Honor Pursues Transformational Reform
Clint Roscoe ‘23
Staff Editor
Christopher Benos ‘22
Guest Writer
The Honor Committee is set to ratify a proposal for reform to UVA’s sanctioning system.
The proposed amendments to the Honor Constitution, proposed and authored by third-year law student Christopher Benos ’22, would reduce the sanction for students found guilty from expulsion to a two-semester leave of absence. They also expand the current “Informed Retraction” plea option, so that students may enter a guilty plea at any time prior to a hearing and take the same two-semester leave of absence.
UVA’s honor system was created in the 1840s in an attempt to reduce tensions between faculty and students. Though initially introduced by a professor as an academic certification against cheating, the students took custody of the Honor Code and undertook responsibility for its implementation. Throughout the system’s 170-year history, it has been entirely administered by the student body itself.
Today’s Committee is composed of more than two dozen students from various constituent schools across the University. The Committee processes cases, educates the student body, and implements policies designed to maintain UVA’s uniquely collegial “Community of Trust.” Its jurisdiction covers all acts of lying, cheating, and stealing, and its authority and purview are distinct from that of the University Judiciary Committee, whose jurisdiction covers non-academic violations of its general Standards of Conduct.
Under the current Honor System, students may, before being reported for an offense, submit a Conscientious Retraction, which means they accept full responsibility for their wrongdoing, make amends, and face no leave of absence. After being reported, students may submit an Informed Retraction within seven days and take a two-semester leave of absence. Students who do not submit either a Conscientious or Informed Retraction and are subsequently found guilty by a jury of their peers are punished with the “Single Sanction”: expulsion from the University.
For several decades, various Honor Committees have attempted to alter the University’s sanctioning regime. In 2013, the Committee successfully introduced the Informed Retraction, which for the first time permitted students to admit guilt early in the Honor process and avoid expulsion. Broader efforts to alter the Single Sanction have never succeeded, in part due to imprecise referenda and fractured campaigns.
This year, the Committee has pursued a coordinated legislative effort to amend sanctioning. Following extensive debate on a variety of proposed regimes, the Committee reached a broad consensus to focus reform on removing expulsion and expanding student rights under a plea. The proposed framework, authored by Christopher Benos, reduces the sanction for students found guilty at a hearing from expulsion to a two-semester leave of absence. It also expands the current Informed Retraction plea option to allow a student to admit guilt at any time prior to an official hearing and take the same two-semester leave.
Benos explained the merits of the proposal: “We cannot simply excise from the community students who make mistakes, especially since students come to the university from a wide range of backgrounds. To foster integrity, and ultimately cultivate honest and compassionate citizens, the University must help students learn from their mistakes. Students deserve a second chance.”
Practically, removing expulsion is designed to increase community commitment to the Honor System and reduce instances of jury nullification. Expanding the timeline for accepting pleas is designed to expand student access to evidence. As Benos explained, “currently, after a plea window has closed, new evidence becomes available, further interviews are conducted, and circumstances may evolve. An expanded plea ensures that students are able to make informed choices about their academic futures throughout the Honor process.”
In anticipation of alumni pushback, Benos explained that the proposed changes are consistent with the spirit of current policy. “We already allow students who take the Informed Retraction to return to the University after a two-semester leave.”
The Committee will ratify the changes in the coming weeks. Following ratification, the constitutional changes will be put to a university-wide vote in early 2022. In order to pass, the amendment will require the support of at least 60 percent of the votes cast, and at least ten percent of the entire eligible voting population must vote in favor. In the coming months, the Committee will finalize procedures under its bylaws that would take effect should the constitutional framework pass. It will also implement a coordinated campaign to partner with organizations like SBA and inform students ahead of the spring referendum.
---
car8ca@virginia.edu
cjb7ns@virginia.edu
Letter to the Editor: Oct. 6, 2021
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.
Dear Law Weekly Staff, I write to you with a very serious grievance. Of course, the most valuable resource we have as law students is our time. The Law Weekly stole my most valuable resource two weeks ago in the form of (what I can only assume must be) America’s most difficult Sudoku puzzle. Blood, sweat, and tears poured into this puzzle. I am behind in all of my classes now, and I am sure it must be due to this single puzzle. When I fail out of my classes, I also have no choice but to attribute it to the time I spent on this puzzle in September. I beg you to decrease or vary the difficulty of these puzzles. Otherwise, I will assume personal sabotage.
Paltrek 101
Samira Nematollahi ‘23
Staff Editor
Students at UVA Law are planning the Law School’s inaugural Paltrek (a.k.a. Palestine Trek), and on October 15 they hosted an informational session on what the trip entails and the goals of the group in attendance. The main goal of the trek is for graduate students at UVA to build an understanding of the Palestinian narrative and to share that upon their return to grounds. The students organizing the trek are working with an established network of Palestinians on the ground to develop the itinerary. While this is UVA’s first Paltrek, other universities such as Harvard and Columbia have hosted the trek for several years.
Trekkers will be introduced to Palestinian history, people, culture, and heritage. An important aspect of the trip is that students will also be exposed to the reality of life under military occupation from the perspective of Palestinians. Trekkers will spend the week traveling between different cities in the West Bank to visit various significant sites, meeting with local human rights leaders, and experiencing Palestinian culture. The itinerary has not yet been set; however, some of the cities Paltrek plans on visiting are Ramallah (the administrative capital of Palestine), Rawabi (the first planned Palestinian city), and Jerusalem.
Paltrek presents an unparalleled opportunity to experience Palestine and to gain a deeper understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict. While there are countless articles, documentaries, and interviews with Palestinians, nothing can match the experience of learning about it directly. After the trip, the students plan to host talk-back events to provide the trekkers a space to share what they learned with the Law School. The Palestinian voice is often overlooked, so these sessions are intended to help share their narrative with the student body.
The trip will happen during spring break (March 5-13) and is open to all graduate students at UVA, not just law students! Students will have until November 22 to apply for the trip and can receive the application by emailing the contact below. The organizers of Paltrek will be hosting several fundraiser events to help reduce the cost of the trip—this week there will be a bake sale at the law school. There will also be a screening of the documentary Mayor, which follows the challenges that the Mayor of Ramallah faces in running a city under occupation.
For more information on Paltrek and to sign up for the listserv, contact Warren Griffiths: wg4dt@virginia.edu.
