Law Review Editors Censure Schulman

Former President Not to Address Banquet

The editors of the Harvard law Review passed three resolutions censuring former president Emily R. Schulman '85, in a vote earlier this week.

Seventy-one of the Law Review's 80 editors voted on four resolutions, all of which sought to reprimand Schulman for her actions as president of the prestigious journal.

One of the proposals, that Schulman not be allowed to publish an article in the Law Review this spring, was defeated.

The editors passed, by a margin of 41 votes to 30, a resolution stating. "The Law Review shall censure Emily Schulman over her conduct during the last year."

The editors also voted in favor of a proposal that the Law Review's annual donation to charity, traditionally given in the name of the president, be made this year in the name of the Law review instead.


And further, they decided that Schulman will not be allowed to speak at the law Review's annual banquet next month.

Law Review President Van I. Nguyen supplied The Crimson with a written copy of the four proposals, including the tabulated results.

Schulman, who stepped down last month with the selection of Nguyen, had drawn a firestorm of criticism from her Law Review colleagues dur- inquiry into the matter.

The report of the inquiry, conducted by Boston attorney Ralph D. Gants '76, cleared Schulman of the discrimination charges, but many Law Review editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the report's conclusions.

Nguyen, the current president of the Law review, denied that this week's resolutions were motivated by the editors' displeasure with the inquiry.

"These proposals [to censure Schulman] do not have to necessarily be interpreted as logically contradictory to the conclusions of the Gants report," Nguyen said.

Professor of Law Richard D. Parker, a member of the Law Review's board of trustees, said in an interview yesterday that he was "certainly glad" that Schulman had not been barred from publishing her article in the Law Review.

"The other three [resolutions] are within the prerogative of the editors," Parker added, "but since I accepted the findings of the Gants report, I wouldn't have voted for them."

Law School Dean Robert C. Clark did not return phone calls yesterday