Harvard affirmed the long-standing belief that topics like the Holocaust, sexual assault, and the deaths of children should probably not be joked about. At least ten students lost their acceptances to the Ivy League school in mid-April after university officials discovered that members of the incoming freshman class were posting memes related to these topics in a Facebook messaging group titled, at one point, “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens,” according to the Harvard Crimson.

The chat originated from members of the official Harvard Class of 2021 Facebook group in December who all shared the common interest of sharing memes with one another. While the 100-member group chat started out as “lighthearted,” according to one student, some members felt that the content did not meet the standards of humor they were accustomed to.

As a result, a “dark” meme chat was formed. Of course, not just any student could join. The founders of the new chat required that prospective members post provocative memes in the larger messaging group before they could be allowed in, according to Cassandra Luca, a member of the original meme group.

“They were like, ‘Oh, you have to send a meme to the original group to prove that you could get into the new one,'” Luca said. “This was a just-because-we-got-into-Harvard-doesn’t-mean-we-can’t-have-fun kind of thing.”

The “fun” included racist and sexist memes and messages that joked about child abuse and rape. One group of messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while another referred to the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child as “piñata time.”

Depending on your moral compass, the supposed “fun” thankfully, or unfortunately, came to an abrupt halt mid-April when employees in Harvard’s admissions office emailed those suspected of posting offensive memes to disclose their involvement. A copy of the Admissions Office’s email, obtained by the Crimson, reads:

The Admissions Committee was disappointed to learn that several students in a private group chat for the Class of 2021 were sending messages that contained offensive messages and graphics…As we understand you were among the members contributing such material to this chat, we are asking that you submit a statement by tomorrow at noon to explain your contributions and actions for discussion with the Admissions Committee.

Administrators told the students who received the email that their admissions status was being reviewed and were also told not to attend Visitas, a weekend event for incoming freshman Harvard holds annually at the end of April. About a week later, at least ten members of the group chat were told that they were no longer going to attend Harvard.

Harvard has the right to rescind applications of any incoming student who “engages in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

This is the second consecutive year that Harvard has dealt with incoming freshman exchanging offensive messages online. Members of the class of 2020 sent racially-charged messages to one another in an unofficial class GroupMe. However, these students were not disciplined by the university because they were “not matriculated students at this point,” according to then-Interim Dean of Student Life Thomas A. Dingman.

Many will inevitably claim that the students’ right to free speech was violated in the school’s decision, but even fellow members of the incoming freshman class agree it was the right call.

“I appreciate humor, but there are so many topics that just should not be joked about,” said Jessica Zhang, a member of the class of 2021. “I respect the decision of the admissions officers to rescind the offers because those actions really spoke about the students’ true characters.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Students Lose Harvard Acceptances for Obscene Memes appeared first on Law Street.

A lot has changed since Elle Woods aced her Law School Admission Test to land a spot at Harvard Law in “Legally Blonde.” Now, you may not even need an LSAT score to get in.

As part of a new pilot program this fall, Harvard will begin accepting scores from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), in addition to the LSAT, which it currently considers.

The new move is part of Harvard’s efforts to attract more diverse applicants, as well as those who may be weighing other graduate school options but don’t want to take two different entry tests because of cost and convenience. The GRE, which is available in more than 150 countries, could also help bring in more international students. It can be taken year-round and on a computer, unlike the LSAT, which is a written test offered four times a year.

Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow said:

All students benefit when we can diversify our community in terms of academic background, country of origin, and financial circumstances. Also, given the promise of the revolutions in biology, computer science, and engineering, law needs students with science, technology, engineering and math backgrounds. For these students, international students, multidisciplinary scholars, and joint-degree students, the GRE is a familiar and accessible test, and using it is a great way to reach candidates not only for law school, but for tackling the issues and opportunities society will be facing.

Though this could be a first step toward making the LSAT permanently optional, law schools are required by the American Bar Association to measure the impact of a GRE policy before they change their admission criteria. Last year, the University of Arizona’s law school started giving students a choice between submitting GRE and LSAT scores. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which  administers the LSAT, criticized the University of Arizona at the time, saying that all students should be required to take the test.

The announcement about testing the new admissions policy comes as Harvard faces falling enrollment numbers. The number of applicants to the most highly-ranked law schools has decreased overall between 2011 and 2015, and Harvard specifically has seen an 18 percent drop in applications.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Law Will Experiment with Accepting GRE Scores appeared first on Law Street.

Will Tiffany Trump’s family name help or hurt her chances of getting into law school?

It’s a question that some people are asking about the first daughter. In a recent article, the Washington Post’s Roxanne Roberts weighed whether President Donald Trump’s youngest daughter would have a harder time getting into her preferred law school because of her controversial father–or if her high-profile connections could land her a spot at Harvard, Columbia, or New York University (which she toured recently), or any other school to which she might have applied.

