25 minute read
Editorial
The Crimson Edi orial board
The Good Fight Fought Wrong
In one sense, the latest feud between two Harvard Law School professors is just more of the same: a Twitter war of no particular distinction. But in another sense, it seems to be a remind er that behind the all-too-high-andmighty walls of the ivory tower we are by no means safe from an insidious form of contemporary political swordplay.
Since Law School professor emeritus Alan M. Dershowitz announced his de cision to join President Donald Trump’s defense team for the 2020 United States Senate impeachment trial, Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe ’62 has en gaged Dershowitz in a public, turned personal war of verbiage over the merits of Dershowitz’s arguments against im peaching Trump.
While a lifelong Democrat, Dershow itz became one of Trump’s most vocal intellectual defenders, arguing that the charges brought by the U.S. House of Representatives against Trump on the grounds of abuse of power and obstruc tion of Congress were not impeachable. Part of this defense included providing speaking on the Senate floor against im peachment. On the other hand, Tribe has argued that Dershowitz reduced a legiti mate constitutional proceeding to a matter of semantics, in addition to claiming that Derschwitz had become “a bit of a publicity hog and a celebrity seeking fellow.” Dershowitz has fired back with equally fiery language, calling Tribe “a zealot and a partisan” and alleging that he has attempted to silence him.
This debacle takes place at a time when students at the Law School are questioning the roles and responsibili ties of lawyers in our society. Last month, dozens of Law School students protest ed a recruiting event held by corporate law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, which has represented the oil and gas company ExxonMobil in ongoing climate change litigation. And, one year ago, Law Professor and former Winthrop House Faculty Dean Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr.’s divisive defense of Harvey Weinstein similarly drew protest and di vided campus opinion.
As such, the disagreement between Dershowitz and Tribe must be viewed as but one of many arguments in the broad er discourse of what good legal defense looks like, taking place on our campus and across the U.S. Dershowitz abso lutely has the right to defend President
Trump, both as a private citizen and tri al lawyer. Over his high-profile criminal law career, Dershowitz has defended Wikileaks, Mike Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and Claus von Bülow, among others. Moreover, where we notably argued last year that Sullivan’s obligations to the students of Winthrop House provided a conflict of professional interests in his representation of Weinstein, Dershow itz — as far as we can tell — lacks any such competing obligations.
A functioning legal system should guarantee everyone equal protection under the law. Central to that principle is that every defendant, from the most underprivileged to the most controver sial or unpopular, is entitled to legal representation. As heinous as some of the crimes the accused he defended were charged with, we believe it has been within his rights and the dignity of his profession to do so.
That said, we recognize that profes sors and more generally members of the Harvard community will disagree on matters of contemporary politics and le gal matters. We encourage this disagreement of opinion, including on the topic of impeachment, believing that disagree ment can engender critical and mutually beneficial discourse. Still, we wish this discourse remained firmly centered on the ideas at stake and did not devolve into ad hominem attacks. Dershowitz has invited Tribe to take their squab ble off Twitter and instead hold an “academic” debate about the matter. Such a debate, if opened up for the public to hear, could provide fodder for robust dis course among legal scholars, students, and the general public about one of the most important constitutional and po litical matters of our generation. In doing so, Dershowitz and Tribe would have the chance to demonstrate what healthy academic disagreement looks like. As it stands, however, their juvenile jabs and attempts at character assassination only perpetuate the clickbaity fueding that now mires the national public sphere.
This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journal ism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar top ics.
Submit an Op-Ed Today!
The Crimson @thecrimson
Why Pass/Fail Step 1 is Really Only Step 1 Op-ed
The atmosphere was electric last Wednesday as medical students across the nation celebrated the news that the United States Medical Li censing Exam Step 1 will be evaluated as pass/fail, potentially as early as January 2022 — I was one of them.
Colloquially known as “Step 1,” the eight-hour, up to 280-question exam tests basic science fundamentals, like biochemistry and genetics, and is typi cally taken after the second year of medical school. Since its inception in 1992, the test has become ubiquitously recognized as an essential factor that determines a medical student’s future as a physician. Though the test was not originally de signed for residency selection purposes, the test is weighted heavily by many res idency programs.
