We write to condemn a series of acts by President Trump that incite violence and are inconsistent with a democratic legal order. On November 29th, the President circulated unverified videos that explicitly vilified members of a religious community as dangerous. In his tweet, the videos appeared without any comment, context, or explanation, as if the fact that they concerned “Muslim” actors itself established their relevance. In that way, the videos justified hostility towards individuals on the ground of their faith alone. The President’s message further endorsed violence insofar as it expressly retweeted, thus apparently approving, a source convicted of religiously aggravated harassment.

As a Native American and proud alumnus of Harvard Law School, I was very disappointed to see your esteemed publication use the dictionary-defined R-word slur last week in your coverage of the Washington NFL team. I am writing today to respectfully request that you join other leading media organizations in refraining from using the offensive epithet in your future reporting.

On the evening of October 31, stickers with the words, “IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE,” were posted around the entrance of WCC. Similar stickers appeared around Cambridge and other parts of the United States and Canada. According to an online forum, the stickers were intended to convey a “harmless” message that would leave “the media & leftists frothing at the mouth” and turn public opinion against them.

This letter was written by the following individuals, listed by their organizational affiliation:
David A. Azcárraga '18, La Alianza;
Amanda Chan '18, Affinity Group Coalition;
Leilani Doktor '19, Native American Law Students Association;
Elizabeth Gyori '19, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association;
Peter Im '18, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association;
Milo Inglehart '19, Lambda;
Gideon Palte '18, Jewish Law Students Association; and
Thaya Uthayophas, HLS Advocates for Human Rights.

I am a second cousin, seven times removed, of President George Washington. And I am African-American.

While traveling to Charlottesville on July 26, 2017, I saw a portrait of General Washington kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge. The image stayed with me as an expression of faith in the Valley of the Shadow of Death. I made a mental note to purchase the portrait for Christmas.

When I returned home to San Diego, I shared my idea with my family in passing. I thought nothing of it.

My fourteen-year-old erupted in outrage. “Did he own slaves?” she demanded to know. I answered, yes, and he won the American Revolution. “He can’t be on our walls,” she declared with the perspective of a teenager.

Recently, the administration leadership at Harvard University has proposed a ban on fraternities, sororities, and “finals clubs”, as well as other organizations. The ban would apply to students who attend university at Harvard. As a graduate of Harvard Law School, I view this as misguided policy. The Constitution of the United States guarantees “freedom of association”.

In my opinion, if this ban goes into effect, members of these clubs simply have to sue Harvard University, in federal court, for violating their constitutional rights. The University will lose these lawsuits, but why make everyone go through that misery? To have a committee of administrators decide which private organizations students can belong to, and which they cannot belong to, is not only a clear violation of the student’s constitutional rights, it is overbearing, downright parental, overly paternalistic, and frightens this freedom-loving citizen.

Let the students make their own decisions, and let the students make their own mistakes. Accountability, legal and otherwise, should always be on an individual basis, not a form of collective punishment, and clearly never a form of collective banishment.

Perhaps the leadership of Harvard University could spend their time better by sitting around a bong, and smoking copious amounts of marijuana, and eating mountains of pop tarts. Then in their heads, they can dream of the dictatorship that they so clearly want to impose on the powerless students of the University. “Hey teachers, leave those kids alone!”

Like an exclamation point to his entire campaign, Donald Trump appointed Steve Bannon – a man who, at the very least, has perpetuated anti-Semitism – to be his chief strategist. A message that so many Jewish children in the United States grew up with now rings truer than ever. That message? Don’t get too comfortable.

It is something our parents tell us again and again – you are accepted now, but you never know what tomorrow holds. We are raised on stories of neighbors who turned against our grandparents, of friends who looked away, and a government that did the unthinkable. For Jewish people who can pass as ‘white,’ these stories make us hyper-aware that whiteness granted can be revoked at any time, and that control of that decision always belongs to someone else.Continue reading “We Remember”→

I am a Jewish 3L classmate of Husam El-Qoulaq who would also like to remind readers not to rush to judge Husam.

I will start by distinguishing myself from other recent signatories. I believe that the State of Israel is the most moral government in the world, a government that has shown its unwavering commitment to human rights even in the face of endless provocation from Palestinian terrorism. I also believe the disproportionate criticism and demonization of Israel is a sign that anti-Semitism is still very alive and growing in 2016.

There is no free lunch in the marketplace of ideas. Whenever we share our thoughts, downside risks are created. Some charge headlong into the breach of public scrutiny, while others prefer the relative safety of anonymity.

Recently, there was an alleged anti-Semitic insult hurled at an Israeli politician by an HLS student. The administration attempted to help the student avoid further embarrassment for his careless remark by censoring footage of the event; the Harvard Law Record assisted in this regard by deleting comments on the original letter that named him.

We, the undersigned Jewish students and recent alumni, write in support of our friend and peer Husam El-Qoulaq, and to condemn the efforts we’ve seen to defame his character.

At a recent panel on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations (which notably featured no speaker representing the Palestinian cause), Husam spoke out in protest, as he often does.

To add some context that has gone largely unreported, the target of Husam’s protest that day was Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli Foreign Minister. Livni played a key role in Operation Cast Lead, a 23-day military operation that was condemned by the U.N. and other credible organizations for the brutality it visited upon Palestinian civilians. In 2009, a British judge even issued a warrant to arrest Livni on allegations of war crimes for her involvement in that operation.

