So You Want to be a Woman in Government?

---

Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor

The first ever Women in Government Day hosted by Virginia Law Women (VLW) happened virtually last week, offering a public sector version of the highly celebrated Women in Big Law event VLW puts on every year. If you were unable to attend and feel like the door to a government salary has already closed on you, fear not. This intrepid reporter attended the event (and got her meal reimbursement) to bring you the tips and strategies to landing your dream government position, shared by the professionals.

            Tip number one: Working for the government is not a guaranteed nine-to-five gig. Sarah Albrecht, the Associate Deputy Director of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), corrected that misconception. As a government lawyer, you’re likely to be in an office filled with overachievers. “Whoever said go to the government, you’ll have a nine-to-five…no you won’t” Albrecht clarified, not without some humor. Depending on your role, you may be expected to be available 24/7, a far cry from the dichotomy traditionally asserted between private practice and the public sector. It isn’t all drudgery, of course. Albrecht finds much of her work deeply rewarding, and often she will have projects she is excited to work on. “You have to define what work-life balance means to you,” she explained. To her, that means not beating herself up for working passed five on a project she is deeply invested in.

            Tip number two: Both federal and state government employers are looking for people with experience. That doesn’t mean K-JDs are automatically relegated to private practice; practical experience can come from clinics, public interest firms, pro bono work, or feeder programs like DOJ Honors. Tara Allison, a trial attorney with the Criminal Section of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, was hired through the Honors program after clerking. Michelle Kallen did take the private practice route, working specifically for firms with robust pro bono programs. “I looked for firms without caps on pro bono hours, which is how you can tell they are serious about the work,” she explained. Kallen was able to build up her appellate resume through pro bono projects, which prepared her for her current role as Deputy Solicitor General in the Virginia Office of the Attorney General.

            Tip number three: Focus on applying to whatever interesting opportunities you hear about, and don’t wait for the “right time” to make a change. Kallen shared how her current job was her dream role, but she hadn’t expected to land it so soon. “It’s better to make the switch when you want to, instead of waiting until you need to” she cautioned. Even if your current job is going well, if it isn’t the work you want to do more than anything else, it’s worth checking around to see what other opportunities are available. When an interesting job opens up, throwing your resume in the ring can lead to places you never expected. Chioma Chukwu ’12 is the Deputy General Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, but she began her government career working for a public interest firm. Her advice? Don’t be afraid to apply to smaller places.

            Tip number four: Being a woman in government doesn’t necessarily put you at a disadvantage, and you shouldn’t limit what careers you pursue based solely on your gender identity. Though the appellate level is weighted heavily toward cis men, all four women attorneys that participated in the panel have found success with minimal problematic episodes. That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, of course, but at least for these women working in government, it hasn’t been the old-school toxic alpha male show so many women suffer through professionally. Some of the attorneys found they had an easier time smiling through getting yelled at by judges than their male colleagues did. The top strategy for responding to a tense courtroom situation? Stay professional and try to genuinely answer the questions being shouted at you.

            Tip number five: Keep your network open. This is probably the most dreaded instruction to receive, but this reporter has yet to attend a career-oriented event that doesn’t hammer it home. Most jobs aren’t posted. If you want to be kept in the know on opportunities, you need to put in the background work. That means forwarding interesting articles to old bosses, keeping up with the personal developments of former coworkers, and putting birthdays in your calendar. It means developing genuine friendships when you can, because those friends are the people who will send you opportunities and interesting articles in turn. The most important aspect to being a good friend? Don’t just reach out when you need something.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu

Race and Place: What Will it Take to End Residential Segregation?

Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor

On the evening of Thursday, February 25, the Law School joined with the School of Architecture to present this year’s Lillian K. Stone Distinguished Lecture in Environmental Policy. Hosted through Zoom, the lecture focused on the environmental and health impacts of America’s history of residential segregation.

This year’s lecturer was Richard Rothstein. Rothstein is a distinguished fellow of the Economic Policy Institute, and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) with the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. With an introduction from Dean Risa Goluboff and a question-and-answer session moderated by Professor Jonathon Cannon, the talk was both informative and confrontational.

 From the outset, Rothstein does not pull his punches. Drawing from his book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, Rothstein used his lecture to lay out the deliberate, institutionally-administered segregationist policies American governments imposed on metropolitan areas through the 1900s. These policies took many forms, and were administered at all levels of government—from local municipalities to federal housing projects.

Richard Rothstein, courtesy of law.virginia.edu

As an aside, it was about twenty-minutes into the talk that I realized why some of this talk was familiar to me: Rothstein was interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air in 2017 when his book first published.[1] If you missed the lecture, I highly recommend looking up this interview. It is a credit to Rothstein’s passion for this subject that I was more than happy to continue listening, and the lecture incorporated his insights on how residential segregation has played a role in COVID-19 and the 2020 protests.

Residential segregation is a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. For COVID-19, we see this manifest in testing disparities: When Texas reopened after its first shutdown, four out of six major cities had testing sites disproportionately located in neighborhoods whiter than the city’s median.[2] Food deserts are disproportionately located in minority neighborhoods—Hispanic people are a third as likely to have access to a chain supermarket as the average American; Black people are half as likely.[3]

Residential segregation directly contributes to wealth disparities between White and Black families. People of color were not only funneled into cities, they were prohibited from buying homes in suburbs—pushed into high cost-of-living areas where most families have to rent. Rothstein blames the racist policies of the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration, and private home loan companies for significantly contributing to the generational wealth gap. Black families were barred from purchasing affordable homes in suburban areas until the 1968 Fair Housing Act, at which point it was too late. White families that had been given exclusive access to these areas had built up equity in their homes and driven up prices; they were able to sell their homes for well above the national median income, and use that money as a foundation for their family’s future. These White families had the capital to send their children to college, to fund their retirements, and leave money behind after their death. It was a major boost that specifically left Black families behind.

Transitioning into the question-and-answer portion, Professor Cannon joined Rothstein on the screen. While it is always a joy to hear Professor Cannon speak on environmental policy, as director of the Law School’s Program in Law, Communities, and the Environment (PLACE) he was especially qualified to join in on the conversation. So what will it take to end residential segregation? Rothstein doesn’t hesitate. “You can’t undo racially specific discrimination without racially specific policies. We need affirmative action.”

What those policies should be specifically is harder to say. There is no way to fix the generational wealth gap caused by a century of unfair lending practices and the health impacts caused by redlining. One point Rothstein returns to again and again is that residential segregation is not de facto; it is not the result of individual preferences or income differences. In America, segregation is de jure; the result of law and policy decisions.

The hour-long lecture went quickly, and I was surprised when I heard Professor Cannon say there was time for a final question. Rothstein has an intense manner of speaking, and the lecture was an engaging experience. In wrapping up the question-and-answer, Rothstein concluded with a direct appeal: “I’m not speaking to you as lawyers or architects,” he insisted. “I’m speaking to you as citizens.”

Above and beyond what we do with our careers, it’s the choices we make in our own neighborhoods that can have the most direct impact in ending residential segregation.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu

---

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

[2]https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/27/862215848/across-texas-black-and-hispanic-neighborhoods-have-fewer-coronavirus-testing-sit

[3] https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=racial_justice_project

Welcome to the Thunderdome: Chief Justice Phil Tonseth Takes the Gavel

---

Phil Tonseth ‘22
Editor-in-Chief

Before the 1L Activities Fair, I had never heard of the Law Weekly. Sure, I picked up an edition when I attended Admitted Students Weekend, and read about Professor Coughlin’s crusade to get her pet garden toad, Gary, into Paw Review.[1] From not understanding who ANG is, to laughing at the lighthearted jokes about shared miseries, and reading weird, yet accurate, professor quotes, I found the Law Weekly to be a nice break from the mundanity of what I presumed Law School to be. Enter the aforementioned Activities Fair. Persuaded by free Dominos and ‘cool’ kids to hang out with from the fair, I attended my first meeting and became hooked. Mind you, I had zero experience in journalism. Correction, I took journalism as an elective in the seventh-grade, but I’ve already written more words for this article than I did that entire semester. Sorry, Miss Fortney.

            While Maria Luévano ’21 got my foot in the door of Slaughter Hall 279, it was now Deposed Editor-in-Chief Eleanor Schmalzl ’20 and her cohort of 3Ls who got me to stay. Enjoying pizza, editing different journalistic pieces, and complaining about my 1L woes, I felt a sense of comfort and belonging. By the time the spring semester arrived, I knew I wanted to be more committed and involved in building the paper.[2] Spending the last year as Production Editor, I did all of the “unsexy” work. All of the funny[3] photo captions? Those were me. All of the random article placements, with weird random Virginia logos throughout? Yup, also me. The random lists of events on the back page? I scoured way too many emails to put that thing together. The work of putting together the puzzle that is the Law Weekly was 50% frustrating, but 100% enjoyable.[4] I was able to channel what I would want to see and read, hoping it would translate to the readers so they would really enjoy the wonderful pieces all of the writers for the Law Weekly had submitted. Then COVID-19 happened.

            I’ll be the first to admit it, I told my predecessor, Christina Luk ’21, that I thought we should stop publishing the paper once the school went virtual last spring. Who would want to read about Zoom events, let alone if anyone actually knew how to find the Law Weekly online?[5] Turns out, Christina was correct in saying we should continue, and this past year has been anything if not eventful. From working to find ways to cover all of the now digital events, to bringing stories of old traditions of UVA Law to the current 1Ls who have yet to experience a softball filled Friday at Copeley Field, the Law Weekly became both a time capsule and a sounding board to ensure students felt heard, found a sense of reality, and could break up the monotony of the ongoing quarantine. You bet I was excited by the opportunity to continue this progress as the Editor-in-Chief.