---
sn5gc@virginia.edu
Announcing PILA+
Morgan Maloney ‘22
Lizzy Harris ‘22
Guest Writers
PILA is incredibly excited for our new supplemental grants program, PILA+! Last spring our board discussed ways PILA could better serve the public service community and adapt to its growing needs. In particular, we had heard about the experiences of a number of students who struggled to make ends meet while relying solely on the guaranteed public service summer grant when interning in high cost-of-living cities like D.C. and New York. We felt that while the guaranteed public service summer grants are a great way to create a stable baseline for financial support of public service students, their limited flexibility of these grants to vary in amount based on factors such as geographic area, financial need, and lack of family support can create vast inequities for students with different internships and in different job markets. Given this inflexibility and need for greater assistance, we decided to do something about it, and thus the idea for PILA+ was born. Since then, we have worked closely with the Public Service Center to transform our idea into reality and to create an additional source of funding to help try to close the gap and make summer public service internships more feasible for students with increased financial need. We are very grateful to Dean Annie Kim ’99 and Assistant Director of Public Service Andrew Broaddus in the Public Service Center for their extensive support and advice as we worked through how to create an entirely new and student-run grants program to offer additional assistance, on top of the guaranteed summer public service grants, which was no easy feat.
The guaranteed public service summer grant, which is now called the “UVA Law Public Service Grant,” will remain unchanged in both its amount and its qualification requirements, and it will still be guaranteed to all students who meet the eligibility requirements. To qualify for a PILA+ grant, students must first qualify for the UVA Law Public Service Summer Grant.
Additionally, students must also meet five additional criteria to qualify for the PILA+ supplemental grant. Students must (1) live in a high cost-of-living city; (2) anticipate to receive less than $2,000 in familial support for costs of living; (3) receive less than $1,000 in wages or a stipend from their public service employer; (4) pay two rents over the summer; and (5) receive less than $2,000 in total summer fellowship funding. The deadline for submitting a PILA+ application is March 18, 2022. For more information about the PILA+ grant and each of the above criteria, students can visit our website at www.pilauva.com. As for the amount of the grants, all money raised (after paying applicable taxes and other necessary expenses) will be divided equally between all eligible students. Therefore, each dollar raised is another dollar in the pockets of public service students!
The new PILA+ program is entirely student run, fundraised, and administered. Because of this, we are entirely dependent on the help of everyone in the UVA Law community. Members of the UVA Law community, including both students and faculty, can support us by volunteering to help with—or simply attending—our numerous fundraisers throughout the year, as well as donating to the upcoming auctions. This program was designed by public service students for public service students. If students have any questions, concerns, or ideas about how we can improve this grant, we invite them to reach out to PILA.
---
mvm7rw@virginia.edu
ebh9pz@virginia.edu
Foxfield: A 1L's Tale
Julia D’Rozario ‘24
Staff Editor
I should open by saying that I am about as oblivious about school events as a student can be and, until the absolute last minute, had no idea that Foxfield was a horse racing event. As I understood it, Foxfield was essentially an excuse to 1) get dolled up and 2) get day-drunk. As it turns out, I wasn’t that far off—I think I spent a grand total of about thirty seconds actually looking at horses.
Our section’s bus was the first to set off and was scheduled to leave at 9:40 a.m., which meant that the pregame started early early. I can’t say that getting out of bed before noon on a Sunday sounded all that appealing to me. But it’s conventional—or so I’ve heard—to break out the mimosas as early as 8 in the morning. And who am I to flout convention? The general sentiment seems to be that it’s acceptable to start drinking at 8 a.m. so long as you’re dressed fancy and the drinks are orange juice based. So, giddy up![1]
The event itself was, by far, the most aesthetically pleasing moment in my law school experience to date. The setting was incredibly beautiful, and the weather was amazing, despite it being a bit[2] hot. Everyone looked great, and it was genuinely delightful to take the time to get dressed up and feel fancy after what has effectively been seven weeks straight in sweatpants. To me, at this point in the semester, putting on a pair of heels felt equivalent to getting dressed for the Met Gala. Goodbye, Walking Dead… Hello, Gossip Girl![3]
All in all, Foxfield was a lovely time, and a highlight of 1L so far. By the time we piled back into the buses at the end of the day, everyone was exhausted, sweaty and ho(a)rse,[4] but really happy. The actual horse time (or, the surprising lack of actual horse time) wound up being beside the point. I left feeling like I had met new friends, gotten to know my section[5] better, and made memories that I’ll look back on for years to come.
I will definitely be back next year, floppy hat in tow.
Letter to the Editor: The Authenticator App is Garbage
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.
Connor Kurtz ‘22
Guest Writer
I want to go back to feeling like an in-class idiot in the usual way: flubbing a cold call. Redmond, Washington, can butt out, thank you very much.
Question: Why does logging into Canvas every day feel like breaking into Fort Knox?
All I wanted was the syllabus for my 8:00 a.m. class. I like to be prepared, so as class started, I opened up Canvas to do the readings. God knows why, but every week I must enter a 6-digit code to access my online course files. (You know the drill.) So, I surreptitiously snuck out my phone and fired up the Authenticator app—only to not see the code.
Yes, the damned thing had to be reconfigured. Which wouldn’t have been too big of a deal but for what followed.
On entering my UVA ID and password, Authenticator redirected me to a UVA-specific online portal. But get this: you can’t access the portal without first entering an Authenticator code. It’s Kafkaesque—and infuriating.
The Microsoft Authenticator app is garbage. Using the Law School’s IT infrastructure should not leave students and staff craving a one-way ticket to a Dignitas clinic.
And what’s with Authenticator and Duo Mobile? Duo Mobile is undeniably superior: it gives you a notification and allows for one-click verification. Authenticator forces you to open your phone, enter your passcode, scroll to the app, open the app, navigate to your UVA account area, and only then find the code—which you must then type on your laptop. Is this really the best we can do? To access our boring-as-hell class files? Does the Hairy Hand case need this level of protection?
I hate this app with the intensity of a million burning suns. It should go the way of the dodo, the Soviet Union, and Windows Vista.
What must we do to rid ourselves of this demented 15-step verification Rube Goldberg regime? Who will be the hero in Law IT to step up to slay this monster?
---
cjk3fw@virginia.edu
Government Lawyering 101
Monica Sandu ‘24
Staff Editor
This past Thursday, I attended The Real Deal: Government Seminar, the fourth and final entry in the Real Deal lecture series. Government had always seemed appealing in a nebulous, I-want-to-help-people way, but I had little practical knowledge of being a government lawyer. Who better to educate us than those who were once in our shoes? The four panelists—Julia Maloney, Sabrina Hassan, Jeremy Weinberg, and Salima Burke—are UVA Law alums with careers ranging from antitrust law and immigration to child protection and general legal counsel.
First, there is no such thing as a “typical day” for a government lawyer. Some days it’s five hours of meetings or seemingly endless emails, paperwork, and document review. Other days, it can be work on long-term projects and investigations, or responding to the news. With smiles on their faces (under their masks), the panelists recounted how part of the excitement of the job was not necessarily knowing what the day would bring, even if sometimes that day ended up being tedious or frustrating. The driving force behind the work of a government lawyer is the satisfaction derived from seeing all that effort come to fruition. Admittedly, synthesizing 4,000 pages of work on a case into a 65-page brief[1] seems more than a little daunting, but your work is not your paperwork. Your work is the people whom your agency serves, the city that you represent, the country whose authority you embody.