Last year, Tiffany Trump published an image of her practice Law School Admission Test (LSAT) on Instagram which, according to the Post, revealed multiple wrong answers. But even if she aces the entrance exam, which she took in December, and is accepted to a top institution based on her qualifications, Roberts noted that Trump will still face accusations that she only got in because of her connections. As an undergrad, Trump attended University of Pennsylvania, the institution from which her father and her sister Ivanka also graduated.

Donald Trump himself has been criticized, particularly during the election season, for relying on family connections to advance his career, which differs from narratives he has pushed about being a self-made business man. He drew a lot of attention at the beginning of the campaign season for saying that he started off with “a small loan of a million dollars” from his own father, real estate mogul Fred Trump.

Since taking office, President Trump even faced accusations of nepotism when he hired his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Ivanka’s husband, as one of his advisers. Ivanka has also been very involved in the White House, often joining meetings with foreign leaders and other conferences.

If Tiffany Trump winds up at an elite law school, she’ll be joining a long list of first daughters and sons who attended prestigious institutions. Most recently, former President Barack Obama’s daughter Malia Obama announced she would be enrolling at Harvard University next fall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Will Tiffany Trump End Up for Law School? appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #2 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

At a closed-door meeting in May at Harvard Medical School, nearly 150 geneticists, biologists, and other members of the scientific community came together to discuss a top secret project. The topic of the meeting: manufacturing a human genome from scratch, piecing three billion strands of DNA together to form a fully operational cell. In a proposal published in the Science journal on Thursday, the contents of that hushed May meeting are laid bare for everyone in the science community and beyond to praise, prod, and ponder.

In the proposal, the authors praised the success of the Human Genome Project, the controversial but complete sequencing of the human genome that was completed in 2004, and rationalized their newest step–effectively the sequel to a similar project that fabricated a yeast chromosome–as such:

Although sequencing, analyzing, and editing DNA continue to advance at breakneck pace, the capability to construct DNA sequences in cells is mostly limited to a small number of short segments, restricting the ability to manipulate and understand biological systems.

The project, they added, would “push current conceptual and technical limits by orders of magnitude and deliver important scientific advances.”

All of this could be accomplished at a relatively cheap price. HGP-write, as the project has been designated, would be paid for by existing government funds with an estimated $100 million. As more of the scientific world rallies around the project, detractors are being slowly cajoled into supporting it. Jef Boeke, an NYU geneticist, told Science that he is a “conservative guy,” so he was reluctant to cosign the ambitious venture at first. But when reputed scientists from across the field hopped on board, he “became more and more convinced that this really was a good focus.”

Manipulating and unraveling the secrets of the cellular makeup of human beings has, since the concept crept from science fiction to science reality, been rife with moral dilemmas: should humans tinker with life’s essential building blocks, even if the technology existed to do so? Is it worth knowing the story of your DNA, regardless of its contents? So of course, HGP-write has its doubters.

“I think developing the tools to make large genetic sequences is an important human goal. Creating an entirely new [human] genomes—that’s a different kind of a project,” said Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University. The potential benefits are “not an adequate reason to take such an enormous moral step,” she added.

HGP-write’s 25 backers hope to begin work on the project later this year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can A Human Cell Be Built From Scratch? appeared first on Law Street.

In February 2015, Teach for America was invited to West Virginia schools for the first time. The first Teach for America educators are slated to arrive in West Virginia next August but only 15 educators will be stationed in the state, and Teach for America only plans to expand that number to 30-35 teachers in the next five years. Several county officials, teachers unions and education advocates have opposed the introduction of Teach for America, claiming that they do not need or want under-qualified teachers.

Despite this backlash, the West Virginia education system is in dire need of educators and is willing to take on Teach for America educators. West Virginia’s teacher salaries are among the lowest in the nation, and installing Teach for America recruits is considered by some to be the cost-efficient alternative to raising teacher pay. However, critics are concerned that cutting costs may also result in cutting quality in the classroom. Read on for a look at Teach for America’s current training program for new teachers and how it is implemented in new locales.

What is Teach for America?

Teach for America (TFA) founder Wendy Kopp began the project as a senior thesis at Princeton University in 1989. Low-income schools faced a debilitating teacher shortage and student outcomes had remained stagnant for several years. In 1989, Knopp launched recruitment programs at 100 universities and began funneling college graduates trained by TFA into the American school system.

