Women in Public Service

Daniel Bever '17
Guest Columnist

The second annual Women in Public Service event occurred last week. This year, the event included several features, most notably a panel, several roundtables, a reception, and an insightful keynote address by State Senator Jennifer McClellan (’97).

History and Purpose of Event

The annual event was founded last year by outgoing Virginia Law Women President Casey Trombley-Shapiro Jones (Law ’17), who wanted to create a public service counterpart for Virginia Law Women’s “Women in Big Law” event that would correspond with student ambitions relating to public service.  

The event enabled law students to interact and network with alumni in public service. It performed the function of disabusing law students of the notion that there is only one route into public service: entry directly after graduation.  Finally, it offered a valuable opportunity for law students to meet, interact, and network with alumni in public service.

Overall, the event left students invigorated and more knowledgeable about what it takes to enter a career in public service. They are several gateways of entry. If addressed correctly, attorneys can grow professionally and engage in a collegial bar. There are numerous ways to practice law, and, as the event demonstrated, numerous ways to practice in public service.  Public service attorneys expressed their support for events like Women in Public Service, which highlight career alternatives to the traditional law school-to-private firm pathway many students elect to take.

One Event, Two Parts

The components of the event came in two parts. The first component featured a panel and several roundtable discussions. The second included the keynote address and reception. 

While the event did not officially commence until 4:00 p.m., several panel speakers arrived earlier, interacting with other law students and practitioners over coffee and light refreshments. Building relationships and promoting interactions between law students and practitioners proved to be, as planned, one of the event’s greatest boons.

Panel and Round Tables

The panel, “Private Pathways into Public Service,” was well-attended. It was one of the event’s biggest draws in 2016, and the trend continued. The panel included five attorneys: Elisbeth Bennett (Clearly Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton); Sarah Hall (Securities and Exchange Commission, formerly Covington); Sarah Dearing Johns (Associate Counsel at Virginia Commonwealth University); Jennifer Klar (Partner at Relman, Dean & Colfax); and Lisa Lorish (Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, formerly of McGuireWoods).  Trombley-Shapiro Jones, having launched the event in 2016, served as the panel’s moderator. Notably, the panel brought a broad swath of experiences from across the legal field: government, large-firm practice, and specialized private practice—in the immediate context, civil rights law. Particular areas addressed included the benefits and drawbacks of beginning with private practice and transitioning into public practice and strategies for overcoming obstacles from taking a private pathway into public service.

The roundtables are a new feature of the event that offered a relatively intimate environment for interaction. The groups included three or four attorneys and five to ten law students apiece. For their part, the law students certainly did not let the opportunity to engage in a frank discussion pass by, and collegially engaged attorneys with questions on each of the respective topics. Responding in kind, the practitioners did not miss the opportunity to offer valuable insight. Each roundtable had a distinct theme, “Getting Started in Public Service,” “Networking and Relationship-Building,” and “Professional Development.”  

Reception and Keynote Address

The second portion of the reception, beginning at approximately 5:30 p.m. included a networking reception and keynote address from State Senator Jennifer McClellan.

Dean Risa L. Golubuff offered an introduction to the keynote speaker, noting her ability to demonstrate that a private practice and public service need not be dichotomous. Sen. McClellan (Law ‘97) began her career in elected office in 2005, on election to the Virginia House of Delegates.  Some of her key legislative accomplishments include statutes addressing stalking and reforming underage marriage laws. She worked on several committees, including Courts of Justice and Education. In her keynote address, she noted the importance of pursuing a career in public service, when that is the earnest desire of the law student, rather than capitulating to a perceived obligation to pursue a career in private practice.  She went on to discuss the important role women play in leadership positions and lamented common-sense errors that can occur in policy-making when policy-makers are exclusively male.  She also noted the importance of claiming every issue as a woman’s issue, in particular noting the importance of women speaking out on matters such as energy rather than curtailing themselves to issues such as women’s health.

Contributors to Success

The event would not have been successful without generous efforts from several members of the Virginia Law community. Virginia Law Women organized the event with the help of its co-sponsor, the Public Interest Law Association. The Public Service Center and the Program in Law and Public Studies also significantly supported the efforts of the organizers. Finally, while not an official sponsor, Career Services offered valuable assistance by getting event coordinators and alumni together.

The Virginia Law Women’s Women in Public Service event was held at the Law School on April 6, 2017.

---

dab8ru@virginia.edu

Macron on the Move

Jansen VanderMeulen '19
Executive Editor

The first round of France’s presidential election takes place later this month, and the stakes are high for all of Europe. The first round is a free-for-all: eleven candidates from across the ideological spectrum will appear on the ballot. The two candidates who receive the most votes will advance to a runoff, the winner of which will be declared President of the Republic. In the face of miserable approval ratings, incumbent President François Hollande of the Socialist Party declined to seek re-election, setting off a wild, unpredictable race to take his place in the Élysée Palace. The French Presidency has rotated for decades between the center-left Socialists and the center-right Republicans of Mr. Hollande’s predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, whom Mr. Hollande defeated in 2012. Though bitter political enemies, the Socialists and Republicans are both pro-European Union, pro-NATO, and broadly agree on the secular, welfare-state model of post-War France. 

Of the eleven candidates in the first round, the three thought to have the best chance of advancing to the runoff are Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Front (FN), François Fillon of the Republicans, and Emmanuel Macron, who is running a centrist campaign under the auspices of En Marche!, a political movement of his own creation. Ms. Le Pen, the daughter of notorious Holocaust denier and 2002 presidential election-runoff loser Jean Marie Le Pen, has taken the National Front from the despised fringes of French politics to its very center; the FN took first place in the last round of European Parliament elections, shocking the French establishment. The party’s platform is a sign of resurgent European nationalism. It calls for an eclectic mix of left-wing economic policies (protecting the treasured 35-hour work week and increasing pensions for the elderly)  and right-wing populist foreign policy (holding a referendum to leave the EU and enforcing strict limits on immigration) that has proved popular with France’s depressed, ex-industrial north and its affluent, Catholic south alike.

Many observers (including your correspondent) thought, with the Socialist Party crippled and the left divided among many competing candidates, the best chance to stop Ms. Le Pen could be found with Mr. Fillon, a former prime minister in the government of Mr. Sarkozy with a right-wing ideology along the lines of that of Margaret Thatcher. That initially looked to be true; after he won the Republican nomination, polling showed that Mr. Fillon looked to be a lock to make the runoff. But a series of expense and personal scandals have dimmed his star. It is possible he will drop into fourth place behind the hard-left, perennial candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who has outstripped the Socialist Party nominee, Benoît Hamon. Mr. Macron, a former economy minister in Mr. Hollande’s beleaguered government, has roared into the contest’s lead with a counterintuitive platform. While the nationalist-populist wave consumes Britain, the U.S., and threatens German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Macron has become the favorite to become France’s President on a familiar platform of further European integration, cuts to France’s bloated deficit, and labor market reforms. Though a former Socialist, Mr. Macron hopes to capitalize on Mr. Fillon’s ethical difficulties and curry favor with center-right voters uncomfortable with Ms. Le Pen’s radical platform, but unwilling to support a candidate of the hard-left.

So far, Mr. Macron’s “radical centrist” movement seems to be paying off. He leads several recent first-round polls, and he leads by a daunting margin in a hypothetical head-to-head contest with Ms. Le Pen. For a European establishment that just a few months ago faced the very real prospect of a President Le Pen, Mr. Macron’s rise is welcome indeed. Ms. Le Pen is a toxic figure to mainstream Europeans. Her association with her father’s neo-fascist party, her deeply-held animus to the European project, and her blatant xenophobia have long disgusted figures across the European political spectrum, but it is her newfound affection for Russian President Vladimir Putin that is causing the most recent consternation. Ms. Le Pen visited the Kremlin last month and has claimed she “admire[s]” the authoritarian adversary of the west. More threateningly, Ms. Le Pen has spoken approvingly of Mr. Putin’s aggressive annexation of Crimea and has called for Western sanctions imposed against Russia after the territory grab to be removed. Should Ms. Le Pen manage to win the French presidency, another of the key players in the Western alliance will be led by a friend of Mr. Putin’s.

Mr. Macron presents an entirely different path. Beleaguered and bruised by Brexit, the Trump election, and rising extremes on all ends of the political spectrum, the advocates of the European project see in Mr. Macron hope for a moderate, liberal future. Critics and allies alike have compared Mr. Macron and his movement to the center-left wunderkinds of the 1990s, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Mr. Macron does not hide his affection for the European Union or for globalization, both of which are fiercely criticized by the hard-left and hard-right alike. A Macron victory in May would give hope to liberal Europeans that, despite a recent spate of losses, their core projects remain intact. More than just hope, a victory by Mr. Macron could present liberal Europe with a roadmap for the future. Mr. Macron’s sunny, non-defensive, unabashed pro-Europe attitude is in stark contrast with battle-worn figures like Ms. Merkel or Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission. After liberal-conservative Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s re-election in the Netherlands last month, a Macron victory could give liberal Europe its mojo back. With threats like an aggressive Russia, a disengaged America, and continued economic malaise, Europe’s leaders could use all the mojo they can get.

---

jmv5af@virginia.edu

1 http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/09/what-do-we-know-about-marine-le-pen-s-policies

2 Id.

3 http://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-platform-news-election-analysis-france-reforms/

4 http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/frances-macron-seen-winning-presidential-vote-poll.html

5 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-poll-idUSKBN1702HZ?il=0

6 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/world/europe/marine-le-pen-of-france-meets-with-putin-in-moscow.html

7 Id. 

8 http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2016/09/why-emmanuel-macron-france-s-answer-tony-blair

9 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-france-en-marche.html

Lessons from Across the Pond

Baruch Nutovic '19
Guest Columnist

In a momentous June referendum last year, Great Britain decided to leave the European Union. On March 29, the British government triggered Article 50, formally announcing its decision to leave the European Union and starting a two-year period for a negotiated exit. At the same time, the United Kingdom is threatened with disunity. There is a renewed push for Scottish independence, and there are calls for independence referenda in Wales and Northern Ireland as well. It’s an incredibly exciting time in British politics, and it’s worthwhile examining the British partisan landscape, the backdrop against which these developments are taking place. Moreover, a glance at the British partisan landscape can provide perspective on politics here in America. 

Changes are afoot in British politics. Parties usually lose popularity the longer they have been in government, but instead the governing Conservative Party is garnering increased support as it approaches its eighth year in power. Its poll lead over Labour, the leading opposition party, has been above ten percent for months, significantly greater than the Conservatives’ margin of victory at the 2015 general election. Prime Minister Theresa May enjoys a strong net approval rating of +13, with voters appreciating her businesslike personal style, centrist policies, and focus on expanding opportunities for the underprivileged. The Conservatives look like they are headed for a landslide reelection in 2020, which is remarkable considering that they entered government in 2010 almost 20 seats short of a parliamentary majority. 

Of course, the Conservative Party’s success is made possible by Labour’s failure. Labour is deeply divided between the moderates who dominated the party from the mid-1990s through the 2010 election, and the radicals who want Labour to be a hard-left socialist party. In two recent party leadership elections, one of the radicals’ leader, Jeremy Corbyn, prevailed. As an almost seventy-year-old white man with impeccable leftist credentials, Jeremy Corbyn is like a British Bernie Sanders, with somewhat less impressive political skills.

The story of Labour under Corbyn is a cautionary tale for those who think the Democratic Party should embrace Sanders-style radicalism. Not only has Corbyn’s weak leadership been incapable of bridging the divides in his factious party, the extremist positions he has adopted have alienated moderates in their millions. Corbyn is about as unpopular in Britain as Donald Trump.   

