Sacks Will Launch Full-Scale Review Of Embattled CLE

A review of the Center for Law and Education (CLE) by the Law School and Ed School faculties will be held "in the near future," according to Albert M. Sacks, acting dean of the Law School.

Sacks said yesterday the review "will be unrestricted as to subject matter." In light of the recent dismissal of 5 of the Center's 11 staff lawyers and subsequent charges of poor leadership at the CLE, some examination of the Center's administration is a certainty.

The review board will be made up of the co-chairmen of the CLE's executive committee-Abram J. Chayes '43, professor of Law, and David K. Cohen, associate professor of Education-and two members each from the Law School and Ed School faculties who "know a certain amount about the Center but have not been involved in the specific issues being raised," Sacks said.

Just what those "specific issues" are is unclear. However, most of the troubles at the CLE seem to stem from differences between David L. Kirp, director of the Center, and members of his staff about how the Center should be run.

NEWS AN ALYSIS

Late in January, Kirp told five staff lawyers-Stuart R. Abelson '65, Stephen Arons, Jeffrey W. Kobrick, Carolyn R. Peck and Robert Pressman-that their contracts would not be renewed for 1971-72.

The dismissals left the staff of the two-year-old legal assistance center confused and unhappy. About the only person who seems to know the reason behind the dismissals is Kirp himself, and his explanations to staff members have been riddled with ambiguity.

Kirp told one lawyer in January that the dismissals were part of a shift of emphasis at the Center away from litigation and toward research. But Tuesday Kirp said, "I don't see this as an indication of any change in direction. It's just that these attorneys did not work out as I had hoped."

Poverty Issues

"One of the things we've learned is that we need lawyers who are aware of the poverty issues and are experienced in poverty law programs and litigation. We are going to bring in people who have been able to identify the issues and act on them individually," Kirp said.

Yet none of the five lawyers dismissed appears to deviate greatly from Kirp's model.

"They are all excellent lawyers and have experience in important litigation in the field of education reform," Robert Spangenberg, director of the Boston Legal Assistance Project, said yesterday.

Right Arm

"I am very much disturbed because I know how qualified these lawyers are. Most legal services projects would give their right arm to have any one of them. I can't help but wonder about the Center's future if the same caliber people are not brought in," he said.

One of the five lawyers, Arons, is a main proponent of the alternative schools program whereby state aid would be available to those who want to pursue an education outside the public school system.

Other soon-to-be-jobless CLE lawyers, along with Spangenberg's office, are presently challenging the legitimacy of the Boston school system's special classes for children classified as "mentally retarded."

"Our work in conjunction with the Center is extremely important," Spangenberg said. "We can't carry on cases that are underway without the Center's assistance, so I'm afraid that if these people leave, the cases may be forgotten."

Kirp sees certain advantages to personnel changes, however. "I don't think the Center should solidify. A constant infusion of new people and new ideas really makes sense, and is a healthy sign to me," he said.

The unhappiness with Kirp was of course augmented by the dismissals in January, but tensions had been mounting long before that over his failure to consult the staff about basic policy and case decisions.

"It's essentially a one-man operation," one attorney said Tuesday. "Nothing goes beyond Kirp, including the mail, that he doesn't want to. We have very few clients or corporate contacts as a result; how can we feel involved in the Center?"

The charge extends to Kirp's creating a strict hierarchy at the CLE, "People felt treated like servants," another lawyer said. "He [Kirp] tells us we should work on our own, but it's hard when he's the Center's sole voice to the outside."

"I don't see myself as a dictator," Kirp replied. "I simply do not think there is a problem of too much directorship at the Center."

Something must be wrong, however, if-as is the case at the CLE-over half of the staff lawyers fail to return to the Center for two consecutive years.

The most open conflict at the CLE is that between Kirp and Arons. Arons is one of two original staff attorneys still at the Center, but as one lawyer put it, "he and Kirp don't even talk to one another anymore." Arons says he has been phased out of the decision-making process by Kirp's "hierarchy," while Kirp reportedly thinks Arons is trying to make a public issue out of his dismissal.

One question which has arisen is that of how Kirp decided to dismiss five attorneys on the basis of output when four of the five had been at the Center for barely four months. All but Arons arrived in September.

Kirp explained his position, "I simply found that these lawyers did not fit into the long-range plans for the Center and, knowing the job market is tight, I wanted to give them five months to find other positions. Most places would have given them six weeks' notice and said goodbye."

But perhaps the biggest question in everyone's mind is that of where the Center is now headed. Again, no one seems certain other than Kirp himself.

When the CLE was founded in September of 1969, there was some doubt as to whether a University-sponsored center should initiate litigations, especially in the area of poverty and education cases.

Midway through 1970, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)-which provides Federal funding for the Center through Harvard-changed the Center's funding from a Research and Development grant to a litigation-oriented Legal Services grant. Since then, the CLE has become increasingly involved in litigation.

However, Kirp withdrew the Center from a desegregation case in Detroit last November, saying that lengthy litigation was outside the CLE's line of work.

Building an Ivory Tower

Although a confrontation by the staff-which had not been consulted prior to the decision-resulted in the Center's re-entering the case, some lawyers fear Kirp may be leaning toward research and away from community involvement.

"It's almost as if he's cleaning house, and that may mean a shift toward research papers and projects," one attorney at the CLE said.

Kirp maintains that "the Center's primary responsibility is in backing other legal services organizations and in litigation."

"I think the Center has done well in the brief time it has been seriously involved in litigation," Kirp said. "But with the experienced people I hope to bring in next year, we should be able to contribute to many more legal services cases throughout the country."

Reconsidering

Kirp is presently reconsidering two of the January dismissals, and has filled two of the vacated positions on the CLE staff.

The feeling of at least eight of the Center's staff members who signed a letter to Sacks asking for a review of the CLE leadership, however, seems to be that one more dismissal and several reinstatements are in order.

As one of the signers said Tuesday, "The idea of getting along with Kirp forestalls any serious attempt at providing new direction for the Center."