017. A prominent textualist and administrative law scholar, he is one of the longest-serving law school deans in the United States and was reportedly a finalist to become president of Harvard last year before the appointment of Claudine Gay in 2023. 

Garber was selected as interim president following Gay’s recent resignation. He did not officially leave his position as provost, but he said he would find a replacement shortly after. Manning now steps into that role on an interim basis. The provost is the chief academic officer of Harvard University and regarded as the second most powerful administrator. Along with the executive vice president, the provost reports directly to the president. 

Manning sent an accompanying email titled “The Coming Months” to the Harvard Law community. After thanking the law school community and praising Goldberg, he ended by writing that he “look[s] forward to rejoining you when [his] work at the University is complete.” He also emphasized that he is only leaving “on an interim basis.” This echoes Garber’s careful wording that Manning is only taking “a leave from his deanship.” 

However, the appointment of Manning, who in 2018 refused to revoke Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s lecturer position despite student protests, arrives amid fallout from Gay’s resignation and criticisms of the school’s stance toward the Israel-Palestine conflict. Manning wrote that Garber asked him to lead “initiatives on institutional neutrality and on open inquiry, respectful dialogue, and academic freedom.” 

Harvard Law’s deputy deans Molly Brady, A.B. ‘08, and I. Glenn Cohen, J.D. ‘03, were participating in a panel about course registration when the news was made public. Goldberg, a former deputy dean, was perhaps a surprise choice to leapfrog over the current deputy deans to the interim deanship, but his appointment might also underscore that the appointment of both Manning and Goldberg are truly intended to be temporary.

Mentoring Others and Giving Back as a Harvard Law Student

Attending Harvard Law School has provided me with numerous mentorship opportunities. Clubs routinely provide mentorship pairings between students and alumni. For instance, I was paired with a lawyer at Disney through a program hosted by the Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law. Any day of the week typically features lunch events with impressive speakers ranging from CEOs to law firm partners. 

Before coming to Harvard Law, I was a student at Columbia University. I remain extremely grateful to have the opportunity to pursue my education at institutions with such incredible opportunities and alumni networks. To provide others with similar educational opportunities, I have actively dedicated my time to mentoring others during my time at HLS. 

On campus, I have volunteered my time as a mentor for organizations including the Women’s Law Association (WLA) while also informally mentoring 1Ls. Last fall, I spoke on a WLA panel to help provide advice on taking exams to 1Ls, and I have also been part of WLA’s Alumni and Mentorship Committee. 

Beyond HLS, I also mentor aspiring law students. The law school application process is extremely difficult to navigate without pro2per advice and guidance. As the first lawyer in my family, I dedicated months to learning what law school admissions officers found important. To do this, I used platforms such as Reddit’s “lawschooladmissions” page and relied on websites such as LSData. I would read through online blogs like the Harvard Law admissions website and attend pre-law club events. 

As an undergraduate at Columbia, I was privileged to be at a school with a thriving prelaw community and a top law school attached. Having exposure to students at Columbia Law School helped me understand the demands of law school and expectations for the admissions process. Moreover, Columbia had a Pre-Law Society, Undergraduate Law Review, and a Women in Law and Politics Organization. I was active in all of these organizations, serving on the boards of multiple. However, many aspiring applicants do not receive those same opportunities or exposure through their universities. 

Providing an hour of advice and guidance can drastically change an aspiring applicant’s understanding of the admissions process. One often underrated aspect of law school admissions is the possibility for merit scholarships. Retaking the LSAT once can lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in merit scholarships at many law schools. Moreover, various schools allow students to negotiate scholarships as long as they have a comparable or better offer from a peer institution. This can make it extremely valuable to apply to more schools rather than less, making a potential difference of thousands of dollars in tuition. This is not as relevant for schools like Harvard that do not provide merit scholarships, but it is a valuable consideration for many other schools. Some law schools provide scholarships with no restrictions, while others only provide conditional scholarships contingent on maintaining a certain GPA. However, many aspiring applicants do not necessarily learn any of this information until it’s too late. 