The coworkers and the clients were consistently cited as the most rewarding aspects of the job. Coworkers want to help each other out, and there’s apparently a real sense of collegiality in the office. It’s a support system, personally as well as professionally. For clients, you help people to understand what they need to do to protect themselves, and you protect them when they are unable to. This is no easy task, however. The least rewarding part of the job, besides the grunt work, was the mental and emotional drain. You may know somebody did something, but you just can’t prove it in court.[2] You may have to act contrary to your beliefs about the law or be given a deadline that is physically impossible to meet. You may see things that will stay with you for the rest of your life. What makes it worth it is keeping in mind a bigger picture, playing the role of an advisor rather than an adversary, in a way that brings about real change. Job satisfaction, everyone agreed, is high.
The panelists also addressed the elephant in the room: the pay. After all, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a law student in possession of a good education must be in want of money. All agreed that they could live comfortably, though perhaps not extravagantly. The panelists further emphasized the importance of government benefits, including vacation days, sick leave, a pension, and schedule that allowed them to have a strong work-life balance. The choice to go into government work is all about what you prioritize. However, they also recognized that starting off in government may not be feasible for everyone.
Lastly, they gave some sage advice to students wanting to prepare for a job in government: Enjoy your time in law school. Take it seriously, but not too seriously. There is no set path. Some panelists came to government work after a judicial clerkship following graduation, some moved from private practice, and some arrived after doing internships and clinics during their time here at UVA. Take opportunities to work on your feet through mock trial and moot court. Get on the ladder early, especially for 1L summer. Volunteer and do clinics until you figure out what you want to do, then go for it. Most of all, talk to people! Talk to your classmates, as they will be your coworkers. Talk to your professors, as they’re great resources. And talk to alumni to network before you need a job; many are more than willing to help.
---
ms7mn@virginia.edu
The Flunkies Pass the Test: Section F Wins 1L Softball Tournament
Congrats Section F, enjoy the feeling of victory before midterms start! Thank you everyone who participated in this year's softball tournament. Photo Courtesy of Roni Courtney.
Left: Section F captain cools down after a red-hot game. Photos Courtesy of Roni Courtney '22
Thank you Umpires!
Section B remembers the day with number 1 softball fan Professor GE White. Photo Courtesy of Roni Courtney.
Section F celebrates altogether. Photo Courtesy of Roni Courtney.
: Sections B and G shake hands. Photo Courtesy of Roni Courtney '22
The two semifinalists Section A and F. Photo Courtesy of Roni Courtney '22
To Prosecute, or to Defend?
Nate Wunderli ‘22
Sports Editor
This week I had the opportunity to attend The Real Deal: Public Defense Seminar. This is an annual event, and one that I have attended once before during 1L year. This time, however, I had a different motivation to attend: I am currently in the prosecution clinic at the law school, where I visit the Orange County prosecutor’s office on a weekly basis. I’m also coming off a summer where I engaged in a lot of juvenile defense work. Having seen a little of how both sides operate and view the world, I came into this panel discussion with a much more nuanced view of the criminal justice system and was curious about what these accomplished public defenders would say.
Much of what the panelists said focused on the human aspect of being a public defender. Being able to put your “feet in the client’s shoes,” focusing on the “why” someone committed a crime rather than the “what,” and having the humility to realize that if we were brought up in the same situation, with the same challenges as the client, we might have done the same thing. I could see the compassion emanating from each of the panelists as they described their clients and their work. No doubt some of their clients have done horrible things, but these defenders are able to look at the bright side. There is a certain amount of love that goes into being a good public defender and advocate, and the realization that people are not perfect, that even bad people can change. One of the panelists talked about how being a public defender is not just about bringing your legal knowledge to the table, it is about using the entire breadth of your life’s experience and own personal challenges in order to advocate for someone who, in some cases, most of society would have shunned.
While compassion and tolerance seemed to be at the core of much of the public defender’s work, this is juxtaposed with the stark reality offered by one panelist: sometimes acquittal is not the best option. The panelist said that he has experienced cases where he had got an acquittal, just to see his client commit horrible crimes, even murder, against those who testified against him. Another topic addressed was the number of public defenders who are switching to become Commonwealth attorneys. The panelists were generally not pleased with this trend, even if it means more progressive prosecutors favorable to their clients. While some of it was said in jest, it was also clear that these public defenders are loyal to their profession and the part they play in the legal system. Becoming a prosecutor after a long career as a public defender amounts to almost a betrayal, like switching fanhood in sports.
As one panelist said, some people are able to switch back and forth between prosecutor and defense attorney, while others cannot. While she did not give an explicit reason for why this would be the case, or what qualities make some people able to switch but not others, I am able to draw on my own experience to guess why. The justice system, while chock full of rules, procedures, and formalities, is ultimately about people. On one hand, you have the defendant. If you are only focused on one side, it is easy to feel bad for the defendant. They may have had abuse in their home growing up, got exposed to drugs early, or had any host of issues that ultimately led to their being in the courtroom that day. Life is hard and can push even the strongest person to the brink. Yet here is someone who may have had no opportunities at all, sitting in the courtroom, sometimes with only mild comprehension of what is happening, whose fate is being decided by complete strangers.
On the other hand, you have the victim. Someone whose life was altered permanently by the actions of another. Hearing their story, seeing their anguish, pain, and tears, leaves you first feeling sad for them and also angry at the person who caused them such pain and suffering. How many more people will have to suffer if the individual brought to the courtroom that day is allowed to walk away freely? These are questions prosecutors, and sometimes defense attorneys, have to ask themselves regularly. For some, but perhaps especially for defense attorneys, it may be easier just to focus on one side of the problem in order to be an effective advocate. For prosecutors, who are given wide discretion to enforce laws, it is more necessary to channel both sympathies, almost like a judge. However, without an effective defense attorney to convey information about a defendant and really get to know the defendant, this balancing of justice and mercy becomes skewed.
If this public defense seminar revealed anything, it is that people and an understanding of those people are at the core of the criminal justice system. In a seminar where they could have talked about anything, the panelists focused most of all on one thing: humanity.
---
nw7cz@virginia.edu
Discrepancies in Club Funding Raise Questions
Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor
Because funding negotiations remain ongoing between student clubs and administration, the Law Weekly will avoid naming specific clubs or joining in the speculation as to the overall cause in this year’s funding reduction. The purpose of this article is to fulfill our policy of publishing columns of interest to the Law School--to bring attention to an ongoing issue happening largely behind the scenes.
Applying for funding from the University every year is one of the most important responsibilities for club leaders. Sufficient funding is the difference between catered lunches and BYOB, between guest speakers and PowerPoints. Whatever money is needed for the club to function that isn’t awarded by the school is expected to be made up for in membership dues or private sponsors.
