New SBA President's Address

Virginia Law Weekly March 18, 2020

Katharine Janes ‘21
SBA President

UVA Law,

I am writing to you from my home state of Michigan, feeling comforted by familiar sights but saddened and unsettled by the new, online community we inhabit. It was strange to leave Charlottesville without knowing exactly when I will be back—a feeling I know is familiar for many. I miss you all, but I hope you are safe and well.

Our move to remote learning is unexpected and unprecedented, and understandably, it is leaving many of us feeling anxious and uncertain—myself included. The constant deluge of negative news about the state of affairs of our country and world does not resolve these feelings, as we come to understand our new law school life. Therefore, in my welcome address, I’d like to set aside the obvious difficulties of the current moment and simply let you know how lucky I feel to share a (now-online) school with you all. Additionally, I’d like to let you know what the Student Bar Association (SBA) has done—and what it will continue to do—during this uncertain time.

Over the past week, we have been working diligently to connect students with information and needed resources. I have met or spoken with Jasmine Lee ’20 and the SBA Executive team every day, and we have a full SBA meeting scheduled for tomorrow. Our conversations thus far—as articulated in the school-wide email Jasmine and I sent on March 14th—have included connecting students with mutual aid opportunities, student health resources, and financial assistance; initiating conversations on grading policies and student organization functioning; and getting clarifications on where students should live, what our classroom experiences will look like, how course materials can be accessed or recovered, and how to best communicate with professors going forward. These conversations are ongoing, and we will continue to send updates as we receive them.

The uniqueness of the UVA Law community is evident to me now more than ever. From day one, students reached out to group messages and listservs offering to scan their readings for fellow students who left books behind, inquired about whether UVA staff will continue to be paid (they will!), and advocated for policy changes that would improve student health and wellbeing (both mental and physical). Our peers have volunteered their time to distribute goods to those facing financial hardship and their labor to bring goods to those who cannot go themselves. A constant hum of “let me know what I can do to help” has reminded me of how compassionate, empathetic, and selfless those in our law school community are. I am indescribably thankful to be your classmate.

SBA exists to represent the needs of our student body. In my last year as Secretary, I was impressed by the attentiveness and outpouring of effort by our Committee members, Senators, and Executive team to make our school as welcoming and inclusive as possible. SBA 2020: Though it is often a thankless job, you have supported—and continue to care deeply about—our community and its people. Thank you for serving our student body for the past year.

I think Jasmine, though, deserves our particular thanks. Behind the scenes, she put in countless hours to make sure that events went off without a hitch, that individuals had a point person to whom they could direct questions, and that student wellbeing was always at the forefront of the Administration’s efforts. Her frequent communications and constant accessibility revealed the true depth of her desire to use her position to benefit our community. Thank you, Jasmine, for demonstrating, through words and action, what selfless leadership looks like. I’m grateful to have learned from your example.

To SBA 2021: I am beyond excited to work with you over the next year. You are a team of diligent, brilliant, and forward-thinking individuals who will push our school to be better than it was when we took office. I look forward to hearing your ideas and serving with you during our term.

During this upcoming period of remote learning, SBA will continue to advocate for UVA Law students. Next year’s Executive team in particular—Savanna Williams ’21, Chance Maginness ’22, Katherine O’Neal ’22, and I—will do all we can to act as a resource for students. I have received a significant number of emails and texts over the past few days with comments, questions, and concerns: Please keep them coming. We are in daily contact with the Administration and will continue to serve as a liaison for student voices for the duration of our time apart. Though the state of flux we are in is certainly uncomfortable and challenging, I am confident in our ability to persevere together. Thank you for selecting me to serve as your President: I take the role seriously, cannot wait to problem-solve together, and look forward to being on Grounds with you all as soon as possible.

---

kmj4vg@virginia.edu

Outgoing SBA President's Farewell

Virginia Law Weekly March 18, 2020

Jasmine Lee ‘20
President Emeritus

This was not the farewell I planned to write as my time with SBA came to a close. I assumed that after Spring Break we would return to Grounds with stories of our travels, looking forward to the last few weeks of school together. For my fellow 3Ls, I know this included a lot of “last” moments. However, the Law School (and the world) look a lot different now than just a few days ago, and so what I write to you today must be different as well. It’s an odd time to say goodbye to SBA. I always felt saying goodbye and turning things over to the next president would be strange after being so involved during my time in Law School, but online classes and social distancing have made this even stranger. These are necessary precautions, of course, but an odd disruption to the normal patterns of our lives nonetheless. Still, I’ve reflected on my time as SBA president and there is so much I am proud of and so many students both inside and outside the organization I have had the privilege of working with and getting to know better.

Looking back, it seems my term was bookended with unexpected events that students were asked to respond to. Just weeks into my term last year, the men’s basketball team reached the NCAA Final Four and championship games. Anyone who knows me knows how deeply I care about UVA sports, and I loved being able to share those moments with so many in the student body! Now, under incredibly different circumstances, we are once again asked to respond to something unexpected—and far more serious. In the email Katharine Janes ’21 and I sent to the student body, we noted how the hallmark of our Law School has always been our community. I’m really proud to see that on display even as we are spread out and not all together in Charlottesville. In the past few days, I have received messages from students asking for ways they can help others within our community. Members of our community have reached out, wondering what they can do to ease a burden from someone else right now. It is incredible and makes me so proud to see how law students are working to look out for each other. Though I am ending my term as SBA president, please know that I am still available for anyone who may need me—please do not hesitate to reach out.

I am excited to leave SBA in the hands of Katharine and her team, and I cannot wait to see what their SBA looks like. Katharine, Savanna Williams ’21, Chance Maginness ’22, and Katherine O’Neal ’22 are already working so hard for you all and I know they will continue to do so. New Exec, I have been lucky to be able to work with you all over the past year and I am still here as a resource for you and SBA going forward.

To my Executive Board: Rachel Staub ’20, Trevor Quick ’20, and Katharine, thank you for all of your support this year. Thank you for the work you did for this school and for being integral parts of SBA. I don’t think you all get half the credit you should for your work, advocacy, and dedication. All I can say is thank you for everything you have done for me, SBA, and the school. You guys know how much you mean to me; this year was only as special as it was because of you three.

To SBA 2019-2020: Thank you for the long hours, the discussions, and all of the time you have dedicated to the Law School through both SBA and your other organizations. SBA can only function when there are people in positions who care about making UVA Law better for everyone, and you all did that in spades.

To the student body: Thank you for trusting me and working with me as your president this past year. To say it was an honor to be SBA president would be an understatement, and I thank you for giving me this opportunity and responsibility. 3Ls, I know this is not how we anticipated our final semester going, but I also know we have taken every challenge since our arrival in Charlottesville and met it head on. Those challenges have brought us closer together and shown that we are a class that can and will lean on each other. This situation is one more example of that. I can only hope to see you all around Grounds again soon.

---

jtl3gm@virginia.edu

ELE(Q)T Symposium for LGBTQ+ Leadership

Virginia Law Weekly March 18, 2020

Chance McCraw ‘21
Guest Editor

What now seems like a decade ago, on March 5, the Lambda Law Alliance hosted their second annual symposium, the Ele(Q)t Project for LGBTQ+ Leadership. The mission of the Ele(Q)t Project is to educate and motivate young LGBTQ+ leaders to run for public office. It is an afternoon-long series of panels and guest speakers. This year’s event culminated in the keynote by the President of the Campaign Legal Forum and the lawyer behind Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Trevor Potter ’82.

The afternoon started with a panel of LGBTQ+ elected leaders from the area. The panelists were the Mayor of Winchester, John David Smith; the Durham County D.A., Satana Deberry; the Vice-Mayor of Roanoke, Joe Cobb; and a member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Donna Price. All of them gave candid advice to the attendees about running for office as a member of the LGBTQ+ community and all emphasized how they beat their opponents: pure hustle. Some of their opponents made an issue of their LGBTQ+ identity, but none of that mattered on election day because every one of them out-hustled their opponent. Donna Price, the first transgender member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, also emphasized how most “[p]eople live in their own worlds” so they do not notice your LGBTQ+ identity. Joe Cobb further emphasized this as he recalled being commended by a fellow city council member for addressing LGBTQ+ issues as a perceived “straight guy.”

Reggie Greer of the Victory Institute hosted the next event, an international organization focused on encouraging and training LGBTQ+ people to run for office. He first conducted an overview of what you need to consider before you run for office. His presentation culminated as he divided the attendees into small groups to develop an elevator pitch for why they are running for office. Everyone received feedback from Reggie Greer and Judge John Arrowood of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Notably, the number of openly LGBTQ+ individuals running for office in 2020 already matches the number that ran in 2018.

A campaign team panel composed of Mike Mings, Director of the Human Rights Campaign's Political Action Committee, and Roddy Flynn, Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05) followed Mr. Greer. The panel began by discussing the historic presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg. Both emphasized how different he was treated, as he was the only candidate asked about kissing his or her spouse. Additionally, they both emphasized how thoughtful Buttigieg is when he speaks because, as a veteran and closeted man for most of his life, he has spent time carefully calibrating his words and actions to pass as a straight person. The panel then transitioned to discussing the formerly bipartisan Equality Caucus to a 100 percent Democratic party caucus over the past decade. They attributed this to the end of bipartisanship throughout the Congress and on LGBTQ+ issues. Lastly, the panel discussed how important it is for a candidate to be comfortable with their identity, so they come across as authentic. Luckily, “[g]ay people have an advantage in politics. We have thought about our identity,” said Roddy Flynn.

The last panel before the keynote included Judge Shannon Baldwin of the Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 4 and Judge John Arrowood of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. This panel allowed attendees to hear and ask about the advantages and disadvantages of a system of electing, as opposed to appointing judges. Both judges emphasized working with the system you have. However, Judge Arrowood highlighted his preference for the Missouri Plan. The Missouri Plan appoints judges by a non-partisan commission, and the judge stands in a retention election in the next general election. When asked about the benefits of having LGBTQ+ judges on the bench, both judges emphasized how having experiences similar to those who may come before you allows you to empathize and better understand the circumstances of a particular case.

The keynote culminated the event before the amazing spread of Cocoa and Spice desserts and wine. The keynote featured alum Trevor Potter highlighting the changes that have taken place in Washington, D.C. for the LGBTQ+ community from the days of being rooted out of government to more widespread contemporary acceptance. When Mr. Potter was asked to join John McCain’s presidential campaign, he asked whether Senator McCain knew he was gay. The response from the late senator, quite candidly, went something like,“[I don’t] give a f*** who anyone f**** as long as they do their f***ing job.” Mr. Potter then transitioned into discussing his perception of the evils within campaign finance. The two culprits in his eyes are the Federal Election Commission and Supreme Court jurisprudence. Currently, the FEC sits without a quorum, so it is doing nothing. When the FEC did have a quorum, three members were opposed to its very existence, so they prevented any measure from receiving the requisite four of six members’ votes. As for Supreme Court jurisprudence, he ran through the famous Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United decisions that resulted in the D.C. Circuit opinion striking down any limit to donations to PACs, which resulted in the rise of Super PACs. Mr. Potter surmised that if the Supreme Court had envisioned Super PACs, the aforementioned decisions might have turned out differently.

Potter’s speech highlighted the change in the acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community within Washington D.C. and the many ills in our current political system. His last piece of advice centered around gerrymandering and how independent commissions for redistricting always pass when presented to voters. He encouraged everyone who can file a ballot initiative in their state to do so. His speech seemed a befitting end to what may very well be the last event at the Law School for the 2019-20 term.

---
cbm5bk@virginia.edu

ERA Now: Two Takes on the Equal Rights Amendment

Virginia Law Weekly March 18, 2020

Kathryn Querner ‘22
Executive Editor

On Thursday, March 5, UVA Law Professors Kim Forde-Mazrui (“KFM”) and Saikrishna Prakash shared their thoughts about the Equal Rights Amendment. This presentation took place in Withers-Brown at noon, hosted by the Federalist Society, with pizza from Mellow Mushroom provided.

This presentation has special relevance, as on Wednesday, January 15, the Virginia General Assembly became the thirty-eighth state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and the passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution currently requires the support of at least thirty-eight U.S. states. The amendment, however, still faces various challenges it must overcome before it can be added to the Constitution.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the Constitution meant to guarantee that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The measure was first introduced to Congress nearly 100 years ago, in 1923.

Professor Prakash kicked off the presentation. He began by sharing that he would focus on the process of passing the ERA, rather than its substance. Before the ERA can be added to the Constitution, the 1979 deadline set by Congress must be overcome. There is a legal question of whether Congress has the authority to extend this deadline to include recent state ratifications, including Virginia’s.