The exponential weight placed on the results of this marginally clinically rele vant standardized exam has contributed to the toxic, hypercompetitive environ ment that must be eliminated in medical education. Therefore, I was elated to see the National Board of Medical Ex aminers will do away with its three-digit scoring system and implement pass-fail evaluation instead. However, while this switch may lead to positive gains in the health and wellness of medical students, there is still additional work to be done in order to ensure these changes lead to true improvements of our broken system. Firstly, Step 1 is just one of three re quired USMLE licensure exams. As the policy currently stands, Step 2 (CK) and Step 3 will continue to be evaluated with a three-digit numerical score. While most residency programs don’t require students to sit for Step 2 prior to resi dency applications, this could change with the new policy. Residency directors could require Step 2 be completed before the application period and then empha By Lashyra T. no en
size Step 2 scores more heavily during the application process. Test material companies, which have built a lucrative business for themselves, could then react by creating more over-priced Step 2 prep supplies promising “high yield” material and higher scores. While the latter seems inevitable, I am comforted by the fact Step 2 is a more clinically relevant exam than Step 1, making it a better proxy for clinical acumen.
I am overjoyed we are doing away with the flawed scoring system, but I do worry about the unintended con sequences this will have for students at lesser-known medical schools. Ev ery year the U.S. News and World Report ranks the top medical schools in the country. And though there has been criticism about the validity of these lists, they still, unfortunately, hold value in how we perceive medical institutions. Therefore, many students at so-called “low-tier” medical schools and osteo pathic medicine programs have used the USMLE exam to make themselves more competitive for residency programs. A pass/fail system inherently privileg es students like me at subjectively higher-ranked medical programs. I worry about the effect this system will have on future students’ decisions over where to attend medical school. Will they incur crippling amounts of debt just to attend higher-ranked programs?
Finally and most importantly, chang ing Step 1 to pass/fail will not address the racial and systemic inequities en trenched in the residency application process. As medical schools across the country have implemented their own pass/fail curricula, Step 1 was the last ma jor objective metric residency programs could use to evaluate candidates. With this gone, more emphasis will be placed on research experience, publication, and subjective evaluations, which are often a reflection of a student’s access to men tors, funds, and opportunities, which tend to be limited for students from low er socioeconomic backgrounds. To make matters worse, studies have shown that students of color tend to receive lower scores on subjective evaluations during their clinical years. If a student’s chanc es of getting into their dream residency program hinge on the opinion of racially biased preceptors, what does that mean for the future of medicine?
These are the tough questions we will have to find the answers to as we re spond to this change and ponder how to restructure medical education to best fit our society’s needs. While there will be many challenges ahead, I see this change as an opportunity for medical programs and residency directors across the coun try to redefine what makes a “good” doctor in the twenty-first century. For far too long standardized exams have been the crux of this evaluation. Now is the time for students, educators, and leaders to rise to the occasion and advocate for a selection process that values inclusion, humanity, and community. In lieu of Step 1 scores, residency applicants could be evaluated based on their communi ty involvement, leadership, and more humanistic attributes. Students could dedicate more time in medical school to learning relevant clinical medicine and pursuing meaningful extracurricular activities that will enhance their skills as a physician.
These changes will not come over night, and it will take time and advocacy to make them happen. However, I am inspired by the student leaders and advo cates that have preceded me in making what seemed impossible, possible. Great work has been done; change has been made; now it’s up to us to keep pushing the envelope.
olumn
Dinner Table Ethics Rebecca E.J. Cadenhead hangry
While we celebrated the New Year a month ago, large swaths of Australia were on fire. This, just like superstorms and melting glaciers, is caused by climate change. The environment as we know it is falling apart, and it’s our fault.
