Cross-posted from Letters Blogatory.
I have been following the news from Harvard Law School, my law school, with concern. What is going on at HLS? I want to note two items that were worrying to me and maybe to you.
The first is the anti-Semitic remarks that, according to a published report, an “HLS student, who is the president of a student organization on campus,” made to Tzipi Livni, a member of the Knesset and former foreign minister of Israel, while she was taking questions at a program run by Harvard’s excellent Program on Negotiation:
At the Q&A section of an event last Thursday, an HLS student asked Jewish, Israeli dignitary Tzipi Livni: “How is it that you are so smelly? … A question about the odor of Ms. Tzipi Livni, she’s very smelly, and I was just wondering.”
I understand that we live in a time when anti-Semitism in all its ugliness has reemerged on both the left and the right, in its leftist form notably on university campuses. But surely Harvard Law School, where Louis Brandeis gave his great (and perhaps apocryphal?) “I am sorry I was born a Jew” speech, should be a place where this kind of thing has no place.* The more elite the institution, the more concerning the reemergence of anti-Semitism on campus.
Second is the list of demands made by a student group that has been occupying the student center. Some of the group’s ideas may or may not have merit, but I find their ideas about curriculum troubling. There is to be a “Diversity Committee” that is to have a “full and equal seat at the table for all discussions and decisions on curricular changes.” The group demands that HLS “reform the existing mandatory legal curriculum at Harvard Law School, through meaningful student input and transparency, to ensure the integration of marginalized narratives and a serious study into the implications of racism, white supremacy, and imperialism in creating and perpetuating legal analysis and thought.” This includes, among other things, “a mandatory 1L course that addresses and contextualizes racial justice and inequality in the law, with respect to both historical issues and recent events. (The course must have a credit level that reflects its equal or greater importance to traditional 1L courses.)”
There is nothing sacred about the 1L curriculum. I was glad when Harvard added an international or comparative law requirement to the first year curriculum. I wish evidence were mandatory, and although I know it’s not in the cards, I think there should be a requirement in legal history, because I really think so much of the law is difficult to understand without it. But the 1L curriculum should be made up of areas of the law that you really, really need to know in order to be ready to learn how to be a lawyer. (I put it this way because if there’s one thing law school doesn’t do, it’s teach you how to be a lawyer. At most it gets you ready to learn how to be a lawyer). When I say that law students are not in any position to know what they need to know in order to become ready to learn how to be lawyers, I speak from experience. So if the goal is to learn how to become ready to learn how to be lawyers, you can’t seriously consider replacing, say, contracts with a “course that addresses and contextualizes racial justice and inequality in the law, with respect to both historical issues and recent events.” If that’s not the goal, well, then there are bigger issues.
All is not right at HLS. I hope the school and the students can get it together.
*I’m not sure how familiar Brandeis’s speech is to non-Jewish readers, though for kids in Hebrew school growing up Louis Brandeis was like the Sandy Koufax of the law. Here is Anita Diamant’s account from Choosing a Jewish Life (Shocken Books 1997): “A story is told about Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), who was a student at Harvard Law School at a time when there were explicit limits on what Jews could hope to achieve. Quotas were in effect and many law offices were completely closed to Jewish attorneys. When Brandeis was in school, his colleagues would say, ‘Brandeis, you’re brilliant. If you weren’t a Jew, you could end up on the Supreme Court. Why don’t you convert? Then all of your problems would be solved.’ Brandeis did not respond to such comments, but on the occasion of his official introduction to an exclusive honor society at the law school, Brandeis took the podium and announced, ‘I am sorry I was born a Jew.’ His words were greeted with enthusiastic applause, shouts, and cheers. But when the noise died down he continued. ‘I’m sorry I was born a Jew, but only because I wish I had the privilege of choosing Judaism on my own.’ The initial response of stunned silence slowly gave way to awed applause. Ultimately, his anti-Semitic peers rose and gave him a standing ovation. In 1916, Louis Brandeis became the first Jew appointed to the United States Supreme Court.”
…the idea that there would still be anti-Semitism these days is even more baffling than the idea that there is still racism, and racism is about as baffling as it gets with me.
What is concerning about antisemitism today is that, unlike most other forms of racism, it has become social acceptable in some elite or polite circles. That’s why the student had the chutzpah to do what he or she did.
Livni was Israel’s best hope in the last decade of evading the dead end where Netanyahu has steered Israel.
At the risk of engaging in a bit of stereotyping myself haven’t these circles generally included their fair share of Jews? It’s usually tough to be biased against groups you have contact with.
… the misbehaving student is, according to reports, a leader in The HLS Justice for Palestine group. No doubt he would say, “many of my friends are Jewish!”
Something in the form of vituperation on the question of Palestine, the occupied territories, etc. But that is just bizzare.
The Middle Eastern Law Students condemned the statements. These remarks were raw anti-Semitic statements that have nothing to do with the domestic and international controversies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am more disturbed that this is now a pattern with the incidence at the Cathedral High-Newton North game and some of the odd questions asked of Bernie Sanders at various time in the campaign. These statements are wrong and Harvard would be wise to guard against them.
The questioner of Ms. Livni attempted (at considerable length) to explain why the question was not intended as an anti-Semitic slur, without explaining how else it could possibly be interpreted.
Apparently the questioner would have us believe that his comment was a response to the scent of Ms. Livni personally, rather than of Jews in general.
Pretty disgusting stuff.
The apology—oy! First, it’s hard to apologize for something with sincerity if you are anonymous. Second, in a bit of the apology you didn’t quote, the student apologized to “anyone who may have felt offended by” his remarks. Ignore the weasel words, and note that there is no apology to the woman he insulted, Ms. Livni. (He also goes on to note that he has lots of Jewish friends). Third—come on. In today’s social context, it is inconceivable that this student would have said anything similar to, say, the President of Egypt, or the President Sudan, or to any official of any other government he found repugnant.
The student has been named and shamed online already, and I won’t do it here, but is it any surprise that he was a leader of HLS’s Justice for Palestine group, and involved in the BDS movement?
…would one ever ask a question like that? It’s just plain rude regardless of context or intent.