Professor Prakash drew comparisons between the procedures of passing the ERA and the 27th Amendment, which took 200 years to be ratified. After a total of thirty-eight states ratified the 1789 pay amendment, the legislative and executive branches determined that the amendment was valid. Although Professor Prakash himself criticizes this conclusion, the extended ratification process for the 27th Amendment raises the possibility that the ERA, too, may be considered valid and viable.

Due to concerns of expired consent of some states’ ratifications among other concerns, though, Professor Prakash has concluded that Congress cannot change this deadline; however, it remains to be seen what actions Congress and the courts will take regarding this amendment.

Professor Forde-Mazrui spoke next; interestingly, he does not support the passage of the ERA—not because he does not support gender equality, but rather because his work in race studies have provided insight into how the ERA would actually harm the women’s rights movement in various ways. The ERA does not apply to discrimination against women in the private sector, and further, sex discrimination by the government is already prohibited.

When asked what got him interested in studying the ERA, Professor Forde-Mazrui said, “My research on race has revealed that the trend of Supreme Court doctrine is to prevent any affirmative efforts to remedy racial equality, including through race-neutral means and including by eliminating policies that disparately impact racial minorities. I have taught my Constitutional Law class for decades that affirmatively addressing sex inequality is easier under the Equal Protection Clause than addressing race inequality. Several students have found this counterintuitive as discrimination against African Americans was the principal evil that the Equal Protection Clause was intended to address. I wish that the Supreme Court treated race discrimination the same way it treats sex discrimination, namely, banning discrimination against women and racial minorities while allowing reasonably tailored proactive efforts to benefit women and racial minorities.”

Frances Asbury ’22 attended the presentation and commented, “I thought KFM made compelling and poignant arguments against passing the ERA. Having listened to him speak, I am convinced we can and should do better not only for those the ERA purports to benefit, but for racial minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and other underrepresented or disenfranchised communities.”

After sharing his findings that the ERA would actually harm women and other protected groups in various ways, Professor Forde-Mazrui suggested that alternative solutions to protecting women as a class should include prohibiting discrimination in the private sector and permit distinctions based on sex that are designed to benefit women.

After both speakers concluded, students and community members in attendance had a chance to ask questions.

As a final piece of advice, Professor Forde-Mazrui recommends to the UVA Law community, “Students should realize that many lawmakers and members of the public do not understand judicial doctrine very well. I continually find, whether about race, sex, or sexual orientation equality, that well-educated people, including lawmakers, have many unfounded and false assumptions about what the courts are holding on various issues. That gives law students and ultimately lawyers an important role to play in bridging the understanding gap between the law on the books and the beliefs about law held by lawmakers and much of the public.”

---

kmq8vf@virginia.edu

An Evening with Mayor Nikuyah Walker

Virginia Law Weekly March 4, 2020

Lena Welch ‘20
Teen Romance Editor

Charlottesville Mayor Nikuyah Walker spoke at UVA Law Wednesday evening in an event sponsored by the Black Law Students Association (BLSA). Throughout February, BLSA organized events to commemorate and celebrate Black History Month.

Mayor Walker speaks at UVA Law about her experience in local government. Photo Courtesy Lena Welch. ‘20

“Our goals really were to provide a platform for Black voices here in our community to be heard and appreciated by the Law School community at large,” Social Action Chair Eli Jones ’21 said. “We really want to assert the value in hearing from perspectives of Black people in a place where historically they have been excluded.”

Mayor Walker spoke directly to this point as she described her journey to becoming the first Black female mayor of Charlottesville. Mayor Walker not only discussed the power of being in a room where Black voices and female voices have previously been excluded, but she explained how she came to the room in the first place.

“I had no intention of ever running for any political office,” Mayor Walker stated. She began her remarks by describing her education, both formal and informal. Although Mayor Walker did not have a traditional college experience, she dedicated her time to studying criminal justice, psychology, and political science, often connecting the subjects to better understand how the systems of power interact with humans. Mayor Walker also thanks her great-grandmother, grandmother, and mother for cultivating the curiosity and courage to ask all of her questions, even when no one is able to give her an answer.

The lessons she learned through her formal and informal education formed the “unshakeable foundation” Mayor Walker credits when it comes to her ability to stand her ground, especially in rooms where Black people have previously been denied entry.

“Mayor Walker is a powerful and urgent voice for justice and change in the city,” Jones said. “I think often places like Charlottesville, which are very politically liberal, can soothe themselves into thinking they can achieve justice by incrementally doing the same old things. Mayor Walker directly challenges that notion and has been a voice for marginalized folks in the city, even when it shakes things up.”

From the beginning of her campaign, Mayor Walker knew she was going to shake things up. She described feeling underestimated, even on election night. “Every room I walk into, people learn pretty quickly that while they're usually able to dictate outcomes and discount individuals I am not be someone that they can do those two things to. And so, I presented a challenge early on, but white power structure, it has the ability to believe that what they say because of their wealth, because of their power that they will make it true whether it is true or not.”

Upon her victory, Mayor Walker sought to follow her campaign slogan of “Unmasking the Illusion” in Charlottesville. Part of this process began when she chose to run as an independent candidate.

“I grew up in a city that had been controlled by the Democratic Party, and I had seen a lot of devastation come out of policies that were enacted by individuals who, according to the political state of this country, have Black people's best interest at heart, brown people's best interest at heart, low-income people's best interest at heart. And I had seen otherwise, so I wanted to make that statement, just by my announcement, that I may not win, but I'm willing to not win and let you know that I think you all also need to change course.”

Fortunately, Mayor Walker has been able to stay on her course, something her unshakeable foundation makes possible, and something she did not hide as she entered the political arena. In her words, “I made sure that individuals knew that I was going to remain centered, and that I was going to remain true to my philosophy, and that they understood that that is ever-changing, and I will tell you when I have changed course and why.

“I thought her speech was absolutely phenomenal,” Jones added. “The experiences she shared showed the need to sometimes break from what’s considered ‘polite’ or ‘civil’ when there are great amounts of injustice that are being perpetrated. More than anything, she reminded us that public service is a job which demands empathy, courage, and urgency.”

Mayor Walker described some of the initiatives she has been able to spearhead as Mayor, including land-use battles, the Home to Hope Program, and an effort alongside Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney Joe Platania to create a more diverse staff in his office, which is in its second year.

“While most of the individuals who go through our criminal justice system are Black, you don’t see any of the prosecutors in the office,” Mayor Walker said. “And being able to have that

Mayor Walker’s speech not only highlighted the historic nature of her service as the Mayor of Charlottesville, but it reminded all of us that we in the Law School bear a responsibility to connect with the wider Charlottesville community. Jones recommended spending money at locally-owned businesses, donating to locally-focused nonprofits and educational centers like The Jefferson School, or volunteering.

“When you take a place like the University of Virginia, with its immense wealth and influence, and juxtapose with the severe income gaps or the large shortage of affordable housing in the city, I think that is something we really need to interrogate,” Jones said. “Especially while we are secluded at North Grounds, it’s very easy to fall into ideas of ‘Town and Gown,’ but that is not a tenable or acceptable reality to live in. Even if you don’t consider yourself a member of this community, then you are a guest, and ought to be concerned with the town other people call home.”

Jones also provided this reminder: “Black History Month is not the end of honoring and listening to Black voices, nor is it the end of the pursuit of justice. Pushing towards justice is work 365 days a year.”

---
lw8vd@virginia.edu

Gender and the 2020 Election

Virginia Law Weekly March 4, 2020

Lena Welch ‘20
Teen Romance Editor

Thursday afternoon, the Feminist Legal Forum (FLF), Law Democrats, American Constitution Society, Virginia Law Women, and If/When/How invited UVA Professor Jennifer Lawless to explore the role of gender in the current election cycle. FLF Presidents Eliza Schultz ’21 and Jolena Zabel ’21 moderated the conversation with Professor Lawless.

“There's so much going on in this election cycle, and so much is at stake, so we wanted to create a space for people to unpack its gender dynamics,” Schultz said. “We wanted to hear a smart person answer questions about how the #MeToo movement is affecting this race, what sacrifices come with pursuing the vote of disaffected white men (and whether those sacrifices are worth it), and how sexism and other forms of bigotry are affecting the media we consume about the election.”

Professor Lawless, who is an expert on gender and politics with six books to her name, including Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era, described the challenge of a political scientist during national campaigns.

“The reason that all of these questions are so hard to analyze at the presidential level and are way easier at the congressional level is because at the congressional level every election cycle you have about 450 races where you can sort of see what patterns are,” Professor Lawless said. “At the presidential level, everything could potentially be seen as sexism or racism or explained away.”

Over the course of the conversation, Professor Lawless made distinctions between when data and patterns support gender as a factor compared to when sexist comments or actions take place without any real effects on a campaign.

“Whether sexism is ultimately consequential or determinative of votes is a lot harder to measure. At least in terms of outcomes, it doesn’t look like it is. But it could be that women have to endure comments like this [Chris Matthews’s treatment of Senator Elizabeth Warren] more frequently than male candidates on the campaign trail.”

However, when it comes to showing anger or electability, the gender of the candidates does not make much difference in reality. According to Professor Lawless, the most important factor when it comes to a candidate demonstrating anger is authenticity. As long as a candidate does not cross a line or seem fake in his or her outrage, voters are unlikely to punish a candidate more based on gender. And when it comes to electability, Professor Lawless does not care much for the conversation or the word.

"Well, the first thing I would note is that a woman did beat Donald Trump. So in 2016, Hillary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump did. Now, this is not to say that we should throw out the electoral college and it's terrible, but there are these general reactions that, 'Well, there's no way a woman could get elected; voters aren't ready to vote for a woman.' The empirical evidence is just not true."

For virtually every question, Professor Lawless cited empirical data in her response, challenging perceptions of those in the room as well as those held by many American voters.

“She's funny, she's sharp, and she knows her stuff,” Schultz said of Professor Lawless. “She talked less about her own opinions and more about the data that explain the phenomena we're witnessing.”

Schultz, Zabel, and Professor Lawless all noted that gender as a whole seems to be less of the focus of the 2020 campaign compared to 2016. Professor Lawless suggested that the need for novelty is what drives the conversation. Hillary Clinton’s cracking of the glass ceiling by earning the Democratic nomination made history. She also incorporated gender much more into her rhetoric and campaign. Nevertheless, Americans still have a tendency to focus on the failures of female candidates.

“There are a bunch of male candidates that never made it on to the debate stage, never garnered any real attention, and we didn't really talk about their lack of success,” Professor Lawless said. “But because women are still relatively an anomaly when it comes to presidential politics, when a woman emerges as a candidate, we sort of fixate on her and her electoral fortune.”

With Senator Amy Klobuchar ending her campaign four days after this conversation, the Democratic field has only one woman left, but Professor Lawless stated that this winnowing process does not seem to be gendered. She did, however, lament the lack of racial diversity of the remaining candidates.

“For a stage that started out as the most diverse stage we’ve ever seen, to wind up looking, race-wise, the way it looks right now, suggests that probably something’s going on. However, the one complicating factor is Joe Biden’s track record and ability to resonate with the African-American community in a way that most candidates cannot.”

By the time this article is published, Super Tuesday will be over, and we may have an even better idea of who the Democratic nominee will be, but these conversations will continue to be important.

“We wanted people to be able to ask questions and engage with each other,” Schultz said. “I spend a lot of time on Twitter and it isn't the safest, happiest place to engage in political discussions, so we wanted to create that space for people.”

The FLF Presidents also said, “We hope people organize for the candidates who share their vision for a more equal future while holding those same candidates to account and calling them out where necessary and not just in issues relating to sexism. We have some power in pushing candidates to be as inclusive and anti-racist as possible, and we should use it.”

---
lw8vd@virginia.edu

Honoring Black History Month: BLSA Wins Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Year

Virginia Law Weekly February 26, 2020

Back Row (left to right): Princelee Clesca ‘20, Niraje Medley-Bacon ‘22, David Kitchin ‘22, Rambert Tyree ‘22, Michael Howell ‘21. Middle Row: Jordan LaPointe ‘22, Melissa Privette ‘22, Tiffany Mickel ‘22, Catherine Guerrier ‘21, Michele St. Julien… — Back Row (left to right): Princelee Clesca ‘20, Niraje Medley-Bacon ‘22, David Kitchin ‘22, Rambert Tyree ‘22, Michael Howell ‘21.
Middle Row: Jordan LaPointe ‘22, Melissa Privette ‘22, Tiffany Mickel ‘22, Catherine Guerrier ‘21, Michele St. Julien ‘20, Lise Guerrier ‘20.
Front Row: Nicole Banton ‘21, Courtney Davis ‘20, Natasha Halloran ‘21, Lillian Childress ‘21, Rachel Barnes J.D.-M.B.A. ‘21, Morgan Palmiter ‘22.
Photo Courtesy Lillian Childress ‘21.