Recognizing the barriers inherent in the legal profession, I find it especially important to share my newfound knowledge with others. Navigating the law school application process does not necessarily mean that you are an expert, but it does mean that you have something valuable to offer. Throughout my time here, I have spoken to numerous undergraduate clubs across the country at schools like UCLA and USC to share my advice on navigating the law school admissions process. I routinely provide advice on selecting a school, writing personal statements, prepping for the LSAT, and more. Simultaneously, I have volunteered some of my time to review the applications of others or to hop on calls with aspiring law school applicants. This also extends to students at other law schools — I recently had a two hour call where I edited a Northwestern 1L’s cover letter and résumé. 

Take it from me — there is no better feeling than receiving a call from someone who was accepted to their dream school. It is extremely gratifying to know that you may have contributed to someone receiving a certain educational opportunity. The same applies to current students receiving job or internship opportunities they are excited about. A few hours of your time can be transformative in someone else’s life. I personally know students here who connected with me during their law school application processes, eventually experiencing the thrill of an HLS acceptance. 

It’s easy to become overwhelmed with law school courses, clinics, and clubs. During 1L, I remember some of my peers being stunned that I was taking the time to speak to undergraduate organizations while taking an 18 credit course load. However, one hour of your time can lead to essential information being passed on to others. I encourage my peers to actively mentor others as they continue their studies here, taking the time to speak to individuals aspiring to pursue a career in law. 

Danielle Mikaelian is a 2L at Harvard Law School. She serves as the Executive Vice President of Operations for the Harvard Association for Law and Business, as well as a Managing Editor for the Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law. She graduatedfrom Columbia University with a BA in English Literature. Danielle Mikaelian has been recognized as a Huys Foundation Scholar, United Nations Millennium Fellow, and ANCA Rising Leader. At Columbia, she was named 2021 Student of the Year in recognition of her impact on campus life. 

 

Confusion Abounds Following Disruption of Belinda Pro-Palestine Event on Valentine’s Day

Harvard Law School administrators have come under fire for perceived inconsistent application of event planning guidelines. 

During the lunch period on February 7, 2024, The Harvard Women’s Law Association (WLA) held Valentine’s Day-themed programming in the lounge at Wasserstein Hall. The lounge is informally known as “Belinda Hall” in honor of Belinda Sutton, a woman enslaved by a family whose estate funded the creation of Harvard Law School.

WLA invited students to craft greeting cards for a local memory care center. In the lead up to the event, the WLA promoted the occasion on Instagram by displaying a flier with various crafts and an invitation to “make some Valentine’s Day cards!!!”  The event proceeded without incident and concluded around 1:30 PM. 

Last week on February 14, 2024, Harvard Law Justice for Palestine (JfP) hosted a similar lunch time activity in Belinda Hall. JfP is a student organization which advocates for an end to Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories, a ceasefire in Gaza, and calls for Harvard to disclose and divest from companies that support Israel.

The JfP flier invited students to “write a message of love + solidarity by calling on Harvard to disclose + divest from Israeli apartheid and protect pro-Palestinian activism on campus.” In the preceding days Justice for Palestine also promoted the occasion on Instagram by displaying a flier with various crafts and an invitation to “make some Valentine’s Day cards!!!” 

Additionally, both posters (shown together above) used nearly identical fonts for each corresponding part of the poster.

Unlike the WLA gathering, the administration discouraged the JfP rendition before it began, eventually dispersing the participants.

The first disruption came in the form of an email warning around 10:30 AM from the Office of Community, Engagement, Equity, and Belonging (CEEB), warning the organizers that “the lounge is not a reservable space, and events may not be held there.” The recalcitrant organizers sent a reply email arguing that they understood that programming “identical” to that of WLA “would fall within the normal use of Belinda.”

After 12PM, students began gathering in Belinda with cardstock, markers, and a small assortment of snacks in the space. The atmosphere was relaxed, as participants discussed standard student-fare such as classes and Valentine’s Day plans, alongside conversation about the ongoing war in Gaza. Many of the cards directly criticized the CEEB, and the Dean of Students (DOS) for their handling of student activism surrounding the Gaza crisis.

At about 1:15 PM, Dean of Students Stephen Ball, J.D. ‘10, and CEEB Assistant Dean Monica Monroe arrived in Belinda Hall to halt the event. Some attendees, including those involved in the WLA activity a week prior, openly questioned the Deans about what distinguished this event. According to multiple witnesses, the Deans asserted that while both JfP and WLA’s events were unauthorized, they had received complaints about the JfP event in particular. These complaints, according to the deans, mandated their intervention.