Private sponsorship is an expectation more easily met by some organizations than others. Clubs with a national footprint have a much wider support network than smaller or newer organizations, and clubs focused on channeling students into private practice or particular markets have established donors they can lean on. In the yearly jostling for funds, it is unfortunately often the organizations in the worst position to win outside donations that receive the least amount of money from the school. They are left to make up their budgets with membership dues.
Photo by Robert Llewellyn.
The result is a choice between a rock and a hard place. They can charge their members high dues and host events and activities that will hopefully increase membership and the club’s reputation over several years—the downside being, of course, that these smaller organizations are often affinity groups for people underrepresented in the law, and high dues are a barrier to entry for what is meant to be a supportive space. The other option is cheaper dues, but fewer activities that address the organization’s needs and purpose.
For the 2021-2022 school year, most student organizations at UVA Law saw a reduction in funding from the year before. The Law Weekly, like many groups, received less funding than requested. The reduction in funding this year, when in-person events are actually possible, compared to last year’s COVID-induced freeze on most meetings, is difficult to understand. Why clubs with greater access to outside funding receive more help from the school than clubs with smaller networks is difficult to understand. Why some organizations received substantial funding for travel expenses when their events will remain virtual this year, is difficult to understand. For the organizations interviewed to get background information for this article, that is the central issue—understanding how exactly these determinations are made.
Clubs this year received funding that appeared to be arbitrarily calculated. The funding determinations are meant to be need-based, but understanding how exactly to demonstrate need has been described as a “black box” and “very confusing.” The amount of money requested is clearly not a useful indicator, as most clubs received less than what they asked for and some clubs actually received more. If an organization’s own estimate of their expenses is not the determining factor, what is?
Other factors that may influence the decision are club membership levels, suspected savings levels, scheduled events, and club purpose. We can address club purpose first, because it has some background. Religious affinity groups receive equal funding, regardless of other factors. Their funding was equally reduced this year. For the other factors, it is unclear what the pattern of reasoning is. While some organizations experienced substantial growth in the last year and others had consistent membership numbers or a reduction, the funding awards did not seem to reflect this disparity. It will certainly be difficult to manage an organization of significantly larger size with less money than last year, and some clubs fear they will lose enrollment momentum. Suspected savings seems to be influential in the process, but the savings are not self-reported by clubs. Administration seems to have their own method of determining the fiscal health of different organizations, and this has led to serious misappraisals.
If the amount of money requested based on a club’s estimates of their expenses is not the determining factor (and no one is advocating for a system of blank checks), membership level is not the determining factor, and a club’s ability to successfully solicit donations is not the determining factor, then what determines funding awards? Universally, student organizations understand there will be years with less money available and years with more. What student leaders need to be successful is simply transparency. Without knowing how the decisions are made, organizations have little to go on for appeals. An organization may not know its award was reduced by a significant margin (and Administration will not know if they overfunded by a significant margin) due to misunderstanding, or a real change in circumstances.
---
dl9uh@virginia.edu
Virginia Law First Generation Professionals Kickoff Meeting
Nikolai Morse ‘24
Staff Editor
Virginia Law First Generation Professionals (VLFGP) held their kickoff and first general body meeting of the school year on Tuesday, September 14th. Founded in April 2019, the group aims to facilitate the transition and integration of first-generation professional students into Virginia Law and the legal profession.
The meeting was led by Outreach Chair and VP Claire Reiling, ’22, who began by welcoming the gathered students and providing an overview of the organization’s various goals and functions, such as mentorship opportunities, networking, and general law school de-mystification. Representatives from several of the administration’s offices spoke, describing the resources and support they had to offer.
If you are interested in joining VLFGP or just want to hang, please email Andi Schlut at bas7bh@virginia.edu. Photo Courtesy of VLFGP
Lauren Parker ’08, Director of the Office of Private Practice (OPP), highlighted the breadth of support that OPP offers, from cover letters to candid advice on interview outfits. She addressed a common fear of 1L’s and specifically first-gen students, saying “you don’t need to have a lot of contacts to get a good job, you’re at a great law school. But that said, you have a huge network of alums we can and will connect you with.”
Amanda Yale, Director of Public Service, began by noting, “you will not need to know which fork to use to do public service. But you will have a very fulfilling career!” She emphasized the benefit that a diverse background can offer when you are a practicing lawyer as you can more easily relate to clients from a wide variety of backgrounds.
Assistant Dean Jennifer Hulvey described the support the Financial Aid office has to offer, from loan counseling to being able to talk with someone else who had been through the challenges of being a first-gen student, including that friends and family don’t always understand why you are taking on loans for “another degree.”
Ruth Payne ’02, Director of Judicial Clerkships, noting that the worst part of her job was hearing from alums who regretted not trying to clerk, urged students to not count themselves out of applying to clerkships.
Dr. Katherine Gibson introduced herself and pointed out that while law school is a stressful endeavor to begin, the experience as a first-gen student can add additional stress, which she and her office are happy to discuss.
Professor Andrew Hayashi spoke last and offered thanks and advice to the gathered students. “Each of you is a gift to the community and the diversity really matters in the classroom. I encourage you to not just try to get through law school, but to thrive and take advantage of everything the school has to offer.”
Many of those on the panel described their own experiences as first-generation law students. One member of the panel noted that when they came to law school, they assumed most lawyers were “ambulance chasers.” Many other anecdotes revolved around the incomprehensible mist of words that is “law school jargon.” This reporter himself still doesn’t understand why perfectly normal words like “outline” now mean something entirely different.
But the mysteries of law school aside, the meeting was notable for its strong attendance, excellent Wegmans pizza, and the presence of multiple offices from the Law School administration. For an organization that only began in April 2019, VLFGP appears to have established itself within the Law School quickly. When asked what some focus areas are for the organization, Claire Reiling pointed to an effort to connect students with the many alumni and faculty members who were first-gen lawyers themselves. In parting, she commented that many students are unaware of the broad interpretation of “first-gen” that VLFGP employs and urged students who are interested to join.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
Panel Reviews Supreme Court Term
Nikolai Morse ‘24
Staff Editor
This past Tuesday at the Federalist Society’s annual SCOTUS Round-Up, Professor Daniel Ortiz, Mr. Giancarlo Canaparo of the Heritage Institute, and Dean John C. Jeffries ’73, discussed several cases from the Supreme Court’s recent term. The event, which was held in Caplin Pavilion, was well-attended and the discussion ranged from captivating legal discussion to what can only be described as a stinging rebuke. A recording of the discussion is available on the Law School’s website, and I would encourage you to watch it.
UVA Law professors John C. Jeffries Jr. ’73 and Daniel Ortiz are joined by GianCarlo Canaparo of the Heritage Foundation. Photo Courtesy of UVA Law
Professor Ortiz first discussed Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the case in which Philadelphia stopped referring children to the Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) foster care agency because it refused, on religious grounds, to certify same-sex couples as appropriate foster parents.