Eli Jones ‘21
Guest Writer

As Black History Month comes to a close this year, I think now provides a good opportunity to reflect. As we communally and nationally take the month of February to think about the contributions of Black people to the American story, I think we have the tendency to simply re-hash the same moments in our heads. We may talk about the great inventors, artists, and public voices for justice that have shared the same strong Black heritage, and then go back to business as usual. But when I really stop to ponder the significance of this month and what it represents, I cannot help but feel dwarfed by an immense legacy.

Last year marked exactly four centuries since the first Black people were brought to Virginia, which represented to many people the beginning of slavery in the United States. My own ancestors were among the many brought from Africa to this country, treated as property by a cruel system perpetrated in a country that was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. The irony that the author of those iconic and central words owned over 600 human beings in his lifetime, six among them being his own children, is not lost on me.

But in those fields, as the hard labor of picking cotton or tobacco in the Southern sun wore down the bodies of Black people, it never broke their spirits. These men and women had dreams of not only their freedom, but of raising the entire country to begin living out the magnificent ideals it had declared to be foundational. This is the dream that drove Harriet Tubman back into the dangers of slave territory to free her people, and the dream that inspired Frederick Douglass to illegally teach himself how to read before running away and becoming one of the most prolific minds America has ever known. This is the dream that allowed Mamie Till to show the pain of her son’s murder and the inhumanity of racism to the entire country. And it was this dream that marched with the brave souls across the South during the Civil Rights Movement.

As someone now privileged enough to attend law school, I can’t help but feel humbled by the thought of the history behind me. My ability to attend an institution like the University of Virginia to study the law is nothing less than the culmination of generations of work and dedication by many incredibly dedicated and brave souls purposed with making the world more just. To be an embodiment of the progress that my ancestors dreamed about is a blessing that words will never adequately describe, and it is an honor of the highest order for me anytime I walk into a classroom here.

At our Law School, evidence of the great strides we have made can be seen in the fact that year 2020 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of UVA BLSA. This year signifies half a century of BLSA’s engagement with and enrichment of not only our own Law School community, but of the legal profession. BLSA at UVA represents a proud tradition of legal luminaries, including private and public service practitioners, and groundbreaking jurists who have served on the state and federal bench. Anytime I have the pleasure of interacting with a member of the BLSA community here, I beam with pride for having the opportunity to be counted as part of this legacy among my incredibly gifted and driven classmates. The fact that there has been an organization that has consistently built and encouraged Black attorneys for fifty years at the law school Thomas Jefferson founded is nothing short of incredible.

BLSA is not just maintaining its presence here at UVA, it is also thriving. Just this year, I have seen our leadership host a phenomenal diversity reception (with an equally great one coming next month), take a service trip to Cape Town, South Africa to do public service work, and provide mentorship opportunities for Black 1Ls and Black undergraduates on Main Grounds interested in law. Even beyond our current board, our former president Rachel Barnes ’21was elevated to National BLSA Chair in November, and in January, Erin Seagears ’20 was chosen as the recipient of the Gregory Swanson Award. Furthermore, two of our newest members, Melissa Privette ’22 and Jordan LaPointe ’22, won the Thurgood Marshall Moot Court Competition Best Respondent Brief Award at this year’s Regional Mid-Atlantic BLSA Convention. These significant and wonderful individual achievements culminated for us as a community when our large membership was chosen as Chapter of the Year for the Mid-Atlantic region. Having the opportunity to be a part of this achievement has undoubtedly been one of the greatest highlights of my law school career. And we at BLSA know that our ability to do so much at a school that we were unable to attend less than a century ago is not only indicative of the changes that come with time and hard work, but it is also indicative of the importance of diversity to a law school community.

As a result, there is always progress to be made. While it is true that massive strides toward justice have occurred, there is still much work that needs to be done. In our own profession, there is to this day a glaring lack of diversity, especially in positions of power and influence. Indeed, many Black attorneys are constantly questioned about their qualifications, intelligence, and capability, as pernicious stigmas have persisted over time about Black people.[1] Outside of our profession, we see the legacy of racism and Jim Crow manifest in our laws, culture, and politics. As we bring Black History Month to a close, I hope we are all collectively able to reflect on the dark and ugly past of racism, celebrate the strides we have made and the thousands of brave Black people that made them, and also prepare to do the hard work of bending the moral arc of the universe toward justice. Happy Black History Month.

[1] https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2019/03/14/is-being-black-a-problem-at-law-firms/?slreturn=20200123172403

___
ejj9yj@virginia.edu

Terwilliger Talk: A Chat with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

Virginia Law Weekly February 26, 2020

Leah Deskin ‘21
Professor Liaison Editor

Last Thursday, February 20th, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, G. Zachary Terwilliger, visited the Law School for a lunchtime discussion with Annie Kim, Assistant Dean for Public Service, followed by a brief Q&A period with students. As the United States Attorney, Terwilliger oversees civil litigation in which the United States has an interest and federal prosecution for matters within the Eastern District of Virginia, a region including Hampton Roads in the southeastern portion of the state, Richmond, and also parts of Northern Virginia. The event was titled “Overcoming Adversity in Law School and the Path to Becoming a Federal Prosecutor,” but the discussion ended up focusing less on overcoming adversity and more on Terwilliger’s road to becoming a federal prosecutor, as well as recommendations he had for students hoping to go down that path.

Pictured: U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, G. Zachary Terwilliger. Photo Courtesy www.justice.gov — Pictured: U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, G. Zachary Terwilliger.
Photo Courtesy www.justice.gov

Initially, Terwilliger spent some time discussing what led him to a legal career in the first place. He mentioned that his dad had worked as a prominent official in the Department of Justice and then in private practice in Washington, D.C. His first experience working in the federal prosecution context came in high school when he interned in a United States Attorney’s Office. But he wasn’t always dead-set on becoming a lawyer. He briefly delved into bioethics while an undergraduate at UVA but, somewhat jokingly, talked about his realization that perhaps that wasn’t the right career for him. After college, he attended William & Mary Law School, clerked, and then immediately began working as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Terwilliger spent the bulk of the event discussing his experience working as a line attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office and then the United States Attorney. He discussed his victim-centric approach to prosecution (he did a lot of sex-trafficking prosecution early on in his career), as well as the decisions he has to make as the head of the office in the Eastern District of Virginia (including decisions related to the delegation of work, as well as his approach to prosecutorial discretion). He also briefly discussed his time working for the Department of Justice in D.C., in particular, the work he did to get DOJ working again at the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency. He specifically mentioned that he was working nearly all hours of the day during that period, and that being the United States Attorney for a region containing over six million people is much, much easier than what he was doing at “Main Justice.” And you thought Biglaw had it tough!

He also spent time at the end of the event answering student questions and providing insight into how to become a federal prosecutor. Here’s the gist: First, you’ve already started off on the right foot by going to such an amazing Law School. Congratulations. Second, consider clerking, it’s a big plus. Third, show an interest in government work. Spend at least one summer working for the federal government at a place like DOJ. Work in the Law School’s prosecution clinic or Supreme Court litigation clinic. In addition, if you choose to work at a firm, the best time to apply to become a federal prosecutor is once you’re a second or third-year associate. After that, you start becoming too expensive, and frankly, everyone starts leaving Biglaw around their fifth or sixth year. You wouldn’t want to be just another fifth or sixth-year associate in a sea of other fifth or sixth-year associates.

Terwilliger didn’t spend much time talking about law school. He mentioned that he felt really pressured to succeed because of his dad’s position, and then he told us that he ended up doing very well in school—standard fare for someone in his position, it seems. For a talk with a title about overcoming adversity, it would’ve been nice to hear a story about someone who didn’t initially succeed in law school and overcame it. One of the more interesting points he made, however, was that he viewed law school as a means to an end. He didn’t nerd out about the law in school. For all of those students out there who have found themselves not being a law school nerd and wondering whether they’re cut out to be a lawyer, perhaps that provides some heartening encouragement. You don’t have to love the word “jurisprudence,” the humor of Scalia’s dissents, or your professors’ policy questions on final exams to succeed as a lawyer.

Terwilliger concluded by mentioning that he thinks he has the greatest job in the world: He gets to do the right thing at work, he enjoys being there for law enforcement, and he enjoys delivering justice for victims.

___
lcd4ew@virginia.edu

Updated Statements from the SBA Presidential Candidates

Virginia Law Weekly February 22, 2020

The following letters to the editor were submitted by Daniel Seidita ’21 and Katharine Janes ’21, respectively, as updated statements regarding their candidacy for UVA Law’s Student Bar Association President. The Law Weekly did not edit either statement, nor does the Law Weekly endorse either candidate. By running these statements, the Law Weekly merely hopes to help students better decide which candidate to vote for in this election. Any comments, concerns, or questions regarding the content of these statements should be addressed to the candidates themselves.

Daniel Seidita’s ’21 Updated Presidential Candidate Statement

I’d like to begin by thanking the Virginia Law Weekly for its excellent coverage of this year’s SBA Elections. Ben Stievater penned a phenomenal piece about Tuesday’s debate, and I suggest you read it if you haven’t already.

The SBA is a complex organization comprised of energetic and passionate students dedicated to improving our collective law school experience. In addition to planning large-scale events like Foxfield and Barrister’s Ball, the SBA serves as a liaison between the student body and the law school faculty and administration.

Put simply, I am running for SBA President because I think that there are ways to improve the UVA Law student experience by transforming the SBA into an organization that is radically transparent, open, and inclusive.

Throughout the course of my campaign, I have asked hundreds of students about their experiences with the SBA. Regularly, students have expressed that they know little about what the SBA does or how it makes decisions. Few students have seen a copy of the SBA’s budget, and only a handful of students have read minutes from SBA meetings. The fact that an organization with such influence appears to be operating in relative obscurity is concerning to me.

If elected SBA President, I will try my best to publicize the full extent of the SBA’s involvement on our grounds. Whether by live-streaming SBA meetings or by releasing page-long summaries of the organization’s budget at the beginning of each semester, I will strive to implement common-sense measures to increase the SBA’s accountability to the students it serves. I will also solicit feedback on large-scale events such as Foxfield immediately after these events take place to ensure that all students are given an opportunity to express their concerns. Every SBA decision—no matter how big or how small—should be made with as much input from the broader student body as possible.

I believe that the election of an SBA-outsider will serve as a powerful reminder to other students that anyone can contribute to the SBA. With few extracurricular commitments planned for the 2020-21 school year, I will be able to dedicate an enormous amount of time and energy to serving the student body as SBA President. I look forward to doing so. Expect more.

Thank you for your time. You can learn more about my platform on Instagram (@seidita2020) and Facebook (facebook.com/seidita2020).

Humbly your servant in service,

Danny Seidita

---

dvs9qz@virginia.edu

Katharine Janes’s ’21 Updated Presidential Candidate Statement

Hi, UVA Law!

I am running for SBA President because I respect and care deeply about our community at UVA Law and the people who comprise it. With your support, I know I can be an effective leader of SBA, because I have the experience and knowledge to confront new challenges while working as a team player to improve our law school community.

No institution is perfect, SBA included. As Secretary, I have worked hard to hear and heed student input to better equip SBA to amplify and actualize student perspectives. My foremost goal as President is to create the most welcoming and inclusive community possible, as I have endeavored to do in the last two years of my service with SBA. My views on how we can make this happen are informed through my work with SBA, but also my work with affinity groups (as one example, check out the VLW Speak Up project!). Below is a brief description of some of the work I did on SBA, and my vision for how we can work to improve SBA in the coming term.

Past Efforts: Some initiatives I helped coordinate with SBA are relatively well-known, like Bar Review, SBA Socials, Foxfield, Fauxfield, NCAA game watches, and Barrister’s Ball. Some initiatives, though, were less high-profile. Early this year, I re-designed the layout of the bi-weekly SBA email to more effectively communicate information to the Law School community. We saw a substantial uptick in student replies to those emails – with questions, comments, and concerns – which signaled to me SBA was making real progress on student engagement efforts. As Secretary, I supported the initiation of new, free weekly yoga classes at North Grounds Rec Center; “Coffee with the Dean” in support of diversity and inclusion efforts; an ESL and mentorship program for LLMs; and the purchase of a new kegerator to keep your beverages cold for SBA socials. When students expressed concerns about classrooms being too warm and clocks being too late, I aided in rolling out an online platform for students to report these issues directly to Building Services. My contributions—all of which were part of team efforts—have been fundamentally motivated by the desire to make SBA an advocate for all UVA Law students.

