Article Sets Off Angry Response At HLS

Harvard Law Review editors and Law School administrators and faculty responded angrily late month to an article in The Wall Street Journal which blamed the Review's affirmative action policy for the controversy currently engulfing the organization.

The dispute over the article which according to Review editors contained "numerous misstatements and mischaracterizations," comes in the midst of an ongoing probe of charges of racism, sexism and abuse of power by the Review's president.

In the article, which appeared on the Journal's op-ed page on November 18 Boston University Adjunct Professor Abigail Thernstrom justified racist comments allegedly made by Review President Emily R. Schulman '85, statements that Schulman herself repeatedly denied.

Thernstrom, author of Whose Votes Count: Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights wrote in part that, "In an affirmative action setting, white signifies 'competence' while Black denotes 'needs help.' "As a result, she wrote, "not even the most correct among the politically correct, faced with assigning editorial work to an untested Black student, can be totally sure that student will be up to the job."

Fifty-seven of the Review's 82 editors signed an as yet unpublished letter to the Wall Street Journal attacking the article's tone and pointing out factual inaccuracies. "There are not predetermined, reserved affirmative action slots," they stated. "Every student accepted has achieved a numerical score that makes him or her more than qualified to do the work of the Review."

In the Journal piece, Thernstrom also wrotethat the Law School fosters "a poisonous politicalatmosphere that is dominated by angry radicals."

Both prominent liberal and conservative lawprofessors attacked Thernstrom's characterizationof the Law School in two additional letters to theJournal.

In a letter submitted to the Journal, LawSchool Dean Robert C. Clark, Professor of Law AlanM. Dershowitz and Tyler Professor ofConstitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe '62 calledThernstrom's depiction "a wildly inaccurateportrayal of life at our School."

Carter Professor of General JurisprudenceCharles Fried wrote in a separate letter that theLaw School "is exciting, interesting and--believeit or not--full of the pleasures of friendship andassociation."

Thernstrom could not be reached for commentyesterday.

Early last month a special investigatorcontracted by the Review's board of trustees beganexamining the charges against Schulman.

The investigator, Boston attorney Ralph D.Gants '76, said yesterday that the investigationis proceeding smoothly but slower than expectedbecause of time conflicts. He said he has met withSchulman's attorney and with the attorneyrepresenting the four Black third-year editors whoinitially raised the charges, and is currentlyconducting individual interviews with staffmembers.

Gants said yesterday that he will not form anopinion until he completes the interviews.

He declined to estimate a date of completion,but one Review editor speaking on the condition ofanonymity yesterday said that Gants has projecteda mid-December date. The editor said that "peopleare concerned it seems to be dragging on."

According to several Review editors speaking onthe condition of anonymity, Gants began theinvestigation the second week of November, when hemet with Schulman and the four Black womeneditors, third-years Rhonda Adams, Renee M. Jones,Shelley Simms and Stephanie Sowell.

According to editors, he then met withSchulman's attorney, Nancy Gertner, and theattorney representing the four women, MargaretBurnham. The three were unable to reach anagreement, and Gants decided to continue theinvestigation, sources said.

Burnham did not return calls to her officeyesterday, and Gertner is reportedly out of thecountry.

According to more than one Review staff memberinterviewed yesterday, they and some of theirpeers have reservations about Gants' methodology,which they see as imprecise and lacking instructure. One editor expressed concern that Gantsis continuing the investigation in the absence ofGertner, Schulman's attorney, who left townThanksgiving day and will return December 13.

However, the first editor interviewed said that"it seems to me very unlikely...that any rationalperson could come down on the side that Emily istelling the truth."

The current unrest at the Review began with acharge of racism made by a Black woman at aSeptember 30 staff meeting.

On October 4, the staff took an unprecedentedvote of "no confidence" in Schulman. The voteended in a tie, with Schulman voting for herself.

The accusations that are mostcontroversial--because Schulman has flatly deniedthem--involve racist and sexist comments sheallegedly made.

According to some third-year editors, Schulmansaid that allowing a Black woman to edit anarticle written by Assistant Professor of LawCharles J. Ogletree Jr., who is Black, "would be adisaster."