Pro-Palestine Protest on Massachusetts Avenue, February 19, 2024, Zachari Curtis

Representatives from WLA could not be reached for comment regarding either the incident or their event on February 7. 

Irene Ameena, HLS ’25, an organizer with JfP, stated that her fellow organizers assumed “this was at least one activity we are allowed to do in Belinda” based on the administrative response to WLA’s gathering. “We saw WLA hold a nearly identical event a week earlier in the same space and assumed that the same rules that applied to them would apply to us” Ameena continued. 

Another 2L organizer accused the administrators of granting opponents of Palestine-affiliated groups a “heckler’s veto” to defeat their expression. They also noted that other organizations with potentially controversial opinions do not face the same degree of scrutiny. “I just think that it’s worth noting that they’re not even hiding the fact that this is obviously an anti-Palestinian thing,” said the organizer. 

Various students have argued that this rule regarding shared spaces does not actually exist, and is being selectively applied. While there is no clear policy about communal spaces listed among the various rules pages on Harvard and HLS websites, Dean Ball did issue a statement to all law students on the topic through a November 15 email. In the communication, he defined “personal or small group study and conversation” as “normal activities” for shared spaces on campus.

This is not the first time Belinda Hall has been the site of a confrontation between pro-Palestinian student activists and HLS administrators. In November, an Law Students for Palestine phone banking event was also interrupted and dispersed by deans of the Law School for similar reasons. 

A number of students involved in pro-Palestinian activism at Harvard Law School and Harvard University claim to have faced “ad-boarding” or referral to the Harvard Administrative Board for potential disciplinary action, but this has not been confirmed by the school.


This marks yet another chapter of tensions in Cambridge flowing from the ongoing conflict and atrocities in Israel and Gaza, which has killed over 29,000 Palestinians (two-thirds of which are women and children) and around 1,200 Israelis since October 7.

For the First Time in History, Every HLS Honors Society President is Black

For the first time in the history of the Harvard Law School, all three presidents of the school’s honors societies are Black. The Harvard Law Review, the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, and the Board of Student Advisers all announced the results of their respective elections at the end of January. The Review selected Sophia Hunt, HLS 25′, as Editor-in-Chief; the Legal Aid Bureau selected Femi Akindumila, HLS 25′, as president; the BSAs selected Jheri’ Richards, HLS 25′, as president.

The Harvard Law Review is the oldest of the three honors societies, with its first publication in 1887. It would take the prestigious law journal 101 years to select its first non-white president, with the election of Raj Marphatia in 1988. The journal waited twenty-nine years more before electing its first African-American female president, Imelme Umana. Hunt will be the 138th President of the Harvard Law Review, marking the second time a Black woman has led the journal.  

The Harvard Law School Board of Student Advisors emerged in 1910, in response to an influx of small and often elitist “law clubs” that served as social groups and ran moot courts. Over the last century, the Board’s responsibilities have evolved to serve as academic advisors and general mentors. Richards will be serving as the BSA President for the 2024-2025 academic year.

Founded in 1913, the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau (HLAB) is the oldest legal services office of its kind. The inaugural publication of The Record explains the organization was founded to “help members of the community who are unable to hire an attorney in cases where legal services are needed.” HLAB handles over 300 cases representing indigent clients each year, in response to the legal needs of the greater Boston area. Akindumila will serve as the President in the upcoming academic year. 

We spoke with the heads of the honors societies about making history as the first time three Black presidents are holding office simultaneously, and what that means to them:

Sophia Hunt:

“It is also not lost on me that the Harvard Law Review is not operating in a vacuum, and I am overjoyed to work in conjunction with the leaders of Harvard Law’s other honor societies. Particularly, given a political and social climate that has been sharply critical of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, it is reassuring, hopeful, and inspiring that HLS students have affirmed and selected three Black students to lead its honor societies. I cannot wait to work with and alongside Jheri’ and Femi, and I am beyond excited to see what is to come.”

