“Best intentions do not necessarily lead to positive outcomes.” These were the words of a Harvard Black Law Student Association (HBLSA) member characterizing the actions of the Harvard Law School’s administration in response to the Harvard Legacy of Slavery Report.
Released on April 26, 2022, the Harvard Legacy of Slavery Report described in detail the various ways that the university benefited from the oppression of Black and Indigenous people. Additionally, the report explained how the University used its power to expand racism rather than oppose it. The release of the report was a surprise to the Black community of Harvard, as co-authors and contributors kept the report secret until its release, and the leadership of the various Black campus organizations were notified in a meeting a mere 24 hours before its public reveal. Indigenous organizations were not notified, and thus could not take part in the meeting.
On May 8, 2022, Dara Ferguson, president of HBLSA, reached out to Dean Manning in hopes of scheduling a meeting about Harvard Law School’s response to the report. Eventually, a meeting between various administrators–Deans Manning, Kamali, Monroe, and Soban, as well as professor Guy-Uriel Charles–and the HBLSA e-board was scheduled for June 5, 2022. In the meeting, various ideas for how Harvard could begin atoning for some of its history were discussed, such as a lecture series, a statue, a building, and various other ideas. The “main thrust” of the meeting, as attested to by both Ferguson and HBLSA Vice President Ariel Talbert, was that no action should be taken on the report until the discussion was opened to the HBLSA general body.
On Sept. 13, 2022, the HLS administration announced that they were accepting nominations from the entire HLS population for two student members of the project. This statement, titled “Belinda Sutton Quadrangle Next Steps,” included the following sentence:
“The Working Group will make recommendations for how to create a meaningful outdoor convening space central to our community and a commemorative installation to honor Belinda Sutton and other enslaved people.”
Decisions about the focus of the project and the eligibility of non-Black or non-Indigenous students for the committee caused confusion amongst invested parties in the school. During one of the beginning-of-the-year meetings between Dean Manning and individual club presidents, Ferguson expressed concern that the school would fail to ensure that the student representatives would come from the groups harmed by Harvard’s history of slavery. Few Black students reported awareness of the committee, and those who did lacked a clear understanding of the purpose of the committee. In the fall, two members of the HLS community joined the committee– both of whom, BLSA members report, are eminently capable and respectable, but neither of whom are descendants of American slaves nor of American Indigenous people.
Concerned about the lack of African-American representation on the committee, Ferguson secured an extra student representative spot on the committee in early 2023. The committee met in full for the first time on the weekend of Martin Luther King Day. At the meeting members further discussed the plan to build a memorial at the planned Belinda Sutton Quadrangle, and student representatives again pushed for the consultation of the HBLSA general body. On Feb. 1, the day of the next general body meeting, Ferguson was approached by a representative from the administration about presenting the Quadrangle plan later that day at the meeting. She refused because she was unsure about the substance of the presentation, the event was meant to be a joyous occasion (first day of Black History Month), and the itinerary was filled for the meeting.
Instead, on Feb. 8, they agreed upon setting a date for a meeting with HBLSA general body on Feb. 15.
This event was promoted as an opportunity for HBLSA general body members to “provide ideas, opinions, and critique to the Belinda Sutton Working Group on one of the outcomes of the Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Report.” The meeting opened with about an hour of discussion about other statues commemorating the victims of racism, eventually opening up for questions from the body. Professor Charles served as the primary representative of the administration at the meeting, flanked by three architects selected for the project, and other non-student members of the committee. The student members were present, but acted primarily in their capacity as HBLSA members.
The Feb. 15 meeting was the first time many students had heard of a statue or a memorial; a diversity of opinions were voiced by those who participated. Some supported the idea of a physical memorial, but disagreed over whether it should be a building or a statue. Others took issue with the proposed location: the courtyard of the Gropius complex bordering Everett Street. The atmosphere of the meeting became more hostile as HBLSA members noticed that many of the decisions regarding the response to the report had been made before this first meeting.
Students began to ask administrators deeper questions regarding the development of the project, and, finding few answers, the tone of the meeting soured. Members inquired about the budget allocated towards the project, but the administrators provided no financial details. They asked why two out of the third lead architects on the project were white, while only one was Black. The administrators replied that the architects selected were the ones that best fit their situation, which led the discussion back to budgetary constraints. Some participants directly criticized the representatives present for being ineffective, lacking authority, and failing to respond to the concerns of the attendees.
