Law Review President Cleared of Bias Charges

Lawyers on both sides of the investigation of the behavior of Law Review President Emily R. Schulman '85 continue to throw allegations at each other after investigator Ralph D. Gants '76 submitted his findings last week.

The report is neither an indictment nor a complete vindication of Schulman's conduct as president. There is enough in its 109 pages to lend itself to varied interpretation.

Gants himself said in an interview earlier this week he doesn't think "anyone who left strongly on either side will be entirely persuaded [by the report]"

The investigator draws an extremely thin line between what he thinks Schulman may have said, and what he thinks it would have been in appropriate for her to have said. He also doesn't draw it too clearly.

Gants report finds Schulman made references to gender and race. that she had "emphatically denie[d]" making earlier.

Nevertheless, he exonerates Schulman, saying the intent behind these statements was not racist or sexist.

He further states that despite diametric conflict in some of the testimony given, he did not think any of the editors "knowingly decieved" him.

And people on the Review, like Supervising Editor Jerry Kang, say even though they recognize the report's problems, they are not surprised with the way it came down.

"The people I've spoken to," said Articles co-Chair Samuel Beganstos, "certainly realize that the fundamental points [of the report] contradict every public statement Emily made...The people on the Law Review realize what happened."

Law Review editors agree they need to put this issue behind them. With this controversy following the outcry over the parody of murdered feminist legal scholar Mary Joe Frug's article in last year's annual spoof issue, the Review has never had such a tumultuous time.

The four Black women who accused Schulman of racism say they are considering what further action they will take. But real change at the Law Review may occur from within.

Gants said he feels the last five pages of the report, which propose changes the Review should make to foster a more inclusive environment, are more important than the first 104, which contain the details of his investigation.

And Schulman seems to concur. "I hope that the conclusion of this three month investigation will mark the beginning of efforts toward healing and rebuilding for all of the parties concerned, and for the Law Review as an institution," she said last night.

Those efforts may already be underway. The new Review president will be elected February 7, followed by elections of the other officers. Traditionally, the new president has significant discretion in the selection of his or her officers, but next year's officers have already chosen to diminish their president's role in this regard.

For Schulman's last few days, though, it seems the tense atmosphere at the Review resulting from the investigation, may be relaxing somewhat. Bagenstos, echoing common feelings on the Review, said pressing the issue any further is "pointless.

Nevertheless, he exonerates Schulman, saying the intent behind these statements was not racist or sexist.

He further states that despite diametric conflict in some of the testimony given, he did not think any of the editors "knowingly decieved" him.

And people on the Review, like Supervising Editor Jerry Kang, say even though they recognize the report's problems, they are not surprised with the way it came down.

"The people I've spoken to," said Articles co-Chair Samuel Beganstos, "certainly realize that the fundamental points [of the report] contradict every public statement Emily made...The people on the Law Review realize what happened."

Law Review editors agree they need to put this issue behind them. With this controversy following the outcry over the parody of murdered feminist legal scholar Mary Joe Frug's article in last year's annual spoof issue, the Review has never had such a tumultuous time.

The four Black women who accused Schulman of racism say they are considering what further action they will take. But real change at the Law Review may occur from within.

Gants said he feels the last five pages of the report, which propose changes the Review should make to foster a more inclusive environment, are more important than the first 104, which contain the details of his investigation.

And Schulman seems to concur. "I hope that the conclusion of this three month investigation will mark the beginning of efforts toward healing and rebuilding for all of the parties concerned, and for the Law Review as an institution," she said last night.

Those efforts may already be underway. The new Review president will be elected February 7, followed by elections of the other officers. Traditionally, the new president has significant discretion in the selection of his or her officers, but next year's officers have already chosen to diminish their president's role in this regard.

For Schulman's last few days, though, it seems the tense atmosphere at the Review resulting from the investigation, may be relaxing somewhat. Bagenstos, echoing common feelings on the Review, said pressing the issue any further is "pointless.