""


1990- (The Griswold 9 and Student Activism for Faculty Diversity at Harvard Law School in the Early 1990s // Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal. Spring, 2011. 27 Harv. J. Racial & Ethnic Just. 49)

 

05.12.2011

 

     Copyright (c) 2011 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College

                      Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal

                                Spring, 2011

                    27 Harv. J. Racial & Ethnic Just. 49

   LENGTH: 30138 words

   Article:  The Griswold 9 and Student Activism for Faculty Diversity at
   Harvard Law School in the Early 1990s

   NAME: Philip Lee*

   BIO:  *  Doctoral  candidate,  Harvard  Graduate  School of Education;
   former  Assistant  Director  of  Admissions  at Harvard Law School and
   former  trial  attorney in New York City; B.A., Duke University, 1996;
   J.D.,  Harvard  Law  School,  2000. I am grateful to Julie Reuben, Sue
   Lee,  Liza Cariaga-Lo, Marc Johnson, and Rachel Rubin for very helpful
   comments,  to  Doug  McAdam  for  assisting my understanding of social
   movement theory, and to Daniel R. Coquillette, Meira Levinson, Richard
   Light, and Adela Soliz for stimulating discussion.

   LEXISNEXIS SUMMARY:

   ...  Sullivan,  and  many others, took ownership of what they had done
   while students at HLS by creating a scrapbook detailing the history of
   student   activism  at  HLS  focusing  on  faculty  diversity  issues,
   including the Griswold 9's sit-in and subsequent trial, CCR's lawsuit,
   and  Professor Bell's protest from 1990 to 1992. ... Second, I contend
   that  the  students  framed  the  issue  of  faculty diversity into an
   inclusive  conception--incorporating  the  diversity of the members in
   the coalition--that facilitated solidarity among many different groups
   of  students.  ...  Four  White  Males  Appointed to Tenured Positions
   Despite  ongoing  discussions  between  the  students  and  Dean Clark
   regarding  hiring  more minority and women faculty members, on Friday,
   February 28, 1992, without informing the students beforehand, HLS made
   tenure   offers  to  four  white  men  --two  of  whom  were  visiting
   professors.  ...  As  the meeting concluded, one of the students asked
   President  Rudenstine  how  he felt about the overwhelming presence of
   white men on Harvard's faculty, the tenure of four more white men, and
   the  impending loss of Professor Bell--who represents one-third of the
   tenured  African  American professors and one-sixth of the tenured and
   tenure-track  African  American  faculty at the law school. ... Around
   fifty protestors arrived at Griswold Hall throughout the day; however,
   when  the  Harvard University Police restricted access to the corridor
   outside the Dean's office, many students left the area--the Griswold 9
   remained.  ...  Later  in the afternoon, Dean Clark arrived and talked
   with Griswold 9 members Charisse Carney and Derek Honore, and incoming
   Black  Law Students Association President and CCR member Ronald S. ...
   Defense  counsels Professor Terry Fisher and Peter Cicchino, using the
   same  provisions  in  the  Statement  of  Rights and Responsibilities,
   argued  that  there  is  nothing  "normal" about discrimination so the
   "normal  duties  and obligations" of the University were not infringed
   upon  by the students' sit-in. ... Bonifaz and Anspach both played key
   roles  in  organizing CCR activism. ... Finally, Dean Clark's comments
   in  the Wall Street Journal explaining the activism as being caused by
   self-esteem  issues  that  arise  as  symptoms  of  affirmative action
   provoked the students to further escalate their protests.

   HIGHLIGHT:  This  article  reconstructs  a  mostly forgotten moment in
   Harvard  Law  School  history when the students organized in the early
   1990s  across  race,  gender,  sexual  orientation,  and  ability  and
   disability  lines  to  push  for  faculty  diversity.  The new student
   coalition,  called  the Coalition for Civil Rights, gave the students'
   activism  unusual  momentum.  This  initiative included the first time
   that   law  students,  acting  pro  se,  sued  their  law  school  for
   discrimination in faculty hiring and the first time Harvard Law School
   students  were publically tried by their school's Administrative Board
   for  conducting  an  overnight  sit-in at the Dean's office (i.e., the
   Griswold  9 incident). Drawing upon social movement theory, the author
   analyzes  why  the  activism  was so robust during this time period by
   applying the concepts of signaling, framing, and resource mobilization
   to   the   actions  of  the  students.  The  author  argues  that  the
   unprecedented diversity of the coalition contributed to the activism's
   intensity  in  key  ways.  First,  the  protests by this diverse group
   signaled  to  the  entire  student  body  that  the  faculty diversity
   movement was gaining momentum. Second, the ways in which the coalition
   members framed an inclusive conception of diversity created a sense of
   strong  group  cohesion  among  students.  Third, the diversity of the
   group  served  as  a  resource  that  enhanced the coalition's problem
   solving  abilities.  The  author  concludes  that  although  the  most
   vigorous  activism  was relatively short-lived, the students that were
   involved in this coalition were nonetheless successful in making their
   voices heard by Harvard University and the general public.

   At some point, demands for change have an unacknowledged effect. Those
   in  authority  eventually  come to see the value of diversity and even
   take  credit for doing what they should have done much earlier. But it
   is  the  Harvard Law School students who deserve credit for [a tenured
   faculty  appointment for a woman of color], and they can now celebrate
   this positive step. ^n1

   TEXT:

   [*50]

   Introduction

   On  November 20, 1990, a Harvard Law School (HLS) student organization
   called  the  Coalition  for Civil Rights (CCR) sued Harvard University
   pro se claiming that HLS was engaging in discriminatory faculty hiring
   practices.  CCR  was  made  up  of  a  number of student organizations
   including  the  Black Law Students Association, La Alianza (the Latino
   Students  Association),  the  Asian American Law Students Association,
   the   Native   American  Law  Student  Association,  the  Women's  Law
   Association,  the  Committee  on  Gay  and  Lesbian  Legal Issues, the
   Disabled  Law  Students'  Association, and the National Lawyers Guild.
   CCR was formed in the spring of 1989 to increase diversity at HLS. The
   lawsuit   was   only   one   tactic  they  utilized  to  pressure  the
   administration to hire more minorities and women.

   On  April  6, 1992, nine CCR members, protesting the lack of any women
   of  color and members of other historically underrepresented groups on
   the  permanent  faculty,  staged  a  peaceful  sit-in  in the corridor
   outside  Dean  Robert  C. Clark's office. They began the sit-in around
   noon and remained for twenty-four hours. As a result of their actions,
   the  students,  who  would  become  known  as  the  Griswold  9, faced
   discipline,  potentially  as  severe  as  dismissal  from  school. The
   Griswold  9  were  composed of members and leaders of various affinity
   groups   at  HLS.  They  were  from  different  HLS  class  years  and
   undergraduate  institutions.  They  were  all, however, promulgating a
   multifaceted  conception  of  faculty  diversity  that went beyond the
   African  American  men  and  white  women professors that HLS had some
   success in hiring during the previous twenty years.

   Why  was  the student activism for faculty diversity at HLS so intense
   in  the early 1990s? In this article, I contend that this movement was
   one  of  the  first times that students organized across race, gender,
   sexual  orientation,  and  ability  and disability to push for faculty
   diversity.  This diverse coalition gave the students' activism unusual
   momentum,  which included the first time that law students, acting pro
   se,  sued their law school to increase faculty diversity and the first
   time  HLS  students  were  publically  tried before the Administrative
   Board for conducting an overnight sit-in at the Dean's office.

   Drawing  upon  social  movement theory, I explain how the diversity of
   the  coalition  enhanced  the  activism.  First,  I  argue  that prior
   successful  student  protests  over  the  Dean's elimination of public
   interest  career  advising at HLS signaled that the administration was
   vulnerable  and  served  as  a  catalyst  for  the  subsequent faculty
   diversity  protests. As the CCR escalated its activities, this diverse
   group's  actions  further signaled to the public that the movement was
   increasing  in  strength  and  this  propelled  the  activism forward.
   Second,  I  contend  that  the  students  framed  the issue of faculty
   diversity into an inclusive conception--incorporating the diversity of
   the  members  in the coalition--that facilitated solidarity among many
   different  groups  of  students.  Third,  I  argue  that  the  group's
   diversity--in   terms  of  the  backgrounds  and  experiences  of  its
   members--provided  increased  resources  that enabled the coalition to
   escalate  its  protest activities. Although the most vigorous activism
   was relatively short- [*51] lived, the students nonetheless made their
   voices heard by Harvard University and the general public.

   I. The Coalition for Civil Rights

   A. The Formation of the Coalition

   As  a  result of the Civil Rights and feminist movements, HLS began to
   diversify  its exclusively white male permanent faculty. HLS appointed
   its  first  African  American  male  tenured professor in 1971 and its
   first  two  white women as tenured and tenure-track faculty members in
   1972.  ^n2 Progress, however, was slow. In the early 1980s, expressing
   dissatisfaction  over minority hiring at HLS, Professor Richard Parker
   stated,  "I'm ashamed to be a member of a faculty with only two blacks
   in  1983."  ^n3 At the start of the academic year in the fall of 1990,
   HLS  had  sixty-six  tenured  and  tenure-track  professors--five were
   African  American men, five were white women, and fifty-six were white
   men. ^n4 In its 173-year history, HLS had yet to hire a woman of color
   in a tenure or tenure-track position. Also at this time, HLS had never
   had  an  Asian  American,  Latino,  openly gay or lesbian, or disabled
   member on its tenured or tenure-track faculty.

   During  the early 1990s, students unhappy with the status quo in terms
   of the limited progress in faculty diversity, made their voices heard.
   The Dean at the time was Robert C. Clark, who taught corporate law and
   had  been  a  tenured  professor  at  HLS  since  1979.  ^n5 Clark was
   appointed as Dean of HLS on February 17, 1989, despite objections from
   some  of  his  colleagues  that  he  would polarize an already divided
   faculty  because  of  his  public  stance  against  the Critical Legal
   Studies  movement. ^n6 In addition, [*52] students and faculty members
   said they were concerned that Clark would be insensitive to racial and
   gender issues based on his past actions. ^n7

   One of Clark's first acts as dean was to eliminate the only two public
   interest  career  advising  positions  at  HLS  in an effort to reduce
   costs.  ^n8  The  move  was  described by Clark as a "reorientation of
   resources,  away  from things in the past that have been for symbolic,
   guilt-alleviating  purposes  [rather]  than to get a real result." ^n9
   Clark's decision to eliminate public interest advising at HLS received
   national attention. ^n10 It was followed by a year of student activism
   that  included  letter  writing, petition drives, support rallies, and
   open  forums.  ^n11  In  the  summer  of 1990, Clark conceded [*53] to
   student  demands  by  appointing  Professor  Christopher  Edley as the
   Faculty  Director  of  Public Interest Programs and creating the first
   independent public interest placement office in HLS history, which was
   to  be  staffed  by  an attorney and an administrative assistant. ^n12
   Dean  Clark's  first  few  years  as dean would be marked with further
   conflict.

   Emboldened   by  their  success  with  the  public  interest  advising
   protests, HLS students formed CCR in the spring of 1989 to address the
   lack  of  faculty  diversity. In explaining CCR's name, CCR co-founder
   and   La  Alianza  member  John  Bonifaz  said,  "It  is  particularly
   appropriate for the problems we face. We want fair and equal treatment
   of  all  our  issues  in the classroom, and fair representation in the
   faculty   and  student  body."  ^n13  CCR's  membership  consisted  of
   representatives  from  HLS  student  groups  including  the  Black Law
   Students Association, La Alianza, ^n14 the Asian American Law Students
   Association,  the Native American Law Student Association, the Women's
   Law  Association,  the  Committee on Gay and Lesbian Legal Issues, the
   Disabled  Law  Students'  Association, and the National Lawyers Guild.
   ^n15  This new coalition to increase diversity at HLS cut across race,
   gender,  sexual  orientation,  and  ability and disability lines. This
   coalition  was not to last--but for three years, it was strong. It led
   to  new  forms  of  activist  energy  that  pushed  for  an  inclusive
   conception of diversity.

   B. The Multi-Pronged Campaign

   The  first  nationwide class strike day on April 6, 1989, organized by
   University  of  California  at  Berkeley's  Law  School  in  order  to
   encourage law schools to increase diversity in the faculty and student
   body, was implemented at HLS by a precursor to CCR--a group called the
   Student  Coalition for a Diverse Faculty. ^n16 This coalition was made
   up  of  La  Alianza, the American Indian Law Students Association, the
   Asian  American  Law  Students  Association,  the  Black  Law Students
   Association,  the  [*54]  Committee on Gay and Lesbian Issues, and the
   Women's Law Association. ^n17 The students' organized actions included
   a  study-in  attended  by  approximately  sixty  students and a silent
   protest  outside  a  faculty  meeting.  ^n18  This  coalition was more
   focused   on   engaging  in  dialogue  with  the  administration  than
   confrontation. ^n19 Professor Derrick Bell described this coalition as
   a  "worthwhile  effort"  and further noted that insistence by students
   has  been  the  root  of  all  progressive change at Harvard. ^n20 The
   diversity  movement at HLS would gain momentum the following year with
   the creation of CCR.

   CCR's  first  public  event was organized around the second nationwide
   class  strike  day,  which  was  in  the spring semester following the
   successful  public  interest  advising protests. On Thursday, April 5,
   1990, around 300 students attended a CCR rally at HLS and then marched
   to  Dean  Clark's  Office.  ^n21  Dean  Clark refused to meet with the
   students.  ^n22  CCR  subsequently  organized overnight sit-ins at the
   Dean's  office  on  that  day  and the following Monday--around eighty
   students  participated in each sit-in. ^n23 The students demanded that
   a woman of color be hired by the fall and that faculty members suspend
   a  policy that delayed the permanent hiring of visiting professors for
   at  least  one  year after they finish teaching. ^n24 On Friday, April
   13,  1990,  Dean  Clark  met  with  law students at a forum to discuss
   minority  faculty  hiring.  ^n25  The  students,  once again, demanded
   quicker  tenure  considerations for visiting minority professors. ^n26
   Dean  Clark responded, "I'm not inclined to waive the year-away policy
   [for   evaluating   the  tenure  of  visiting  professors]  under  any
   circumstances,  but  we'll see." ^n27 Clark maintained that the policy
   was  necessary  to prevent undue pressure on visiting professors while
   they  are  at HLS. ^n28 The subsequent inconsistent application of the
   year-away  policy would be one of main issues that led the protests to
   escalate.

   The  spring  of 1990 culminated with Derrick Bell, HLS's first tenured
   African  American  professor,  announcing that he would take an unpaid
   leave of absence until HLS hired its first woman of color as a tenured
   or [*55] tenure-track faculty member. ^n29 Professor Bell was hired by
   HLS  in  1969  after  widespread  student  pressure to hire an African
   American  professor  following  the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther
   King,  Jr.  ^n30  Bell  left  HLS  to become Dean of the University of
   Oregon  Law  School in 1981. ^n31 In the spring of 1985, Bell resigned
   his  deanship  at  Oregon  in protest of the failure of his colleagues
   there  to appoint an Asian American woman to the faculty. ^n32 He then
   returned  to  HLS. When Professor Bell announced his protest at HLS in
   the  spring  of  1990, Dean Clark dismissed Bell's leave of absence as
   mere  "power  politics." ^n33 Clark's vocal stance against Bell caused
   CCR to organize a coordinated response.

   The  fall  of  the  next  academic year (1990-1991) started with a CCR
   rally   to   increase   campus  awareness  on  the  faculty  diversity
   issue--especially  among the incoming class. ^n34 After the rally, CCR
   decided  to  embark on a creative multi-pronged campaign that included
   discussions  with Dean Clark and other faculty members, ^n35 continued
   support for the protest held by Professor Bell, ^n36 and direct action
   to  pressure  the  faculty  on  the  diversity issue. ^n37 On Tuesday,
   November  20,  1990,  CCR  members  used their legal training to apply
   pressure  to  HLS. Instead of hiring a lawyer, eleven CCR members, who
   were  all  HLS students, represented themselves in court. They filed a
   lawsuit  against Harvard University in Massachusetts Superior Court at
   the  Middlesex  County  Courthouse  in  Cambridge, Massachusetts. ^n38
   [*56]  CCR co-founder and named lawsuit plaintiff John Bonifaz stated,
   "We  have negotiated. We have protested. We have taken to the streets.
   Now  we  use  the only instrument of power Harvard Law School seems to
   understand."  ^n39  This  was the first time that law students, acting
   pro  se,  sued  their  own school to diversify their faculty. ^n40 The
   students  were  solely  responsible  for  conducting  legal  research,
   developing  a  theory  of  the  case,  and  implementing  their  legal
   strategies.  In  explaining  the  objectives  of  the  lawsuit,  named
   plaintiff  Keith  Boykin  stated,  "The  foremost  objective is to end
   discrimination at the school. The other objective is to call attention
   to the shocking underrepresentation of minorities and women." ^n41

   Their  complaint,  filed  under  Massachusetts antidiscrimination laws
   prohibiting  discrimination in employment (General Laws, Chapter 151B)
   and  in  making  and  enforcing  contracts  (General Laws, Chapter 92,
   Section  102),  alleged  that HLS's unofficial faculty hiring criteria
   worked  against  women  and minorities in the hiring process. ^n42 The
   complaint  further  alleged  harm to the students in the form of being
   denied  the  social,  educational,  and  professional  benefits  of an
   integrated  faculty.  ^n43  The  complaint also alleged that lack of a
   diverse  faculty  denied  equal  and adequate educational opportunity,
   perpetuated  badges  of  inferiority,  and  fostered insensitivity and
   intolerance.  ^n44  The  named  student  plaintiffs  that  brought the
   lawsuit on behalf of CCR included Keith Boykin, Linda Singer, Laura E.
   Hankins,  Jeffrey  Lubbell,  Pat  Gulbis,  John  Bonifaz, Inger Tudor,
   William Anspach, Lucy Koh, Chris Jochnick, and Christian Arnold. ^n45

   C. The Litigation and Protests Proceed

   On  December  20,  1990, the court granted CCR's motion that prevented
   Harvard  University  from  destroying documents related to the claims.
   ^n46 Harvard subsequently filed a motion for a stay of discovery until
   the  court  ruled  on  a motion to dismiss that would soon be filed by
   Harvard.  Harvard's  in-house  counsel, Allan A. Ryan, informed CCR of
   his  intention  of going to court on December 24, which was during the
   students'  winter  break,  to argue the motion to stay discovery. ^n47
   Ryan  refused  the  [*57]  students'  request  for an extension of the
   motion  argument  date  until January 2, 1991, when the students would
   have  returned  from  vacation.  ^n48  Ryan  went  before the judge on
   December  24  without  the  students present and the judge told him to
   return  on  January 2. ^n49 When Ryan and the students appeared before
   the  court  on  January 2, the judge granted Harvard's request to stay
   discovery. ^n50

   Shortly  thereafter, Harvard filed a motion to dismiss CCR's complaint
   claiming  that  the  students  lacked standing to sue. ^n51 On Friday,
   February 15, 1991, the Massachusetts Superior Court heard arguments on
   Harvard's motion to dismiss CCR's discrimination complaint. ^n52 Allan
   A.  Ryan  argued  for  Harvard. ^n53 HLS students Linda Singer and Pat
   Gulbis  argued  the  case  for  CCR.  ^n54  Ten days later, on Monday,
   February  25,  1991,  Middlesex  Superior Court Judge Patrick F. Brady
   dismissed  the lawsuit on standing grounds. Judge Brady held that only
   people   who   could   bring  employment  discrimination  claims  were
   employees,  applicants  for  employment  or  former  employees and the
   students did not fall into these categories. ^n55 Further he held that
   there  was no discrimination based on the enforcement of any contract.
   ^n56  Although  the  students lost on these claims in the trial court,
   Judge Brady was impressed with their advocacy:

   Whatever  shortcomings Harvard Law School may have, if any, in failing
   up  to  now  to  provide a faculty sufficiently diverse to satisfy all
   students' needs, it does not appear to be failing in its obligation to
   produce  first  rate  lawyers.  The  written  and oral advocacy of the
   students in this case has been commendable. ^n57

   Professor  Bell praised the students, claiming they "merit the support
   of  all  those  concerned  about  racial  justice  and effective legal
   education."  ^n58  The  students  planned  to appeal the trial court's
   decision.  The  publicity  garnered  by the lawsuit seemed to increase
   other students' interest in campus protests.

