A Few More Tidbits About the Harvard Law Review Note Controversy
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]
(137) Comments
FIRST to say I don't really care.
SECOND... to say HLS is a bunch of assholes
Millionth! to find the dude incredibly lame. "claims to be a virgin"...wow. Somebody put him out of his narcissistic misery.
Crespo isn't the editor who blew up this Note in the initial go-round.
All Harvard Law Review editors are virgins.
At least he is honest about it.
TWO Oxfords? Grossed out by sex? Sounds like a human disaster.
4:52 - This Note didn't get blown up - it got published.
4:55, even wearing ONE oxford shirt to the gym is one oxford too many.
Who DOES that?
I wear 2 Oxfords to work to make myself look more muscular. But doing that at the gym is just odd.
Guys at my HLS used to wear two Oxfords all the time; it was no big deal.
stop hating on HLS because you didn't get in.
How long until FratStud mentions that guys at his high school used to wear two Oxfords to the gym all the time and it was no big deal?
5:09 here -- Never mind, I've got my answer.
You're saying Andrew Crespo, despite his liberal reputation and somewhat activist orientation (I believe he's committed to public defender work) vetoed this piece of trash?
And then Robert Allen, the new president, who I thought is viewed as a moderate, and who's a Sears Prize winner regarded for his brilliance, APPROVED it? Why in the hell would Allen approve something this pathetic, as one of his first editorial decisions in office? It makes no sense to me. Review editors, comment please?
(5:24 p.m.)
One more thing: since the Review keeping quiet about everything, why don't editors who actually care about editorial standards feed info (anonymously, if necessary) to one of the bloggers behind the new blogs Lat's linked to. They seem pretty worked up.
Obviously I don't mean Phil's blog (if it is Phil) -- the clown blog and the dude who says his grandfather started the Review (I assume he's exxagerating; I thought Brandeis started it). I'm thinking some inside info, ideally docuements, implicating the people who screwed this up would help with a housecleaning.
Just a thought. Certainly wouldn't want anyone to fail to comply with any of the rules on disclosing Law Review info which Lat publicized lat year!
This story shows with stark clarity that the only people who love circlejerks more than lawyers are bloggers.
Hey, on Prettier Than Napolean there's a mysterious comment by an HLS student saying that it's obvious to everyone who the note author is -- but she doesn't think anyone should disclose the name, at least now, because the author should be given a chance to come forward:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bamber/3942803595211047086/#278670
What's the big deal? On Phil's note, within hours everyone knew it was Phil. Anyone know who it is? If so, spill the beans! Might be someone else with a hat collection, or with a psychological disorder which reminds me of the character Jerry "Hands" Espenson on Boston Legal, who would make for good fun in comments!
SERIOUS QUESTION:
Who is *less* employable, (1) Phil Telfeyan, OR (2) former AG Alberto Gonzales?
5:40: While Phil's Note may be a crime, it is not, strictly speaking, a felony. Cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 606 (Hatch Act), 1001 (false statements within federal jurisdiction), 1503 (obstruction of justice), 1505 (obstruction of Congress), 1621 (perjury).
Phil's less employable, because at least Gonzales can get a gig speaking at a high school graduation:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15746.html
BTW, I was stunned by the rumor that Phil may have gotten the Janice Rogers Brown clerkship by pretending to be a conservative. Boy, did she buy a pig in a poke!
(Aside: someone commented on one of Lat's earlier posts that Brown managed to hire the only other HLR editor who was involved in a scandal on his note)
(5:46)
One final thing -- I think Lat's treading in dangerous waters (maybe that's the wrong metaphor) in writing: "There are rumors that he may have presented himself as being more conservative than he actually is during the clerkship application process."
Suppose Phil didn't do anything wrong. Suppose Brown swears under oath that Phil was 100% up front about being a liberal, and she hired him because she likes diversity. I don't think Lat can avoid libel exposure just by saying he was only passing along "rumors."
5:40: Note author is Chiraag Bains.
On Ames moot court team, hence no plagiarism issue.
Perfectly normal, nice guy, so nothing to gossip about. Find someplace else to troll.
5:24: Bob Allen did not approve this note; it was approved before his tenure by a delegee of Crespo. Allen would have had to take extraordinary steps to kill the note, which he reportedly considered doing. I heard that Phil gave Allen a false and misleading sob story about his family (and cried!) to prevent him from doing so. Bob Allen is not to blame for this fiasco. He blew up Alex's note, which reportedly was even worse.
6:45: Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while?
Hey, 6:50, Give me your phone # so I can come find you and we can discuss who is going to stop talking.
(5:24 back)
6:41, thank you for the clarification, if indeed your statements are accurate.
I'm a former HLR editor, from way back, and was surprised by the idea that this awful May note was somehow killed by the outgoing president, and then revived by the incoming president -- especially given what I've read (in the Record and on blogs) about Crespo being a leftist, and Allen not being controversial, and being really smart.
My recollection is that for a May note, a draft had to be in by January, and it had to be in pretty solid shape by February, so the outgoing president would be in charge. So what you say about Crespo pushing it through, and Allen merely not killing it, makes total sense.
Still, I have to say -- and I say this with all due respect to Allen, though I don't personally know him -- that Allen shoulders the main responsibility because he had at least two solid months to consider whether to kill Phil's note, and he didn't kill it. The whole point of having an executive structure, with the president at the top, is to have someone charged with upholding the scholarly standards of the review, and prepared to kill pieces as necessary to do that. To borrow a phrase from Phil's note, Allen failed to "do the right thing at every moment."