The result is that Labour’s poll ratings are Labour’s worst as an opposition party in the era of modern polling, at a time in the parliamentary political cycle when opposition parties are usually peaking. Labour under Ed Miliband—Corbyn’s none too popular predecessor as Labour leader—was five-to-ten points ahead in the polls at this stage, and went on to lose the general election regardless. Under Tony Blair’s moderate leadership in the mid-1990s, Labour was generally fifteen-to-twenty points ahead in the polls. It was winning by-elections—elections held to fill seats vacated during a parliament—with historic swings like the almost thirty percent swing achieved at Dudley West in December 1994. This was the prelude to the greatest electoral victory in Labour’s history: its landslide majority of 179 in 1997. 

Today, by contrast, Labour is suffering historic by-election swings to the Conservatives. In the recent Copeland by-election, they suffered a six-and-a-half percent swing to the Conservatives, and lost a seat they had held since 1935. Governing parties generally do very badly in by-elections, since by-elections are an opportunity to express dissatisfaction with the status quo. So for an opposition party to be hemorrhaging support in by-elections is nothing short of catastrophic.  Not since 1982 had a governing party even gained a seat at a by-election, and not since the Worcester by-election of 1878 had a governing party taken a seat with a swing greater than that the Conservative Party achieved in Copeland. 

Labour seems determined to turn the page forever on its most successful chapter. Tony Blair is a hated figure on the British left, partly owing to his partnership with George W. Bush in the Iraq War, but mostly because of his centrist domestic policies. It’s highly ironic since he’s the most effective leader the Labour Party has ever had. Labour has never won two successive full terms in office—except under Blair’s moderate leadership, when it won three. Jeremy Corbyn’s radicalism, by contrast, looks set to deliver a third consecutive Conservative term, with a greatly increased majority to boot. America’s Democrats would do well to consider the lessons of Labour’s struggles. 

In the context of this UK-wide party dynamic, developments in Scotland are all the more interesting. The main divide in Scottish politics is between secessionists and unionists. Naturally, the Scottish National Party (SNP) commands support from almost all secessionists. Historically, Labour was the leading unionist party. At the 1997 general election, Labour took 56 of Scotland’s 72 seats in Parliament. In recent years, due to weak leadership and rising support for independence, Scottish Labour has cratered. At the 2015 general election, the SNP took all of Labour’s seats in Scotland except one. Labour has lost support in every Scottish Parliament election since the parliament was established in 1999.  In the 2016 Scottish Parliament Election, the unthinkable happened: the Conservatives overtook Labour to claim second place behind the SNP. 

The last time a party actually won a majority of the vote in Scotland was when the Conservatives won slightly more than fifty percent in 1955. From that high-water mark, the party began an almost sixty-year decline. Margaret Thatcher was deeply unpopular in Scotland, and her legacy helped bring about the wipeout of 1997, when the Conservatives lost all their seats in Scotland. Their share of the vote in the Scottish Parliamentary Election of 2011 was in the low teens. 

The remarkable Scottish Conservatives revival has been brought about by their leader Ruth Davidson, a veteran, lesbian, and moderate who has done wonders for their image. No longer seen as an essentially English party standing for selfishness and bigotry, the Scottish Conservatives have made major inroads among erstwhile Labour voters. Unionists increasingly prefer Davidson’s strong pro-union stance to the wishy-washy unionism of the Labour Party, which is still trying to win back former supporters who defected to secessionism and the SNP. Ruth Davidson’s success is a testament to the power of personal appeal, centrism, and good strategy in politics. If the United Kingdom is saved, she will have arguably done more than anybody else to save it. 

Conservatives in America would do well to reflect on the stunning success of their ideological brethren in Britain, particularly with respect to women. Britain’s Conservatives have embraced female leadership without giving special preferences to women in their selection of female candidates, as the Labour Party has done. The result: the Conservative Party is on its second female prime minister while the Labour Party has yet to have a female leader. There is practically no gender gap in British elections, which helps explain why Britain’s Conservatives have been so successful. 

There is much to learn from today’s British political landscape. And for political junkies, following British politics can be as addictive as cocaine in times as dramatic as these.

---

byn9by@virginia.edu

Feel Free to Disagree

Daniel Natal '19
Guest Columnist

Thank you for disagreeing with me. It is not an easy thing to do, I know. I am human, and we humans have fragile thoughts. We treat our ideas like children, often playing the role of the careful parent. We trust each other with the nebulous constellations in our minds and have every instinct to take offense when others fail to treat them gently. It takes a tremendous internal courage to take criticism and disagreement well—and even more to give it.

What could be more daunting, after all, than speaking your mind to contradict the thoughts of another? It is one thing to have the mettle and bravery to bare the abstractions in your head for all to hear and see, and an entirely different thing to be the person, often in the minority, to point out the flaws and imperfections within that construct. How many acquaintances have been offended, ill-feelings birthed, and friendships lost from the direct consequences of our outspoken disagreements? It is human nature to be wounded by an opposing voice, and yet we often choose to brave the risk of hurting others to offer our own dissent. 

What we must implicitly realize, and what we are inclined to ignore when it is our turn to have our opinions disputed, is just how useful disagreement can be. The world would be dramatically different if people kept their disagreement to themselves. Ideas would be furthered on one, often imperfect perspective. The devastating inefficiency of trial and error would become our only practical critique in a world full of nodding heads. The foundations of our society would be built on flawed premises. Indeed, the foundation of our profession is built on disagreement: without it, lawyers would find themselves without a cause in an already amicable and agreeable world.  

Perhaps the most important dissents come from the unpopular or contentious opinions that contravene a majority-held belief. Too often we adopt opinions because of their popularity and make them our own without ever developing the rationale or logic behind them. In a world in which we are constantly surrounded by people who similarly hold a belief, we are sometimes never asked to substantiate our opinion. Absent any challenge, the details that made up the groundwork of our belief become obscure; our opinion morphs into an intuition, based not in logic but in feeling, and incapable of being either expressed or defended from those who would seek to test it. 

Intellectual disagreement provides a forum to improve our thoughts, and provides an opportunity to cultivate our opinions and ideas. When someone confronts the logic behind our opinions, we are forced to think through them. No longer are we permitted to allow logic and reason to disappear into the foreground in such instances—dissent forces us to preserve the original reasons behind the formulation of our opinion, and share them with another. If the challenge is met, and we come to reinforce our reasoning through verbalization, then we are more prepared to support our opinions in the future. 

Dissent from a commonly-held belief has the added benefit of forcing us to reassess societal norms. It is a healthy and necessary thing in our world to question what we have otherwise come to take for granted. There is no harm to be found in being open-minded to such ventures; if we find the norm to be validated and demonstrably worth supporting, we can continue believing it, developing it, and urging people to join in it. Should the opposite be true, however, and the idea be antiquated or otherwise outdated, we are shaken loose from the self-reinforcing cycle of approval and acceptance that encourages potentially harmful customs. Disagreement with a popular outlook is, in this way, an invaluable societal safeguard. 

Voicing a different view is a thankless responsibility. There are few things as difficult and as necessary as providing a dissenting voice. As law students, we should be mindful of this persisting truth, and make every effort within ourselves to resist the temptation to exhibit hostility towards people who disagree with us—their objections will, ultimately, do us a service by providing us an opportunity to solidify and tangibly articulate the otherwise undeveloped ideas in our mind. No useful purpose is served when we deter future disagreement with our in-class arsenal of whispered rebukes, exasperated sighs, and condescending eye-rolls.

Fear of backlash from the classroom often suppresses free thought and leads people to qualify and marginalize their own opinions when they differ from someone else’s. Consistently negative responses to disagreement inspire a general reluctance to disagree with one another in a classroom environment. Dissenters are forced to tiptoe, adopting gentle, neutral phrases like “pushback” to mask a difference of opinion under a placid veil, hoping to avoid triggering their peers’ sensitivities. Many of us have, at some point, villainized another student for their academic and intellectual discourse when it deviates from our own point of view. Perhaps our student body could do a little better to keep our minds open to the harmless nature of disagreement. Civil disagreement should be viewed as a continuation of our thought process, not an attempt to destroy it.  

We could all learn a thing or two from Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once said, “let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” It wouldn’t hurt for many of us to remind ourselves of the truth behind Mr. Emerson’s words. And to those of you who do choose to speak up, have the nerve to say what nobody else might be thinking, andswim against the current of popular thought and directly into the maws of widespread criticism: thank you. You are appreciated, even if it often goes unsaid. 

---

dan2rf@virginia.edu

Populist Wave Hits Dutch Breakwater

Jansen Vandermeulen '19
Executive Editor

The right-wing populist wave sweeping across the Western world hit an unexpected floodwall last week. In elections in the Netherlands on Wednesday, far-right Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV) came up short in their quest to become the Netherlands’ largest party in the Dutch parliament. The Trump lookalike Mr. Wilders, running on a one-page platform that included such pledges as “Close all mosques and Islamic schools, ban the Koran,” and “The Netherlands independent again. Leave the EU,” had long led polls in the election, though few expected him to eventually form a government given the Dutch system’s insistence on multi-party coalitions. Still, the specter of a man who compared the Koran to Mein Kampf coming in first in Europe’s most famously liberal nation was enough to preoccupy European leaders looking worriedly to France’s upcoming presidential election, in which the far-right National Front is looking competitive. 

Defying expectations, the Netherlands’ mainstream parties largely contained Mr. Wilders’ rise. While the PVV gained seats, moving from fifteen seats to twenty in the 150-seat House of Representatives, the mainstream center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) of Prime Minister Mark Rutte won the day. The party’s thirty-three seats are eight fewer than in the past election, but Mr. Rutte is expected to be able to find the seats for a governing coalition among the other large parties, including the center-right Christian Democratic Appeal, the liberal Democracy66, and the left-wing GreenLeft. The liberal European establishment breathed a sigh of relief. “The centre holds,” The Economist declared, while German newspaper Der Spiegel headlined its story on Mr. Rutte’s victory with the phrase “A Triumph of Reason.” 

Columnist Max Wagner wrote in the March 22nd edition of Law Weekly of the Dutch elections as a defeat of the so-called “Leftist Establishment.” That view grossly oversimplifies the dynamics. First, placing European parties on a simple left-right spectrum ignores the significant differences therein on almost every issue. The left-of-center, in particular, has two distinct factions. One, exemplified by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, might be termed the “liberal left.” It is pro-European Union, pro-NATO, and less skeptical of free markets than traditional European leftists. The other group, epitomized by German party Die Linke (“The Left”) and the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, is more traditionally left-wing. It opposes Western adventurism in foreign affairs, is deeply skeptical of free markets, and sees the European Union as inappropriately neoliberal in its favor of free trade. Mr. Wagner points out that the center-left Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) struggled mightily in last week’s election and attributes their disappointing result to the failure of the global left. What he fails to mention is that the party that increased both its vote percentage and seat total the most was GreenLeft. While not as anti-West as the former communists of Die Linke or as stridently anti-NATO as Mr. Corbyn, GreenLeft is dramatically more left-wing than the PvdA. Its dominance represents a triumph of the West-skeptical left, and should not be celebrated by right-wingers such as Mr. Wagner.