   A  third  class  strike  day  at  HLS,  once again in conjunction with
   University of California at Berkeley Law School's national strike day,
   occurred  on  Thursday,  April  4,  1991. ^n59 CCR organized a morning
   teach-in,  a  rally  at 12:00 noon, and an afternoon march to outgoing
   Harvard  President  [*58]  Derek  C.  Bok's  office.  ^n60 Two hundred
   students,  five  professors,  and  Dean  Clark  attended  the  morning
   teach-in. ^n61 At the noon rally, Professor Christopher Edley, who was
   the fourth African American professor to make tenure at HLS, ^n62 told
   the  audience  that Dean Clark would be held accountable if the school
   fails to make progress on faculty diversity. ^n63 After the rally, the
   students  marched  to Harvard Yard to confront outgoing President Bok.
   ^n64  When  the  police prevented access to the building, the students
   proceeded to Dean Clark's office in Griswold Hall where they conducted
   an  overnight  sit-in.  ^n65  They  curtailed  their  sit-in on Friday
   morning  after  learning about the Thursday night murder of a feminist
   law  professor,  Mary  Joe Frug, who was the wife of an HLS professor.
   ^n66

   Three days later, on Wednesday, April 10, 1991, a group of CCR members
   staged a sit-in inside Dean Clark's office and blockaded all entrances
   from  8:00  a.m.  to  5:00 p.m. ^n67 CCR member Keith Boykin said "The
   escalated  tactics  of  the  diversity movement are a response to Dean
   Clark's  undemocratic, virtually authoritarian, management style. Dean
   Clark   repeatedly   rejects   student   concerns  as  mere  cries  of
   'consumers,'  which is how he sees the student body." ^n68 In a letter
   dated  Tuesday,  April  23,  1991, Dean Clark wrote to the HLS student
   body:  "I  am  writing to put you on the clearest possible notice that
   future  disruptions  like  this  one [blockading the office], or other
   violations  of  Law School and University, will be immediately subject
   to  disciplinary  action." ^n69 Dean Clark's warning did not deter the
   students.  CCR  responded  with  its  own  letter on April 25. ^n70 It
   stated  that  CCR  would  ignore  the  Dean's warning because it was a
   violation  of  due  process and lacked authority since it did not come
   from  the Administrative Board--the entity responsible for HLS student
   disciplinary  matters--of  which  Dean Clark was not a member. ^n71 On
   Wednesday,  April  24,  1991,  exactly  one  year after Professor Bell
   announced  his  leave  in  absence  in protest of the lack of women of
   color  on  the  faculty,  at  a rally organized by CCR, fifty students
   picketed outside the office of Dean Clark to advocate for more faculty
   diversity. ^n72

   [*59]   Relations   between   Clark  and  the  students  were  rapidly
   deteriorating.  Nonetheless,  some students continued the conversation
   regarding  faculty diversity with the Dean in an attempt to assist the
   administration  in  finding  qualified  minority candidates. Black Law
   Students  Association  President  and  later  member of the Griswold 9
   Charisse  Carney-Nunes  ^n73  recalls,  "As  the  President of BLSA, I
   actually  had  some  engagement with Dean Clark--more than I think the
   average  student." ^n74 For example, on Wednesday, May 1, 1991, Carney
   distributed  a  letter  to  the  HLS  faculty,  including  Dean Clark,
   attaching a paper entitled "Diversity in Legal Education: The Channels
   of  Access  for  Underrepresented Groups." ^n75 This paper included "a
   compilation of almost 100 African American women law professors, their
   areas of interest, and their scholarship." ^n76

   The  new  academic  year  began  without much progress in terms of the
   student  demands  for  further  diversifying  the  faculty. On Friday,
   October  4,  1991,  CCR  informed the HLS community that CCR filed its
   notice of appeal in its lawsuit against Harvard. ^n77 To give a status
   update on diversity at HLS, CCR wrote:

   Today,  Harvard  Law School has 66 tenured or tenure-track professors.
   Of  those  66  faculty  members,  only five are women (all of whom are
   white)  and  only six are African American (all of whom are male). The
   rest  are all white men. In its 174[-]year history, Harvard Law School
   has never hired a Latino/Latina, an Asian-American, a Native-American,
   an  openly  gay  or  lesbian  person, a disabled person, or a woman of
   color for its tenured faculty. ^n78

   CCR  once  again focused on a multifaceted interpretation of diversity
   including   race,   sexual   orientation,   gender,  and  ability  and
   disability.  In  November  1991,  CCR's  appeal  was  docketed  by the
   Massachusetts  Court  of  Appeals.  ^n79  In a highly unusual move, on
   Wednesday,  January 22, 1992, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
   granted  direct  appellate  review  of  the  Superior  Court's  ruling
   dismissing  CCR's  lawsuit  for  lack of standing. ^n80 Massachusetts'
   highest court granted direct appellate review in cases involving novel
   questions  of  law  or  issues  of  such  public interest that justice
   required full determination by this court. ^n81 On Wednesday, February
   26,  1992,  CCR  held a public meeting to update HLS students on [*60]
   the  status of the lawsuit. ^n82 At this meeting, John Bonifaz stated:
   "This is an unprecedented case. Never before have students taken their
   school  to  court.  Never  before...  .  This is the Brown v. Board of
   Education  of  the  1990s[,]  make  no  mistake  about  it!" ^n83 Oral
   argument in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was scheduled for
   Tuesday, March 3, 1992.

   D. Students Argue Before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

   On  Tuesday,  March  3,  at 9:00 a.m., the hearing began. HLS students
   Caroline  Witcoff  and  Laura  E. Hankins argued the case on behalf of
   CCR. Allen A. Ryan argued the case for Harvard.

   Caroline  Witcoff,  argued  first,  noting that despite forty years of
   civil rights gains, the "invidiousness of discrimination in education"
   still  characterizes HLS hiring practices. ^n84 Her argument was based
   on   Massachusetts   General  Laws,  chapter  151B,  which  prohibited
   employment  discrimination  based  on  race,  color,  religious creed,
   national  origin,  sex,  or  sexual  orientation.  ^n85 To address the
   standing  issue,  she  contended  that  the  students were "aggrieved"
   within  the  meaning  of  this  statute,  and  that they have suffered
   "direct"  and  "substantial" harms as a result of HLS's discriminatory
   faculty hiring practices. ^n86 She explained:

   When students at Harvard Law School sit in the classroom every day for
   three  years  and are never once taught by a single woman of color, or
   Latino,  or  Asian-American,  or  Native  American,  or  openly gay or
   lesbian person, the discrimination that is the reason behind this long
   history  of exclusion sends students a devastating message: that while
   we're  good  enough to sit in the classrooms at Harvard Law, we're not
   good enough to sit on the faculty, and that's a stamping of a badge of
   inferiority.  It's  the  same  stamping  of  a  badge  of  inferiority
   recognized  as early as Brown v. Board of Education. The other type of
   harm  [that] Harvard's discrimination inflicts on students is a denial
   of the benefits of association with an integrated faculty. ^n87

   Attempting   to  analogize  the  teacher-student  relationship  to  an
   employer-employee  relationship to address the standing issue, Witcoff
   stated  that  "students'  direct  interaction and ongoing relationship
   with professors" constitute a relationship akin to that of employee to
   employer.  ^n88  Harvard  Law School students "work with professors on
   third-year papers, serve as research assistants, and represent Harvard
   in clinical programs." ^n89

   Laura  E.  Hankins  spoke  next. She argued that the law students have
   been  discriminated  against  under the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act
   [*61]  (MERA),  Massachusetts  General  Laws Chapter 93, S: 102, which
   provided  that  all  persons, regardless of sex, race, color, creed or
   national  origin  have "the same rights enjoyed by white male citizens
   to  make and enforce contracts." ^n90 She argued that the students, as
   payers  of  tuition, had a contractual relationship with HLS. ^n91 She
   then  cited  the  statistical  evidence regarding the lack of women of
   color  on  the faculty to show disparate impact and noted that further
   discovery  was  needed  to  uncover documentation regarding the hiring
   practices  being challenged. ^n92 Hankins also covered CCR's breach of
   contract claim based on Harvard's nondiscrimination statement included
   in  its  handbook  and  other  literature  that  students rely on when
   choosing to attend Harvard. ^n93

   Allen  A.  Ryan  next  presented  argument  on behalf of Harvard. With
   regard  to  the employment discrimination claim, he contended that the
   record  before  the Court fails to demonstrate any substantial harm to
   the  students  or  any  other person. ^n94 In response to the contract
   discrimination  claim,  he  argued  that  whatever  contractual rights
   existed  between the students and HLS, the "students are not inhibited
   in  any  way,  shape  or  form  from  studying  at  the law school and
   completing their degrees." ^n95 Ryan further argued that the students'
   claims  amount to little more than the contention that Harvard is "too
   male, too white and too heterosexual." ^n96 He ended his argument with
   an admonition:

   If students are allowed to go forward to prove that of the 1.9 percent
   of Asian-American law professors in the country, Harvard does not have
   its   share,   and   are  allowed  to  put  forward  the  records  and
   qualifications  of  Asian-American  professors  who themselves had not
   come  forward to vindicate whatever rights they feel they have against
   Harvard   Law  School,  then  I  submit  the  force  of  law  in  this
   commonwealth is moot. ^n97

   After  the  arguments, the parties awaited a decision from the Supreme
   Judicial  Court.  While  the  appeal  was  pending, a series of events
   occurred  at  HLS  that would culminate in a group of students risking
   dismissal from school to make their voices heard.

   E. Four White Males Appointed to Tenured Positions

   Despite  ongoing  discussions  between  the  students  and  Dean Clark
   regarding  hiring  more minority and women faculty members, on Friday,
   February 28, 1992, without informing the students beforehand, HLS made
   tenure  offers  to  four  white  men  ^n98 --two of whom were visiting
   professors.  ^n99  [*62]  The  students were caught off guard by these
   appointments--especially  given  the  fact  that  students  have  been
   raising  faculty  diversity  concerns  for  years.  ^n100  Dean  Clark
   announced  the appointments as a politically balanced group that broke
   through many years of ideological deadlock. ^n101

   These  tenure  offers  appeared  to  reverse  an  HLS policy requiring
   full-time faculty candidates to leave HLS for at least one year (i.e.,
   the  year-away  policy)  before being considered for full-time faculty
   positions.  Over  the last three years, according to John Bonifaz, the
   law  school  had  used  this  policy  to  deny  consideration to three
   minority candidates. ^n102 William Anspach reflects:

   The  same  claim,  which  you always hear in opposition to activism is
   that  we have to do things slowly and these things take time. And then
   all  of a sudden, I do recall, there was a burst of hiring. I think it
   was all white professors. Now, I think at the time, it was packaged as
   a  political  deal--you  had some left-wing people and some right-wing
   people or something like that. Nonetheless, it was a slap in the face.
   It  belied  all  their claims that these things had to be done slowly.
   ^n103

   On  Thursday,  March  5, 1992, Dean Clark held an open forum at HLS to
   explain  to  more than 250 people that the faculty's decision to offer
   tenure  to  four  white  male  professors  did  not violate law school
   policy.  ^n104  During  the  open  meeting,  Dean  Clark said a policy
   barring  visiting  professors  from  tenure  consideration while still
   teaching  had  been  suspended  last  spring.  ^n105 The students were
   unaware of this policy change. Clark responded to charges that the law
   school  administration  ignored  student  complaints by referring to a
   recent resolution to forward "several promising candidates who are not
   white males" to the full faculty by next fall. ^n106

   [*63]

   F. Bell's Extension Denied and the Protests Intensify

   As  Professor  Bell's  protest  reached its second year, Bell wrote to
   Dean Clark requesting an extension of the two-year leave policy. ^n107
   Harvard  University's two-year leave policy allowed faculty members to
   take  up  to two-year absences before the University would require the
   professor  to  return  to  Harvard. ^n108 Bell reasoned that this rule
   "doesn't  apply  to  people  who  have  walked  away  for  reasons  of
   conscience."  ^n109  After Dean Clark denied his request, Bell made an
   appeal  to  the  Harvard  University President. On Wednesday, March 4,
   1992,  President  Neil  L. Rudenstine met with members of HLS minority
   student  groups to discuss their concerns about Bell's status, faculty
   hiring,  and  diversity  at  the law school. ^n110 During the meeting,
   President  Rudenstine  told  the  students  that  he  would  not grant
   Professor  Bell  an  extension  on  the  University's  two-year  leave
   policy--the  final appeal would be decided by the Harvard Corporation.
   ^n111  As  the  meeting concluded, one of the students asked President
   Rudenstine how he felt about the overwhelming presence of white men on
   Harvard's  faculty,  the  tenure  of  four  more  white  men,  and the
   impending  loss  of  Professor  Bell--who  represents one-third of the
   tenured  African American professors [and one-sixth of the tenured and
   tenure-track  African  American  faculty]  at  the  law  school. ^n112
   Rudenstine  replied  that  "he  is  very  concerned and disturbed" and
   assured  the  students  that he is "committed to doing something about
   the situation." ^n113

   After  the  tenure  offers  were  made  to four white males and Bell's
   extension   request   was   denied,   CCR  members  intensified  their
   activities.  On  Wednesday, March 11, 1992, CCR brought Reverend Jesse
   Jackson  to  speak  at  HLS about the importance of faculty diversity.
   ^n114  Over  450 students and faculty were in attendance. ^n115 At the
   presentation,  Jackson said that just as students must fight apartheid
   in  South  Africa,  they  must "also fight apartheid in the Law School
   faculty  here  at  Harvard."  ^n116  The  next day, which the students
   referred  to  as  "Zero Day" to mark the end of a countdown that would
   culminate   in   protest  activity,  at  7:30  a.m.,  twenty  students
   confronted  Dean  Clark  at his home. ^n117 At Clark's suggestion, the
   group  proceeded  to  the HLS student center where the students voiced
   their  concerns  about  the inconsistent application of the "year away
   rule"  [*64] to professors of color. ^n118 Dean of Students Sarah Wald
   and  twenty  other  students  joined the discussion. ^n119 The meeting
   lasted until 10:00 a.m. and concluded with Dean Clark agreeing to meet
   again  at  2:00 p.m. with other members of the faculty, along with the
   entire HLS community. ^n120

   Before the two o'clock meeting, 200 students met in the Ames Courtroom
   at  HLS to plan for the rest of the day. As part of their strategy, in
   order  to  put  pressure  on  the  administration before the afternoon
   meeting,  over  100 students demonstrated in Langdell Hall in front of
   faculty  offices, shouting, "Diversity now!" ^n121 Sometime during the
   day,  HLS  Vice  Dean  David  Smith  placed  a letter in HLS students'
   mailboxes, warning them not to disrupt the "normal functioning" of the
   law school staff. ^n122 The letter warned that HLS students could face
   suspension  or  expulsion  for such disruptions. ^n123 Vice Dean Smith
   attached  a  copy of the University Rights and Responsibilities to his
   letter.  ^n124  By  distributing  this  letter, the administration was
   giving  notice  to  the  student  body of the possible consequences of
   disrupting the "normal functioning" of the law school.

   At two o'clock p.m., almost 300 people attended the meeting, including
   twenty-one faculty members. ^n125 The discussion focused on procedural
   issues  such  as student participation in hiring practices and finding
   qualified  applicants  from  underrepresented groups. ^n126 CCR member
   Keith   Boykin   and  other  students  expressed  frustration  at  the
   repetitive  rhetoric from the administration about the "commitment" to
   diversify the faculty. ^n127 Six days later, on Wednesday, March 18, a
   group  of  students  conducted  a  sit-in in Professor Charles Fried's
   office.  ^n128  The  students  stayed  for  fifteen minutes. ^n129 The
   students  that  could  be identified during the sit-in, including John
   Bonifaz,  Julia  Gordon,  Raul  Perez, and Ashley Barr, ^n130 would be
   known  as  the  Fried  4.  ^n131  On the following day, a group of law
   students  conducted  a  similar sit-in in Professor Reinier Kraakman's
   [*65]  office.  ^n132  Fried and Kraakman, both members of the Faculty
   Appointments  Committee,  were  targeted because the students believed
   that  they  were  blocking  women  and  minority  hiring.  ^n133 Katya
   Komisaruka,  CCR  member  and  participant  in  both  sit-ins, stated,
   "[Clark]  isn't  the  entire problem here. The fact is the rest of the
   faculty is complicit in failing to diversify." ^n134 In a letter dated
   Tuesday,  March 31, 1992, Dean Clark informed the law school community
   that  "some  students  have  chosen  to test the limits of appropriate
   behavior"  and  warned the community that such behavior "simply cannot
   be tolerated." ^n135

   II. The Griswold 9

   A. Dean Clark Comments in the Wall Street Journal

   Over  spring  break  at  HLS,  Dean  Clark  made  public comments in a
   national  newspaper  that  would  incense many students. On Wednesday,
   March 25, 1992, the Wall Street Journal reported:

   Mr.  Clark  has  an  insight into why affirmative action is such a big
   issue. "We have the highest percentage and absolute number of minority
   students  of  any  of  the  top  20  law  schools. At some level, [the
   minority  students]  are  worrying  about what role affirmative action
   played in getting them here.["]

   "The  minority  students need a sense of validation and encouragement,
   with  the  fundamental  problem  being a need for self-confidence that
   plays  itself  out  as,  'Why  doesn't  Harvard  Law  School have more
   teachers who look like me?'" Mr. Clark said.

   "In  a  sense,  we're  dealing  here  with  one  of  the  symptoms  of
   affirmative  action. This means this debate could be a recurring theme
   through the 1990s or until we get to some equilibrium." ^n136

   CCR  and  other  student groups were furious. Dean Clark, ignoring the
   students'  legal  arguments  about  discriminatory  practices  at HLS,
   attributed  student demands for increased faculty diversity as arising
   from self-esteem issues created by affirmative action policies.

   When  HLS  students  returned  to campus, they publically responded to
   Dean  Clark. CCR posted flyers around the law school campus declaring,
   "The  issue is discrimination, not self confidence." ^n137 On April 2,
   1992,  [*66]  CCR organized the fourth annual class strike day at HLS,
   including  a  noon  rally  in front of the Harkness Commons, which was
   attended  by  400-500 HLS students and others. ^n138 One of the flyers
   advertising the rally referenced the recent hiring of four white males
   and  Dean  Clark's quote in the Wall Street Journal. ^n139 In a letter
   dated April 4, 1992, CCR wrote to HLS alumni:

   As  Alumni,  you  hold  the  purse strings and hence the power to help
   bring  change  at  HLS.  We urge you to read the attached [Wall Street
   Journal]  article  and let the Dean know your response. We urge you to
   let  the  Dean  know  that  faculty diversity is not about an imagined
   stigma  felt  by  minority  students  but  about  the  empowerment  of
   traditionally-disempowered   communities   to   help   share   in  the
   development  of  the  law,  the  countering of pervasive institutional
   biases,  the  expansion of perspectives and backgrounds represented on
   the  HLS  faculty,  and  the  resulting increase in the importance and
   excellence of HLS as a leading educational institution. ^n140

   Furthermore,  in  a  letter dated Tuesday, April 7, 1992, HLS students
   Camille  Holmes  and  Jeffrey  Lubell ^n141, writing on behalf of CCR,
   wrote  an  open  letter  to  Dean Clark in response to the Wall Street
   Journal  article.  Citing  the  US  Supreme Court case that upheld the
   separate but equal doctrine, they wrote:

   So  there  is  no  confusion, let's be very clear. Your statements are
   patently  offensive  and  insulting  to  minority  students  and those
   engaged  in  the  struggle  for  a  diverse  law  faculty because they
   belittle and deny the reality of the stigma that flows from exclusion.
   This strategy has frightening roots. In the infamous case of Plessy v.
   Ferguson  (1896),  the  United  States  Supreme  Court used strikingly
   similar logic to justify the forced segregation of the races:

   [sp'1.6']We   consider  the  underlying  fallacy  of  the  plaintiff's
   argument  to consist of the assumption that the enforced separation of
   the  two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If
   this  be  so,  it  is not by reason of anything found in this act, but
   solely  because  the  colored race chooses to put that construction on
   it. ^n142

   The escalation in protest activity was about to reach new heights.