In the Works: As a member of SBA this year, I strongly supported efforts to improve student wellbeing. As an example, for the past four weeks, SBA has been engaged in discussions with Dean Kendrick about 1L grade release policies, specifically regarding when and in what manner results are distributed. In response to negative student feedback about class registration communications last fall, I personally spoke with Dean Dugas and generated a plan to improve those communications, which will be released later this spring. When it was evident that SBA transitions were taking too long because of a lack of institutional memory, I helped created internal mechanisms to store and share transition documents across administrations. Institutional change takes time. I have, however, demonstrated an aptitude and willingness to advocate for necessary change on behalf of students.

What’s to Come: SBA, without a doubt, has significant room for growth, and I want to create that necessary change. My priorities include: (1) revamping the Foxfield organizational structure so that 1Ls do not carry the financial and logistical burden of coordinating the event; (2) reducing cost barriers for student participation in all major SBA events, particularly through the establishment of a fund dedicated to serving those of limited financial means; (3) creating a more direct link between affinity groups and SBA Exec through intentional, regular meetings; (4) building on “Coffee with the Dean” to facilitate a much-needed conversation with the administration about diversity and inclusion; (5) enhancing institutional resources and support for post-graduate public service work; (6) implementing more effective mechanisms to gather, aggregate, and act on student opinion; (7) targeting advertising toward students about the many ways SBA participation is possible (e.g. through service as a senator, on committees, etc.); and (8) making sure we never again go without Friday afternoon cookies.

Responding to criticism of institutions is a necessary part of student leadership, and I have demonstrated a willingness and ability to do the hard work of translating those criticisms into action. I take seriously SBA’s responsibility to be a vital resource for all of our law school community, and service to this institution is my top priority as a student at UVA. As President, I will listen to student feedback, meet challenges, and advocate on students’ behalf. I have loved being part of this important work for the past two years and feel strongly that, while there is certainly more work to be done, I am the woman for the job.

---

kmj4vg@virginia.edu

The SBA Presidential Debate

Virginia Law Weekly February 19, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

Forget about Bernie and Warren, this week’s hottest debate concerned the upcoming SBA 2020-2021 elections. The election for SBA Treasurer features a cross-class battle between Josh Short ’21 and Chance Maginness ’22, both of whom were unfortunately unable to attend Tuesday afternoon’s debate. In prepared statements read by the moderator, Will Palmer ’21, Short emphasized his appreciation for the UVA Law community and desire to give back, while Maginness wrote of his intentions to prioritize the budget and his experience dating back to his undergraduate years.

The main event of the afternoon, however, was the debate between SBA presidential candidates Katharine Janes ’21 and Daniel Seidita ’21. In a nutshell, it came down to whether institutional experience and knowledge trump the fresh eyes and energy of an outsider with admittedly little experience in SBA. Seidita’s platform turns on the idea that such an outsider is necessary to invigorate and provide transparency to what many view as an inaccessible SBA—one that, according to Seidita, erroneously told him he could not run for President due to the bylaws. He called for a greater SBA social media presence to effectively reach students and hear their concerns, while emphasizing that his free time would enable him to devote himself entirely to his potential presidency.

Janes, on the other hand, is a student government veteran, previously serving on FYC in her 1L year and currently serving as SBA Secretary. Her platform turns on her experience in and passion for student government, dating back to her undergraduate years. She highlighted the experience of organizing large events such as Foxfield and Fauxfield, working to help form new student organizations like Heartland ’Hoos, and launching initiatives like the Roots lunch delivery service and Diversity Week as key experiential facets from her time on SBA that would allow her to succeed as President.

When it came to the most pressing issues facing the student body, Seidita asserted the perceived lack of transparency and accessibility that many students feel toward SBA—specifically the notion that if one misses the FYC train in the first days of 1L, then he or she has permanently missed the option to get involved in student government. He seeks to rewrite this narrative through his presidency, relying on his outgoing and approachable demeanor, as well as direct social media outreach strategies, to rid the student body of its apathy toward the SBA’s bureaucratic processes and to encourage the possibility of actual change.

Janes agreed that transparency may be an issue, but countered that SBA features feedback forms at the bottom of every email, analyzes transition documents for each event from year to year to see what can be improved, and that the minutes to every weekly SBA meeting are published and provided to students in emails as well. She further addressed the inaccessibility issue by pointing toward the existence of SBA office hours, freedom of students to attend meetings, and the general approachability of herself and other executive members. Notwithstanding, Seidita asserts that more direct and effective student involvement and outreach is still needed, something a social media presence on Instagram or another more popular platform besides Facebook and emails could provide. Janes then opined that class unity, particularly the potential alienation that 1Ls feel with the rest of the community, is a more pressing issue—another issue that Seidita believes could be remedied with more direct outreach and publicization of events like SBA Socials.

Student social events also proved to be another hot button issue, from the busing at Foxfield to the steep price and scarcity of Barrister’s tickets. Seidita would combat these issues with better organization and communication, calling for bigger buses and immediate feedback after the events to voice concerns. He also would see a decrease in the cost of non-drinking tickets and a rise in the price of drinking ones to encourage students to buy the former, along with a search for a bigger venue to accommodate more students, though he knows Charlottesville provides limited options. Indeed, Janes urged students not to underestimate the effort that goes into these events, citing the inside logistical struggles of hiring big enough buses in advance and the balancing act of finding a venue and agreeable price point: “Ticket pricing is done per head by the venue beforehand, so SBA is already discounting non-drinking tickets and operating at a loss each time one is sold. Capacity this year at Barrister’s was also pigeonholed since there’s only so many spaces that we can use while taking into account price [the Boar’s Head is too pricey] and risk of being prevented from future usage [the Omni has previously revoked PILA’s ability to use the venue based on rowdy Barrister’s behavior].”

The debate became candid when an array of questions from the audience were taken. Seidita was directly asked to respond to his lack of experience in student government and whether he had spoken with any former presidents or current president, Jasmine Lee ’20, about what the role and responsibilities of SBA president exactly entailed. He admitted he had not, but was undeterred by this and confident in his assertions that an outsider with a fresh set of eyes could energize and inspire more participation with students when it comes to SBA and its events. Janes, too, faced some heat as she was directly asked about the accessibility of student government and whether she thought she would be running were it not for being elected to FYC during her 1L, running unopposed for her current position as Secretary, and Lee being her 1L PA. Janes confidently replied in the affirmative, pointing to her undergraduate student government record as proof that she would want to run regardless and attesting that Lee is as open and accessible to her as to anyone. Janes also spoke of the perceived lack of accessibility as a “sad rhetoric” and less an issue of accessibility and more an issue of letting students know the methods through which accessibility already exists.

All in all, both candidates are clearly passionate and eager to improve UVA Law for the student body. “I want to ensure every student and faculty member walks into the school each morning with the same stupid grin on their face as I do every day,” Seidita said, in response to a question about why he is running. Janes, too, emphasized that she wants everyone to have a place here and that she believes she can facilitate it via her experience. She also recognized and appreciated the energy and interest that Seidita and a contested election has brought to the student body and their relationship to SBA. She reminded students that the election is not a zero-sum game and that SBA can and will incorporate ideas and suggestions that best serve the student body, be them new social media outreach strategies or others. The debate ended with a friendly hug between the candidates, underscoring their respect and collegiality toward one another in what is shaping up to be an exciting election.

Voting opens Saturday, February 22, and will remain open until Tuesday, February 25, at 11:59 p.m.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Contested SBA Elections: Candidates State their Positions

Virginia Law Weekly February 19, 2020

This year, the Student Bar Association (SBA) is running a contested election for both the President and Treasurer positions. Each of the candidates’ arguments are featured below, and voting will be open from Thursday, February 20 until Sunday, February 23. The Law Weekly Facebook page and Instagram have more information about the debate, held on Tuesday, February 18. We encourage you to learn more about the debate and the candidates, as well as exercise your right to vote for your upcoming SBA representatives!

These statements are presented unedited so that you may consider the candidates based on their own work.

Candidates for President

Katharine Janes

Hi, UVA Law! My name is Katharine Janes, and I am running for SBA President. Over the past year, I have loved serving as Secretary of SBA. While some of the highlights of my tenure have included organizing memorable events like the NCAA Tournament game watches, what I've appreciated most in my position has been helping to facilitate everyday student activities on a more individualized basis. This has, for me, included aiding in the establishment of new student organizations, coordinating communications amongst student representatives, and (yes) sending bi-weekly emails about everything happening on Grounds. I deeply appreciate the way that working with SBA has allowed me to connect students to resources and opportunities they may not have known existed, particularly to the extent that it has promoted an inclusive environment at the law school. I hope I can continue this work next year as President, and I appreciate your vote!

___

kmj4vg@virginia.edu

Daniel Seidita

UVA is a special place. I have loved every moment of my time here as a member of this community. I am running for SBA President because I want my fellow students to know that they have an institutional advocate—one that will constantly strive to make students feel welcome, included, and capable of thriving while at UVA Law.

Our time here is short, and I have too often heard murmurs of apathy as students begrudgingly accept that they will not have time to affect change before they leave Charlottesville. I want to correct this misconception. I want to be an SBA President who is accessible; one who actively listens to each member of our community. I am running for SBA president because students should have confidence that their voice will not only be heard, but encouraged. I envision an SBA that is active and open; one in which no opinion on any matter goes without note.

I have loved UVA because of the people—because every day I walk through the halls and know I have a community that supports me. I want to ensure that the SBA is an active part of each of our lives. I want an SBA that is more inclusive. I want an SBA that places student groups and their missions at the forefront of the student experience. I want an SBA that is adaptive and responsive. I want an SBA that is open and transparent. And I want an SBA that is not just an office in WB, but rather an organization in which each student feels like they serve an important role. I want an SBA that is a bridge to change.

UVA is a very special place—but unfortunately it doesn’t always feel that way. I am running because I hope the SBA can be a more active force at enabling members of UVA Law to express their voices. Indeed, I am running simply because UVA isn’t perfect, and the SBA is a brilliant platform that has the ability to be a catalyst for change.

Humbly your servant in service,

Daniel V. Seidita

___

dvs9qz@virginia.edu

Candidates for Treasurer

Chance Maginness

As Treasurer, I want to make sure that we're directing funds towards events that benefit a majority of students—such as Fauxfield, Barristers, and SBA socials—and doing so in a way that keeps costs low for students that want to attend. Having served on SBA for a year, I've seen how we allocate our funds and create our budgets, and I want to make sure that we're prioritizing our budgets in a way that maximizes the money that we have. Furthermore, as an undergraduate, I served as our student government's finance committee chair, which allocated a $24 million dollar budget across the university—which gave me valuable insight into how we can cut out unnecessary costs while directing funds to programs that students enjoy the most.

___

clm7hk@virginia.edu

Josh Short

I believe that next term’s SBA has an opportunity to further the excellent work of our predecessors. As an active member of the law school community, I look forward to bringing the same energy and enthusiasm to the SBA Executive Board. Having truly enjoyed my first two years at UVA, I would relish an opportunity to give back to the community that has given me so much.

___

jbs9bb@virginia.edu

Diversity in the Academy: BLSA Hosts Professor Panel

Virginia Law Weekly February 19, 2020

Amy Pan ‘22
Lifestyle Editor

On Wednesday, February 12, the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) hosted “The Importance of Diversity in the Academy” as part of its annual Black History Month programming. The panel was moderated by Eli Jones ’21, BLSA’s Social Action Chair, and featured Professors Alex Johnson and Timothy Lovelace ’06, who spoke on their experiences as professors of color in legal academia. Professor Johnson, who joined the Law School faculty in 1984, teaches Property, Modern Real Estate, Contracts, and Trusts and Estates. Professor Lovelace, who is visiting this year from the University of Indiana School of Law, teaches Critical Race Theory and has previously served as the director of UVA’s Center for the Study of Race and Law. The event spanned a wide range of topics, including each professor’s academic background and path to scholarship, the impact of diversity on various fields of legal study, and advice for diverse students who hope to pursue a career in legal academia.

The panel opened by asking Professors Johnson and Lovelace about their respective routes into legal academia and their reasons for transitioning into the profession. Professor Lovelace spoke about his non-traditional path into the legal academy. Both of his parents were involved in civil rights activism, and he initially planned to pursue a public service career. Nonetheless, as many of his peers were applying to major law firms, Professor Lovelace followed suit and went on to work in private practice during his first and second summers. Though the experience as a positive one, Professor Lovelace still felt a pull towards his passion for social justice. That’s not to say that working at the firm was without its perks—while Professor Lovelace would often stay late on the job, he would use this time to print law review articles on race, law, and history, which he would read for pleasure. This cemented his interest in academia, and, at the end of the summer, Professor Lovelace made the choice to turn down his firm offer and enroll in UVA’s PhD program for history. Professor Lovelace remembers how many of his friends thought he was crazy for giving up a firm salary in favor of remaining a grad student, but he knew he made the right choice.

