Bell, Students Press Law School on Hiring

BOSTON--Harvard Law School students who brought a landmark discrimination suit against the University asked the state's highest court yesterday for legal authority to go forward with their case.

Members of the Coalition for Civil Rights (CCR) are charging that Harvard discriminates against women and minorities in faculty hiring, and compared their case yesterday to the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education which declared segregation illegal in public schools.

Beginning the students' 15-minute oral argument, Caroline C. Wittcoff contended that Harvard's scarcity of women and minority faculty is harmful and discriminatory to women and minorities in the student body.

"Harvard's discrimination teaches women and minority students the devastating message that while we are good enough to sit in the classroom, we will never be good enough to stand in the front and teach," said Wittcoff, a third-year student at the Law School.

Later in the proceeding, Laura E. Hankins, the other student to present arguments for CCR, added that Harvard fails to deliver on a contract with students not to discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

The student plaintiffs have said that under the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act of 1990, the relationship between students and the University can be considered contractually binding.

The students, who first launched their case inNovember 1990, were dismissed last February by theMassachusetts Superior Court, which acceptedHarvard's argument that students do not have theright to sue their school.

That right, called standing, was the focus ofyesterday's trial at the Supreme Judicial Court.If the students win they will be able to proceedwith discovery, which will allow them access toUniversity files regarding faculty hiring.

Discovery would also allow students to subpoenaHarvard professors and administrators to testifyin the case.

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan, rebuttingthe students in court yesterday, arguing thatthere is no legal precedent for their case.

"Courts should not sit in referee disputesamong students as to what they think theuniversity should be doing," Ryan said.

Ryan also rejected the Brown analogy.

"This case is not Brown v. Board ofEducation," Ryan said. "Rose Parks is not inthis courtroom."

Ryan also said that granting discovery wouldgive students access to "through, searching,humbling records," arguing that would be improperbecause students are not victims of the allegeddiscrimination.

`Legally Cognizable Harms'

The students argued in a packed Suffolk Countycourtroom that they were the victims of "legallycognizable harms" and discrimination. Wittcoffalso maintained that the entire Law School studentbody is harmed by its lack of association withwomen and minority faculty members.

Wittcoff gave examples of how students have aninteractive relationship with professors andtherefore are affected by the lack of diversity."If there were no students it would be a researchinstitute; if there were no teachers it would be alibrary," she said.

Both the students and the University citedprecedents to bolster their arguments.

Wittcoff described three cases in which shesaid courts allowed various groups, such asneighbors or co-workers, to sue on the groundsthat they were denied the benefits of working inan integrated community.

Ryan said the courts already had limited whocould profess grievances, citing the case ofBeard V. Toyota Motors.

Responding to one justice's question, Ryan saidthat only those who are party to allegeddiscrimination have standing to bring suit.

Controversy over faculty hiring at the LawSchool reached national prominence two years agowhen professor of Law Derrick Bell took a leave ofabsence, protesting a lack of a woman of colorfaculty member.

In an interview with The Crimson yesterday,Bell said he would continue his protest and notreturn to the University until a woman of color istenured in the Law School.

Throughout the controversy, statistics havebeen used by both sides to argue their case.

Of 64 tenured or tenure track faculty in theLaw School, six--including Bell--are Black men andfive are white women.

Ryan said the argument that the Law School wasnot diverse would be dispelled statistically ifonly one more woman of color had been hired.

The University has pointed all along to anincrease in the percentage of recent facultyappointments that have been women or minorities.

But Hankins argued in her remarks thatstatistical diversity was not the issue so much asactive discrimination.

"This is a disparate impact case," saidHankins, a third-year law student. "It gets provedat trial rather than by looking at statistics."

The high court is not expected to rule for atleast a month. Ryan said the justices could takeas long as six months to make their decision.

In interviews after the court appearance, bothRyan and Hankins said they were pleased

The students, who first launched their case inNovember 1990, were dismissed last February by theMassachusetts Superior Court, which acceptedHarvard's argument that students do not have theright to sue their school.

That right, called standing, was the focus ofyesterday's trial at the Supreme Judicial Court.If the students win they will be able to proceedwith discovery, which will allow them access toUniversity files regarding faculty hiring.

Discovery would also allow students to subpoenaHarvard professors and administrators to testifyin the case.

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan, rebuttingthe students in court yesterday, arguing thatthere is no legal precedent for their case.

"Courts should not sit in referee disputesamong students as to what they think theuniversity should be doing," Ryan said.

Ryan also rejected the Brown analogy.

"This case is not Brown v. Board ofEducation," Ryan said. "Rose Parks is not inthis courtroom."

Ryan also said that granting discovery wouldgive students access to "through, searching,humbling records," arguing that would be improperbecause students are not victims of the allegeddiscrimination.

`Legally Cognizable Harms'

The students argued in a packed Suffolk Countycourtroom that they were the victims of "legallycognizable harms" and discrimination. Wittcoffalso maintained that the entire Law School studentbody is harmed by its lack of association withwomen and minority faculty members.

Wittcoff gave examples of how students have aninteractive relationship with professors andtherefore are affected by the lack of diversity."If there were no students it would be a researchinstitute; if there were no teachers it would be alibrary," she said.

Both the students and the University citedprecedents to bolster their arguments.

Wittcoff described three cases in which shesaid courts allowed various groups, such asneighbors or co-workers, to sue on the groundsthat they were denied the benefits of working inan integrated community.

Ryan said the courts already had limited whocould profess grievances, citing the case ofBeard V. Toyota Motors.

Responding to one justice's question, Ryan saidthat only those who are party to allegeddiscrimination have standing to bring suit.

Controversy over faculty hiring at the LawSchool reached national prominence two years agowhen professor of Law Derrick Bell took a leave ofabsence, protesting a lack of a woman of colorfaculty member.

In an interview with The Crimson yesterday,Bell said he would continue his protest and notreturn to the University until a woman of color istenured in the Law School.

Throughout the controversy, statistics havebeen used by both sides to argue their case.

Of 64 tenured or tenure track faculty in theLaw School, six--including Bell--are Black men andfive are white women.

Ryan said the argument that the Law School wasnot diverse would be dispelled statistically ifonly one more woman of color had been hired.

The University has pointed all along to anincrease in the percentage of recent facultyappointments that have been women or minorities.

But Hankins argued in her remarks thatstatistical diversity was not the issue so much asactive discrimination.

"This is a disparate impact case," saidHankins, a third-year law student. "It gets provedat trial rather than by looking at statistics."

The high court is not expected to rule for atleast a month. Ryan said the justices could takeas long as six months to make their decision.

In interviews after the court appearance, bothRyan and Hankins said they were pleased