            My goals for the next year of the Law Weekly are humble: make people laugh,[6] publish articles that encourage people to both pick up the paper and share the article with someone else who may find it interesting, and detail all of the important aspects of the Law School that may have been overlooked during quarantine. To help me do so, I have an absolutely stellar editorial board and some awesome staff editors who are excited to hop onto Zoom, throw around great article ideas, and write insightful pieces. However, I also realize the Law Weekly has its own selection bias. So I challenge you, as readers, to get involved. Share your funny professor quotes, send me your best ideas for what ANG may be doing or thinking while ANG haplessly wanders North Grounds, or better yet, tell us what you would like us to write about.

            Being in a hybrid environment, I understand how disconnected most students feel from UVA Law, especially those upperclassmen who have now seen both sides of the coin. We here at the Law Weekly are working and will continue to work to hopefully fill that gap, but we also need your help to do so. Help us be interactive, remind us of the important events and traditions that we hold so dear at UVA Law, and tell us where we’ve come short.[7] While I never dreamt I would become so involved in journalism (let alone EIC of the Law Weekly) when I received my acceptance here, I’m humbled and very excited to bring this paper to new heights. I appreciate all of our readers and I hope y’all will help make this upcoming year one of the best that UVA Law has seen. Better yet, if you’ve gotten this far, hit me up the next time we see each other on the friendly confines of Copeley Field. I’ll have a cold one waiting for you.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] https://www.lawweekly.org/features/2019/3/20/court-of-petty-appeals-coughlin-v-paw-review

[2] Mind you, this was my only real club at the time. I needed something to do besides play softball.

[3] Humor me, I tried my best.

[4] I’m not a mathematician, I know the numbers make no sense. Sue me.

[5] https://www.lawweekly.org. Try it out for size, it’s a fun read and we’ve archived the past 7 Volumes.

[6] I’m hoping to rival The Onion, here.

[7] My email is always open: pjt5hm@virginia.edu.

Shaping Justice in a Time of Crisis

---

Jacob Jones ‘21
Features Editor

Last Saturday, February 20, students, faculty, and experts gathered for the Fifth Annual Shaping Justice Conference. The event, sponsored by the Mortimer Caplin Public Service Center, the Program in Law and Public Service, and the Public Interest Law Association, brings in various speakers with a central theme each year. This year, the conference was titled “Shaping Justice in a Time of Crisis” and addressed a wide variety of topics related to justice.

Panels started at 10 a.m. The panels covered a range of topics, from racial justice and supporting people of color, to the fight for voting rights, a movement to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, to sex discrimination in the workplace, and environmental justice. Each panel was moderated  by a UVA professor, and each panel brought in several experts to discuss the topic.

The keynote address was given by Terrica Ganzy ’02. Ganzy boasts an extensive resume and has fought for civil rights since graduating from the Law School. Ganzy has been involved in representing capital defendants[1] from the trial stage to appeals to habeas petitions. She has also organized capital defense teams and helped manage investigations in those cases. Importantly, she has also engaged with the public and advocated to abolish the death penalty. Ganzy now holds the position of Deputy Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Pictured: Keynote Speaker Terrica Redfield '02, Deputy Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights. Photo Credit: Warren Craghead

Rather than expressing her own view of what shaping justice looks like in 2021, Ganzy’s speech took a much more personal tone and offered advice for those looking to go into public service at some point. She offered several tips for those looking to make change.

Tip number one: you are enough. Ganzy discussed how the challenges facing those who are looking to shape justice can often feel overwhelming. Other activists and advocates who have succeeded have been in the same spot and felt the same way. If they could overcome those challenges, then so can you.

Tip number two: continue to expand your vision of what is possible for justice. Be an artist who gets closer to a masterpiece with each work, or an architect who develops the blueprint for a new vision of justice. If you are seeking to make change, it’s important you don’t limit yourself to the custom of the time; normal and accepted does not equal right.

Tip number three: know who you are, and embrace your values. Ganzy related this tip to her own story: After graduating from UVA Law, she had a choice between going to a firm or taking a fellowship at a legal nonprofit. She didn’t want to have to sacrifice her values and felt that at a firm she would have to conform to being someone she is not.

Ganzy also offered advice on working with community members: Be mindful of going into the conversation thinking you have all of the answers. A law degree does not give you everything you need, and people within the community are experts on matters on which you are not an expert. Ganzy also discussed the importance of caring about those you advocate for: Some people are not going to win in court. The justice some people get will be that you advocated for them and fought for them. Ganzy’s final piece of advice is that if you follow your passions, everything else will come. It may sound cheesy, but it was true for Ganzy.

After the keynote speech was finished, three separate alumni were honored for their role in public service. Elizabeth Epps ’11 was awarded one of the Shaping Justice Rising Star Awards for her work in founding the Colorado Freedom Fund, “a revolving community bond fund that pays ransom for our neighbors unjustly detained in cages across Colorado who cannot afford to buy their own freedom” that seeks to abolish wealth-based detention.[2] Ms. Epps also serves as a Smart Justice organizer for the ACLU. April Nicole Russo ’11 received the other Rising Star Award. Ms. Russo is a U.S. Attorney in the Department of Justice’s Human Trafficking & Child Exploitation Section. Ms. Russo talked about the overwhelming challenge in public service work: In response to someone not being able to save all the starfish dying on a beach, she says: “Well, I just saved that one.” Professor Toby Heytens ’00, who is on leave as a professor, received the Shaping Justice Award for Extraordinary Achievement. What could be so important and such an extraordinary achievement that one would take a break from being a professor of law at UVA? Well, arguing in front of the US Supreme Court, being the Solicitor General of Virginia, and winning “General Supreme Court Best Brief Award in 2020” are all pretty good starts. One would expect nothing less from someone who, according to rumor, dropped pincites in his final exam.

---

jmj3vq@virginia.edu

---

[1] Capital defendants are facing or are potentially facing the death penalty.

[2] http://www.blackbailout.org/

This Tuna is Off the Hook: Farewell from the Editor

---

Christina Luk ‘21
Deposed Editor-in-Chief

To say that this has been an eventful year is an understatement. To say that I will miss the Law Weekly very much is also an understatement. February to February, my term is up and I pass the mantle of Editor-in-Chief to yet more capable hands than mine. We did not release smoke from the chimney atop the Law School Library to announce this transition, but that’s only because VLR would not let us into their office. I’ll settle for this letter instead. It is time to say goodbye and thank you.

            Thank you for letting me be a part of this amazing community. I am surrounded by some of the most intelligent and kind people I have ever met. I have found confidants, mentors, brothers and sisters, and even one archnemesis.[1] I have grown from the support of my peers and in the light of their shining examples. As I prepare to leave the Law School in a few short months, I wanted to share a glimpse into what I’ve seen from the helm of the Law School newspaper.

            For one, there is never a dearth of news at the School. Even after going virtual, the Law School is full of events, activities, and drama. A boon for any newspaper. Since last March, we’ve celebrated love in all its forms in our Love in the Time of Corona column. We published our April Fools edition, which we still maintain is hilarious. We bid goodbye to Dean Cordel Faulk and welcomed a new Dean of Admissions. (Hi Dean Blazer, we’re excited to interview you.) We pushed for change, we asked for cookies on Fridays,[2] we asked for UVA Alerts to be a little bit more specific, and we did it all with our special brand of humor.

            All jokes aside, I am glad that the Law Weekly has continued to publish this year. We have written, edited, and published more than twenty editions since COVID forced us online, and every edition has been chock-full of news and laughs. Our online readership has more than doubled, and we average about five thousand views a week and more than a hundred thousand views since last February. More than anything, I’m glad that readers have been able to go on our website and experience what the Law School was like when we were all in person. I hope, in the future, when the School is open and its halls are full again, that this volume of the Law Weekly will stand as a testament to what we survived—a testament that we met the challenges of this year with grace and humor and that we emerged better for it. 

            A look through our archives, which stretch all the way back to 1948, shows the mettle of what it means to be a UVA Law student. It shows that we have always been opinionated and determined, that we have been unafraid to ask questions and, when we were unsatisfied with the answers, to ask for change. The journey towards a more perfect UVA Law has not always been linear, but, class after class, students have made their mark here. I hope this year will be no exception.

            To all my editorial members, thank you. It has been an honor to write beside you and to know you as intelligent, funny, wonderful, and generous souls. You have all amazed me with your boundless wit and goodwill. Thank you for hanging out with me every Monday night even though we don’t have free pizza anymore. Thank you for being a part of this journey with me. We all have a stake in the community we build, and you have all been mine. I’ll see you all around. 

---

cl3eh@virginia.edu

---

[1] You know who you are.

[2] Which we got! And then, you know, COVID.

Chicago Law x UVA Law: A Workshop on Race and the Law of Business & Finance

---

Grace Tang ‘21
Foreign Correspondent

The University of Chicago Center on Law and Finance teamed up with the University of Virginia John W. Glynn, Jr. Law & Business Program to present an academic workshop on race and law of business & finance on Friday, February 19. Panelists Abbye Atkinson, Associate Professor of Law at Berkeley Law and Andrew Hayashi, Professor of Law at UVA Law, presented their research on how the law interacts with issues of race in business and finance.

University of Chicago Law School Dean Thomas J. Miles presented welcoming remarks to attendees. In his opening remarks, Dean Miles thanked Dean Goluboff and Professor Cathy Hwang at UVA for their efforts in creating the workshop, and to the panelists for “both their teaching and research, which has expanded our understanding of important legal issues and our society at large.” Aneil Kovvali, a Bigelow Teaching Fellow and lecturer at the University of Chicago, moderated the panel.