Like Professor Lovelace, Professor Johnson’s route to the legal academy was also a non-linear one. When Professor Johnson graduated from UCLA Law School in 1978, his Dean had encouraged him to pursue a career in academia, but initially, Professor Johnson wasn’t interested—he wanted to “make a lot of money” and set his sights on becoming a partner at a law firm. After spending two years at Latham & Watkins, Professor Johnson eventually accepted a position to teach at the University of Minnesota Law School, originally planning to stay for just one year before returning to Latham. But he found it impossible to go back to being a junior associate[1] after experiencing the freedom and autonomy of working as a professor. At the time, there were only a handful of black legal scholars teaching around the country, but Professor Johnson loved it. Compared to private practice, “being a professor was much more interesting and challenging, and the lifestyle was better.” Professor Johnson admitted that most of his class at Latham is now retired—and “filthy rich”—but he wouldn’t change his academic career for the world. “Teaching really has been a great profession for me,” he said, “and I have never regretted it, ever.”

Each professor was then asked about the diversity in their respective fields—and why diverse points of view are important in their areas and in legal scholarship generally. Professor Lovelace began by sharing how the field of legal history lacks diversity for a number of reasons. First, the ability to obtain a PhD is critical for most legal historians, but the extra years of schooling and forsaking an income is a major economic burden. Mentorship is also an issue within the profession. Professor Lovelace explained that for a student to become an academic, typically, another professor has to take initiative, identify talent, and personally encourage that student to pursue teaching. Moreover, for a PhD, a young scholar needs an advisor, and as person of color or as a woman, it can be difficult to find someone to trust. As for why diversity is important in the field of civil rights, Professor Lovelace explained the major methodological changes that have taken shape in recent years. Instead of the traditional top-down perspective, many scholars are now acknowledging that constitutional change comes from the bottom up. Everyday people—who never went to law school—are helping create a new context for legal, social, and political change. Without a diverse set of viewpoints, the field would not have experienced this sort of major methodological reform.

Professor Johnson echoed Professor Lovelace’s sentiments when he shared how the transactional side also lacks diversity. When Professor Johnson started teaching at the Law School in 1984, he was the only African American professor; Professor Mildred Robinson came to visit the following year and joined shortly after, but they were the only two for over a decade. Professor Johnson has since recruited several more—including Professor Kim Forde-Mazrui—but the number at UVA Law is still low, especially for a top law school. Professor Johnson explained how barriers to entry are relatively high, reiterating Professor Lovelace’s point on the difficulty of obtaining a PhD. Unlike in the past, a great majority of entering law professors hold both a JD and a PhD, making a doctorate degree all but a requirement for legal scholarship.

Professor Johnson quipped that he loves just about everything except grading exams. But in all seriousness, Professor Johnson enjoys the challenge of teaching, of seeing the lightbulb go off in students’ heads after a difficult concept like the Rule of Perpetuities.[2] He described teaching as a far more interesting challenge than practice—instead of specializing in one thing and doing it over and over, professors can use their imagination in their writing and teaching. Professor Johnson highlighted the concept of academic freedom and staying passionate and enthusiastic. “I currently have three articles in the pipeline right now, and they excite me,” he told the audience. “I look forward to the time over the summer when I can work on the articles. And then, over the summer, when I’m done working on the articles, I get excited about being back in the classroom and meeting new people.”

Finally, both professors offered some advice to encourage more diverse students to enter into the academy. Professor Lovelace reminded the audience to prioritize grades and develop strong relationships with professors, who will eventually serve as recommenders. He encouraged students to pursue writing experiences—including law review notes and seminar papers—as a way to develop one’s research and scholarly voice. Conducting an independent study with faculty members or completing a clerkship can serve as additional qualifications. But most importantly, Professor Lovelace emphasized the importance of just having passion in and of itself. “You have to be a self-starter,” he reminded the audience. “Is this something that you feel called to do? Because there are going to be long nights and early mornings when you’re by yourself with a stack of books, just trying to get an answer to a particular question. The only thing that will carry you through those times is that passion, that calling.”

In contrast, Professor Johnson jokingly pointed to his own route as an example of what students should not do.[3] Professor Johnson reminded students that, even if they are reluctant to pursue a PhD, there are still opportunities available for diverse scholarship. In the legal academy, schools are looking for diverse professors to populate their classrooms and faculty—especially within the transactional fields. While areas of public law might be more competitive, diverse candidates who are interested in studying Property or Trusts and Estates will have a “good shot.”

In closing, both Professor Johnson and Professor Lovelace encouraged passionate law students to pursue academic careers, even though it may be intimidating in a field that still has much room to grow in terms of diversity. Despite that, Professor Johnson described academia—especially at UVA Law—as one of the most welcoming and constructive workplaces he has ever experienced. Professor Johnson pointed to Professor Lovelace as an example; Professor Lovelace gave a speech in November that inspired Professor Johnson to start an article about Shelly v. Kramer and its significance in all four classes that he teaches.

BLSA’s panel with Professors Lovelace and Johnson provided invaluable commentary and advice from two of the most influential professors of color in the legal academy. The event highlighted the importance of thinking critically about diversity, and many students—including BLSA 1L Chair Allison Burns ’22—expressed admiration for all that both professors have accomplished. Jones, who moderated the event, underscored the importance of this event by adding that “Across academia generally, but even more so in the legal academy, there is a serious lack of diversity to be seen, and that can manifest itself in classrooms and scholarly journals in a variety of ways. Year round, but especially during Black History Month, I think we should really reflect on the massive benefits we can all reap from increased diversity in many places in society.”

___

ap8axh@virginia.edu

___

ap8axh@virginia.edu

[1] His exact words were actually “dumbass associate,” but the idea is probably one and the same.

[2] I have no idea what that means, but it sounds hard.

[3] Don’t be like Professor Johnson, who turned down an invitation for law review because it meant having to go back to school a month earlier.

Barrister's Ball 2020: An Affair to Remember?

Virginia Law Weekly February 12, 2020

Barrister’s revelers. Top row from left to right: Luke Smalanskas, Kareem Ramadan ’20, Jake Rush ’20, Ben Bhamdeo ’20, Ethan Silverman ’21. Front row from left to right: Anna Noone ’20, Megan Mers ’20, Allie Block ’20, Kayla Seltzer ’20. Photo credi… — Barrister’s revelers. Top row from left to right: Luke Smalanskas, Kareem Ramadan ’20, Jake Rush ’20, Ben Bhamdeo ’20, Ethan Silverman ’21. Front row from left to right: Anna Noone ’20, Megan Mers ’20, Allie Block ’20, Kayla Seltzer ’20. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ’21.

Phil Tonseth ‘22
Staff Editor

7:53 a.m.: Wake up, crack a cold one. Senior prom way back in 2011 didn’t go as well as it could’ve,[1] so today will make up for everything that night wasn’t.

8:02 a.m.: I lace up the Nikes™ to get a jog in. I specifically tailored my pants to show off my assets, so this run is my last hope I don’t split my pants breaking it down to “hot girl bummer.”

8:19 a.m.: That was the worst two miles I have ever run in my life. Bud Light burps don’t coincide well with regrets over running at 8 a.m. on a Saturday.

8:20 a.m.: Bud Light Seltzers are both delicious and also water-like. Classic form of both hydration and intoxication. Cheers to you, Bud.

11:31 a.m.: Turning twenty-seven next week means it takes a three-hour nap post-run to recover. Time to start the day, part two.

11:32 a.m.: In typical 1L fashion, I’m doing homework on the weekend. Will I remember any of this ConLaw on Monday? Doubtful, but that’s equally attributable to my pending drunkeness as to ConLaw being utterly made up nonsense.

2:05 p.m.: Football is back on TV. I have abandoned all hope of productivity for today. Bud Light, DiGiornos, and the XFL. Could this be more American?

3:17 p.m.: It’s not drinking alone when you get your two cats to have a glass of Pinot Meow and Mos-Cat-o with you.[2]

6:13 p.m.: My mandatory friends,[3] who I know voluntarily hang out with me, have catered in Italian food for our pre-game. I lovingly support this suggestion, because it’s a classy way to request pizza. However, thumbs down to Charlottesville for not having an Olive Garden. That’s true Italian-o.

7:22 p.m.: I asked for one thing for my birthday: a dinosaur tie-tack. I have lost said tie-tack. I am morose.[4]

7:23 p.m.: My girlfriend has informed me that she already put my tie-tack on me, as she knew I’d forget it. At least one of us is smart; she’s earned her keep. Maybe forgetting my tie-tack on my chest is a sign, I should slow down on the beers. Then again, I paid $65 for an open bar and will get my money’s worth. Sorry, Mom.

8:10 p.m.: I showed up fashionably on time. Benefits? The open food bar had pizza and chicken and waffle bites. I should’ve worn expandable pants.

8:43 p.m.: $2 for a professional picture? That was a steal. I crossed off a new headshot for LinkedIn, my next Christmas card, and something to send my mom to show her I know how to tie my own tie now.

Abby Porter ’22, Marlyse Vieira ’22, Emily Anne Owen ’22, and Megan Ong ’22 at Barrister’s Ball. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ‘21.

10:15 p.m.: Good thing my drink is cold. Apparently “dabbing” and hitting your girlfriend in the face isn’t the best way to show I can break it down low.

10:29 p.m.: The DJ played “Hit Me Baby, One More Time,” “Party in the USA,” and “Get Low,” all within ten minutes. I wasn’t prepared to relive my angsty teenage years, but am very thankful for the open bar now.

11:07 p.m.: S/O to Kolleen Gladden for taking pictures all night. I may have taken forty different shots, but the camera loved me. I can’t apologize for that.

Caroline Spadaro ’22 and Jack Zipple ’22 pose at Barrister’s Ball. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ‘21.

11:25 p.m.: Coat check is getting wild. Plus side, they keep bringing pizza by so I can steal a slice. Double plus side, I forgot I put slices of bread in my peacoat. Snacks for days.

12:37 a.m.: Common House’s chairs are so comfy that I may have actually fallen asleep waiting for a drink. Time to go home. Until next year, Barristers. #lawhoos

1:05 a.m.: This is the one time that future me loves past me. Saving a slice of DiGiornos pizza for my drunken stupor was the best idea since sliced bread.

1:06 a.m.: Turns out I had one last piece of sliced bread in my pocket. I cannot decide which is better now. My stomach is very content.

1:22 a.m.: My cats are very miffed that I’m up, eating, and keeping them awake. They’re off their cat-nip high now, guess it’s my turn to sleep too. Case dismissed.

Christina Luk ‘21
Executive Editor

So, I was asked to give a 2L perspective on Barrister’s this year, but I'm just going to talk about eating dumplings, which is how I actually spent the evening of February 8, 2020.

Big Tuna was busy this week. Joy Wang ’21 and Christina Luk ’21 hold up Diversity Pledge.

Step One: Fail to procure a ticket to Barrister’s and rejoice in the freedom this brings you.

Step Two: Find a mom-friend who will host your sorry ass on a Saturday night and convince her that this would be a great time to gorge yourselves on dumplings because you do not have to fit into a little black dress. (My mom-friend is Kunchok Dolma ’21, who makes amazing Tibetan momos—y’all can find your own. I will not share.)

Step Three: Show up at her house in your most comfortable hoodie with your Nintendo Switch—because why the heck not—and two other friends.

Dumplings (above) made by Christina Luk ’21 instead of attending Barrister’s. Photo credit Christina Luk ’21.

Step Four: Fold dumplings. Am I actually going to explain this? Yes, because I haven’t met my word count yet. We’re starting with imaginary store-bought dumpling skins because I’m too lazy to imagine making them myself. Make sure they’re circular, we’re making pot stickers here, not wontons, jeez. Now place one dumpling skin flour-side up on your palm and fill with your filling of choice. Dip your finger in a saucer of water and run it along the lip of the circle. Now bring the bottom edge of the circle up to the top and crimp the skin toward the center until you’ve closed the gap. If that made zero sense to you, then you read it right. The proper way to learn how to make dumplings is to watch your grandmother make them and then be relentlessly ridiculed until you’re old enough to tell someone else they’re doing it wrong. I am available on Friday evenings to laugh at anyone who wants to learn.