(6:56 back)
I don't condone 6:45's tenor, but I do have some FREE ADVICE FOR PHIL.
Phil, if Lat's summary is to be believed, you've let 2 weeks go by without responding to any of his e-mails.
There are two key points here: (1) you haven't confirmed or denied whether you authored the note; and (2) you haven't confirmed or denied whether you authored the blog in support of the note (dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com).
Really, to stop looking absolutely insane to everyone, you need to confirm or deny each of these points. You look like a complete idiot in refusing to do that. Especially if you didn't author the blog, you look like you're confirming your authorship by saying nothing (especially given the comment of a HLS student on Concurring Opinions that (s)he heard a rumor you were authoring the blog while not admitting it, to maintain the option of pretending it wasn't yours -- which seems to be exactly what's going on here).
I don't think you need to do more than address these 2 points. I think people can understand why you don't want to dwell on all this stuff.
To make this easy on you Phil, I suggest that you can clear away this matter by simply e-mailing Lat, using your harvard.edu e-mail account, either the number 1, 2, 3, or 4, with the number you select corresponding to the following list of answers on the two key points:
1. "I authored the note, and the blog."
2. "I authored the note, but not the blog."
3. I didn't author the note, but I authored the blog."
4. "I authored neither the note nor the blog."
Phil, I assume the answer is either 1 or 2. Just e-mail whatever the number is to Lat, and we can be done with this!
(6:56 back yet again)
I've now looked past 6:45's bad language, and seen that he's making a substantive mistake.
I don't read 6:25 as saying that Bains authored the note which everyone (but Phil) says Phil wrote. It seems clear Phil wrote that.
I read 6:25 as responding to 5:40's question about who wrote THE OTHER NOTE in the May issue which now has come under attack (on the new Harvard Law Review Review blog Lat links to). He's saying Bains authored that one -- and that it's okay, because Bains was on the moot court brief, so he was plagiarizing from himself; plus, Bains unlike Phil is a normal guy, so there's nothing to gossip about.
This is confusing, even to me, but the bottom line is I don't think anyone's trying to pin the blame on Bains for Phil's note.
You're like Fox News.
You start stirring something up enough and then it becomes "the controvery." There is absolutely no controversy here. This was legitimate, interesting piece.
Whenever someone says anything the least negative about big law firms, you get your panties in a bunch. I suggest you either change the name of your blog to reflect the fact that your goal is to promote big, corporate firms (such as "Above the BigLaw") or stop acting as an apologist for them.
Two points:
First, at least it sounds like Phil won't be reproducing.
Second, to answer 5:40(2)'s question, Phil is more employable. And his folly was writing a crappy note, so crappy that all the world took notice. But still. Twentysomething writing a Note that makes him look like a brainless, sloppy douchebag vs. AG AG...well...doing what he did as AG? No comparison.
Not that I'm suggesting hiring Philly Boy, just theoretically someone should hire Phil more easily than AG AG. Easier to outgrow douchiness and develop solid work habits than rehab from a life of crime.
BASIC INFO ON "CHIGGER BRAINS"
The guy who outed Chiraag Bains as the author of the May note which plagiarized from the losing moot court brief says he's a normal, nice guy. Don't know him, but thought I should pull some quick stuff off google to see if it supports that view.
Everyone calls Phil just "Phil" because no one can remember how to spell his last name. Here, the problem is with the guy's first name. Can't keep track of that, so I propose he be called "Chigger Brains." If you can't make fun of the guy, make fun of the name!
Born in Canada to Indian parents; naturalized in 2000:
http://www.pdsoros.org/fellows.cfm?year=2005
Ayn Rand groupie -- to the point of making it to the semi-final round of a contest for best essay on The Fountainhead!:
http://www.aynrandnovels.com/AREssays.php?pagename=education_contest_winners_fount1998
Yale double major in "history and ethnicity, race & migration" (huh??). Also "enjoys plays, movies about lawyers, and old time radio programs." And nice picture of the dude! All here:
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k13943&pageid=icb.page63526&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent189384&view=seqslideshow.do&viewParam_index=0
He also "enjoys playing basketball and honing his skills as a hip hop and bhangra DJ."
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Summer/Summer02/galbraithstdts2002.htm
Is on the record that spelling is very important: "Spelling is, like grammar, a ligament in the body of language; it keeps the language together and keeps it working properly. Without spelling, people would not be able to fully and easily understand each other." Awesome insight!
http://www.wordsmiths.org.za/quotes.html
He's committed to criminal justice reform and combating institutional racism."
http://www.coro.org/site/c.nvI2IeNZJyE/b.2213029/k.B4D1/2004__2005_Coro_Fellows_in_New_York.htm
That's why, in 2003, he posed this vital question: " Is hip-hop poppin' a bottle of Cristal, filling your music videos with half-naked girls, getting iced out, and going platinum?"
http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1870
Plans career in public service (cool photo):
http://www.bigsight.org/chiraag_bains
Signed pretentious letter in 2004 saying he doesn't like George Bush:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news/live/letter_0717.pdf
Likes helping sex offenders:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/admissions/2006/10/18/summer-at-the-southern-center-for-human-rights
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2008/03/ga-georgias-hb-1059-saga-of-legislative.html
Yeah, I guess he's pretty normal -- at least compared to Phil.
God, 6:45, you are an idiot.
Apparently Chiraag Bains authored the OTHER May 2008 note in the HLR about the ministerial exception to Title VII. That note lifted paragraphs wholesale from Chiraag's team's Ames moot court brief, which is unoriginal but not plagiarism (assuming he only quoted portions he wrote or had permission from the others).
