Dismissals at CLE May Result in Inquiry

The dismissal of five of the 11 staff lawyers at the Center for Law and Education (CLE)-Harvard's two-year-old legal assistance center-may result in a review of the Center's administration by the Law School and Ed School faculties.

In a recent letter to Albert M. Sacks, acting dean of the Law School, the five lawyers and three other directors of the CLE suggest that "any problems which exist at the Center are a result of all or part of its leadership," and ask that "those who are concerned with the future of the Center look seriously into this possibility."

Sacks and the co-chairmen of the Center's executive committee-Abram J. Chayes '43, professor of Law, and David K. Cohen, associate professor of Education-responded by promising that a meeting will be held at which questions concerning "the administration and policies of the Center" will be considered.

In January, David L. Kirp, director of the CLE, told five lawyers-Stuart R. Abelson '65, Stephen Arons, Jeffrey W. Kobrick, Carolyn R. Peck and Robert Pressman-that their contracts would not be renewed next year.

The dismissal of two of the lawyers-Abelson and Pressman-is presently being reconsidered by Kirp, and two other positions have been filled already with outside attorneys.

Soon after the dismissals, Tom Parmenter, editor of Equality in Education, the CLE's official publication, and his staff assistant, Kathryn A. Wright, resigned in protest.

Two more staff lawyers-Roderick L. Ireland, the Center's only black attorney, and Mark Yudof-have accepted other jobs for next year, leaving the Center with only four returning lawyers.

This marks the second year in a row in which over half of the CLE's staff lawyers have failed to return. Last year, three of the five staff lawyers moved on to other positions.

The January dismissals-which apparently came without consultation among all the CLE's staff lawyers-culminated two months of mounting tension between Kirp and several of the staff, members.

"It was probably the most painful thing I've ever had to do in my life," Kirp said yesterday, referring to the dismissals. "But I felt that, for a variety of reasons, those attorneys did not work out as well as I had hoped they would."

Kirp, who did consult with Chayes and Cohen, said the final decision was entirely his own and that "the issue is not in any sense political."

Some CLE staff members contend that the five lawyers were dismissed for their radical political views. "There is simply not a liberal-conservative-radical split here," Kirp replied.

Kirp backed his decision not to renew the five contracts with his own resignation. "I told professor Chayes and professor Cohen that I was ready to resign if requested to do so or if the prevalent feeling was to undo my decision," he said.

The lawyers being dismissed yesterday called Kirp "a leader without leadership qualities."

"There is simply no sense of participation at the Center," Kobrick explained: "We have no sense of belonging. All the policy decisions and strategies are made in a secretive, hierarchical manner."

"There is an important question of leadership at the Center," Arons said. "The response to our letter [to Sacks] will be some kind of inquiry, but the conditions of the inquiry are now at issue."

The lawyers feel that any discussion of the CLE's administration should include faculty from the Law School and Ed School not involved directly with the Center.

Problems at the CLE came to a head last fall when Kirp removed Paul Diamond, a staff lawyer, from a desegregation case in Detroit on the night before the case was to be tried.

Kirp explained his move by saying that the CLE should not become entangled in lengthy litigation.

A confrontation between the CLE staff lawyers and Kirp the following week resulted in the Center's reentering the Detroit case and in the institution of weekly staff meetings aimed at broadening basic policy decisions to include the entire staff.

After five staff meetings, Kirp made his decision to dismiss the five lawyers, and only one meeting-at which Krip explained his action-has been held since.

His explanation apparently did not satisfy the entire staff, and the letter to Sacks followed in short order.