Professor Atkinson’s research focuses on the law of debtors and creditors as it affects economically disenfranchised communities. Professor Atkinson considers how race and gender are impacted by consumer financial structures—whether or not debts are fairly priced. She also analyzes how debt affects historically marginalized communities, especially those who are women, African Americans, or impoverished. “Policymakers should be aware of market-based, debt-funded provisions; debt is a channel for socioeconomic subordination,” says Atkinson, adding “Debt was historically viewed as a tool of social provision for the poor. Policy debates are about access to debt, instead of the more fundamental question when indebtedness itself is social and economic subordination.”

During the workshop, Professor Atkinson discussed her research on how pension plans depend on marginalized borrowers to generate returns to help public service and civil servants with their retirement. Pension funds are huge institutional investors, and the fund assets are increasingly held in risky investments, revealing an increased appetite for risk by pension funds.  “Studies show that three-quarters of fund assets are in higher risk investments, like private equity firms.” Pension funds invest (through private equity and other investments) in for-profit colleges, subprime loans, and other marginalized debt.

Atkinson argues that pension fund investment in marginalized debt perpetuates issues in socioeconomic inequality and justifies continued inequality and marginalization. As part of our system of social welfare, Pension funds shouldn’t participate in marginalized debt, even if it serves to help teachers and public servants with their retirements.

“The issues with investment in marginalized debt is that we commoditize the income, and the investment makes the denouncement of marginalized debt more complex.” Retirement is important for public service and civil servants to retire in dignity. However, a robust, well-funded public pension fund has implications for wealth, equality, and social significance. The bigger picture shows the result of pitting one marginalized group against another. Atkinson points to larger conflicts of interest in the market-based social division.

Atkinson provides several recommendations to the current conflict of interest. Pension fund investment regulation could regulate the industries and interests. Private equity firms or fund managers and other actors tasked with working for the public good could be regulated, or public fund fiduciary duties could be expanded.

“I think race is at the core of thinking about issues of credits and debt, as well as home ownership and value. We can trace that concept of home value to racialized notions of preference. If we purport to want to move the ball forward, then we must acknowledge and think about the world with race as a factor,” said Atkinson.

Professor Hayashi’s research on dynamic property taxes and racial gentrification was motivated by a long history of discriminatory property assessments. “Historically, the property appraisal process was very subjective,” says Hayashi, where “Overvaluation of Black properties has led to increased property taxes in the past.” His research reveals a discrepancy in property taxes due to gentrification and shifts in populations from one neighborhood to another. “Under income tax, any benefits derived from racial preferences get taxed. For example, if the market rewards whiteness in wages or profits, that benefit is taxed. Real property benefits are also taxed in general, but property tax caps subsidize transitions to whiter neighborhoods during gentrification.” 

Many states have property tax caps in calculating property taxes owed. The fair market value of a home assessed does not directly result in property tax amounts, but is included as part of the assessment ratio, calculated as assessed value over fair market value. States have imposed limits on the changes to the assessment ratio year over year (e.g. six percent per year, no more than twenty percent over five years) to avoid massive changes in property tax as a result of home valuation increases. These caps and limits provide benefits for white populations when they move into new neighborhoods, because housing prices increase when white populations move in. 

Current methods of calculating property taxes may reduce property tax incidence (tax burdens) for white populations while increasing tax burdens for Black persons. “When white populations migrate from one neighborhood to another, they increase the values of their homes, but save significant taxes as a result of moving due to the property tax caps and assessment ratio limits imposed.”  White home prices and neighborhoods appreciate more quickly than Black neighborhoods. As a result, white populations receive significant portions of tax savings. Since many states and localities rely on fixed income from property taxes, a reduction in property taxes for white populations may lead to increased tax burdens on Blacks and other minority homeowners.

Observing correlation of race with assessment ratios depends on the rate of dislocation and the rate of price adjustments. Actual tax incidence (who bears the burden of taxes) depends on capitalization of tax benefits into sales prices. Why do property values correlate with race? “There could be direct preferences for racial compositions of neighborhoods. Race could also serve as a proxy for school quality, safety, and relationship to government.” says Hayashi.

When asked by moderator Aneil Kovvali whether clear “villains” existed in either of their research findings, Professor Atkinson pushed back on the idea of ‘one villain.’ “These problems aren’t caused by one bad actor, it is a systemic issue,” said Atkinson. “For example, the wave of gentrification creates broader public benefits. However, the systemic aspect perpetuates problems we see.” Professor Hayashi adds that “one problem with laws causing these adverse effects is that the solutions or fixes are not available to everyone in the same way. For example, Black homeowners appeal their home assessments less frequently than less white homeowners. Thus, the burden of self-help is on the shoulders of the homeowners.”

---

gt5ay@virginia.edu

Senator Whitehouse '82 Visits UVA Law

---

Kathryn Querner ‘22
Features Editor

On Thursday, February 18, UVA Law Democrats (Law Dems) hosted U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) (’82) for an extended Q&A session. The hour-long Zoom event began at 5:15 p.m. and was well-attended; nearly sixty students and professors joined the event. Attending students also had the opportunity to place an order at Roots, paid for by Law Dems. Because of the risky driving conditions caused by the winter storm, students had the option to either order at the time of the event or for the following day when weather conditions cleared up.

Senator Whitehouse’s career path illustrates his commitment to public service. He has held roles including the U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island (1994-1998), and has served as a U.S. Senator for Rhode Island from 2007 to present. Some of Senator Whitehouse’s objectives as senator include addressing climate change, reforming the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and rooting out dark money from elections.

As Senator Whitehouse is currently one of the most senior Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, many students posed questions related to the events of January 6 and Donald Trump’s impeachment. The senator labeled January 6 as an “infuriating and humiliating day,” and shared that he felt “nauseous” thinking about this “lasting blot on our country.” He called for a 9/11-type commission to look into the events of January 6, noting that he would like to have lawyers hired to dig up the facts and figure out who was behind the event. He would like to see some accountability for right-wing apparatuses that stir people up, propagate lies, and advocate for this kind of mischief.

Pictured: Senator Whitehouse '82 diligently answered questions and offered sound advice to those in attendance. Photo Courtesy of law.virginia.edu.

One student asked Senator Whitehouse about the possibility of changes that might be made to the judiciary in upcoming years, especially in light of the solidified conservative majority in the Supreme Court. The senator shared that court-packing is a drastic measure, so Democrats should do their research and engage with the public before making a decision to pursue this path.

Regarding one of the senator’s key initiatives involving bipartisan climate change legislation, Eric Seifriz ’22 asked how this critical issue has become so partisan in recent years and what we might do to detangle the issue of climate change from political polarization. Senator Whitehouse explained that the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court opened the door for the fossil fuel industry to obtain unlimited campaign finance spending, which they used to influence the Republican party and punish those elected officials who chose to challenge the fossil fuel industry. This created the polarization of the issue of climate change that we see today. 

Regarding whether he enjoyed the event, Seifriz shared, “This event was a great opportunity to hear a U.S. Senator speak so candidly on a wide range of issues, while letting the conversation be driven by his audience. I especially appreciated hearing his assessment of the climate crisis and how we got to this point. We have been learning about the history of the modern environment movement in Environmental Law this semester, so to hear the firsthand account of someone who has had a front row seat to these policy debates—and his assessment of what has gone wrong and needs to change going forward—was edifying.”

Chance Maginness ’22 questioned the senator about bipartisanship. When asked for his thoughts on the event, Maginness commented, “I really appreciated Senator Whitehouse taking the time to come talk to us. Not a lot of sitting U.S. Senators would take the time to come answer our random questions about politics and do it so earnestly. Of course, I would’ve rather he been using his time to question impeachment witnesses instead of avoiding my criticisms of bipartisanship, but hey, I’ll take what I can get.”

Senator Whitehouse also shared some advice for students: Having had the opportunity to work for the public interest and engage with the Rhode Island community, the senator recommended that students consider entering the public sector and running for political office. “Life will be richer even if you lose . . . if you can afford to get away from the private sector . . . you should.” He did mention that one downside of holding public office has been the publicity, but overall, the senator reiterated, “I’ve loved it, and it has made my life so much richer.”

Law Dems President Will Scheffer ’22, who organized the event, commented, “It’s a rare opportunity to get to watch a U.S Senator hold court for an hour, but what really made the event special to me was listening to the incredibly thoughtful and insightful questions that my UVA Law classmates put to Senator Whitehouse over the course of an hour. It was a nice reminder of what makes our school special at a time when I think many of us are feeling either physically or figuratively distant from the Law School community.”

The senator concluded by discussing his years spent at UVA Law, specifically referencing the good memories he has of the Foxfield Races. Senator Whitehouse’s generous donation of his time, thoughts, and advice to the UVA Law community spurred valuable political conversation, and hearing a U.S. Senator speak was a unique opportunity for all who attended.

---

kmq8vf@virginia.edu

Panel Discusses Practicing Law in the "Age of Colorblindness"

Anna Bninski ‘23
Staff Editor

“Anything I’ve said about this is online already, so why change?” asked Judge Angel Harris, before speaking in very plain terms about the racial disparities that she sees in the criminal legal system.

On Tuesday, February 9, the Law School’s Diversity, Equity, and Belonging Committee hosted a formidable panel of speakers in conjunction with SBA’s Diversity Week and in recognition of Black History Month. The accomplished trio of Black criminal law practitioners—Judge Angel Harris, former criminal defense attorney and current Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge; Mike Herring ’90, Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Richmond for over a decade and current partner at McGuireWoods; and Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana—shared their perspectives on issues raised in Professor Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow as well as advice for current law students.