Since then, TFA has expanded to 52 regions across the country and has an average of over 40,000 applicants every year. TFA provides educators in the most low-income and low-performing school districts in the country, which have difficulty attracting qualified teachers. The recruits that TFA introduces to the school system are tasked with closing the achievement gap between students from different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. According to the TFA official website, a majority of school principals are satisfied with the commitment of TFA educators and would gladly hire from TFA again in the future. The statistics on the official website suggest that TFA teachers perform at the same level, if not higher, than their colleagues who were trained through traditional education programs. Despite these positive reports, there has been a growing backlash against TFA for not training teachers for the challenges they will meet in their classroom.

Teach for America Training

TFA usually recruits college graduates (often without education degrees) to teach in the most high-need school districts across the nation. Recruits undergo a five-to-seven week training course the summer before they begin their two year contract at a given school. According to TFA’s website, there are five components to the summer institute: teaching summer school, receiving observations and feedback, rehearsals and reflections on the classroom experience, curriculum instruction, and lesson-planning clinics. The training course is built on the assumption that recruits will learn quickly and embrace challenges. After the summer institute, a five day regional induction/orientation period introduces recruits to the town in which they will be working, connecting them with fellow educators and community members. Recruits rely heavily on mentors both within the school system and from the TFA regional network to aid them in the transition.

Concerns with the TFA Training 

TFA has come under fire over the past several years for how little material the summer institute covers. In an essay for The Washington Post, Professor Jack Schneider summed up the problematic nature of this training:

Even filling every moment of the day as they do, there simply isn’t enough time in five weeks to prepare novices for the classroom.  And to make matters more complicated, TFA corps members are often placed in schools where they are least qualified to be.

TFA subscribes to a philosophy of “learning by doing,” wherein teachers adapt to the needs of their classroom in real time. TFA cites the Mathematica Policy Research group’s 2004 report that students taught by TFA recruits topped their peers in math and matched them in reading as evidence that this strategy works. However, a 2010 review of independent research by Professors Julian Vasquez Heilig (University of Texas at Austin) and Dr. Su Jin Jez (California State University, Sacramento) revealed that students taught by TFA recruits perform at significantly lower levels than their peers taught by credentialed beginning teachers. This report found that

Teach for America recruits start at a disadvantage. After several years, they perform equal to or better than their peers, but they often leave the profession before the benefits of their experience can make an impact in the classroom. School districts must spend more money on recruiting as a result of Teach for America’s churn. In addition, the organization charges school districts an average of $2,500 for each teacher it provides, and districts spend extra money to train teachers once they arrive.

One of the largest problems with TFA recruits is that they only sign on for two-year periods. Fortunately, many TFA recruits have begun to stay longer than their two-year commitment. A 2011 study found that 60.5 percent of TFA teachers continue as public school teachers beyond their initial two-year commitment. However, remaining within the public school system is not equivalent to staying in the same teaching position. The same study found that 56.4 percent of TFA recruits leave their initial posting after two years and that after five years, only 14.8 percent of recruits continue to teach at the same low-income school to which they were originally assigned. TFA recruits may develop a love for teaching but that doesn’t mean they stay in the schools where their skills are most needed.

Teach for America in West Virginia

The TFA training program will encounter a new set of hurdles upon its implementation in West Virginia. As the program has not operated in the state before, and is only sending a minimal cadre of teachers to work there, the mentoring network for TFA recruits will be less engrained. One big concern is that it will be difficult to hold an effective regional orientation if the organizers themselves are only just adjusting to the West Virginian environment. TFA has operated in Appalachia for several years, but its activities have been confined to Kentucky–specifically to rural eastern Kentucky. TFA recruited a substantially larger set of teachers in Kentucky, bringing in 30 a year since 2011. The Kentucky program is well-established, with connections to the public school system and a set of TFA alumni who can serve as advisers for incoming TFA recruits in the region. TFA is hoping that West Virginia will parallel the Kentucky program, creating a broader Appalachian success story, but the nonprofit’s proposed efforts in West Virginia are currently so minor that it will be difficult for TFA recruits to make any sort of significant impact in the community.

Teach for America: Are there alternatives?

Teach for America is often considered the only successful program of its kind in the American educational system. Despite its inefficiencies, there is no nationally integrated program that attracts as many college graduates as TFA does. This may change in the coming months, due to a host of educational grants enacted this fall. In November, the Gates Foundation announced that it will be funneling $34 million in grants to five teacher education and preparation centers across the nation. Vicki Phillips, director of College Ready Education at the Gates Foundation, said that

We know that having an excellent teacher is critical to a student’s success, but there is still much to learn about how to best prepare teacher-candidates to be successful in the classroom. We’re excited to fund these new Teacher Preparation Transformation Centers so that together, we can better understand which practices are the most effective in preparing new teachers.