Jheri’ Richards

“With such devastating events happening in the world surrounding race, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and even closer to HLS, with things happening in the legal world like the SFFA decision this year, now more than ever, representation throughout our higher education system is paramount. At this moment, for all of the Presidents of HLR, HLAB, and BSA to be Black is not something to downplay or overlook. We must recognize and celebrate this. This momentous achievement is a reflection of all of our abilities in the face of adversity. The world we live in time and time again refuses to recognize Black people. But this moment is a testament to what is possible in spite of that. I am so honored to be a part of such an exciting legacy and to represent the BSA this year. “

Harvard Legal Aid Bureau: Femi Akindumila

“I was born in a small town in Ondo State, Nigeria and my family came to America when I was just three years old. So for me to be where I am today is nothing short of a miracle. But my success is not something I share alone. My success is a testament to the abundant love and sacrifice I’ve received from my friends and family. Their outpouring of support is what has helped me throughout my journey. So as I’m grateful and excited to be the President of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau I am also immensely thankful for all those who have helped me to get here.”

The Record looks forward to seeing all that these three outstanding students will achieve in their upcoming presidencies. 

Challenges, Solutions, and Optimism: SJP’s 2024 Conference on the Corporate Capture of the Legal System

Morgan Hurst, HLS 24', introducing Senator Sheldon Whitehouse by Zachari Curtis, HLS 25'

All research for this article was compiled by Zachari Curtis, HLS 26’, Patrick Healy, HLS 26’, and Deepika Singh, HLS 24’

Last weekend the Systemic Justice Project (SJP) and the Flaw hosted their second annual Conference on the Corporate Capture of the Legal System. The symposium took place in Pound Hall over the course of two days, beginning on Friday morning on January 26 and concluding on the evening of January 27. 

The event was organized by Professor Jon Hanson, Director of the SJP and Editor-in-Chief of the Flaw. A number of HLS students associated with the Flaw, SJP, or enrolled in Hanson’s lauded class, Critical Corporate Theory Lab, helped facilitate discussions, panels, and other events throughout.

Titled “The Most Dangerous Branch: Court Capture, Why It Matters, What Can Be Done About It,” a number of marquee names adorned the guest list: Peter Shamshiri, Michael Liroff, and Rhiannon Hamam of the 5-4 Podcast; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse; author Josie Duffy Rice, J.D. 13’,; Retired Judge Nancy Gertner; Balls and Strikes Editor-in-Chief Jay Willis, J.D. 13’; and several other progressive legal commentators and activists. 

Across several discussions, the attendees identified a plethora of challenges facing the American judicial system. In the conference’s opening panel, ProPublica’s Justin Elliot, Joshua Kaplan, and Alex Mierjeski relayed their efforts to hold the Supreme Court accountable through journalistic scrutiny. 

The trio co-authored a series of articles on the numerous undisclosed gifts received by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. After combing through “incredibly redacted” records to analyze the traveling habits of the Justices, their research soon revealed Thomas’ failure to disclose personal gifts was unique on the Court and “an order of magnitude ” greater in scale than any other justice. The revelations of their work have led some to question the ethics of Thomas himself and the Court broadly

In the Saturday morning event with Senator Whitehouse, he warned that corruption extends far beyond the Supreme Court, to the various federal and state courts of appeal. Introduced as “the leading voice” in the Senate on campaign finance reform, the Senator described how the influence of organizations like Leonard Leo’s Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society have contributed to a biased and cavalier judiciary. In particular, he raised concerns about “appellate factfinding,” castigating the Supreme Court for “finding false facts” in order to reach favorable decisions for their donors, such as Citizens United. 

Throughout the programming, various theories of change were proposed. Many speakers emphasized the need for a shift in mindset, away from an institutionalist mode of analysis towards more radical goal-setting. 

Legislative remedies ranged from devising a stronger judicial code of ethics to restructuring the design of courts altogether. Whitehouse put forth, among other solutions, an 18-year term limit on Supreme Court justices; justices would then age into senior status and help fill gaps during vacancies.  

Morgan Hurst, HLS 24′, introducing Senator Sheldon Whitehouse by Zachari Curtis

Much was made of the perceived strategic deficiencies of the Democratic Party in the face of an activist right-wing legal movement. Whitehouse acknowledged that “we have been terrible at looking at the organized nature” of the conservative political project. 5-4’s Rhiannon Hammam later noted during their Saturday panel that the right has “certainly” viewed the judiciary as political “since the civil rights movement.” 

There can be too much cowardice in the legal profession, and we need to rally and push forth and be brave.”