The first question posed by Professor Thomas Frampton, who moderated the panel, focused on The New Jim Crow. The premise of Professor Alexander’s book is that the criminal legal system, in its current “colorblind” iteration, accomplishes the same work of subordination and exclusion that overtly racist prior regimes sought to enforce.

            Judge Harris agreed with the premise, pointing particularly to the effect of mandatory minimum sentences on communities of color, disparate opportunities to plead down, and the “caste system” created by the disenfranchisement of people who have been convicted of a crime.

The inevitable Zoom problems that plague every contemporary talk left listeners briefly in suspense as to whether they would get to hear from Odoms, but after some brief wrangling she was able to share that she keeps a pocket copy of the Constitution on her desk. “I like to remind students that slavery and involuntary servitude are ingrained from the beginning,” she said, reminding listeners that the Thirteenth Amendment allows for the involuntary servitude of people convicted of a crime. Odoms also highlighted the “insidious operation” of legal financial obligations, given that most people in jail are not formally charged with a crime, but rather, unable to make bail and simply stuck there, thereby being denied a speedy trial. Expanding on Judge Harris’s point, she noted that disenfranchisement of Black voters has been particularly systematic in the South.

Pictured: Professor Thomas Frampton (Bottom Right) moderated the panel on gathering Black perspectives on the practice of criminal law, featuring Judge Angel Harris (Top Left), Mike Herring (Top Right), and Alanah Odoms (Bottom Left). Photos Courtesy of Anna Bninski '23 and law.virginia.edu

Herring recalled reading Slavery By Another Name—which is about the racist system of forced labor that persisted from the Civil War into the twentieth century—while serving as a prosecutor. “I was so troubled. I could not force policy in such a way as to cripple my office . . . I was torn by the reality of the genesis of our criminal justice system with what we as modern practitioners thought we were doing for the greater good.”

Speaking to changes that he has seen over the course of his career, Herring said that he sees law students today rejecting the traditional roles of prosecution and defense, a shift from the conviction-oriented training he received as a young prosecutor. He also described the difference between reactions to the last two drug epidemics: crack and opioids. While appreciating the shift to a treatment-based response, which can be seen in the opioid epidemic, Herring noted that this reaction was sorely missing in response to crack-related drug infractions. “I hope that the difference in approach is a product of cultural evolution and not disparity, but time will tell.”

Odoms recounted seeing change follow President Obama’s appointment of Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General, particularly in the guidance he gave to prosecutors about marijuana infractions. She also noted the educational work done by Black Lives Matter and other groups, which has led to a more diverse group of people running for prosecutor positions. “If you take folks committed to justice and fairness and put them in these positions, you’ll see a difference.” She also emphasized that the legal system should seek wholeness for the individuals and communities who have been harmed, rather than trying to “exact as much retribution and trauma as possible on people.”

Judge Harris cited Virginia’s current moves toward abolishing the death penalty as a positive development “that I wasn’t expecting to hear when I heard it.” More broadly, Judge Harris observed that she’s seen people become better informed, and less afraid to push issues and to question previous models. “Part of it is beginning to change the narrative . . . the way we talk about criminal courts. There was always this value judgement: Why are we pushing for the rights of ‘criminals?’ I say in quotes, as though they were not human beings deserving dignity and respect like everyone else.”

The panelists also discussed the need for data-driven policy; redefinitions of accountability; trauma-informed practice; the rewards and difficulties of working within a flawed system; and nuance within restorative justice. “For a certain level of offender, removal is the right option,” Mr. Herring said, while noting the importance of examining sentencing disparities. “But we need to be careful not to indict ourselves and the system so much that we pass back to communities an unfair burden.”

In parting words of wisdom for students, both Odoms and Judge Harris shared that they did not seek Law Review positions, opting instead to find programs or research that fit their specific interests. Odoms also had a question for young lawyers—or any lawyers—to keep in mind. “Any job you do, recognize that you have to come back into the community. What will your answer be to the community that you were responsible for serving?”

---

amb6ag@virginia.edu

Originalism in the Twenty-First Century

---

Jacob Smith ‘23
Staff Editor

“Originalism’s critics have failed to convince America that originalism is a bad idea.” Suggesting that originalism had in a sense never left, Professor Kurt Lash presented evidence from contexts as diverse as McCulloch v. Maryland and the recent debate over former President Trump’s impeachment that it has always been popular to claim the “moral high ground” of adhering to the original meaning of the Constitution. Professor Lash attributed originalism’s survival to the persistence of the idea of popular sovereignty—that the people’s will, as embodied in our Constitution, should be respected.

But Professor Lash’s words also reflected two major threads that pervaded Friday’s symposium. On one hand, commentators recognized that originalism has achieved a historical position of influence in the legal academy and judiciary. But they were also keenly aware of the challenges that originalism faces as they discussed topics related to the subject of the Third Annual Originalism Symposium, “Originalism Under Fire.”

As in prior years, UVA’s Federalist Society chapter hosted last Friday’s symposium, but of course this year’s event was held via Zoom. “I’m proud that our Federalist Society chapter has, despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, continued our tradition of bringing top legal minds to UVA for discussion and debate,” said the symposium’s chairman, Connor Kurtz ’22. The symposium featured professors, judges, and a handful of other commentators— including David Lat, the founding editor of the infamous blog website Above the Law.

Pictured: The panel discussed the different approaches that led the the Bostock opinion. Photo Courtesy of Jacob Smith '23.

            One external challenge to originalism comes from the Right. Some readers may not know that there is a Republican school of thought that has an attitude of hostility, or at least wariness, toward originalism. As originalism and the Supreme Court have come under increasing scrutiny, those voices have grown louder. Last year Harvard Professor Adrian Vermeule proposed an alternative to originalism: common-good constitutionalism. Vermeule’s conclusion, as described during the panel by Newsweek Opinion Editor Josh Hammer, is that “we should instead overtly go for substantive and normative conservative outcomes.”

            In contrast, the landmark decision Bostock v. Clayton County has stirred debate among adherents of originalism, with some supporting and some opposing Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning. Some of those perspectives were on display in a discussion of “Textualism after Bostock.” Textualism is sometimes considered the statutory analogue of originalism, which is often thought of as a method of constitutional interpretation.

In Bostock, both Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion and dissenting opinions by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh followed textualist approaches, but they arrived at radically different conclusions. Professor Tara Leigh Grove favored Justice Gorsuch’s approach, which she described as “we focus on the statutory language, and that’s that,” in contrast to the “more flexible textualism” applied by the dissenting justices, which considered factors such as social context and practical consequences. Professor Josh Blackman, in contrast, thought “Justice Gorsuch failed to acknowledge that the Court’s precedents were inconsistent with textualism.  “Textualism is apolitical in that it looks to the meaning of a word, as opposed to a question of policy values in a statute,” said Jessie Mann ’23. “It was fascinating to hear the different arguments for how staunch Justice Gorsuch was in his Bostock opinion.”

Popular misconceptions are another challenge faced by originalism. In a discussion of the public perception of originalism, Lat addressed some common misunderstandings. Originalism, at least in its most prominent version, focuses not on the Founders’ intentions but on the Constitution’s original public meaning. Nor does originalism demand strict constructionism or anachronism. The Constitution can be construed “as broadly as necessary” to embrace all it originally meant and its original meaning can be applied to new contexts.

These misconceptions persist. Lat noted that folks on the street tend to think of originalism as “antiquated” and “harsh.” I refer readers to the penultimate episode of Netflix’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, where a pseudo-originalist court requires everyone to wear blindfolds since “justice is blind.” But I think originalism’s biggest challenge is persuading liberal Americans that it is more than a Republican power play. As one of Friday’s panelists noted, perhaps the easiest way to advocate for originalism is to point out cases where it has not favored Repubican outcomes, like Bostock and certain Fourth Amendment opinions authored by Justice Scalia. Still, it is reasonable to expect skepticism to continue so long as the Supreme Court’s originalists are all conservatives.

James Ford ’23 expressed this kind of skepticism, stating that “originalism is just paleo-conservatism with more steps.” Many Democrats agree, if calls for court-packing are any indication. The challenge for the Supreme Court’s originalists is to persuade observers that their methodology truly is non-partisan and to do so at a time when the stakes are higher than ever. In the balance hangs not only originalism’s reputation but also, just maybe, the Supreme Court as we know it.

---

js3hp@virginia.edu

A Fireside Chat with Former Solicitor General Noel Francisco

---

Devon Chenelle ‘23
Staff Editor

On Wednesday, February 3rd, the UVA Law Federalist Society hosted “A Fireside Chat with Former Solicitor General Noel Francisco.” For the event, Professor Scott Ballenger (BA ’93, JD ’96) interviewed Mr. Francisco on his wide-ranging career.

            Professor Ballenger began the talk by introducing Mr. Francisco, noting they met “25 years ago,” in “Justice Scalia’s chambers” while serving together as co-clerks. Appropriately enough, the talk began with a recollection of Mr. Francisco’s time as Scalia’s clerk. Francisco described a situation when Justice Scalia “had written a dissenting opinion . . . a classic Scalia dissenting opinion,” and gave it to his clerks to look at. The clerks told the Justice “if you tone down the rhetoric, you might get other justices to join it.” But when Scalia gave a re-draft of his opinion to the clerks, he had “actually jacked up the rhetoric,” remembered Francisco, as Scalia said “sometimes, I’ve just gotta be me.” That, Francisco said, is his “favorite story of Justice Scalia, and what probably epitomizes what he’s about.”

            Explaining Scalia’s reasoning, Francisco noted that Scalia was “engaging in a debate across time,” and “his goal was to persuade others.” As proof of Scalia’s success,  Francisco explained that at the start of Scalia’s tenure “he was one of the only strict textualists on the court,” and “now there’s probably a textualist majority of five.”

