Whether such an attitude is responsible for the gender disparity that exists at the Law School we cannot say. What we can say is that the disparity is glaring and troubling. Though men and women enter on equal footing, female students (despite blind assessment) soon fall behind in grades and honors. They comprise less than 20 percent of tenure-track faculty. Their representation on the prestigious Harvard Law Review is nearly as bad. School culture, characterized by cutthroat competition and the Socratic method, may also take a greater toll on women than on men, as was suggested by the “Shatter the Ceiling” coalition, founded to address systemic gender disparities at the Law School.

“The law leaves much room for interpretation, but very little for self-doubt,” Woods’s professor warns her class. When the truth is ambiguous, masculine volume and confidence can sound a lot like well-reasoned argument. The spike in women’s marks following the Law School’s introduction of a blind-grading policy is evidence that some critics will hold the same quality of work in lower regard when they know it was produced by a woman. Even when women deserve respect, subtle issues of perception—even in the absence of outright discrimination—mean that they are less likely to get it.

History is also a problem—HLS did not admit women until the 1950s; they did not make up a significant portion of the student body until recently. The disadvantages we observe may be in part the legacy of an old boys’ club.

But social psychology and history are explanations, not justifications, for the gender disparity. The more difficult and pressing question is: What can be done to address the inequity?

We hesitate to encourage the Law School to discard the Socratic method, a remedy endorsed by the Shatter coalition. It does women an extreme disservice to suggest that they are incapable of learning under a particular pedagogy. The Socratic method may be harsh, but we believe it prepares lawyers for a profession that requires rigorous and sometimes rapid analysis.

Prominent women like U.S. Supreme Court Justice and former Law School Dean Elena Kagan, former Law School professor and sitting U.S. Senator Elizabeth A. Warren, and current Dean Martha L. Minow inspire confidence. But their efficacy as role models for ambitious female law students is limited if their successes are viewed as the exception and not the rule. More work should be done to even out representation on the HLS faculty. Even if the same could not be said 20 years ago, we doubt very seriously that there are fewer qualified up-and-coming female attorneys than there are males.

Moreover, solutions to complex problems are rarely aided by a lack of transparency. We believe HLS, at the very least, should release data on grades, something it has not done since the implementation of its honors, pass/fail system. We would also encourage students and professors to reflect on personal biases. If the disparity is in part the result of underlying social and perceptual problems, it cannot be fixed overnight. But incremental changes will likely precede systemic ones.

Hopefully, if there is a 2021 movie about a woman attending Harvard Law, the audience won’t be laughing.

This isn’t Theodor Herzl’s Zionism. The father of Jewish nationalism thought Jewishness should serve as an ethnic base for an atheistic polity. Though Lapid is an avowed secularist, he has not demanded the abolition of the rabbinate, a state body, now controlled by the ultra-Orthodox, which regulates Jewish marriages, conversions, and burials and oversees kosher certifications. Yesh Atid’s Knesset membership is drawn from a wide range of Jewish traditions. Dov Lipman is an ultra-Orthodox rabbi from the United States who made his name fighting religious extremism in Beit Shemesh. Ruth Calderon is the founder of a progressive, egalitarian beit midrash. Shai Piron is a religious Zionist and headmaster of a yeshiva.

Yesh Atid supports the central planks of the secular agenda. Lapid has endorsed civil marriage, military service for the Haredi, and the right of non-Orthodox Jews to pray as they choose at holy sites. With his new government portfolio as finance minister, he has reduced funding for Haredi schools, places where zealotry is encouraged and math is treated like goyishe nakhes. He has also proven himself an adroit foe of Israel’s kibitzing theocrats, forcefully rebuking Knesset members from religious parties who chided him for using social media on the Sabbath.

What distinguishes Yesh Atid from previous secular parties, however—including the one Lapid’s father headed up—is that it is unafraid to speak in the language of Jewish tradition and refuses to concede Judaism as the demesne of Haredim.