Mr. Wagner is right to point out that Mr. Rutte made right-wing gestures in his battle with Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and thereby strengthened his hand with PVV-favoring voters. A diplomatic kerfuffle with the Muslim-majority country responsible for a large portion of the Netherlands’ foreign population bolstered Mr. Rutte’s standing with voters on the right tired of immigration. The well-timed episode, with Mr. Rutte refusing Turkey’s foreign minister entry into his country’s airspace and being called a Nazi by Mr. Erdogan, robbed Mr. Wilders of needed momentum and made Mr. Rutte look strong and decisive just in time for polling day. But the long-term consequences of the dispute are not yet clear. In his victory speech, Mr. Rutte condemned “the wrong kind of populism,” as if to say there was a right kind. His victory may, as Mr. Wagner believes, hail a rightward shift among Europe’s traditionally pro-immigration center-right parties. 

Threatened by populists (often aligned with Russia) on the hard right and facing a disintegrating or directionless center-left, center-right figures like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May have found it to their advantage to co-opt some of the far-right’s immigration rhetoric. After taking millions of Syrian refugees and facing a revolt from more conservative members of her Christian Democrats, Ms. Merkel has tightened Germany’s refugee policy in advance of her bid for a fourth term this autumn, even as the Euroskeptic far-right, Alternative for Germany (AfD) has won key elections on Ms. Merkel’s home turf. Ms. May, an opponent of Brexit prior to her premiership, has determined that the UK will break cleanly with the EU, enacting a so-called “hard Brexit” that severs ties with the European single market as a means of controlling immigration. The poll standing of the right-wing, anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party has fallen by about a third since Ms. May made clear that the UK would end its formal relations with the EU. 

Mr. Rutte has shown that there is electoral success to be found in taking a harder line toward immigration from outside Europe. Expect other conservatives, especially in Germany, to follow his lead. If they can win election in the face of an emboldened far-left and a menacing far-right, mainstream conservatives will look to Mr. Rutte’s method in this election as their textbook for survival. Mr. Rutte’s skepticism of immigrants and outsiders may have been politically successful, but whether it is healthy for European politics and society is another question entirely. Should other right-of-center, traditionally liberal parties adopt the approach, the face of Europe is likely to change, and its longstanding consensus regarding openness to immigrants is likely to wither.

---

jmv5af@virginia.edu

1 http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php/94-english/2007-preliminary-election-program-pvv-2017-2021

2 http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21718929-nonetheless-new-type-identity-politics-emerging-netherlands-geert-wilderss

3 http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/why-mark-rutte-won-election-in-the-netherlands-a-1139055.html

4 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-tightens-germany-s-rules-for-migrants-1.2481503

5 http://time.com/4636078/theresa-may-hard-brexit-single-market/

6 http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Alternative Spring Break: Pro Bono in the Big Easy

Shannon Lane '18
Guest Contributor

Instead of spending their spring break on vacation or relaxing at home, nine groups of students joined Alternative Spring Break (ASB) trips. The ASB program, run by PILA, facilitates trips to serve for a full week with a public service organization. This year, students contributed over 1,000 pro bono hours to organizations in areas including public defense, children’s rights, immigration, environmental law, and general legal aid work. Students get another line on their resume, but they also have the opportunity to learn about new practice areas, get practical experience, and establish professional connections, all while knowing that the work they do goes a long way towards helping these organizations serve their clients. 

Photo courtesy content.law.virginia.edu

The trips were designed to give students a wide variety of options concerning the type of work and the location, and the pre-arranged trips ensure that students are easily able to find pro bono opportunities. Students applied for the program in November and have been preparing for the trips since then as they fundraised and got to know their teams. For those wishing to stay in Charlottesville, both the Legal Aid Justice Center and Central Virginia Legal Aid Society hosted students. Alternatively, students could head to DC to work with the public defender’s office or Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services. Students could also go to Norfolk’s federal public defenders or the Appalachian Citizen’s Law Center in Kentucky to work on health and environmental issues.  Other students spent the week doing immigration work with Church World Services in Greensboro, NC, at the Council for Children’s Rights in Charlotte and at the New Orleans public defender’s office. 

Participants had opportunities to do critical work in interesting areas. The students working with Catholic Charities in DC spent the week trying to get a client’s bond reduced, researching asylum cases, translating legal documents, and working with client intake. I personally spent a large part of my week drafting a brief for an appeal in a minor’s deportation case, which involved researching jurisdiction issues, examining and distinguishing adverse precedent, and looking for multiple avenues to protect our client’s procedural due process rights before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Another group, working with the Council for Children’s Rights, assisted the lawyers there by researching issues, including the role of attorneys assigned for a child’s best interest and how to use litigation to ensure that children can get mental health care and foster care placements. They also had the opportunity to observe several proceedings and were inspired by the dedication to protecting children show by everyone in the legal process. 

The trip to New Orleans to work with the Orleans Public Defenders was by far the largest ASB trip this year. Students were each assigned to work with an attorney and spent the week reviewing body camera footage, working on procedural documents including interrogatories and discovery requests, joined attorneys on jail visits and in the courtroom, and researching anything the attorneys needed. For example, 1L Andrew Papa described his work looking for different ways to exculpate a client, including determining if the client’s Miranda rights were violated, researching possible defenses the attorney could raise, and drafting an investigation report to question witnesses. 

Still, it was spring break, and students made sure they had a good time. After work, students were free to explore their cities and spend time with friends. Students in DC made time for museums. The New Orleans group explored the city’s famous live music and food scenes, and even made it to a Pelicans basketball game. Some students were able to join a trip headed to their hometown. Despite the work involved, it wouldn’t be a spring break trip without some vacation. 

ASB, and pro bono work in general, present unique and valuable opportunities for law students. “What was a means to reach the fifty-hour pro bono requirement to qualify for the New York Bar (hours I had put off so far during law school) turned into so much more. On my first day, I put direct lessons from law school to work. I watched two hours of police body camera footage looking for Fourth Amendment violations. I was able to propose arguments and counterarguments that could potentially lead to the suppression of illegally obtained evidence. Most importantly, I could ensure that a client’s constitutional rights were secured. It felt amazing,” said Gannam Rifkah, a 3L who went on the New Orleans trip. 

As any student who has done pro bono work in law school knows, it gives students a chance to explore new fields, get practical experience, and give back to communities in ways that only lawyers and law students can. With an ASB trip, students can spend a full week immersed in the operations of some incredible public service legal organizations, work closely with staff and other volunteer attorneys, and grow their understanding of the law. As the ASB program grows each year, students will have expanded options and can find just the trip that they are looking for. 

---

skl2tb@virginia.edu

Trump and Gorsuch Would Like You to Know that You Do Not Exist

Greg Ranzini '18
News Editor

“Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.” It’s generally a pretty bad idea to spend too much time thinking about anything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth, but something about that particular statement stuck in my craw. Such is the zeitgeist, I suppose, that such an inane comment not only demands attention but lingers for a month as a familiar, subconscious distraction, like a television left on in the next room or a skin tag. It’s one thing to know that the GOP is hell-bent on scrapping the social safety net and that there’s nothing you can do about it; that’s sadly nothing we haven’t seen before. The bewilderment and petulant “stop hitting my fist with your face” frustration, though? That’s a new wrinkle. 

It’s safe to say that some people other than Donald Trump were aware of healthcare’s complexity. Rather, as we’re learning to our chagrin, when Trump asserts a fact, more often than not it is something else, whether an aspiration, delusion, confabulation, or deception. That goes double when he’s stating core tenets of Trumpism, such as: “Donald Trump is the only conscious being in the universe,” “nothing exists apart from that which Donald Trump comprehends,” and, naturally, “object permanence is fake news.” His is a pseudo-Cartesian skepticism, expounded by an illiterate. 

The problem for Trump is that the world is largely made of “other people,” and at last count, approximately zero of them like his healthcare plan. Some, notably the fire-eaters in the House, won’t accept anything short of a total repeal. Or, perhaps, they simply can’t, having noted that, while the Affordable Care Act is popular, “Obamacare” is not, and made the cynical decision to stake their seats on the support of the 45% of Americans (at last count) who don’t know that the two are the same thing. On the other side, Trump also faces opposition from House and Senate Democrats who, while distressingly willing to hedge and triangulate under normal circumstances, have at least decided that it would be bad politics to sign their names to undoing President Obama’s signature achievement. Their front has been so superficially unified that one might almost be forgiven for believing that the Democrats have grown spines—a happy enough fantasy until one remembers that their refusal, with the Presidency and a two-house supermajority at their fingertips, to enact a first-world healthcare system instead of a cruel, bureaucratic, and uselessly compromised insurance company giveaway caused this mess in the first place. You know your ideas suck when you create a law that saves thousands of lives, but half the people you save are still out for your blood.

Rounding out the roster of “other people” are the millions of Americans who still don’t know whether they’ll have health insurance this time next year. Trump may be able to hide away in his golf resort on the weekends, but those GOP politicians who still bother to have public town hall meetings have been seeing plenty of them lately. Whether they matter at all in the present political situation is still up for debate, however. When “Trumpcare” crashed and burned last Friday, it still did so mostly on party lines. Although the Republicans may harbor some concerns about electoral fallout in the abstract, that wasn’t enough to stop the vast majority of them from trying to take away their constituents’ healthcare. That said, they were at least unwilling to put the question to a roll-call vote. Democracy in action?

The result, for the Affordable Care Act, can only be described as a “stay of execution.” Certainly, the attempt to neutralize it through the budget reconciliation process has failed for the moment, as has every other vote on the issue since the GOP regained the House in the 112th Congress. It remains to be seen whether Trump will follow through on last week’s threat to abandon the idea should this attempt fail. Even if he were to try again, however, his party is unlikely to play ball for the moment: his “threatened” outcome affords them a vital opportunity to save face. Still, expect them to return to the issue just as soon as their President’s goldfish-like attention span scuttles their tax reform plans.

Over in the Senate, meanwhile, we were properly introduced this past week to what a Trump Supreme Court nominee looks like. It wasn’t pretty. On the occasion of Neil Gorsuch’s nomination seven weeks ago, I remarked that, with his conventional mien, “he appear[ed] to be the ringmaster in a tent full of clowns.” That analysis remains accurate as to aesthetics, but does not fully capture the profoundly repugnant human being that we saw smirking and yukking it up on C-SPAN. Asked repeatedly to defend the indefensible, Gorsuch did so with evident gusto. 

Consider Judge Gorsuch’s dissent in TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13071 (10th Cir. July 15, 2016), and his defense of that dissent when asked about it during his hearing. If you haven’t read it already (and you should), here are the facts in TransAm in a nutshell: Alphonse Maddin, a trucker, found himself stranded on the side of the road in subzero temperatures. The brakes on his trailer were frozen solid, and the heating unit in his cab had failed. He radioed for assistance and was told by his company that a repairman was on the way and he was not to leave the cargo. So he waited for two hours, eventually falling asleep, until his cousin fortuitously called him on the phone. Here’s what happened next, according to the majority in the Tenth Circuit:

According to [Maddin’s cousin, Gregory] Nelson, Maddin’s speech was slurred and he sounded confused. When Maddin sat up, he realized his torso was numb and he could not feel his feet. He called Road Assist again and told the dispatcher his bunk heater was not working. He also told the dispatcher about his physical condition and asked when the repairperson would arrive. The dispatcher told Maddin to “hang in there.”

About thirty minutes after his second call to Road Assist, Maddin became concerned about continuing to wait in the freezing temperatures without heat. He unhitched the trailer from the truck, pulled the truck about three feet away, and called his supervisor, Larry Cluck. Maddin told Cluck he couldn’t feel his feet and was having trouble breathing because of the cold. Cluck repeatedly told Maddin to turn on the APU even though Maddin told Cluck several times it was not working.