Funding these teacher preparation systems will create a new supply of credentialed teachers for K-12 education, so the most needy schools in America will have access to more qualified candidates and will not be as reliant on TFA recruits. In addition, the Harvard Graduate School of Teaching announced a brand new pilot program that will be launched next year called the Harvard Teaching Fellows, which is marketed as an alternative to TFA. The Harvard program plans to:

Engage Harvard students in the second semester of their senior year, with selected students taking a foundational course in the spring and remaining at Harvard for a summer-long training program following Commencement. In September, they will be deployed to partner school networks and districts where they will teach in a classroom, though with only a 60 percent workload. Fellows will then come back to Cambridge for a second summer of professional development for additional support before they return to classrooms. Upon a second year of teaching and program completion, fellows will continue to have support and connections to Harvard Teaching Fellows for the next few years of their careers.

After student protests against TFA in 2014, Harvard has been moving away from connecting its graduates with the organization. The Harvard Teaching Fellows program is only in its infancy, but the fact that it was designed specifically to address the shortcomings of TFA gives it a certain cachet in the education world. School districts like those in West Virginia may prefer to receive teachers from these preparation centers in the coming years rather than the handful of TFA recruits they are currently relying on. More efficient and comprehensive training for teachers could transform school districts across the country to the point that TFA may become less prevalent. In lieu of reforming TFA, the education sector may prefer to phase the program out entirely, replacing TFA recruits with teachers who graduated from these newly funded preparation centers.

Conclusion

Teach for America began twenty-five years ago with the best of intentions: connecting educated and passionate young people with students in dire need of educators and mentors. However, educators are concerned that the lack of training that these teachers receive may leave their students struggling in the classroom and the brief nature of their contract leaves school administrators scrambling to find replacements every two years. The introduction of new teacher preparation centers may solve the shortcomings of the Teach for America training process, but for now, Teach for America is the only organization sending a steady stream of teachers into the nation’s most desperate schools. Parents and educational professionals in West Virginia are only just opening their doors to Teach for America, but with that invitation, they also may be welcoming a lower caliber of teacher.

Resources 

Primary

TFA: Summer Training

TFA: Our History

TFA: On The Record

Additional

Charleston Gazette-Mail: Teach for America Still Coming to W.Va, but Impact May be Limited

Metro News West Virginia: Why WV needs Teach for America

Washington Post: Teach for America’s “Dirty Little Secret”

Washington Post: A New Look at Teach for America

Harvard Magazine: Is Teach for America Good for America?

The Gates Foundation: Gates Foundation Awards Over $34 Million in Grants to Help Improve Teacher Preparation Programs

The Harvard Crimson: To Teach A Teacher: Harvard’s Alternative to Teach for America

Education Week: TFA Teachers: How Long Do They Teach? Why Do They Leave?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Teach for America Expands to West Virginia: Potential Pitfalls and Alternatives appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, CNN aired a documentary called “The Hunting Ground.” It’s posited as a film that delves into the systematic problem of sexual assault and rape on campus, and since it was first shown at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2015, it’s been making waves. But in light of last night’s national airing, it may have just hit a seriously high-profile legal controversy. Tampa Bay Buccaneers QB Jameis Winston may be threatening to sue CNN for the documentary’s coverage of rape allegations against him when he was a student at Florida State University.

Jameis Winston played for Florida State University and won the Heisman trophy before being drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers as a first round draft pick for the 2015 season. In December 2012, he allegedly raped another student named Erika Kinsman. While he was never charged, the investigation that followed was high profile, controversial, and messy. In fact, the New York Times claims that there was “virtually no investigation at all,” and also slammed Florida State for its handling of the allegations in a scathing investigation of the case.

Since the criminal portion of the case was put to rest, both Kinsman and Winston have sued each other. Kinsman sued Winston in April 2014 for the damage caused by the alleged assault, and he countersued her for defamation and other allegations the next month. Their suits have now been combined and will be heard in May 2017.

It’s within the context of this extensive legal back-and-forth, and Winston’s first NFL season, that “The Hunting Ground” is making headlines. The film features Kinsman talking about the alleged rape at FSU. Additionally, the film implies that Winston received preferential treatment during the investigation. Winston’s lawyers essentially threatened CNN with legal action if it actually showed the documentary. CNN’s Jeff Zucker received a letter that stated:

We are writing to formally caution CNN that the portions of the film ‘The Hunting Ground’ pertaining to Mr. Winston are false and defamatory to Mr. Winston. We urge CNN to reconsider the reckless decision to proceed with the broadcast of this deeply-flawed documentary in the face of the overwhelming evidence the film’s producers consciously and intentionally failed to adhere to any accepted journalistic standards.

“The Hunting Ground” has had plenty of other criticism levied against it–last week 19 Harvard professors (Harvard is one of the other schools featured in the documentary) claimed that the documentary distorted how it handled a sexual assault case.