A large part of the strain we’re placing on the earth comes down to the food we eat. When I was younger, I spent a lot of time in New York’s Hud son Valley, which is filled with organic farms. This was the vision of agriculture that I was fed: small family farms, rolling green pastures, happy cows. Unfortunately, for the most part, that im age isn’t real.
The food system is an industrial behemoth; pigs and cows, for example, are mostly raised in giant contained animal feeding operations, not in grassy fields. The scale of this industry has con sequences; it’s been estimated that 14.5 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions come from raising livestock alone.
Given this, it’s easy to think that opting out of livestock is the best way to save the planet. Eating ethically, however, requires more thought than you might initially think.
I became a vegan because of climate change; one of the easiest ways to reduce my carbon foot print, I figured, was to change what I ate. Technically, you don’t have to be a vegan to eat sustainably. If you would like to do so, plenty of scientific organizations and national governments have issued guidelines for the amounts and varieties of dairy and meat acceptable to eat on a daily ba sis. Personally, as a college student, veganism was just easier.
However, veganism is not without its own mor al quandaries. A few weeks ago, a video of migrant workers harvesting radishes made the rounds on Twitter, captioned, “heres your reminder that go ing vegan isn’t cruelty free.”
It’s estimated that there are between 1.5 and two million farmworkers in the United States; up to 70 percent of them may be undocumented. Be cause of their immigration status, these workers are subject to physical, sexual, and economic ex ploitation; they work in conditions arguably nearing slavery.
Recently, a friend pointedly commented — as I was eating a quinoa salad — that the American demand for quinoa is hurting the communities where the plant is harvested.
He was right; quinoa lovers have contribut ed to a sharp price increase in Peru and Bolivia, keeping it out of reach for the people who once considered it a staple and inadvertently forcing them to eat much less nutritious food instead. The increase in demand for quinoa and other veg an staples also has environmental costs; growing enough to meet demand has caused farmers to re sort to unsustainable practices, destroying the local environment.
If I were to ignore these things, I would be missing the point of my dietary choices. Mitigating climate change is important to me because of its human impact. Veganism is not the point; limiting suffering is.
The list goes on and on; avocados, bananas, tofu, and almonds, among others, are associated with environmental damage and human exploita tion. If I were to ignore these things, I would be missing the point of my dietary choices. Mitigat ing climate change is important to me because of its human impact. Veganism is not the point; lim iting suffering is.
Still, given the system we live in, I’m not sure that we can eat a truly ethical diet. This is not a cop-out; it’s actually a profound source of guilt. Around a year ago, before I went vegan, I was asked to help kill a lamb for a barbecue. This was at a small, ostensibly sustainable farm. Part of the reason I agreed was that I believe, in general, a closer connection to the things we eat leads to less of an environmental impact.
But, it is not possible to do this in industrial American society (unless, I guess, you’re Mark Zuckerburg). My mother’s parents actually did live that way — they grew up on small farms in the American south where they harvested or killed virtually all the produce and livestock they ate. Today, that land, if it is being used for farming at all, is probably owned by agricultural giants.
So, it might be impossible in our society to get our food in a way that is truly moral. However, it strikes me that perhaps being perfect is not the point. This is not to accept what is blatantly un just; it’s simply an admission that, as individual consumers, we are limited in the choices we have over what we consume.
This doesn’t mean that we have no power at all — we can demand better treatment of farmwork ers and support farmers who treat the earth and their workers well. I became a vegan because I thought it would be the best way to eat more eth ically; it turns out that our food choices are much more complicated. Still, I think the struggle is worth it. Given the choice between doing nothing and doing something, no matter how small, I will always choose the latter.
india From Page 1 Students Protest Indian Official’s Speech at HBS
“We asked them to disinvite the speaker, and they seemed to dodge that. That’s where it end ed, so we took this route of free expression to bring it into public notice, what this person said. It reeks like there’s an intention of cultural suicide.”
Nissar added that many of the protesters felt “deeply hurt” by Chakravorty’s comments.
“We are not people who go on protests routinely. We are working people and students at various universities around,” Nissar said.