Noting that the case had “culture war written all over it,” Professor Ortiz argued that the interesting legal aspect was the potential for overturning Smith, which has been criticized by free exercise proponents. Professor Ortiz said, “this was a really big deal, not only in defining the borders of the culture wars, but in determining when religious belief entitled one to exemptions more generally.”
The decision by the Court was surprising, first, because it was a unanimous decision that held that removing CSS from the adoption program was unconstitutional and second, the decision did not address Smith! Professor Ortiz described the bemusement many experienced seeing the Court tee up a juicy legal issue for resolution, only to then neglect the issue.
Professor Ortiz ended by posing two questions: first, why does the Court tease us like this? And second, would a big win in such a case be good for religious organizations in the long run?
UVA Law professors John C. Jeffries Jr. ’73 and Daniel Ortiz are joined by GianCarlo Canaparo of the Heritage Foundation. Photo Courtesy of UVA Law
The second case Professor Ortiz discussed was Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which concerned an Arizona law requiring people to vote in person only in their precinct and limiting the people who could collect an early ballot. Highlighting the impact on voting and the stakes of the case, Professor Ortiz noted that in the 2020 Presidential election the vote was 49.36% Democrat and 49.06% Republican. However, the impact of this case was more than purely political, as it implicated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
After reviewing the history surrounding the passage of the VRA, Professor Ortiz described the 6-3 decision in Brnovich as “pulling many of the teeth of Section Two.” He suggested that it was “a kind of bookend for Shelby County v. Holder,” where the Court effectively deactivated Section Five of the Voting Rights Act pre-clearance requirement. Professor Ortiz closed by noting that “now the next frontier, I think, of voting rights litigation after Brnovich is going to be voting administration. And you've seen some moves of this already in Georgia, in particular. And I don't see how Section Two after Brnovich is going to do any work there at all.”
UVA Law professors John C. Jeffries Jr. ’73 and Daniel Ortiz are joined by GianCarlo Canaparo of the Heritage Foundation. Photo Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.
Mr. Canaparo began by noting the “golden age of agreeableness” at the Court, evidenced by 44% of decisions on merits cases being unanimous, and two-thirds of all cases having no more than two justices in the dissent. Mr. Canaparo then discussed Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which challenged a California law that allowed union organizers to access farmland without the permission of the owner for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, to organize laborers. The Court rendered a 6-3 decision that this law amounted to a per se taking.
This case touches on a long-standing debate within the law. One position says that property rights are inviolably enshrined in the Constitution and the other argues that some invasion is necessary for the government to regulate a complex world. In his dissent, Justice Breyer argued that unless the law allows for access 365 days per year, it is not a taking. Mr. Canaparo described the dissent as “something of an anachronistic opinion,” because it “doesn't pretend to articulate an objective standard beyond Breyer's own judgment.”
Mr. Canaparo’s second case was Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, in which the court granted relief to two houses of worship seeking relief from New York’s maximum occupancy limits during the pandemic. The Court agreed 5-4 in a per curiam decision that under the Free Exercise clause, you must treat houses of worship as well as you treat secular businesses. Mr. Canaparo contrasted this with the Court’s decision last year, in South Bay Pentecostal v. Newsom, not to grant relief, but rather to defer to the state legislature. Noting the shift from the earlier case, Mr. Canaparo closed by referencing Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, saying “We are back safely into the realm of the Constitution.”
Dean Jeffries opted to begin first with a review of Ex Parte Young (decided in 1908), which established the practice of enforcing the Federal Constitution via injunctive relief against states by naming state officers in the suit. Turning to the recent Texas statute which prohibited abortion, Dean Jeffries described it as “flagrantly, dramatically, incontestably unconstitutional.” Based on the precedent set by Young, we would expect there to be lawsuits seeking injunctive relief against the state officers of the relevant state governmental departments responsible for enforcing this.
Anticipating this, Texas evidently designed its statute to avoid this by providing that no state officer at any level would have a role in enforcing the statute. Rather, the statute would be enforced by what Dean Jeffries called “a system of bounty hunters,” authorizing any resident of Texas to sue an abortion provider or anyone who abets an abortion, and be awarded $10,000 for every abortion prevented – raising the possibility that injunctive relief would not be sufficient to halt the statute.
Calling it “wholly unprecedented,” Dean Jeffries argued that the intent to circumvent Ex Parte Young was the central impact of this case. “For many of you . . . this was an abortion case. For me, it's a rule of law case. By adopting the bizarre scheme of barring all enforcement by state officials, Texas hopes both to act unconstitutionally . . . and to prevent judicial review of its unconstitutional actions. This is a direct attack on American constitutionalism, on the institution of judicial review, and the rule of law. [N]o matter what you think about abortion or Roe v. Wade, we should all be united in condemning this attack on the rule of law.”
Dean Jeffries ended by condemning the Supreme Court’s 5-4 order denying relief, in which the Court said that the stay application presented complex and novel procedural questions. Noting that complex and novel procedural questions are exactly what the Supreme Court is designed to address, Dean Jeffries commented that “their willingness to allow this statute to go into effect gives rise to a suspicion I hope is ill-founded, a suspicion that the majority is so eager to get rid of the abortion rights that they're willing to throw the rule of law over the side to do it.” Dean Jeffries ended by noting that this will not be the last time this issue arises, and that “when it does, let us hope wiser heads and stronger spines prevail.”
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
The Bake Sale for Afghan Refugees
Mason Pazhwak ‘23
Events Editor
If you walked by Scott Commons this past week, you may have noticed a table loaded with a variety of baked goods. If you stopped by to take a look and grab a treat, you would have seen that all of them had been prepared by students here at UVA Law in order to raise funds to help Afghan refugees. Over the past few weeks, seismic changes have rocked Afghanistan and forced hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom supported the U.S.’s recently-terminated two-decade-long intervention, to uproot their lives and make perilous journeys out of the country to seek safety and a better future. Many are now resettling across the U.S. and face an enormous adjustment after having to leave everything behind. Charlottesville has been a major destination, and many Afghans have found a new home in the city. Ida Abhari, a 3L law student and one of the organizers, emphasized how refugees are often unnoticed, yet integral, parts of the community: “I think it’s important for people to understand that Afghans and refugees from other countries are their neighbors and community members in Charlottesville. They’re your grocery store checkout clerks, Uber drivers, and classmates.” She also drew attention to the fact that many newcomers could really use the help at this moment: “Right now in Charlottesville, there are refugee families who cannot send their young children to school because of the lack of affordable housing, because a family needs a permanent address before they’re allowed to enroll in school. I hope this fundraiser will be a small step towards making sure families have decent housing and can do the basic things like enroll their children in school.” As of the end of last week, the bake sale had raised over $3,000. Of the proceeds, $1,000 will go to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a leading organization supporting refugees across the globe, and $2,000 will go directly to newly settled Afghan families in the Charlottesville community.