Regardless of Winston’s threats, the documentary did air last night, so we’ll have to see if those threats of legal action were serious. And given the fact that not everyone seems happy with the documentary’s content and handling of certain cases, there may be more lawsuits down the road.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jameis Winston May Sue CNN Over Campus Rape Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard Law is currently on edge as police officers investigate a possible hate crime on campus. Black tape was placed over the faces of portraits of Harvard Law’s black professors in Wasserstein Hall, where more than 180 professor’s portraits are displayed.

In response to yesterday’s protests, cowards have covered the faces of Harvard Law’s Black professors w/ black tape. pic.twitter.com/IuNd9ckucj

— the other one (@imfromraleigh) November 19, 2015

BREAKING: Overnight at @Harvard Law, portraits of black faculty desecrated in response to black student activism pic.twitter.com/tlJbDrkQUV

— Graham White (@GrahamWhite1010) November 19, 2015

The tape appeared despite many protests around the country about the treatment of students of color at schools such as Mizzou and Yale. Other schools have protested incidents on their own campuses, or protested in solidarity with schools and students nationwide. At Harvard, the day before the tape was found, undergraduate students marched with nearby Tufts University students in solidarity for Mizzou and Yale.

The tape that was used on the black professors’ portraits appears to have been taken from a nearby demonstration protesting the law school seal. Students placed black tape over a seal located in Wasserstein Hall. The seal comes from the family of Isaac Royall Jr., a well-known and ruthless slave owner. The campus group Royall Must Fall or (RMF) is dedicated to getting the logo removed from official use at Harvard Law.  

Royall was a slaver family, $ helped fund @Harvard Law and their shield is part of law school logo @carltonwilliamspic.twitter.com/5vZYdZLwWW — Wendi C. Thomas (@wendi_c_thomas) November 20, 2015

After the defacements were discovered on Thursday morning, students interrupted Dean Martha Minow’s class to discuss the issue. All said and done, more than 300 concerned students, staff, and faculty met on Thursday afternoon to discuss the incident and how to move forward, and police are still investigating it as a hate crime. There have been a wide range of reactions at Harvard Law in light of the incident, from shock to horror to (most depressingly) a lack of surprise. For example, A.J. Clayburn, a student, told CNN: 

Speaking as a student of color, I know that, while I am hurt and saddened, I am not surprised. This is merely a symptom of the greater systemic racism that currently permeates this law school and legal institutions in general.

The black tape from the portraits was quickly removed, and instead many students left post it notes on the affected professors’ portraits praising and applauding them. 

I love my HLS students! They’ve replaced the act of defacement with “love notes” to all the black faculty. pic.twitter.com/6LLHEbY9bA — Ronald S. Sullivan (@ProfRonSullivan) November 19, 2015

While it’s a nice touch, it’s obviously not going to make the problems at Harvard Law, or the overall protests and air of discontent at many of our nation’s preeminent educational institutions, go away. The investigation is pending, and tensions are clearly still palpable.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Investigate Possible Hate Crime at Harvard Law appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard Law is working with an analytics platform called Ravel Law to digitize American case law and make it open-access and free online. The project has been named “Free the Law” and is a huge and massively beneficial endeavor for law school students, lawyers, researchers, nonprofits, and the public as a whole.

The collection that Harvard Law is digitizing consists of roughly 40,000 books containing four million pages of legal decisions. Harvard Law has the largest academic law library in the world; these books have been curated over the last two centuries. The database is expected to be completed in full by 2017, selections will be open to the public before then. For example, Harvard Law and Ravel Law are attempting to complete state databases for California and New York by the end of this fall.

There are a few different motivations for why Harvard Law and Ravel Law are taking this dramatic step–the fact that preserving pages on the internet is certainly more compact and efficient does come in to play. But the main motivation appears to be a desire to provide free, open-access information to the public all in one place. Jonathan Zittrain, the George Bemis Professor of International Law at Harvard Law School, and Vice Dean for Library and Information Resources, stated:

Libraries were founded as an engine for the democratization of knowledge, and the digitization of Harvard Law School’s collection of U.S. case law is a tremendous step forward in making legal information open and easily accessible to the public. The materials in the library’s collection tell a story that goes back to the founding of America, and we’re proud to preserve and share that story.

Currently, many of the cases that are being compiled by the Free the Law project are accessible to the public–but not in an easily usable or searchable format. Instead, many firms have to pay commercial services like LexisNexis or Westlaw to gain easy access. The Free the Law project aims to make this information accessible to even those who don’t have the money to pay for such services. Whether or not this project will hurt companies like LexisNexis and Westlaw will have to be seen–although it is doubtful because they do offer other legal tools and services as well that won’t be replicated in the Harvard Law and Ravel Law database.

