The Student Newspaper of the New York University School of Law

THE COMMENTATORVol. XLI, No. 14 April 19, 2007

BY JULIA FUMA ’07

On March 1, 2006, fiveNYU law students presenteda best practices document toa number of 1L professors.The document came about af-ter a series of meetings withVice Dean Clay Gillette andAssistant Dean for StudentAffairs Yvette Bravo-Weberabout how NYU could do abetter job of making the 1Lclassroom experience a moreinclusive environment for adiverse range of students.

The group of students inthe conversations included twostudents from each ALSA andCoLR. The conversation cameas a result of the fact that while“there is a general feeling that1L year is terrible for everyone,there is a specific type of isola-tion that seems to be commonamong 1Ls that come from tra-ditionally marginalized groups,”said Navneet Grewal ’07, oneof the student involved in theinitial conversations. “There isa lot of literature on better ways

to bring these voices into the class-room.” After a few conversationswith Gillette and Bravo, the two ofthem indicated that many 1Ls wereinterested in the issue and wantedto meet directly with students.About 20 students showed up tothe March 1st meeting. Accordingto Grewal: “The response was over-whelmingly positive. There were acouple of eye rollers, but for themost part, the professors werequite engaged, asking questionsand sharing their own strategiesand concerns. A few were eventaking notes!”

According to Diana Reddy ’08,the best practices document is im-portant because, for the most part,professors do not have training asteachers. She said that the mostimportant part of the document isthe one that asks professors to situ-ate themselves and examine theirown assumptions. Professors willsometimes have perspectives aboutthe law of which they do not realizethat students are not cognizant.

Gillette has been very pleasedwith the document and the meet-ings. He said that he had not heard

from many faculty but those hehad heard from had been posi-tive. “I know that some facultyhave adjusted their teachingstyle in response to the con-cerns expressed. For instance,some faculty have sought stu-dent feedback prior to the end-of-semester evaluations, andsome faculty have been moreexplicit in explaining their ownperspectives on a subject andinviting disagreement. Thefaculty and administration trulyappreciate these efforts to makecreate a more educationallyproductive environment,” saidGillette.

Grewal has said that whileshe is not sure of the extent ofthe change in professors, shehas heard from current 1Ls thattheir professors have donethings like making explicit whattheoretical perspective theyteach from (for instance, law andeconomics), that being of thesuggestions developed in thebest practices meeting.

Students Open Dialogue withProfessors About 1L Pedagogy

See Standards, page 7.

BY WANGUI W. KANIARU ’07

NYU School of Law gave astrong performance at the recentlyconcluded Willem C. Vis Interna-tional Arbitration Moot Competi-tion in Vienna and Hong Kong.The Moot featured more than 200universities from all over the world.Both NYU teams successfully ad-vanced through four rounds ofcompetition, marking the first timefor NYU to have two teams placein the top 10 at both the Vis MootEast and the Vis Moot Vienna. Inaddition to Honorable Mentionsfor their separate written submis-sions, several members of bothteams were recognized for out-standing advocacy skills. RashidaAllie (LLM ’07), Philipp Groz (LLM’07), Michael Howe (LLM ’07),Wangui Kaniaru (JD ’07), RahimMoloo (LLM ’07), Jeena Shah (JD’07), Stacia Sowerby (JD ’08), andRamona Vijeyarasa (LLM ’07) par-ticipated in the moot. The compe-titions took place from March 19-25 in Hong Kong and March 31-April 5 in Vienna.

Jocelyn Burgos (LLM ’06),who had previously participatedin the Vis Moot, coached theHong Kong team. In addition,Flavia Mange (LLM ’07) pro-vided extensive research assis-tance during the drafting of writ-ten submissions and preparationfor oral arguments. “The Mootwas definitely one of the high-lights of my time at NYU,” saidMange. Mange, who is currentlywriting a dissertation on interimmeasures in litigation and arbi-tration in Brazil, noted that thelevel of arbitrator panelists andstudent advocacy was illuminat-ing. “Being part of a team in-spired me to pursue establishinga Vis team in Sao Paolo when Ireturn to complete my Mastersat the Universidade de SaoPaolo,” she said. Inaugurated in2004, the rapidly growing VisMoot East in Hong Kong fea-tured 48 universities from Aus-tralia, the U.S., Canada, Germany,Brazil, Thailand, India, Indonesia,Japan, and Korea. In addition toadvancing to the final elimina-tion rounds, the team, featuringAllie, Kaniaru, Shah, andSowerby, placed second out of48 schools in the general rounds.All four participants also re-ceived Honorable Mentions foroutstanding advocacy skills. “Ina field that has traditionally beendominated by men, it was veryempowering to be part of a six-woman team in Hong Kong andperform so well,” Shah said. “Par-ticipating in the Vis Moot refined

NYU Teams Excel inInternational Arbitration

Moot Competitionmy brief writing and oral advo-cacy skills in a way that no lawschool class had been able to do,and opened up a legal field to methat is not really emphasized inthe law school curriculum.”