Many members of the HBLSA general body said they felt like there was a “lack of understanding about what was important to BLSA.” One participant expressed confusion as to why the administration’s first response to the report was to erect a statue rather than pursue one of the other interesting recommendations, such as a scholarship program or outreach to Native American communities. One 3L student stated that HLS failed to recognize that these issues are “emotional” and “difficult,” also stating that the school had not lived up to expectations as “a leading institution of its field.”
Another general body member who attended the event characterized the administration as not necessarily “mean or indignant,” but “careless” in the way they handled this complex situation. This member added HLS needs to understand that it is often emotionally laborious for members of the Black community to engage in processes like this one, and that the administration’s management of the response needs to “reflect the difficulty of the project” for Black law students.
Many students were also disappointed with the meeting’s tenor. “[Administrators] had an expectation of docility” that was inappropriate for a meeting on such a personal and contentious issue, one student explained. Some participants felt the administration was reluctant to accept criticism and dismissive of students’ frustration and hurt, failing to make space for the difficult conversations necessary to make real improvement.
Not all students felt that the conversation needed to be as tense as it was; one 1L HBLSA member present at the meeting said that they “would never” speak to an administrator the way that some people at the meeting had spoken to them. While they felt that the administrators came off as dishonest for their inability to answer meaningful questions, this student believed it was because the steering committee was put in a difficult position by the administration. She also specifically singled out Professor Charles as being fairly transparent about his complex feelings about the project, and appreciated his candor. The student summed up the situation by saying that:
“We’re at a fork in the road, where we have to pick between demanding what we want or accepting that [the Belinda Sutton Memorial is] happening and try to make sure our input is included.”
Regardless of their feelings about the quality of discussion at the meeting, the HBLSA populace looks upon the ongoing response by HLS with a skeptical eye. Many students expressed confusion about where the idea for a memorial came from and why it was being forwarded as the first major response. HBLSA officials have characterized the administration as unwilling to explain what, if any, further plans HLS has to continue to atone for its active participation in systemic racism.
“HLS needs to recognize that any kind of remedy or action it takes, will likely be seen as a model, and could potentially be emulated by other schools,” said one 3L.
It is important to note that at the time of writing this piece, HLS has made no overtures to Harvard Native American Law Students Association (HNALSA) regarding the response to the report.
“HLS has not reached out to NALSA at any point, nor have they genuinely acknowledged the real history of Indigenous enslavement in the region, burying any discussion of it deep and in passing in the original report,” said HNALSA in a group statement.
HLS has made no effort to earmark funding to respond to the demands of the Indigenous community at Harvard, such as a commitment to adding Native American faculty or furnishing a Native American law journal. Conversations on remedying past transgressions, such as violations of federal laws by Harvard’s Peabody Museum because of their collection of Native American hair, have resulted in no concrete guarantees. NALSA sums up their relationship with the administration:
“HLS has failed to engage in good faith any issues facing Native students or tribal governments at an administrative level.”
Despite this state of affairs, Black students remain hopeful about their struggle to make HLS a home for their community. President Ferguson was pleased that the general body was finally able to voice their preferences regarding the project, and hoped that this would be the first of many steps towards repairing past harms. Another meeting participant noted that despite the fact that the memorial is not what the community wanted, participating in its process is an “exciting opportunity.” One HBLSA 1L described “[grappling] with the paradox of our being here in light of [HLS’s] historic treatment of people who looked like us” as a
“community-wide, authentic heart-to-heart that was not only interested in speaking truth to power, but also discovering both our collective and individual selves.”
There is hope that the energy demonstrated at the discussion will be a launch point for further activism on campus. Vice President Talbert (who is also president-elect for HBLSA next year), expressed a desire to “collaborate in the future” with HNALSA to help compel HLS to engage in more holistic, restorative work in response to the Legacy of Slavery report.
“I hope there will be a revival of organizing and involvement in the Harvard Black community in the immediate future,” said one 3L. “ I would like to see that whoever calls the shots here, redraws the plans and reshapes the committee to take the issues more seriously.”
Some 1Ls appear ready to answer the call and more. As one student stated emphatically, “No justice without reparations.”