Leaders Apply Here

LAW School Dean James Vorenberg '49 resigned last week with an impressive record; however, recent events show that it is time for new leadership. He can be proud of the stamp he has left on the Law School, particularly in the generous loan forgiveness program for students who enter public service. Vorenberg's attempts to hire more women and minority professors are both laudable and have set out an agenda for the next dean.

It appears that Vorenberg has finally reacted to the turmoil under his term and decided to return to his teaching and research. During Vorenberg's more than seven years as dean, the radical school of legal thought called Critical Legal Studies (CLS) has bitterly divided the law faculty. CLS challenges the objectivity of the law as it is practiced, claiming that the social and economic forces which constitute the true backbone of the law are dressed up by the institutional stature of the judiciary.

According to observers, the Law School is composed roughly of CLS adherents, CLS opponents and undecided faculty in equal numbers. At times, each faction has had enough pull to bring the tenure process to a grinding halt, destroying the faculty's collegiality. Most recently, the case of Assistant Professor of Law Clare Dalton, who was denied tenure by the faculty and President Bok on review, has raised issues of gender and political discrimination that have turned academic disputes into personal ones.

It will take a new dean, respected by all members of the faculty, to create a consensus on the standards of tenure--only then can the school move on to its true duty of educating the nation's lawyers-to-be. It is good that Bok has said the search will extend to scholars outside of Langdell--but certainly more important than where the new dean last called home is that he be open to all the different fields of legal scholarship.

THE new dean will have to be strong enough to present a united front to Bok, who has twice intervened in Law School affairs in the last few years. Bok's actions, which included the first reversal of law tenure by a Harvard president, can bring no solutions to problems which must be solved by the faculty members themselves. The school needs consensus to avoid such clashes of power that in many eyes have raised profound governance questions.

Vorenberg's resignation in the summer of 1989 has left enough time for a thorough and exhaustive search by President Bok for a replacement. Yet the timing also raises a thorny question: what will happen to the Law School for the next year and a half. Power struggles and coalition voting have already been the norm and will surely intensify under a lame duck dean. The Law School needs direction soon, and Vorenberg's delayed resignation until next year will only make answers harder to find.