Citing Torah and Talmud, national epic and personal narrative, Calderon gave an inaugural speech to the Knesset that called for “the creation of a new Hebrew culture in Israel,” reconciling secular and religious, past and future. Shortly after, she attended a conference of religious Zionists and clarified just exactly what that message meant. Calderon assailed rabbinical injunctions prohibiting property sales or rentals to Arabs as a form of racism. She denounced homophobia and transphobia as “bigotry, injustice, and a profanation of God’s name.” Briefly interrupted by a pisher’s heckling, she corrected his Hebrew.  “All people,” Calderon affirmed, “non-religious and religious, women and men, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Jews and non-Jews, all were created in the image of God.”

That universalist appeal is usually associated with liberal theology, but it also has deep roots in general Jewish religious thought. Consciously or not, Calderon channeled Yitzhak Halevi Herzog, the first chief rabbi of Israel and a prominent advocate of a halakhic state. Claimed as an idol by rabid Arab-haters, he actually condemned discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex.

Whether One Nation Jewishness is an answer to the Palestine question remains to be seen. Yesh Atid’s record is mixed thus far. During the campaign, Lapid committed to good-faith negotiations with Palestinians, and backed a limited settlement freeze. His party recently scotched a bill that would have required a settlement be approved in a nation-wide referendum. Yet he has pledged to keep all of Jerusalem in Jewish hands, a considerable stumbling block for Palestinians who want the eastern half of the city as their capital.

While Yesh Atid desires a less corrupt, less divided, and more prosperous Israel, this is, after all, a vision of Israel. Many party voters are cozily ensconced in the Tel Aviv bubble. They don’t read the papers, and, if they do, they skip over news from the West Bank. This year, they went to the polls because the price of cottage cheese was prohibitive and the rent was too damn high. The denizens of Tel Aviv and Ramallah inhabit different species of time: one good, another bordering on inhuman.

After a visit to the West Bank, Adi Kol, a Yesh Atid MK from Tel Aviv, recounted how jarring the experience was, writing on Facebook about the humiliation she faced at checkpoints and the abject poverty she saw along the road. “I am afraid, afraid that we will continue to live this way, afraid of the fear,” Kol confessed.

I am afraid, too. But I am less afraid than I was last year. There is a future.

Daniel J. Solomon ’16 is a Crimson editorial writer in Matthews Hall. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays. Follow him on Twitter @danieljsolomon.

The list goes on and on and on. From the inappropriate SAT and family financial status questions to the unanswerable “How did you get in?” (wouldn’t I like to know) question to the much more normal college experience questions, we get these a lot. Just ask my teammate, who, during our tournament, was literally followed around a Goodwill store between games by members of a certain men’s club basketball team who wanted desperately to know her SAT score (and probably her number, but that’s a different story). However, this time what really struck me about her questions was the never asked, but very much underlying question, “What is Harvard?”

This is a doozy of a question—one with a plethora of possible answers depending on the context, your experiences, and even your mood. Two days ago, though, it hit me that the responses to another popular question could provide a pretty accurate answer to “What is Harvard?” It’s a question that has been part of every Harvard conversation recently: “What are you doing this summer?”

In the summer, Harvard comes alive. During the year, Harvard students certainly do incredible things. The classes we have to take, the assignments we must do, and even our extracurricular commitments, regulate our lives. Even though we each have unique classes and activities, our ultimate schedules stay fairly similar. In the summer, though, our true interests and passions emerge. We travel to the Middle East, work at summer camps that promote peace between students in Israel and Palestine, raise HIV/AIDS awareness in Tanzania, dedicate ourselves to start-ups, or work long hours in internships to try to figure out where our futures lie. Simply, we do everything in pursuit of our passions.

How does this define Harvard, though? Our summers define Harvard because our summers are what we came to Harvard for. Ultimately, we chose to go to Harvard because we wanted to have to opportunity to find and pursue our passions. During the year, we prepare for our futures and expand our minds, but though Harvard may grant us an opportunity for a better education, students at any other university attend classes for the same reason. However, in the summer Harvard students’ paths diverge from those of other students. Harvard gives us not only the opportunity to pursue our passions, but also the opportunity to see and change the world in a way that is very unique.