Nevertheless, it seems pathetic that the HLR is publishing "something which was copied in part from a brief which was crafted in an advocacy posture for a moot court exercise in which the six students were assigned to argue for a predetermined result", and a losing brief at that.
In other words, the Harvard Law Review class of 2008 is a bit of a disaster.
No way the new President Allen approved this. Allen is about 6'6'' and a Sears Prize winner. No one crosses him.
(7:13)
8:07, I made this exact point at 7:13. Don't you bother to read posts which appear after posts you want to attack?
For what it's worth, I doubt Bains lifted ONLY research/analysis/language which he personnally authored, inasmuch as there were 6 people on the team. Did he really have permission from the others? Even if he did, he should have disclosed that this stuff was unoriginal, and also that the conclusion for which he argued had been randomly selected for him.
I agree on the disaster point. And it may have implications: I doubt the top officers of either year have helped their situation for teaching jobs, or U.S. Supreme Court clerkships (if some are still to be selected).
8:10:
He took over as president 3 months before this appeared. New presidents are responsible for the March, April, May and June issues (maybe not March; I forget).
The buck stops at Allen's desk. Whether he was weak (e.g., if Phil pleaded with him), or didn't understand the risk to the Review's reputation, at bottom it really doesn't matter why he let this through.
Yeah, he's 6-6, but he's real skinny, and has no muscle. Bet even Phil could beat him up. Maybe Phil DID beat him up -- maybe that's how Phil got the note published!
8:14, yes I (8:07) read your post. Heaven forbid two different Internet posts contain criticisms of the same person! Also note that my post expands upon some other points that your 7:13 post did not address, while your 7:13 post contained some ideas that I did not write.
Speaking of clerkships, who's Crespo clerking for? Just curious ...
Gotta post the full text of Chigger Brains's hip-hop piece in the 2/28/2003 Yale Herald (quote about half-naked girls posted 8:03):
Hip-hop's unsung Stars blaze for genre
BY CHIRAAG BAINS
en we look back at music 20 years from now, how will we remember turn-of-the-century hip-hop?
Maybe we'll think of how the lyrical genius Ja Rule dominated three of the six songs on the Hot
97 playlist. Or perhaps we'll recall how that charming cartoon minstrel Cita told her B.E.T.
audience to "deal with baby mama drama and keep those hoochies away from your man." Is
hip-hop poppin' a bottle of Cristal, filling your music videos with half-naked girls, getting iced out,
and going platinum? Is hip-hop Puff dropping his latest moniker on the remix, ruining decent
songs with voiceover whispers of "I told you we won't stop" and "They call me Diddy"?
Sometimes, it really seems that way. Certainly, hip-hop is a diverse culture and its music a
heterogeneous form of expression that defies neat definitions. But the past several years of
commercial music have been pretty disappointing. Despite significant gains made in fusing
American rap and international music, mainstream hip-hop has been strikingly stale and generally
devoid of any serious message.
How many songs can J. Lo put out trying to prove to us that money hasn't changed her and she's
just as "real" as before? How many tracks about hating his mother can Eminem release? These are
hot club songs, but hip-hop has got to be about more than catchy hooks and beats you can grind
to.
As any dedicated hip-hop head will tell you, the music goes far beyond what we're seeing on
MTV or hearing on our local radio station. There is plenty of creative, meaningful music out
there, in the underground and in that nebulous space between underground and commercial
hip-hop. Some of these artists—most recently Mos Def, The Roots, and Common—have broken
through to wider audiences. Others, such as rap duo Binary Star, have yet to enter the
mainstream.
In Nov. 2000, Binary Star, the collaboration of artists One Man Army and Senim Silla, introduced
the world to Masters of the Universe. A remixed version of their limited supply 1999 release
Water World with a few extra tracks, it was one of the most original releases since the early
1990s. As one of the best hip-hop albums I have ever heard, Masters distinguished the duo as two
of hip-hop's greatest MCs.
While you won't find any club hits on the album, you will be blown away by the lyrical mastery
displayed track after track. Binary goes right at their listeners on the opener, "Reality Check,"
letting them know are about the music, not the money: "It ain't all about economy/So the fact that
all these whack MCs is makin' Gs don't bother me/Honestly, my number one policy is
quality/Never sell my soul is my philosophy."
Binary further explores this theme in "Honest Expression," calling out rappers who pretend to be
thugs: "I ain't hardcore, I don't pack a nine millimeter/Most a y'all gangsta rappers ain't hardcore
neither/Whoever get mad, then I'm talkin' 'bout you/Claim you fear no man, but never walk
without crew." But this is by no means a self-righteous, player-hating production. The artists tell a
chilling story of fatal attraction in "Glen Close" and set a horror story to a deliberate, haunting
drumline in "Wolf Man Jack." The album is made complete by an inside look at the MCs through
their personal experiences with prison in "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings."
The beats are nothing out of the ordinary, but combined with creative piano loops on multiple
songs, they provide a refreshing alternative to the heavy-hitting Neptunes bass lines that are
currently featured up and down Top 40 radio. The beats conspire with Binary's effortless and
unrelenting flow to hyponotize listeners and lock them into the content of the rhymes.
Masters of the Universe is one of those rare albums you can play through to the end without
skipping over a single track. This is the kind of album you go out and buy—even though you
might have some trouble finding it.