Overall, the goals of transparency and access in the justice system are laudable, and consistent with the general move toward open-access and equality that the internet has enabled in recent years. It’s a big project to take on for the school and the digital platform, but if it has the intended effects, it will have a big influence as well.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Law and Ravel Law Work to “Free the Law” appeared first on Law Street.

Professor Jon Hanson of Harvard Law School has set out to change the way law is taught. This spring, the professor welcomed roughly 50 students into the inaugural Systemic Justice class at Harvard Law. The class will teach students to examine the common causes of injustice in history and explore ways to use law and activism to make positive changes.

From the first day of the term, it became clear to students that the new class was unique. Referring to the students in the class as a “community,” Professor Hanson came across lighthearted and funny, cracking jokes and even asking the class to come up with a name for said “community.” He said to students on the first day of class: “None of us really knows what ‘systemic justice’ is—yet you’re all here.”

Traditionally, law students enter law school expecting to master existing law and to learn how to apply those laws to jobs as attorneys. However, a survey revealed that students are actually most concerned with big, unsolved social issues–which is where this class comes in. Students believe that law is part of the issue when looking at social problems such as climate change, income inequality, and racial bias in policing. The goal of this class is to introduce a new approach to examining and dealing with these issues.

This class is just one facet of a new Systemic Justice Project at Harvard, which is led by Professor Hanson and recent law school graduate Jacob Lipton. The project arose out of a growing recognition that law students need to be trained to be problem solvers and policy makers. Another part of the program is a class called the Justice Lab, which is a think tank style class designed to ask students to analyze systemic societal problems and propose solutions from a legal perspective. In April, students from both classes will attend a conference alongside experts to discuss their findings.

In some ways, this project is part of a widespread effort to introduce a greater policy focus into law schools. For example, Stanford Law School recently launched a Law and Policy Lab that tasks students with finding policy solutions to real-world problems. After graduation, many former law students will go on to become policy makers, judges, politicians, and organizational leaders. According to Sergio Campos, a law professor at the University of Miami and a visiting professor at Harvard, those lawyers could be in trouble if they do not develop a background on policy during their time in law school. He worries that for those students,  “when you get to a position where you can change the law, you don’t have a background on policy and what it should be.”

The program has already gained popularity with students at Harvard who are, or desire to be, active in fighting for social causes. However, not all law students are interested in learning about policy–some just want to learn about existing law, and that’s fine too. This project is designed to be a way to extend a traditional legal education, not replace it. Even so, participating in a class such as the Systemic Justice class can give law students a new and valuable perspective that will strengthen their overall legal education.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Law School Launches New Systemic Justice Project appeared first on Law Street.

For the last couple of years, any discussion on sexual assault has required a discussion of the way colleges handle the issue, and the national consensus has been that they don’t handle it particularly well. There are dozens of universities currently under investigation by the Department of Education for their sexual assault policies. It is within this context that Harvard University, one of those schools under investigation, unveiled its new sexual misconduct policies.

The new policies have received significant backlash from parts of the Harvard community, particularly a group of Harvard Law professors. An open letter was released by the professors decrying the new policies.

They have many complaints with the policies, but overall they argue that the new policies are far too expansive and stack the deck against the accused. They claim that the policies do not allow due process or fairness. They are also concerned that only one office will be evaluating the complaints, and that that office cannot be guaranteed to be impartial because in addition to “trying” the cases, they are the ones who investigate the cases. Mainly they are worried about the fact the policies seemed to them, to be one-sided, saying:

Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

The law professors also note the fact that many parts of the Harvard community were not consulted in the drafting of the new policies — including the faculty of the law school.

Concern has also been brought up over the fact that the policies changed the burden that needs to be met. There are varying degrees of burdens — “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the one we’re probably all the most familiar with from hearing it in the courtroom. There are lower burdens though, and Harvard’s sexual misconduct policies used to be based on one of them: “clear and persuasive.” The new rules have shifted the policies to an even lower burden: “preponderance of the evidence.” What preponderance means is really just more likely than not — more likely than not that someone broke a particular sexual misconduct policy.

To say I have incredibly mixed feelings about the entire thing would be an understatement. On one hand, I’m the kind of person who likes to believe in justice. Everyone does deserve a fair trial, no matter how heinous the crime or convincing the evidence.

That being said, the way in which sexual assault has been handled at some of our nation’s universities has been reprehensible at best. Policies do need to be changed, we’re all on the same page here. The real question that needs to be answered now is how?