So what is Harvard? On the verge of the end of school for the year, Harvard is anything and everything. Harvard is internships. Harvard is globetrotting. Harvard is service projects and start-ups. Harvard is having the chance to do something truly incredible for three months. So take that. Make use of the opportunities that Harvard gives you and run. Change the world, discover yourself or maybe just have a ton of fun. We only get three college summers, so take advantage of them. Harvard grants us a wonderful chance to truly be ourselves and do what we want to do during the summer, so do it. Have a great summer!

Tessa A.C. Wiegand ’15 is an engineering sciences concentrator in Mather House. Her column appears on alternate Mondays.

There are numerous inconsistencies between Harvard’s policies on campus and those of its companies. Last year, food service workers at Harvard Law School asked the University for a fair process to unionize. Harvard agreed, remaining neutral in their unionization process and respecting the majority of workers’ request to form a union. However, at the DoubleTree Hotel in Allston, also owned—but not managed—by Harvard, workers have not been granted a fair process to create and join a union without intimidation or interference from managers, despite repeated requests. In fact, workers at the DoubleTree even filed suit with the National Labor Relations Board in April 2013, alleging that management illegally interfered with their unionization process. Why should the workers at a hotel directly owned by Harvard be treated any differently than workers on this campus?

Harvard directly owns at least 11 companies in Chile. One, Agrícola Brinzal, is currently being sued by CONAF, the National Forestry Corporation of the Ministry of Agriculture of Chile, for multiple violations of Chilean law against deforestation. Another Chilean company owned by Harvard, Agrícola Duramen Limitada, was fined by Chilean courts for similar activity. A company owned entirely by Harvard should not be engaging in alleged illegal logging practices.

As members of the Responsible Investment at Harvard Coalition, we ask that Harvard University and Harvard Management Company be responsible owners with all funds and companies in which it holds a controlling stake—that is, in which it is a majority shareholder, majority owner, or full owner. We demand that Harvard act to ensure that the policies of these companies comply with basic standards of responsibility.

First, Harvard’s companies must comply with all local, national, and international laws and treaties in all areas where the company is operating, whether or not these laws are rigorously enforced by local authorities.

Second, Harvard must ensure that its companies are acting as sustainably as possible, as Harvard has committed to do on campus. The University’s website states, “Harvard University believes universities have an accountability to the future—a special role and a special responsibility to address global challenges as large as climate change and environmental sustainability.” Harvard’s Sustainability Principles note, “The University has an affirmative record of responsible compliance with environmental and safety regulations and a proven effective system of environmental management accountability.” Harvard’s companies should embody these principles too.

Third, Harvard’s companies must recognize workers’ right to collective bargaining and union representation, as well as promise neutrality and a fair process for unionization, even if these rights are not enshrined in local legislation. They must also guarantee parity in wages and benefits between directly hired and sub-contracted employees.

Fourth, Harvard’s companies must respect land rights, including the rights of small farmers and indigenous people. They must not infringe on any legitimate land tenure rights, including where such rights are not formally recorded, and they must seek to prevent all violent conflict over land tenure rights.

Fifth, Harvard’s companies must adhere to Harvard’s hiring and employment policies. The University’s own published non-discrimination policy states that “Any form of discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, veteran status, or disability unrelated to course requirements is contrary to the, principles and policies of Harvard University.” The same policy must apply for all of Harvard’s companies.

Finally, Harvard’s companies must be transparent and accountable. They must produce and publish online annual reports disclosing all political contributions, lobbying activities, the position and compensation of the top 10 highest-compensated employees, and conflicts of interest.

We have laid out these principles—and a way for Harvard to enforce and remain accountable for them—on the website of the Responsible Investment at Harvard Coalition. We demand that Harvard become a responsible owner now, by working toward a fair unionization process for the workers at the DoubleTree, by rectifying any alleged illegal deforestation in Chile, and by adopting our proposed Standards for Responsible Ownership for all of its companies.

Harvard’s companies should not be harming the environment, their workers, or the world. Harvard has the ability to bring about change in the companies it controls, and the moral obligation to do so.