Binary Star is a reminder of what true hip-hop is and what mainstream hip-hop could be. There is
something redeeming about almost everything hip-hop has given us, but I'm growing weary of the
same old tired rhymes and misogynistic gangsta posturing. Imagine a music industry in which
listeners got a balance between mindless tracks with dope beats and deep lyrical masterpieces.
Though One Man Army and Senim Silla have yet to announce plans for another joint project, a
plethora of other talented MCs are out there. When we start demanding to hear them and move
beyond this bling-bling phase of hip-hop, we will unleash a world of potential that has been
suppressed for too long.
Chiraag Bains is a senior in Morse College.
http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1870
Sorry, that version was messed up. This is easier to read:
Hip-hop's unsung Stars blaze for genre
BY CHIRAAG BAINS
When we look back at music 20 years from now, how will we remember turn-of-the-century hip-hop? Maybe we'll think of how the lyrical genius Ja Rule dominated three of the six songs on the Hot 97 playlist. Or perhaps we'll recall how that charming cartoon minstrel Cita told her B.E.T. audience to "deal with baby mama drama and keep those hoochies away from your man." Is hip-hop poppin' a bottle of Cristal, filling your music videos with half-naked girls, getting iced out, and going platinum? Is hip-hop Puff dropping his latest moniker on the remix, ruining decent songs with voiceover whispers of "I told you we won't stop" and "They call me Diddy"?
Sometimes, it really seems that way. Certainly, hip-hop is a diverse culture and its music a heterogeneous form of expression that defies neat definitions. But the past several years of commercial music have been pretty disappointing. Despite significant gains made in fusing American rap and international music, mainstream hip-hop has been strikingly stale and generally devoid of any serious message.
How many songs can J. Lo put out trying to prove to us that money hasn't changed her and she's just as "real" as before? How many tracks about hating his mother can Eminem release? These are hot club songs, but hip-hop has got to be about more than catchy hooks and beats you can grind to.
As any dedicated hip-hop head will tell you, the music goes far beyond what we're seeing on MTV or hearing on our local radio station. There is plenty of creative, meaningful music out there, in the underground and in that nebulous space between underground and commercial hip-hop. Some of these artists—most recently Mos Def, The Roots, and Common—have broken through to wider audiences. Others, such as rap duo Binary Star, have yet to enter the mainstream.
In Nov. 2000, Binary Star, the collaboration of artists One Man Army and Senim Silla, introduced the world to Masters of the Universe. A remixed version of their limited supply 1999 release Water World with a few extra tracks, it was one of the most original releases since the early 1990s. As one of the best hip-hop albums I have ever heard, Masters distinguished the duo as two of hip-hop's greatest MCs.
While you won't find any club hits on the album, you will be blown away by the lyrical mastery displayed track after track. Binary goes right at their listeners on the opener, "Reality Check," letting them know are about the music, not the money: "It ain't all about economy/So the fact that all these whack MCs is makin' Gs don't bother me/Honestly, my number one policy is quality/Never sell my soul is my philosophy."
Binary further explores this theme in "Honest Expression," calling out rappers who pretend to be thugs: "I ain't hardcore, I don't pack a nine millimeter/Most a y'all gangsta rappers ain't hardcore neither/Whoever get mad, then I'm talkin' 'bout you/Claim you fear no man, but never walk without crew." But this is by no means a self-righteous, player-hating production. The artists tell a chilling story of fatal attraction in "Glen Close" and set a horror story to a deliberate, haunting drumline in "Wolf Man Jack." The album is made complete by an inside look at the MCs through their personal experiences with prison in "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings."
The beats are nothing out of the ordinary, but combined with creative piano loops on multiple songs, they provide a refreshing alternative to the heavy-hitting Neptunes bass lines that are currently featured up and down Top 40 radio. The beats conspire with Binary's effortless and unrelenting flow to hyponotize listeners and lock them into the content of the rhymes.
Masters of the Universe is one of those rare albums you can play through to the end without skipping over a single track. This is the kind of album you go out and buy—even though you might have some trouble finding it.
Binary Star is a reminder of what true hip-hop is and what mainstream hip-hop could be. There is something redeeming about almost everything hip-hop has given us, but I'm growing weary of the same old tired rhymes and misogynistic gangsta posturing. Imagine a music industry in which listeners got a balance between mindless tracks with dope beats and deep lyrical masterpieces. Though One Man Army and Senim Silla have yet to announce plans for another joint project, a plethora of other talented MCs are out there. When we start demanding to hear them and move beyond this bling-bling phase of hip-hop, we will unleash a world of potential that has been suppressed for too long.
Chiraag Bains is a senior in Morse College.
(7:13)
8:30, I didn't accuse you of plagiarizing my earlier post on Bains being the author of the 2nd note, not the 1st note . I accused you of being lazy and not having read it.
Regarding Bains, why are people dragging him through the mud now? I can't keep these stupid "scandals" straight. It should come as no surprise that a number of student pieces are not top-rate scholarship; virtually all of them are first publications. It is pretty mean-spirited and pathetic to pile on these poor students who had the guts to put something out there and get it published. Also, if Bains is indeed a huge Ayn Rand fan, doesn't this fact undermine the thesis of Lat and his anonymous commenters that the Harvard Law Review has been taken over by left-wingers?
I am a current HLR editor. The author of the ministerial exception note is not Chiraag, so people should probably stop posting stuff about him...
"Mean spirited and pathetic to pile on these poor students"? Give me a break.
When you publish something, you invite peer review. That's the whole point of publication, to let your work fend for itself in the marketplace of ideas. This note was shit, and it deserves to be trashed. This is grad school, not high school. Every published piece should be publishable. There are no academic training wheels.