Giorgio Mandelli (LLM ’07),who previously participated asan arbitrator and coach whileworking as an international arbi-tration solicitor in London,coached the Vienna team. In its14th year of existence, the ViennaMoot featured a record numberof 177 teams from universitiesfrom all over Europe, NorthAmerica, Brazil, Asia and Austra-lia. The NYU team, featuringGroz, Howe, Moloo, andVijeyarasa, placed 11th in thegeneral rounds and, ultimatelytied for ninth place in the finalrounds. In addition, Groz andVijeyarasa received HonorableMentions for outstanding advo-cacy skills. “As a Swiss-trainedlawyer, the Moot was a greatopportunity to develop my ad-vocacy skills in English,” Groznoted. “It also gave me valuablefirst-hand experience in under-standing the different ap-proaches lawyers trained in civillaw and common law jurisdic-tions bring to the same issues.”

“The Vis Moot in Vienna wasdefinitely the highlight of my year,”Howe noted. “I started this pro-cess in September knowing noth-ing about international sales orcommercial arbitration. I left Viennawith a great deal more knowledge,a new-found confidence in my oraladvocacy skills, and a large newgroup of friends from around theworld. I would recommend the ex-perience to anyone,” Howe said.Named after the late WillemCornelis Vis, Executive Secretaryof the Vienna Diplomatic Confer-ence that created the UN Conven-tion on Contracts for the Interna-tional Sale of Goods (CISG), theVis Moot aims to promote thestudy and practice of internationalcommercial arbitration. Studentsprepare written submissions andoral arguments on a legal problemapplying the CISG and other uni-form commercial law in the contextof arbitration. The long-runningcompetition has been the basis ofinternational arbitration seminarsat various schools, where studentsparticipate in a semester-long re-search, writing, and oral advocacycourse in preparation for theMoot. NYU’s team was selectedin September 2006 and prepared in-dependently while being coachedby current and former students.

Continued on page 4.

BY JOCELYN L. BURGOS ’06

At its 101st annual meeting,the American Society of Interna-tional Law awarded its prestigiousManley O. Hudson medal to NYUProfessor Andreas Lowenfeld, inhonor of his prolific scholarshipand outstanding achievements inthe field of international law. Thusfar, Lowenfeld has written 18books, 115 articles, and 34 bookreviews on such diverse topics asaviation law, conflict of laws, in-ternational economic law, and in-ternational litigation and arbitra-tion. He has also served as coun-sel, expert, or amicus in some ofthe most prominent internationallaw cases before the SupremeCourt, the Iran-US Claims Tribu-nal, and the International Court ofJustice. In addition, he was Asso-ciate Reporter for the AmericanLaw Institute’s Restatement(Third) of the Foreign RelationsLaw of the United States and co-Reporter for the ALI’s project onRecognition and Enforcement ofForeign Judgments: Analysis andProposed Federal Statute.

During the Hudson MedalLuncheon that was held in Profes-sor Lowenfeld’s honor, he andHarold Koh, Dean of Yale LawSchool, engaged in a conversation

about a topic that has long beenof interest to Lowenfeld – that ofthe distinction, or lack thereof,between public and private inter-national law. Nearly twenty-fiveyears ago, Lowenfeld expressedhis opinion on the topic in a reporton teaching international eco-nomic transactions: “In interna-

tional law (and perhaps in all law)the distinction between the ‘pri-vate’ and the ‘public’ side doesn’treally belong. One cannot adviseor defend private clients withoutan understanding of the powersand limitations of governments,and one cannot advise or partici-pate in government without agrasp of how private firms and their

legal counsel operate.” It is thisposition which underliesLowenfeld’s work, both as ascholar and as a practitioner. Hebelieves it even more today thanhe did twenty-five years ago.

According to Lowenfeld, hedid not set out to be a legal scholar– or even a lawyer, for that matter.His decision to attend law schoolwas motivated by a desire “tolearn something useful and seewhat comes of it.” After a year ofworking at Harvard’s Russian Re-search Center, he was accepted toand enrolled in Harvard LawSchool. Although he studied bothinternational and comparative law,Lowenfeld’s favorite law schoolcourses were Civil Procedure andConflict of Laws. Nearly fortyyears later, Lowenfeld’s interestand expertise in procedure, con-flict of laws, and international andcomparative law would lead him towrite one of the legal academy’sleading international litigationcasebooks, International Litiga-tion and Arbitration (now in itssecond edition).

