Law Review Apologizes For Parody of Frug Piece

The Harvard Law Review publicly apologized yesterday for a parody of an article by a feminist scholar who was murdered last year, and promised to establish a task force to examine the status of women within the organization.

The parody of the late professor Mary Joe Frug's work was published in a spoof edition called the Revue last week and has since prompted a firestorm of criticism, including a sharp attack by Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe '62 yesterday.

In a letter of apology delivered to students last night, Law Review President Emily R. Schulman '85 denounced the parody as "vicious and indefensible."

"The editors of the Law Review are ashamed of the Revue's publication and are deeply saddened and troubled by its contents," said Schulman. "It is, indeed, a sad commentary that an organization such as the Harvard Law Review...was capable of producing such an appalling piece of work and that institutional mechanisms were not in place to quash it."

In an interview yesterday, Schulman emphasized that the spoof was published by the outgoing editors and that it does not reflect the official views of the Law Review.

The parody appeared on April 4, exactly one year after Frug, a professor at the New England School of Law, was murdered in Cambridge.

The article, titled "He-Manifesto of Post-Mortem Legal Feminism (From The Desk of Mary Doe)," was apparently intended as a parody of Frug's "A Postmodern Feminist Legal Manifesto," which was published posthumously in the Review earlier thisyear.

The piece, which refers to its author as"Rigor-Mortis Professor of Law," describespostmodern feminists as women who "don't wearmakeup,...wear all Black, because wHITE [sic] isthe color of mirth,...[and] wear good, comfortablewalking shoes."

"Then we go out at night to hunt down somehunky men and rip their clothes off. Sure, it'sdegrading, but we've all carefully selected wimpsfor husbands. Like Jerry," reads the parody, areference to Frug's widower, Professor of LawGerald E. Frug.

The article also includes a passage about "maledomination" in Heaven that mentions Paul A.Freund, the Loeb University professoremeritus who died earlier this year.

Schulman expressed her "deepest apologies forthe offense and pain" caused by the parody andsaid the Law Review would break withtradition and not produce a spoof edition nextyear. She said the money that would have beenspent on the spoof will be donated to charity.

The Revue was distributed to a limitedaudience at a banquet honoring the newly electededitors last weekend, but copies of the Frugparody were leaked to law students.

Schulman said the Law Review would notrelease any more copies of the Revue in aneffort not to "perpetuate and aggravate the graveharm that this publication has already done."

The Review will also create a task forceto "assess and evaluate the status and treatmentof women within the Law Review," Schulmansaid. She said the committee would "confront what[the parody's] contents reflect about the LawReview as an institution and ourselvespersonally."

The apology came after a debate among LawReview editors about whether to identify theindividuals responsible for the parody.

According to a letter written by fiveReview editors, a group of third-yearstudents blocked proposals to sanction or askindividuals to come forward and takeresponsibility for the article.

The statement also said editors who felt thatthe authors should be identified were harassed atthe meeting. "It represents a perfect example ofthe way that women and men who do not play by therules are treated at the Review," thestatement said.

"When some of us whose speech patterns conformless to that of the ideal rational male spoke,some of you openly snickered, or even worse, didnot even bother to listen to what we had to say,"the editors wrote, addressing the LawReview.

"This meeting makes it clear that we as aninstitution have not even begun to address thekinds of relationships that will allow this tohappen again and again," the statement said.

The statement was written by Law Revieweditors Rebecca Eisenberg, Renee Jones, MarieMilnes-Vasquez, Kunal Parker and Annelise Riles.

Schulman declined to comment on the statementbut said that some of the parody's authors willoffer a public apology later this week.

Both the Jewish Law Students and the HarvardCivil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review will makepublic statements condemning the Revue thisweek, according to members of both organizations

The piece, which refers to its author as"Rigor-Mortis Professor of Law," describespostmodern feminists as women who "don't wearmakeup,...wear all Black, because wHITE [sic] isthe color of mirth,...[and] wear good, comfortablewalking shoes."

"Then we go out at night to hunt down somehunky men and rip their clothes off. Sure, it'sdegrading, but we've all carefully selected wimpsfor husbands. Like Jerry," reads the parody, areference to Frug's widower, Professor of LawGerald E. Frug.

The article also includes a passage about "maledomination" in Heaven that mentions Paul A.Freund, the Loeb University professoremeritus who died earlier this year.

Schulman expressed her "deepest apologies forthe offense and pain" caused by the parody andsaid the Law Review would break withtradition and not produce a spoof edition nextyear. She said the money that would have beenspent on the spoof will be donated to charity.

The Revue was distributed to a limitedaudience at a banquet honoring the newly electededitors last weekend, but copies of the Frugparody were leaked to law students.

Schulman said the Law Review would notrelease any more copies of the Revue in aneffort not to "perpetuate and aggravate the graveharm that this publication has already done."

The Review will also create a task forceto "assess and evaluate the status and treatmentof women within the Law Review," Schulmansaid. She said the committee would "confront what[the parody's] contents reflect about the LawReview as an institution and ourselvespersonally."

The apology came after a debate among LawReview editors about whether to identify theindividuals responsible for the parody.

According to a letter written by fiveReview editors, a group of third-yearstudents blocked proposals to sanction or askindividuals to come forward and takeresponsibility for the article.

The statement also said editors who felt thatthe authors should be identified were harassed atthe meeting. "It represents a perfect example ofthe way that women and men who do not play by therules are treated at the Review," thestatement said.

"When some of us whose speech patterns conformless to that of the ideal rational male spoke,some of you openly snickered, or even worse, didnot even bother to listen to what we had to say,"the editors wrote, addressing the LawReview.

"This meeting makes it clear that we as aninstitution have not even begun to address thekinds of relationships that will allow this tohappen again and again," the statement said.

The statement was written by Law Revieweditors Rebecca Eisenberg, Renee Jones, MarieMilnes-Vasquez, Kunal Parker and Annelise Riles.

Schulman declined to comment on the statementbut said that some of the parody's authors willoffer a public apology later this week.

Both the Jewish Law Students and the HarvardCivil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review will makepublic statements condemning the Revue thisweek, according to members of both organizations