Fellow panelist and Balls and Strikes Deputy Editor Madiba Dennie put forth a potential progressive response to originalism and textualism, which she called “inclusive constitutionalism”. As she explains further in her forthcoming book, The Originalism Trap, Dennie argues that by interpreting the Constitution through the lens of the Reconstruction Amendments progressives can develop a jurisprudence that prioritizes the cultivation of a truly inclusive democracy.

Peter Shamshiri went further, asking what “the engine of progressive political change” is? He argued that the “ultimate goal has to be to strip power away from these individuals,” and bring once disempowered people into the process of building “a well-functioning, just society.” 

Despite the intricate and formidable obstacles identified by those at the conference, there remained a persistent air of optimism. Senator Whitehouse noted the recent judicial decisions against Alex Jones, Fox News, and the State of Montana as evidence of “honest courtrooms” doing positive work in the country. Dennie challenged young lawyers to avoid being consumed by fear: ““There can be too much cowardice in the legal profession, and we need to rally and push forth and be brave.”

Professor Hanson concluded the conference by quoting excerpts from Frederick Douglass’ speech following the Dred Scott decision, stating “oppression, organized as ours is, will appear invincible up to the very hour of its fall.” He went on to say “my plea for all of us is that we might prove Douglas correct, and that we would attempt to do that by doing it together. I hope this event has helped foster that.” 

The Record made no financial contributions to the Conference, but an HL Record writer did participate in planning of the event.

Harvard Law Meets Pakistan’s Supreme Court: How Our 1L Education Thrived Halfway Across the World

Hussain Awan and Saeed Ahmad, 2023

In the throes of 1L year at Harvard Law School, we often heard our peers lamenting the insularity of American legal education and its presiding academy. 

Forced to pore over the intricacies of some constitutional device invented by John Marshall two centuries ago, our classmates complained bitterly about the narrow focus of our curriculum on domestic law and the absence of contemporary international and comparative perspectives. While there may be some truth to these grievances, our extraordinary journey from WCC to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the foothills of the Himalayas has shown us just how remarkably versatile our 1L education can be when applied in unexpected and unfamiliar settings.

It all began with a simple question we posed to Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the incoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, during an informal chat in Austin Hall last year. We asked if he had ever seen law students or lawyers, trained in the Western jurisprudential traditions of England or the United States, succeed in what seemed to us the wholly alien world of the South Asian legal system. To our surprise, he answered our question with a proposal: come to Islamabad, he said, and he would have us serve as summer law clerks at the Supreme Court during his next term. 

Uncertain about the practicality of such a venture but freed by the end of our regular summer jobs in July (I’d just finished my 1L internship in Tunisia, while Saeed was wrapping up his 2L summer in New York), we jumped at the chance to spend a few months bridging the gap between our American legal training and our Pakistani heritages. Little did we know that this casual conversation would lead us to an incredible weeks-long adventure that would not only enrich our understanding of Pakistani jurisprudence but also underscore the value of our 1L education.

The challenges we faced were, in some respects, unlike anything we had encountered in our 1L years. From the moment we stepped foot in Pakistan, we were immersed in a world where the legal landscape bore little resemblance to what we had studied at Harvard. On our first day on the job, we watched Supreme Court oral arguments with fascination, as lawyers and justices alike flitted between posh, Londoner-accented Queen’s English and an equally fluent Urdu, with Punjabi idioms sometimes thrown in for verve. 

Later, we were invited to make motorcycle trips to the much older district courts of Rawalpindi, where we saw colonial-era courtrooms –– still marked by a distinct British architectural style –– crowded in by dozens of tightly packed law offices hosting small firms and solo practitioners desperately competing to try and scrounge out a living in the environment of the katcheri (court complex).

However, the skills we had honed during our 1L year turned out to be surprisingly useful in navigating this unfamiliar territory. In a foreign legal system with its own complex set of precedents, we found ourselves stuck in the cavernous Supreme Court basement library for days, poring over hundreds of pages of the leading constitutional case law. Luckily, the endurance we’d built making our way through readings for Legislation and Regulation with Prof. Matthew Stephenson, J.D., PhD 03’, or CivPro assignments for Prof. Stephen Sachs, B.A. 02’, suddenly proved very useful. 

The agonizing hours spent on our LRW bear memos and veterinarian briefs bore fruit as we navigated new databases like the Pakistan Law Site with ease. Perhaps the most intriguing application of our 1L education came, somewhat surprisingly, in the realm of procedure. We found ourselves comparing and contrasting the use of concepts such as original jurisdiction between SCOTUS and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. 