“The reason we’ve turned up here today in sizable numbers is that his comments have hurt us deeply. Kashmiri culture has its own history, its own ethos. And he says it’s nothing but Indian culture. It’s like he’s erasing us all,” he added.
Harvard spokespersons for HBS Dean Nitin Nohria and HKS Dean Douglas W. Elmen dorf did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
Alongside MIT Students Against War, Boston Universi ty Students for Justice in Palestine, and Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine, Iqbal Nassar and Harvard Law School students organized a 90-minute protest on the Business School campus where Chakravorty would be speaking.
An hour in, 40 protesters — a mix of Boston anti-war ac tivists, students across Boston, and ethnic and native Kash miri working class Bostonians — gathered outside Spangler Hall. They shared Kashmiri tea and held signs reading “Kash mir wants Freedom,” while chanting, “No hate speech, hate speech is not free speech!” and “From Kashmir to Palestine, occupation is a crime!”
During the protest, one con ference attendee yelled “Stop Islamic atrocity!”, to which the protesters responded by yelling “Shame!”
The Indian government did not respond to a request for comment on the protest Mon day.
Throughout the protest, speakers from each of the orga nizing groups took turns giving speeches.
Zarka Shabir — a Harvard Law School student, protest or ganizer, and Kashmiri native — reflected on her family in Kash mir during her speech to the protesters.
“It’s been six months since I left home and I haven’t seen a single image of my parents. I speak to them once a week and worry about my family’s safe ty all the time. We live in constant fear,” Shabir said. “I am a member of this school, I do have a right to be protected by its boundaries. I do not feel repre sented by this event today.”
Other speeches focused on what protesters termed Har vard’s role in “legitimizing” officials like Chakravorty by giving them a platform.
“Free speech, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, is about protecting citizens from the government. It’s not about giving men like Chakravorty a platform at an institution of higher learning, it’s not about legitimizing them,” Boston an ti-war activist Ryan V. Costello said.
As the protest concluded around 1:30 p.m., HLS student and protest organizer Shaiba Rather ’17 called on the students who invited Chakravorty to think critically about their im pact on the wider community.
“Indian students who are paying great sums of money to come to Harvard and come to these conferences, interro gate what you hear. Interrogate what kind of country is being built,” Rather said.
luke.williams@thecrimson.com
UC Votes to Expand Power of Caucus System
By sharon xu Crimson Staff Writer
Harvard’s Undergraduate Council unanimously approved legislation expanding the reach and power of the body’s caucus system, which aims to strength en the UC’s connections with affinity groups on campus.
Previously, caucuses were limited to Council members and could endorse — but not propose — legislation. The new ly passed legislation opens caucus membership to all Harvard undergraduates. Caucuses can now propose legislation regard ing event publicity or UC issue statements as well.
UC president James A. Mathew ’21 and vice president Ifeoma “Ify” E. White-Thorpe ’21 campaigned for UC leader ship in part on expanding the caucus system to more of the student body.
The UC has so far established Black, Latinx, Asian-American, and First-Generation Low-In come Caucuses.
Dudley Community repre sentative Katherine E. Wang ’20, a former Crimson de sign editor, said the legislation would increase the power of the Council’s caucuses.
“We really want to give cau cuses the ability to actually do stuff,” she said.
At Sunday’s meeting, the UC also voted to allocate $300 to a “Meet the First-Generation Low-Income Caucus Event,” a week after it voted to fund a similar event devoted to the Black Caucus.
The Council also voted to help fund Datamatch, a free matchmaking service run by Harvard students. The nearly $3,200 allocation from its dis cretionary “Burst Fund” continues the Council’s long-standing support for Datamatch.
Kirkland House representa tive Carter H. Nakamoto ’21 voted against the legislation, arguing that Datamatch could find other sponsors and that oth er organizations need the UC’s money more urgently. Nakamo to also criticized what he called Datamatch’s lack of inclusivity. In Jan. 2018, after facing crit icism from UC members, the Datamatch team announced they would add a non-binary gender option to the survey.
