Harvard Law School Cracks Down on Truants

The Law School's Legal Education Committee announced its proposed mandatory class attendance policy to a forum of about 60 law students yesterday afternoon.

The committee, comprised of seven faculty members and three law students, unanimously endorsed a new policy that would simplify the process of forcing a student with poor attendance to withdraw from the class.

Currently, the Law School requires students to attend class and gives instructors the power to "delinquent" students who consistently fail to show up. But the instructor is required first to give the student a warning before proceeding to the registrar to have the student removed from the class.

The Committee's proposed revision attempts to make the requirement easier to enforce by removing the need for a written notice. In addition, the revision allows the student to appeal to the deans and, if need be, to the Administrative Board.

Under the proposal, an instructor can remove a student from the course if he or she has missed a "substantial" number of classes, defined as 25 to 30 percent.

In a statement released by the committee, the revision of the attendance rule "is intended to make the rule's application not just easier, but possible."

The committee felt the old procedure was "excessively formal" and made the policy difficult to carry out.

According to the committee's chair, Professor of Law Richard D. Parker, "the requirement has been applied in a very haphazard and sometimes ineffective manner."

Parker felt the revision would allow the attendance requirement to be "applied in a fashion that is more effective and more regular."

The committee met with considerable opposition from the students assembled. None of the students in the audience spoke in favor of the rule revision. Frequently students applauded each others' criticisms of the proposal.

The Legal Council, the Law School's student government, is against the new revision. According to council president Dina A. DeFalco, the council sent a letter tothe committee expressing its opposition.Additionally, the council sponsored yesterday'sforum.

DeFalco, speaking for the Council, argued thatthe proposal does not alleviate the problems atthe Law School.

"I do believe the committee is trying to helpthe students," she said, "but this is not theright first step to take."

Both committee members and students seemed toconcede that the attendance policy had to do withlarger issues of what Parker termed "souralienation."

"Decay has set in," Parker said. "This is aproblem dealing with our educational culture andthe quality of the classroom."

Students said they agreed. They told oflectures in which classmates would arrive early inorder to get back row seats where could playsolitaire on their laptop computers.

"There is definitely a problem of studentapathy... There is a whole restructuring whichneeds to be done," DeFalco said.

Parker's committee felt giving more muscle tothe attendance policy would help reverse the"alienation."

Students countered that this would simply givemore arbitrary power to instructors.

Jake B. Zimmerman, a first-year law student,expressed his dismay at the proposal.

"I'm completely opposed," he said. "I think itdemonstrates an utter lack of respect for studentsand is an example of Harvard's paternalism at itsbest."

Raj K. Goyle, another first-year law student,argued the proposal was merely a "thinly veiledattempt to remove the warning requirement."

"All the talk about culture is valid, but it'snot germane to this proposal," he said.

Several students referred to a survey ofstudents at the Law School which claimed 89percent opposition to the proposal. Parker notedthat only 15 percent of students had participatedin the survey.

The only student support seemed to come fromthe committee.

"It's a student's responsibility to attendclass... [The proposal] is fairly liberal," saidDavid Stringer, a second-year law student servingon the committee.

Law School Registrar Steve Kane voiced anotherconcern.

"Students disappear," he said. "This concernsme because of the pressures people are dealingwith. If a student is not attending, we need toknow if that student is okay."

To help combat the perceived apathy at the LawSchool, the committee has created a system forstudent feedback and teaching assistants.

Parker said his committee found their proposedattendance policy "is in the mainstream,"comparing it to those of the law schools atStanford, the Universities of Chicago,Pennsylvania and of California at Berkeley.

But according to Zena K. Shaffer, registrar atthe Yale Law School, there is no attendance policyfor Yale Law classes. "We just assume everyonegoes to class," said Shaffer. "We don't takeattendance in classes."

As yet, the new rule is only a proposal. Thefaculty are expected to discuss the issue in theirmeeting this afternoon. If the proposal passes, itwill go into effect next fall

DeFalco, speaking for the Council, argued thatthe proposal does not alleviate the problems atthe Law School.

"I do believe the committee is trying to helpthe students," she said, "but this is not theright first step to take."

Both committee members and students seemed toconcede that the attendance policy had to do withlarger issues of what Parker termed "souralienation."

"Decay has set in," Parker said. "This is aproblem dealing with our educational culture andthe quality of the classroom."

Students said they agreed. They told oflectures in which classmates would arrive early inorder to get back row seats where could playsolitaire on their laptop computers.

"There is definitely a problem of studentapathy... There is a whole restructuring whichneeds to be done," DeFalco said.

Parker's committee felt giving more muscle tothe attendance policy would help reverse the"alienation."

Students countered that this would simply givemore arbitrary power to instructors.

Jake B. Zimmerman, a first-year law student,expressed his dismay at the proposal.

"I'm completely opposed," he said. "I think itdemonstrates an utter lack of respect for studentsand is an example of Harvard's paternalism at itsbest."

Raj K. Goyle, another first-year law student,argued the proposal was merely a "thinly veiledattempt to remove the warning requirement."

"All the talk about culture is valid, but it'snot germane to this proposal," he said.

Several students referred to a survey ofstudents at the Law School which claimed 89percent opposition to the proposal. Parker notedthat only 15 percent of students had participatedin the survey.

The only student support seemed to come fromthe committee.

"It's a student's responsibility to attendclass... [The proposal] is fairly liberal," saidDavid Stringer, a second-year law student servingon the committee.

Law School Registrar Steve Kane voiced anotherconcern.

"Students disappear," he said. "This concernsme because of the pressures people are dealingwith. If a student is not attending, we need toknow if that student is okay."

To help combat the perceived apathy at the LawSchool, the committee has created a system forstudent feedback and teaching assistants.

Parker said his committee found their proposedattendance policy "is in the mainstream,"comparing it to those of the law schools atStanford, the Universities of Chicago,Pennsylvania and of California at Berkeley.

But according to Zena K. Shaffer, registrar atthe Yale Law School, there is no attendance policyfor Yale Law classes. "We just assume everyonegoes to class," said Shaffer. "We don't takeattendance in classes."

As yet, the new rule is only a proposal. Thefaculty are expected to discuss the issue in theirmeeting this afternoon. If the proposal passes, itwill go into effect next fall