When Maddin told Cluck he was leaving to seek help, Cluck told Maddin not to leave the trailer, instructing him to either drag the trailer with its frozen brakes or remain with the trailer until the repairperson arrived. Maddin did not follow either instruction but, instead, drove off in the truck leaving the trailer unattended.

Id. at *3.

TransAm subsequently fired Maddin. The Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) found that this termination violated the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, because it constituted retaliation against Maddin for reporting an equipment failure. Two judges of the Tenth Circuit agreed, and declined to second-guess the ARB. Judge Gorsuch, however, disagreed. By his reckoning, Maddin had a choice: 

“He could drag the trailer carrying the company’s goods to its destination (an illegal and maybe sarcastically offered option.) Or he could sit and wait for help to arrive (a legal if unpleasant option). The trucker chose None of the Above, deciding instead to unhook the trailer and drive his truck to a gas station.”

. . .

In [the majority’s] view, an employee should be protected not just when he “refuses to operate a vehicle” but also when he “refuses to operate a vehicle in the particular manner the employer directs and instead operates it in a manner he thinks safe.” Yet those words just aren’t there; the law before us protects only employees who refuse to operate vehicles, period. Imagine a boss telling an employee he may either “operate” an office computer as directed or “refuse to operate” that computer. What serious employee would take that as license to use an office computer not for work but to compose the great American novel? Good luck.

Id. at *23-*23, *26.

In other words, given the choice between “defy[ing] the laws of physics,” Id. at *16, pointlessly risking his life, and saving himself, Maddin picked his life over the directives of his employer. How dare he. Think back to a time that you were cold and stranded. Can you remember how it felt? If you’ve never experienced a winter weather emergency, can you at least imagine yourself in Maddin’s situation and get an idea of how you might have acted? Congratulations! You have a greater capacity for empathy than the man who will probably be our newest Supreme Court Justice. How do you feel about that? If you’re Neil Gorsuch, you probably think that’s beside the point. After all, as he complained at one point during his hearing, it really is just so hard being Neil Gorsuch: “When Byron White sat here, it was ninety minutes. He was through this body in two weeks. And he smoked cigarettes while he gave his testimony.” What kind of barbarians, indeed, would have have the temerity to delay and obstruct a Supreme Court nomination?

Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that a man hand-picked by Donald Trump would share some of his pathologies, but the openness with which Neil Gorsuch rejects the equal humanity of everyone not named Neil Gorsuch still astounds. That he expresses that malignant character through a legal philosophy based on callous pedantry is all the more disqualifying, although it does bring his temperament that much further in line with that of the former occupant of his presumptive seat. Still, Judge Gorsuch should not rest assured of his confirmation. Senate Democrats might yet succeed in forcing Trump to withdraw his nominee, and if last Friday was any guide, we have a pretty good idea of how he will react: scrub his plan, pretend that he’s gotten what he wants, and turn his limited attention elsewhere. It’s anticlimactic, but hey—nobody knew being President could be so complicated.

---

gpr7qx@virginia.edu

Libel's Day Off: A Preview

Joe Baerenz '17
Libel Director

For those of you that don’t know what “The Libel Show” is (and no one really does until they attend it once), Libel is a sketch comedy musical parody show of law school, law culture, law professors, law firms, law students, and the law generally. The show started as some kind of fraternity hazing ritual held on the Rotunda steps over a century ago (lol @ our not-so-shocking ancestry), and has since morphed into a full-scale production with a live band, a ninety-member cast, and flowing keg(s). This is the 109th Libel Show, which makes the show the oldest organization at UVa Law. It has not operated continuously, as it took a break for WWII (serious reason) and was banned for a number of years in the 1920s, apparently because students performed a skit in which a professor who was later to become the Dean participated in a shotgun wedding (he was in the process of marrying a much younger woman at the time). Gods willing, the show will not get permanently banned this year, but it is some small comfort to know that law students were definitely crossing the line some 90 years before my tenure as director. 

I have always seen the show as a sort of cathartic conversation between various parties. For example, last year Professor Kim Ferzan performed “Give An ‘F’” to the tune of “Let it Go,” expressing the feelings that professors have when dealing with students who clearly didn’t give an “F.”  Fortunately, professors are bound by the rules of the curve and strongly discouraged by the administration from actually failing people who turn in an exam, no matter what kind of detritus is sprawled over the ten-twenty pages that the indifferent students have produced. On the other side of it, the premise of “Cold Call Ninja” was an APALSA mentor teaching his 1L how to pretend to be an LL.M as a means of avoiding cold calls, and was based on Teddy Toyozaki’s real experiences. Incidentally, Teddy, Kevin Benedicto, and Andrew Chen (all Libel alumni) were not only confused for LL.M students, presumably owing to their Asian heritage, but were on multiple occasions confused for each other on the law school website. When a life in the law provides that kind of material, it is truly a blessing that Libel is here to satirize it.  

Libel is also in conversation with the Law School administration. Last year we really went after Dean Dugas’ instructional emails, which included a lot of screenshots, no clickable links, and tended to utilize…wait for it…arrows and circles in Microsoft Paint (throwwwbaccckkk!). In a truly sporting manner, not only did Dean Dugas attend the show and laugh, but he bought the entire cast shot glasses with the word “screen” on them. Though Libel’s interactions with the administration do not always have such amicable endings, we try to restrain ourselves from being too unkind in the name of humor—you can decide how well we succeed in that. Dean Davies undoubtedly catches the worst of it (because what’s a play without a villain?) but this year we have tried (a little) to give voice to her perspective. We also go after each other pretty hard, so we at least spread the love evenly. 

Libel is also a contributor to our much-lauded UVa law culture. Because it is a fairly large and random cross-section of moderately talented 1Ls, 2Ls, and 3Ls who are dedicating their time and energy to satirizing the Law School, Libel tends to have a longer institutional memory than most of the organizations in this transient place. For instance, I never would have known that the grades of everyone who applied for a clerkship in 2014 were inadvertently sent to the entire 3L class that year, or that Student Health had somehow accidentally sent out social security numbers a few years before that, or that once upon a time Dean Geis brought his classes ice cream, probably as a ploy to get good course evaluations when he was just a visiting professor from Alabama. See what kind of vitally important information Libel keeps alive? 

Most of all, Libel is just plain fun. Putting 900 high-achieving twenty/thirty-somethings in a small-ish foodie town in the middle of Virginia for three years is a recipe for hijinks. I’ve often told admitted students or new 1Ls in the context of coming from a city with lots of things to do that we “make our own fun.” Libel is at once one of the ways we occupy ourselves in our spare hours and a comment on the rest of the things we manage to come up with. So expect it to be replete with references to PILA, Barristers Ball, Foxfield Races, The Biltmore, Softball Weekend, Feb Club, etc. More than just referring to those large-scale Law School events though, I would rank Libel amongst them. Even if we’re not funny (and, biased as I am, I think that we are) we are most certainly having fun, and as an audience member you should too. Despite the fact that, in the words of former Dean John Jeffries, “I’ve never seen a Libel Show that was too short,” there is baseline good value in seeing your professors impersonated well, your classmates dance around the stage, and a bunch of muscular straight dudes prance around in women’s clothing. So come to Libel 109: Libel’s Day Off, and meet (or reacquaint yourself) with the weirdest, craziest, and most amusing institution at the University of Virginia School of Law. At the risk of sounding unduly sentimental, I instantly fell in love with the show as a 1L. Whether you’re a professor, an administrator, a Law School employee, a law student, or a guest of one, I hope all of you do too. 

Ever Yours,

—Joe Baerenz, Director, The 109th Libel Show

---

fjb9aj@virginia.edu

How to Choose a Journal

Eric Hall '18
Managing Editor

Congratulations! You got an offer (or two) to join a journal. Now you have some decisions to make; first, whether to accept your offer, and if you were lucky enough to get two, which one to take. There’s a lot of misinformation around North Grounds about journals, their importance, and the differences between them. With this article, I seek to clarify some of that. I won’t say which journal is the best or the most prestigious (I’m plainly biased). And I don’t seek to answer every question for every person. I can only give you my suggestions for criteria that might matter to you speaking as someone who got on a journal, achieved a leadership position, and found a good job at OGI. 

Should I Join a Journal?

Too often 1Ls overlook the most basic question they should be asking: is it even worth it to join a secondary journal? The answer, I think, is usually yes, but not for the reason you’ve often heard parroted. You should not join a journal if you’re only doing it because you heard employers will “think you’re weird” if you don’t have one of our 10 journals printed on your résumé. Of the dozens of law firms I interviewed with at OGI, only one associate ever asked about VLBR, and only because he was an alumnus of the journal. The reality is that by your interviews next fall, you won’t really have a clue about how a journal is run. At best, you’ll have done one cite check. Certain journals do offer 1L leadership positions, but even if you take on one of these, your responsibilities won’t kick in until after OGI. Come OGI, you won’t have a lot to say about your journal. If you find yourself discussing your 1L journal experience, something has gone terribly wrong in that interview. You should have something on your résumé that is more interesting to talk about. That might be a student organization or a pro bono activity; if you find it more interesting than working on a journal, that’s a perfectly legitimate, non-weird reason to have no journal on your résumé. 

Don’t mistake me, journals are helpful for OGI. If there’s an area of the law that is lacking on your résumé, journals serve as a strong signal of your commitment to the topic. Over the tryout weekend, you committed a huge chunk of time so that you could, purportedly, immerse yourself in business law, or tax law, or law and politics. This goes doubly if you manage to get a leadership position. You show employers that you’re not just on a journal because “this is Virginia, and everyone’s on a journal.” But these benefits are no greater than taking on leadership in most other student organizations. 

The real benefit of being on a journal comes from meaningful engagement with the process of legal scholarship. Legal scholarship is unique in that we let students—often with nearly zero experience in the field—choose and edit the articles that define the cutting edge of law. This bizarre arrangement is evidently built on a social compact that entrusts law students with incredible power in exchange for our free Bluebooking services. This is great for us! We get to work with powerful thought-leaders at law schools across the nation and we produce a real marketable product with our names on it that will (hopefully) be cited time and again. For anyone committed to studying the law, there are few more rewarding activities in law school. 

Which Journal Should I Join?

The extent to which you will have the above experience can vary tremendously, however, depending on which journal you choose and what position you hold. The same position on different journals will have vastly different opportunities to engage like this. If you want to understand how a journal works, interact with authors, and have a hand on the helm, you’ll want to choose a journal that offers 1L leadership. Getting involved early is the best way to get involved deeply. VLBR, for example, offers Articles Editor positions to certain 1Ls, which puts them in a position of ownership over an entire article. Ask the upper managing board of the journal you’re considering what roles they served when they were 1Ls, and then ask what the selection process was for their jobs.

Your ability to shape and direct legal scholarship also depends on the strength of your journal. If you have a strong interest in one particular area, such as environmental law or technology law, this point may be less important. But if you’re more or less indifferent, you’ll want to choose a journal that is stable and respected. You can gauge how well-respected a journal is by inquiring about its peers and the credentials of the authors that typically publish in the journal. Stability comes from the journal’s ability to attract top talent from the journal tryout year after year, the journal’s ability to maintain subscriptions and solicit articles, and—perhaps most important—its ability to publish on a regular, timely schedule. Be sure to ask about these features at your journal’s office hours and open houses this week. In particular, ask when the journal published last. This year, with impending audits and the administration limiting funding to journals, stability is more important than ever. Choose a journal that will be here next fall and after you graduate. 