“I would posit that the way that Datamatch handles issues around non-traditional gen der identities is suboptimal and that this is effectively subsidiz ing these suboptimal recognition of non-binary gender identities,” Nakamoto said.
Adams House representa tive Alexa C. Jordan ’22 said she personally enjoyed her ex periences using Datamatch and called it “a great way to meet people.”
“Datamatch is something so exciting that happens every year for Harvard College stu dents,” Jordan said. “I think one of the responsibilities of the Harvard Undergraduate Coun cil is to provide funds that help to bring the campus closer to gether.”
The UC also unanimous ly voted to publicize an Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response healing group using a Council mailing list. Repre sentatives debated the merits of publicizing a university initia tive through UC channels.
Jordan described the OSAPR healing group as “essential,” but raised questions about whether publicizing it would set a prec edent.
“I just want to make sure that when we send out emails, it’s with intention,” Jordan said. “I would love to show, may be through the wording of the email, to convey how much we care about it to put our name be hind it — not saying that we are the ones who are starting this, but we support it.”
sharon.xu@thecrimson.com
Letter to HKS Dean Advocates for Climate Change Education
By Sixiao YU Crimson Staff Writer
Harvard Kennedy School students sent a letter to HKS Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf earlier this month advocating for bet ter climate change education and programming.
HKS student body president Charlene A. Wang sent the let ter, which aims to “strengthen HKS’ focus on the politics and policy of climate change” via three goals: strengthening faculty and teaching around the topic, improving academic structures, and creating a cen ter for climate research.
Charlene A. Wang HKS Student Body President
“As educators of current and future leaders, HKS has a unique opportunity to shift the narrative on climate change— transforming it from an ideo logical issue to one that delivers jobs, prosperity, health, and opportunities,” the letter reads. “Averting climate collapse comes down to whether we can muster the political will to com pel government action. Of all institutions at Harvard, the Kennedy School is best suited for this charge.”
HKS student Camila E. Thorndike, a Bacon Environ mental Fellow at the school, said the school lacks “meaning ful” climate education.
“We believe that the School of Government is the natural home to lead on educating fu ture public policy makers, expert analysts, even corporate leaders on climate solutions,” Thorndike said. “In our discus sions with the administration, there’s a disappointing kind of outsourcing of that responsibil ity to centers like the the Harvard University Center of the Environment, which may exist but is largely invisible to HKS students.”
On Feb. 14, six days after Wang sent the original pro posal, Elmendorf responded to Wang’s message to confirm he had received the proposal and was in the process of developing a “constructive response.”
“Your group raises a large number of issues that cut across different aspects of the School’s work, and developing a con structive response will take me and my colleagues some time,” Elmendorf wrote in an email. “We’ve begun that process, and I think we can have a more use ful meeting with you all if we wait until we’ve made some progress on our end.”
Two days after Wang sent the message to the dean, El mendorf sent an email titled, “Addressing Climate Change in the Kennedy’s School’s Oper ations” that touched on several climate initiatives the school has launched in recent years.
The letter highlighted the ways HKS has taken steps to re Douglas W. Elmendorf has served as Dean of Faculty and Don K. Price Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School since January 2016. Steve . li—Crim on photographer
duce its carbon footprint, such as by installing solar panels on some of its buildings, reducing food and plastic waste, and en couraging alternatives to air travel for its faculty and staff. Elmendorf also wrote about on going climate research and fellows at the school, noting that the school was working on an improved method for dissemi nating that information.
“Our research, teaching, and engagement related to climate change range from climate change agreements to energy markets, science policy, geopol itics and security, human rights and ethics, and more,” he wrote. “We are currently developing a way to better share information on this work, and we will let you know when it is available.”
Elmendorf ended the letter by writing that he was “heart ened” by the school’s focus on climate issues, but was “well aware” there was more work to be done.
Raven Graf, an HKS student and a member of Harvard’s Cli mate Leaders Program, said the school’s responsibility to re spond to climate change should be an operational and academ ic goal.