Kevin S. Wang ’16 lives in Stoughton Hall. Alexi White, MPP '13, is a student at the Harvard Kennedy School. Caroline T. Zhang ’16, a Crimson news writer, lives in Wigglesworth Hall.

Reflecting on my time here, there is nothing I would rather do than thank Harvard for all that it has done, and how better to thank an academic institution than to list all that it has taught me. So Harvard, a sincere thank you for teaching me the following:

How to deal with failure. I am a strong proponent of the maxim that hard work can take you anywhere. But at Harvard, trying your best does not always lead to success. I have been rejected from several job offers, scholarship awards, and even extracurricular activities. A proud person in a similar situation would have called it quits. But these failures built in me a resilience I could not obtain any other way. As many of my peers can probably identify with, I was not used to failure at my public high school, where I accomplished whatever I set my mind to. Ask me during high school about failure, and I would have stated it was not an option. Now, perhaps drunken from senioritis, I understand failures are a part of life. There will be people better than me, and working hard might not be enough to compete against them—but that’s okay. Failure doesn’t mean the end; it just means you have to find a more interesting route to get what you want.

How to relax. Perhaps an addendum to the last item, in which I learned that everything tends to work out in the end as long as you keep trying. Harvard has taught me the importance of relaxation. To paint a picture of how nerdy I was before coming to Harvard, I was the girl who chose to attend a Future Problem Solvers competition during Harvard’s pre-frosh weekend. I never relaxed in high school, and so I didn’t enjoy what I was doing as much as I could have. From Harvard, I take away the term “brain break” and will apply it to my everyday schedule.

But also how to not relax too much. I remember how relieved I felt after my five o’clock moment—humbled beyond belief, but also glad that my life seemed set. I was going to a great institution and there was no way I could end up failing after graduating from there. What I didn’t realize until coming here, however, is that Harvard does a great job of ensuring greatness from its students, but these countless opportunities need to be sought after. So underclassmen, shamelessly take advantage of these opportunities! Take a class from a Nobel laureate, experiment at Harvard’s Innovation Lab, and go to that next talk by a Supreme Court Justice. Because you will never get opportunities like this anywhere else, let alone for free.

How to seize the day. A friend once joked with me about how she flashes her Harvard ID at museums hoping to gain free admission. Riffing from the previous point, take advantage of what Harvard has to offer and use it for your benefit. Materialistically, this means getting any free merchandise that comes your way—I have more water bottles than could possibly be useful. But Harvard’s “carpe diem” extends to other opportunities that might add more to your intellectual and personal wealth, like taking challenging classes and talking with professors who are leaders in their fields.

How to be appreciative and thankful. It is easy to complain about Harvard, but when we stop to really think about how much Harvard has shaped us and helped us with our future plans, we should sheepishly accept that these complaints are meaningless compared to what Harvard offers us. If you’re still skeptical, take a minute to think of all the great things you’ve done at Harvard that would not be possible anywhere else.

This list could extend for pages, but these top five items are the ones for which I am most thankful. Harvard, it’s been a great four years, and I wouldn’t take back any of it for a second. Thank you for making me the person that I am today, a more relaxed, more confident Harvard graduate, ready to pursue my dreams without abandon.

Gina Yu ’13, a Crimson editorial writer, is a biomedical engineering concentrator in Dunster House. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.

The overemphasis of China as an economic powerhouse, both at home and abroad, has drastic implications. For one, it suggests that China can only influence the world through economic power rather than through the power of its culture. Second, the Chinese may become indifferent to the characteristics of the individual, thus diminishing the personal responsibilities that good citizens should have for their country and society as a whole.

We have repeatedly seen the impersonal, obedient representations of China and Chinese people in international media. Economic figures, mass labor, pollution, violation of human rights, and IT hacks are some examples of how China is seen through the Western lens. Due to market incentives, Hollywood movies often add a scene in Shanghai or Hong Kong and throw in a few minor Chinese characters. These representations are often faceless, mysterious, and uninteresting business or political men or women. Recent controversy on a Chinese edition of Iron Man 3, the only version that includes Chinese actors, exemplifies how the representations of individual Chinese characters are of marginal importance to the rest of the world; these characters are included in movies because of Chinese market demand rather than any sort of international appeal. We must chide the movie producer for selectively excluding these characters and thereby perpetuating the representation of their insignificance.