Was it written by Elizabeth Barchas then? Somehow I doubt she would stoop to publish something with such low standards.
If it is written by neither Elizabeth Barchas or Chiraag Bains, and I'm certain the other team members are not secretly editors on the HLR, then I think we got ourselves a case of AMES-BRIEF-PLAGIARISM-GATE!
9:27: Look, all the HLR editors know who wrote this, and several hours ago an HLR editor outed Bains at the editor; said he was on the Ames team; said he was a normal said -- so that there was nothing further to say.
It makes no sense that an HLR editor would name Bains as the author if that wasn't true. Therefore, I have to assume Bains is the author. Your claim that Bains is the author comes only after various derogatory comments have been made about Bains, which is what I'd expect from someone who is trying to protect Bains.
I think people will (at least I will) regard Bains as the author unless and until the Review officially announces that someone else is the author.
9:38: The problem here is there is no accountability, because editors at the review like Phil and Bains are able to hide behind the "unsigned notes" rule, figuring they won't get attacked for scholarly lapses.
(9:46)
I meant your claim that Bains ISN'T the author comes only after Bains has been ridiculed, which is a little to late to be credible.
Since I'm not a HLR editor, I guess people will cut me some slack.
The person who "outed" him earlier on this blog did not claim to be an HLR editor. It wasn't him. You can believe me or not. But it simply wasn't him.
(9:46)
Now, on 9:39. I checked the brief, and it does look like Elizabeth Barchas was on both the Ames team, and is on the Review.
So, 9:27, would you be a little more specific? If you're saying (which I doubt) that Bains IS NOT the author, what exactly is your assertion:
1. Elizabeth Barchas is the author.
2. Someone else on the Review, who was not on the Ames team, is the author (and may or may not have had permission to copy from the Ames brief writers).
This is looking a little like the initial discussion on the first note -- it's Alec -- no it's Phil -- no it's Alec -- no it's Phil, etc.
As I said, I assume the author's Bains. But even if the author's Barchas, Bains is a fair target for criticism -- as is the president Allen -- because they all knew this note was lifted in part from an Ames brief arguing to a random conclusion, and they did nothing to stop it, nor to alert readers.
So based on my own moral compass (helpfully informed by Phil's "do the right thing at every moment" analysis), I think they are all fair game, regardless of who exactly wrote what on the note.
9:27/9:53, you're starting to sound like Shaggy in It Wasn't Me.
Your blanket denial is worthless. Give an explanation or tell us who it actually is.
9:53: Who was it? If you're trying to correct the record, and especially since you're anonymous, you advance your case (and credibility) by naming the actual author.
Alternatively, if you just want to credibly state for the record that Bains is not the author, you should publicly identify yourself, and e-mail Lat using your harvard.edu account, to confirm that you're actually who you say you are. I think the readers will trust an on-the-record statement from an editor that Bains is not the author, because they would doubt that you would publicly lie when any such lie would eventually be established through other sources.
In other words, if you identify yourself, you can clear Bains of being the author and thus spare him abuse you're worried about -- and you can do so without naming the actual author.
The only reason I can think of for you NOT identifying yourself in this way is if, in fact, you're trying to clear Bains of being the author when, in fact, he is the author.
Final point -- alternatively, if you don't want to get publicly involved, just call and/or e-mail Bains and tell him to immediately e-mail Lat with his harvard.edu account, publicly denying he's the author. Lat of course will fully credit that and publicize it immediately.
If NEITHER of these things happen -- you don't publicly identify yourself and put your personal credibility behind your statement, and Bains doesn't e-mail Lat to deny authorship -- obviously everyone will conclude that Bains is the author. Which will be entirely fair.
I would think that while any doubt exists, tomorrow morning people will lay off Bains. But if no authoritative statement clearing him of authorship comes out by then, I assume he'll get continued abuse, as the presumption of authorship continues to cement.
9:53: The person who named Bains hours ago didn't have to explicitly claim to be an HLR editor, you idiot! It was implicit -- how else would he or she have known?
You and the other HLR editors were happy to go along with this for hours until Bains decided he didn't like the comments made about him. Then he suddenly became not the author. Interesting.
What a silly way to run a Law Review. Why are you all afraid to put your name on what you write? And why are you so gutless that you will not identify yourselves, and will not defend your work, even when scholarly flaws in the pieces are pointed out? Maybe you are at "Harvard Clown School." I don't think there's any other law school with a circus like this.
(9:46)
Now, on 9:39. I checked the brief, and it does look like Elizabeth Barchas was on both the Ames team, and is on the Review.
So, 9:27, would you be a little more specific? If you're saying (which I doubt) that Bains IS NOT the author, what exactly is your assertion:
1. Elizabeth Barchas is the author.
2. Someone else on the Review, who was not on the Ames team, is the author (and may or may not have had permission to copy from the Ames brief writers).
This is looking a little like the initial discussion on the first note -- it's Alec -- no it's Phil -- no it's Alec -- no it's Phil, etc.
As I said, I assume the author's Bains. But even if the author's Barchas, Bains is a fair target for criticism -- as is the president Allen -- because they all knew this note was lifted in part from an Ames brief arguing to a random conclusion, and they did nothing to stop it, nor to alert readers.
So based on my own moral compass (helpfully informed by Phil's "do the right thing at every moment" analysis), I think they are all fair game, regardless of who exactly wrote what on the note.
(9:46)
Now, on 9:39. I checked the brief, and it does look like Elizabeth Barchas was on both the Ames team, and is on the Review.