Over the years, we’ve seen Husam experiment with many forms of engagement on this issue, from handing out informational fliers to asking pointed substantive questions at events. Earlier this semester he tried a different tactic, calling a male Palestinian speaker a “smelly liar.” He did the same with Livni, asking her during a Q&A how it could be that she was “so smelly.”

We understand those who criticize Husam’s words as disrespectful, reckless, or inappropriate, and we know that he would probably agree with all of those critiques. But based on our own personal experiences with Husam, we reject the charge that our friend is an anti-Semite. Knowing Husam, we could all see that his aim was more mischief than malice. He said more about this in an apology he posted in The Record:Continue reading “A Letter in Support of Husam El-Qoulaq”→

I am writing to request your response, on behalf of Harvard Law School (“HLS”), to the important issues raised by an article published in the Harvard Law Record: Oliver Hall’s What HLS Students Should Know About the Law Firms Recruiting Them…and What the Law Firms Won’t Disclose. Although the article was published at the start of the 2015-2016 school year, HLS does not appear to have issued a formal response. I think you will agree, however, that the issues it raises not only merit a response, but also remedial action that should be undertaken without delay by HLS and law schools across the country.

Oliver Hall, the author of the article, is an attorney who has represented me in several matters. He tells the remarkable story of how he came to the conclusion, in one such case, that a law firm representing an opposing party “not only committed serious ethical violations, but also engaged in conduct which – knowingly or not – enabled a criminal conspiracy to succeed and evade detection.” Nonetheless, Mr. Hall reported, the law firm, Reed Smith, LLP, continues to participate in the On Campus Interview (“OCI) program at HLS, and “according to Assistant Dean for Career Services Mark Weber, the firm is expected to return to HLS this fall, when it will resume recruiting students who likely have no inkling of the relevant facts.” Continue reading “Ralph Nader to Dean Minow: Inform Students About Firm Violations”→

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

-Karl Popper

Last week, the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School hosted Israeli politician Tzipi Livni for a panel on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. During the Q+A session, a student at Harvard Law School asked Ms. Livni the following: “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.”

Calling Jews “smelly” or “dirty” has a long history. The Nazis promoted the idea to label the Jews an inferior people. In France, the term sale juif (dirty jew) has been the go-to anti-Semitic slur for centuries and in the US, Jewish immigrant neighborhoods were often described by the press as smelly and dirty[1].

We were made aware of the disturbing incident that took place at the event you recently hosted featuring Tzipi Livni. The comments that were made during the discussion remind us of the continued presence of intolerance that still pervades much our society. As Jewish people we are unfortunately too aware of this reality, as we have been forced to confront it time and again throughout our history. As Jews, future lawyers, and citizens it is our duty to lead in a manner that promotes broad academic diversity and freedom. While it is essential that, as students, we are exposed to a broad range of opinions and even criticism, it is never acceptable when that dialogue turns into ad hominem attacks. It is for this reason that we write to you to offer our voice as one of support that condemns any attempts to silence the academic diversity and freedom that is so vital to our communities.

Regarding the recent question asked of Tzipi Livni: The question was offensive. Period. I do not think the question itself was anti-Semitic, although the questioner may well be — I don’t know. But the question was a deliberate and juvenile insult, not just to Ms. Livni, and not just to Jews, but to everyone.

Disagreeing with Ms. Livni is fine. Disagreeing vehemently with her is fine. Asking a question designed to draw out what you believe exposes the wrongfulness of her positions or beliefs is fine. Asking a question that any seven year old knows is insulting, irrelevant and stupid — yes, there is such a thing as a stupid question — is obviously unacceptable. It is the antithesis of civilized discourse.

Earlier this week Harvard Law Students received an email from Dean Minow that denounced a comment made by a student at a panel event featuring Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli foreign minster.

Something accidentally left out of Ms. Livni’s bio at the event (probably) was that a British court issued a warrant for her arrest for war crimes committed during the 2008-2009 offensive on Gaza. During that offensive, 1400 Palestinians died, mostly civilians; Israel says it was defending itself against Hamas rocket fire, 13 Israelis died. We’ve all tried to get out of events we didn’t want to attend before but “soz I can’t come, I might get arrested for war crimes” is an excuse that can probably only be used by about two other people, like maybe Al-Bashir and Karadžić, tops.

There are many questions that one might have for Tzipi Livni. Why did you bomb UN schools? How can you deny the humanitarian crisis in Gaza? What moisturiser do you use to give you that youthful genocidal glow? But instead, a student asked about why the speaker was smelly.

I want to applaud Jon Gartner, Jeremy Salinger, and Jacquie Wolpoe for their remarkable restraint and interest in comity by not publishing the name of the student responsible for the comments to Tzipi Livni this past Thursday. I hope that if the situation was reversed — and a slur (even if “only” an intentionally offensive and delegitimizing but not intentionally racist or sexist insult) was made, affected groups would show the same astounding level of restraint in the interest of furthering dialogue. As the comments were originally made (presumably?) in order to delegitimize the entire event without any substantive dialogue, I also hope that this example leads others to choose to engage in substantive dialogue rather than jumping to conclusions that do nothing to solve complicated and emotionally charged issues.

Having said that, the decision by the Harvard Law administration to release a full video of the event — yet to explicitly censor the obnoxious and senselessly immature comments — bodes poorly on our institution, and demands an explanation or justification.