However, some Chinese people also have to take partial blame for the marginalization of their countrymen. In recent years, some Chinese people have not made a good name of themselves. From Hong Kong to the U.S., Chinese tourists are increasingly characterized by their buying power and their unsocial and disrespectful behaviors. They are welcomed largely as an economic necessity.

The marginalization of the Chinese as individual persons is partially caused by the focus on development that can be measured in numerical scales. Since Deng Xiaoping opened up China’s markets to the outside world, we have seen economic development and political reform at an impressive pace. Some of what people say is true: Chinese people are diligent, hardworking, and oftentimes put the group before the individual. But the modern Chinese also often focus more on things that can be measured, like achievements and gains, rather than on personal growth and development, which is naturally more ambiguous and difficult to measure.

Great nations leave a legacy to the rest of the world. Economic benefits come and go, but crafts, actions, and beliefs are passed on to the rest of the world for centuries to come. The U.S. has many problems with its democratic system, from an inability to carry out meaningful policies to chaotic congressional discussions. However, one thing the U.S. does have is its resilience. Despite its many past mistakes, including the recent failure to pass background checks on weapons, its people have shown instances where they are willing and able to "run again." So I must ask: What is China's legacy and character as a nation and as a people?

China must take human and character development as an important building block to fulfilling the "Chinese Dream." Besides offering its citizens the opportunity to own a car and a house, China must take on something more substantial and long lasting. It needs more than ephemeral wealth to characterize and glue its people together. Culture and personality will be the key. Only through a realization of human and character development can China truly offer more than what the misleading, dull representations suggest. From an economic lens, this type of development would enhance innovation and creativity. From a humanistic lens, the Chinese people would maintain a higher level of happiness through community, in spite of economic fluctuations, and offer their rich and historical array of cultural and spiritual ideas to the rest of the world.

Representations of Chinese by both themselves and the West do not present a full picture. I have known many Chinese friends who have equal potential for empathy and creative thinking as the entrepreneurs and humanitarian workers we see in mainstream media. These people, who could truly contribute to the wellbeing of their fellow man, have yet to be able to exert themselves as a representation of the Chinese character. China has the ability to offer its own citizens and the rest of the world much more than material progress.

Daniel J. Dong ’16 is a Crimson editorial writer in Matthews Hall.

Certainly, some of the reforms are quite refreshing. We are glad to see that regular classes are no longer allowed to take place during reading period. This mainly affects language courses, which previously would often continue to meet and cover new material during reading period. This change better reflects the spirit of reading period as a time for study. Under the new policy, it is clear that reading period is a time for review of the past semester’s content in preparation for a culminating assessment, as opposed to simply another week for more content to be squeezed in before finals.

Other issues are left ambiguous. The language of the new finals period, now officially titled “Final Examination and Project Period,” specifies exams “up to three hours in length.” Currently, classes holding exams are required to schedule a three-hour test. This model is unreasonable for all classes, especially those that also include other forms of final assessment like a project. In some circumstances, a one- or two- hour exam could suffice to assess students’ knowledge of relevant material. Briefer and more concise exams would certainly benefit students, freeing up time and reducing the stress of lengthy testing. As such, we hope that the new phrasing in the exam policy translates into increased flexibility for professors in constructing exams.

But the revised plan also leaves untouched several fundamental problems with reading and exams periods. Under the new policy, final assessments such as papers or projects must be due “no earlier than the fourth day of Reading Period” but before a class’s assigned examination date. While modifying the formally permissible range in which these assignments could be given, in all likelihood this will not meaningfully change students’ schedules. Papers and projects can still be due during reading period at professors’ discretion, and students can still easily be left facing multiple major assignments with closely coinciding due dates. In addition, by shortening reading period and extending finals period, the new plan simply recategorizes the time in which papers and projects can be due. While under the new plan assignments would be due during “finals” period, it is not clear that this would be substantially different in practice from the status quo.

