Keep the Lines of Communication Open

A recent back-and-forth between editors of The Harvard Law Record and Law School spokesperson Michelle Deakin concerning an interview with Law School Dean Martha Minow sheds light on the difficulties that high-level University administrators face in tactfully responding to student inquiries. Though we acknowledge that administrators face a thorny task in balancing the requirements of their offices and the interests of students, we believe that they ought to err on the side of accessibility rather than reticence.

The friction between The Record and the Law School was sparked when Deakin initially refused to allow the paper to publish an interview conducted with Minow, and subsided when the school's communications department later reversed course and permitted them to publish it. The Record, which had emailed a draft of the article to Deakin, quotes an email in which she objects to the article on the basis of its question-and-answer format. Though neither Deakin nor Minow knew that the format would be question-and-answer, it is unclear exactly why Deakin found the format to be objectionable. Minow fielded relatively benign questions that ran the gamut from affirmative action at the Law School to the Chicago Cubs.

Deakin’s objection is all the more puzzling given that The Record was not being inappropriate in any way that justified the administration’s scuttling of the story. In fact, Deakin only managed to voice her objection because the Record indulged the Law School with quote review—a practice which The Crimson and other news sources forbid in order to prevent sources from unduly altering journalists’ stories. Thus, the administration already held an upper hand in the situation, and there was a minimal probability of any sort of misconstrual or misrepresentation of Minow's remarks.

Notwithstanding its overreaction, the Law School’s chariness is understandable. Presciently, when asked what she had learned since becoming Dean, Minow stated “I have much more compassion for people in other positions of power now. People in positions of leadership have to keep much information confidential.” There is no doubt that assuming a position of power demands a degree of discretion. It would be particularly foolish for administrators to run an organization as large and prestigious as the Law School without some level of privacy, especially in times of intense scrutiny from students.

Nevertheless, the administration owes it to the student body to respond to their questions and concerns—particularly after a tumultuous year that has seen tensions run high between students and administrators on issues such as diversity, free speech, and the role that controversial historical markers play at the school. Students have a right to hear from the administration on these contentious issues, and on their concerns in general. The issues that roiled the Law School last year will not dissolve into thin air, and any effort to tackle them will necessarily be collaborative. A thoughtful dialogue is the best way for students and administrators at the Law School to find common ground and move forward, and bureaucratic secrecy will only impede this process and strain relations.

And this continued discourse will only improve the Law School. Administrators have shown that their willingness to listen to students. Notably, the Law School did away with its controversial seal last year at the behest of many students. That decision illustrates how scrutiny and debate can help an institution like the Law School move forward. We hope that administrators follow the example they have set for themselves and remain open to interchange with students—via all outlets possible—in the future.