Step Five: Eat the dumplings while reading and laughing at all the group texts you’re getting that say, “are u here yet?” “come dance~” or “omg there’s pizza here.” Hahahaha. Man, those dumplings were good.

Barrister’s photo from left to right: top Marc Petrine ’21, Jacob Sillyman ’21, Jacob Jones ’21, Zane Clark ’21, Will Joyce ’21, bottom: Jonah Panikar ’21, and Samwise Pickett ’21. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ’21.

Taylor Elicegui ‘20
Features Editor

The time-honored tradition of law students getting dressed up to get down on the dance floor has come and gone, and I’m here to provide the jaded 3Ls take on An Affair to Remember.

Despite some snafus, I’d say Barrister’s was a hit, and people (those who could attend) had a great time. However, I feel compelled to get my critiques out of the way before moving on to the positive things. Obviously, the event venue wasn’t big enough. Given the lack of tickets to the main event, it was particularly unfortunate that Common House reached capacity and wouldn’t let people in. I know it’s hard to find a venue in Charlottesville and I did appreciate being somewhere other than The Omni, but 600 tickets are not enough for a school the size of UVA plus non-law significant others. My other critique: The entire dance floor was just one giant spilled drink, which was brutal on the dress shoes. I know we had an open bar, but we clearly all need to work on being a little less klutzy.

Now, on to the positives. First and foremost: Damn, this school cleans up well. I appreciated that you all brought your A-game. Tuxes and ball gowns, the student body did not disappoint and looked incredibly fly. The DJ played some good music, and I really enjoyed seeing everyone let loose and have fun on the dance floor. We were also treated to an extra-special dance performance from our very own Griffin Peeples ’20, who sure knows how to break it down.[5] The Jefferson was a nice change of pace and the bars moved quickly enough that the wait for drinks wasn’t too bad. The snacks were also delicious—particularly the chicken and waffle bites. Big shout-out to whoever picked out the snacks.

Law Weekly 3Ls (minus David Ranzini ’20) abuse their last week of power to get featured in the Law Weekly. Please send your complaints to Christina Luk ’21 and Michael Schmid ’21. Photo credit PETER. — *Law Weekly* 3Ls (minus David Ranzini ’20) abuse their last week of power to get featured in the *Law Weekly*. Please send your complaints to Christina Luk ’21 and Michael Schmid ’21. Photo credit PETER.

All in all, my final Barrister’s was a ball. I think we had the fanciest attire I’ve seen in all three years and I enjoyed getting to dance the night away one last time.

___
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
cl3eh@virginia.edu
tke3ge@virignia.edu

[1] If you’re reading this Alee, you were a wonderful date. I, on the other hand, was a typical teenage boy and wish I could re-do things.

[2] This is cat-nip wine, not actual alcohol. Please don’t call PETA on me. I have no other friends besides my cats.

[3] S/O big J.D. energy

[4] It’s a brontosaurus, my go-to dino. Did you guess right? Refer to Vol. 72, No. 13, “What Type of Dinosaur Are You? The Results Will Shock You!”

[5] The Editor-in-Chief would like to publicly express her disagreement here.

Fourth Annual Shaping Justice Conference

Virginia Law Weekly February 12, 2020

Sarah Houston ‘20
Guest Writer

As future lawyers of America, we are taught in Law School to take convoluted issues and make them clear, to put them in neat little boxes, and to embrace the linear. But at this year’s Shaping Justice Conference, panelists and speakers alike pushed us to embrace complexity in non-linear ways. When these social justice lawyers are trying to not only assist people who have been marginalized, but to transform the entire system within which this subjugation is created, the solutions are often found in very unlikely coalitions. Members of these unexpected partnerships spoke side-by-side at panels throughout the day, highlighting the multi-dimensional character of progressive lawyering in areas such as transgender rights, sex work, environmental change, and restorative justice. Many of the panelists’ clients face intersecting levels of oppression, from housing to immigration to healthcare, and it is within these areas that activists have found meaningful collaborative space.

Gustavo Angeles, Chris Espinosa, Miranda Cady Hallett, and Kimberly Fields speak as part of “The Intersec- tion of Immigrant Rights and Environmental Justice” panel.

The Advocacy for Transgender Rights panel gave us a look into what fighting for transgender rights looks like in community centers, on the streets, and in the courtroom. Joaquin Carcaño, the lead Plaintiff in Carcaño v. Cooper, spoke of his experience being thrown into the national spotlight as he worked with lawyers, minimum wage groups, and sexual assault prevention organizations to challenge HB 2, the North Carolina bill banning transgender individuals from using public restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Mia Yamamato, a community activist and criminal defense lawyer who grew up in a Japanese internment camp, explained how “coming out is the most revolutionary thing one can do” and emphasized how important it is for different progressive movements to put themselves on the line for each other when so many stand by as transgender men and women are routinely outed in public without any choice in the matter. Bary Hausrath, who runs a firm that specializes in LGBTQ+ representation in trust and estates, warned us to never discount someone as a potential ally based on the community they come from. He has found very meaningful support in rural communities outside his usual network. When asked by an audience member what allies can do to further transgenders rights, the answer was simple: “employ us, give us jobs.”

Chris Kavanaugh ’06 speaks in Caplin Pavilion after receiving the Shaping Justice Award for Extraordinary Achievement. Photo credit Michael Schmid ’21.

Restorative justice was the focus on the Dismantling Mass Incarceration through Restorative Justice panel. Many of us in the audience had no idea what restorative justice looked like in practice, but by the end were inspired by this paradigm-shifting response to the mass incarceration that currently defines the US’s criminal justice system. This practice brings together victims and perpetrators in order to heal harm instead of punish. The issue is that restorative justice is not generalizable. It is not, contrary to the beliefs of many, focused squarely on obtaining forgiveness from the victim. It looks different based on the parties involved, the incident that occurred, and what everyone agrees to beforehand. It is meant to rehabilitate the person who committed the crime by forcing them to confront what they did and mend relations with both the victim and the wider community. We were given the chance to hear from a Restorative Justice advocate, a professor of social work, a member of the NGO Restorative Justice Project, and a public defender who are all working in different ways to deter perpetrators while treating them as real people. One of the speakers warned against the tendency we have to take one person’s story as indicative of an entire group’s lived reality, instead challenging us to “hold things with complexity” and to embrace often changing, messy coalitions. Lawyers should continuously be asking “Who is in this community?” or “Who is being affected by this perpetrators actions?” in order to gain even more support for this movement away from mass incarceration.

Keynote speaker Reginald Dwayne Betts speaks about his life and career in Caplin Pavilion on Friday evening. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ’21.

The keynote speaker, Reginald Dwayne Betts, had a difficult time getting to UVA for the conference. His plane was canceled, so he decided to take a car from D.C. to Charlottesville. It was during that car ride that he decided to completely change his planned speech for the event, instead using the cities and towns he passed as sign posts for us, explaining his winding journey from prison, to Yale Law School, to political appointment. Mr. Betts is first and foremost a poet. This was evident as he told us about his life as if we were on the curving road with him. It is so important for lawyers and students of the law to engage with those who bear the results of their actions, but too often there is a divide. Mr. Betts, who was still legally a minor when he was imprisoned for nine years, bridges this divide. He knows what it is like to be incarcerated, and can testify to the complete lack of training one is given in prison before they enter back into the real world. He knows what it’s like to study the law and immerse yourself in it, and to struggle to pass national changes through the Office of Juvenile Justice. And it is through his award-winning poetry that Mr. Betts transverses both sides to bring national attention to the devastating effects of mass incarceration. We as UVA students should take his words as inspiration to begin engaging more actively with those currently marginalized by the law. At the end of a day filled with lawyers and activists telling us to reach out and form non-linear networks, challenging us to expand our idea of what justice really means, Reginald Dwayne Betts was the perfect person to send us off on this journey.

---

seh4dt@virginia.edu

McCorkle Lecture: Equality and the First Amendment

Virginia Law Weekly February 12, 2020

Sam Pickett ‘21
News Editor

This past Thursday, February 6, Catherine A. MacKinnon delivered the 2020 McCorkle Lecture, entitled The First Amendment: An Equality Reading. MacKinnon is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School since 2009. She has written dozens of books, but is perhaps best known for her work arguing that sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination. In fact, in 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission followed her framework on sexual harassment in prohibiting quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment. She also represented Bosnian women survivors of Serbian genocidal sexual atrocities in a case where she won a $745 million verdict at trial in 2000. The case represented the first time that rape was considered an act of genocide. These are just a few of MacKinnon’s accomplishments, which, as Dean Goluboff noted, show her commitment to ending the inequality that affects women’s lives.

Before MacKinnon began, Dean Goluboff gave an introduction discussing the origin of the McCorkle Lecture Series. The series is funded by the wife and son of Claiborne Ross McCorkle, who graduated from UVA Law in 1910 and gained fame when he prosecuted two leaders of a lynch mob in 1920, securing their conviction and dealing a severe blow to mob violence in southwest Virginia. This lecture was particularly important, Dean Goluboff said, because it marks the 100th anniversary of co-education at UVA Law—Elizabeth Tompkins was admitted to UVA Law in 1920. Dean Goluboff also recognized, however, that it took another forty-seven years for the first African American woman, Elaine Jones ’70, to be admitted. The Dean was careful to point this out because, “as we celebrate our milestones in the story of gender and sex equality, we have to locate these stories and milestones within the similarly messy stories of the inequalities experienced by others.” The Dean’s comments, which coincided with UVA’s Diversity Week, were a strong reminder of how far we have come and how much more work we all have to do.

Beginning her lecture, MacKinnon started by giving the Dean a shout-out, remarking that it is not often that you have a Dean who has something worth listening to every time they speak.[1] MacKinnon’s talk[2] was based on the general principle that the First Amendment began as a weapon for the powerless, but it has since been transformed into a weapon for the powerful. While the First Amendment was initially meant as a defense against the power of the state, it is now a “sword used by racists, anti-Semites, and corporations buying elections in the dark.” Consequently, public speech has escalated in its abusiveness, with the offensive groups making themselves seem as if they are the victims and positioning themselves as just debaters giving opinions. In the meantime, the voices challenging inequality in the world are muted and further abused, all in the name of free speech. Much of MacKinnon’s subsequent research has focused on how we have arrived at this point; she traced various Supreme Court cases dealing with free speech to see how the doctrine has shifted from “content neutrality” to “viewpoint neutrality.” The problem with this shift, MacKinnon argued, is that neutrality is rooted in the abstract notion of “formal equality” that lacks substantive direction. This doctrine enforces social inequality and silences the speech of the disadvantaged and subordinated. One example she gave was the constitutionalization of the law of libel. While I had always taken for granted that making it hard to sue under libel was a good thing, MacKinnon challenged that perspective by demonstrating how it made the media, an already powerful social institution, even more powerful and made it unnecessary for the law or the public to consider the power to publish falsehoods.

MacKinnon then transitioned from discussing libel to discussing obscenity, and more specifically, pornography. MacKinnon discussed how obscenity protected pornography, despite the fact that the harms of the production and consumption of pornography have been empirically demonstrated for many years. The major theme of the speech was clear: The weaponization of the First Amendment by society’s powerful groups did not “come out of nowhere” and it is not counterbalanced by the neutrality. MacKinnon advocated for a return to the First Amendment’s protection of dissent and for a building into the First Amendment a substantive understanding of inequality that would help the Court expose expressions of inequality and support expression by subordinated groups about their inequality.

MacKinnon’s speech was fascinating and seems as groundbreaking as her work on sex discrimination. She challenged many of my own notions about the law and has inspired me to reconsider my own view on the First Amendment and the role it plays in the power dynamics of our society.

___
shp8dz@virginia.edu

[1] We at the Law Weekly also stan Dean Goluboff.

[2] I would like to say ahead of time that I did my best to follow MacKinnon’s speech, but there were certain portions that admittedly went over my head. She mentioned many Supreme Court cases and I would have liked to have been able to read the speech so I could fully absorb it. That being said, this is my best effort.

2Ls Meet in the Middle for Midway Toast

Virginia Law Weekly February 5, 2020

Jacob Jones ‘21
Events Editor

Last Wednesday, members of the class of 2021 gathered in Caplin Pavilion to celebrate making it halfway through law school. Really this is quite the accomplishment. We’ve made it through a pass-fail LRW course, taken all of the 1L classes that would make us capable small-town lawyers in the 1890s, and worked at a summer internship that was at least tangential to actual legal problems in the world. For my classmates who are going into Big Law, law school was 95% over when they finished OGI and accepted their offers.[1] For public service folks, some of the stress of 1L continues, but in a more chill atmosphere. The halfway mark was a bit of an approximation, but it was close enough. A few celebrity faculty members who rarely come to these events, like the members of the Office of Private Practice and the Registrar’s Office, made it out to share in the merriment and free catered food.