A law student gets their baked goods fix while supporting a good cause. Photo Courtesy of Ida Abhari.
The bake sale also represented an excellent example of coordination within the UVA Law community. The event was led by the Muslim Law Student Association (MLSA) and co-sponsored by the Middle Eastern & North African Law Student Association (MENA), the American Constitution Society (ACS), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), and Women of Color at UVA Law (WOC). MLSA President Layla Khalid gave all of these organizations, as well as others who volunteered or made donations, a shout-out, saying “It's been very heartwarming to see how fast the Law School community has been able to come together and show support for such an important cause, whether it's baking delicious treats, volunteering to table, or making generous donations. We would not be able to make this happen without the help of MLSA, MENA, ACS, NLG, IRAP, and WOC, who rallied support to help our new neighbors in Charlottesville.”
Efforts like the bake sale are excellent ways to have an immediate impact in the local community while also drawing attention to the larger, more distant events driving their purpose. This latter impact was one of the aims Khalid noted, stating “I hope this fundraiser is able to slightly ease the burden of this life-altering transition for Afghan families, as well as raise awareness in the Law School community of the current humanitarian crisis our communities are facing both locally and abroad.” While many Afghans are now finding new homes in Charlottesville, across the U.S., and in other countries, many, many more remain trapped in Afghanistan, facing a deeply uncertain situation. The country may seem far away, and many feel that there has been enough involvement there after the 20-year engagement that just concluded, but it is critical that law students, and Americans more broadly, don’t forget Afghanistan. The U.S., as a country, can have a major stabilizing influence on how events develop there, and hopefully will continue to play a role in making a brighter future for Afghans. Support in the local community, coupled with this awareness and the advocacy it might inspire, is a great way to help both at home and abroad.
For anyone who would like to continue to donate, please contact either Layla Khalid (lk4hs@virginia.edu) or Ida Abhari (ia7rh@virginia.edu). You can also send donations via Venmo to @MLSAUVA.
---
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
Dandelion Returns
"C" is for Celebration. 1L Section C celebrates after the softball game. Photo Courtesy of Christina Kelly '22
Alex Castle and Christina Kelly brought down the house at Dandelion 2021. Photo Courtesy of Christina Kelly '22.
Section E put on a classic (and well received) Dandelion performance with a Free Britney theme. Photos Courtesy of Midge Zuck '24.
"F" is for Fantastic! Section F rocked the color-block outfits for a great performance. Photo Courtesy of Lizzie Pate '22.
"G" is for Go For It! Section G goes all out on their performance. Photo Courtesy of Christina Kelly '22.
Lizzie Pate and Roni Courtney keep the masses well nourished by serving up endless Dominos. Photo Courtesy of Ardi Khalafi '22.
"A" is for Amazing (and ABBA)! Section A gathers after a great show. Photo Courtesy of Christina Kelly '22.
Professor Frampton Practices What He Teaches
Jacob Smith ‘23
Professor Liaison
It is hard to get further from the ivory tower than Professor Thomas Frampton, a former public defender who teaches criminal law and civil rights litigation at UVA. But currently, he is also both a defendant and a civil rights plaintiff. He is not exactly pleased about this situation, which he described as “annoying.” He admitted, however, that it will be a great story to tell once it is firmly in the rearview mirror.
So how did this happen? Before teaching, Professor Frampton worked as a public defender in New Orleans, and he still maintains an active pro bono practice. This January, Professor Frampton helped a client bring a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights lawsuit against the Baton Rouge Police Department after a series of indignities that included a public strip-search of the client and his sixteen-year-old brother.
The civil rights lawsuit settled in May for $35,000. Nevertheless, Professor Frampton said the police “weren’t doing anything” to hold the officers involved accountable. So Professor Frampton’s clients decided to release body camera footage of the search. They posted it to YouTube and put out press releases. It quickly went viral, and CBS Evening News, among other news outlets, picked up the story.
On May 28, the day after the CBS story, and just as he was watching a press conference responding to the media firestorm, Professor Frampton received an email. The Parish Attorney was bringing contempt proceedings against him. In Louisiana, contempt of court is a quasi-criminal offense punishable with a fine of up to five hundred dollars, six months in jail, or both. He alleged that Professor Frampton had released records of a juvenile criminal proceeding without authorization, since his client’s brother was a juvenile when he was searched.
Professor Frampton was “deeply freaked out.” Fortunately, he has an extensive network of contacts in the public interest world and immediately began reaching out. A lot of people were willing to help. He assembled a “stellar legal team”—the ACLU, Tulane Law School’s First Amendment clinic, and two local civil rights attorneys who knew him from his previous work. “I actually feel a little bashful that so much legal brainpower is being deployed on my behalf, when there’s so much other important work,” Professor Frampton said.
Along with providing representation in the state contempt proceeding, this dream team filed a §1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on June 23. They sued the City of Baton Rouge, its mayor, and its police chief. The complaint[1] alleges that Professor Frampton engaged in protected First Amendment activity in releasing the video, and the defendants retaliated against him because of that speech. As illustrated in the complaint, there are troubling questions about why Professor Frampton was charged. To start with, there never was a juvenile court proceeding in the first place against the minor in question. In addition, the camera footage had already been released without formal court authorization to Professor Frampton’s client and to the public defender’s office, and parts were even made public as part of the client’s criminal case record. Finally, Professor Frampton released the footage on behalf of “the individuals whose privacy interests are implicated in the videos,” namely the client and his brother.
As law students, you surely want to know all the nitty-gritty procedural details, so here’s the current situation: to accommodate the federal lawsuit, the Louisiana state hearing has been moved back several times. The parties in the federal case have been briefing a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss, respectively. In the state proceeding, Professor Frampton also filed a motion to dismiss.. About a month ago, he and other witnesses testified in a Zoom evidentiary hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction in the federal case. Within the next two weeks, Judge John W. deGravelles is expected to rule on those motions. If a preliminary injunction is granted, the state court proceedings will be stayed to allow the federal case to go forward. Normally, federal courts are reluctant to interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings, under what Fed Courts students will know as Younger abstention,[2] but this case may fall under an exception to that doctrine for bad faith or harassment.
Professor Frampton is much more comfortable teaching and practicing civil rights law than living it. But the law professor has faced the possibility of contempt charges before in his work as a public defender, and he is “hopeful and optimistic” that he will not have to stand trial in the criminal proceedings. And compared with most criminal defendants, Professor Frampton retains fabulous legal representation and has a supportive employer. If nothing else, the situation highlights the City’s willingness to bring criminal charges of questionable validity. As Professor Frampton said, if the Parish Attorney is willing to go after him, a white out-of-state law professor, imagine how they treat indigent persons of color.