FAS’s new reading and exam period policy brings much-deserved attention to the stress involved in finals period. Though a small step forward, this change is far from sufficient.

In her unveiling of the bill, Warren pointed out that it “isn’t right” that the Fed charges banks an interest rate of .75 percent, while the unsubsidized Federal Stafford Loan program charges students 6.75 percent. There are, however, many right reasons why the rates are different. The .75 percent discount rate is for overnight loans, which are loans only available to banks in good financial condition and which provide collateral for their loans. It is also not a day-to-day financing option for banks, but rather a last resort to ensure financial stability during events such as the September 11 attack. Student loans, on the other hand, are mostly risky long-term loans to individuals without credit history and collateral. Banks are very unlikely to default on their overnight loans, while 17.3 percent of student loans which originated in 2009 are expected to default over their lifetime. The suggestion that banks and students should have the same interest rate may be politically popular, but it shows Warren’s lack of understanding of debt and finance.

Senator Warren’s legislation aims to give young Americans access to artificially cheap financing options, but it could end up hurting the same people she is trying to help. The federal student loan programs make it easier to finance higher education, which increases the demand for higher education. The laws of economics predict that higher demand would increase both the price and enrollment of higher education. Indeed, between 2000 and 2010, college enrollment increased by 37 percent, while tuition increased by 71 percent. Tuition hikes cause students to borrow even more for their education, as student debt soared nearly 500 percent to $900 billion during the same period. The supply of artificially cheap loans has caused an arms race between tuition rates and increase of individual debt, and yet Senator Warren’s solution is to make student loans even cheaper.

One does not need to look far to find a historical metaphor for the student debt crisis. In many ways, the growing student debt is looking increasingly like the subprime mortgage bubble that plunged America into a recession. Both home-ownership and college education are part of the American Dream, the crux of the once-prosperous American middle class. In both cases, the government supported the expansion of credit to low-income communities. The political aura of equality and gauzy temptation of the American Dream disguised both bubbles as infallible "investments" that cannot possibly go wrong while ignoring the less promising economic reality.

Unfortunately, if the subprime bubble is any lesson, the student debt bubble will eventually pull down those who try to climb the increasingly steep economic ladder. Students who are encouraged by the government to make bad financial decisions at 18 may be excluded from future economic opportunities due to their poor credit histories. As more young people face an economically incapacitated life, the economy also suffers, as a generation of home buyers, consumers, and entrepreneurs are indentured to their student loans. The graduates’ ability to manage their debt is further deterred by persistent structural unemployment and global competition. A recent meeting between the Federal Reserve and an advisory body highlighted the macro-economic risks of high student debt, as the total student debt surpassed credit card debt and automobile mortgages. Given these grim signs, passing Senator Warren's bill would not be dissimilar to providing government-backed 0.75 percent home mortgages to everyone in the home-buying age at the brink of the subprime crisis. In the unlikely event that this bill becomes law, the bill’s poor timing and cavalier language will almost certainly make Senator Warren an easy target for political blame for a mess that she did not create but to which she merely added the final straw.

Given the poor economics of the bill, I can only hope that Senator Warren’s real intention is to garner publicity and popularity rather than actually implementing her policies. Senator Warren could, however, tone down her rhetoric and propose more realistic solutions. First, most student loans have notoriously inflexible terms. Making financing options more flexible will give graduates more financial autonomy on their existing debt. A floating rate on student loans can also allow new applicants to enjoy the current low interest rate. An ideal student loan system should also be more market-oriented. Students with different majors and who attend different types of colleges should have different risk profiles, and their loan rates should reflect these differences. Differentiating student loans would also encourage students to make more prudent educational and financial choices.

During her successful Senate campaign, Senator Warren established herself as a hardline liberal. However, as the subprime mortgage crisis and debt ceiling debate have shown, simple-minded rhetoric does not create good policies on complicated economic issues. It is perhaps time that Senator Warren puts more economic reasoning and less political point scoring behind her future bills.

Jonathan Z. Zhou ’14 is an applied mathematics concentrator in Eliot House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.