   [*67]

   B. The Griswold 9 Escalate the Struggle

   While  the  CCR lawsuit was a strategy in which the students put their
   legal  advocacy  skills  to  work  in their activism, another group of
   students--that  would  become  known  as  the  Griswold  9--applied  a
   different  form  of  pressure  on the administration. Julie Su, only a
   first  year law student at the time and Griswold 9 member, recalls why
   she felt compelled to act:

   I  was among [the] students who were taking our time to research women
   of  color,  other  faculty of color and openly LGBT faculty around the
   country  and  coming up with slates for HLS to invite. Then Dean Clark
   came  out  in  the  Wall  Street  Journal  saying that those of us who
   advocated  for  diversity  were really just insecure, and our activism
   was  a  "symptom  of  affirmative action." For me, that made it clear:
   this  was much deeper than just who got an invitation to teach at HLS;
   it  was  about  racist  notions  of  inferiority  that  could never be
   addressed through talks and committees. ^n143

   On  Monday,  April  6,  1992, Julie Su and others, wearing paper masks
   that  portrayed  the visage of Dean Clark, staged a peaceful sit-in in
   the  corridor outside the Dean's office, which was located in Griswold
   Hall.  ^n144  After  explaining that the students created the masks by
   copying  and  enlarging the picture of Dean Clark that appeared in the
   Wall  Street Journal article, Jill Newman, Griswold 9 member, recounts
   why the students wore the masks:

   We were trying to make ourselves kind of all the same--like the ironic
   statement  about,  "here  we  were,  this very diverse group of people
   putting  on  all  this--the  face  of  a  white  man." And it was also
   confronting  Dean  Clark  with  his  statements  [in  the  Wall Street
   Journal]. ^n145

   William  Anspach,  another  Griswold  9  member, wrote a chronological
   account of the sit-in three days after it happened. ^n146 He noted:

   At  about  12:20  p.m., on Monday, April 6, about ten of us headed for
   Griswold  from  the  Labor  Law  Project  office.  When we entered the
   hallway  outside  the  door to the office area containing Dean Clark's
   office,  we  discovered  that this door was locked. We sat down in the
   hallway  a  few  feet  from  the  door.  Most  of us put on our masks.
   Personnel  inside  the  office  area  immediately got on the phone and
   security  showed  up  a few minutes later and entered the office area.
   ^n147

   [*68]  Around fifty protestors arrived at Griswold Hall throughout the
   day;  however, when the Harvard University Police restricted access to
   the  corridor  outside  the  Dean's  office,  many  students  left the
   area--the Griswold 9 remained. ^n148

   A  few hours into their sit-in, the Griswold 9 blocked Vice Dean Smith
   from entering the office. Anspach wrote:

   I  think  that  it  was  around  2:30  p.m. that Vice Dean Smith first
   appeared.  I  think  that  this was the first time we made a concerted
   effort  to block someone from going through the door. We all clustered
   around  the  door  and  told him the office area was closed. I believe
   this was also the first time we received a warning that our action was
   a  violation of the University Rights and Responsibilities and that we
   might face disciplinary action. ^n149

   In  explaining  what  the  group  was  trying to accomplish during the
   sit-in, Anspach wrote:

   Our  intention was not to intimidate anyone or to cause trouble in any
   generalized  way,  but  rather  was  specifically to stop "business as
   usual" in the office area. Furthermore, the only people we really made
   a  point  of  preventing  from entering the office area were Clark and
   Smith.  On  a  number  of occasions, we let office personnel enter the
   office area. ^n150

   Later  in the afternoon, Dean Clark arrived and talked with Griswold 9
   members  Charisse  Carney  and  Derek  Honore,  and incoming Black Law
   Students  Association  President  and  CCR  member Ronald S. Sullivan.
   ^n151  Carney  recalled  that  during  this discussion, she asked Dean
   Clark if his quote in the Wall Street Journal article was misquoted or
   taken  out  of  context. ^n152 When Clark responded that the quote was
   accurate and he meant what he said, Carney decided that, regardless of
   consequences,  she must sit-in overnight. ^n153 Anspach described what
   happened next:

   After  a  short while, Clark stood up and approached the door. He said
   that he wanted to go to his office. We clustered around the door again
   and  told  him  the office area was closed. He was very angry, but did
   not  try  to  force  his way inside. I believe that Smith was there at
   this  time  and  that Smith told us again that we were doing something
   that could get us in trouble. ^n154

   [*69]  For  eight-and-a-half  hours, Harvard Police officers prevented
   the  students  from  using the restroom, which was located a few steps
   away  from the office corridor. ^n155 The police officers informed the
   students that they would not be allowed back into the corridor if they
   left  to  use  the restroom. ^n156 After much discomfort, the students
   eventually  negotiated bathroom privileges with the officers. ^n157 At
   9:00  p.m.,  Harvard  University counsel Daniel Steiner confronted the
   students  with claims that HLS students were being arrested outside of
   Griswold  Hall  ^n158  --not  intimidated  by  these  statements,  the
   students   remained   in  the  corridor  and  told  Steiner  that  the
   administration   had   "underestimated   their  commitment  to  ending
   discrimination in hiring practices." ^n159

   Two  dozen  students  remained outside throughout the night. ^n160 The
   Griswold  9  members  stayed in the corridor; they relied on hand-held
   walkie-talkies  to  communicate  with  the  students  on  the  outside
   throughout the sit-in. ^n161

   C. The Next Day

   On  the  morning  of  the  second  day  of the sit-in, Vice Dean Smith
   appeared  again  and  argued with the students. In his account of what
   happened, Anspach wrote:

   [Smith]  approached  the  door  and  said  that he wanted to enter the
   office  area.  I  told  him that the office was still closed. He said,
   "Under  what principle?" I responded clumsily, "Under the principle of
   democratic control of the hallway." He was either impressed or baffled
   by  this  answer. While he stood there, we began to chant, "The office
   is closed." He did not stay long. ^n162

   During  the sit-in, the Griswold 9 members anticipated that they would
   be  arrested.  ^n163  This  did  not  happen.  Instead, the law school
   administration   prepared   to   deal  with  the  students  through  a
   disciplinary  proceeding.  During  the  sit-in, Harvard employees took
   pictures of the [*70] student protestors without their masks on. ^n164
   The  Administrative  Board  convened  an  emergency  meeting  on early
   Tuesday  morning  to consider bringing charges against the Griswold 9,
   who were identified by the photographs. ^n165 Although not a member of
   the  Administrative  Board,  Dean  Clark was present at this emergency
   meeting  and  talked  to  the  Board members. ^n166 The Administrative
   Board  issued  a statement later in the morning that indicated that it
   could  "issue  charges  against  the  individuals  involved  that,  if
   sustained,  could lead to reprimand, suspension, or dismission [sic]."
   ^n167

   By 7:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 7, seventy-five students had joined the
   supporters outside, informing the national media of the protest. ^n168
   Professors  Christopher  Edley,  David  Charny,  Frank  Michelman, and
   Duncan Kennedy were allowed to enter the corridor to give the students
   advice about their sit-in. ^n169 Anspach wrote:

   [Duncan]  Kennedy told us that if we pushed Harvard too hard, too much
   attention that week and over the coming months would be focused on the
   issue of disciplinary action rather than diversity. Kennedy's argument
   had  a  big  impact  on  us, I believe. We were not acting in order to
   promote  ourselves  or  nihilistically  to create chaos, but rather in
   order  to spur the faculty and administration to end discrimination in
   faculty hiring. We hoped that we would both inspire people on our side
   and pressure people on the other side. ^n170

   The  Griswold  9  ended  their  sit-in  around  noon. ^n171 At a rally
   immediately  following  the  protest,  the  Griswold 9 issued a formal
   statement  of  their  purposes.  ^n172  Trained as legal advocates and
   anticipating that the HLS administration would argue that the students
   violated  the  University  Statement  of  Rights  and Responsibilities
   regarding  the interference of the normal duties and activities of the
   school, the Griswold 9 stated:

   The Dean can take no comfort in the University Statement of Rights and
   Responsibilities, which asserts that "interference with members of the
   University  in  performance of their normal duties and activities must
   be  regarded as unacceptable obstruction of the essential processes of
   the  University."  There is nothing "normal" about discrimination; the
   "essential  processes" of the law school [*71] cannot be served by the
   exclusion  of  women and minorities from the legal academic community.
   ^n173

   The protestors also issued a number of demands including a request for
   "a  special  faculty  meeting to be held to adopt a package of diverse
   candidates  for  tenure positions." ^n174 They also demanded that Dean
   Clark  publicly apologize for his statement in the Wall Street Journal
   article  and Clark send a written invitation to Professor Bell, asking
   him  to  return  to  HLS.  ^n175  Charisse  Carney read a statement to
   cheering  supporters  at  the  rally  in which she concluded, "We have
   reached our goal today. We have successfully escalated this struggle."
   ^n176

   CCR  members  explained  the meaning of the Griswold 9 sit-in. William
   Anspach,  wrote,  "What  we  seek is change. And we want change at the
   rapid  pace  the law school showed itself capable a few weeks ago when
   it  made  tenure-track  offers  to  four  white  men." ^n177 Ronald S.
   Sullivan, incoming President of the Black Law Students Association who
   was  present  during  the  early  part  of  the  sit-in, commented, "I
   personally  support  this  group's goals and methods. This faculty has
   created  a situation in which there is no other recourse but to create
   an  environment in which the faculty is forced to make changes." ^n178
   In  response  to  some  student complaints that the sit-in was harming
   diversity  efforts  on  campus,  CCR  member  Camille Holmes remarked,
   "People  who say sit-ins are 'counter-productive' have to realize that
   statements  such  as  those  in  the  Wall  Street  Journal  are  also
   counter-productive and undermine Dean Clark's credibility." ^n179

   On  Thursday,  April  9,  1992,  the HLS Administrative Board sent the
   Griswold 9 members, by Federal Express, letters informing the students
   that  they  had  been  "tentatively  identified as participating in an
   incident," and that the "Administrative Board will soon be considering
   whether  to issue formal disciplinary charges in connection with [the]
   incident." ^n180

   D. Who Were the Nine?

   The  CCR members that comprised the Griswold 9 were not radicals. They
   were  law  students  engaged in mainstream campus life and involved in
   various  student affinity organizations and public service activities.
   ^n181

   [*72]  The  only  third  year  law  student  in the group was Charisse
   Carney.  She  was  a graduate of Lincoln University and a joint degree
   student  at  HLS  and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Carney
   was   the  outgoing  President  of  the  Harvard  Black  Law  Students
   Association  and  was  instrumental  in  helping establish the Charles
   Hamilton  Houston  Fellowship,  which  addressed the long-term goal of
   expanding the pool of women and minority professors in the country.

   Seven members of the Griswold 9 were second year law students. William
   Anspach,  a  graduate  of Haverford College, was involved in the Labor
   Law  Project, and worked to establish an independent organization, the
   Unemployment  Compensation  Advocacy  Project,  which  was designed to
   provide  unemployed  citizens  with student representatives before the
   Department  of Employment and Training. Jodi Grant was a Yale graduate
   who  was  active  in  Student  Funded Fellowships, the Big Brother/Big
   Sister  Program, and served as an editor for the Human Rights Journal.
   Derek  Honore,  a  graduate  of  UCLA,  was  the outgoing Chair of the
   Academic  Affairs Committee for the Black Law Students Association. He
   was also the incoming Executive Editor for the BlackLetter Law Journal
   and  Membership Chair of the Black Law Students Association. Lucy Koh,
   a  graduate  of  Harvard  College,  was  active in the Tenant Advocacy
   Project,   Student   Funded  Fellowships,  Battered  Women's  Advocacy
   Project, and the Asian American Law Students Association. She was also
   a research assistant for Professor Christopher Edley. Elizabeth Moreno
   was  a  graduate  of  University  of  California  at Berkeley. She was
   outgoing  Co-chair  of  the  Women's  Law  Association and worked as a
   research  assistant  for  Professor  David  Westfall.  Jill Newman was
   active  in  the  Woman's Law Association as Co-chair of the Quality of
   Life  Committee and the Student Funded Fellowships as the Chair of the
   Phonathon  Committee.  She  was  a  graduate  of  Cornell  University.
   Marie-Louise Ramsdale, a graduate of the University of South Carolina,
   was  a  Co-chair  of the Women's Law Association and a Board Member of
   Student  Funded  Fellowships.  She had served as a teaching fellow for
   the  "Women  and  the  Law"  course  taught at Harvard College and was
   Managing Editor of the Women's Law Journal.

   The  only first year law student in the Griswold 9 was Julie Su. Su, a
   second-generation Chinese American and a Stanford University graduate,
   was   the  incoming  Co-chair  of  the  Asian  American  Law  Students
   Association  and a general editor for the Civil Rights-Civil Liberties
   Law Review.

   Although  they  came  from  different backgrounds, the Griswold 9 were
   united in a common commitment to diversify the HLS faculty.

   After  the sit-in, the Griswold 9 received external support in various
   forms.  On  Friday,  April  10,  1992, CCR distributed a letter to HLS
   faculty  explaining  the purposes of the sit-in. ^n182 Further, before
   the  hearing,  HLS  [*73]  students circulated petitions including one
   urging  the Administrative Board not to suspend the student protestors
   and  another  urging  the  Administrative Board not to formally punish
   them.  ^n183 Additionally, in a letter dated Wednesday, April 15, 1992
   that  was  sent  to  Dean Clark and the Administrative Board, Reverend
   Jesse  Jackson  urged  HLS  not  to discipline the Griswold 9. Jackson
   wrote:

   Harvard  Law  School  must  not  align  itself  with the authoritarian
   practices  and responses of British-run India or the segregated South.
   It  must  seek  a  higher  ground  in  1992. The students who staged a
   24-hour  nonviolent  sit-in  outside Dean Clark's office should not be
   disciplined  for  acting  on their convictions and fighting injustice.
   Rather,  they  should  be  honored  for their commitment to building a
   multi-racial  and  pluralist  society.  They, like their predecessors,
   represent  the  best of America's youth. For Harvard Law School to now
   clamp  down with vindictiveness on their cries for justice demeans the
   Law School's mission of teaching and moral inquiry. ^n184

   E.  The  Call  for  the  Dean's  Resignation  and  Charges Against the
   Griswold 9

   At  a  press conference on Thursday, April 16, 1992, a joint statement
   was issued by CCR along with a number of student affinity groups. This
   statement  called for Dean Clark's resignation. The statement read, in
   part:

   In  response to the Dean's hostility and to the discrimination against
   women  and  minorities  for faculty appointments, a number of students
   held  a  24[-]hour  sit-in  outside Dean Clark's office. The Dean then
   quickly initiated a Kafka-esque administrative disciplinary proceeding
   against  the  students.  Despite  the  fact  that  other  students had
   conducted  peaceful  sit-ins  for years without repercussion, the Dean
   suddenly  chose  to  prosecute  the students who took part in the most
   recent  sit-ins.  The  difference  between the most recent sit-ins and
   those  of  previous years is that this time the students involved were
   overwhelmingly women and minorities. ^n185

   [*74]  Despite  Jesse Jackson's plea and the students' denunciation of
   Dean  Clark,  on  Friday,  April  17,  1992,  the Administrative Board
   formally  charged  the  nine students with interfering with the normal
   functions  of  the  University  and  individual freedom of movement by
   obstructing  access  to Dean Clark's office and refusing to leave when
   asked  to  do  so.  ^n186  The public Administrative Board Hearing was
   scheduled for Monday, May 4 at 4:15 p.m. in the Ames Courtroom at HLS.
   ^n187  Professor  William  (Terry)  Fisher,  who  was not yet tenured,
   agreed  to  represent the Griswold 9 and Professor Detlev Vagts agreed
   to  present the case against the student protestors. ^n188 HLS student
   Peter  Cicchino  assisted  Professor  Fisher  with  the defense of the
   Griswold  9 and HLS administrator Janet Katz assisted Professor Vagts.
   ^n189  At  the  time,  Cicchino  was  a third year law student who had
   served  as  Co-Chair  of  Harvard's Committee on Gay and Lesbian Legal
   Issues. ^n190 He was also involved in a clinical course offering legal
   assistance  to  indigent  criminal  defendants  in  Roxbury,  a  poor,
   predominantly  African American neighborhood of Boston. ^n191 Julie Su
   recalls  her  meetings  with Professor Fisher, Peter Cicchino, and the
   other students in preparation for the trial:

   We  had  countless meetings among the 9 of us, Prof. Fisher and Peter.
   We  talked  about our options over and over, esp. when we were offered
   "plea  agreements"  ^n192  by  the  Law School. We had difficult [*75]
   conversations  about  principle  vs. pragmatism, what message we would
   send  by  going  to trial vs. the diversion that might become from our
   ultimate  goals, and whether we would gain more support or turn people
   off  by  having  a public trial. Many of these conversations had us in
   tears,  partly  out of frustration, partly out of fear, and partly out
   of exhaustion. ^n193

   The  hearing  was  scheduled  to begin on a Monday that was three days
   before  the  start  of  law  school final exams. ^n194 The Griswold 9,
   through its counsel, requested that the hearing be moved to an earlier
   date, preferably Monday, April 27. ^n195 In support of the protestors,
   several  hundred  HLS  students  signed  a  petition urging an earlier
   hearing  date.  ^n196  Citing  scheduling  difficulties for individual
   board  members,  the  Administrative  Board  denied the request. ^n197
   According  the Dean of Students and member of the Administrative Board
   Sarah Wald, as the hearing approached, "an enormous number of letters"
   was  sent  to  the  Administrative  Board,  most  of  them calling for
   leniency. ^n198

   F. The Trial of the Griswold 9

   The  Administrative  Board was charged with "matters involving student
   discipline  and exceptions to faculty and administrative rules." ^n199
   Membership  on the Board was to include three faculty, three students,
   and  two  administrators.  ^n200  In  the  spring  of  1992,  the  HLS
   Administrative  Board  consisted  of  Professors  Arthur Miller, James
   Vorenberg, and David Shapiro; students Barry Langman, Juan Zuniga, and
   Dorothy  DeWitt;  and  Dean  of  Students Sarah Wald and Registrar Sue
   Robinson.  ^n201  Suzanne Richardson, another administrator, served as
   Secretary  to  the  Board.  ^n202  This body of faculty, students, and
   administrators was to decide the fate of the Griswold 9.