While 1L Civil Procedure had taught us the basic idea of original jurisdiction and its limited application in the jurisprudence America’s highest Court, we now grappled with the much more expansive use of suo moto (court action without a motion) powers, original dockets, and public interest litigation in the workload of its sister institution in Pakistan.

Our experiences in Pakistan have since culminated in a comparative constitutional law paper now in the process of finalization. The paper contrasts the appellate-focused US Supreme Court with the emergence and growth of first-instance public interest litigation at the Supreme Court of Pakistan. We are thrilled to announce that our paper has already been accepted for publication in some of Pakistan’s leading law journals.

Our journey from Harvard Law School to the Supreme Court of Pakistan is a testament to the adaptability and power of our 1L education. It shows us that the skills we developed in the American legal system can be effectively applied to tackle complex legal issues in a variety of contexts. As we continue our legal careers, we are committed to building bridges between institutions in our countries of study and our countries of origin, creating opportunities for legal talent to thrive and make a meaningful impact on the law globally.

As much of a nightmare as 1L can be, our experiences halfway across the world remind us that the skills acquired during our first year can transcend borders and prove their worth in unexpected ways.

Hussain Awan is a 2L at Harvard Law School, a contributor to Harvard Law School’s Global Anticorruption Blog, a Chayes Fellow, and a former clerk to Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. Awan attended McGill University, graduating as class valedictorian.

Saeed Ahmad is a 3L at Harvard Law School active in the Harvard Association for Law & Business and the Admissions Fellow program. He graduated from UCLA and worked at LVMH before law school. He is a former clerk to Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

Charles Fried, Harvard Law Professor and Former U.S. Solicitor General, Passes Away at 88

Legendary legal scholar and Harvard Law professor Charles Fried passed away Tuesday at the age of 88. The cause of death is not yet public. 

Born to Jewish “Czech patriots” Antony and Martha in 1935, Professor Fried charted a decorated path seldom matched in the legal profession. His family fled Czechoslovakia during the Nazi invasion in the late 1930s, resettling first in England, for which he attributed his “vaguely British” cadence throughout his life. They moved to New York City in 1941, where he attended public school during adolescence. 

After graduating from Lawrenceville School in New Jersey, he completed his education at a series of blue-ribbon institutions. Earning a bachelor’s degree in modern languages and literature from Princeton in 1956, then a Bachelor’s from Oxford in 1958, followed by a master’s of jurisprudence in 1960, and finally a law degree from Columbia Law School in 1960. 

Following a clerkship with celebrated Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II, the prodigious Fried began his 60+ year tenure on the Harvard Law School faculty in 1961. A professor at the age of 26, his first class was criminal law, in which he would teach future Supreme Court Justice and Harvard Law Professor Stephen Breyer, J.D. ’64.

Following his first publicatio, Anatomy of Values (1970), he was awarded the coveted Guggenheim Fellowship in 1971. Deeply affected by the Soviet Union’s obstruction of his return to Czechoslovakia, Fried’s conservative sensibilities placed him in tension with the liberal consensus of the late New Deal era. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s he produced a vast and distinctive catalog of scholarship, through which he soon established himself as a leading voice in legal academia.

Charles Fried embodied the summum bonum of academic life

Admitted to “to the bars of the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” and several federal circuits, Fried served as counsel for several firms throughout his illustrious career.

His talents soon caught the eye of president Ronald Reagan, and after a brief stint as deputy, Fried was nominated as Solicitor General of the United States in 1985. During his four years in the position, he represented the United States in 25 cases before the Supreme Court before returning to Harvard Law. As lead lawyer for the Reagan administration he represented a number of contentious positions, notably arguing in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade; he would later disavow this position in a New York Times piece in 2021

One of his most memorable appearances before the Court came in 1993, when he argued the landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. Delivering a victory for his client, the case revolutionized the reliability standards for scientific expert testimony. This achievement was soon followed by a four year tenure on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from 1995-1999. 

Apart from Fried’s erudite prose and extraordinary resume, Fried was a beloved mentor and colleague to thousands of students and scores of peers.

