A Few More Tidbits About the Harvard Law Review Note Controversy

By  
on

In the wake of a former Harvard Law Review president securing the Democratic nomination for United States president, it’s timely to do an update on the Harvard Law Review Note controversy (or Statue-Gate, as Glenn Reynolds dubbed it). If you haven’t been following the story, background appears here, here, and here.
Whenever a leader stumbles, bloggers swarm. The mini-scandal at America’s top law review has spawned a cottage industry of blogs. First there was a blog claiming to be written by Note author Phil Telfeyan, Do the Right Thing at Every Moment. It was under password protection for a time, but it’s once again open to all. And now there are at least two other blogs dedicated to covering perceived scholarly lapses at Harvard Law School and the Harvard Law Review, Harvard Clown School and Harvard Law Review Review (both via Prettier Than Napoleon).
There have been all sorts of rumors going around about Phil Telfeyan, his Note, and the blog dedicated to the Note (which may or may not be his). We made an effort to get to the bottom of some of them, talking to people with firsthand knowledge of the situation, including current and former HLR editors. We didn’t find out everything we wanted to know, but we learned a few new things.
If you’re curious — some of you may be tired of this story, and we don’t blame you — you can read more below the fold.


We’ve structured this as a question-and-answer session. The responses in the Q-and-A are based on our reporting, talking to sources whose identities are known to us (as opposed to anonymous commenters). Phil Telfeyan did not respond to our repeated attempts to contact him.
Is Phil Telfeyan the author of the “mea culpa” comment on ATL, identifying him as author of the Note?
Unclear. On the one hand, the photo used for his avatar was publicly available, and the comment reads a bit like a parody. On the other hand, those who know him say Phil at times sounds like a self-parody.
As stated in comments on ATL and other blogs, Phil did send emails to his fellow Harvard Law Review editors in which he denied responsibility for the comment.
And what about the blog devoted to the Note, Do the Right Thing at Every Moment?
In his emails to HLR editors, mentioned above, Phil also disclaimed responsibility for the blog. It’s worth noting that the blog contains no written content that could not be derived from the piece itself.
But the photography on the blog is interesting. Phil is something of an amateur photographer; he has posted some of his work in Gannett House (unsolicited). If the blog is not by Phil, it’s probably by someone who doesn’t like him, but knows him pretty well.
What is Phil like as a person?
Phil Telfeyan and his fellow editor, Alec Karakatsanis — author of the notorious Case Comment with a tone and sensibility very similar to Phil’s Note — are partners in crime. They are inseparable and always up to something. Around the Review, they were thought of as a single entity.
Socially Phil is an odd duck, awkward when you interact with him personally. He is a bit like the Mozart character in the movie “Amadeus.” He’s constantly talking about “justice,” but he’s lacking in true philosophical depth. He claims to be a virgin, grossed out by sex, but he flirts often with women.
He works out at the gym wearing long pants and two button-down oxfords, one worn over the other. To a student group photo, he wore an amazing snow-white suit, with matching white shoes and hat.
He’s a good public speaker. But he’s not the most eloquent person on the Review, despite his being a moot court champion.
What are his career plans after his clerkship with Judge Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Cir.)?
Unclear. Around the Law School, he kept his clerkship with the conservative Judge Brown kind of on the down-low. There are rumors that he may have presented himself as being more conservative than he actually is during the clerkship application process.
Should blame for Phil’s note be placed at the feet of Andrew Crespo, the liberal former president of the Harvard Law Review (and a subject of prior ATL coverage)?
No. Andrew actually didn’t get along with Phil (and Alec), and Andrew “blew up” (i.e., nixed) everything by Phil that came across his desk. The controversial Note was approved by another president someone other than Andrew Crespo.
How do other HLR editors feel about the whole Note controversy?
On the whole — obviously it’s hard to generalize about a group this large — they are not happy. They feel this episode has done harm to the reputation of the Review, an institution that many of them put a great deal of hard work into. Most editors of the Harvard Law Review are diligent, conscientious scholars, and they are unhappy that so much attention has been paid to a piece of writing that does not represent the best the Review has to offer.
UPDATE / CLARIFICATION: In the comments, there is some speculation about the authorship of various Notes in the latest volume of the Review. We have been in touch with HLR sources and can assure you of the following:
1. Phil Telfeyan wrote the Note entitled “Never Again Should a People Starve in a World of Plenty.” This lies beyond dispute; we have confirmed it with multiple HLS sources.
2. Chiraag Bains did NOT write that Note, nor did he write the Note entitled “The Ministerial Exception to Title VII: The Case for a Deferential Primary Duties Test.”
May, 2008, Note on the “Ministerial Exception” to Title VII [Harvard Law Review Review]
Harvard Clown School
More HLR Shenanigans? [Prettier Than Napoleon]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of the Harvard Law Review

Sponsored

Topics