   The  procedures  of  the  Administrative  Board  were  set  forth in a
   three-and-a-half page document called "Administrative Board Procedures
   for  Disciplinary  Cases."  ^n203  This document consisted of eighteen
   articles  that  described the purpose, jurisdiction, and procedures of
   the  Board.  ^n204 The Administrative Board had the authority to issue
   charges  only  "if  the  Board  believes it reasonably likely that the
   charged  infraction  can  be established [*76] by clear and convincing
   evidence."  ^n205 When the Board formally issued charges, the students
   were entitled to a hearing with representation by legal counsel or lay
   advisor.  ^n206  Formal rules of evidence did not apply; the Board was
   allowed to consider any evidence it deemed "relevant and trustworthy."
   ^n207  While  Administrative  Board  hearings  were  normally private,
   students  had  the  right  to  request  a hearing that was open to the
   public.  ^n208  The  Griswold  9  members were the first defendants to
   exercise  the  right  to  a  public  hearing  in  the  history  of the
   Administrative Board. ^n209

   In  a  letter dated Thursday, April 30, 1992, the Administrative Board
   informed Professor Fisher who it would allow to attend the hearing and
   other procedures:

   Those  who may attend include members of the Law School community, one
   or  two  authorized  representatives of the broader Harvard community,
   one   or   two   authorized   reporters   from  the  Harvard  Crimson.
   Identification  will  be  necessary  at  the  door. (In addition, each
   participant in the hearing may obtain a ticket from Suzanne Richardson
   for  an  immediate  family  member  or  significant  other.)  Cameras,
   videotaping,  or  audiotaping  will  not  be  allowed,  except for the
   official audiotape that will be kept as part of the record. ^n210

   The  parties  were  concerned  about procedural fairness. Prior to the
   hearing,  the  Griswold  9  alleged  that the Administrative Board had
   violated  student  rights  by  engaging in ex parte conversations with
   Dean Clark at the Tuesday, April 7 emergency meeting. ^n211 After much
   discussion, the Administrative Board agreed to disregard the testimony
   from  the  April  7  meeting. ^n212 The Administrative Board offered a
   plea  agreement before the trial began. On the day before the hearing,
   the Administrative Board notified the Griswold 9 that it would issue a
   warning  to any student who wrote a letter of apology. ^n213 Elizabeth
   Moreno  was  the  only  student who took the deal. ^n214 Although nine
   students conducted the sit-in, eight were to be put on trial.

   [*77]  The  hearing  began  on Monday, May 4, in the Ames Courtroom at
   HLS,  with  many students unable to attend because the room was filled
   to  capacity.  ^n215  The eight students entered to a standing ovation
   from  the  audience  members.  ^n216  Peter  Cicchino  later  wrote  a
   description of the room set-up:

   Like  judicial  theater  in the round, several hundred faculty, staff,
   and  students  surrounded  eight long tables arranged as a square. The
   tables  were  draped  with red cloths (Harvard's color is crimson) and
   microphones stood in front of each speaker. At the northern end of the
   square sat the members of the administrative board--the judges for the
   evening.  On the western side of the square sat the prosecutor. Facing
   him,  on  the east, were Terry Fisher, myself, and the ... defendants.
   Finally,  completing the square on the southern side were a lone chair
   and microphone--the witness seat. ^n217

   To  support his case, Professor Vagts relied on the Harvard University
   Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which provided, in part:

   The  University  places special emphasis ... upon certain values which
   are  essential to its nature as an academic community. Among these are
   freedom  of  speech  and academic freedom, freedom from personal force
   and  violence, and freedom of movement. Interference with any of these
   freedoms  must  be  regarded  as  a  serious violation of the personal
   rights  upon which the community is based... . Therefore, interference
   with  members  of the University in performance of their normal duties
   and  activities  must  be  regarded as unacceptable obstruction of the
   essential processes of the University. ^n218

   Vagts  commented, "Obstructing access was a problem. If Dean Clark had
   really  tried  [to  access his office] it might have escalated." ^n219
   Professor  Vagts  first  called  the  two  secretaries from the Dean's
   Office  as fact witnesses. ^n220 Professor Vagts also called Vice Dean
   Smith,  Harvard  University  Police  Officer  Rocco  E.  Forgione, and
   Harvard University Police Sergeant John M. Francis, as fact witnesses.
   ^n221  Administrative  Dean Sandie Coleman was also called to testify;
   she detailed the costs incurred as a result of the sit-in. ^n222

   [*78]  Defense  counsels  Professor  Terry  Fisher and Peter Cicchino,
   using   the   same   provisions   in   the  Statement  of  Rights  and
   Responsibilities,   argued   that  there  is  nothing  "normal"  about
   discrimination   so   the  "normal  duties  and  obligations"  of  the
   University  were not infringed upon by the students' sit-in. Cicchino,
   relying  on  free speech principles, stated that "the crucial issue is
   the  way  in  which  the  Law  School  would  respond  to a completely
   non-violent  expressive  act of dissent motivated solely by legitimate
   concern  for  the  institution's  treatment  of women and minorities."
   ^n223

   The  defense called Professors David Charny, Christopher Edley, Duncan
   Kennedy,  and Frank Michelman as character witnesses for the students.
   ^n224 The testimony was heated at times. For example, during Professor
   Charny's  testimony,  even  though  formal  rules  of evidence did not
   apply,  Professor  Vagts  nonetheless objected to the fact that Charny
   was  using  his  notes  to  refresh  his recollection. ^n225 Professor
   Charny,  in a rage, responded by throwing his notes at Professor Vagts
   in front of the entire audience. ^n226 Charny then threw his paperback
   copy  of  The  Brothers  Karamazov  at  Vagts.  ^n227 The audience was
   shocked. "You could have heard a pin drop," said one student. ^n228

   The  defense  also  called  a  law  student,  Raul  Perez, who ran the
   communications between the Griswold 9 and the outside, and another law
   student,  Julia  Gordon,  who  testified  as an "expert in comparative
   civil  disobedience"  at  the  law  school. ^n229 All eight Griswold 9
   members  testified  as  well,  explaining  their  motivations  for the
   sit-in.  John  Bonifaz,  who  was  present during both evenings of the
   trial,  recalls that during this portion of the testimony, he heard an
   HLS  administrator  say  that these students "were the best of Harvard
   Law  School."  ^n230 Most of the student protestors said that they had
   not  planned  to engage in an overnight sit-in but a conversation with
   Dean  Clark  in  which  he  affirmed his statement from the March Wall
   Street  Journal article convinced them that the protest was necessary.
   ^n231

   In closing arguments, instead of ending on his strongest legal points,
   Professor  Vagts  expressed  his remorse that HLS had to endure such a
   process  and explained that he only acted as prosecutor because nobody
   else  would  do  it.  ^n232  Professor  Fisher,  in  contrast, gave an
   impassioned  twenty  minute closing, arguing that even if the students
   did  disrupt  the  functioning  of  Dean  Clark's office, they did not
   violate  the  University  Statement  of  Rights  and  Responsibilities
   because  the Dean's conduct with [*79] regard to faculty diversity did
   not  constitute  "normal."  ^n233 He contended that "the students have
   tried  many  different  ways of halting a pattern of insensitivity and
   discrimination  in  this  institution--and  each time were rebuffed[,]
   This protest, they reasonably believed, was the only way in which they
   could make themselves heard[.]" ^n234

   Further,  Fisher  argued  that  HLS's  own  hiring  policies  were  in
   violation   of   the   University's   affirmative  action  policy  and
   obligations  imposed  by other portions of the Statement of Rights and
   Responsibilities.  ^n235 He posited that if a violation was found, the
   limited  response  of  the  students  to  the Dean's actions should be
   treated with leniency. ^n236 He concluded with a flourish:

   The  Harvard Law School Community is undergoing a crisis[.] The events
   of  the  past  month  have  been  traumatic[,] the levels of distrust,
   resentment  and  alienation  within  all  the constituent parts of our
   community are extremely high[,] classroom discussions of controversial
   issues  are  either  muted--because of students' fear of provoking the
   wrath  of their fellows--or distorted by outbursts of fury[.] One only
   has  to  watch  a  few  casual,  hallway contacts between students and
   faculty  to  see  the  deterioration[.]  People  snap at each other[,]
   search  desperately  for some neutral ground of conversation or merely
   avert  their  eyes.  Our  educational  mission--and the quality of our
   collective life--is seriously threatened[.] Under these circumstances,
   it  would be especially inadvisable to impose serious penalties on the
   defendants[.]  This  is  a  time  for healing--healing and reform--not
   recrimination and sanctions. ^n237

   After two days of evidence and arguments from both sides, about eleven
   hours total, the trial ended when the audience gave Professor Fisher a
   standing  ovation. ^n238 The Administrative Board had to meet over the
   next few days to discuss the evidence and the fate of the Griswold 9.

   Immediately  after  the trial, reactions were mixed. Griswold 9 member
   Jodi  Grant  commented  that "it was a very moving experience for both
   professors  and  students."  ^n239  Other  members  of  the Griswold 9
   complained about the lack of procedural due process they were afforded
   by  the  Administrative  Board.  For  example,  Marie-Louise  Ramsdale
   complained  about  the Administrative Board's exclusion of the outside
   press,  which  she  believed  was essential to protect the group's due
   process  rights.  ^n240 Julie Su noted that "it's amazing that a place
   like  HLS,  where we [*80] learn about due process, had such egregious
   process violations in dealing with us." ^n241 Su later explained:

   The  due  process  violations  were  numerous  and  severe.  They were
   particularly  ironic  given that they were perpetrated by a university
   whose  mission  included  teaching  the  meaning and importance of due
   process  protections.  The  violations  ranged from secret phone calls
   between  the Dean and the Ad Board and attempts to turn our right to a
   "public" trial into a private one by excluding all of the press except
   the school paper, to which Peter [Cicchino] responded publicly, "As is
   said  in  the  Scripture,  those who live in darkness fear the light."
   ^n242

   On  the  other  hand,  a  student  member of the Administrative Board,
   Dorothy DeWitt, explained that "we struggled to balance the procedural
   rights  of  the  Griswold  Nine  with the need to resolve the hearings
   quickly,  before  the  exam  period  commenced.  I  think the Ad Board
   hearing   and   the   decision  process  were  fair  and  consequently
   successful." ^n243 CCR member Camille Holmes said "that the people who
   sat  in  made  an  important  statement. It's awful that they were put
   through  that trial, forced to divert their attentions away from their
   studies  to  be  prosecuted ... out of it came a sense of unity behind
   this issue and in support of these students that gives us hope for the
   future." ^n244

   III. The Aftermath

   The  Administrative  Board's  decision  was released on Friday, May 8,
   1992.  ^n245  The Administrative Board rejected the defenses set forth
   by the students through their counsel and, in a five-to-three vote, it
   gave  the  eight  students  who  stood  trial official warnings, to be
   removed  from  their  student  files  at  graduation  if no additional
   violations  of  University  or  law school rules were found. ^n246 The
   Administrative  Board  also  recommended  that  the  registrar include
   additional language in the Harvard Law School Catalog that gave notice
   to future students that the sanction may be more severe in the future.
   ^n247  The Administrative Board concluded, "This proceeding has been a
   difficult,  arduous one for all involved, and we hope it will not need
   to be repeated in any other context." ^n248

   Current  HLS  Dean  Martha  Minow  ^n249  recounted  the  commencement
   ceremony of that year's graduating class:

   [*81]

   The  Dean  [Clark]  objected  to  the selection of Peter [Cicchino] as
   commencement  speaker  at Harvard Law School in 1992. After all, Peter
   had  defended student protestors, the Griswold 9, who had occupied the
   Dean's  hallway  to protest the law school's failure to pursue diverse
   faculty  appointments!  But the students' choice prevailed. His fellow
   law  students picked Peter to speak at commencement not only as a sign
   of  utter respect, but also because they wanted Peter's words as their
   send-off,  their  admonition,  their  hope...  . He told the students,
   "Take   your   arrogance   and  afflict  the  comfortable.  Take  your
   contentiousness  and  articulate  genuine political alternatives. Take
   your  sense  of entitlement to act in the world--to run things--and do
   so: govern, lead." ^n250

   During  the  summer, Jodi Grant commented that "it would be a travesty
   if it were all for naught ... most of us are still active and involved
   in CCR. For example, some of us in New York this summer gave out info.
   to  alumni at the [annual summer alumni] reception and now that school
   is beginning, CCR is continuing to push for better faculty diversity."
   ^n251 Despite its best efforts, CCR received unfavorable news in July.
   On  Thursday,  July  9, 1992, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
   affirmed  the  dismissal of CCR's lawsuit. ^n252 While the lower court
   decided the case on standing grounds, the Commonwealth's highest court
   found  in favor of Harvard on the students' substantive claims as well
   as  the  procedural  standing  issue.  ^n253  Julie  Su, member of the
   Griswold  9,  stated,  "Certainly CCR is thinking about taking further
   legal  action.  A  lot  of  things have happened over the summer which
   tried  to  undo  what we did last spring in which we have to respond."
   ^n254  HLS  student  and  named  CCR lawsuit plaintiff Jeffrey Lubbell
   commented,  "It  was a victory that we even got to the [Massachusetts]
   Supreme  Court  at all. We brought attention to the diversity movement
   and  the  lack  of  women on the HLS faculty. And there are still many
   things that can be done." ^n255

   [*82]  Later  in  the  summer,  CCR received more bad news. On Friday,
   August  21,  1992,  Professor  Bell announced that his final appeal to
   extend  his  unpaid  leave  of  absence  beyond the two-year limit was
   denied  by  the  Harvard  Corporation.  ^n256 The Corporation made its
   decision  after Bell, along with his counsel on this matter, Professor
   Frank  Michelman, ^n257 presented a three-hour appeal before a meeting
   of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Appointments. ^n258 On Tuesday, July 1,
   1992,  Harvard University Provost Jerry R. Green announced that Bell's
   refusal  to  teach  his  classes  would  be  construed by Harvard as a
   resignation  from  his  tenured  position.  ^n259  HLS student Camille
   Holmes said, "This is a tremendous loss. He represents the strength of
   spirit  and  commitment  to  inclusion  that  the  law school has been
   fighting."  ^n260  In  the  fall  of 1992, Professor Bell, who was now
   teaching  at NYU Law School, returned to HLS to speak to the students;
   he  urged HLS students to continue the fight for faculty diversity, in
   particular for a woman of color to be hired. ^n261

   During the start of the 1992 academic year, in a letter to the Harvard
   Law School Community dated September 8, 1992, Dean Clark wrote:

   The  events  of  last  spring  were  disturbing and difficult for many
   members  of  this  community.  As  a result, many have felt a need for
   improved  communication  at  various  levels.  Most  agree that issues
   relating  to  race  and gender will continue to require discussion and
   debate  that  is more open and more respectful. It has become apparent
   that  the  ways in which we deal with each other ought to be improved.
   ^n262

   Professor   Laurence   Tribe   commented   that   the  letter  "is  an
   acknowledgement of a genuine need for discussion of issues relating to
   race and gender, and an acknowledgement that those discussions need to
   take  place in a more open way." ^n263 Dean Clark subsequently created
   a  new committee, called the "Project on Community," comprised of both
   students  and  faculty, to address the law school's "decaying sense of
   community."  ^n264  Dean Clark appointed negotiation expert, Professor
   emeritus Roger [*83] Fisher, to lead the project and enlisted the help
   of Professors Charles Ogletree and Alan Stone. ^n265

   As  stated  by  the  Administrative  Board  in  its  written  decision
   regarding  the Griswold 9, in the start of the next academic year, new
   language  was  inserted  in  the 1992-1993 Harvard Law School Catalog.
   ^n266  As  a  warning  to  future  student  protestors,  the  language
   provided:

   In  recent  years, there have been a number of occasions when students
   "sat  in"  or  obstructed  access  to  administrative offices, faculty
   offices,  and  other  school  facilities  as  a  form  of protest. The
   Administrative  Board  imposed  the  sanction  of a "warning" for such
   conduct  in  the  spring  of 1992, but the Board wishes to give notice
   that a principal reason that the sanction was not more severe was that
   it  was  the  first instance in many years in which formal charges had
   been brought and a sanction imposed for conduct of this kind. ^n267

   The  fall  of  1992  started  with  CCR  organizing a silent vigil for
   increased  faculty  diversity in which seventy-five students attended.
   ^n268  CCR  subsequently met with Harvard President Neil Rudenstine to
   further  express  their  concerns  about  this issue. ^n269 On Friday,
   October  23,  1992,  the  newly  formed  Project  on Community and CCR
   sponsored  a  panel  for alumni titled, "Preparing HLS for the Future:
   Promoting  Diversity  in  our  Community."  ^n270  At  this forum, HLS
   students  and  alumni  connected  to  discuss  the issue of increasing
   faculty diversity at HLS.

   The  first  tenured  woman of color at HLS was hired in 1998; however,
   initial  hiring discussions regarding her appointment started earlier.
   Specifically,  HLS offered a visiting professorship to Lani Guinier in
   1992.  ^n271  Because of her nomination for Assistant Attorney General
   for  Civil  Rights  by President Clinton and for personal reasons, she
   was  unable  to accept the visiting offer until January 1996. ^n272 In
   January  1998,  Lani  Guinier became the first female African American
   professor  in  the  181-year  history of HLS. ^n273 Upon hire, Guinier
   stated,  "Though  I  am  the  first woman of color to join the tenured
   faculty,  I know that I will not be the last, and this is important to
   me." ^n274

   [*84]

   IV. The Significance of the Diverse Student Coalition

   The  dearth  of  minority and women tenured or tenure-track professors
   was  an  issue  before CCR's most vigorous activism from 1989 to 1992,
   and  it  continues  to  be  an issue today. As reported in the Harvard
   University  Office  of the Senior Vice Provost's Faculty Development &
   Diversity  Annual  Report  for  2009,  ^n275 out of eighty-four senior
   ladder  faculty  members  at  HLS,  ^n276 18% are women (i.e., fifteen
   total).  ^n277 Out of ten junior ladder faculty members, 40% are women
   (i.e.,  four  total). ^n278 Therefore, out of ninety-four total ladder
   faculty members, nineteen are women (i.e., 20% of the total). ^n279 In
   terms  of women senior faculty, HLS has the lowest percentage of women
   compared with law schools at its peer institutions--including Columbia
   University,  Cornell  University,  Northwestern  University,  Stanford
   University,   University  of  Michigan,  University  of  Pennsylvania,
   University  of Chicago, and Yale University. ^n280 Furthermore, out of
   ninety-four  total  ladder  faculty  members,  the Senior Vice Provost
   reports  that  HLS has two Asian Americans, six African Americans, one
   Latino, and one Native American--a total of ten self-identified people
   of color out of ninety-four professors (i.e., 11% of the total). ^n281
   An  additional  ladder  faculty  hire  was  made  after  this data was
   reported.  In  the  spring of 2010, HLS hired Annette Gordon-Reed as a
   tenured faculty member. ^n282 Professor Gordon-Reed is only the second
   African  American  woman  professor  to hold a tenured or tenure track
   position in the history of the school.

   Given the consistently low percentages of permanent minority and women
   faculty  at HLS both before and after the early 1990s, I inquire as to
   what  could  have  caused  this intense period of student momentum for
   faculty  diversity  (1989-1992) that was unprecedented at the time and
   that  has  been  unmatched  through today. In this part, I utilize the
   concepts  of [*85] social movement theory, bolstered by primary source
   material  and  oral  histories of the former activists, to explain why
   the early 1990s were such a robust period of student activism.

   A. Signaling and Group Momentum

   Political  opportunity  theory  posits that certain political contexts
   can   be   conducive  for  activism.  ^n283  Within  this  theoretical
   framework,  signaling  occurs  when  activists  observe changes in the
   political   environment,   looking   for   encouragement   for   their
   mobilization  and  advocacy.  ^n284  Debra C. Minkoff contends that if
   early  activists  are  successful,  "a demonstration effect encourages
   protest  by other groups because success signals the vulnerability and
   responsiveness  of  elites."  ^n285  Further,  Doug McAdam writes that
   "initiator"   movements   "signal   or  otherwise  set  in  motion  an
   identifiable   protest   cycle."   ^n286   The  subsequent  "spin-off"
   movements,  "in  varying  degrees,  draw their impetus and inspiration
   from the original initiator movement." ^n287

   Student  protests  aimed  at  Dean  Clark's  termination of the public
   interest  advising  positions  ^n288  served as the initiator movement
   that catalyzed CCR activism. CCR protests for faculty diversity became
   a  spin-off  movement.  The primary driving mechanism for the spin-off
   movement  was  signaling--the  re-instatement  of  the public interest
   advising  positions, after a year of continuous activism, demonstrated
   to  the  HLS community [*86] that the administration was vulnerable to
   student  pressure.  Lisa  Otero,  former  La  Alianza Co-Chair and CCR
   member, recounts:

   When I came in as a first year student, the activism didn't really get
   rolling  around  this  [faculty  diversity]  issue.  What  started the
   activism  was  we  had a new dean--Dean Clark--who came in at the same
   time  we  did. And Dean Clark abolished the public interest office ...
   so a group of us that came to the law school with public interest work
   in  our  future--were completely set on that--were quite upset. And we
   started protesting around that the day we walked in the door. And that
   got  that movement going. And that was fairly quick. And after that, I
   think the students were fairly emboldened to look around and say, "all
   right,  what else needs to happen around here." That's when ... people
   started  talking  about  [faculty  diversity],  people started reading
   articles  about  it,  and  it  was also happening on other campuses as
   well.

