Stanford Law School - Yearbook (Palo Alto, CA)

Page 167 text:

LSCRRC Non-conforrnity, Holy Disobedience, becomes a virtue and indeed a necessary and indispensable measure of spiritual self-preservation, in a day when the impulse to conform, to acquiesce, to go along, is the instrument which is used to subject men to totalitarian rule and involve them in permanent war. A.J . Muste , The Individual Conscience The living expression of the nation is the moving consciousness of the whole of the people, it is the coherent, enlightened action of men and Women. The collective building up of a destiny is the assumption of responsibility on the historical scale. Otherwise there is anarchy, repression and the resurgence of tribal parties and federalism. The national government, if it wants to be national, ought to govern by the people for the people, for the outcasts and by the outcasts. No leader however valuable he may be can substitute himself for the popular willg and the national government, before concerning itself about intemational prestige, ought first to give back their dignity to all citizens, fill their minds and feast their eyes with human things, and create a prospect that is human because conscious and sovereign men dwell therein. Frantz F anon, The Wretched ofthe Earth The Judge does not make the Law. It is the People that make the Law. Therefore if a Law is unjust, and if the Judge judges according to the Law, that is justice, even if it is not just. It is the duty of a Judge to do justice, but it is only the People that can be just. Therefore if justice be not just, that is not to be laid at the door of the Judge, but at the door of the People, which means at the door of the White People, for it is the White People that make the Law. Alan Paton, Cry, the Beloved Counlvy To talk about going down fighting like heroes in face of certain defeat is not really heroic at all, but a failure to face up to the future. The ultimate question the man of responsibility asks is not, How can I extricate myself heroically from the affair? but, How is the coming generation to live? It is only in this way that fruitful solutions can arise, even if for the time being they are humiliating. In short, it is easier by far to act on abstract principle than from concrete responsibility. The rising generation will always instinctively discern which of the two we are acting upon. For it is their future which is at stake. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison Defenceless under the night Our world in stupor lies, Yet, dotted everywhere, Ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just Exchange of their messages: May I, composed like them Of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same Negation and despair, Show an affirming flame. W.H. Auden, September l, 1939 LSCRRC. SEATED: J. Perrin, O. Childs, B. Moulton fChmnJ, E. Leavy, D. Donovan, E. Becket, P. Schilla. STANDING: E. Treisman, A. Brenner, W. Hoffman, J. Atwood, P. Nicholson, R. Romines, L. Bobbitt, C. Johnson, D. MacMeekin, D. Sorensen, N. Tooby.

Page 166 text:

TE ATIONAL SGCIET' The activities of the Society have, roughly speaking, assumed a three-fold orientation. Most of its programs have focused on problems of current political interest in the international arena. Secondly, a continuing effort has been made to survey international career opportunities relevant to the student who is considering a profession in these related areas. Finally, some attention has been directed toward a consideration of how and whether students can guide their professional lives to coincide with their political and transnational interests. The Society inaugurated its formal activities early in November with its Fall Banquet where the featured speaker was Dr. Milorad Drachkovitch. A distinguished Kremlinologist, Dr. Drachkovitch spoke on the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the implications for relations within the Soviet bloc. This program was followed by a talk by Professor Leon Lipson, visiting professor from Yale Law School. Mr. Lipson, an authority of Soviet and international law, offered his own analysis of the Czech situations. Later in the fall, Professor Mauro Cappelletti, Director of the Institute of Camparative Law of the University of Florence, led a very interesting discussion of legal aid as it exists under the European system, contrasting it with current American practices. Early in 1969 a coffee hour was held with Professor of political science Richard Fagen who led a discussion of future United States relations with Cuba. Talk focused on a paper written by Mr. Fagen under the auspices of the Center for Inter-American Relations which directed proposals to the new Nixon Administration for revamping United States posture concerning Cuba. Later in February the Society sponsored a visit by former Peruvian president Fernando Belaunde Terry, who was deposed by a military coup d'etat late in 1968. Mr. Belaunde contrasted the constitutional and military traditions in Peru and in South America in general, and he offered his own speculations on evolving United States-Peruvian relations. Jointly with the Law Students Civil Rights Research Council the Society invited Mr. Justice Nii Amaa Ollennu, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana, to the law school to speak with students regarding their involvement in civil rights and poverty-related work. During the same period Mr. Jared Carter of the State Department spoke with interested students on the intemational development of ocean resources. Late in February the Society joined with another student group, the Stanford hitemational Association, in bringing to Stanford German law student Karl Dietrich Wolff who talked about the German and international student movements. At the time of writing, the Society looks forward to a number of further programs, including a discussion of the Middle East crisis to be presided over by Professor of law Richard Falk of the Woodrow Wilson School of International Relations for the American Red Cross and an experienced intemational negotiator is slated to speak to students on the Biafran situation in April. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY. FIRST ROW: E. Ackerman, G. Dyer, F Oliver, M. Norek, N. Elfstrom. ROW 2: D. Clark, E. Becket, J. Rowles R. Romines QPresidentJ, H. Piper, D. DeWeese. ROW 3: R. Williams, E Fischer, W. Lyons, T. Schillinglaw, R. Klein, J. Perrin, D. MacMeekin The Intemational Society maintains a tradition of sponsoring the Stanford Law School participation in the nationwide Philip Jessup Moot Court competition, in which students who successfully argue a problem in international law at their home schools participate first in a regional final, and then ir1 the national finals in Washington. This year the Society is sending a five man team to the regional competition at San Diego and has hopes of repeating its success of 1968 by going on to the finals to be held at the American Society of Intemational law convention. This year the Society conducted a survey of over two hundred law firms, government agencies, and international agencies to determine specific employment opportunities available. Our quest for career information was also furthered by a general discussion offered by professors Carl Spaeth, Thomas Ehrlich and Dale Collinson.

Page 168 text:

MUST' CQURT The Stanford Moot Court program is designed to improve the students' skills of brief Writing and oral advocacy. The program is voluntary and open to all interested second that third year students. This past year has been one of rebuilding and innovation for the Moot Court Board. The Board's innovative energies were initially directed at developing the Appellate Practice Seminars. These seminars were an effort to perfect the brief writing skills in the most realistic and beneficial contest possible. Numerous practicing attorneys Worked with small groups of second year Moot Court Board Candidates preparing briefs for cases which the attorney was then appealing. The candidates had the benefit of a complete record and the skill and criticisms of the attorneys. The Appellate Practice Seminars provided a unique opportunity never before available at Stanford: a practical workshop in which students received personal supervision and criticism of his research and brief writing from a practicing attorney while Working on an actual case. The Board brought new appeal to the annual Marion Rice Kirkwood Moot Court Competition. The Kirkwood problem questioned whether white teachers could be fired solely on the basis of their race and black teachers hired in their stead. Participation in the Kirkwood increased twenty-nine percent from the previous yearg a first and a semi-final round pared the field down to four finalists. In order to make the Moot Court competition relevant to the interests of the community and to bring non-legal expertise to bear on the problem, this year's panel of judges for the final argument was selected not only on the basis of knowledge, intelligence and interest, but also expertise, ideology and personality. The final panel consisted of the Hon. Tom Clark, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Ret.g the Hon. J. Skelly Wright, Judge of the Court of Appeals, D.C. Cir.g and Dr. Max Rafferty, Superintendent of Public Schools and Director of Public Instruction, State of California. Aufmuth ICO-chaimienj, G. Grant, T. Pulliam. The Moot Court assumed its more traditional role within the law school by working with teaching assistants formulating problems for first year moot court competitions and helping judge first year arguments. There is little doubt that this yearas Board took a major step in providing an alternative to the Review. It is up to succeeding Boards to follow the direction established by this years activities, it is up to the faculty to begin to realize that Moot Court is both viable and an altemativeg and it is up to the employers to begin to recognize the quality of the product resulting from the Moot Court experience. Oral argument in preliminary round of 1969 Marion Rice Kirkwood Moot Court Competition , . L.- ' MOOT COURT BOARD: J. Mason, E. Koplowiiz and L.