So, 9:27, would you be a little more specific? If you're saying (which I doubt) that Bains IS NOT the author, what exactly is your assertion:
1. Elizabeth Barchas is the author.
2. Someone else on the Review, who was not on the Ames team, is the author (and may or may not have had permission to copy from the Ames brief writers).
This is looking a little like the initial discussion on the first note -- it's Alec -- no it's Phil -- no it's Alec -- no it's Phil, etc.
As I said, I assume the author's Bains. But even if the author's Barchas, Bains is a fair target for criticism -- as is the president Allen -- because they all knew this note was lifted in part from an Ames brief arguing to a random conclusion, and they did nothing to stop it, nor to alert readers.
So based on my own moral compass (helpfully informed by Phil's "do the right thing at every moment" analysis), I think they are all fair game, regardless of who exactly wrote what on the note.
Another HLR editor here: There is no story on the ministerial exception Note, which is a fine piece, regardless of the apparent overlap. An Ames brief has no effect on the scholarly conversation, so I'm glad the research has reached a broader audience. Profs regularly write overlapping books and articles. This is truly unremarkable.
Also, Bains is not the author. I'm glad we have anonymity.
Yeesh. Really, Lat: I don't mind you milking this HLR thing for all its worth, since anything Harvard-related seems to get your audience all riled up.
But as to Phil's virginity: really? You're going to go there? And report on it based solely on what other HLR editors, obviously among those who don't like the guy, have told you? Without even an ostensible link to the Note he published? Second-hand reports of a kid's virginity are the stuff of high-school locker-room gossip, and one would think they're below even this "legal tabloid."
This is silly. not funny.
I feel really bad for the people being named in this discussion, whether they committed the "offenses" they are being accused of or not. The commenters here are some very sad people (as are the website administrators if they know what they have started). Accusing someone of plagarism based on very thin evidence and detective work on google is pretty questionable, to say the least. And the defense that anonymously sliming someone on a blog is "peer review" is ridiculous. An anonymous blog commenter is not the peer of the author of a published note.
Sorry for being so ignorant, but . . . is there any other law review where people can write anonymous articles? How can there be any scholarly debate if people can deny their identities?
It's double weird that students get this free anonymity but not professors.
Also, why hasn't anybody commented on how bad this article was: (it's how one HLR editor believes we can prevent nuclear war)
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/may08/notes/the_incentive_gap.pdf
It's basically a rehash of Professor Allison's book, not to mention terribly written and facile.
If you want to see really rigid and ideological writing, I recommend you check out pretty much anything written by a law student under the banner of "law & economics."
Barchas wrote the note. It seems perfectly fine to me. You should all relax.
explain, 12:29
11:16, did you even read the critique of the ministerial's exception note? It copies entire paragraphs from the Ames brief, not just some "apparent overlap" which you disingenuously try to downplay. Overlap is writing about the same overall subject, not repeating the same sentence constructions in two different works without cross-attribution.
Only part of the critique is about plagiarism. The point is that even if the author copied her own work and there is no actual plagiarism (though she should have cited the Ames brief when copying the sentences), it seems there are pretty poor HLR editorial standards if they allow reprinting of team-effort Ames briefs that were written in response to pre-assigned arguments for set questions.
If you're another HLR editor trying to save your own resume, don't dig a bigger hole for yourself.
Do you nerds ever get laid? Seriously.
The Phil thing was so great!!! and this "ministerial exception" thing is so lame!!!! Authors crib their own work all the time, it's not plaigarism. What do you have to do, change a few words around so ATL commentators don't get upset? And why should HLR care that the paragraphs in question came from "briefs that were written in response to pre-assigned arguments for set questions." A good argument is a good argument -- if it works in the context of her note, that's all that matters. And no, you don't cite to an unpublished moot court brief, wtf would be the point in that?
The only thing that would be an issue here is if she didn't write the brief, and then claimed authorship of it in the note.
12:00, the problem isn't Lat, or commentators attacking people they don't know committed the offenses or not. The problem is that the Review hides the author's names from readers (is there any other major law journal which does?), and won't disclose them even if there are scholarly problems with a piece. Cover-ups just create more attention -- here, the attempted cover-up on Phil's note led to attention, which led to a discovery of problems with a 2nd note. Now, apparently, there are problems being discussed w/ a 3rd note. None of this, and most of the personal attacks on Phil, wouldn't have occurred if the Review had addressed the first report 2 weeks ago.
I'm with 6:39. "Relax, we let editors regurgitate the joint work product of 6 students from a randomly assigned Ames exercise, into a Note which purports to be fresh, original scholarship even though it's just ripped off from a losing Ames brief from 6 months ago," is only going to dig the hole deeper for your editors. It's going to make people think (hopefully incorrectly) that the Review will publish virtually any crap a student comes up with.
Even more problematic when:
1. They publish the Notes anonymously so it's virtually impossible for anyone to catch this sort of thing (the critic discovered it only b/c of a student who saw Ames and read the May issue; if the Notes were signed, and if the author is an Ames team member, readers could have put 2 and 2 together much more easily).
2. Even when someone does uncover work below scholarly standards, and the commentators take the trouble to ferret out who's the author (which apparently hasn't happened yet here), no one on the Review is willing to use his or her own name (not even the author) to defend the work, or make any other comment.
If there's someone on the Review willing to make any public statement on this note -- e.g., clearing one of the 2 people who've been suggested as the author, or defending the substance -- I'm sure readers would love to see it. Absent that, this will likely just keep snowballing.