   ***

   I  really  want to stress that early experience we had of speaking out
   about  the closing of the public interest office, and the Dean hearing
   us... really gave us the sense that it's good to speak up, that it can
   be  positive,  that  you  can  actually  get justice--maybe that was a
   dangerous  thing  for  us to think as 1Ls... . We felt that our voices
   were  very  powerful if we worked together and if we stood strong... .
   And  those  public  gatherings  we  would  have our demonstrations and
   actions  and  demonstrations did make people bolder and more invested.
   ^n289

   The  successful  protests  against  the elimination of public interest
   advising at HLS, therefore, inspired future faculty diversity activism
   by  signaling  to  the  students  that  their  actions  could  make  a
   meaningful  difference  in law school policies and practices. Laura E.
   Hankins, oral advocate in the CCR lawsuit, recalls:

   For  me,  part of what was also going on at the law school at the time
   had  to  do  with public interest law. So CCR, as I recall, got formed
   either  at the end of my first year or the beginning of my second. But
   what was also going on in my first year--which was the first year that
   Bob  Clark was the Dean of the law school--was one of the first things
   he  did  at  least  when  the  school year started ... was to fire the
   public  interest  advisor.  And so the students who were interested in
   working  for  big  law  firms  and  pursuing  corporate  law  all were
   continuing  to get completely supported in their efforts. And students
   who  were  interested  in  public  interest  law  weren't  at all--had
   nothing.  And  so  a  group of students started organizing around that
   issue  in  public  interest  law and that sort of carried over [to the
   diversity faculty issue]. ^n290

   Charisse  Carney-Nunes, former Griswold 9 member, also remembers being
   part  of  the  protests  around the termination of the public interest
   advising  [*87]  positions  during her first year at law school before
   continuing with her CCR protests in later years. ^n291

   In  addition  to  signaling,  another  driving  mechanism  behind  the
   spin-off  movement  was  the  overlap  of  organizational  context and
   resources.  ^n292  For example, Professor Edley, who was active in the
   public  interest  advising  debates  and  who later became the Faculty
   Director of Public Interest Programs, ^n293 was also active in the HLS
   faculty diversity movement. Indeed, Edley's consistent presence during
   both  social movements created much overlap in terms of public faculty
   support  for  the  students'  demands.  During the years of CCR's most
   aggressive activism, Edley spoke out against Dean Clark, ^n294 advised
   the  Griswold 9 during the sit-in, ^n295 served as a character witness
   for  the Griswold 9 during the Administrative Board hearing, ^n296 and
   signed  off  on  the  open letter to the HLS community calling for the
   dismantling of the current faculty hiring committee. ^n297

   CCR's   diversity   of   backgrounds   became   another   signal--this
   multi-racial  group  of  men  and  women  was  not just advocating for
   minority  issues,  but  issues  that  affected  everyone.  Jodi  Grant
   recalls,  "If  you  look  at  the  coalition--and  it was the like the
   Griswold  9,  the  Fried 4, the lawsuit--if you look at the people, it
   was  people  from  every  background.  This was about trying to really
   showcase  that  [faculty  diversity] was really better for all of us."
   ^n298  Marie-Louise  Ramsdale  remembers,  "We  brought  both  genders
   together. And more than that, we showed that it was a very broad group
   of people--I mean literally like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition ...
   and  it  was  varied  in so many other ways ... because you're talking
   about the gay and lesbian groups as well... . We really touched almost
   everyone  in  the  law  school  in  some  way or another [through] our
   group." ^n299

   CCR's acts of protest also served as a signal to the HLS community and
   beyond. Indeed, the signaling had ripple effects across other schools.
   For example, after the two sit-ins that were part of the law students'
   protests  for  the second national class strike day, ^n300 on Tuesday,
   April  17,  1990,  the  Minority  Student  Alliance at Harvard College
   staged  an  undergraduate  class  boycott  and  rally outside Memorial
   Church,  which  was attended [*88] by 300 protestors. ^n301 Cara Wong,
   leader of the Minority Student Alliance, said, "In February, we talked
   about  the idea of a demonstration, but we thought it was too radical.
   But after the law students protested, we were inspired; we realized it
   could  be  done."  ^n302  At  the  time, ninety-two percent of tenured
   Harvard  College  faculty  members  were male and ninety-three percent
   were  white, which was barely a one percent gain in minority and women
   professors  in the previous ten years. ^n303 Similarly, at the Harvard
   Graduate School of Education, the students organized to confront their
   dean after learning of the law school protests. Peter Kiang, a student
   at the Harvard Graduate school of Education, said:

   After  the  first sit-in, I read the article in The [Boston] Globe and
   thought,  'That's  fantastic,'  and wanted to find out more. After the
   second sit-in, we realized that this was not a one-shot deal--that the
   law  students  were  really  committed  and  that  they  deserved  our
   [support.]  Furthermore,  I  realized  that  we needed to re-raise the
   issue of faculty diversity at our school. ^n304

   Furthermore,  John  Bonifaz recalls that the Harvard Kennedy School of
   Government  and  other  schools  contacted CCR to inquire about how to
   protest  their  own  schools'  lack  of  faculty  diversity. ^n305 The
   signaling  to  students outside HLS generated by CCR's public protests
   was  evident  in the fourth class strike day at HLS, on April 2, 1992,
   where  a noon rally drew 400-500 students--about 300 from HLS, and the
   rest  from  the  Harvard  Kennedy  School  of  Government, the Harvard
   Divinity  School,  and  the  Graduate School of Education. ^n306 About
   twenty  students  from  Brandeis  University joined the rally as well.
   ^n307

   B. Framing Processes and Group Cohesion

   Social  movement theorists have analyzed how activists frame issues in
   order  to  resonate  with the public and gain support. ^n308 Robert D.
   Benford and David A. Snow, contend:

   Social movements are not viewed merely as carriers of extant ideas and
   meaning  that  grow  automatically  out  of  structural  arrangements,
   unanticipated  events, or existing ideologies. Rather, movement actors
   are  viewed  as  signifiying agents actively engaged in the production
   and   maintenance   of  meaning  for  constituents,  antagonists,  and
   bystanders  or  observers.  They  are deeply embroiled ... in what has
   been referred to as "the politics of signification." ^n309

   [*89]  As  signifying  agent, CCR framed its struggle in relation to a
   vision  of  diversity  that  was  inclusive of different races, sexual
   orientations, genders, and other characteristics and identities. Since
   the  1970s,  HLS  had only made progress in hiring a few black men and
   white women. ^n310 CCR member and named plaintiff in the lawsuit Ketih
   Boykin  said,  "When [HLS administrators and faculty] talk about women
   and  minorities,  they  mean  black men and white women." ^n311 Boykin
   stated,  "I  say  this as a black male, but that's not the end of what
   diversity means. It's not even the beginning of what diversity means."
   ^n312  CCR's  definition  would  be  much broader. This new coalition,
   thus,  made  its members think carefully on how to be inclusive in its
   goals and demands. Upon reflection, CCR co-founder John Bonifaz said:

   We were quite proud of the fact that ... we had united all together on
   this  ... And that we were careful in our demands to make it clear ...
   what  all of us together were demanding in terms of the changes in the
   hiring  practices  for  the  faculty,  and  I  think  what's made that
   movement  so  strong over the period of time that it was happening--as
   you  really  had  all those organizations involved and all the student
   members [that were] part of those organizations. ^n313

   The  inclusive  vision for diversity created a sense of cohesion among
   the group. In explaining the significance of the new coalition, Morrie
   Ratner,  a  member  of  CCR and the Committee on Gay and Lesbian Legal
   issues,  stated,  "This  university  traditionally has pitted minority
   groups  against  one another. If one minority group asks for something
   ...  they  deny  it  on the grounds that all the other minority groups
   will  ask  for it. One of our goals is to cut that response off at the
   beginning.  We  are  unified  from  the  start, and we can't be pitted
   against  each  other."  ^n314  The  power of this inclusive framing of
   diversity  manifested  itself  when  students who were not part of the
   sit-in stood in solidarity with the actual protestors. For example, on
   the  day  that  the  Administrative  Board  announced possible charges
   against  the  Griswold  9,  the  Executive  Board of La Alianza sent a
   letter to Vice-Dean Smith, in which it wrote:

   Although  only  nine  students  sat-in on April 6th, we feel that they
   were  acting  for  all  of  us  and  for  the ideals that we have been
   struggling  to  realize  for  decades...  .  Any [disciplinary] action
   against  the  nine  students  is  an  action against all those who are
   concerned about our community. ^n315

   This  letter  from  the  Latino  students  association illustrated the
   multi-racial  cohesion  of  the coalition. Furthermore, Peter Cicchino
   explained his motivation for defending the Griswold 9:

   [*90]

   More  than  anything else, gay and lesbian people are oppressed by the
   sense  that we are the alone in the world. Most of the pain of being a
   gay  adolescent flows from one source: the sense that you are the only
   one. It just seemed to me that it would be wrong to leave the Griswold
   9  alone to face their fate. And so I agreed to coordinate their legal
   defense.  Later,  I would make a pledge to the Griswold 9 that if they
   were suspended--an outcome I found outrageously immoral--I would go to
   the Dean's office, chain myself to the doors, and be suspended myself.
   ^n316

   Cicchino's  linkage  of his own life experiences to the experiences of
   the  Griswold  9  was  reflective  of  the multi-faceted conception of
   diversity  that  created  a  sense  of  solidarity  beyond  individual
   identities. Here, an openly gay man who felt kinship with the Griswold
   9  was  willing  to be suspended from school in act of solidarity with
   the  protestors--all  in  an attempt to pressure the faculty to hire a
   more diverse faculty.

   C. Resource Mobilization and Enhanced Group Outcomes

   Resource  mobilization  theory  posits  that it is not dissatisfaction
   with  the status quo per se, but increased resources that give rise to
   activism.  ^n317  I  argue  that  the  very  diversity  of the student
   coalition was the source of increased resources for the activists--for
   both the lawsuit and the sit-in. ^n318

   The  diversity  of  the  CCR  members  who planned and implemented the
   lawsuit  served  as  a  resource  that  enhanced  the group's work and
   expanded  the  inclusivity  of  the group's demands. Named CCR lawsuit
   plaintiff  Linda  Singer said about the diversity of the coalition, "I
   think it made us more thoughtful about our positions. We were, in many
   ways,  the  change  we  wanted.  I  think we also worked together more
   powerfully--often  having  to overcome real differences in outlook--to
   make  decisions."  ^n319  CCR  co-founder  and  named plaintiff in the
   lawsuit John Bonifaz states:

   I  think  people  learn  to  work together in ways that perhaps hadn't
   occurred previously within the silos of the various organizations... I
   know,  for  example,  that Mark McGoldrick--who was in my [graduating]
   class  [in]  1992--was  part of a new organization that he had started
   [for]  students  with disabilities [that] heightened awareness for all
   the  other  students in the ways in which the school needed to improve
   in  its  dealings  both with students with [*91] disabilities and also
   recognizing this as a concern for faculty diversity. ^n320

   The   student  plaintiffs,  thus,  had  to  incorporate  their  varied
   backgrounds  into  an  inclusive  vision  for  a better Harvard. CCR's
   complaint was telling. As part of its prayer for relief, the complaint
   requested  the  court  to  "enjoin  Defendant  from  employing  hiring
   practices  which  have  a  disparate impact on [white] women, women of
   color,  Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans,
   openly  lesbian  or gay persons, and persons with disabilities." ^n321
   As  discussed in Part IV.B, supra, this inclusive framing of diversity
   created stronger group cohesion.

   Similarly,  the  varied  backgrounds  of  the  Griswold  9 served as a
   resource that enhanced the group's decision-making and problem-solving
   capabilities.  ^n322  The  Griswold 9 consisted of seven women and two
   men.  Two  of  the  members  were  African  American,  two  were Asian
   American,  one  was  Latina,  and four were white. Charisse Carney and
   Derek  Honore  had  leadership roles in the Harvard Black Law Students
   Association.  Elizabeth  Moreno, Jill Newman, and Marie-Louse Ramsdale
   had  leadership positions in the Women's Law Association. Julie Su was
   the  incoming  Co-chair  of  the  Asian  Pacific American Law Students
   Association.  William  Anspach  was  active in labor law issues, while
   Lucy  Koh  and Jodi Grant were involved in a number of public interest
   activities.  These  background  traits and organizational affiliations
   gave  each  member of the Griswold 9 unique perspectives that enhanced
   the group's decision making. Julie Su reflects:

   We  definitely  benefited from our diversity. I think the fact that it
   was  primarily  women  brought  a  warmth  and sisterhood to it that I
   really  treasured.  The  value  of  having  students  from  all  races
   certainly  symbolically  demonstrated our power, and I think in all of
   those  discussions  leading  up  to  how  and  whether we would defend
   ourselves,  the  diversity  of  perspectives  brought by our different
   experiences  made  for  rich  and thoughtful and sometimes contentious
   discussions that made us all stronger. ^n323

   Also,  the  Griswold 9 members' diverse language skills enhanced their
   activism.  During  the  sit-in,  the  students  used walkie-talkies to
   communicate  with  students  outside  of Griswold Hall. ^n324 When the
   protestors  suspected that their communications were being intercepted
   by  Harvard Police officers, they utilized the Spanish-speaking skills
   of  some  their group. ^n325 When the Griswold 9 subsequently realized
   that the Harvard Police [*92] brought in a Spanish-speaking officer in
   response  to  this  tactic,  ^n326  Julie  Su spoke in Mandarin to the
   group's  Mandarin-speaking  outside student contacts. ^n327 One of the
   members,  Lucy  Koh,  could  speak  Korean,  but  her  skills were not
   employed  because  the  Harvard  Police  did  not  bring in a Mandarin
   speaker to intercept Su's conversations. ^n328

   Furthermore,   some   of  the  varied  life  experiences  of  the  CCR
   members--particularly  around  organizing  in  college--served  as  an
   additional  resource that facilitated multi-racial coalition building.
   For  example,  John  Bonifaz  had  an  extensive history of organizing
   before  enrolling  at HLS. Bonifaz started his activism in high school
   working  for  nuclear  disarmament. ^n329 As an undergraduate at Brown
   University,   he   was   involved   in  the  anti-apartheid  movement,
   participating  in a coalition called Brown Divest Now, which worked to
   pressure  the  university to divest from any businesses doing business
   in   South  Africa.  ^n330  Bonifaz  said,  "Both  that  work  and  my
   involvement  in  the 1984 Jackson presidential campaign on campus were
   multiracial  efforts  that,  I think, helped shape my understanding of
   coalition-building."  ^n331  Also,  former  Griswold  9 member William
   Anspach  had  considerable experience with organizing before attending
   HLS.  As  a  high  school  student,  he  campaigned against the Briggs
   Amendment--banning  gay  people  in California from teaching in public
   schools.  ^n332  At  Haverford  College,  among  other things, Anspach
   headed  the  campus divestment from South Africa movement, in which he
   organized  the  takeover  of  a  campus building, and he organized the
   Crunch  Action  Team,  which brought students to union picket lines in
   Philadelphia,  in  return  for  union's support of peace causes. ^n333
   After college, he worked on the Jesse Jackson presidential campaign in
   1984. Anspach reflects:

   As  a  white  organizer  involved  in  protests often centering around
   issues   particularly   impacting  on  minorities  (e.g.,  the  Briggs
   Amendment,  the  anti-apartheid  movement),  I  learned  how people of
   different  backgrounds could work together. On the most obvious level,
   this  meant  that  the  movements could neither be overly dominated by
   white  organizers  (which  would  be  considered paternalistic) nor by
   minority  organizers  (which  would  turn off whites and/or appear too
   self-interested).  I  believe  the  Griswold  9  and  the  surrounding
   circumstances reflected this. ^n334

   [*93]  Bonifaz  and  Anspach  both  played key roles in organizing CCR
   activism. ^n335

   Conclusion

   The  robust  activity  at  HLS during the early 1990's appears to have
   been  made  possible  by  a  "perfect storm" of people and events that
   culminated  in  the  spring of 1992. First, Dean Clark terminated and,
   amidst  student  protests,  re-instated  two  public interest advising
   positions.  These  successful protests served as a catalyst for future
   student  activism.  Indeed  some  of  the  same students who protested
   around  public  interest  advising  spearheaded  the faculty diversity
   hiring  efforts.  Second,  Professor Bell became increasingly vocal in
   his  opposition to the lack of diversity on the faculty, taking a very
   public  unpaid leave from HLS. Bell's actions created momentum for the
   students to act. Third, HLS's appointment of four white men as tenured
   professors,  amidst  the  ongoing  dialogue  and  protests,  created a
   rallying point for the students. Finally, Dean Clark's comments in the
   Wall  Street  Journal  explaining  the  activism  as  being  caused by
   self-esteem  issues  that  arise  as  symptoms  of  affirmative action
   provoked   the   students  to  further  escalate  their  protests.  In
   conjunction  with these events, the diversity of the student coalition
   led  to  a  particularly robust period of student activism. Throughout
   this  period, the students' protests created signals for the community
   that  the  faculty  diversity  movement was gaining momentum. The fact
   that  this solidarity cut across race, gender, sexual orientation, and
   ability  and  disability  lines was creating further momentum--through
   signaling  and  increased  resources  that  resulted from this diverse
   group.  The trial of the Griswold 9 was the highpoint of the conflict.
   The activism was to subside soon thereafter. ^n336

   By  the  fall  of 1993, CCR began to experience problems in sustaining
   its  coalitions.  Indeed,  a  year after the Griswold 9 sit-in, citing
   communication  issues,  La  Alianza  dropped out of CCR. ^n337 And the
   activism  that  CCR  sustained  from  1989 to 1992 dissipated by 1993.
   ^n338  By  1994,  the campus was relatively quiet once again. ^n339 By
   this  time,  many  of the original activists had graduated and started
   their  legal  careers.  The  subsequent classes [*94] of students used
   different  means  for  pushing for diversity. Sit-ins were replaced by
   diversity  celebrations  and  litigation was replaced by "lobby days,"
   where  students  would  set  up  appointments  with  HLS professors to
   discuss diversity issues. ^n340

   This   ebb   and  flow  of  protest  activity  did  not  diminish  the
   accomplishments of the HLS students in aggressively pushing for change
   in the early 1990s. They made their voices heard at Harvard and across
   the nation. John Bonifaz states:

   From  the standpoint of having a vibrant movement that engaged the law
   school community--the students, the faculty, the administration, [and]
   the  alumni--that  engaged those outside of the law school--the public
   at  large,  the media--and [that encouraged] the general debate around
   diversity  in  faculty  at institutions of higher learning, I think it
   was a huge success. ^n341

   Jodi Grant further reflects:

   I  think  that  one  of the stories behind this is that your voices do
   matter.  And students' voices do matter. And students' voices can help
   elevate  alumni  voices,  and  faculty voices, and voices in the legal
   community.  And  so I hope that maybe one of the stories about this is
   that students should feel empowered. ^n342

   In  celebration  of  Lani  Guinier's  appointment in 1998, HLS alumni,
   including Charisse Carney-Nunes, Jodi Grant, Camille Holmes, Lucy Koh,
   Jill  Newman,  Lisa  Otero,  Ronald S. Sullivan, and many others, took
   ownership  of  what  they had done while students at HLS by creating a
   scrapbook detailing the history of student activism at HLS focusing on
   faculty  diversity  issues,  including  the  Griswold  9's  sit-in and
   subsequent  trial,  CCR's  lawsuit,  and Professor Bell's protest from
   1990  to  1992. This scrapbook, titled HLS Diversity: A Celebration of
   the  Movement,  was created on October 30, 1998; two copies were filed
   with the HLS library. ^n343

   The  HLS  alumni  authors  explain  the  broader  significance  of the
   "efforts  of brave women and men of all backgrounds" that have engaged
   in   student  protest  to  increase  faculty  diversity.  ^n344  While
   observing  that  HLS  had  made notable progress in hiring white women
   since  1992,  the  authors  wrote, "We hope that HLS will now show the
   same courage by developing a plan of action and stating its commitment
   to  address  its  poor record of hiring Black women, Latinos/as, Asian
   Americans,  Native  Americans,  openly  gay  or  lesbian  persons, and
   disabled persons." ^n345

   [*95]  Change  has  been  slow  in  coming.  In  recognition  that the
   diversity  struggle  is  not  over  with  the appointment of Professor
   Guinier,  the  authors of HLS Diversity wrote, "We look forward to the
   addition  of  several more women of color to the Harvard Law School in
   the  near future." ^n346 Over ten years since this statement was made,
   and  in  its  193-year  history,  HLS  has  only  had three tenured or
   tenure-track  women of color professors. ^n347 Reflecting on this rate
   of  progress,  Ronald S. Sullivan, former CCR member, who is currently
   an  HLS Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Harvard Criminal
   Justice Institute, said:

   The history of the Civil Rights Movement itself teaches us that rarely
   does progress come without demands being made--rarely does the sort of
   huge  shift in attitude come without significant pressure being put on
   the  status  quo...  .  I  shudder to think had we not been so vocally
   antagonistic to the absence of hiring [a diverse faculty], that ... we
   may  have  been  sitting here now in 2010 talking about "can we find a
   woman of color?" ^n348

   For a new generation of students, the struggle continues.