Schulman allegedly said that "this 3-L editorwould be the Black editor on the piece and youknow how complicated that would get."

Editors also alleged that Schulman discourageda female classmate from seeking to advance in theLaw Review hierarchy, because that would mean "toomany women in leadership positions."

Schulman has publicly and repeatedly denied thecharges.

The Law Review was at the center of anemotional debate over issues of race and genderlast spring when it published a parody of thefeminist writings of Mary Joe Frug, a New EnglandSchool of Law professor who was murdered inCambridge in the spring of 1991.

At the time, Schulman, who had just become thefourth woman president in the history of theReview, was praised for her handling of thesituation

In the Journal piece, Thernstrom also wrotethat the Law School fosters "a poisonous politicalatmosphere that is dominated by angry radicals."

Both prominent liberal and conservative lawprofessors attacked Thernstrom's characterizationof the Law School in two additional letters to theJournal.

In a letter submitted to the Journal, LawSchool Dean Robert C. Clark, Professor of Law AlanM. Dershowitz and Tyler Professor ofConstitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe '62 calledThernstrom's depiction "a wildly inaccurateportrayal of life at our School."

Carter Professor of General JurisprudenceCharles Fried wrote in a separate letter that theLaw School "is exciting, interesting and--believeit or not--full of the pleasures of friendship andassociation."

Thernstrom could not be reached for commentyesterday.

Early last month a special investigatorcontracted by the Review's board of trustees beganexamining the charges against Schulman.

The investigator, Boston attorney Ralph D.Gants '76, said yesterday that the investigationis proceeding smoothly but slower than expectedbecause of time conflicts. He said he has met withSchulman's attorney and with the attorneyrepresenting the four Black third-year editors whoinitially raised the charges, and is currentlyconducting individual interviews with staffmembers.

Gants said yesterday that he will not form anopinion until he completes the interviews.

He declined to estimate a date of completion,but one Review editor speaking on the condition ofanonymity yesterday said that Gants has projecteda mid-December date. The editor said that "peopleare concerned it seems to be dragging on."

According to several Review editors speaking onthe condition of anonymity, Gants began theinvestigation the second week of November, when hemet with Schulman and the four Black womeneditors, third-years Rhonda Adams, Renee M. Jones,Shelley Simms and Stephanie Sowell.

According to editors, he then met withSchulman's attorney, Nancy Gertner, and theattorney representing the four women, MargaretBurnham. The three were unable to reach anagreement, and Gants decided to continue theinvestigation, sources said.

Burnham did not return calls to her officeyesterday, and Gertner is reportedly out of thecountry.

According to more than one Review staff memberinterviewed yesterday, they and some of theirpeers have reservations about Gants' methodology,which they see as imprecise and lacking instructure. One editor expressed concern that Gantsis continuing the investigation in the absence ofGertner, Schulman's attorney, who left townThanksgiving day and will return December 13.

However, the first editor interviewed said that"it seems to me very unlikely...that any rationalperson could come down on the side that Emily istelling the truth."

The current unrest at the Review began with acharge of racism made by a Black woman at aSeptember 30 staff meeting.

On October 4, the staff took an unprecedentedvote of "no confidence" in Schulman. The voteended in a tie, with Schulman voting for herself.

The accusations that are mostcontroversial--because Schulman has flatly deniedthem--involve racist and sexist comments sheallegedly made.

According to some third-year editors, Schulmansaid that allowing a Black woman to edit anarticle written by Assistant Professor of LawCharles J. Ogletree Jr., who is Black, "would be adisaster."

Schulman allegedly said that "this 3-L editorwould be the Black editor on the piece and youknow how complicated that would get."

Editors also alleged that Schulman discourageda female classmate from seeking to advance in theLaw Review hierarchy, because that would mean "toomany women in leadership positions."

Schulman has publicly and repeatedly denied thecharges.

The Law Review was at the center of anemotional debate over issues of race and genderlast spring when it published a parody of thefeminist writings of Mary Joe Frug, a New EnglandSchool of Law professor who was murdered inCambridge in the spring of 1991.

At the time, Schulman, who had just become thefourth woman president in the history of theReview, was praised for her handling of thesituation