On the other side of the country, California thinks maybe it has the answer. The state just instituted a new series of policies for its public schools that have been summed up under the phrase “yes means yes.” The law states:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

This law has certainly received less backlash than Harvard’s, although some are still worried that it’s too harsh on those accused of sexual misconduct. The disconnect puts us in an interesting position — what’s too far and what’s not far enough? I don’t think there’s a perfect answer to that yet. There’s a whole treasure trove of imperfect answers out there: the policies and actions of the schools that are under investigation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard’s New Sexual Assault Policies Spark Dissent From Professors appeared first on Law Street.

Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs around the country cultivate today’s students to become the pilots of economics and commerce in the world of tomorrow. In an effort to make the business school experience richer and more beneficial for these students, many top business schools have adopted Grade Non-Disclosure (GND) policies to refocus both students and recruiters away from grades and toward other aspects that many feel are more important and valuable. Read on to learn about what these Grade Non-Disclosure policies do, whether or not they’re effective, and the arguments for and against them.

What does a Grade Non-Disclosure policy do?

A Grade Non-Disclosure policy demands that students do not discuss their grades or GPA with recruiters until they have a full-time job offer; however, students are free to discuss any awards or honors, test scores, or undergraduate grades with recruiters. These GND policies are, as of now, only found in business schools, and only elite business schools at that. These policies also vary from school to school. At Harvard up until 2005, when its GND policy was repealed, for example, the school itself introduced and enforced the GND policy. At Wharton and Chicago Booth, the student body approves and imposes the policy upon themselves. Grade Non-Disclosure policies have their advocates and opponents, with school administrators usually favoring disclosure and students usually favoring non-disclosure. See an NYU parody video below about Grade Non-Disclosure policies for a lighter look.

What’s the argument in favor of Grade Non-Disclosure Policies?

Whether instituted by the school administration or the student body itself, advocates say Grade Non-Disclosure allows students to take more engaging and difficult classes without fear of the repercussions on their GPAs, while encouraging a more collaborative atmosphere and focus upon the more important aspects of business school. In a 2011 survey by the Graduate Management Admissions Council, the majority of business recruiters look primarily for applicants who demonstrate initiative, professionalism, motivation, integrity, creativity, efficiency, goal orientation, and adaptability with little emphasis on grades as a criteria for hiring.

Many business professionals note that the importance of business school lies in the networking and employment opportunities that arise from studying in such a setting, not in the receipt of a grade for a particular class. Because grades carry less importance in an MBA program, advocates of GND policies claim that under these policies students are allowed to take more engaging and challenging classes that broaden their intellectual horizons without worrying about taking low-level, GPA-boosting classes. These policies also enable recruiters to focus on the aspects of candidates that many feel truly reveal their real-world potential, such as awards, honors, extra-curricular activity, and other distinguishing factors.

Many institutions have quotas and maximum limits on As and Bs awarded and average GPAs, which fosters fierce competition between the relatively small number of MBA students for those top grades. GND policies eliminate the incentive for this bitter competition and instead promote an environment of collaboration, cooperation, and networking between students.

What’s the argument against Grade Non-Disclosure Policies?

While some opponents may agree that grades are not the sole purpose of a business school program, they do find that Grade Non-Disclosure policies entice students to forego preparing and working hard for classes, and only benefit students of elite business schools because of their name-brand education. A 2011 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that in the first four years after Wharton students instituted a GND policy, the time spent on academics dropped by 22percent with no patterns of change in the types of courses students were enrolling in. Other graduate students and faculty have noticed that under these policies students exhibit an increase in apathy and a decrease in motivation concerning their classes.

While seven of the top ten MBA programs in the country had GND policies, no schools ranked 20-50 among business schools had them. The reason why these policies only exist at elite schools, many opponents claim, is that by not divulging their GPAs, students at these schools are allowed to rest on the merits of their school’s name, and not upon their own academic achievement. Students in lower-ranked business programs do not have that luxury as the mere name of their institutions would not garner the same respect and prestige that would have an impact on a job interview.

Conclusion

Education is only as valuable as what you learn from it, even at the MBA level. The idea of Grade Non-Disclosure policies is that they help students to focus on learning rather than getting better grades than their peers. After all, the skills that they learn will be significantly more useful in the workforce than the ability to pinpoint and take easy classes. However, opponents of Grade Non-Disclosure policies argue that the policies incentivize students to not work as hard as they can. There’s also the argument that Grade Non-Disclosure policies hurt students who work very hard at lower-ranked schools. Given that there is no centralized MBA Grade Non-Disclosure program, it is likely that schools will continue to make the choices for themselves. For those looking at MBA programs, it’s an important facet of education to take into account.