In 1955, shortly after hisgraduation from Harvard LawSchool, Lowenfeld was draftedinto the U.S. Army; he served for

Lowenfeld: A Man of ManyAccomplishments

Continued on page 6.

Commentator LettersPage 2 April 19, 2007

Editor-in-ChiefJulia Fuma

Managing EditorsBobbie AndelsonAndrew GehringRobert GerrityBen Kleinman

Staff EditorsChris BradleyJulian Dayal

Jeremy FischbachGeorge Mustes

Colin ParentRoberto Reyes-Gaskin

Tudor RusIan Samuel

Daphne ShihDerek Tokaz

Craig WintersDavid Yaroslavsky

The Commentator serves as a forum for news, opinions and ideas of mem-bers of the Law School community. Only editorials and policies developedby the Editorial Board reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board. All otheropinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of TheCommentator. The Commentator is issued on alternate Thursdays duringthe academic year except during vacations and examination periods. Adver-tising rates are available on request. Subscriptions are also available at a rateof $15 per year. Letters to the Editor should be sent to the followingaddress, either on paper or via e-mail.

THE COMMENTATOR135 MacDougal Street #4G

New York, NY 10012212.998.6518 (phone) | 212.995.4032 (fax)

e-mail: asgehring@nyu.eduCopyright 2007 New York University

THE COMMENTATOR

The Commentator ThanksYou For Another Great Year

Contact asgehring@nyu.edu.

The Commentator is looking for photographers, news, arts, sportsand opinions writers, as well as a comic artist or crossword de-signer to bolster the spring semester staff.

The Student Newspaper ofNew York University School of Law

Editor,The April 5 issue of The Com-

mentator included the followingheadline: “Adler Takes Away Jour-nal Credits, Goes After More.” Al-though I am flattered that the re-porter and editors at The Commen-tator believe I have so much influ-ence, the headline is misleading.As the article under the headlineaccurately explains, the faculty re-cently voted to limit future writingcredit to work done under the su-pervision of a faculty member. Thisvote followed a recommendationof a committee comprised of fac-ulty and student members. The actwas by no means unilateral. I em-phasize this only because I would

Dear Julia,First of all, your jokes are

funny! Your puns are clever. Ms.Julia Fuma, you are far and awaythe driest wit that the students atNew York University School ofLaw have been graced with to runtheir Commentator. And I will takeadvantage of your open letter(from the April 5, 2007 issue, invit-ing me to take over as editor-in-chief of The Commentator) to bevain and self-centered for severalparagraphs. Then I’ll be vain andself-centered but offer a sugges-tion that I vainly think might beconstructive.

The reductionist in me wantsto say that moral problems andpractical problems are the same inthat they force us to make deci-sions about what we value. Theyalso serve as narrowing devicesby insidiously or at least subtlymaking us accept some things asa given. For example, a questionabout what to have for lunch as-sumes that I will, indeed, havelunch. And it forces me not just tomake a decision about what I wantto eat, but perhaps about where Iwant to spend my money, whatresources I want to consume, andwith whom I wish to dine.

So to your offer. I greatly ap-preciate the opportunity to con-sider serving as editor-in-chief ofThe Commentator. To my knowl-edge, no one in my family has everbeen EIC of a publication, muchless one of this caliber. And you’reright – there’s much good that canbe done in that position. At thehelm of this ship I could steer itdown a path of advocacy and ac-tivism; chart a course for humourand satire; or I could close myeyes, spin the wheel, and let thetides and the winds take us whereclichés aren’t passé and meta-phors always seem fresh. Or Icould simply mandate British spell-ings (gratuitous “u”s and zeds in-stead of esses).

I’ve decided I can’t acceptyour offer. My respect and appre-ciation for The Commentator as aninstitution, and as a valued part ofthe NYU Law experience, compelme to make this decision. Selfishlyor prudentially, I put myself first:there has to be a limit as to howmuch I can do, and I draw the lineat EIC. My fiancée and soon-to-be wife (one and the same), my

Misleading Headline OverstatedAdler’s Influence, MinimizedImportance of Committee and Faculty

A Response: ExplodeThe Commentator ?

not like your readers to believe thatthe opinion of any one facultymember or administrator can deter-mine something as important as what

work counts toward a degree.Then there is the “Goes

After More” portion of theheadline, which refers to thefact that the Curriculum Com-mittee is considering whethercredit for board work on jour-nals and moot court shouldcontinue to receive credit afterthe 2007-08 academic year.There is no doubt that work onthese boards is substantial andimportant. The question theCommittee is considering iswhether academic credit forsuch work is appropriate. Anumber of our peer schools,Harvard and Chicago, e.g., treatsuch work as extracurricularand do not grant credit. TheCurriculum Committee (whichincludes student members)may or may not recommend thatwe follow in this regard, andeven if the Committee does rec-ommend such action, the fac-ulty may or may not approve.Whatever happens, though, Iwant to assure all students thatthe process is a deliberativeone and that the journals andmoot court have been heard onthe matter.