Pictured: Former Solicitor General Noel Francisco reflected on experiences working in the government, private sector, and clerking for Justice Scalia. Photo Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org

            After a few years in the private sector, Francisco was selected for a position in the Bush administration, which he described as “one long stint, with two jobs.” The first of those jobs was as Associate Counsel to President Bush in the Office of Counsel to the President. Francisco said, “What’s exciting about working in the White House’s counsel office, you’re in the middle of the action.” Francisco noted that “the best place to hang out in the West Wing was right outside of Karl Rove’s doors,” because “Rove would have a line of celebrities walking in and out.” During that time he met Bono and Bruce Willis.

            After working in the Office of Counsel to the President, Francisco moved to the Office of Legal Counsel, which involved fascinating legal work. He highlighted a case involving an inquiry into whether “an appointment at the Vatican violated the foreign emoluments clause,” where “it was a really interesting set of issues that in all those years had not gotten any significant treatment from OLC or from anyone else.”

            Mr. Francisco began working for the White House again when he was appointed Principal Deputy Solicitor General for the United States on January 23, 2017, and was confirmed by the Senate as the Solicitor General on September 19, 2017. Mr. Francisco described the Solicitor General’s office as the “entity within the DOJ that represents the U.S. in almost all cases before SCOTUS,” but, he noted “it can play a much broader role within the Executive Branch, as basically, the Department looks to the Solicitor General to provide advice on how to pursue the major pieces of litigation being carried on on behalf of the federal government.” He described his role as the Solicitor General as seeing “whether these policy positions can be reasonably defended,” and asking whether there is “a reasonable argument I can make to defend the president’s policies.”

            In addition to his extensive background working for the government, Mr. Francisco also has an impressive track record in the private sector, where he currently works as a partner at Jones Day. Reflecting on the differences between the private and public sectors, Francisco said, “I think when you’re in private practice, you have the opportunity to see a much broader range of issues,” because “often in government your position and strategy is locked in,” while “when you’re on the private side, you have to be a lot more creative.”

            Mr. Francisco concluded his talk with advice for young lawyers on finding a balance between your work and personal life. “I think that the most important thing for every lawyer to do is to understand who the client is and how to serve that client,” said Francisco And, “When you’re a young lawyer, your clients really are the more senior lawyers you’re working for, [and] your job is to make them look good.”

            The most successful attorneys, Francisco thinks, “Are those who understand the role they’re supposed to play.” Lastly, Francisco noted that despite his successful and high intensity career, he has still been able to strike a balance. “You know, I work hard, but I don’t think it’s been unmanageable,” said Francisco, noting, “I go to my children’s sporting events, I go golfing once or twice a week with my daughter,” and “I think clients recognize we need to have lives as well.” This law student found those to be inspiring words from someone far busier and more successful than himself, and hopes others will find them helpful as well.

 ---

dnc9hu@virginia.edu

Preparing for Journal Tryouts? Check Out the New Changes

---

Christina Luk ‘21
Editor-in-Chief

            The University of Virginia School of Law’s journal tryout program has always been unique from journal tryouts at other schools. For one thing, we have a unified tryout that all journals, including the Virginia Law Review, use to select its members. Most schools have a separate tryout for each journal or one tryout for specialty journals and another for law review. Second, our tryout, as 1Ls may have noticed, happens in the middle of the Spring semester. Our peer schools, on the other hand, throw their 1Ls into the crucible immediately after spring finals, which is a bit like asking someone to run a marathon after a friendly triathlon. My favorite thing about the our tryout program though, and arguably the best thing about it, is that it only takes a single weekend. Unlike the one to two week long ordeal that our peers at other schools suffer, our tryout is quick if not easy.  

            However, this year, the Journal Tryout is taking place across two weekends instead of one. According to Jess Feinberg ’21, outgoing Membership & Inclusion Editor for VLR and the Tryout Administrator, the reason is two-fold. First, the move to two weekends is in good faith meant to relieve stress and to allow for more breaks and flexibility. The second half of the tryout gives a full three days (Friday-Sunday) for the writing component, a change that encourages students to take breaks. Second, that built-in extra time will hopefully help folks with special accommodations to spend up to twice as long on the tryout, whose final day overlaps with Wednesday classes.

            1Ls will work on the Editing Component the first weekend, capped at eight cumulative hours, and they will have the second weekend for the Writing Component, which requires them to read 250 pages of materials or fewer and write an eight page paper. 2Ls and 3Ls will note that this is both a shorter writing assignment and a lighter reading load—a twenty and seventy page reduction from last year and the year before, respectively. On top of these changes, 1Ls will be allowed for the first time in Tryout history to use the searchable online Bluebook.

            Other major changes include a revamp of the Journal Tryout Toolkit, a comprehensive PDF of important dates, rules, and information about the tryout process and the participating journals. The biggest change from last year is an expanded table of contents and the inclusion of new “checklists” to help 1Ls keep track of the many moving parts in the Tryout. There is an Honor Code Checklist for the confidentiality rules and one checklist each for the Editing and Writing Components. The Toolkit this year also features “Easy Access Materials” at the beginning of the packet for easy reference.

            These and other changes were made in response to feedback solicited from last year’s participants. When asked what the most common complaints were, Feinberg commented, “Most of the feedback was about very discrete things, like how the Honor Code Rules were scattered throughout the Toolkit, which is why they’ve been collected as a Checklist this year.” Thinking on the feedback a little more, Feinberg shared that a number of people really enjoyed the topic from last year, “which was great news, and something I’m trying for again this year.”

            Other changes have been more subtle. For example, this year’s Toolkit has more information about VLR’s Holistic Review, the process by which half of VLR’s new members are chosen. According to the Toolkit, seven VLR members will sit on the Member Selection Committee, which decides on new members by considering their Editing Component scores, Writing Component scores, personal statement, and very limited grade information. The selection happens across three rounds, and limited grade information is provided about the fifty finalists. When asked about the new inclusion, Feinberg responded that it was in the interest of transparency. “In the past,” she shared, “not knowing how the Holistic Review process works gave students a lot of stress. And since we already shared a lot of the same information with 2Ls last spring, when we found out the semester would be pass/fail, it makes sense to just be transparent about it moving forward.”

            So who exactly makes these changes? There is a Unified Journal Tryout Committee composed of the heads of each journal, and this committee usually makes decisions. Due to the pandemic, however, and the Office of Student Affairs’ reluctance to involve too many students before an official decision was made about Spring Break, Feinberg worked with Dean Davies to come up with a contingency plan that eventually became the current tryout process. As for the Toolkit, Feinberg spent over twenty hours tweaking, rewriting, updating, and reorganizing the document over Winter Break. And she has made major strides in improving the document. Having personally read the Toolkits from all three years (why), I can assure the 1Ls that this is the most readable one to date. Plus, there are all these nifty new hyperlinks that make the document especially navigable.

            For the 1Ls who are about to embark on the tryout process, Feinberg had this advice to give. As the outgoing Membership & Inclusion Editor, she encouraged everyone to submit a personal statement to VLR. She shared, “I wasn’t sure when I was writing mine what VLR was looking for. I can’t speak to what this year’s Membership Selection Committee will do, but I can say that last year, we looked for the perspective you would bring to help us round out the journal and for people we would want to work with. You don’t need to write about saving the world. Just give us something honest and authentic.” Feinberg also had more general advice as the Tryout Administrator. For those of you only using the online bluebook, Feinberg recommends putting in the effort to read through the rules and to perhaps take handwritten notes as an alternative to tabbing it—whatever will help you familiarize yourself with the rules. As for the writing component, "there’s an abundance of time, take breaks, it’s not the same gauntlet anymore!”

            It’s undeniable that this year’s Journal Tryout will be different. It’s also undeniable that a lot of thought and care have gone into these changes. Whether or not all these changes are here to stay will depend on feedback from this year’s tryout, to be collected in a survey sent out later this spring. So to all the Tryout participants this year, I wish you good luck!

---

cl3eh@virginia.edu

Diversity Week Celebrates 15th Anniversary

---

Dana Lake ‘23
Staff Editor

Kathryn Querner ‘22
Executive Editor

            This week, February 8-12, UVA Law is celebrating its 15th annual Diversity Week. The ideals promoted during this week-long event are summed up in the Diversity Pledge:

“As a member of the UVA Law community, I hold that . . . Every person has worth as an individual. Every person is entitled to dignity and respect, regardless of class, color, disability, gender identify, nationality, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. I affirm that prejudice has no place in the UVA Law community—now or ever.”

            Diversity Week began as an initiative by Lambda Law Alliance in 2006, in response to an act of hate against two UVA Law students. The incident of intolerance occured at the Foxfield Races—two openly gay UVA Law students were verbally and physically harassed by a fellow student. This high-profile incident drew widespread outrage from the community. Lambda saw an opportunity to draw on the community’s unified shame toward the act of hate, and established Diversity Week as a celebration of and devotion to respecting our differences. 

            The initiative behind Diversity Week was published as a letter to the editor from Lambda in the Law Weekly, signed by a number of UVA Law professors, students, and student organization chairs.[1] Lambda implored, “If UVA Law gains a reputation for intolerance, we lose valuable insights and perspectives when minority students choose to go elsewhere . . . UVA Law is special. All students ought to share fully in the privilege of participating in its rich traditions and strong sense of community.”[2]

            These sentiments remain as salient today as they were then, as core values of love, tolerance, and community are under siege by widespread, hateful, and intolerant political messages. To continue UVA Law’s tradition of rejecting intolerance, Diversity Week offers a number of events to honor and celebrate the diversity within our community.