Finally, it’s worth asking about what is expected of you as an editorial board member on the journal. Most journals will only tell you how many cite checks you’ll do, but not how many footnotes per cite check are expected of you. Having only three cite checks means nothing when each one is 50 footnotes. Will there be a note requirement? If so, can you submit a paper written for one of your classes? A good rule of thumb is that a larger journal requires less work from each individual editor. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t responsibility available to those who want it. Although it may be true that you can ascend more quickly in a smaller journal, larger journals allow for more direct leadership early on as well as a greater likelihood that you’ll actually see your name on a published product.

There are plenty of peripheral considerations that may influence your decision more personally (e.g., does the journal still print? Will it have a symposium?). But the criteria I’ve named here should be central to your decision. Don’t worry too much about which journals have the best food or the fanciest office. Those are irrelevant. Instead pay attention to features that will let you leave your mark on legal scholarship.

---

ech8vm@virginia.edu  

1 Haven’t received an offer yet? Pocket this article. It’ll come in handy when you do.
2 I serve as the Editor-in-Chief of the Virginia Law & Business Review.
3 VLBR received 127 applications this year, 33 more than the next most popular secondary journal.

National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Events

Julia Schast '17
Guest Columnist

In recognition of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week (NCVRW), taking place April 2–8, 2017, the Domestic Violence Project (DVP) at the University of Virginia School of Law is hosting a series of events both on and off grounds. Students and faculty are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to attend. 

The 2017 NCVRW theme is “Strength. Resilience. Justice.” This theme reflects a vision for the future, in which all victims are strengthened by the responses they receive, organizations are resilient in responding to challenges, and our communities are able to seek collective justice and healing. 

DVP is specifically focused on inclusivity and helping people find common ground at the intersection of their varied personal interests and concerns. To that end, DVP will be sponsoring the following events during NCVRW:

(1) Community Day Booth

Where: Sprint Pavilion at the Downtown Mall in Charlottesville

When: Sunday, April 2nd 1–4pm

What: Local and state organizations involved with different aspects of victims’ rights will gather as part of an annual Community Day held during NCVRW to show their solidarity with the community and support awareness for victims’ rights. These groups include the Sexual Assault Resource Agency, Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, Offender Aid and Restoration, and the UVa and Albemarle Police Departments.

DVP will attend to pass out informational materials to adults about local resources for victims and will provide face-painting for their accompanying children. 

Admission to the event is free and the afternoon will include music, games, food, contests, and prizes. 

(2) NCVRW Awareness Tabling and Raffle Entry

Where: Table #3 in Hunton & Williams Hallway outside of Scott Commons in UVa Law School, Charlottesville

When: Monday, April 3rd – Friday, April 7th from 10:00am–3:00pm

What: DVP will be selling raffle tickets ($2 each), T-shirts, and other awareness merchandise (e.g. pins, bracelets, temporary tattoos). All proceeds will be donated to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV). 

Since January 1st 2017, there have been 145 domestic violence gun-related fatalities. That is approximately one death every fourteen hours, committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, or dating partner. That doesn’t even account for violence committed without the use of a firearm. In response to these extremely troubling statistics, the NCADV is committed to serving as a voice for victims of domestic violence by adopting the following mission: “We are the catalyst for changing society to have zero tolerance for domestic violence.  We do this by affecting public policy, increasing understanding of the impact of domestic violence, and providing programs and education that drive that change.”

Current raffle prizes include:

two leather laptop bags from Lo & Sons (worth $428 each); two gift cards to Cville Coffee ($15 each); two gift cards to Greenberry’s ($25 each); two gift cards to Sedona Taphouse ($25 each); one gift card to Mudhouse ($20). 

Make sure to stop by the table during NCVRW to receive an updated list of available prizes and enter the raffle for a chance to win. There is no limit on the number of tickets each person can purchase. Winners will be announced on Friday, April 7th. 

 (3) Profit-Share Fundraiser at Mezeh Mediterranean Grill

Where: Mezeh Mediterranean Grill at 2015 Bond Street in the Stonefield Shopping Center, Charlottesville 

When: Tuesday, April 2nd from 5:30–8:30pm

What: Mezeh will donate 15% of each meal purchased by customers who mention DVP’s name at check-out and add their receipt to the fundraiser basket. All proceeds will go to the Charlottesville Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE). In addition to providing temporary housing, SHE provides comprehensive social services, including legal referrals, to both adult and child victims of domestic violence. All details and a link to commit to eat at Mezeh during the fundraiser can be found on DVP’s Facebook Page. 

(4) Beyond Gender: Combating the Effects of the Traditional Gender Narrative on Domestic Violence

Where: Purcell Reading Room in UVa Law School, Charlottesville

When: Wednesday, April 5th from 10:30-11:45am

What: DVP is hosting a panel discussion about how gender stereotypes and heteronormative perceptions of domestic violence have impacted efforts to both prevent and respond to instances of interpersonal violence. The panelists will address these issues in the context of the factors that lead to under-reporting by victims, the recently implemented Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) being used by Charlottesville police, the evidentiary challenges that arise during prosecution, and the warning signs of an abusive interpersonal relationship. 

Panelists include:

Major Laura O’Donnell (JAG School); Robin Jackson (Legal Advocate/Outreach Counselor at SHE); Jon Zug (Albemarle Circuit Court Clerk; former Assistant
Commonwealth Attorney); Neal Goodloe (Client Services Consultant at Northpointe, Inc. for
correctional systems)

Light refreshments will be served to all attendees, including vegetarian and gluten-free options. All details can be found on DVP’s Facebook Page.

(5) National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Intersectionality Lunch

Where: Caplin Pavilion in UVa Law School, Charlottesville

When: Wednesday, April 5th from 12:00-2:30pm

What: DVP is hosting a luncheon for all UVa students and faculty to discuss the legal and social struggles facing victims of different crimes. The purpose of this event is to provide a forum for students to interact with professors and visiting practitioners about intersecting aspects of victimization. 

The event will begin with a welcome from Dean Risa Goluboff, followed by an address from keynote speaker Tim Heaphy, a current partner at Hunton & Williams and former United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia. Students will then have the opportunity to move freely among the professors and guest speakers stationed throughout the room to discuss the interplay among different types of crime and victims, in accordance with each speakers’ area of expertise. Topics of interest will include sexual assault, police misconduct, government corruption and white collar crime, juvenile justice, wrongful convictions and the death penalty, and discriminatory crime based on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and both physical and mental disability. 

A buffet lunch will be provided to all attendees and will include vegetarian options. Students interested in or committed to attending are encouraged to RSVP by Monday, April 3rd through the following link: https://goo.gl/forms/UlH5t5deAsu17eNH2.

That link, along with event details, can also be accessed on DVP’s Facebook Page. 

DVP is so pleased to be offering such an exciting array of opportunities for students to get involved with this year’s National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. Questions about attending any of the above events can be directed to Julia Schast (jes9hg@virginia.edu). 

---

jes9hg@virginia.edu

A Method to the Madness

Katherine Mann '19
Columns Editor

My father was a sportswriter –all sports, but later in his career, primarily horseracing – and used to take me to the track when I was a kid. Mostly I read the Babysitter’s Club while he worked, but we sometimes went to the paddock to look at the horses before a race, and he occasionally let me pick a horse for a two-dollar bet. He taught me how to look at a racing program and made modest attempts to introduce me to odds and pedigrees. But I was immune to any of that; I only ever picked the prettiest horse. A classic Bay is second only to a true Roan, in case you’re wondering about my preferences. I didn’t win a lot.

Almost thirty years later, my March Madness methods are barely more sophisticated. I understand how unlikely it is for a sixteen seed to beat a one seed. I’m not naive enough to pick whatever the hell MSM is over Villanova. But I feel compelled to treat the whole process like a “whodunit.” One-seeds are way too obvious. Sure, they may have motive, means, and opportunity, but no crime writer worth her salt would have UNC turn out to be the perp. Anything that obvious is totally devoid of entertainment value. We’re looking for someone stealthy and below the radar, but not so unlikely that you wouldn’t recommend the book to a friend. No one (except me) predicts a four seed like, say, Florida, to win it all. But even those who picked Villanova (maybe next year, Wildcats) can appreciate such a plot twist.

Suffice it to say I’m a sucker for an underdog and will reach for any reason to pick one. Why not Bucknell over West Virginia? I mean, I know someone who went there, so…clearly a good choice (except not at all). Those of you who picked Xavier can relate. Although, that only worked out because Maryland decided to wear hideous uniforms. Not the prettiest horse, am I right?  Even as I write this, Creighton is being embarrassed by URI, bolstering my underdog theory. And nine-seeds, well, you’re as good as picked, because in my mind, you’ve got the best underdog chance. (Somehow Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, and Seton Hall didn’t get the memo.)

Sometimes my underdog theory just isn’t up to the task, however, and I have to rely on drama and personification to get the job done. Butler and Winthrop are clearly just two British blokes slapping each other with white gloves. Obviously, Butler’s going to win. My fourth-grade teacher Mrs. Baylor was pretty badass, so Baylor ought to be able to take out SMU and Duke. And Purdue is just some poor, scared, naked chicken ready to go to the fryer. Enough pluck to beat Vermont, but no match for carnivorous Iowa State. (Or so I thought.)

Other stupid reasons for making picks include: Miami is warmer than Kansas; Marquette has a “q” in it and South Carolina does not; Saint Mary’s is too pious; UCLA is close to where my brother lives; Villanova sounds like “villain” and therefore must lose to Florida (the hero of my story); Louisville has horses (you knew we’d come back to that); and Iowa has corn. Corn never wins. (Except corn syrup, of course. It’ll beat all of us in the end.)

I am not a sports person. I don’t play softball, so I don’t know why they still let me go here. I have never, in fact, played any sport to speak of that didn’t end in tears, face bruises, or possibly flower-picking (think soccer at seven years old). Football is just extended brain research (thanks for the knowledge, NFL), and baseball has way too much spitting for a classy dame like me. I only care about basketball when I have a bracket, and five bucks makes me care exactly the right amount: as soon as I know I’m out, I can quit watching and return to Golden Girls on Hulu.

By the time this goes to print, the first two rounds will be history, and my status as worst bracket-picker will be immortalized on ESPN.com. I’ll be rooting for Florida, Louisville, and UNC to carry me through to the Final Four, since Maryland has decided to suck (seriously, was their strategy to frighten the other team with all that yellow?). In all likelihood, my bracket will just end up as a marked-up piece of paper that distracted me from my Con Law reading. (Not nearly as bad as, say, being distracted from Con Law during Con Law by the Princeton-Notre Dame game. You know who you are.) But if Florida somehow wins, or even gets close, my eccentric style of picking teams will be vindicated, and I’ll have every incentive to repeat this nonsense next year.

---

kmm2bb@virginia.edu

Admissions of an Admit: As told to Greg Ranzini

Greg Ranzini '18
News Editor

You gotta say something about the roast beef sliders. They kept it together until the bitter end, but that last reception on the second day was really where the whole Open House fell down. The former Supreme Court clerks introduced themselves with, “I don’t want to interrupt your important conversations, but . . .” and they should have just stopped right there. I just wanted to drink some beer, which was the only thing vegan on a table piled with shrimp wrapped in chorizo and chat with my new friends, rather than pretend that talking to these unicorns was going to land me a clerkship. The only thing I felt like asking was whether they had been allowed to touch the famous shelf of medieval dictionaries that Scalia used to rifle through in search of politically convenient definitions, like a definition of “factual innocence” that still leaves such a person subject to North Carolina “carrying out a death sentence properly reached.” But what was funny was that these folks were standing around being asked the most naive questions imaginable, such as “how many hours a week should I study?” Everybody ought to know how these guys got the job—they got straight A’s in 1L. Everyone equally should know they’re not going to make those grades, try as they might, because it’s like winning the lottery. It should have been another opportunity to stand around, make friends, and say, “I’ll see you in August,” but it was the end of the day, I was tired, I’d just been told I was staring down six-figure debt . .