   Epilogue: The Griswold 9 Eighteen Years Later

   Charisse  Carney-Nunes  is  a  Senior  Staff Associate at the National
   Science  Foundation  in  Arlington,  Virginia.  ^n349  She is also the
   founder  of  a  media  company called Brand Nu Words, an award winning
   author of three children's books, Nappy, I Dream For You a World and I
   am  Barack  Obama,  and  a  senior officer of the Jamestown Project, a
   think  tank focusing on democracy housed at HLS. ^n350 William Anspach
   is  a  partner at a union-side labor and employee benefits law firm in
   New  York  City.  ^n351  Jodi  Grant  is  Executive  Director  of  the
   Afterschool  Alliance,  a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C.,
   working  to  raise  awareness  about  the  urgent  need to provide all
   children  and  youth  with  access  to affordable, quality afterschool
   programs.  ^n352  Derek Honore, who specializes in criminal law, [*96]
   was  a  public defender in New Orleans, Louisiana. ^n353 Lucy Koh is a
   United  States  District  Court  Judge  for  the  Northern District of
   California.  ^n354  She  is the first Korean American federal district
   court judge and the first Asian American federal judge in the Northern
   District.  ^n355  Jill  Newman  is  currently  an artist and the proud
   mother  of  two  boys.  ^n356  Elizabeth  Moreno  practiced law in Los
   Angeles,  California  before  passing  away on February 1, 1997. ^n357
   Marie-Louise  Ramsdale  has a family law practice in Charleston, South
   Carolina.  ^n358  She was the founding director of S.C. First Steps to
   School  Readiness  (1999-2003)  and the founding executive director of
   City  Year  Columbia  (1993-1996).  ^n359  Julie  Su is the Litigation
   Director  at  the  non-profit  Asian  Pacific American Legal Center of
   Southern California (APALC), an affiliate of the Washington D.C.-based
   Asian  American  Justice  Center.  ^n360  She  was  a recipient of the
   MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship in 2001. ^n361

   Legal Topics: 

   For  related  research and practice materials, see the following legal
   topics:

   Education LawDiscriminationRacial DiscriminationDesegregationFaculty &
   StaffEducation     LawFaculty     &     StaffCompensationLeaves     of
   AbsenceEducation LawFaculty & StaffTenure in Postsecondary SchoolsLoss
   of Tenure

   FOOTNOTES:

   n1. Derrick Bell, Op-Ed., At Last, Harvard Sees the Light, N.Y. Times,
   Jan. 29, 1998, at A27.

   n2.  See  Lisa  Boykin  et  al.,  HLS  Diversity: A Celebration of the
   Movement  (1998),  at unpaged section titled Protest Yields Results: A
   History (noting that Derrick Bell was hired in 1969 and granted tenure
   in 1971 following a two-year appointment as a lecturer on law and that
   in  1972,  Elisabeth Ann Owens was appointed to a tenured position and
   Diane  Lund  was  hired  as  a  tenure-track faculty member); see also
   Daniel Taubman, Owens to be Named First Tenured Woman Professor, Harv.
   L.  Rec.,  Jan.  28,  1972, at 1 (discussing the tenure appointment of
   Elisabeth   Ann   Owens,  who  had  been  given  consecutive  one-year
   appointments  as a lecturer on law since 1956); Faculty Appoints Eight
   New  Profs;  Two  are  Women,  Harv.  L.  Rec.,  Jan.  28,  1972, at 1
   (discussing  the  appointments of Elisabeth Ann Owens and Diane Lund);
   Laura  Taylor,  Prof. Bell Named U. of Oregon Law Dean, Harv. L. Rec.,
   Mar.  14,  1980,  at  1  (discussing  Derrick Bell's hiring and tenure
   appointment at HLS).

   n3.  Louis  J.  Hoffman, Profs "Ashamed" of HLS, Decry Minority Hiring
   Results, Harv. L. Rec., May 12, 1983, at 1.

   n4.  Pat Gulbis, CCR Invites Clark to Mock Trial on Faculty Diversity,
   Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 26, 1990, at 1.

   n5. Johathan S. Cohan & Tara A Nayak, Clark Appointment Made Official;
   Bok  Says  Dean  will  be  Conciliatory, Harv. Crimson, Feb. 18, 1989,
   available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1989/2/18/clark-appointment-made-off
   icial-bok-says/;  see  also  Jonas  Blank,  Looking  Back: 14 Years of
   Robert   Clark,   Harv.   L.   Rec.,   Apr.  23,  2003,  available  at
   http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4463/looking-back-14-years-of-robert-clark-1
   .580320#4  (discussing  Clark's  background). I attempted to interview
   Dean Clark for this article. I was unable to connect with him.

   n6.  See  Chris  Crain  &  Greg  Herbert,  Bok Taps Clark as New Dean:
   Faculty  Split  Along Ideological Lines, Harv. L. Rec., Feb. 24, 1989,
   at  1.  Critical  Legal  Studies is "a school of thought advancing the
   idea  that  the  legal  system  perpetuates the status quo in terms of
   economics,  race,  and  gender  by  using  manipulable concepts and by
   creating  an  imaginary  world  of  social  harmony regulated by law."
   Black's Law Dictionary 404 (9th ed. 2004). For an overview of Critical
   Legal  Studies,  see  generally, Andrew Altman, Critical Legal Studies
   (1993);  Mark Kelman, A Guide to Critical Legal Studies (1987); Duncan
   Kennedy,  A  Critique  of Adjudication [fin de siecle] (1997); Roberto
   Mangaberia  Unger,  The  Critical  Legal  Studies Movement (1983). See
   Eleanor  Kerlow,  Poisoned Ivy: How Egos, Ideology, and Power Politics
   Almost  Ruined  Harvard  Law  School  (1994),  for  an  account of the
   struggles  between  the Traditionalists and the Critical Legal Studies
   adherents  at  HLS  during  the  early  1990s. Kerlow writes about the
   activism  during  this  time in the context of faculty struggling over
   the proper place of Critical Legal Studies in the academy.

   n7. See, e.g., Cohan & Nayak, supra note 5 (noting that when Professor
   Derrick  Bell  held  a sit-in in 1987 to protest the faculty's vote to
   deny tenure to a proponent of Critical Legal Studies, Clark said "This
   is  a university--it's not a lunch counter in the deep South."); Crain
   &  Herbert, supra note 6, at 1 (noting that Professor Lewis Sargentich
   said  that  Clark  was  the  "point  man  and  primary  voice" for the
   controversial  tenure  denial of Clair Dalton in 1987); Dan Kroll, Bok
   Taps  Clark  as New Dean: Students Wary of Choice, Harv. L. Rec., Feb.
   24,  1989,  at  1 (noting one student who said that Clark did not seem
   sold  on  the  idea  of  wanting more women and people of color on the
   faculty).

   n8.  See  Patrick Miles, Clark Cuts Public Interest Position, Harv. L.
   Rec.,  Sept.  8,  1989, at 1 (noting that Clark started as HLS Dean on
   July  1,  1989  and  terminated the public interest advising positions
   about a month later, on August 9).

   n9. Id.

   n10.  See  Patrick  Miles,  Law  Schools  Across Nation Respond to Fox
   Departure, Harv. L. Rec., Sept. 15, 1989 at 1.

   n11.  See,  e.g.,  Student  Groups  Meet with Clark, Rally Planned for
   Tuesday,  Harv.  L. Rec., Sept. 15, 1989 at 1 (noting that a coalition
   of  student  groups  launched  a  petition drive and "a speak out" was
   planned  for  September  19,  1989); George Paul, Students, Professors
   Rally in Support of Public Interest, Harv. L. Rec., Sept. 29, 1989, at
   1  (noting  that  around  300  students  attended  a  protest rally on
   September  19, 1989 advocating for a separate public interest advising
   office  and  according  to  rally  organizers,  900  out  of 1,600 HLS
   students  signed  a  petition  calling  for the restoration of the two
   public  interest  advising positions; also detailing the activities of
   the  Emergency  Coalition for Public Interest Placement [ECPIP]); Tara
   A.  Nayak,  Public  Interest  Squabble, Harv. Crimson, Sept. 30, 1989,
   available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1989/9/30/public-interest-squabble-p
   vowing-to-escalate/   (noting   heightened   activism   at   HLS  over
   elimination  of  public interest advising positions); Paul Tarr, Clark
   Announces   $   1   Million   Endowment;   Defends   Public   Interest
   Reorganization,  Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 20, 1989, at 1 (noting that Clark
   announced  a new endowment for HLS graduates taking jobs in the public
   sector,  while  there  was  still  no  change  in  Clark's decision to
   eliminate  public  interest  advising;  also noting the formation of a
   public  interest  advisory  committee,  which was chaired by Professor
   Christopher  Edley and staffed by faculty and students); Greg Herbert,
   Students  Demand  Immediate  Action at Public Interest Forum, Harv. L.
   Rec.,  Dec.  1, 1989, at 1 (noting about 100 students attended a forum
   on  increasing  public interest resources at HLS); Patrick Miles, Jr.,
   Public Interest Committee Prepares Position Paper, Harv. L. Rec., Mar.
   2, 1990, at 1 (noting that the Law School Council and ECPIP prepared a
   position  paper  proposing  measures  that  would facilitate increased
   support for public interest law); Jim Houpt, Clark: HLS Should Further
   Public  Interest,  Harv.  L. Rec., Mar. 16, 1990, at 1 (noting another
   forum  attended  by  150  students where the student-prepared position
   paper was presented to Dean Clark).

   n12.  Paul Tarr, Clark Moves to Bolster Public Interest Programs; EPIC
   Pleased,  But Vows to Keep on Fighting, Harv. L. Rec., Sept. 14, 1990,
   at  1.  Note  that  by  this  time, the Emergency Coalition for Public
   Interest  Placement  (ECPIP)  had  changed  its  name to the Emergency
   Public  Interest  Coalition  (EPIC).  See  id. Upon opening the public
   interest  placement  office,  student demand for advising far exceeded
   the  available  resources.  See  George Paul, Public Interest Advising
   Office Swamped, Harv. L. Rec., Sept. 21, 1990, at 1.

   n13.  Morris  Ratner, New Civil Rights Group Will Host Teach-In, Harv.
   L. Rec., Mar. 16, 1990, at 1.

   n14.  See  Luz  E.  Herrera, Challenging a Tradition of Exclusion: The
   History  of  an Unheard Story at Harvard Law School, 5 Harv. Latino L.
   Rev.  51,  59-110,  for a history of La Alianza's efforts to diversify
   the HLS faculty.

   n15. Ratner, supra note 13, at 1.

   n16.  See  Simon  Mendelson,  Students  Stage  "Study  In" for Faculty
   Diversity, Harv. L. Rec., Apr. 14, 1989, at 1.

   n17. Id.

   n18. Id.

   n19.  See  Steve  Crawford,  Student  Coalition  Presses  for Minority
   Hiring, Harv. L. Rec., May 6, 1988, at 4.

   n20. Id.

   n21. Ratner, supra note 13, at 1.

   n22.  Rights  Groups Plan to Rally for Diversity, Harv. L. Rec., Sept.
   21, 1990, at 1.

   n23.  Id.; see also Linda Popejoy, Students Protest Dean on Diversity:
   Students  Stage  Second  Sit-In,  Harv.  L. Rec., Apr. 11, 1990, at 1;
   Linda Killian, Protestors Camp Out at Law Dean's Office, Boston Globe,
   Apr. 7, 1990, at 27.

   n24.  Popejoy,  supra  note  23,  at  1; see also Linda Popejoy & John
   Thornton,  Clark  and  Students Talk at Forum, Harv. L. Rec., Apr. 20,
   1990, at 1.

   n25. Popejoy & Thornton, supra note 24, at 1.

   n26.  Phillip  M. Rubin, Learning the Value of Appearances: Law School
   Protests,    Harv.    Crimson,    Apr.    14,   1990,   available   at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1990/4/14/learning-the-value-of-appe
   arances-pdean/.

   n27. Id.

   n28. Popejoy & Thornton supra note 24, at 1.

   n29.  Linda  Popejoy,  Clark  Offers  Cool Response to Bell's Protest,
   Harv.  L.  Rec.,  May 4, 1990, at 1; see also Fox Butterfield, Harvard
   Law  Professor  Quits Until Black Woman is Named, N.Y. Times, Apr. 24,
   1990, at A1, available at
   http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/24/us/harvard-law-professor-quits-until
   -black-woman-is-named.html;  Fox  Butterfield, Harvard Law School Torn
   by  Race  Issue,  N.Y.  Times,  Apr.  26,  1990,  at A20, available at
   http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/26/us/harvard-law-school-torn-by-race-i
   ssue.html.  See Derrick Bell, Confronting Authority: Reflections of an
   Ardent  Protester (1996), for an autobiographical account of Professor
   Bell's protest.

   n30.  See  Mark Muro, Derrick Bell: In Protest, Boston Globe, Mar. 25,
   1992, at 69 (noting that Professor Bell was hired following the outcry
   over  the  assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.); Steven Donziger,
   Minority  Profs  Hired  when HLS Students Act, Harv. L. Rec., Apr. 14,
   1989,  at  6 (noting that Professor Bell was hired after several years
   of systematic pressure by the Harvard Black Law Students Association);
   Jack  Tate,  Black  Awareness  and  Black Unity Surging Forward at Law
   School,  Harv.  L.  Rec.,  Sept.  26,  1968,  at  1  (noting  that the
   assassination  of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a galvanizing effect
   on  HLS students leading to the subsequent demand for black professors
   at HLS).

   n31. Taylor, supra note 2, at 1.

   n32. George A. Golder, Bell Resigns Deanship of Oregon: Cites Minority
   Hiring Failures, Harv. L. Rec., Mar. 1, 1985, at 1.

   n33. Popejoy, supra note 29, at 1.

   n34. Rights Groups Plan to Rally for Diversity, supra note 22, at 1.

   n35.  One  proposal  CCR  considered  was  to create a student-faculty
   committee  to  examine  the  diversity issue. See Malcolm E. Harrison,
   After  Rally,  CCR  Begins  to Rethink Strategy on Diversity, Harv. L.
   Rec., Oct. 5, 1990, at 1.

   n36.  Even though Professor Bell refused to teach official HLS classes
   as  part  of  his  protest,  in  the  fall  of  1990,  Bell  taught an
   unofficial,  uncompensated, not-for-credit civil rights seminar at HLS
   attended  by twenty-two Harvard students. See A Class Sends Message to
   Harvard  Law  School,  N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 1990, at B11, available at
   http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/21/news/a-class-sends-message-to-harvar
   d-law-school.html.

   n37. Rights Groups Plan to Rally for Diversity, supra note 22, at 1.

   n38.  Dan  Greeney, Students Sue HLS Over Faculty Hiring: School Seeks
   More Time to File Reply, Harv. L. Rec., Nov. 30, 1990, at 1.

   n39. Id.

   n40. Id.

   n41. Id.

   n42. Portions of the CCR Lawsuit, Harv. L. Rec., Nov. 30, 1990, at 10.

   n43. Id.

   n44. Id.

   n45.  Id.  Another group of HLS students subsequently brought a motion
   to  intervene  arguing  that CCR was not representative of the student
   body--they  sought  to end the lawsuit and also counterclaimed against
   CCR  for  $  200,000. See George Paul, Students Intervene in CCR Suit,
   Harv.  L.  Rec.,  Feb.  8,  1991,  at  1.  The motion to intervene was
   eventually  denied  by  the Superior Court. See Harvard Law Sch. Coal.
   for Civil Rights, et al. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 1991
   No. 907904B WL 489552, at 1 (Mass. Super. Feb. 22, 1991).

   n46.  Evette Harrison, CCR Lawsuit: First Round a Draw, Harv. L. Rec.,
   Jan. 18, 1991, at 6.

   n47. Id.

   n48. Id.

   n49. Id.

   n50. Id.

   n51. Sharon Stone, CCR v. Harvard Law: Court Weights Motion to Dismiss
   Today,  Harv.  L.  Rec., Feb. 15, 1991, at 1. Standing is "[a] party's
   right  to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or
   right." Black's Law Dictionary, supra note 6, at 1442.

   n52. Id.

   n53.  E-mail  from  Linda Singer, named CCR plaintiff, to author (July
   12, 2010, 22:10 EST) (on file with author).

   n54. Id.

   n55.  See  Harvard  Law  School  Coal.  for  Civil  Rights,  et al. v.
   President  & Fellows of Harvard Coll., No. 90-7904- B, 1991 WL 489552,
   at 1 (Mass. Supp. Feb. 22, 1991).

   n56. Id.

   n57. Id. at 1 n.1

   n58.  Judge Rejects Suit on Bias in Harvard's Hiring, N.Y. Times, Feb.
   26, 1991 at A18.

   n59.  Sharon Stone, Students Strike for Diversity: Rally Roils Campus;
   CCR Vows Further Action, Harv. L. Rec., Apr. 12, 1991, at 1.

   n60. Id.

   n61. Id.

   n62.  Boykin et al., supra note 2, at unpaged section titled Professor
   Biographies.

   n63. Stone, supra note 59, at 1.

   n64. Id.

   n65. Id.

   n66. Id.; see also Toyia R. Battle, Law Students End Overnight Sit-In:
   Students  Cancel  Protest in Wake of Fatal Stabbing of Law Professor's
   Wife,     Harv.     Crimson,    Apr.    6,    1991,    available    at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1991/4/6/law-students-end-overnight-
   sit-in-pin/.

   n67. Robert Arnold, Students Storm Dean Clark's Office, Harv. L. Rec.,
   Apr. 12, 1991, at 2.

   n68. Id.

   n69.  Diversity Protestors Picket Griswold Hall: Dean and CCR Exchange
   Letters, Harv. L. Rec., May 3, 1991, at 3.

   n70.  See  Letter  from  the Coal. for Civil Rights to HLS Dean Robert
   Clark (Apr. 25, 1991) (on file with author).

   n71.  Id. See discussion infra Part II.F (discussing responsibilities,
   composition, and procedures of the Administrative Board).