            The week of events started out strong on Monday with the BLSA and WOC’s panel “A Black Lady Courtroom.” Four judges from every level of the judicial system, including a member of Virginia’s Supreme Court, discussed what it means to be a Black woman in the law.

            Tuesday continued as the busiest single day of Diversity Week, with three events spread throughout the day: There was a panel on “Perspectives on Diversity in Big Law” at 12:30 p.m., featuring minority attorneys from half a dozen Big Law firms; it was followed by  a common read event based around the book “The New Jim Crow” and the experiences of Black criminal law practitioners at 5:00 p.m.;  and the day wrapped-up with a Lambda and HLA event at 6:30 p.m. discussing the ramifications of the COVID-19 crisis on the queer community.

            Diversity Week’s inaugural keynote takes place on Wednesday at 12:30 p.m. with Robert Grey. Grey is the president of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity and senior partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth. As the first person of color to serve as chair of the ABA House of Delegates, Grey is a national leader in bringing diversity and inclusivity to the legal profession and every student is encouraged to listen-in on his session.

            Thursday’s events include  a dinner talk and Q&A on the transition to public interest from private practice. Additionally, there is a focus on diversity in private practice at 5:00 p.m.

            Friday concludes with a reading and reflection session at noon, centered around the experiences of minority students here at the Law School. Students have the opportunity to share their reflections with the panel organizers to foster discussions rooted in the everyday reality of being a minority at UVA. Every student is invited to attend and contribute.

            In between the spiritual growth, horizon-expansion, and networking, participants have several opportunities for a catered dinner from local restaurants. The first 30 registrants for sessions Tuesday through Friday will be treated to meals from restaurants like Mahana Fresh, Pearl Island, Pachamama Peru, and Mochiko Charlottesville. Check out the brochure emailed on 2/4 for details.  Law Students can also grab friends and join in a virtual diversity trivia on Wednesday, hosted by SBA.  There are prizes for first and second place and the event will be via Twitch. Finally, there is a free t-shirt for every student who signs the Diversity Pledge. It’s a sharp design, and they are available for pickup in Hunton Andrews Kurth Hall.

            This year’s Diversity Week features a wide array of speakers and topics, combined with a variety of accessible panel times and ways to participate. There is a place for every student to get involved this week. Celebrating and respecting diversity is critical to fostering an inclusive and welcoming UVA Law community. To affirm a commitment to diversity, please sign the Diversity Pledge. This year, the Diversity Pledge will be virtual in order to minimize contact and ensure social distancing. Be a part of the tradition and sign at: https://forms.gle/3pDE3vctymuvcsZx6.

            Let’s work together to contribute to UVA Law’s efforts to promote respect and diversity.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu
kmq8vf@virginia.edu

---

[1] “Letter to the Editor: Community Must Be Supportive of All Students,” Virginia Law Weekly, Vol. 59. Number 5, September 29, 2006.

[2] Id.

Elaine Jones '70 Addresses the Past, Faces the Future

---

Devon Chenelle ‘23
Staff Editor

Last Friday, January 29, Elaine Jones ’70 delivered the keynote address at the symposium titled “From the Equal Rights Amendment to Black Lives Matter: Reflecting on Intersectional Struggles for Equality.” The symposium was sponsored by the Center for the Study of Race and Law and the Virginia Law Review and was very well attended. Arjun Ogale ’21, EIC for VLR, was pleased with the turn out and remarked, “It shows that the law school community has plenty of interest in learning about the history and development of intersectional legal movements. This is something that law journals and legal academia ought to be highlighting.”

This writer also caught up with Professor Kim Forde-Mazrui, one of the main organizers, about the meaning behind the symposium topic. Professor Forde-Mazrui replied that for him “intersectional struggles for equality” meant two things: “First, that it is important to understand that stigma and discrimination works so as to disadvantage and advantage people unfairly, not just when they are of a particular race or sex or other group, but when their identity combines multiple groups. Second, that groups need to work together to achieve change.”

Pictured: Elaine Jones '70 spoke both of her challenges and how to look towards the future at the symposium. Photo Courtesy of law.virginia.edu

Just before Jones took the virtual center stage, Dean Risa Goluboff presented the Gregory H. Swanson Award to Nirajé Medley-Bacon ’22 for her tireless dedication to justice within the community.

Jones, the Law School’s first female African-American graduate, was introduced by Professor Kim Forde-Mazrui, who described Jones’ numerous accomplishments and achievements, including how Jones worked for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund (LDF) for thirty-four years and became the fourth director-counsel of LDF in 1993—the first woman to hold the position. In 1999, Jones was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law, UVA’s highest legal award. Professor Forde-Mazrui described Jones as a “beam of light entering the room” when he met her in 1999, and said that he has felt like “Elaine Jones’s student” as he has worked with her over the last several weeks.

Jones’ keynote address was titled “Navigating Law and Politics in Pursuit of Racial Equality—Lessons from the Front Line.” Jones began her talk by discussing her role in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court case that led to the abolition of the death penalty in thirty-seven states. During her work on the case, she had to travel to Georgia to deal with a recalcitrant government clerk who was refusing to certify the case record, and, after explaining to the clerk, southerner-to-southerner, that “without her I would lose my job,” successfully got her to provide the necessary signature.

After her graduation from Howard University, Jones worked in the Peace Corps for two years in Turkey. That experience would serve her well during her time at UVA Law, Jones noted that “after having gone through Turkey, Charlottesville was really not that different.” Jones experienced distinct kinds of discrimination in Turkey, as “the Turks told me to my face that there was no such thing as a Black American,” while “the white volunteers didn’t like me.” Eventually, she grew to form valuable friendships with her Turkish students and their parents. Through this experience, Jones said, “I taught myself to believe I could be successful and that I could navigate the law school terrain.”

Upon her arrival in Charlottesville, Jones faced a new set of challenges.

“At UVA,” she said, “I was keenly aware that as the first [female, African-American student] I had the responsibility to open things up for others like me . . . I knew I had to succeed at Virginia.”

“I knew I could not develop a complex of any kind,” she continued, “I had to nurture and develop a positive attitude . . . I also could not internalize negativity . . . and whenever there was anything adverse that occurred, I reminded myself I had supporters at the Law School.” She was aware, she said, that “many other women of color were depending on me, and I could not let them down.”

Jones fondly remembered Hardy Dillard, who was the dean at UVA Law when she was admitted, and also her contracts professor. She did, however, have some negative experiences, including a time when one of her white female classmates mistook her for a member of the cleaning crew. “I said nothing,” recounted Jones, “and went on about my mission, for I had no space for her inside my head.”

“While I was at the Law School, I had a mission to accomplish,” Jones remarked, and she felt it was important to not “clutter your mind up with things that are extraneous to who you are and what you’re trying to accomplish.”

Jones set such a strong example that UVA Law became a family tradition, as she stated “the university went back to my family when it admitted its second African-American woman, and that woman was my sister.”

Drawing from her extremely successful career in impact litigation, Jones emphasized the importance of collaborative work in achieving desired outcomes, and declared that, “I have learned in my thirty-five years of practice that coalitions are essential to making progress.” She also noted that “in social justice and civil rights litigation, it matters not only what the issues are, but it also matters who the plaintiffs are . . . I don’t think it should matter, but it does,” because “it is important that it is not somebody that . . . brings to the mind of the Court issues that are not relevant to the case.”

Jones also reflected on the importance of voting rights for all Americans, as she referred to the franchise as “the corn of the realm.” She noted her own experience assisting in the passage of the Motor Voter Act, which offered a simplified voter registration process for anyone signing up for a driver’s license.

Jones concluded her talk with reflections on the meanings of tolerance and respect, and the long-term goals of social justice. “Tolerance,” she said, “means you do not have to like my skin color, my age, my size, my gender identity, or anything else about me, but you do have to respect my right to be different.” And she continued, “‘Respect’ is the right word I think, rather than tolerance,” because “tolerance infers something is lesser than,” and “it tends to elevate me above you, because I can look down and tolerate you.” Yes, “Respect is the word.”

“I submit,” said Jones, “that the goal should be to live in an environment with mutual respect for our differences.”  In her long career of civil rights advocacy, Jones had done much to help create just such an environment.

---

dnc9hu@virginia.edu

Midway Toast: It's Like Drinking Together, Alone

---

Stanley Birch & Phil Tonseth ‘22
The Brash Brothers

Much like climbing a mountain, one’s journey through law school is full of ups and downs. 1L is an uphill climb, slogging through your first week of class, your first cold call, and first exams, all while attempting to navigate the job search and social clubs to truly immerse yourself into UVA Law. As a 3L, you’re on the downslope, focusing on getting safely and smoothly to graduation so the next exciting journey can begin. 2L, well it’s a mix of both. You work through OGI or finding a public service career, you take leadership roles in different clubs, and establish and grow friendships that will extend far beyond the confines of North Grounds. This interesting dichotomy of both an uphill and downhill challenge was aptly celebrated during the Midway Toast for the class of 2022 and explored by a number of speakers. 

            Over 100 2Ls joined Dean Sarah Davies, Kate Duvall, Professors George Cohen, George Geis, and Ann Coughlin, Vice Dean Leslie Kendrick, and Dean Risa Goluboff to celebrate and toast what is the midway point of the Class of 2022’s legal education. With the undercurrent of the pandemic upsetting the normal celebration, along with the journey a class would have typically experienced, Dean Goluboff succinctly remarked, “You’ve had to navigate challenges before you that no class has.”[1] While celebrating the resilience and flexibility of the class that Dean Davies spoke of, Dean Goluboff challenged the Class of 2022 to think with excitement and anticipation about what’s left in the second half of their journey through UVA Law. What horizons are there to be broadened, or specializations to explore? Have we as “half-lawyers” begun to truly discharge the trust that is placed in us as members of the legal profession?