. “Networking” wasn’t high on my list of priorities.

The student life panels, though, were spectacular—I really appreciated the attitude that nothing said in there would leave the room. There was more than boosterism, especially in that actual reservations and regrets were aired by the panelists. They made small admissions that made it clear that these were real people with real issues, but that they were still glad that they went to UVa. They should definitely do that next year. The panels made the rest of the weekend seem more credible. In contrast, the cornball alumni network speech felt like they were writing checks they couldn’t cash. It was led by this guy who wouldn’t shut up about how “genuine” the network is, in a way that made it sound very fake. It was accompanied by a minimum-effort PowerPoint, in Arial on a white background, that just said “genuine” a bunch of times, and ended with a rhetorical strategy heavily reliant on saying “just ask [so-and-so] who said . . .” over and over again. It was like the world’s lamest State of the Union. No one doubts that this school’s alumni are enthusiastic, because everyone I met seemed like a genuinely interested and nice person; it didn’t seem like there would be any reason for that to change once they graduated. But the way it was presented in the end was pretty dumb. Perhaps justifiable puffery, but on the “fake-and-lame” scale just short of literally making an acrostic out of A-L-U-M-N-I.

That speech made me, right there, at the eleventh hour, question my judgment and feel like the rest of the event was diminished. But it couldn’t overcome the fact that there were people like Cordel and the numerous students, most of whom just happened to be there snagging free dinner at the buffets, who were unprompted in their expressions of affection for UVa. I never did manage to find my designated liaison, but everyone I met in the halls seemed like somebody I wanted to get to know better. The professors, too, seemed very knowledgeable, focused, and sincere in their desire to produce great lawyers and to help everyone who was admitted on that path.

The financial aid talk with Jennifer Hulvey was very helpful—she explained the implications, such as which loans were preferable, and she managed to make it seem daunting without being terrifying. She was genuinely there to help. Kevin Donovan, too, sold it. Just nailed it. If I had any doubts about where I was going, he nixed them. He did a fantastic job of laying out the stakes, but made it clear that Career Services was going to be there and behind me 100%. Ruth Payne did the same. I left convinced that if I wanted a clerkship (not Supreme Court, LOL) she would help me find one. Contrast, say, Michigan, who looked at me like I had six heads when I asked them how they would support me in getting a 1L summer job. 

Other random observations: I had a tour of Monticello by a guy named Horace who had an alarmingly good radio voice. Somebody needs to hire this guy, because unamplified, his voice was NPR-tier. I would buy literally anything he sold me in his dulcet baritone. The house seemed smaller in life than it looks on the back of the nickel, though.

Phrases of the day: “You’re going to love it here,” and “We don’t admit applications; we admit people.”

---

gpr7qx@virginia.edu

Far Right Falls Short

Max Wagner '19
Guest Columnist

2016 ended not with a whimper, but with a bang. It was the year the global Leftism saw two significant defeats with the approval of Brexit and the election of President Trump; it also set the stage for 2017. 2016 did not begin in a way that signaled what would happen. As the Leftist Establishment looked forward they liked their prospects for the next two years: five elections they expected to win, beginning with the two elections about which they felt most comfortable: Brexit and the U.S. Presidential Election. The Leftist Establishment looked on in horror as first, the British demanded their independence from an unelected council of oligarchs in Brussels, and then they could not believe their eyes as the second of the five pins fell over, with the election of President Trump. President Trump’s election forced them to realize there is a popular unrest across the West, directed at them. It was with newfound urgency the world turned its eyes toward the Dutch general election for control of the 150-seat Dutch House of Representatives.

Coming into the election, the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) held the largest number of seats but did not command a majority of the seats in the House.[1] The party with the second most seats coming into the election was the center-left Labor Party (PvdA).

The Dutch people voted on Wednesday; Geert Wilders, the far-right candidate of the Party for Freedom (PVV), lost to current Prime Minister Mark Rutte, leader of VVD. PVV came in second, receiving 13% of the vote, gaining five seats for a total of twenty, compared to VVD’s 21%, losing eight seats for a total of thirty-three. The PvdA, however, fell from second to seventh, from 24.8% to 5.7%, and from thirty-eight seats to nine (a loss of seats).

The Left was quick to announce a victory. The Dutch did what Britain and America could not; the wave of populism has broken! The tide is being rolled back![2] Right?! Wrong.

The Left is thrilled that Wilders will not become the new Prime Minister, as well they should be . . . unless they paid attention to the news that was coming out of the Netherlands for the last several weeks. First, it was clear that whether PVV or VVD won the election, the other party was going to take second place.[3] Rutte has also been very vocal that he would not work with Wilders to form a coalition government, and other parties have also agreed not to work with Wilders.[4] This means that even if Wilders had won the election and become the largest party in Parliament, there was a good chance that Wilders would still not have become Prime Minister. Considering it a “win” because PVV did not become the largest party is missing the point. The important feature here is the significant movement for the party. The gains made by PVV are significant, and are ignored at great peril.

Taking this election as a complete win, and a sign that the anti-globalist, anti-Leftism sentiment would be a larger mistake than thinking Brexit was a fluke. Thinking anything other than that there is a long hard fought road ahead is what will lead to President Le Pen, and a toppling of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

There are also those on the Left lamenting that Prime Minister Rutte had to resort such gross tactics as defending his country’s sovereignty against Turkey, and promising a stronger immigration policy.[5] Some people call this listening to the concerns of the people, The Guardian calls it racism.

Those who are perturbed by the move right by Rutte to secure his base and maintain his party’s standing should get used to it, or make their peace with President Le Pen, and former Chancellor Merkel. Merkel has already pivoted to the right to secure her base ahead of the election.[6] Merkel and Rutte, while not solving the problem of far-right nationalism, have taken the first step: listening to the disenchanted. These are people who have been hurt and feel abandoned. When a voice comes to represent them, they cling to it. Sometimes that voice also brings along things they don’t want.[7] Wilders is a great example of this. While there are riots across Europe, other Western leaders are silent. While there is an enormous culture clash, anyone caught up in it who dares to speak is branded a racist. These people want their concerns heard. It is this recognition of their problems that drives the PVV. When Prime Minister Rutte pivoted to the right, and started making it clear that he was willing to listen, the wind fell from Wilders’ sail, though not entirely. This is the tactic that center-right candidates will need to win the next two elections: listening to the people. While The Guardian will lament this act of democracy, it is the only way to prevent the dangers that will accompany the far-right, like Wilders.[8]

---

mjw5pt@virginia.edu

[1] The elections are proportional, meaning the percent of the vote received for a party is the percent of seats in Parliament the party receives. There has never been a single party with a majority.
[2] #rolltide
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Dutch_general_election,_2017
[4] http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/01/vvd-leader-mark-rutte-says-zero-chance-of-coalition-with-geert-wilders/
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/17/geert-wilders-racism-netherlands-far-right
[6] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/angela-merkel-turns-on-refugees-as-backlash-boosts/
[7] http://www.businessinsider.com/geert-wilders-pvv-manifesto-2017-2
There is truly terrifying authoritarian rhetoric in this extensive 1 page manifesto.
[8] Seriously, read the manifesto…

Kim's Last Stand

Kimberly Hopkin '19
Columns Editor

Before we start this conversation, let’s get on the same page. Nothing written in the article is the official opinion of the US Air Force or the Department of Defense; it’s my personal story. Which brings me to my other big caveat: this is my personal truth. I’ve listened to many women who have had similar experiences – and many who haven’t. I can’t speak for them, but I am going to speak up for myself. So, please don’t interrupt, because we need to talk. 

I recently went out downtown with two other women and a man that I respect highly. He was complaining about a trip to Australia where he learned that the bar backs collect drinks if they are sitting on the bar without anyone holding them– regardless of how much is left in the glass. He thought it was a clever ruse to force people to buy more drinks and said, “Can you believe it? The WHOLE night I had to have my hand on my drink and was watching it constantly. It was so annoying.” When we gave him inquisitive looks, he became defensive and looked at our drinks. All of us had our drinks in our hands in our direct eyesight. His sat on the bar about a foot and a half away in his periphery. After saying, “Well, it’s a crowded bar – that makes sense,” he dropped it. 

Later that night, the subject of “Angel Shots” came up. He thought it was the dumbest idea, and, when we disagreed, he did something that I encourage everyone to do: he asked questions. In the ensuing discussion, we realized that all three females had been “roofied” at one point in our lives. All variations on a similar theme: if someone hadn’t been looking out for us, something terrible could have happened. When he said, “So, you literally think about this the entire time you go out? Just to feel safe?” The look on his face made me hug him. 

There are realities that women face that men don’t often have the opportunity to think about. Some people insist that mansplaining doesn’t exist, or that the women are being too sensitive. To me, “mansplaining” feels like starting a road trip by setting your GPS, beginning your playlist, backing out of the driveway… and having the GPS interrupt your song continuously to tell you how to exit your own neighborhood… every day. True, it’s not as bad as genocide or hate crimes, but it is mildly infuriating when it happens regularly. Here at UVa Law, I’ve had men who have never joined the military tell me what it’s actually like in the Air Force. A guy I was dating told me he knew as much as I do about military discipline because he played sports in college, “and it’s the same thing.” In responding to a question a female officer asked me about my experience at the Air Force Academy, another male officer joined the conversation to insist that’s not what his wife said it was like. I use these examples because my intimate understanding of a topic, which was immediately obvious to both parties, was still not as important as their unproven opinions on the matter. It seems harmless until women start to believe it. 

When applying for law school, a Major pulled me into his office the night before my interview to chastise me for not sending him my personal statement to read (which in his mind meant no one had proofread it) and not having my application packet fully together. There was some truth in his assertion that I wasn’t ready yet; I was applying for a prestigious Air Force scholarship program and several law schools while trying to maintain my full workload as a finance officer. But then, he told me, and I quote, “Kim, you’re not going to get anywhere by batting your eyelashes and giggling.” I was working nine to ten hours every weekday and coming in on weekends to tie up loose ends. I had won awards at the Major Command level. I had multiple wing commanders tell me I was the best lieutenant they had, and I had won over the affection of my troops and motivated them to success through sequestration and a government shutdown. And I did all of that without flirting my way to the top. I didn’t need to – I’m a competent military officer. But in that moment, his comment had cast all of that aside. I wondered if I should even bother applying for the program because I felt irreversibly inadequate. Apparently, this was what three years of hard work looked like from the outside. I called my mom in tears on the way home and, knowing I would laugh, she quoted Legally Blonde: “If you’re going to let one lousy prick stand in your way, you’re not the person I thought you were.” By the way, when the rest of the JAG office celebrated my Funded Legal Education Program selection with me, the Major had “a meeting he couldn’t cancel.”

That’s one of many frustrating experiences that I’ve had on my way here. And I know it’s not every woman’s experience – I wish it wasn’t mine. I’m a bright, bubbly, optimistic woman who doesn’t like sharing these stories. Compared to the challenges impoverished women, transgender women, or women of color face, my complaints seem minimal. But I also feel like not sharing gives my male friends permission to say that everything is absolutely perfect for women in this country, and it isn’t. 