   n72.  See  Diversity Protestors Picket Griswold Hall: Students Picket,
   Respond  to Dean's Letter, Harv. L. Rec., May 3, 1991, at 3. Professor
   Bell  had,  by this time, announced his plan to spend next year at NYU
   Law  School. See Paul Tarr, Bell Stuns BLSA Conference: Announces Plan
   to Spend Next Year at NYU, Har. L. Rec., Mar. 15, 1991, at 1.

   n73. In this article, I refer to the law student as "Charisse Carney,"
   while  I  refer  to  the  almuna as "Charisse Carney-Nunes" (i.e., her
   married name).

   n74.  Interview  with  Charisse  Carney-Nunes  &  Jodi  Grant,  former
   Griswold 9 members, in D.C. (June 23, 2010).

   n75.   Letter   from  Charisse  Carney,  Harvard  Black  Law  Students
   Association  President,  to  HLS  faculty  (May 1, 1991) (on file with
   author).

   n76. Id.

   n77.  Coal.  for  Civil  Rights, CCR Discrimination Lawsuit: Alive and
   Still Kicking, Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 4, 1991, at 10.

   n78. Id.

   n79.  See  Robert  Arnold,  Discrimination  Lawsuit  Against  HLS Gets
   Docketed:  Student  Group Filing "Alive and Well," Harv. L. Rec., Nov.
   22, 1991, at 1.

   n80. See Mass' Supreme Judicial Court to Hear HLS Discrimination Suit:
   SJC  Grants  Students' Motion for Direct Review of Lower Court Ruling,
   Harv. L. Rec., Feb. 7, 1992, at 1.

   n81. Mass. R. App. P. 11(a).

   n82. Lisa Zornberg, CCR Holds Public Meeting: Stressing the Importance
   and Difficulty of the Case, Student Litigators Explain Their Strategy,
   Harv. L. Rec., Feb. 28, 1992, at 1.

   n83. Id.

   n84.  Ashley  Barr, CCR Argues Lawsuit Before SJC, Harv. L. Rec., Mar.
   6, 1992, at 1.

   n85. Id.

   n86. Id.

   n87. Kerlow, supra note 6, at 110-11.

   n88. Barr, supra note 84, at 1.

   n89. Id.

   n90. Id.

   n91. Id.

   n92. Id.

   n93. Id.

   n94. Id.

   n95. Id.

   n96. Id.

   n97. Kerlow, supra note 6, at 121.

   n98.  Robert  C.  Arnold,  4  White  Men  Offered Tenure: Students Say
   Announcement Violates Policy, Harv. L. Rec., Mar. 6, 1992, at 1.

   n99.  Lisa  Zornberg,  Tenure  Candidates Id'd: CCR Asks Them to Delay
   Acceptance, Harv. L. Rec., Mar. 20, 1992, at 1.

   n100.  Ashley  Barr,  Clark, Students Discuss Diversity on "Zero Day,"
   Harv. L. Rec., Mar. 20, 1992, at 1.

   n101. See Arnold, supra note 98 at 1.

   n102.  Id.  The  three  professors  were  identified in the article as
   Regina Austin, Anita Allen, and Gerald Torres.

   n103.  Interview  with  William  Anspach, former Griswold 9 Member, in
   N.Y.C. (June 24, 2010).

   n104. Natasha H. Leland, Law School Dean Meets with Students: Tries to
   Ease Tensions by Addressing Charges of Discrimination in Hiring, Harv.
   Crimson, Mar. 6, 1992, available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/3/6/law-school-dean-meets-with-
   students/.

   n105. Id.

   n106. Id.

   n107.  Fox  Butterfield,  Professor  Steps Up Fight with Harvard, N.Y.
   Times, Feb. 28, 1992, at A12, available at
   http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/28/us/professor-steps-up-fight-with-har
   vard.html.

   n108. Id.

   n109. Id.

   n110. Natasha H. Leland, Bell Vows to Fight On, Harv. L. Rec., Mar. 6,
   1992, at 1.

   n111. Id.

   n112.  Steve  Yarian,  4  White  Men  Offered Tenure: Rudenstine Wants
   Clarification of Hiring Process, Harv. L. Rec., Mar. 6, 1992, at 1.

   n113. Id.

   n114.  Madeline Fain, Jesse Jackson Exhorts HLS to Diversity, Harv. L.
   Rec., Mar. 20, 1992, at 3.

   n115. Id.

   n116. Id.

   n117. Barr, supra note 100, at 1.

   n118. Id.

   n119. Id.

   n120. Id.

   n121. Id.

   n122.  Letter  from  David Smith, HLS Vice Dean, to HLS students (Mar.
   12,  1992) (on file with the author). Smith, the former Assistant Dean
   for  International  Studies  and the HLS Graduate Program, became Vice
   Dean  in  the fall of 1983. See generally Michael Malamut, Smith Named
   to  "Novel"  Position,  Harv. L. Rec., Sept. 23, 1983, at 5 ("The vice
   deanship  is  a  new position created to ease the overload of work and
   responsibility of the dean.").

   n123. Letter from David Smith, supra note 122.

   n124. Id.

   n125. Barr, supra note 100, at 1.

   n126. Id.

   n127. Id.

   n128.  Javier V. Garcia, Law Students Stage 15 Minute Sit-In at Prof's
   Office,    Harv.    Crimson,    Mar.    19,    1992,    available   at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/3/19/law-students-stage-15-minu
   te-sit-in/.

   n129. Id.

   n130.   Ashley   Barr   had  been  wrongly  identified  as  a  student
   participating  in  the  Fried  sit-in  and  was  later absolved of the
   charge.  See  John  Regis,  Ad  Board Moves Against Students, Harv. L.
   Rec.,  Apr.  17,  1992,  at 1; Andy Ward, Fried 4 Absolved, Griswold 9
   Hearing Set for Monday, Harv. L. Rec., May 1, 1992, at 1.

   n131.  See Ward, supra note 130, at 1, for the resolution of the Fried
   4.  The  Administrative  Board  never  formally charged the identified
   students--they received warnings instead. Id.

   n132.  Philip  P.  Pan,  Law  Students  Stage Surprise Sit-In: Sixteen
   Protestors  Drive  Kraakman  From  Office, Occupy Room for 15 Minutes,
   Harv. Crimson, Mar. 20, 1992, available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/3/20/law-students-stage-surpris
   e-sit-in-psixteen/.

   n133. Id.

   n134. Id.

   n135.  Letter  from  Robert C. Clark, HLS Dean, to HLS community (Mar.
   31, 1992) (on file with author).

   n136.  L.  Gordon  Crovitz,  Rule of Law: Harvard Law School Finds its
   Counterrevolutionary, Wall St. J., Mar. 25, 1992, at A13.

   n137.  Ashley Barr, Griswold 9 Take Over Dean's Office, Harv. L. Rec.,
   Apr.  10,  1992,  at 1; see also Flyer from CCR to HLS community (Mar.
   1992) (on file with author).

   n138. Luz Delgado, Boycott Marks 2d "Diversity Day" at Harvard, Boston
   Globe,  Apr.  3,  1992,  at 20 (noting that 300 HLS students boycotted
   classes as well as 650 of the Harvard Kennedy School's 800 students).

   n139.  Flyer  from  CCR  to  HLS  community,  National  Strike Day for
   Diversity Day Thursday (Apr. 1992) (on file with author).

   n140.  Letter from Jeff Lubell, Member on behalf of CCR, to HLS alumni
   (Apr. 4, 1992) (on file with author).

   n141. Lubell was a named plaintiff in the CCR lawsuit.

   n142.  Camille Holmes & Jeffrey Lubell, Letter to the Editor, CCR Asks
   for a Public Apology from Dean Clark, Harv. L. Rec., Apr. 10, 1992, at
   9.

   n143.  E-mail  from  Julie  Su with memo attachment, former Griswold 9
   Member, to author (July 20, 2010, 05:22 EST) (on file with author).

   n144.  Barr,  supra  note  137,  at 1; see also Desda Moss, Professor,
   Students Protest Over Hiring, USA Today, Apr. 7, 1992, at 2A.

   n145.  Telephone  interview with Jill Newman, former Griswold 9 Member
   (July 20, 2010).

   n146. William Anspach, Account of Sit-In (Apr. 10, 1992) (on file with
   author).  Anspach  created  this  document  to aid in the Griswold 9's
   defense in anticipation of disciplinary action by HLS.

   n147. Id. at 1.

   n148.  See  Interview  with William Anspach, supra note 103; Interview
   with Charisse Carney-Nunes & Jodi Grant, supra note 74.

   n149. Anspach, supra note 146, at 2-3.

   n150. Id. at 6.

   n151.  Id.  Ronald S. Sullivan told me during an interview that he was
   present during the first part of the sit-in. See Interview with Ronald
   S. Sullivan, Clinical Professor, Harvard Law Sch., in Cambridge, Mass.
   (May  20,  2010). He left the group to cancel an intramural basketball
   game  that  was scheduled for later that day and to meet with incoming
   admitted  students  in  his  leadership  capacity  with  the Black Law
   Students  Association.  Id.  When  he  came  back  to Griswold Hall to
   re-join  the protestors, Harvard Police officers prohibited his entry.
   Id.  He  spent the night in the building, but was unable to sit in the
   corridor with the Griswold 9. Id.

   n152.  Interview  with  Charisse Carney-Nunes & Jodi Grant, supra note
   74.

   n153. Id.

   n154. Anspach, supra note 146, at 3.

   n155.  Glennis  Gill,  The  Griswold 9: From Start to Finish, Harv. L.
   Rec., Sept. 18, 1992, at 6; see also Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n156. Anspach, supra note 146, at 4.

   n157.  Id.; see also Interview with Ronald S. Sullivan, supra note 151
   (noting  that  Sullivan  helped negotiate bathroom privileges with the
   Harvard Police from outside the Dean's office corridor).

   n158.  Barr,  supra  note 137, at 1. During this conversation, Steiner
   told  the  protestors  that  some  students outside Griswold Hall were
   being  arrested,  but  the  Griswold  9  knew  these claims were false
   because  of  their  communication  with  the  students outside through
   walkie-talkies.  Id.;  see  also Anspach, supra note 146, at 8 (noting
   that  during  the evening, Steiner or someone else told the group that
   Ronald  S.  Sullivan  was  arrested  for attacking a police officer--a
   claim that the protestors determined to be false).

   n159. Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n160. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n161. Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n162. Anspach, supra note 146, at 9.

   n163.  Id. at 5 ("We thought we would be arrested at 5:00 p.m. [on the
   first  day],  but  nothing happened... . At some point, a decision was
   made to stay in the hallway overnight. We felt that we would surely be
   arrested early the next morning.").

   n164. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n165. Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n166. Ward, supra note 130, at 1.

   n167.  Barr,  supra  note  137,  at  1. The Administrative Board later
   clarified  the  difference  between  "dismission" and "expulsion" in a
   letter--a student who has been expelled may apply for readmission, but
   a  student  who  has  been  dismissed  may  not.  Letter from David L.
   Shapiro, Chair of the Admin. Bd., to Professor William W. Fisher, III,
   defense counsel to Griswold 9 (Apr. 21, 1992) (on file with author).

   n168. Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n169. Id.

   n170. Anspach, supra note 146, at 10.

   n171. Id. at 10-11.

   n172.  Coal.  for  Civil Rights, Why We Must Sit-In Today, (not dated)
   (on file with author); see also Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n173. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n174. Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n175.  Boykin  et  al., supra note 2, at unpaged section titled Spring
   1992: The Struggle Escalates.

   n176. Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n177. William Anspach, Our Protest Confronts Injustice, Harv. L. Rec.,
   Apr. 10, 1992, at 10.

   n178.  Rodolfo  J.  Fernandez, Students End 25-Hour Law School Sit-In:
   "Griswold  Nine"  of  Coalition  for Civil Rights Protest Outside Dean
   Clark's   Office,   Harv.   Crimson,   Apr.   8,  1992,  available  at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/4/8/students-end-25-hour-law-sc
   hool-sit-in/.

   n179. Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n180. Regis, supra note 130, at 1.

   n181.  The  backgrounds  of  the  Griswold 9 members in this part were
   taken  from "Griswold 9" Voluntarily Come Forward, Harv. L. Rec., Apr.
   17, 1992, at 6. Note that William Anspach and Lucy Koh were also named
   plaintiffs in the CCR lawsuit. See supra text accompanying note 45.

   n182.  Letter from Camille Holmes, CCR member on behalf of CCR, to HLS
   faculty (Apr. 10, 1992) (on file with author). Holmes wrote:

   Students  on April 6 and 7 staged a sit-in in the corridor in front of
   Dean  Clark's  office just as university students staged a sit-in at a
   Woolworth  lunch  counter  in Greensboro, North Carolina to protest an
   unjust  violation  of  the  law  more than thirty-two years ago. These
   students represented those who wished to talk but saw no one who would
   hear  and  consider seriously student concerns. Diversity is part of a
   quest  to make Harvard Law School a truly great institution, one which
   is  responsive  to  the  concerns of all students and equipped for the
   legal  issues  of  the  twenty-first  century. Please urge the Dean to
   apologize  for  his  representation  of Harvard Law School in the Wall
   Street Journal. Please urge the Dean to take concrete steps to rectify
   HLS' poor record on minority hiring. Please require and help to effect
   positive change at HLS.

   Id.

   n183.  Letter  from  Bethany  Spalding,  HLS student, to HLS Section 2
   classmates  (not  dated)  (on  file  with author) (urging them to sign
   petitions by April 15, 1992).

   n184.  Letter  from  Jesse  L.  Jackson,  President and Founder of the
   National  Rainbow  Coalition,  Inc.,  to  Robert  Clark, HLS Dean, and
   members of the HLS Admin. Bd. (Apr. 15, 1992) (on file with author).

   n185.  Coal. for Civil Rights and a number of student affinity groups,
   Student Groups Call for Dean Clark's Resignation, Harv. L. Rec., Apr.,
   17, 1992, at 15; see also Natasha H. Leland, Law Student Groups Demand
   Clark   Resign,   Harv.   Crimson,   Apr.   17,   1992,  available  at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/4/17/law-student-groups-demand-
   clark-resign/.

   n186.  See  Gill, supra note 155, at 6; see, e.g., Letter from Suzanne
   L. Richardson, Sec'y of the Admin. Bd., to William Anspach, Griswold 9
   member (Apr.17, 1992) (on file with author). Around the same time, the
   Harvard  Law  Review  sparked  a controversy through its annual parody
   edition,  the  Harvard  Law  Revue, in which the authors of the parody
   mocked  the work of murdered feminist law professor Mary Joe Frug, see
   supra  note  66  and  accompanying  text,  and made demeaning comments
   directed  at minority and female HLS students and faculty. See Kerlow,
   supra  note  6,  at  169-275,  for  an account of this event. See also
   Thomas  C.  Palmer,  Jr.,  The Not-So-Civil War at Harvard Law School:
   Revue  Parody Lays Bare Deeper Divisions, Boston Globe, Apr. 26, 1992,
   at 74; Steve Yarian, Faculty Clash over Revue, 1st Amendment, Harv. L.
   Rec.,  May  1,  1992,  at  1.  Responding to the outrage caused by the
   Revue,  fifteen  HLS faculty members distributed an open letter to the
   HLS  community condemning the parody and the "institutional sexism and
   misogyny  that  made  it  imaginable" and urging the administration to
   eliminate  its faculty committee and create a new committee devoted to
   diversifying  the  faculty.  Letter  from  Elizabeth  Bartholet,  Gary
   Bellow,  David Charny, Abram Chayes, Christopher F. Edley, Jr., Martha
   A. Field, William W. Fisher, III, Charles M. Haar, Morton J. Horowitz,
   David  Kennedy,  Duncan  M.  Kennedy,  Frank  I. Michelman, Richard D.
   Parker,  Lewis D. Sargentich & Laurence H. Tribe, HLS faculty members,
   to  HLS community (Apr. 20, 1992) (on file with author). At the end of
   the letter, Professors William Alford, Richard Fallon, Charles Nesson,
   Harry  Steiner,  and  Alan  Stone expressed agreement with many of the
   letter's  characterizations  but  explained that they did not sign the
   letter  because they did not agree with the all of the recommendations
   in  it.  See also Natasha H. Leland, Law Profs Urge New Faculty Hiring
   Process:  Ask  Dean to Dissolve Present Committee, Harv. Crimson (Apr.
   21, 1992), available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/4/21/law-profs-urge-new-faculty
   -hiring/.

   n187. Ward, supra note 130, at 1.

   n188. Id.

   n189. See Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n190.  Peter Cicchino, An Activist at Harvard Law School, 50 Am. U. L.
   Rev. 551, 558 (2001).

   n191. Id.

   n192.  Julie  Su  later  recalled, "The Ad Board offered several 'plea
   agreements'  prior  to  trial  that  included our making apologies and
   promising  never  to  repeat  our  actions  in  exchange  for expunged
   records."  Julie  A. Su, Taking Risks to Uplift Humanity: A Tribute to
   Peter Cicchino, 9 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 35, 41 (2001).

   n193. E-mail from Julie Su, supra note 143.

   n194. Ward, supra note 130, at 1.

   n195. Id.

   n196. Id.

   n197. Id.

   n198. Regis, supra note 130, at 1.

   n199. Harv. L. Sch. Catalog, 1991-1992, at 185.

   n200. Id.

   n201. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n202. Id.

   n203.  Regis, supra note 130, at 1; see also Admin. Bd. Procedures for
   Disciplinary Cases (1992) (on file with author).

   n204.  Admin. Bd. Procedures for Disciplinary Cases (1992), supra note
   203.

   n205. Id.

   n206. Id.

   n207. Id.

   n208. Id.

   n209. Ward, supra note 130, at 1.

   n210.  Letter  from  David  L.  Shapiro,  Chair  of the Admin. Bd., to
   Professor  William  W.  Fisher,  III, counsel for Griswold 9 (Apr. 30,
   1992)  (on  file  with  author).  I  attempted  to  access the hearing
   audiotapes from the Historical & Special Collections Department at the
   HLS  Library  and  was informed that I would not be able to obtain the
   officially  archived  materials that relate to the Griswold 9 incident
   because  Harvard  seals  information  that  relates  to students until
   eighty years after the records were made.

   n211. Ward, supra note 130, at 1.

   n212. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n213. Id.

   n214.  Id.  Moreno  later  explained,  "I  couldn't go on with it. The
   stress  was  horrible. The L.A. riots happened at about the same time,
   and  my  mother's firm [where she works as a secretary] got hit with a
   Molotov cocktail... . That made me realize there are other issues, and
   I  could  do  more  good  getting a Harvard law degree than by getting
   thrown  out."  John Sedgwick, Beirut on the Charles, GQ, Feb. 1993, at
   200.

   n215. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n216. Id.

   n217. Cicchino, supra note 190, at 563.

   n218. Harv. L. Sch. Catalog, 1991-1992, supra note 199, at 185.

   n219.  Natasha  L.  Leland,  Law  School  Protesters  Deny  Charges at
   Hearing,    Harv.    Crimson,    May    6,    1992,    available    at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/5/6/law-school-protesters-deny-
   charges-at/.

   n220. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n221. Id.

   n222. Id. According to Professor Fisher's closing argument notes, Dean
   Coleman estimated that the sit-in cost HLS $ 9,653.04. William (Terry)
   Fisher's  notes  for Admin. Bd.: Final Argument (May 5, 1992) (on file
   with author).

   n223. Leland, supra note 219.

   n224. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n225. Sedgwick, supra note 214, at 156.

   n226.  Id. In an interview with Professor Vagts, he told me that while
   he  remembers  Professor  Charny throwing the notes at him, he insists
   that  Charny missed him. Interview with Detlev Vagts, Professor, Harv.
   L. Sch., in Cambridge, Mass (Mar. 4, 2010).

   n227. Sedgwick, supra note 214, at 156.

   n228. Id.