“The core of this comes down to we’re facing down a global crisis that threatens the health, safety, and survival for hun dreds of millions, if not billions, of people, and politics and policy is a fundamental barrier to glob al action and building that political will,” they said. “As a policy school, HKS has an obligation to step up in that context.”
“A really important part of that is we need climate change integrated into the core cur riculum,” they added. “Anyone holding a degree from the Har vard Kennedy School needs to understand how their work im pacts and will be applied to the context of the evolving climate crisis to be effective in their world and their future work.”
sixiao.yu@thecrimson.com
travel From Page 1
Bacow Presents Harvard to the World on Foreign Trips
and immigration process that often treats international stu dents and international scholars with scrutiny and suspicion, if not outright disdain and dis trust,” Bacow said. “As a result of the disruptions and delays, talented women and men from around the world are reconsid ering their decisions to join our college and university commu nities.”
Bacow added that he believes national immigration policies can “undercut” the strength of academic institutions.
“Now, let me be clear, na tional security is a legitimate concern, but I believe we must be wary of policy that under cuts the strength of the very institutions that make coming to the United States worthwhile,” he said.
In July, Bacow penned a let ter to U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and then-acting U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin K. McAleenan to share “deep concern” over immigration policies under President Donald Trump’s ad ministration.
Bacow made headlines fol lowing his first foreign trip as Harvard’s president to China and Japan last March. He met with Chinese President Xi Jin ping and delivered a speech at the country’s elite Peking Uni versity as part of his high-profile visit to the country.
The state-run Xinhua News Agency reported Bacow said Harvard will continue promot ing exchanges and cooperation with Chinese educational and scientific research institutions during his meeting with the President. The agency also re ported that Bacow said he came as a representative of U.S. uni versities to promote educational exchanges with China.
Former University President Drew G. Faust also met with Xi on a 2015 visit to Tsinghua Uni versity. In recent years, China has faced criticism that the Ui ghurs, a Muslim minority group living in Western China, expe rience detention and surveillance at the hands of the Chinese government — allegations the country denies. Bacow’s speech at Peking University made veiled reference to these issues.
“It is no wonder, then, that transformational thought and action often take root on uni versity campuses,” he said. “They are places where individ uals are encouraged both to listen and to speak, where the value of an idea is discussed and debated — not suppressed or si lenced.”
Lawrence S. Bacow University President
To conclude his speech, Ba cow read from Uighur poet Abdurehim Ötkür, calling him “one of China’s great modern poets.”
Bacow has also reconnect ed with alumni during foreign visits. During his trip to Asia, he participated in events with local Harvard alumni clubs in Hong Kong and Japan. Last November, he also met with alumni on a trip to the inaugu ral International Leadership Workshop held by the Harvard Alumni Association in Amster dam, Netherlands.
Throughout his travels, Ba cow also made references to protests in Cambridge — in cluding calls for the divestment of Harvard’s endowment from the fossil fuel industry and the establishment of an Ethnic Studies department, and dis putes surrounding the contract negotiation for Harvard’s grad uate student union.
During his speech at Em manuel College in January, Bacow discussed the challenges universities faced when he was an undergraduate, recounting the 1969 occupation of Har vard’s University Hall by anti-Vietnam protesters and the 1970 firebombing of Tufts.
“Our students are organiz ing and protesting,” Bacow said. “This time it’s not about war. This time it’s about climate change; it’s about inequality; it’s about sexual assault and ha rassment—it’s against a whole host of structures and systems that jeopardize the possibili ty of a future that they believe might be far more just.”
He added that students’ ear nestness and passion remind him of his undergraduate years, but that he fears their ire would put the University “in tension” with their values.
Bacow referenced ongoing student protest at Harvard in his March Peking University speech.
“In many circumstances, my role as president is not to define the ‘correct’ position of the Uni versity but to keep the channels of discussion open,” Bacow said. “And one of the most import ant—and most difficult—of our tasks is to ensure that all mem bers of the community feel empowered to speak their minds.”