            The focus of the event did not only look to the future, however, as Vice Dean Kendrick made sure to celebrate the midpoint as its own moment. Quoting both Winnie the Pooh and Dante,[2] Dean Kendrick looked at the midpoint as a summit on the mountain, where we could view every crucible we had been through to get to this point while acknowledging that the path down to the next journey brings its own potential snares. From this vantage point at the summit,[3] we have an opportunity to reflect and enjoy a special moment that won’t come again.[4] Not to be outdone however, and—in our humble opinion—stealing the show, Professor Cohen spoke of this moment from a literature, film, and musical perspective. I think it’s fair to say the Class of 2022’s toasts after his speech were as much for Professor Cohen’s confidence and musical acumen as for themselves. Professor Cohen gave a rousing a capella rendition of Jimmy Eat World’s “The Middle” to show we’re still in the “middle of the ride, but everything, everything, will be just fine.”

Pictured: Be sure to hold your classmates close when you finally get the chance. (Well . . . maybe not this close). Photo Courtesy of Phil Tonseth '22.

            Professors Geis and Coughlin provided additional perspectives: The Class of 2022 should take this time not only to enjoy the view, but also to change goals and reorient as needed. Saving the heart-wrenching material for last, Professor Coughlin went through the list of things she missed about being in-person and seeing the Class of 2022 in the Law School. From explaining why the “palace” at Darden couldn’t compare to the Law School’s square to hoping a student would just make eye contact with her in class, and from admonishing those that drink too much to praising the invitations to softball games, her point rang true. Kelli Finnegan ’22 concurred, remarking “the small things I never thought much about are the ones I truly miss the most during this pandemic.” As a class, working together through complex problems to grow into the legal profession, the Class of 2022 brought joy to themselves and the Law School community.

            Although this entirely occurred on Zoom, Caroline Elvig ’22, opined that “the celebration and excitement was still present. I’m proud of the Class of 2022 and how far we’ve come together. This moment marks eighteen months of long readings, supportive classmates and friends, and professors who I know will cheer us on for the next eighteen months and beyond.” John Trach ’22 commented, “There are many ways to view the midpoint of any journey. For some, I’m sure it’s bitter sweet, and for others it’s simply a downhill coast after a steep climb. But for me—having not been in a full class on campus for nearly a year—it feels like a restart of something new, like the completely fresh beginning of a second game of a double header. I feel a sense of excitement to be back in a classroom, to meet the class of 2023 and 2024, and to have the opportunity to participate in all the traditions and activities of UVA Law that evaded me so far.”

Pictured: Student Affairs ensured the Class of 2022 was toasted and treated appropriately to celebrate the occasion. Photo Courtesy of Tom Langstaff '22.

            So as the Class of 2022 raised its final glass of the Midway Toast, a truth that had hidden itself in the ether of social distancing resurfaced: This class, our class, is a phenomenal group that the authors are humbled to be a part of. As we logged off, eager to roam that familiar North Grounds building, vacant of its once-buzzing energy, we were warmed and energized by what we had heard. While we hope to be together and remove the constant distance that has come between us, we know “it just takes some time” and everything, everything will really be alright.

 ---

sfb9yu@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] She wondered what the Class of 1920 must have gone through during the 1918 influenza pandemic. We wonder as well if that class had anxiety about whether their camera had to be on or off for remote learning.

[2] Evoking both childhood and death, this helped center the discussion by finding a point in-between, celebrating where we are and what’ve we already accomplished on the long trek.

[3] Dean Kendrick did not imply that the Class of 2022 has peaked, of course.

[4] While we both agree this view is lovely, it’s not the hill we’re willing to die on. Time to keep trekking.

Letter to the Editor: A Plea to Republicans for America’s Long Term

Letters of interest to the Law School community may be sent to editor@lawweekly.org. Letters may be published at the discretion of the Editorial Board and are subject to editing for grammar, style, and clarity, but not content or viewpoint. The Law Weekly does not necessarily endorse the content or viewpoint of any letter herein published.

——

A plea on principle to Americans who happen to have voted Republican:

I believe that a presidential candidate who legitimately won the electoral college should be the President of the United States, even if that winner were not my preferred candidate. I also believe that all presidential candidates should avoid unnecessarily stoking distrust and resentment among Americans over the outcome of an election, even if the candidate stoking such divisiveness were my preferred candidate. I consider calling an election “fraudulent” or “stolen,” as opposed to saying that there are potential irregularities to investigate (if plausible), to be stoking unnecessary divisiveness when all reasonable accounts of facts indicate that the election outcome has been projected legitimately and accurately. 

Applied to the current situation, I would want for Trump to be re-elected President of the United States even though I voted for Biden if Trump had legitimately won the electoral college. As it turns out, however, all reasonable projections of the election indicate that Biden is the legitimate winner of the electoral college. All media that have projected elections in modern history, including Fox News, every court to review Trump’s allegations, and Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security, have stated that the election projection in Biden’s favor, two weeks after the election, is reliably accurate. I thus happen to be in the fortunate position, this election, that the person who should be President—the candidate who legitimately won the electoral college—is my preferred candidate, Joe Biden.

As to unnecessary—and dangerous—divisiveness, Trump is stoking resentment, anger and violence by insisting, without serious evidence, that the election was stolen. It would be one thing if he said there are plausible irregularities that he just wants investigated while the transition to a Biden administration is initiated, subject to being cancelled if the irregularities reveal that in fact Trump won the electoral college. However, not only are there not plausible irregularities that could change the election outcome, but Trump is declaring, before his own litigation has substantiated his allegations, if they could, that the election was a fraud.

My concerns include, of course, the short term threat to our national security, response to the pandemic, and plans for economic recovery that comes from Trump’s unwillingness to coordinate with the in-coming Biden Administration. But the concern that most animates this plea is the long-term democratic and social stability of our country. Physical skirmishes have already broken out between Trump supporters, who are told by their President that the election was stolen, and Biden supporters, who for reasons stated above have good reason to believe that the election projection in Biden’s favor is legitimate, accurate and too large to be overturned by any conceivable facts discovered from further litigation. Both sides are thus being given reason to be angry and those who believe that the President of the United States is telling the truth deserve understanding. The problem is that Trump’s claims of a stolen election, after two weeks of intensive review, have no basis. Trump is therefore inciting resentment and anger for no good reason other than his unwillingness to uphold the value of accepting electoral defeat graciously and peacefully. 

Unless Trump stops encouraging false assumptions about fraud in the election, tension will likely continue to escalate. If Trump were not already on his way out of office, his inflaming of deep-seeded distrust, resentment and potential violence without cause would be grounds to reject his re-election, if not potential grounds to initiate impeachment. Moreover, the unwillingness of most Republican leaders in Congress to openly support an election outcome for Biden that is no less certain than prior elections for Trump and other Presidents makes them complicit in the (potentially literal) flames and blood to come.

I urge you, my fellow Americans, especially those who voted for President Trump, to contact the Trump administration and your members of Congress to ask that Trump concede the election, as Hilary Clinton did despite her electoral college loss to Trump equaling Trump’s loss to Biden and despite that she then, unlike Trump now, won the popular vote. Please ask your elected leaders to put America first.

Kim Forde-Mazrui
Mortimer M. Caplin Professor of Law
University of Virginia School of Law
kfm@law.virginia.edu

The foregoing views represent my views alone and do not purport to represent any official position of the University of Virginia.

Fundamental Questions for Our Democracy Regarding a Federal Right to Education

---

Eric Seifriz ‘22
Guest Writer

On Monday November 9, 2020, the University of Virginia School of Law hosted a Zoom symposium entitled “Fundamental Questions for Our Democracy Regarding a Federal Right to Education.” The discussion was borne out of issues raised by UVA Law professor Kimberly Jenkins Robinson’s new book “A Federal Right to Education: Fundamental Questions for our Democracy.” The book includes articles from leading education scholars, edited by Professor Robinson. Professor Robinson is a nationally recognized expert on educational law and policy, as well as on closing educational opportunity gaps and civil rights.

Pictured: Professor Kimberly Robinson, a recognized expert on educational law and policy, spurred this conversation. Photo Courtesy of twitter.com

Dean Risa L. Goluboff welcomed the virtual attendees and President James E. Ryan moderated the first panel, named “Should the United States Recognize a Federal Right to Education?” The speakers at the first panel were Professor Kristine L. Bowman from Michigan State University College of Law, Professor Peggy Cooper Davis from New York University School of Law, Professor Jason P. Nance from the University of Florida Levin College of Law, and Professor Eloise Pasachoff from the Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Robinson participated in the second panel, “How the United States Can Recognize and Define a Right to Education.” 

            In her welcome, Dean Goluboff discussed how the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 rejected a federal right to education in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, but explained that this was not the last word on the matter—it has still been an ongoing legal question in the decades since. Following the welcome, each speaker on the first panel was given eight minutes to speak before a brief Q&A session at the end. 

            Professor Bowman started the panel off by explaining that we need a federal right to education, because if we leave it to the states, they may not always provide substantive protections. Michigan, according to Professor Bowman, has weak and unenforceable educational rights at the state level, combined with limited fiscal capacity and a limited political will to improve matters. These factors together are undermining educational opportunity for Michigan students, who don’t currently have an effective avenue for relief when basic standards in their education are not being met. She gave examples of schools in Detroit having textbooks that are decades old, windows that don’t open in the summer, and no central heat in the winter. 