---
js3hp@virginia.edu
Dean Goluboff Welcomes Class of 2024
Risa Goluboff ‘00
Dean of UVA Law
The new school year always brings energy and excitement to the Law School. That is particularly true this year, when, for the first time in eighteen months, we are able to gather in groups of any size without social distancing. It has been a joy to see you getting to know each other, and I look forward to welcoming our returning students next week. There is so much discovery and growth ahead of you—ahead of all of us—this year.
Law school is a transformative experience, and—with orientation, your first assignments, and meeting section mates and professors behind you—you are already on your way. In the months and years ahead, we will teach you the fundamentals of how to think (and write and speak) with the analytical reasoning and precision of a lawyer. We will offer you opportunities to work with real clients on real cases so that you can acquire the integrity, judgment, and perspective that you learn most effectively through experience. And we will expose you to the broad sweep of interdisciplinary perspectives—economics, jurisprudence, history, psychology, and more—that will enable you to see the big picture wherever your career takes you. You will leave here able not only to deploy the law as it is but also to envision what the law can and should be in the future.
Pictured: Dean Risa Goluboff. Photo Courtesy of virginia.edu.
For many of you, law school will be the capstone of your educational career. Make the most of your time here, all the while knowing that we will offer you more opportunities than you can possibly take. That is the beauty of a law school that boasts students who are the best and the brightest in the nation, world-class faculty engaged in groundbreaking and interdisciplinary research, and experiential learning that will let you put your classroom knowledge to work. Join a journal, take a clinic, do moot court, engage with the Charlottesville community, take on leadership roles in student organizations. As you do so, you will encounter some of the many career paths available to you, from trial lawyer to corporate executive, cause crusader to policy wonk to dealmaker. Imagine what these paths might look like for you. Try several on for size.
Just as important as what you will do at UVA Law are the people with whom you will do it. The relationships you build during your time here—with your classmates, faculty, and staff—will enrich your days at the Law School and will sustain you personally and professionally in the years to come. The vitality of our diverse community permeates all we do here. We come from different races, religions, nationalities, ethnicities, and cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. We have had different life experiences and live different identities. We hold different beliefs, attitudes, and interests, and subscribe to a wide range of political views.
We bridge these differences with a shared commitment to this community, a shared aspiration that our differences serve as a source of humility and strength, empathy and intellectual stimulation. It is not always easy to speak so that others can listen or listen even when the message is hard to hear, but our community of trust and belonging makes that possible. Doing so is necessary to analyzing and solving problems, considering every argument, exploring every idea, arguing for your side, and collaborating with the other. It is essential to becoming the exceptional lawyers you are here to become—UVA lawyers.
Our robust community is also what has sustained us the past eighteen months as we have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. We have learned both that we cannot anticipate every obstacle that might come our way, and that we rise to them because we do so together. As we return to a fully in-person law school experience this semester—armed with our high vaccination rates and temporary mask mandate—we remain vigilant about keeping our friends, families, colleagues, and neighbors healthy. I ask you to be mindful that we each have different health risks and risk tolerances and to approach those differences with humanity, compassion, and patience. And I ask you to help us continue to nurture and enhance our community so that every member shares in the sense of belonging that makes UVA Law so special.
I look forward to seeing how each of you makes this place your place, and to the paths you will forge during your time here. This moment in our national and global history calls out for exceptional lawyers to lead our government, our institutions, our businesses, and our communities in ways that comport with the core values of our Constitution and our profession. You are on your way to becoming those lawyers. Welcome, and enjoy!
---
risa.goluboff@law.virginia.edu
SBA Presidential Address
Niko Orfanedes ‘22
SBA 2021-2022 President
Fellow Members of the Virginia Law Community,
A little over a year ago, on the first Saturday of April, I spent the afternoon with a small group of law students on Copeley Field. It was a balmy, spring afternoon in Charlottesville—yet the walking paths and streets around North Grounds were eerily desolate. For those of us who would remain in town for the duration of the semester, such a scene would soon become all too familiar. This particular Saturday was especially momentous, however, considering what should have been. Copeley Field was supposed to be packed full of players and spectators from law schools around the country for the 37th Annual North Grounds Softball League Invitational—the first of many classic UVA Law traditions to be derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a little over a year later, we are faced with the formidable challenge of rebuilding and restoring our once-unwavering sense of community.
Although brighter days are undoubtedly on the horizon, our student body remains—in many respects—at a crossroads. The pandemic continues to take a toll on our mental and physical health. Our viewpoints on critical issues are increasingly at odds. A number of students feel isolated and disconnected from the Law School administration—and, in many cases, their fellow classmates. Meanwhile, Reddit posts and GroupMe discussions have highlighted our dire, longstanding need to curate a drastically more diverse and inclusive student body and faculty.
Too often when faced with these challenges, we, the student body, elect to debate for the sake of debating (we are future lawyers, after all). Words alone, however, are not the way forward. Our current state of affairs calls for strong and decisive action, and it is for precisely this reason why I decided to run for SBA President.
Since assuming office last month, your SBA representatives have hit the ground running. My fellow Executive Board members and I have met with student leaders, raised sensitive concerns to our Law School administrators, and strategized ways to reestablish the events, activities, and traditions that bring us together and strengthen our bonds as a student body. Before the semester ends, I will be establishing the inaugural President’s Roundtable with leaders of each of our law school affinity groups. The purpose of this roundtable discussion will be to identify issues facing our students and to develop action plans to bring our community forward. Because many of the challenges faced by our affinity groups are deeply-rooted and persistent, we will be hosting this discussion on a regular basis throughout the upcoming year. Further, I will be working with our Senators to circulate a class-specific, semi-monthly survey designed to obtain feedback and insight on a number of matters (e.g. administrator accessibility, academic challenges, social events, and general concerns). With this information at our disposal, the SBA can take targeted action to efficiently address the many issues facing our student body today.
Despite our many differences, we all possess a common desire to make our school a better place. During last month’s contested SBA elections, we witnessed record voter turnout across the board—a testament to the passion and care that we all share when it comes to our Virginia Law community. Now, we must channel our passion and unite as we lead our beloved institution into the future.
As we embark on this journey together, I am extremely grateful to be a part of the all-star team that is SBA 2021-22. Moreover, I would be remiss not to give a major shout-out to my predecessor, Katharine Janes ’21. Despite assuming her position amidst the calamity of an unprecedented public health crisis, Katharine navigated our student body through this uniquely challenging year—beginning with our transition to virtual learning and the pass-fail debate— – with vigor and grace. I, like the rest of us, am thankful for her leadership, and I look forward to building upon her successes and accomplishments.