(9:40)
Reading more of the comments, I'm also 100% with 6:39. The plagiarism is only a small part of the problem. That seems very clear from the "Harvard Law Review Review" blog to which Lat linked. Anyone trying to pass this off as nothing needs to read that, and respond to it if possible. People coming to this issue without prior knowledge (I'm thinking print journalists, who may soon be looking into this) are likely to find it convincing. If there's some good response, people who think this is nothing need to get it out there.
Hehe... This has really brightened my day, thanks.
From my vantage point, I don't really care too much about the supposed plagarism. That's more of a concern for academics than folks in the trenches like me. If the student wrote the Ames brief & turned it into a note, more power to her.
But what it DOES do is reemphasize my belief that journal work is an imperfect proxy for legal ability. Student editors may be diligent & bright, but they lack the real-world experience necessary to critically evaluate articles, notes, and the like. If I could only get everyone else to believe that law review is a net null on the resume, we'd all be set!
-- ET! (who also wants a pony, while he's dreaming)
1) It is utterly ridiculous to say that unless someone comes out and says he/she didn't author a piece, he/she is the author. No one owes a duty to confirm or deny anything to anyone on this blog. The author of every student note in the HLR is HLR. Thus, any critique of a note should be directed to HLR, not to individuals whom you assume wrote it because some anonymous blogger said so.
2) Doesn't a piece have to be copyrighted in order for one to assert plagarism? If I write a brief, and a friend of mine lifts language verbatim from the brief and publishes it as an original piece, I don't think it would be able to claim plagarism unless I had previously published the piece in a journal that has copyrights to the work, or I myself have copyrights to the work. So stop the plagarism claims.
10:08,
"Doesn't a piece have to be copyrighted in order for one to assert plagarism? "
No. Plagiarism can be done without copyright.
I just finished my 2L year at HLS. I think Bains is the actual author (I'm 95% sure). Here's why.
Bains is older, with much more academic experience, than most students (he was a Marshall Scholar, which he doesn't mind mentioning). He's known as an excellent writer, and I believe he did much of the actual writing on the Ames brief. In the fall I ran into him a couple of times at Langdell. At one point he said he was thinking of turning his work into a note.
Of course, there were 2 issues in the brief. At the tmie, of course, I paid no attention to what issue he was talking about doing a note on, and he probably didn't even mention it. But my assumption is he was talking about the ministerial exception note. From watching Ames, I recall the other issue was a narrow procedural issue about the facts of the case, which I don't think Bains would try to do a note on.
If I'm correct, as I'm almost certain is the case, that Bains was the author, I don't see the plagiarism issue. He did the lion's share of the writing on the brief, and it seems fine for him to take that work and turn it into a note. What was he supposed to do, put all that time into researching and writing something on a cutting-edge topic, and then pick a totally different topic to write a note on?
10:08, the Review is in big trouble if it tries to claim that "Harvard Law Review" is the author of the ministerial exception note. Reason? "Harvard Law Review" clearly isn't the author of the Ames brief. Six students (four of which apparently aren't on the Review) authored the Ames brief.
So if "Harvard Law Review" is the author, it's plagiarism, pure and simply.
The Review's only defense to the plagiarism charge, seems to me, is if it names the author, if the author is one of the six students on the Ames brief, AND if the author states for the record that he or she personally authored the specific material in the Ames brief which was lifted.
Sure, there's no "duty" for the author to confirm or deny authorship. It's just that if the author, or Review, doesn't do that (assuming the author IS one of the six Ames briefers), it will leave unrebutted the very serious charge that the "Harvard Law Review" plagiarized from a losing Ames brief put on the internet 6 months ago.
This seems like a particular dangerous time for the Review to leave such a charge unrebutted, given all the attention the Review is now getting with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, having been president of the Review.
OMG. The return of "enjointhis." Can judgment day be far behind?
10:23
First, I'm still not convinced that if the alleged facts are true, there is plagarism. Admittedly, I don't know much about this area, but it seems odd that any brief could be plagarized. If I say, "hey, you plagarized my brief," and then to offer proof of your plagarism I show the court my brief, how does the court know that I didn't plagarize my brief from someone else? Isn't that the whole point of copyright law? Correct me if I'm wrong.
2) Comments on a blog hardly constitute a "charge" the HLR should feel the need to respond too. If that were the case, they should spend the next year preparing responses to all the countless charges brought against them every day. Sorry to burst anyone's ego, but anonymous comments on ATL are not yet considered newsworthy.
3) Not sure if the review is getting that much attention because of Barack. Yes, he was the president some years ago, but that's about all I've heard on the news in regards to the HLR.
zOMG why do you people care so much? VIRGINS!!!
11:28 PM: "Second-hand reports of a kid's virginity are the stuff of high-school locker-room gossip, and one would think they're below even this 'legal tabloid'."
Isn't the appeal of tabloids, legal and otherwise, due to their lack of such standards?
10:08,
You are an idiot. Maybe you are one of the TTT students that now seem to populate the Harvard Law Review.
1. It's silly to say that the author of a HLR note is HLR and not the author.
2. Everyone knows that plagiarism has nothing to do with copywright. At any law school, you'd be expelled for plagiarism for copying the work of someone else, even if this work was not officially published or copywrighted.
1:54.
1) The conscious decision to publish all notes on behalf of the journal attributes the piece to the journal. Whether this is silly or not may be debatable, but it is true. (it should also be noted that journals hold the copyrights to all of the pieces they publish, unless the author has worked out a special arrangement).
2) Whether one is expelled from school, fired from a job, etc. for plagarism, does not mean that the person committed plagarism according to the law. It means the person committed plagarism as defined by that institution.