On this topic, an exciting case just came out of Michigan—Gary B. v. Whitmer—where the 6th Circuit held that the Constitution affords a fundamental right to a basic minimum education (running counter to the Rodriguez decision). The Gary B. lawsuit asserts a federal right to obtaining a basic education in literacy in order for all children in the country to be able to be baseline participants in our democracy and public life. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has agreed to rehear this case, however, to review the initial panel’s ruling. 

            Professor Davis then took the floor to advocate for the United States to finally recognize a federal right to education, which she says is now broadly considered a basic human right. In her view, education is a fundamental right crucial to the functioning of a democratic republic. Professor Davis also provided a history lesson on the struggles of education for African-Americans throughout American history, from slavery to Reconstruction. 

            Next we heard from Professor Nance, who shared a snapshot of the chapter he wrote for Professor Robinson’s book. He believes that the U.S. should implement a stronger federal response to address the inequalities in the public education system, and considered five rationales to back up this view—economic, criminal justice, health, democracy, and fairness.  He also shared sobering research on how a child’s self-perception is negatively affected by poorly resourced schools.

            Professor Pasachoff agreed with the broader goal of the other panelists of working toward an equitable education system for all students, but doesn’t believe pursuing a federal right to education is the right way to go about this. In support of this claim, she argued—among other things—that relying on courts to interpret our existing Constitution isn’t likely to bring about change, because any court order would still require implementation by the institutions that are already struggling. In Professor Pasachoff’s view, these institutions lack the capacity, not the command, to act. Instead of advocating for a federal right to education, she believes that instead we should focus on educational policy debates about best practices and on improving budgets.

            President Ryan returned to the screen then to host the Q&A session. He himself posed a question to the panelists, then audience members raised a host of issues including whether, if the federal right to education were recognized, our institutions would adequately be able to ensure that no child would be left behind. A second panel, “How the United States can Recognize and Define a  Right to Education,” followed. 

---

es5eg@virginia.edu

SBA Update: End of Semester Send-Off

---

Katharine Janes ‘23
SBA President

UVA Law,

What a semester we have had. To the students, professors, administrators, and staff who have made the past twelve weeks possible, a massive thank you is owed. It has been an adventure to learn and live alongside you, whether virtually or from six-feet apart.

To our 1Ls, as you approach your first set of law school finals: We (upperclassmen) are thinking about you and sending so many good vibes your way! I am sure you are receiving lots of great advice from your peer advisors, professors, and friends, so I won’t duplicate that here. However, as one small but often overlooked reminder, know that taking breaks is an essential part of finishing the end of this semester strong. Spending time away from school with friends or loved ones over Thanksgiving, for example, is really important to avoid burning out. The same is true on the days following your finals; friends and I would visit a winery or snag food together immediately after we finished our exams, which provided some much-needed R&R. Treating yourself well will help you feel—and ultimately perform—better, so I highly encourage you to set aside the time.

Finally, for those interested, SBA has set up two end-of-semester opportunities for students to reflect on and express their gratitude. The first is for our professors and faculty. On Tuesday, I emailed links to Google Docs where you can leave quick comments of thanks to your professors. Have they worked particularly hard to make Zoom classes successful, offered special sessions for assistance, or created space to talk about life beyond the classroom? We would love for you to share your appreciation for the effort they have expended to make this semester possible for us all. We will compile your notes and send them along to professors before the end of the year. Additionally, SBA’s Community Engagement Committee is spearheading a letter-writing campaign to write words of encouragement for staff who work in the UVA Health COVID Unit. If you are interested in writing a note to these individuals, please reach out to Colin Lee (cjl5cm) or Niko Orfanedes (njo8fm) and they will provide you with cards.

Best of luck to everyone on their finals, and I hope you have relaxing and rejuvenating breaks! I look forward to being back with you all in the spring.

All my best,

Katharine

---

kmj4vg@virginia.edu;
sbapresident@virginia.edu

PILA Auction Moves Online

---

The PILA Auction is moving online! While we considered hosting a Zoom version of the much-loved fall party, the PILA Board decided to spare you all another awkward video call and is pioneering a totally-new, totally-online auction experience. Same great items, same great cause, new location—PILAUVA.com. As always, the auction supports PILA's mission of providing stipends to UVA Law students who pursue low or non-paying summer internships in public service. There has never been a greater need for public interest lawyers, and PILA is up to the challenge! Thanks to the generous support of faculty, staff, local businesses, and firms, plus the tireless efforts of our grantees, the PILA auction will be live Thursday, November 12 through Tuesday, November 17 for your bidding pleasure. Bid early and bid often on this year's selection of great items, including romantic getaways, outings with professors, jewelry, cite-check passes, and dog snuggles! Items will be available for pick-up/drop off in Charlottesville, delivered digitally, or shipped if necessary. If you have any questions or just want to share your excitement about this year's auction, please reach out to the auction director, Kim Curtis (kcc5fy@virginia.edu).

Women in Public Service: Claire Gastañaga '74 Speaks at Virginia Law Women Event

---

Dana Lake ‘23
Staff Editor

Here at the Law Weekly, we try and celebrate an easygoing good news story where we can. 2020 has been a year marked by an overwhelming feeling of doom—when there’s something uncomplicated and optimistic to write on, you can bet we’ll run with it. So, ignoring a certain election that has not yet taken place at the time of this writing, we turn our attention instead to the 100th anniversary of co-education in the Law School. In 1920, three white women were allowed to enroll in law classes for the first time, one of whom would go on to become the first woman to pass the Virginia State bar exam. It would be disingenuous to call this the true centennial of co-education considering it would take another fifty years before UVA Law would see its first black woman graduate (Elaine R. Jones in 1970, the first woman president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund) but we’re working with what we’ve got.

With this anniversary in mind, Virginia Law Women hosted their annual Women in Public Service event for 1Ls on October 27.  The Zoom event was organized into three sections: an opening address from Dean Golobuff and Claire Gastañaga; a panel discussion where attendees chose between a discussion geared toward a career starting in public service or a career starting in private practice and transitioning later to public service; and small breakout sessions with panelists that attendees reserved ahead of time. The overall organization and transition was pretty seamless and handled by Maggie Woodward ’22 of VLW.

Pictured: Claire Gastañaga '74, Executive Director of ACLU Virginia, discussed a gamut of issues, including supporting women candidates for office. Photo Courtesy of acluva.org

Dean Goluboff (the Law School’s first female dean, if you didn’t know) kicked off the event with her usual positive energy. This year’s 1L class is the first class to enter as more than 50 percent women, one of her long-standing goals. Her short welcome was followed by a speech from Claire Gastañaga ’74 who serves as the executive director of ACLU Virginia. Gastañaga also serves on the Virginia State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and has been recognized as one of Virginia’s most outstanding advocates for LGBTQ+ rights. She is retiring from the ACLU in the spring, due in part to her desire to make room for the next generation of leaders.

Gastañaga devoted a good part of her speech to the issue of leadership, encouraging women to run for office themselves but also emphasizing the need to support women candidates. She highlighted the insidious issue so many women, people of color, LGBTQ+ and other minority candidates face: I want a candidate that is xyz . . . just not this candidate. It happened to both Warren and Clinton in their campaigns, when women across the country insisted they would prefer a female president . . . they just didn’t think this was the right female for the job. Quoting Gail Evans’s 2003 book She Wins, You Win, Claire emphasized, “Every woman must always play on the women's team . . . every time a woman succeeds, your chance of success increases. Every time a woman fails, your chance of failure increases.”

 Given the strength of this philosophy, we followed up with Gastañaga after her talk to ask her feelings on the nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Is a woman on the Supreme Court something to celebrate, regardless of her politics? Is there an inherent benefit to a woman having that place of leadership and lending her voice to the court? Do all women truly win when her nomination casts into doubt the future of affordable healthcare, LGBTQ+ rights, and access to safe abortions? Gastañaga in her speech mentioned the tension of supporting women while disagreeing with their politics; she reframed the question to be “not whether I would vote for any woman regardless of her position on issues I care about.  The right question is why a person wouldn’t vote for a candidate who agrees with them on issues they care about just because that candidate is a woman.” In our email follow-up, Gastañaga voiced her concern that Justice Barrett (along with Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh) advised the Bush campaign in the 2000 case (you may have heard of it) Bush v. Gore. Gastañaga would like to see all three recuse themselves in a potential case of Trump v. Biden.

1Ls have the first draft of their major memo due this week, and so many attendees were happy to chat with Law Weekly about their experience instead of working on their drafts. Given another few inches of column space, this section would mostly consist of rave reviews for the free Root bowls provided by VLW for the event (and here this editor will admit to committing the great Zoom faux pas of joining a meeting with the camera off, as I was still wolfing down my own Red Chili Miso Tofu bowl) but the overall feeling was one of gratitude, and surprise.

“I think sometimes at UVA it can feel hard to want to go into a public service career because so many events are geared toward Big Law,” explained Whitney Carter ’23. “I really appreciated the opportunity to connect with other people who are interested in Public Service.” Logan White ’23 agreed: “I attended the ‘Starting in Public Service’ session and really enjoyed the panelist discussion—it was so helpful to have the chance to hear the concerns of other students that want to start in Public Service and get some real, straightforward advice from women who have already gone through it.” Dean Goluboff highlighted the classroom to career support system UVA provides for graduates looking to work in public service, including reimbursement for travel to interviews in addition to the more well-known loan forgiveness program. This was a pleasant surprise for Rachel Dalton ’23: “There were so many more resources available to us to help ease the transition into Public Service than I knew about.”

(Fun Law Weekly Fact: This honorable newspaper elected its first woman editor-in-chief in 1979.)

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu

Happy Halloween!

---

Virginia Law Weekly wishes you a Happy Halloween! Stay safe and keep it spooky, everyone!