2Ls raise a glass half-full in Caplin Pavilion on Wednesday for the Midway Toast led by Dean Risa Goluboff. Photo courtesy twitter.com/RisaGoluboff.

Dean Goluboff spoke to commemorate the event. She talked about how as we start law school, we are immersed in an environment where we are always around our classmates. We all do orientation together, we have all of our classes together, we perform at Dandelion together, and we cluster at firm events avoiding networking interactions together. Then, we go to different cities and states for our summer experiences, and most of us come back for OGI where we interview to go to different cities. During 2L, we all start to branch out on our different paths, with some of us doing clinics, others focusing on doctrinal classes, some others doing an intense study of why it’s ok for big fish to eat smaller fish,[2] and, lastly, some people going full Hogwarts and studying the mystical art of tax law. Because we don’t see each other as much, the Dean pointed out how each occasion we have to come back together at the same place and time is special. She emphasized that we probably won’t be back together in this way until graduation.

Dean Goluboff also stressed how the latter half of law school is still important, despite much of the emphasis on the first year or so. She said that during the recession, there was talk of shortening the ABA three-year requirement into only two years. Dean Goluboff was sincerely opposed to shortening law school because the extra year gives us the chance to broaden our horizons, become more informed lawyers, and gain a more holistic education.[3] Dean Golubuff then encouraged us to look back and reflect on the changes we’ve made since we started law school. I encourage the reader to take a moment to look back and reflect. Take your time.

What changes have I made since I started on this law school journey? Is half of a law degree worth anything? A statistical analysis of future earnings would probably say no, if you only ever had half of a law degree. But there’s more to having half of a law degree than just the money. When you watch Cops and your relative asks if the police can do that, you get to intelligently respond “it depends.” Or when your friend thinks their contractor is ripping them off and asks if they can get out of their contract, you get to be all professional and say “I’m not allowed to give legal advice.”[4] Half of a law school degree makes you inquisitive. You get to see a fender bender and, after thinking hard and figuring out that it was probably a tort, you realize any dispute will just be hashed out by insurance companies.

Mostly, finishing half of law school lets us look back and say “that was easy.” This is a lie we tell ourselves so that we can justify going forward into the actual practice of law, which is just as stressful but with more hours and money. But also we actually did come this far, which means we’ve accomplished something, which probably means we can accomplish other things too, like having a successful legal career. But the real successful legal career is the friends we’ve made along the way.

___
jmj3vq@virginia.edu

[1] Those seeking clerkships had to try for an extra semester. Woe to them.

[2] Also known as “mergers and acquisitions” and “antitrust.”

[3] The author of this piece takes no official stance on whether law school should be three years or two years. However, his wallet is strongly in favor of a two-year program.

[4] And even if I could, I still would have no idea. Was there bargained for consideration?

VJSPL Symposium: Civil Rights and Public Health

Virginia Law Weekly February 5, 2020

Michael Schmid ‘21
Production Editor

The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law hosted its biannual symposium on January 30 and 31, titled “Healing Hate: A Public Health Perspective on Civil Rights in America.” [1] The two-day event, split between the Law School and the Medical School, focused on the link between civil rights and public health. In the spirit of the interdisciplinary nature of the journal itself, the symposium brought together scholars and experts from a variety of backgrounds, including law, medicine, public health, and social science. Panelists addressed a range of issues, including adverse environmental effects on minority neighborhoods, the traumatic effects of racialized policing, and the effects of gun violence on mental health.

The symposium began with a welcome from Dean Risa Goluboff and was followed by an introduction by Professor Dayna Matthew ’87. Professor Matthew, whose work focuses on racial disparities in health care, remarked that she hoped to bring back the energy of the civil rights era. In particular, she wished to revive the movement’s interdisciplinary approach to tackling the social justice issues of the time. Building on that theme of continuity with our past, Professor Matthew posited that what happened in Charlottesville in 2017 with the Unite the Right rally was not new. Rather, the events of that weekend indicated that the hate, which was sometimes thought to be a relic of the past, is being carried forward.

The keynote speaker for the symposium was Angela Harris, a law professor at the University of California Davis School of Law and prominent speaker and author on legal issues involving issues of power and identities. Harris, who talked about a “new paradigm of medical civil rights,” stated that all forms of subordination, including health disparities, must be uprooted. When thinking about racism, Harris said, many people—including the Supreme Court—tend to think only of conscious bias; however, racism often includes unconscious bias. Addressing the social determinants of health, Harris outlined areas of racial disparity in healthcare, both in access to services as well as quality of health services. She remarked, “your ZIP code determines your health more than your genetic code.”

Following Professor Harris’s keynote speech was a keynote response. This panel, titled “The Health Justice Movement,” featured Professor Kim Forde-Mazrui, Sarah De Guia, CEO of ChangeLabSolutions, Alexander Tsesis, professor at Loyola University School of Law, and Sidney Watson and Ruqaiijah Yearby, both professors at Saint Louis University School of Law. De Guia addressed the use of legal tools to advance public health and noted that she has begun to recognize the crucial role of subordination in public health issues. Tsesis talked about the dehumanizing aspect of hatred and posited that even unconscious bias could be considered conscious given that most adults should be aware of the role and effects of bias in society. Continuing the discussion on humanization, Yearby, advocating “humanizing equity,” emphasized bringing the human element into these discussions to make them less abstract. Yearby spoke about the distinction between “equality” and “equity,” stating “equality is about sameness. Equity is about fairness.”

Two panels on Thursday addressed the social determinants of health. The first looked at housing, neighborhoods, and the environment; the second focused on education, immigration, LGBTQ+, and religious group identities. In the first panel, Vernice Miller-Travis, Executive Vice-President of the Metropolitan Group, recounted her work in the 1980s researching the relationship between the racial composition of neighborhoods and the location of hazardous waste sites. Miller-Travis explained that her research and that of others have documented that adverse environmental effects are clustered in neighborhoods in which large numbers of racial minorities live. “If you’re trying to find the dump,” Miller-Travis remarked, “find out where the black people live.” Miller-Travis ended her segment by urging those in attendance to recognize the effects of local land use and zoning laws that allow for the dismantling of communities of color. In addition to the “erasure” of the Vinegar Hill neighborhood here in Charlottesville, Miller-Travis also noted how the construction of I-95 through Richmond divided and disrupted black communities.[2] Marianne Engelman-Lado, a professor at Yale and Vermont Law Schools, spoke about her work with community-focused environmental justice. Engelman-Lado echoed the correlation between communities of color and environmentally harmful sites such as landfills.

Shifting from environmental determinants of health to those based on neighborhood, the next panelist examined the traumatic effects of racialized policing. Jeffrey Fagan, a law professor at Columbia, was the lead expert in the civil rights trial challenging the New York City stop-and-frisk policy. Noting the racial disparities in who was stopped under the policy, Fagan stated that, in one year, 80% of young, black males in the city were stopped in a single year under stop-and-frisk. Fagan criticized then-mayor Michael Bloomberg, currently a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary, for not apologizing for the policy. Fagan discussed the detrimental mental health effects of racialized police encounters, including increased rates of anxiety, PTSD, and decreased performance in school. Despite these adverse effects on those who have been subjected to police encounters, Fagan said there is no evidence that stop-and-frisk and similar “New Policing” policies have contributed to community safety. Fagan notes that research shows that stops based on a more stringent “probable cause” standard, rather than the permissive “reasonable suspicion” standard under Terry, contribute more to public safety. With these New Policing policies, Fagan says, “We are mortgaging the future . . . of these kids. We are mortgaging their mental health.”

The symposium continued on Friday at the Medical School, led by a keynote address from Vivian Pinn, Director of the Office of Research on Women’s Health at the National Institutes of Health. Morning panels addressed issues such as the mental health effects of gun violence and disparities in the rates of maternal and infant mortality. Before the symposium closed with a “call to action” from Professor Matthew, the symposium struck a forward-looking note with a workshop that looked into how to advance civil rights as a health determinant in the health care system.

VJSPL Editor-in-Chief Megan Mers ’20 extends her gratitude to everyone who helped make the event possible. “Putting together the symposium was truly an enormous team effort. The whole event was made possible through the help of Professor Matthew and all of our organizational co-sponsors.” Mers said that she and others on the journal are “really hopeful this event catalyzed important conversations around civil rights and health, both from a legal perspective and a policy perspective.”

___
ms3ru@virginia.edu

[1] Thank you to Ronald Pantalena ’20 and Megan McKinley ’21 for their contributions to this article.

[2] I grew up near Syracuse, New York where a similar issue is dominating public debate. Interstate-81 was constructed through the heart of downtown Syracuse, fracturing black communities by bifurcating the city with a massive interstate. Now that I-81 needs significant repairs, many local activists are pushing for I-81 to be lowered and integrated into the community (known locally as the “community grid” option). These advocates for the community grid have highlighted the harm done to these communities of color by the construction of the highway. For those interested in further reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/syracuse-slums/416892/.

Judge Nalbandian ’94 Discusses Emerging Trends in the Law

Virginia Law Weekly February 5, 2020

Chloe Knox ‘22
Guest Writer

The Federalist Society welcomed Judge John Nalbandian ’94 of the Sixth Circuit back to Grounds last Wednesday to speak with students and faculty about current developments in the legal landscape. He admitted that he had not visited the school in over a decade before returning last spring to celebrate his 25-year reunion. After realizing how much he had missed the Charlottesville community, he was grateful for an opportunity to visit with professors and friends on the faculty, connect with current students, and, of course, make a trip to Bodo’s Bagels.

Judge Nalbandian conceded that the title of his speech, “Litigation Strategies for a New Era,” may have been ambitious. Are we actually in a new era that requires an innovative approach? He provided a two-fold reason—the first, general and philosophical and, the second, identifiable and practical—of why he would answer in the affirmative. The first prong centers on the transformation of the judicial landscape over the past few years and the change in methodological approaches that followed. The second prong centers on the technological innovations now available to litigators.

There has been a noteworthy transformation in the legal landscape over the past three years driven by the pace of judicial appointments. As of late January, the Senate has confirmed 187 federal judges nominated by President Trump. In the Courts of Appeals, 50 of the 180 active seats are now occupied by Trump appointees. With this influx of newly appointed judges, there has been a distinguishable shift in methods of interpretation.

Judge Nalbandian offered a few examples of these shifts. The Supreme Court’s opinions in United Steel Workers v. Weber[1] and Public Citizen v. DOJ[2] largely rested on what the justices viewed as the legislative intent for the statutes at hand—Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act respectively. Judge Nalbandian claimed that there is now less of a reliance on legislative history for the purposes of statutory analysis. He explained that judges are wary of citing to a statute’s history out of respect for bicameralism, since only the text itself demonstrates what both Houses of Congress agreed upon. Similarly, there also has been a distinct shift from reliance on original intent to reliance on original public meaning, as District of Columbia v. Heller[3] demonstrates. Rather than relying on how we may interpret the meaning of the text today, judges more frequently decide cases based upon how its language would have been understood at the time of its enactment. The growing number of citations to Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner’s book The Interpretation of Legal Texts is an indication that the federal courts’ opinions are resting more on originalist and textualist interpretations.

Judge Nalbandian then turned to consider methodological stare decisis—whether courts feel bound by their previous interpretive methods. He believes that not only do courts not treat methodological decisions as binding, but they also would be greatly skeptical of any congressional attempt to tell the courts what methods to use.

What strategies should lawyers consider in the midst of this shift? How are they to litigate if the courts do not feel bound by methodological precedent? Judge Nalbandian recommended starting with the text itself. Beginning with a focus on the plain meaning of the text of the statute, constitution, or contract at issue will help frame the rest of the argument, and it will appeal to judges whose interpretive methods are shifting to textualism. Nevertheless, lawyers should employ other methods when able. “If you have a killer piece of legislative history, use it,” Judge Nalbandian advised. There are levels to legislative history, some more persuasive than others. It is crucial to determine how much certain methods will further your case and how legitimate those interpretations will be to the court. Nevertheless, simply because judges may weigh one method more than another does not mean litigators should limit their arguments.

The second prong of Judge Nalbandian’s argument as to why we are in a new era of litigation is the new technology available to aid lawyers in crafting their approach. He offered the example of corpus linguistics, a method by which lawyers can employ large collections of machine-readable writings from the time of a text’s enactment to discover the original public meaning of its words. In addition to its occasional evidentiary use, it can be used as a marketing tool for gaining and keeping clients. An increasing number of firms, particularly small and mid-sized ones, are focusing more on business development and client relations than in years past. Litigation analytics is a real, tangible way to demonstrate to a client their chances of success. If nothing more, Judge Nalbandian says that it is at least a way of “wooing” your client because of its innovative features.