Resources

Primary 

Chicago Booth School of Business: Grade Non-Disclosure Policy

Wharton Graduate Association: Grade Non-Disclosure Policy

Additional

U.S. News & World Report: Reports Examine Grade Non-Disclosure Policies in MBA Degree Programs

To MBA or Not to MBA: On Grade Non-Disclosure

Financial Times: The Perks of GND

Freakonomics: Why Do Only Top MBA Programs Practice Grade Non-Disclosure?

Business Insider: Wharton Students Don’t Prepare For Class Because Employers Never Find Out Their Grades

NYU Stern Graduate Student Newspaper: On Grade Non-Disclosure

Inside MBA: Which Business Schools Have Grade Non-Disclosure?

Poets and Quants: Cornell Debates Grade Non-Disclosure Policy

Wharton Journal: Grade Non-Disclosure Vote Opens This Week

Economist: News From the Schools

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Making the Grade? MBA Programs and Grade Non-Disclosure Policies appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Chensiyuan via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental & Energy Law: #9 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Chensiyuan via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #2 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Chensiyuan via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Schools for Healthcare Law: #6 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

It is sexual assault awareness month, and the accusations against Universities’ policies on sexual crime continue to come forth. Before we get caught up in the rage, maybe we should start by asking the obvious question: what role should universities actually play in handling sexual assault crimes?

 At the current moment, universities handle sexual assault cases mainly in two ways. One, they either attempt to squash the complaints of the victims, because the mere appearance of sexual assault on campus is bad for business. Or two, universities process the accusations, commit to an investigation, and set a trial for the accused. This alternative option can be ‘beneficial’ for business, because it makes the university appear to be tough on ‘rape culture’. For obvious reasons, I have a serious problem with the first avenue of simply trying to downplay the accusations of a possible victim. However, there is good reason for us to be skeptical of the alternative.

Universities should have zero involvement in the initial handling of sexual assault crimes, and for the reason mentioned before: colleges can benefit from looking tough on rape culture, and thus, they may institute policies that ensure this desired outcome, at the harm of the school’s own students, specifically the accused. To be fair, universities are in a difficult spot. When you take into account that sexual assault is extremely present on college campus — Sarah Lawrence College reports, “at least 1 in 4 college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during her academic career” — and the fact that sexual assault cases are extremely hard to prove, many women or men can feel helpless and turn to the university to deal with situation.

However, this is also a problematic solution. Since universities have interests outside of justice, they could very easily lose sight of the fact that we assume innocence until proven guilty within our nation’s conception of justice. Unfortunately, we already see this trend starting to actualize, as there are many cases where men have been convicted of sexual assault by their university, while considered innocent in a legal context. Consider the case of Dez Wells where, “local authorities have gone so far as to proclaim the defendant’s innocence[ and yet, he was] expelled from Xavier University on a disciplinary charge of sexual assault.”

If universities begin to convict students of sexual assault crimes, without their guilt being proven in court, two new major problems arise. The first would be those who may be innocent still carry the weight of the conviction. A student like Wells will leave Xavier with no degree, and the marking of a sexual predator. This has profound implications. Wells will most likely struggle to be accepted into another University with an explosion from Xavier — due to sexual assault — on his record. (Dez Wells has since been accepted to University of Maryland, however, his value as an athlete may have helped him in this endeavor. However a student like Peter Yu at Vassar College, who was convicted and expelled in a similar manner, may not be so lucky). The second problem arises from the fact that someone like Wells will have to carry the psychological burden of being identified as a ‘rapist’, yet his innocence was proclaimed by legal authorities, therefore, he shouldn’t have this problem.

These worries make way for another implication of relying on universities to handle sexual assault crimes. Universities cannot offer due process nor due punishment. I feel as though there is no need to say that rape is a serious crime, but I think we forget that it is when we expect an institution like a university to process such an offense. There is a reason that ‘murder’ would never be processed solely on a university campus, for the simple reason that such a serious crime requires proper due process and punishment. It seems apparent to me that we should view sexual assault in the same light. To convict someone of a crime as serious as rape, they should be protected by legal safeguards. Additionally, to ensure that proper justice is served, in the event that sexual assault was committed, we can only rely on the legal system to ensure the proper level of moral reciprocity.

These problems associated with colleges carrying out their own investigations and convictions of sexual assault crimes should deter us from demanding that they commit to action. We must remember that universities have goals outside of upholding justice, which can lead to unfair trials and convictions, ultimately harming students. Thus, students and activists against sexual assault should refrain from pointing fingers at the university. Instead, we need to establish a new avenue that makes it easier to process sexual assault cases, but within the legal domain. This is the only way to ensure proper due process and justice, and treat rape like the serious crime  that it is.

[Reason] [SLC] [ThinkProgress]Shortcode Generator

—

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Universities Should Stay Away from Rape appeared first on Law Street.