Former Harvard University president Derek Bok, J.D. ’54, said Fried was one of the “happiest sort of friends” that he made at Harvard. Highest ranking faculty member Annette Gordon Reed, J.D. ’84, described Fried as “one of the kindest and most charming people I’ve ever met” on Tuesday.

As former student Colin W. Kubacki, HLS ’24. put it,  Fried possessed a “massive command of the liberal arts,” with a deep devotion to the classics. With a flair for the theatrical and a tendency to sprinkle Latin phrases throughout his eloquent lectures, Fried made an indelible impression on several generations of lawyers. 

a wonderfully open mind to anything and everything that comes into it.

The influential professor served as faculty adviser to the Harvard Federalist Society for four decades, essentially overseeing its development at HLS for nearly its entire existence. The current president, Benjamin Pontz, HLS 24’, remarked in a statement: “ Charles Fried embodied the summum bonum of academic life. He was a polymath, and he was a patriot.”

Fried had recently announced his plans to retire in July last fall, and concluded his final class in December. Many past students, mentees, and friends joined his final class to show their appreciation for his many contributions. 

Despite retiring, he never stopped philosophizing about the life and knowledge, remarking that he intended to continue doing “what he always [did] here…I write, I go to workshops, I read my colleagues’ work, I comment on it, and then I write my own work.” He had just recently completed “a book about his own and other people’s change of heart” in December, and was looking for a publisher at the time. 

His final op-ed in any publication was a December 12  article defending Claudine Gay from criticism and emphasizing the importance of free speech at all universities, private and public.

President Bok, whom Fried cites approvingly in the aforementioned article, described Fried as possessing “a wonderfully open mind to anything and everything that comes into it.”

Charles Fried is survived by his wife Anne, his son Gregory, his daughter Antonia, and his grandchildren. 

Multiple Swatting Incidents at Harvard Since Christmas Eve

0
Wasserstein Hall, January 21, 2024 (Tobi Omotoso)

This is a developing story, and may be updated in accordance with new information

Around 5:30 PM on Sunday evening, armed police and security flooded Wasserstein Hall in response to a false threat of violence. The caller claimed that there was a bomb in or around Harvard Law School and that a person was walking the campus brandishing a firearm.

It is not clear who was called in order to initiate last night’s emergency response . The call originated from a computer-generated number, which helped investigators determine that the call was a prank.

“There were multiple police officers clustered in the halls of Wasserstein,” said Irene Ameena, HLS 25’, who was at a meeting nearby when emergency services arrived. “The sounds of their walkie talkies could be heard through the door of our study room.” 

Edward Chung, HLS 24’, who was also on the scene, expressed concern that the authorities “created a particularly unsafe environment” by having “heavily armed police” in the building considering the “history of Black students being swatted without reasoning on Harvard’s campus.”

Swatting is to prank call emergency services in order to report a serious criminal threat in order to endanger the subject of the call. In a number of high profile examples over the couple decades, swatting has resulted in injury and death of a number of people in the US. In Massachusetts, intentionally making a false report tot the police is a misdemeanor and carries a fine of $100-$500.

Last April, a swatting attack of Leverett House resulted in “four Black undergraduates ordered out of their rooms at gunpoint” by HUPD officers wearing riot gear. The affair prompted a letter signed by “45 Black Student Organizations and Supporters” criticizing the university’s failure to “protect its Black community’s emotional and physical wellbeing in the aftermath of such trauma.”

A person familiar with the matter stated that this was the third instance of swatting on campus since Christmas Eve.  Ameena was “shocked” to hear that this was the third swatting instance within the last month, and “she was surprised [she] hadn’t heard anything about this before.”

Another source stated that this was only the second instance of swatting on campus since Christmas Eve. They claimed that on Saturday, December 24, a person from a computer-generated number called Cambridge police and also stated that a pipe bomb was inside Wasserstein Hall and a person was walking the campus with an AR-15. The call came in around 10:30 AM.

This incident follows several controversies that have drawn national attention to Harvard University and Harvard Law School. The doxing of several Harvard students in autumn amidst the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the widespread criticism of University President Claudine Gay, PhD 98′, culminating in her resignation earlier this month, and the filing of a lawsuit accusing Harvard University of fostering an antisemitic environment on January 7.

Any individual with information regarding the incident should call Harvard Police Department at 617-496-2700 or submit a tip online at this link.

5,125FansLike