   n229.  Gill,  supra note 155, at 6. Both Perez and Gordon were members
   of the Fried 4. See Ward, supra note 130, at 1.

   n230.  Interview  with  John  Bonifaz,  CCR co-founder, Amherst, Mass.
   (July 6, 2010).

   n231. Leland, supra note 219.

   n232. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n233.  Id.;  see  also  William (Terry) Fisher's notes for Admin. Bd.:
   Final Argument (May 5, 1992), supra note 222.

   n234.  William  (Terry)  Fisher's notes for Admin. Bd.: Final Argument
   (May 5, 1992), supra note 222.

   n235. Id.

   n236. Id.

   n237. Id. (emphasis in original).

   n238. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n239. Id.

   n240. Id.

   n241. Id.

   n242. Su, supra note 192, at 41.

   n243. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n244. Id.

   n245. Statement of the Admin. Bd. (May 8, 1992) (on file with author).

   n246.  Id. at 4-6; see also Rajath Shourie, Ad Board Votes to Warn Law
   School   Protestors,   Harv.  Crimson,  May  11,  1992,  available  at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/5/11/ad-board-votes-to-warn-law
   /  (noting  that  five  members  of the Administrative Board voted for
   giving   the   student   protestors   warnings  and  three  voted  for
   reprimands).

   n247. Statement of the Admin. Bd. (May 8, 1992), supra note 245, at 8.

   n248. Id. at 8.

   n249.  Professor  Minow  became  HLS  Dean on July 1, 2009. See Martha
   Minow  Named Dean of Harvard Law School, Harv. Gazette, June 11, 2009,
   available at http://news.
   harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/martha-minow-named-dean-of-harvard-l
   aw-school/. Minow succeeded Elena Kagan, who in 2003, became the first
   woman  to  be  appointed  HLS  Dean.  See  Sam  Dillon, First Woman is
   Appointed  Dean  of  Harvard  Law,  N.Y.  Times, Apr. 4, 2003, at A18,
   available at
   http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/us/first-woman-is-appointed-as-dean-
   of-harvard-law.html.  Kagan  left HLS in 2009 to become U.S. Solicitor
   General;  she  was  later confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in
   August  2010.  See  Obama  Names  Elena  Kagan  Solicitor  General: If
   Confirmed  by  Senate,  HLS Dean Would be First Woman in the Position,
   Jan. 5, 2009, Harv. Gazette, available at
   http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/01/obama-names-elena-kagan-
   solicitor-general/;  Carl  Hulse,  Senate Confirms Kagan as Justice in
   Partisan  Vote,  N.Y.  Times,  Aug.  5,  2010,  at  A1,  available  at
   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/politics/06kagan.html.

   n250. Martha Minow, The Third Annual Peter M. Cicchino Awards Program:
   Lawyering  at  the  Margins: Lawyering for Human Dignity, 11 Am. U. J.
   Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 143, at 144-145 (2003).

   n251. Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n252.  Todd Hartman, CCR Suit Dismissed, Harv. L. Rec., Sept.18, 1992,
   at  1;  see  also  Harvard Law Sch. Coal. for Civil Rights & others v.
   President  &  Fellows  of  Harvard  Coll.,  413 Mass. 66, 67-72 (Mass.
   1992).

   n253. Hartman, supra note 252, at 1.

   n254. Id.

   n255. Id.

   n256.  June  Shih,  Board  Denies  Bell's  Appeal: Corporation Rejects
   Former  Law  Prof's  Leave  Request,  Harv.  Crimson,  Aug.  21, 1992,
   available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/8/21/board-denies-bells-appeal-
   pformer-weld/.

   n257.  Interview with Frank Michelman, Professor, Harvard Law Sch., in
   Cambridge, Mass. (July 1, 2010).

   n258. Shih, supra note 256.

   n259. Id.

   n260.  Harvard  Law Notifies Bell of Dismissal for Absense [sic], N.Y.
   Times, July 1, 1992, at A19, available at
   http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/01/news/harvard-law-notifies-bell-of-di
   smissal-for-absense.html.

   n261.  Betsy  McGrath,  Bell  Urges Continued Pressure, Harv. L. Rec.,
   Oct. 9, 1992, at 1. Professor Bell also filed a civil rights complaint
   with  the  Department  of  Education's  Office  for  Civil Rights over
   minority  faculty  hiring  at HLS. Laura M. Murray, HLS Hiring to Come
   Under Federal Scrutiny, Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 30, 1992, at 2.

   n262.  Letter  from Robert C. Clark, HLS Dean, to HLS community (Sept.
   8, 1992) (on file with author).

   n263.  Steve  Yarian,  Dean  Clark  Offers Peace Initiative in Letter,
   Harv. L. Rec., Sept. 18, 1992, at 7.

   n264.  David  S.  Clancy,  Project  on Community at HLS Gets Underway,
   Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 2, 1992, at 4.

   n265. Id.

   n266.  April Rockstead, Ad Board Changes Policy in Response to Sit-In,
   Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 2, 1992, at 2.

   n267. Harv. L. Sch. Catalog, 1992-1993, at 180.

   n268.  Rob Weissman, Students Hold Silent Vigil: Protestors Later Meet
   with President Rudenstine, Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 23, 1992, at 1.

   n269. Id.

   n270.  Steve Yarian, CCR Holds Meeting with HLS Alumni, Harv. L. Rec.,
   Oct. 30, 1992, at 1.

   n271.  Michael  Chmura,  Letter to the Editor, Integrating Harvard Law
   School,  N.Y  Times, Feb. 1, 1998, at 416 (Chmura wrote this letter in
   his official capacity as News Director of HLS).

   n272. Id.

   n273.  Welcome  Guinier,  Harv.  Crimson,  Feb.  4, 1998, available at
   http://www.thecrimson.
   com/article/1998/2/4/welcome-guinier-pwe-welcome-the-announcement/;
   see also Sarah G. Vincent, Guinier Says Yes to Tenure at HLS, Harv. L.
   Rec., Feb. 6, 1998, at 1.

   n274.  Richard  Chacon,  Guinier Named to Law Faculty at Harvard: Move
   Addresses  Criticism  on  Diversity  at School, Boston Globe, Jan. 24,
   1998, at A1.

   n275.  Harvard Univ. Office of the Senior Vice Provost, Faculty Dev. &
   Diversity Annual Report 15 (2009),
   http://www.faculty.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/down
   loads/Annual%20Report%202009%20For%20Internet%20Final  0.pdf. The data
   in  the  Senior  Vice  Provost's  report are based on November 1, 2008
   snapshots and are limited to paid, primary appointments. Id. at 51.

   n276.  Ladder  faculty  at  HLS  consist  of  tenured and tenure-track
   professors.  See  e-mail from Liza Cariaga-Lo, Harvard Univ. Assistant
   Provost for Faculty Development & Diversity, to author (July 20, 2010,
   11:37 EST) (on file with author).

   n277.  Harvard Univ. Office of the Senior Vice Provost, supra note 275
   at 15.

   n278. Id.

   n279.  Id.  Although  20% of the ladder faculty members are women, HLS
   J.D.  Admissions  Office  data  reports that the incoming class of HLS
   students  in  2009  is  comprised  of  48% women. See Harvard Law Sch.
   Admissions Fact Sheet (2009) (on file with author).

   n280.  Harvard Univ. Office of the Senior Vice Provost, supra note 275
   at 15.

   n281. Id. Although 11% of the ladder faculty members are professors of
   color,  HLS J.D. Admissions Office data report that the incoming class
   of  HLS  students  in  2009 is comprised of 34% students of color. See
   Harvard Law Sch. Admissions Fact Sheet (2009), supra note 279.

   n282. See Annette Gordon-Reed '84 to join the Harvard faculty, Harvard
   Law  Sch., (Apr. 30, 2010), http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/04/30
   annette.html;   Triple  Appointment  for  Historian:  Pulitzer  Winner
   Gordon-Reed  to  join  HLS,  FAS, and Radcliffe, Harv. Gazette, May 3,
   2010, available at
   http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/triple-appointment-for-h
   istorian/.

   n283. See generally Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development
   of  Black Insurgency 1930-70 (1982); Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement:
   social  movements  and  contentious  politics  (2d ed. 1984); David S.
   Meyer,  Protest  and  Political Opportunities,30 Ann. Rev. of Soc. 125
   (2004);  David  S. Meyer & Debra C. Minkoff, Conceptualizing Political
   Opportunity, 82 Soc. Forces 1457 (2004).

   n284.  See,  e.g.,  Susan Olzak & Emily Ryo, Organizational Diversity,
   Vitality  and  Outcomes  in  the Civil Rights Movement, 84 Soc. Forces
   1561, 1563 (2007) ("Additions to the organizational population produce
   a  type  of  'demonstration  effect' in which an increasing density of
   organizations  and  concomitant  rise  in  protest  activity signal to
   insiders  and  outsiders  that  support  for the movement is rising.")
   (citation  omitted);  Meyer  &  Minkoff, supra note 283, at 1470 ("The
   logic  of  [the signals model] is that activists and officials monitor
   changes  in  the  political environment, looking for encouragement for
   mobilization  and for advocating policy reforms."); Tarrow, supra note
   283,  at  88  ("Protesting  groups put issues on the agenda with which
   other people identify and demonstrate the utility of collective action
   that others can copy or innovate upon.").

   n285.  Debra  C.  Minkoff,  The  Sequencing  of  Social  Movements, 62
   American Soc. Rev. 779, 780 (1997).

   n286.  Doug  McAdam,  "Initiator"  and "Spin-Off' Movements, Diffusion
   Processes  in  Protest Cycles, in Repertoires and Cycles of Collective
   Action 217, 219 (Mark Traugott ed., 1995).

   n287.  Id.  at  219.  Doug McAdam argues that "initiator movements may
   help  to spawn later struggles, but the impetus for this process would
   appear  to  be  cognitive or cultural rather than narrowly political."
   Id.  at  226. This is apparent in the HLS protests in the early 1990s.
   While the public interest advising protests did inspire and enable the
   faculty  diversity protests, the initiator movement did not expand the
   political  opportunities for the subsequent diversity protests. McAdam
   further  suggests that spin-off movements may be "disadvantaged by the
   necessity  of  having  to confront a state that is already preoccupied
   with  the substantive demands and political pressures generated by the
   early risers." Id. at 225.

   n288. See sources cited supra note 11 and accompanying text.

   n289. Telephone interview with Lisa Otero, former CCR member (July 14,
   2010).

   n290.  Telephone  interview with Laura E. Hankins, named CCR plaintiff
   (July 12, 2010).

   n291.  Interview  with  Charisse Carney-Nunes & Jodi Grant, supra note
   74.

   n292. McAdam, supra note 286, at 227.

   n293. See sources cited supra notes 11 and 12.

   n294. See Stone, supra note 59, at 1.

   n295. See Barr, supra note 137, at 1.

   n296. See Gill, supra note 155, at 6.

   n297.  Letter  from  Elizabeth  Bartholet,  Gary Bellow, David Charny,
   Abram  Chayes,  Christopher F. Edley, Jr., Martha A. Field, William W.
   Fisher,  III,  Charles  M.  Haar,  Morton  J. Horowitz, David Kennedy,
   Duncan  M.  Kennedy,  Frank  I. Michelman, Richard D. Parker, Lewis D.
   Sargentich,   &  Laurence  H.  Tribe,  HLS  faculty  members,  to  HLS
   community, supra note 186.

   n298.  Interview  with  Charisse Carney-Nunes & Jodi Grant, supra note
   74.

   n299.  Telephone Interview with Marie-Louise Ramsdale, former Griswold
   9 member (June 28, 2010).

   n300. See sources cited supra note 23 and accompanying text.

   n301.  John  Thornton, Law School Rally Inspires Other Harvard Groups,
   Harv. L. Rec., Apr.20, 1990, at 1.

   n302. Id.

   n303. Id.

   n304. Id. at 1, 12.

   n305. Interview with John Bonifaz, supra note 230.

   n306. Delgado, supra note 138, at 20.

   n307. Id.

   n308.  See  generally  Robert  D.  Benford  &  David  A. Snow, Framing
   Processes  and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment, Ann. Rev.
   of Soc. 611 (2000).

   n309. Id. at 613 (citations omitted).

   n310. See supra notes 2, 4, 78 and accompanying text.

   n311. See Delgado, supra note 138, at 20.

   n312. Id.

   n313. Interview with John Bonifaz, supra note 230 (emphasis added).

   n314. Rights Groups Plan to Rally for Diversity, supra note 22, at 1.

   n315.  Letter  from Vania Montero et al., Board Members of La Alianza,
   to David Smith, HLS Vice Dean, with a copy to Neil Rudenstine, Harvard
   Univ. President (Apr. 9, 1992) (on file with author).

   n316. Cicchino, supra note 190, at 563.

   n317.   See   generally  John  D.  McCarthy  &  Mayer  Zald,  Resource
   Mobilization  and Social Movements: A Partial Theory, 82 Am.J. of Soc.
   1212 (1977); Olzak & Rio, supra note 284, at 1565.

   n318.  Cf.  Olzak  &  Rio,  supra  note  284,  at  1566  (arguing that
   "diversity  of  goals and tactics... ought to increase the size of the
   mobilized  population,  which  in  turn should increase the movement's
   capacity  for  collective action"); Scott E. Page, The Difference: How
   the  Power  of  Diversity  Creates  Better  Groups, Firms, Schools and
   Societies  173  (2007) (arguing that diverse groups can lead to better
   outcomes because multiple perspectives facilitate problem solving).

   n319. E-mail from Linda Singer, supra note 53.

   n320.  Interview  with  John  Bonifaz,  supra note 230. See Jim Houpt,
   Disabled  Student  Seeks  to  Organize  to Pressure Administration for
   Improvements,  Harv.  L.  Rec.,  Dec. 1, 1989, at 1, for an account of
   Mark McGoldrick's initial organizing efforts.

   n321. Portions of the CCR Lawsuit, supra note 42, at 10.

   n322. See supra Part II.D.

   n323. E-mail from Julie Su, supra note 143.

   n324. See supra notes 158, 161 and accompanying text.

   n325.  See E-mail from Jodi Grant, former Griswold 9 member, to author
   (June  25, 2010, 14:21 EST) (on file with author); Telephone interview
   with Jill Newman, former Griswold 9 member, supra note 145.

   n326. See E-mail from Jodi Grant, supra note 325.

   n327. E-mail from Julie Su, supra note 143.

   n328.  E-mail  from  Jodi  Grant,  former Griswold 9 member, to author
   (July 8, 2010, 11:30 EST) (on file with author).

   n329.  E-mail  from  John Bonifaz to author (July 14, 2010, 12:50 EST)
   (on file with author).

   n330. Id.

   n331. Id.

   n332. E-mail from William Anspach, former Griswold 9 member, to author
   (July 22, 2010, 15:55 EST) (on file with author).

   n333. Id.

   n334. Id.

   n335.  See Interview with John Bonifaz, supra note 230; Interview with
   William Anspach, supra note 103.

   n336.  This  is  consistent with Sidney Tarrow's view that there exist
   cycles  of  protest that "resemble politics in general in their uneven
   and  irregular  diffusion  across  time  and  space."  Sidney  Tarrow,
   Struggle  Politics,  and  Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements,
   and Cycles of Protest 46 (1991).

   n337.  Jeff  Bucholtz,  La  Alianza  Drops Out of Coalition: Cites CCR
   Communication Problems, Harv. L. Rec., Apr. 23, 1993, at 4.

   n338.  See  Matthew  Huggins  &  Jonathan  Davis, CCR Changes, Faculty
   Diversity  Issues  Remain,  Harv. L. Rec., Oct. 15, 1993, at 1; Rajath
   Shourie,   CCR  Organizes  "Diversity  Day":  Law  School  Celebration
   Features  Rally,  Student-Faculty  Happy Hour, Harv. Crimson, Oct. 27,
   1993, available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/10/27/ccr-organizes-diversity-d
   ay-ppoetry-authored/.

   n339.  See  Ishaan  Seth, Law School Silent After Activist Past, Harv.
   Crimson, Feb. 25, 1994, available at
   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/2/25/law-school-silent-after-ac
   tivist-past/  (noting  the  absence  of  rallies, sit-ins, fliers, and
   demonstrations in 1994 at the law school).

   n340.  See,  e.g.,  Victoria  Kuohung,  CCR  Lobbies  Profs  for  More
   Diversity,  Harv.  L.  Rec.,  Mar.  4,  1994,  at 1 (discussing "lobby
   days");  Victoria  Kuohung,  "Strike  Day"  Questions Diversity of HLS
   Faculty,  Harv.  L.  Rec.,  Apr.  29, 1994, at 1 (discussing diversity
   celebrations  and  silent  vigils);  Greg Stohr, CCR Lobbies, But Many
   Students  Remain  Quiet, Harv. L. Rec., Mar. 3, 1995, at 1 (discussing
   more "lobby days").

   n341. Interview with John Bonifaz, supra note 230.

   n342.  Interview  with  Charisse Carney-Nunes & Jodi Grant, supra note
   74.

   n343.  See  Boykin  et  al.,  supra  note  2  (a  circulation copy and
   non-circulation   copy   in   the  Historical  &  Special  Collections
   department are available for review).

   n344. Id., at unpaged section titled A Reason to Celebrate.

   n345. Id.

   n346. Id.

   n347. See Interview with Ronald S. Sullivan, supra note 151.

   n348.  Id.  But  see  Barry Langman, Letter to the Editor, Integrating
   Harvard  Law  School,  N.Y.  Times, Feb. 1, 1998, at 416, available at
   http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/01/opinion/l-integrating-harvard-law-36
   3626.html   (arguing   that   protests   at  HLS  in  the  1990s  were
   counterproductive   to   minority   and   female  hiring  because  the
   administration  delayed  these  appointments  in  order to prevent the
   appearance  of  capitulating  to  student  demands  and many qualified
   minority   and  female  professors  were  reluctant  to  join  such  a
   contentious  environment).  Note  that Langman was a student member of
   the Administrative Board that tried the Griswold 9. See supra note 201
   and accompanying text.

   n349.  E-mail from Charisse Carney-Nunes, former Griswold 9 member, to
   author (Jul. 7, 2010, 18:13 EST) (on file with author).

   n350. Id.

   n351. E-mail from William Anspach, former Griswold 9 member, to author
   (Jul. 8, 2010, 08:54 EST) (on file with author).

   n352.  E-mail  from  Jodi  Grant,  former Griswold 9 member, to author
   (Jul. 8, 2010, 11:30 EST) (on file with author).

   n353.   See   Black  Law  Students  Association  Conference  Looks  at
   Post-Katrina  Criminal  Justice,  Harv.  L.  School,  Apr.  10,  2009,
   available at
   http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/criminal-law/blsa.html.

   n354. See Santa Clara Judge Wins Senate Confirmation, SFGate.com (June
   8,    2010),   http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-08/news/21781394   1
   superior-court-federal-bench-federal-judge.

   n355. Id.

   n356.  E-mail  from  Jill  Newman, former Griswold 9 member, to author
   (Jul. 22, 2010, 20:11 EST).

   n357.  See Elizabeth Moreno '93, Record Columnist, Activist, Member of
   "Griswold Nine" (1966-1997), Harv. L. Rec., Feb. 14, 1997, at 5.

   n358.  E-mail from Marie-Louise Ramsdale, former Griswold 9 member, to
   author (Jul. 9, 2010, 16:02 EST) (on file with author)

   n359. Id.

   n360. E-mail from Julie Su, supra note 143.

   n361.  Id.  Former  CCR  co-founder  John  Bonifaz, who is an election
   lawyer and voting rights leader, was also a recipient of the MacArthur
   Fellowship in 1999. E-mail from John Bonifaz to author (Jul. 14, 2010,
   13:01 EST) (on file with author).

                                                                     Page

                                                                     Page

                  27 Harv. J. Racial & Ethnic Just. 49, *


, , :

.      


:

  Diaspora*

:

:

:

(? ? ? OpenID?)

e-mail ( , - ):

:

( -):