3) Name calling will not help your point. They teach those types of things on law review.
10:08
6/4, 9:39pm: "Was it written by Elizabeth Barchas then? Somehow I doubt she would stoop to publish something with such low standards."
I agree. I'm a rising 2L at Harvard. Barchas is a legend on campus. She has a reputation for being very hard-working and meticulous. She is also very personable, to the point where I think she is a likely future federal judge if she wants it. I do not believe Barchas would copy material from a brief into a scholarly note (at least without disclosing it).
Indeed, she's so highly respected she was picked by her own Ames team members as one of the 2 Ames oralists (another reason why Bains, being involved only in the briefing, makes much more sense as the note author).
If, in fact, the earlier posts (and my own impressions) are correct that Bains must be the author (he's the only other Ames team member other than Barchas who's on the Review), I think Bains needs to be a man and admit to it, to spare Barchas unfair abuse that may come her way if people continue to -- falsely, it seems -- float her name as a possible author.
Indeed -- and this may just be my 1L torts theorizing talking -- isn't it possible that Bains would be legally liable for helping perpetuate Barchas being depicted in a "false light" if he doesn't promptly come out and admit that he's the author (assuming he is in fact the author, which seems likely).
That is, if he knows Barchas is being falsely depicted, he knows the situation is because of a note he published, and he knows there's confusion because the note's unsigned, doesn't he have a duty to dispel the confusion created by his own actions, by "outing" himself as the note author. Just a thought.
11:08
PLEASE HOLD OFF UNTIL NEXT WEEK!
As you can tell from the comment I left on Amber Taylor's blog, I'm not great fan of the Harvard Law Review:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bamber/3942803595211047086/#278670
However, I do believe in common human decency. As I stated in my comment, it's obvious to me and I believe to most people at HLS who the note author is. However, people should not go about throwing out the name without giving the Review president (Robert Allen) and the note author a chance to step forward.
As I said in my comment I would, yesterday I e-mailed the president, note author, and the former president the following e-mail calling their attention to my comment (exact e-mail addresses deleted):
From: Beth Chas
To: ___@law.harvard.edu, ____@law.harvard.edu, ____@law.harvard.edu, ____@law.harvard.edu
Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Subject: Blog post on problems with ministerial exception Note -- my comment
I thought I should make you aware of a blog comment I made here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bamber/3942803595211047086/#278670
No reply to me is necessary, but I do think some ction by early next week would help clear away this issue, given that based on the actual facts known to many students (but few outsiders), there would not appear to be a substantial plagiarism issue, provided those facts are somehow noted by the Review.
* * *
I am sure they will be making some appropriate public statement by then. It is important to PLEASE hold off until then, to avoid falsely naming and damaging someone, because today is Harvard's commencement -- there's no way they can deal with this today, or likely tomorrow. That is, both people being named as the supposed author are in graduation ceremonies right now, along with most of their law school friends, and they can't defend themselves against attacks on this blog. Show some decency and give them a chance to deal with this in a reasonable time-frame!
10:08:
You have to be kidding. To address your first comment:
"2) Doesn't a piece have to be copyrighted in order for one to assert plagarism? If I write a brief, and a friend of mine lifts language verbatim from the brief and publishes it as an original piece, I don't think it would be able to claim plagarism unless I had previously published the piece in a journal that has copyrights to the work, or I myself have copyrights to the work. So stop the plagarism claims."
First, please learn how to spell "plagiarism" correctly. Second, as noted earlier (and correctly), plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright. Plagiarism is simply the act of claiming someone else's work as his/her own. Copyright infringement is the act of using protected material without the consent of the copyright holder.
If you are also 10:23 (and I apologize if you are not), I would add that the fact that you can't prove to a court that your brief isn't your own does not negate the fact that your friend plagiarized your "work." The argument isn't about whether or not the material in the brief is your original work but rather the fact that your friend attributed work not of his own creation to him/herself.
Again, copyright law is not necessarily relevant to issues of plagiarism--the point of copyright law is to prevent the unauthorized use of (and profit from) materials to which a party has exclusive rights. Plagiarism can exist without copyright violation and vice versa.
To address your 2nd comment:
"2) Whether one is expelled from school, fired from a job, etc. for plagarism, does not mean that the person committed plagarism according to the law. It means the person committed plagarism as defined by that institution."
What is this "plagarism [sic] according to the law"? There is no such thing. You incorrectly address 10:54's comment by focusing on his/her use of law school expulsion as an example of punishment for plagiarism. The point 10:54 was trying to make was that if a student commits plagiarism while attending law school, he/she may be expelled regardless of whether or not a copyright was violated.
12:01:
Sure, Beth, sounds good.
But for the record, in my personal (but impartial) opinion, after reviewing all the evidence:
THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS
THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS
THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS
Beth, I take it that your obsessive focus on procedure means you're a friend of his? Maybe a "good friend" (nudge, nudge, know what I mean)? From his google profile (see above), it seems he's quite a player.
10:08 and later commenters who attempted to correct him/her: Copyright comes into being the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Publication is not necessary under the 1976 Act.
Plagiarism is not punishable under copyright law.
12:07, you got the spelling of his name wrong.
His name is "Chigger Brains." Some pretty funny stuff on him here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/follow_up_on_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-608986
We need a nickname for this dude. Maybe Lat should have a contest -- just read the google links and come up with something creative.
My idea: since Phil Telefyan's called "Hat Boy" (among other, less flattering, names), and since Chigger Brains is a fanatic about spelling, why not cal