Historic Football Rivalry
Before softball came to dominate Law School athletics, football was the main source of competition on grounds. And among the perennial rivals were two of the Law School’s historically most esteemed publications: the Virginia Law Weekly and the Virginia Law Review. Indeed, although the North Grounds Softball League dates back only to 1975, public beef between the Law Weekly and Law Review featured in the former’s publications as early as 1953, when a notice appeared on the front page of the October 29 issue announcing:
“WHEREAS, The Virginia Law Review is a monthly publication subservient to, and wholly dependent upon, the Virginia Law Weekly; And WHEREAS, Said subservient has attempted to gain unwarranted prestige by devious and questionable means in that said subservient or agents thereof has: 1. Repeatedly and with malice defamed said Virginia Law Weekly, and, 2. Openly and notoriously utilized said publication for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended; And WHEREAS, Said subservients have seen fit to produce a mass of unintelligible abbreviations and numerical equations calculated only to confuse rather than to clarify, while the masterpieces of literary genius promulgated by the Virginia Law Weekly have been acclaimed throughout the entire legal profession; AND WHEREAS, Because of their sedentary activities muscular atrophy has incapacitated them to such an extent that it is questionable whether their now "gnome-like" bodies will respond to any stimulus; NOW THEREFORE BE IT KNOWN that the Editors and Staff of the Virginia Law Weekly hereby challenge the Editors and Staff of the Virginia Law Review to a duel on the gridiron on Friday, November 13, 1953.”
Incensed by such an affront, their pride damaged, the Law Review accepted this challenge in the following week’s issue:
“We wouldn't have noticed the thing, but apparently one of our tryouts reads the Law Weakly, and he has reported to us the remarkable indiscretion appearing in last week’s issue concerning a certain football game with the titans of this office. We asked our man to give his views on the Weakly’s lapse and, overcome by decision-writing, he has produced the following: In Virginia, assault amounting to mahem [sic] is viewed with distaste, Thompson v. Schotz, even though perpetrated on the gridiron. Groton v. Wakefield. However, where said mayhem is provoked, see Law Weakly 10 October 1953, murder is justified. Taylor & Fonts v. Devine, Mitchell, Jessee & Reiner. But provocation is no defense where said provocation is patently rash in view of the brute strength and blinding speed of the alleged provoked. Rogers, Peet & Co. v. Shapero, Haight, Wood & Kennedy. Where the evidence clearly indicates preeminent physical prowess, In re Childress, Cox, Fleenor & Frazier, more than fabulous facility at football, Matter of Hazlegrove, Rogers & Schafer, and consummate capacity to clobber young leprechauns who work on newspapers, Matter of Shevlin, Sweeney, Tallman & Tillack, it has been held that provocation did not excuse the mayhem since the decapitation of the provoker and consequent crushing defeat was a foregone conclusion. State v. Vandervoort, Viar, Wells & Angell. Our man's conclusion was that we would, in view of the law, require a pardon-in-advance from the Governor in order to take the field against the gnats that infest the Law Weakly premises. The Board has decided to risk prosecution. It must apologize, however, to whatever readers the Weakly may have for the fact that publication of said sheet may have to be suspended for several weeks after Friday, November 13th due to lack of healthy personnel.”
But the tomfoolery did not cease. The following week, on the day before the brawl, the Law Weekly hit back. In an article titled “Law Weekly Pits Minds . . . Law Review Mines Pits . . . ” the Law Weekly previewed the inaugural “battle for The Big Fat Keg,” featuring “an inept and pitifully undermanned Law Review football squad . . . against the behemoths of the Law Weekly.” Curiously, the Law Weekly noted, neither team had arranged practice in advance of the game. “Patently this indicates the apparent disdain which each team holds for the other,” commented the Law Weekly. “However, on further inquiry the real basis for the lack of pre-game warmups was found to be that ancient legal doctrine of somewhat questionable origin: practus todae—canta mova tomorra.”
After a bruising affair, the Law Weekly emerged victorious in the very first battle for the “Big Fat Keg.” The Law Weekly bested “a speedy but disorganized Law Review aggregation” in a 12–6 finish, refereed by Professor Emerson G. Spies and Kenneth R. Redden. Perhaps unsurprisingly, “[t]he first few plays indicated that many of these typewriter jockeys had never seen a football prior to their entrance into the day’s fray let alone having been called upon to manipulate the elusive spheroid.” Nonetheless, with the benefit of “vitamin-laden malt beverages” at half-time, the teams put together a complete and memorable performance, and a tradition had begun.
Over a decade later, the Law Weekly firmly established their athletic—and rhetorical[1]—dominance. In their October 14, 1965 issue, the Law Weekly issued their annual challenge to the Law Review in a bill of complaint, an early predecessor to our modern Court of Petty Appeals:
But the chicanery did not stop there. The Law Weekly proceeded to issue sleight-after-comical-sleight in both pictorial and verbal form.
Captioned: “Law Review Editor Regan (r) is pictured with bodyguard Kirby (l).
[Excerpted from “Law School Oracle Advises Troubled Law Review Staff”]
“DEAR VIRGINIA HAY,
I am a writer for the Virginia Law Review; I will call myself Mary Smithie to prevent identification. The Managing Board recently told me that I was assigned two notes, three spades and a decision, all due before the end of October, unless I play fullback for the Law Review football team. Now, I'm all for being "one of the boys" and all that, when it comes to doing my share of the work on "the rag," as we refer to it, but I don't think it would be dignified for me to play fullback. What do you think?
Mary Smithie
“DEAR SMITHIE,
I agree—hold out for the tailback position.
“DEAR VIRGINIA HAY,
I am a BMOG who flits down the road to various girls’ schools on weekday nights looking for girls to take out in my snazzy new car. Several of the girls have laughed at my official Law Review leopard skin blanket which I keep at the ready in the back seat of my car. Don't you think it is dreadful that these girls are not taught at their schools to have proper respect for members of the Law Review.
Brucie McBoing-Boing
“DEAR BRUCIE,
I received a similar letter from Egregious Regis, and I can only tell you to try to organize group therapy sessions with him and the other frustrated bachelors of the Law Review.”
The good boys at the Law Review dutifully issued a response:
“…It reveals the backwardness of these boisterous barbarians that they still rely on trial by combat (looked upon in civilized circles as carrying the adversary approach a bit too far). Well might they have suggested trial by contest between individual champions. Who, even with hand-painted ties, could match the sartorial savoir-faire, the spit-and-polish, of Ed "Bouncer" Baird? Not even Demosthenes with an entire beach to smack his gums upon could equal in belligerent incomprehensibility "Mushmouth" Lewis. Surely none can compete with Desk Editor Rasmus at editing desks. Or stand up to "Slick" Savasten with a cake of laundry soap. There is not one among Smilius' boorish band without his peculiar forte, nor, indeed, one without his peculiar title, or two. Let these callous curmudgeons then appear on a field meet for honorable battle. Though they have with them two-thirds of the troglodyte triumvirate, the Count and the Walrus (the Carpenter being on waivers to the lounge fund), they will long rue the day, the twenty-fourth of this month of October, when bruised of bone and bereft of beer the survivors flee Madison Bowl before the righteous wrath of THE LAW REVIEW.”
The next week:
[1] The Law Weekly was at this time in the midst of a double-digit-long run of receiving awards for best law school newspaper in the country.