The combined effects of a transformation in the nation’s judicial landscape and the new technological resources available to litigators has led to a new era of litigation. The influx of new federal judges will likely continue the shift in judicial interpretation with a heavier focus on textualism—a consideration lawyers will need to take into account for statutory analysis purposes. The availability of new technology like corpus linguistics provides a new source of evidentiary support, as well as a way to strengthen client outreach.

After concluding his recommendations to students for adapting to these changes in their future careers, Judge Nalbandian said he planned to visit with friends on faculty before heading back to Kentucky. One more personal tip he offered students was to go to class reunions. Not only will you reconnect with former classmates and professors—you’ll also get the chance to pick up some Bodo’s on the way.

---

cmk3xt@virginia.edu

[1] 443 U.S. 193 (1979).

[2] 491 U.S. 440 (1989).

[3] 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Law School Hosts Inaugural Arbitration Day

Virginia Law Weekly February 5, 2020

Donna Faye Imadi ‘22
Staff Editor

Marlyse Vieira ‘22
Staff Editor

For the first time in UVA’s history, some of the top attorneys in the field of international arbitration filled the Purcell Reading room on January 31. A former LLM student, Matheus Bastos, found that he could make a difference in the UVA Law community by illuminating the field of international arbitration through hosting the first Arbitration Day at UVA Law in collaboration with LALO.

The symposium included discussion of international commercial arbitration, young practitioners perspectives of breaking into the field, investment arbitration and human rights, state and investor interests, and a closing keynote speech from Nigel Blackaby, a Partner at Freshfields and renowned international arbitration specialist.

The most robust and growing field of international commercial arbitration is where two private parties’ consent to dispute resolution mechanisms arising from cross-border commercial transactions, allowing parties to avoid litigation in national courts. However, it was the issues in investor-state arbitration that really took the limelight throughout the event.

At a time when international development, environmental degradation, industrial development, and shifts from industrial to technological development are occurring, developing countries are seeking to attract investors to sustain their economy. One mechanism to attract investors is for states to offer to engage in arbitration agreements as a method of resolving disputes between two parties. But complications with these mechanisms arise when there’s a conflict of obligations between the state to the investor and the state to its population. Should investors have an obligation to uphold community standards and human rights in their developmental investments? Should states be compelled to uphold the legal obligations to the investor rather than human rights of their population if their obligations are in conflict?

These topics were illuminated in the panel moderated by Professor Camilo Sanchez, on investor-state arbitration and human rights. The debate was set between two attorneys, one representing the view of the “government” of a state and the other attorney representing the view of the private entity (the investor).

Throughout the panel, attention was granted to Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil and many countries which have faced a “Conflict of Obligations” in which compliance with an investment obligation may conflict with human rights obligations for states.

One illuminating example of this was in Argentina. There, an investor had created an agreement with the government regarding an investment in water development where the price was fixed to the US Dollar in the purchase of water. When an unanticipated economic recession hit Argentina, it caused the value of the peso to plummet. This impacted the price of water, which was fixed according to the arbitration agreement with the investor. This created a human rights challenge for Argentina, leaving them with the options of breaching the contract terms or allowing a human rights tragedy to occur wherein the most vulnerable in their populations could not access clean water.

Challenges such as the one Argentina faced might be framed in the broader context as dilemma of states in balancing their duty to preserve the public welfare of their country and the obligations to international actors. As development, and global governance of corporate entities become magnified these are issues that will inspire our generation to formulate new systems to address how these social, economic, and political conflicts may be addressed peaceably and justly.

In the second panel of the day, young associates from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Debevoise & Plimpton discussed how they began their legal careers in international dispute resolution and offered advice to law students hoping to do the same. These panelists explained the exciting nature of their work and emphasized the importance of gaining experience outside the U.S. to achieve greater expertise.

For current students hoping to enter the field, Panelists Brianna Gorence and Rhianna Hoover ’16 recommended joining a law journal and gaining exposure to actual arbitration news through online resources, as well as choosing a firm that has an arbitration practice group. Multilingualism is a plus. Finally, they endorsed taking courses in international arbitration and law, advanced contracts, and conflict of laws.

Esther Kozakevich ’21 says she attended the event because of her “interest in international work, particularly in Russia and the Middle East. It was great to get a cursory look into the tension between international investment arbitration and human rights, especially from someone working at the firm that I'll be going to this summer.”

Commenting on the importance of the event, Maria Luevano ’21 framed it perfectly in remarking, “This event highlighting international arbitration was important for law students because while it’s a bit of a niche field, it has also expanded rapidly in the last decade and offers a lot of exciting and interesting career opportunities. Anyone interested in travel and working on cases involving novel and dynamic issues should consider looking into arbitration.”

---

dfi3un@virginia.edu
mav3p@virginia.edu

Schools Tinker With Speech: Fifty years after the landmark case, what rights do students have now?

Virginia Law Weekly January 29, 2020

M. Eleanor Schmalzl ‘20
Editor-in-Chief

Lena Welch ‘20
New Media Editor

On Friday, January 24, several Law School organizations, including the Virginia Law Review, hosted an open discussion about free speech “inside the schoolhouse gates.” Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court issued Tinker v. Des Moines,[1]discussing student speech rights and schools’ ability to limit student speech in the classroom. Since Tinker, circuits have split on questions surrounding the important balance between allowing student speech and protecting the learning environment, and it is unclear what protections students still have regarding their speech in and out of classroom settings today. The symposium participants explored several current topics related to Tinker, and Ms. Mary Beth Tinker herself gave the keynote address.

Mary Beth Tinker delivered the keynote address in Caplin Pavilion for an event commemorating the fifty year anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ‘21. — Mary Beth Tinker delivered the keynote address in Caplin Pavilion for an event commemorating the fifty year anniversary of *Tinker v. Des Moines*. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ‘21.

In her keynote, Mary Beth Tinker detailed her journey through the time of the Tinker case. As a shy child growing up, Tinker never thought she would be a kid to make a big statement in high school. However, after seeing stories of hatred and war, she ended up doing just that when she stood with a few other classmates by wearing a black armband in protest of the Vietnam War. The school suspended her and a few of her classmates also wearing the arm bands, and these students challenged this punishment in court. After a battle in the district court, Tinker and her classmates lost. They lost again on appeal. But the Supreme Court reversed 7-2, finding that their armbands did not impair the learning process to a level where the school system could limit the students’ rights to wear them. Instead, school officials can only limit student speech when that speech can interfere with the learning process. Since that time, courts have been left to figure out the details of students’ free speech in schools, and lots of questions have resulted.

Before Tinker spoke, Professor Frederick Schauer kicked off the event. He detailed the First Amendment cases we have seen over the last fifty years and the importance of preserving speech as our nation becomes ever more divided. Schauer reminded the audience that this time is not just an important anniversary of the Tinker case, but an important issue to keep discussing as schools face issues with where to draw lines in speech interference. As social media and other platforms grow outside the classroom, school administrators must face the challenge of protecting students and the learning environment. And with political parties flipping on their viewpoint of the issue over the last several decades, there are complex dynamics at stake.

The first panel, comprised of distinguished scholars Mary-Rose Papandrea, Emily Gold Waldman, Timothy Zick, and Manal Cheema ’20, explored the aftermath of Tinker: Is it even still good law? These scholars discussed the standards applied to student speech following Tinker. Currently, schools are provided a great deal of deference. As long as interference with school is a reasonable, foreseeable consequence, whether by the student speaker’s own actions or by another student’s, the school is able to censor the speech. The scholars contemplated the application of this standard in online and off-campus settings as well as in the instance of compelled speech.

The panelists also highlighted Confederate flag cases as an example of a content ban that is likely to survive. School districts have added prohibitions against Confederate flags in their dress codes, and while these bans are likely to be challenged, the scholars have not seen a challenge win. Rather, they used this example to point out the potential bad outcomes of a content ban, although most people would agree with the ban against Confederate flags.

Panelists discuss the implications of Tinker issues surrounding unpopular forms of student speech. From left to right: Anna Cecile Pepper ‘21, LaTarndra Strong, Susan Kruth, Mary Anne Franks, and Professor Rich Schragger. Photo credit Kolleen Gladde… — Panelists discuss the implications of *Tinker* issues surrounding unpopular forms of student speech. From left to right: Anna Cecile Pepper ‘21, LaTarndra Strong, Susan Kruth, Mary Anne Franks, and Professor Rich Schragger. Photo credit Kolleen Gladden ‘21.

The second panel featured Mary Anne Franks, Susan Kruth, LaTarndra Strong, and Anna Cecile Pepper ’21, and was moderated by Professor Rich Schragger. The panelists discussed unpopular student speech and ways to handle it. These scholars also discussed the Confederate flag cases as an example of content bans, which Kruth advocated against, but also as a ban against symbols of hate, which Strong works hard to eliminate through her organizing. This panel highlighted the importance power plays in the world of speech protections, pointing out those whose speech is protected or who can assert their rights tend to be people of privilege. Additionally, the panel discussed walkouts and other forms of protest, with Pepper highlighting her scholarship as it relates to student speech outside the schoolhouse gates.

Despite all these questions left in the post-Tinker era, Tinker herself works now as an advocate for human and child rights. She was driven to speak up by all the images of hatred and war that she saw as a kid, and she wants to prevent this hatred and violence in the future to improve our world’s future. She believes the kids are the future, but also the present, and we need to focus on and listen to them now. While Tinker hinted at believing there is need to limit student speech in certain instances, she urged us to fight for the voices of those that are not always heard. On her own experience speaking out that day with that black armband in high school, Tinker told the audience: you may be nervous and scared to stand up for things you care about, but a little bit of courage goes a long way. So while we may not know what the future holds for student speech in an era of technology and growing political divide, we do know there are people like Tinker seeking protection for those not always able to fight for themselves.

When asked about the event, Maggie Booz ’20 commented, saying, “We started planning the symposium last March, shortly after we started our positions on the managing board. We initially decided that we wanted to do an event centered on free speech, since it’s an issue that all sides of the political spectrum care deeply about. After running some initial ideas by Vice Dean Leslie Kendrick, we decided to do an anniversary symposium on Tinker v. Des Moines––nobody was addressing it, and we felt that it was an issue relevant to students’ lives that people would be excited to write about. We then opened the pool for submissions over the summer, and were very fortunate to be able to select two excellent student pieces by Manal Cheema and Anna Cecile Pepper in August. We solicited articles from free speech experts, and then spent the fall editing and publishing the pieces. Around the same time, Mika was incredibly fortunate to secure Mary Beth Tinker as our keynote speaker. Meanwhile, we planned panels, invited free speech experts to speak on the panels, and planned the logistics of the event.”

A replica of the armband at issues in Tinker v. Des Moines commemorating the fifty year anniversary of the Supreme Court case. Photo credit M. Eleanor Schmalzl ‘20. — A replica of the armband at issues in *Tinker v. Des Moines* commemorating the fifty year anniversary of the Supreme Court case. Photo credit M. Eleanor Schmalzl ‘20.

Former Law Review Editor-in-Chief Laura Toulme ’20 said, “The Tinker Symposium was a great event. It certainly was a high-note to go out on as EIC. Many people and organizations were instrumental in making the event possible. As Professor Schwartzman highlighted in his introduction of Ms. Tinker, we were lucky to have such a broad array of student organizations supporting the event. I thought that really spoke to the importance of the topic. And it certainly wouldn't have been as successful without the Karsh Center's support. Finally, our outgoing Online Department––Ben Lucy ’20, Maggie Booz ’20, and Mika Carlin ’20–– and Managing Editor––Kareem Ramadan ’20––worked all year in the lead up and especially during the event to make sure everything went smoothly.” She also thanked Professor Schauer, Vice Dean Kendrick, Professor Robinson, and Professor Schragger for being there to bounce ideas off of for speakers and panelists to participate in the event.

Finally, she said “Hearing first hand from Mary Beth Tinker was probably the highlight for me. Her actions helped forge current First Amendment rights, which is incredible. My favorite part of her speech was her discussion of taking off her armband in the principal's office. You don't have to be the most courageous person to make a difference––even a little bit of courage can change history. It's also rare to have heavily female participation on conference panels, so it was really exciting to see all of the brilliant women who participated––especially our two student authors, Anna Cecile Pepper and Manal Cheema.”

---

mes5hf@virginia.edu

lw8vd@virginia.edu

[1] 393 U.S. 503 (1969).