If your first reaction to this article is to remind me that women are being physically assaulted around the world and that I should get over it, then I’ll remind you that other women becoming victims of gender violence does not make what happened to me okay. Another woman telling you that she’s never experienced gender discrimination doesn’t mean my story no longer exists. Overcoming these cultural obstacles does not take away from anyone else’s success; this isn’t an attack on any man. The men in this article are not “misogynistic pigs.” They simply could benefit from a real conversation about how even some of the most confident, privileged, educated women are still marginalized in everyday situations. We could all benefit. So, let’s have a real conversation about implicit sexism and its impact. 

---

knh3zd@virginia.edu

1 Angel Shots are part of a campaign to make women feel safer in public bars. If they are alone with a man, say on a first date, and feel unsafe, then they can order an “Angel Shot” from a bartender who will call a cab and make sure they get into it alone.
2 A two-ton truck running someone else over doesn’t mean it’s okay for me to slap you across the face.

Finding the Best of the Worst: Sharknado IV

Nick Rutigliano '18
Film Critic

Sharknado 4: The 4th Awakens [hereinafter Sharknado IV] was an educational experience for me in several respects. First, I was surprised to learn that there even was a Sharknado IV. I remember watching the original Sharknado during undergrad with a few friends who had heard how perfectly bad the movie was. I just thought it was bad, so I chalked the experience up to a waste of ninety minutes of my life and hadn’t thought twice about the Sharknado franchise since. Second, I was surprised to learn that Sharknado IV is the only installment that meets the threshold requirements for my project. As a reminder, I can only watch and review movies streaming on Netflix with less than a 20% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. Not only did Sharknado I–III have scores greater than 20%, the original film actually obtained a respectable/incomprehensible score of 82% on the site. For reference, Ocean’s Eleven and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets also have scores of 82%. Third, I learned that I probably shouldn’t allow two weeks to lapse between watching a movie and writing a review for it. In between the viewing and typing this up I had legitimate law school stuff to attend to and a spring break. This probably means I am completely unqualified to write this review and should consider re-watching before proceeding, but I remember enough to know that Sharknado IV was a unique brand of terrible, and I refuse to subject myself to it for a second time. So, basically I am going to summarize what I remember and then close the Sharknado chapter of my life for good. 

Five years have elapsed since the last sharknado. A sharknado is, of course, a portmanteau of the words “shark” and “tornado” and describes a phenomenon whereby many sharks are entrapped in a vortex that leaves havoc and destruction in its wake. I will assume that this means that Sharknado IV takes place five years after the events of Sharknado III, but I didn’t actually see either Sharknado II or III so I cannot say so definitively. This may mean that I missed out on some plot points, including why Tara Reid’s character has been brought back from her (apparent) death as some type of half-robot, half-human, RoboCop-esque character. The film’s protagonist, Fin Shepard (Ian Ziering), and his family travel to Las Vegas for a vacation. A tech company, Astro-X, has developed technology that will supposedly prevent sharknados from forming, but predictably, this technology fails and Vegas is soon terrorized by a large sharknado. Many perish. It is gruesome and sad. 

As if a garden-variety tornado of sharks was not terrifying enough, new “’nados” are encountered throughout the film. A sharknado passes through an oil field to become an oilnado, which then ignites to become a firenado. There is also a hailnado, lavanado, and for some reason, a cownado. In a disastrous and unfortunate turn of events, a sharknado even passes through a nuclear power plant to become a . . .nukenado, naturally. Gilbert Gottfried supplies the commentary as a weatherman reporting on these events (seriously). Watching the characters fight and succumb to these sharknados is obviously over-the-top, but occasionally funny, as morbid as that sounds. I will not report on how or if the crew is able to eventually defeat the sharknados because no one likes spoilers. I also forgot how the movie ends. 

The best part of this film is the product placement for Xfinity’s new voice remote in the first thirty minutes of the film. That’s all I have. This may be because, as I said, I waited two weeks to actually write this review, or it could be because there were virtually no redeeming qualities to report on. I would guess the latter. 

I suppose if you liked the original Sharknado, and watched installments II and III for some reason, you may enjoy Sharknado IV. I did not fit either of those criteria, so I thought this was pretty awful. I should have known better. 

Tomatometer: 17%
Audience Score: 26%
Nick Score: 5%

---

mnr3a@virginia.edu

In Support of Ed Gillespie

Baruch Nutovic '19
Guest Columnist

Virginia is at a crossroads. The state’s economy has been underperforming for years, its fiscal standing has been marred by budget shortfalls, and far too many of Virginia’s children attend substandard schools. This year’s Virginia gubernatorial race offers the Commonwealth a choice between political grandstanding from the extreme left and Ed Gillespie’s bold agenda for education reform, job growth, and restoring the Commonwealth’s finances. 

Amid the never-ending furor that is today’s national political scene, state and local politics are often overshadowed. Yet in many ways, state politics has a more direct impact on our daily lives through policies impacting job creation, education, and public safety. It’s vitally important that Virginia’s politics not be dragged into the morass of D.C. politics, with its endless partisan political games that distract from the real job of our elected officials: serving the people. 

Unfortunately, D.C. politics has infected the Democratic primary, which has devolved into a shameless pandering contest. Instead of putting forward a positive vision for our state’s future, former Congressman Tom Perriello and Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam are competing to prove they are more extreme than the other. In their efforts to sway the hardline left-wingers who have gained power in the Democratic Party’s primaries, they’ve been tripping over each other in their efforts to bash President Trump the most aggressively.

Both are trying to make the election about Trump. Northam said the campaign is a referendum on the President, and claimed, “I’ve been in this for ten years really fighting for progressive values in Virginia against the very things Mr. Trump and his administration stand for,” referring to his tenure as a state senator and lieutenant governor. Perriello has described himself as a “firewall” against the Trump Administration. His comparison of Trump’s election to “a political and constitutional September 11,” probably takes the cake for the most extreme comment yet. He subsequently had to apologize.

There’s a problem for Perriello and Northam: their records belie their claims to be consistent anti-Trump progressives. Perriello now claims to be an abortion advocate, but when he was in Congress, he voted against federal funding for abortions. Northam may claim to have championed progressive causes for ten years, but he has long had a reputation as a fiscal conservative, so much so that Republicans were once actively courting him to switch parties. By his own admission, he voted for George W. Bush twice.

Perriello and Northam are also trying to make political hay out of vocal opposition to Trump’s immigration policies. But not so long ago, both were immigration hawks. Perriello famously said—in a debate at the University of Virginia no less—that illegal immigrants should be made to start “self-deporting.” Northam’s electioneering now has him backing radical measures like drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants, but just over a decade ago, he backed increased funding for local police to detain illegal immigrants. What lies behind much of the anti-Trump rhetoric is not principle, but political expediency of the kind that makes people cynical about politics. 

Ultimately, this election is not about Donald Trump. It’s about the issues that affect ordinary Virginians’ lives: issues like education, the economy, and public safety. Virginia does not need a governor focused on getting into juvenile political food fights or Twitter wars with the President. Virginia needs a governor focused on dealing with the issues that matter.

Ed Gillespie will be that kind of governor. He has been focused squarely on how to improve our state for years. For instance, last April, more than a year and a half before the election, he set up nine policy working groups to seek input from around the Commonwealth as he develops policy ideas. In a political world dominated by fluff and simplistic slogans, it’s refreshing to see a leader dedicate himself to substance. 

Gillespie’s focus on substance is badly needed because Virginia faces a number of pressing problems. In 2011, CNBC ranked Virginia the best state in the nation for business. By last year we had fallen all the way to 13th on the same metric. In the last three years, Virginia’s state business tax climate has dropped from 25th to 33rd in the nation according to the Tax Foundation. So it’s no surprise that in four of the last five years, Virginia’s economic growth has been anemic, at less than two percent. The state’s flagging economy, combined with government waste, has resulted in Virginia facing budget shortfalls of more than two billion dollars over the last two years. Far too many of Virginia’s kids from low-income backgrounds go to failing schools that lock them into poverty for life. 

Gillespie’s working groups are developing innovative approaches to fixing these and other vexing issues our state faces. He will help job creators by lowering taxes, getting rid of red tape, eliminating our chronic budget shortfalls, and making government more efficient. He has condemned the lack of educational opportunity in struggling areas of Virginia as “a failure at all levels of government,” and pledged greater school choice so that kids aren’t forced to attend bad schools just because of their zip code. 

Gillespie is passionate about expanding opportunity because of his own background as the son of immigrants. His father was a janitor, but through the opportunities America gave him, Ed rose to become a counselor to President Bush and a successful businessman. He wants all Virginians to have the chance to achieve their dreams, just like he did. Ed Gillespie is the kind of leader Virginia needs.  

---

byn9bv@virginia.edu

Lile Moot Court Semi-Finals

Adrianna ScheerCook '17
Guest Columnist

On Saturday, February 27, four teams of third-year law students competed in the semifinal round of the 88th William Minor Lile Moot Court Competition. To get to this moment, the teams had advanced through three previous rounds of the Competition, which had taken place during their second year and the fall of their third year of law school. In each of the rounds, the students wrote a brief and then presented an oral argument before a panel of judges on a problem written by a fellow law student.

Third-year law student Kevin Palmer wrote the problem for the Semifinal Round of the Competition. Palmer has been responsible for writing all of the problems the competitors have briefed and argued throughout the course of the 88th William Minor Lile Moot Court Competition. In the Semifinal Round, the teams presented arguments on two issues related to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The problem was set in 2018 and asked the competitors to imagine that Congress had amended the Voting Rights Act “to prohibit voter discrimination on the basis of ‘belief’ in addition to race, color and language minority status.” Against this backdrop, the legislature of the fictional State of Hamilton enacted a gerrymandered redistricting plan in order to allow one party to have permanent control over the majority of its districts; however, the governor of Hamilton challenged the legislature’s redistricting plan as violating both the Constitution of the United States and the amended Voting Rights Act.

In writing the problem, Palmer focused on two legal hurdles that the governor of Hamilton would have to overcome in order for her claim to succeed, and these were the two issues the competitors addressed. The first issue the competitors argued related to standing. The question was whether the governor, who was a resident of a non-gerrymandered district, had standing to sue, or whether the Constitution imparts a cause of action for political gerrymandering. The second issue involved the meaning of the word “belief” in the amended Voting Rights Act. The competitors had to address the question of whether “belief” meant only religious belief or also encompassed political belief.The arguments took place before a panel of distinguished judges that was composed of Judge Raymond M. Kethledge, Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons, and Judge Amul Thapar. Judge Kethledge serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to this judgeship in 2008. He received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and clerked for Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Lemons serves on the Supreme Court of Virginia. He was appointed to this judgeship in 2000, and he started his term as chief justice in 2015. Chief Justice Lemons is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, and he spent several years as an assistant dean and assistant professor at the Law School. Judge Thapar serves on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He clerked for Judge S. Arthur Spiegel on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and Judge Nathaniel R. Jones on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He also worked as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky and as an Assistant United States Attorney in both the Southern District of Ohio and the District of Columbia before assuming his current position. Judge Thapar has the distinction of being the first South Asian Article III judge.

The first set of arguments took place in the morning between Danielle Desaulniers and Adam Stempel, who represented the Appellant, and Harry Marino and Chet Otis, who represented the Appellee. After the judges’ deliberations, Danielle Desaulniers and Adam Stempel were named the vwinners. 

The second set of arguments took place in the afternoon between Alex Nemtzow and Zach Nemtzow, who represented the Appellant, and Tuba Ahmed and Kyle Cole, who represented the Appellee. Tuba Ahmed and Kyle Cole were named the winners of the afternoon arguments.

The two teams that won their semifinal arguments will advance to the Final Round of Competition, which will be held on March 25, 2017. Please join us on that date to see these competitors demonstrate their impressive oral advocacy skills in front of a distinguished panel of judges!