As we leave this difficult year behind us, please know that the process of restoring our community is going to take us all. Together, however, we have the opportunity to leave our school a little bit better off than it was when we first arrived on North Grounds. I implore you to continue to embody the qualities that best represent what it means to be a student at the University of Virginia School of Law. Be compassionate and kind. Uplift those around you. Say hello to a member of our diligent custodial staff. By doing the little things right each and every day, you can make a difference. We all can make a difference. It is an honor to be a part of this community, and I can’t wait to see what we accomplish together. The best is yet to come.
Very truly yours,
Niko Orfanedes
---
njo8fm@virginia.edu
"Libel: The Movie" Makes Students Laugh, Cry, Ask for Spotify Link
Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor
The 113th Libel Show was an absolute joy to watch from start to finish. While Law Weekly likes to keep things light and pithy, I want to make sure this article starts off acknowledging the time and work the participants put into making Libel: The Movie possible. The 112th Libel Show was cancelled due to Corona, upping the pressure to make this year’s virtual event the comeback of the century. Under the direction of Stephanie Metherall ’21 and Jake Sillyman ’21, and produced by Katie Carpenter ’21, this year’s show was a success from start to finish.
Pictured: Chance Maginness '22 as former SBA president Katherine Janes. Photo Courtesy of: The Libel Show.
Libel may tout itself as one of the Law School’s oldest traditions, but it was certainly made much funnier by the work of the Law Weekly Executive Board. I would even say our Exec Board was disproportionately represented, with outstanding performances from Editor-in-Chief Phil Tonseth ’22 as Dean Groves delivering an important message for all law students; Executive Editor Anna Bninski ’23 as Vice President of both ACS and FedSoc; and Managing Editor Stan Birch ’22 as Mr. NGSL in a Survivor parody that had my entire Covid-compliant watch party screaming. Law Weekly’s graduating 3Ls also turned out: former Photographer Kolleen Gladden ’21 served top-tier facial expressions in a skit capturing the exact feeling of being a woman in a Zoom room full of toxic male gunners. Former Professor Liaison Editor Leah Deskins ’21 served as Band Director, a complex role made more complicated by the virtual show. “I never imagined I was also applying to be an audio engineer,” Deskins commented. “I had a great group of musicians willing to work hard, be creative, and be patient with me as I figured out the recording ropes.” As a humble and unbiased viewer, I give them all tens across the board.
A skit show is only as strong as its musical performance. See SNL’s Dick in a Box; see also the Cowbell sketch. Libel: The Movie did not disappoint—the musical parodies were each excellent. Andi Schlut ’22 began the show with a cover of Frozen’s“Let it Go” that demonstrated both lyrical brilliance and probably the strongest vocal performance of the night. Schlut also served as a vocal instructor for the show. “Singing together over Zoom is practically impossible because of the lag and other issues,” she reflected. The solution required innovation and a lot of patience, but the results were undeniable. The show followed this up with an OGI version of NSYNC’s “Bye Bye Bye” that was somehow even more danceable than the original, and a brilliant cover of Aladdin’s “Whole New World” taught me more about Torts in two minutes than the entirety of Fall semester. Parodies of “Despacito” by Luis Fonsi and “Mr. Brightside” by The Killers featured stand-out performances from 1Ls Logan White ’23 and Rachel Dalton ’23. The night ended with a supremely good cover of WAP, and I know I speak for the people when I say: drop the Spotify link already.
The Professor Rebuttal, spearheaded this year by Professor George Cohen, was probably my favorite segment. We poke fun at the spirit of collegiality UVA Law tries to cultivate, but the truth is there is something special here at the Law School. While emotional vulnerability is both lame and embarrassing, I think it’s important for everyone—especially 1Ls who didn’t get the chance to catch this year’s performance—to know that we have a faculty willing to coordinate their schedules and take the time to write, practice, and sing a whole piece for Libel. Law school is hard and professors are intimidating, but there is a real feeling that we’re in this together. I have had more professors sing to me this year than in the entirety of my undergrad experience (Friday Torts, never forget) but it has not lost its charm.
The first-ever virtual Libel Show was hosted through Zoom over three days, allowing rowdy viewers to drink along with the performances but losing out on the joy of laughing along with a full theatre. The cost of admission was only a ten-dollar requested donation. As a viewing group consisting of only 1Ls, there are definitely jokes that went over our heads and professor impersonations I am sure were on point even without the context to understand them. The feeling of everyone I have spoken to for this article is excitement—excitement for more songs, for understanding more of the jokes, for taking bigger roles in production, and more than anything, excitement for an in-person viewing next year. Though it was a cameras-off event, every participant in the show should know there was enough laughing, screaming, and applause in at least one apartment to earn both a noise complaint and some positive memories in what has otherwise been a hellish spring semester.
---
dl9uh@virginia.edu
2021 SBA President Farewell Address
Katharine Janes ‘21
Former SBA President
Friends,
You have received countless emails from me over this past year, so I’ll keep my final remarks brief: Thank you. Thank you for trusting me to advocate on your behalf over this past year, and thank you for allowing me the privilege of serving as your SBA President.
This year has certainly turned out to be what none of us expected.[1] For SBA in particular, we quickly realized we would need to modify our vision for the term as a new reality became apparent. Despite this deviation, however, I am proud of the work this year’s SBA invested to make our community the best it can be.
SBA has always aimed to make sure students enjoy their three years in law school. To this end, we have hosted countless Socials, Foxfields and Fauxfields, and Barrister’s Balls to bring students together. This year, though, we hoped that SBA could be different. Not only could it be a place where we enjoy fun activities with one another, but it could also be a space where we, as a community, handle hard conversations too. This academic year, we worked with the administration to integrate student voices into the functioning of our school, including in the faculty hiring process. We had candid discussions about equity and inclusion in ways previously unseen. And we talked at length about how to maintain community during a time of distance, both physical and otherwise. There have undoubtedly been growing pains during this process. However, in my role as President, I have witnessed firsthand the collective desire of our student body to make UVA Law the best place it can be. This work is hard, but students and the Student Bar Association have been willing to do it time and again this academic year.
To the members of SBA 2020-2021: Thank you for your diligence, passion, and dedication during a profoundly difficult time. In particular, thank you to Savanna Williams ’21, Chance Maginness ’22, and Katherine O’Neal ’22. You invested countless hours in your work on graduation, SBA governance, and diversity and inclusion, and I am grateful for having the chance to learn and grow from your examples. The school is better for your work in it.
To the incoming SBA: I look forward to seeing all you accomplish in this next academic year. May it be filled with more socializing, more advocating, and more community-building than any year that preceded it—including this one. Niko, Caroline, Sam, and Ari: You are going to do fantastic things in your new roles, and I look forward to cheering you on as a graduate. And, if you could be so generous, please remember to invite the members of the Class of 2021 back for any festivities on the docket.
With love,
Katharine
---
kmj4vg@virginia.edu
[1] I promise, though, to avoid all references how “unprecedented” it has been!