---

acs4dc@virginia.edu

Hardship is Relative

Julie Dostal '19
Guest Columnist

Each week there is some academic or extracurricular obligation that seems to challenge the notion of how much one human being can really do in a week’s time. Especially during 1L year, it seems rather impossible to stay afloat, much less get ahead. This point is made abundantly clear by how much law students enjoy talking about our overwhelming workloads, lack of free time, and ever-looming fears about finals. I am just as guilty of being consumed by my own “hardships” as the next law student, maybe more. My first two days of orientation I’m not sure I spoke more than five sentences without finishing at least one of them ending with “what the hell?” or “how am I going to do this?” Over the coming months, I lost perspective on what hard work and hardship actually meant. I thought spending hours at the library or a coffee shop poring over textbooks and frantically trying to keep up with typing my notes meant that I was not only working hard, but also that I was entitled to complain. 

I was wrong. One of my classmates wisely pointed out to me that hardship is relative. More so, it really is human nature to understand our societal position through a largely relative lens. At the law school, we are a population of highly intelligent and well-educated people. We are taught by some of the most accomplished and revered legal academics in the country, if not the world. Relative to the intellect prowess and work ethic of our peers, it is quite easy to feel constantly stressed, behind, or even inferior. While all of these thoughts and stress-induced conversation/rants seem justified, this justification only stems from a lack of relativity in our perspective or, to be more generous, a lack of consistent exposure to the realities of our privilege. 

As a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law, (fingers crossed that I and the rest of planet Earth makes it to May 19th, 2019), we will be in the top two to three percent of the most educated Americans living in the United States. The first time I heard that statistic I felt shock, stemming purely from my own ignorance. In the U.S., only 43 percent of students earn a high school diploma. Further, 32 million Americans currently are functionally illiterate. 19 percent of American high school graduates fall within this category. One in seven adults falls into the category of “Prose Literacy” – defined as possessing no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills. In some of the most rural and impoverished communities across the U.S., the illiteracy rate skyrockets past 30 percent. A large number of Americans feign the ability to read to obtain employment and continue the farce throughout their careers. 

On the topic of employment, the great privileges associated with a law degree from the University of Virginia only become more apparent. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average graduate from this Law School will make $80,000 more at an entry-level position than the median income of an American HOUSEHOLD. During the great financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent recession, when job opportunities in the legal market decreased, a law school graduate was still twice as likely to find employment than an individual with a Bachelor’s degree. Due to the generalized nature of the U.S. Census Bureau data, this statistic is also not wholly representative of the impact of a UVa Law education. 

All problems are relative. More importantly, the problems we face as UVa Law students are temporary. Very few people remember the first cold calls of fall semester. There are only so many assignments listed on our syllabi. Finals period ends. The stresses of 1L fade by 2L and are (hopefully) a distant memory by 3L. What has a much greater longevity, by far, is the worth of a UVa Law education. We will never live in fear of losing our jobs because we have trouble reading complex or even simplemaintain a better chance of employment at a relatively high-earning position than even a college graduate. Concerns of everyday Americans about buying back to school clothes for their children or putting dinner on the table do not seem to apply to us anymore. In short, it may be helpful to think of law school as one great tort. It may inflict bodily injury, most likely from having to get a higher prescription for your glasses, or the more likely scenario of pain and suffering. Either way, the payout from attending UVa is not a single recovery. The opportunities and station that we achieve when we graduate from this school far out way the pain of even journal tryouts, from which I procrastinated to write this article. 

---

jpd5pd@virginia.edu

---
1   https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/educ/educ_attain_slides.pdf
2   https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/08/us-adults-rank-below-average-global-survey-basic-education-skills
3   https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/educ/educ_attain_slides.pdf
4  https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/educ/educ_attain_slides.pdf

A Farewell Address

A.J. Collins '17
Outgoing SBA President

I’ve been thinking for a while now what I wanted to say in this address. Many other SBA Presidents use this space to discuss what they’ve accomplished during their term. But as that would be redundant to the State of the School Address, I figured I would do something else.

I see a lot of parallels between my election and Trump’s (procedurally, not substantively). You see, I was elected in a narrow, bitter election by a quirk of the electoral system my opponents underestimated. I was considered to be more of an outsider with a new “energy” to bring to the position.

A.J. Collins at the 2016 SBA Debates. Photo courtesy David Markoff. 

Having won by one vote, the post-election fallout weighed on me heavily. I thought I had to please every person who voted for me because I didn’t want them to regret their choice. And if they regretted their choice, it felt like I retroactively lost.

So I set out to do the thing I thought was most necessary to achieve student progress. I had to befriend people that, just a few weeks prior, were throwing sometimes heinous accusations my way. Part of this was a necessity – Sami, Laura, and Will were not supporters of mine in the election – but part of it was because I was committed to not let division stand in the way of success.

As the year progressed, I faced a number of issues that I think are difficult and complicated. What is the appropriate balance between free speech and unity? How do you balance the men who have sex with men (MSM) ban on blood with a need for service? I wanted to serve as a moderate voice in each of these deliberations – reprimand, not expel; pause, but proceed.

Unsurprisingly, whenever I made these tough decisions, I had slanderous and hate-filled things thrown my way – you should’ve seen my inbox! But I told students I wanted to meet in person, and most of them just brushed it off. I think as law students and future lawyers, we should recognize that communication in the face of complication is our job; we cannot hold court from a keyboard.

I bring my experience forward for the purpose of making a greater point. At UVa, we sometimes use the term “collegiality” to gloss over the fact that we are afraid of confrontation. We ironically use “inclusive” as a way to ignore other opinions. Yet in doing so, we shrug off our burden as advocates by excluding those with whom we are uncomfortable and divergent.

There is an odd contrast, in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election, between having two friends who refuse to speak to each other over a social media post and its fallout and a Muslim refugee and Trump supporter remaining incredibly close friends. Given the choice between these two UVa’s, I choose the latter – wouldn’t we all? But often we simply neglect to do that. In this respect, I think it is important that we remember that it is often necessary to sacrifice our own expression, our own platform, and our own comfort for the sake of ensuring the best outcomes, whether it be friendships or programs.

The degree to which individuals have empathy certainly varies. But, along with any degree of empathy should come sacrifice. It often took a great deal of sacrifice to remain stoic in conversations because I knew that being SBA President often came with the toll of surrendering certain personal opinions in order to maintain a neutral SBA. And it too takes a great deal of sacrifice to sit down face-to-face with people who call you a homophobe, ableist, and sexist.

I do not exempt the faculty and administration from my premise here. Sacrifice, at times, might require standing up to Main Grounds at risk of discord to ensure the best interests of your students. While we are part of a greater Academical Village, the job of leaders is to serve those whom they lead. 

A favorite quote of mine is that we “often judge others by their worst examples and ourselves by our best intentions.” Perhaps that speaks to sacrifice. Perhaps it speaks to empathy. I do not know. But I think this community often sorely lacks this perspective in its workings with others. In all fairness, most of humanity does too, but there is no reason we cannot be a trailblazer in this regard.

I wish everyone could serve as SBA President for one day. The dissonant pressures between competing groups and interests is perhaps the best way to build empathy, the best catalyst for sacrifice. It’s also the best real world training to be an associate, caught between your clients, the students, and your partners the administration.

At the end of it all, I say this: find a way to build others up, especially those with whom you disagree.

I conclude by wishing Steven the best of luck in his role, and I hope he finds it as significant and impactful as I did. To Toccara and Frances, you are both wonderful people and I’m thrilled to see the changes you’ll make for this school over this year and the one following it.

And to Sami, Will and Laura (well, you’re staying on for a second term, but), I say – we made it! I’m so glad for what we accomplished together this year and honestly I think we had a blast while doing it. Let’s keep #SnacksBeerandArtsandCrafts slash #FiftyShadesofWill slash #ThatOneArabicWordWeCouldNotTranslate alive. Thanks for being a great team.

As they say, mic drop. A.J. out.

---

ajc2jq@virginia.edu

Response to John Kurtz

Muskan Mumtaz ’19
Guest Columnist

Two weeks ago, John Kurtz defended Trump’s Muslim Ban in his piece “Three Fictions About Trump’s Immigration Order.” I argue that Trump’s executive order is in fact discriminatory against Muslims, and that comparing this ban with Obama’s anti-terror efforts is like comparing a hammer with a scalpel.

Trump’s Executive Order is a Muslim Ban

            Kurtz argues that the executive order is not a Muslim ban because because the act “does not come even close to preventing all Muslims from entering the United States.” It is a well established principle of constitutional law that an equal protection violation does not need to extend to an entire group of people. That has never been the equal protection standard. If, for example, a government-run national park decided it wanted to cap how many African Americans it let in, that would be a clear equal protection violation. If a park ranger denied one African American entry, and then allowed five African Americans in, that does not change the fact that the first African American was subjected to discrimination. The same goes for this ban. The language and intent of the ban indicate that Muslims are the targeted group of this act.

            Kurtz also argues that the ban is based on national origin and not religious identity. This is false. Trump has made clear that Christian refugees from Syria are welcome, while Muslim refugees are not.[1] The prioritization of one group of Syrians over another group based solely on their religious beliefs makes clear that this ban is about religion, not national identity. Furthermore, Trump and the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel also released a statement that Jews from the banned countries are exempt from the ban.[2] So Yemeni Jews are allowed in, but Yemeni Muslims are not. The baseline here is not how many Muslims are still allowed, but how Muslims immigrants are being treated compared to non-Muslim immigrants.

            Finally, Trump made his intentions clear time and time again throughout his campaign as he called for a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”[3] You can only argue that this act is facially neutral to a certain point--and that point is Trump’s statements and tweets calling for a ban based on religious identity. Even Giuliani has gone on record and said that “President Trump wanted a ‘Muslim ban’ and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”[4] Instead of recognizing the act for what it is and what is was promised to be, my fellow Americans are going to great lengths to justify a blatantly un-American, discriminatory act that will surely be remembered as a dark moment in our history.

These restrictions on immigration are unprecedented and unconstitutional

            Kurtz also argues that Obama’s immigration policies set the precedent for Trump’s Muslim ban. What we have here is the difference between a hammer and a scalpel. Obama did call for a slowing down of immigrants from Iraq and Iran in response to a discrete set of episodes, but he never called for a ban on a specific religious group nor did he prioritize refugees based on their religion. The 9th Circuit Court halted Trump’s ban for that very reason--the order is not a response to acts, and it has been implemented with no ground in facts.

            The difference between Obama’s policies and Trump’s policy is not a difference in degree, but a difference in kind. Trump is calling for an absolute ban on refugees who have been subject to years of vetting, and in the wake of the order, even Muslim green card holders were denied entry into the U.S. Furthermore, the American Embassy in India denied Muslim Indian athletes visas to attend a tournament, citing “current policies.”[5] While Obama’s policy played out by halting and then slowing down immigration based on national origin from Iraq and Iran, Trump’s policies are affecting Muslims worldwide—including green card holders who have lived in the U.S. for years. We cannot equate the two.

            Although I am limiting my discussion of executive order to the legal aspects here, I am more than happy to discuss the act in the context of America-Middle East relations and how it plays into the age old Orientalist narratives of other-ing, war mongering, and xenophobia. Feel free to email me at mm7yy@virginia.edu.

[1]http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees

[2] http://mondoweiss.net/2017/02/executive-christians-welcomed/

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/wild-donald-trump-quotes/3/

[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.30902d0ad827

[5] https://www.facebook.com/fahadshah.pz/posts/10209961632216028?pnref=story