Finally, I want to address aquote in the article, attributedto [a student], one that sug-gests the administration hasbeen “reluctant with informa-tion” and “adversarial.” Therehave been two meetings so farwith the journal and moot courtboards, and apart from the in-herent conflict in even honestdifferences of opinion, therehas been, to my knowledge, noaction that can be described asadversarial. Let me apologize,though, if there is an impressionthat the administration hasbeen hesitant to disclose infor-mation or has taken anadversarial stance. I would wel-come any opportunity to im-prove on either count. The workdone by the journals and mootcourt is highly valued by theadministration, regardless ofwhat credit is awarded.

Barry E. AdlerVice DeanCharles Seligson Professor

clinic, the Review of Law & So-cial Change, classes (well, pa-pers), and Law Students for Choiceall require that I be at least semi-functional – that I have some timefor the gym, and some time forsleep.

So, that was the vain bit (andI got to write all that without hav-ing to commit to be EIC!).

But I think this is a chance toexplode the question. Do we needThe Commentator? I believe wedo. Does The Commentator needan editor-in-chief? I believe it does,in its current form. Does The Com-mentator need to retain its currentform? I’m not so sure – it could gocompletely online and resemble ablog with regular or occasionalcontributors, for example.

If we have someone willing totake the reins of The Commenta-tor and ensure that the publica-tion, as we know it today, contin-ues to be published next year, thenI am happy to support that personto the extent (great or small) that Isupported you – they will un-doubtedly not be able to createyour cult of personality, but myallegiance is to the institution andthe idea. And the free dinners.

But if we don’t, then I am alsowilling to sit down, over the sum-mer, with the administration andwith other interested students andquestion some of the underlyingassumptions about The Commen-tator. In a time when fewer stu-dents are interested in printedpublications and have experiencewith them, when students haveever-increasing demands on theirtime, and when readership is pre-sumably low for all newspapers(not just The Commentator) it maymake sense to consider alternativeways to serve the community whilerequiring less extensive and regu-lar commitment from a core groupof people.

This dialog may be “open” inname only – if we’re the only twopeople reading this, then so be it.But if someone out there is payingattention and has thoughts toshare – if they wish to become in-volved, or express why they don’twant to be involved, or offer sug-gestions for what The Commenta-tor can become – then please emailJulia.

Ben Kleinman ’08

CommentatorApril 19, 2007 Page 3

Lead Sponsors ($10,000)LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE, LLP

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

All-Stars ($5,500 - $9,999)CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP

MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLPPROSKAUER ROSE LLP

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

Shooters ($3,000 - $5,499)BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP

BAR/BRI BAR REVIEW

CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLPCHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLPHOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P.HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLPMORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLPROPES & GRAY LLP

SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLPSHEARMAN & STERLING LLP

In Kind DonorsWESTLAW

THE 2007 DEANS’ CUP, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL,AND NYU SCHOOL OF LAW

THANK OUR GENEROUS SPONSORS:

Players ($1,500 - $2,999)AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

BRYAN CAVE LLPCLEARY GOTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON

CLIFFORD CHANCE US LLPCOOLEY GODWARD LLP

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL

FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLPKASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLPMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLPSIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

Coaches ($100 - $1,499)BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP

DEWEY BALLANTINE LLPDRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

ELISABETH MAYER AND JASON M. COOPER, ESQ

GLICK FAMILY

GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH, & DAVIS LLPJUSTIN GOODYEAR

KING & SPALDING LLPPATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER, LLP

STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLPTROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

CommentatorPage 4 April 19, 2007

The teams benefitedfrom practice rounds featur-ing NYU faculty, includingProfessor Linda Silberman,and visiting professors, ad-junct faculty, and experts inthe field, including Profes-sors Janet Walker, RichardHulbert, Loukas Mistelis andFranco Ferrari. Former Visparticipants and coaches, in-cluding Joanna McGinley(LLM ’06), Quang Trinh(LLM ’06), Jean Ho (LLM’08), and Yulia Andreeva(LLM ’04) also providedvaluable assistance. Teammembers participated in sev-eral practice moots in vari-ous locations in the city, in-cluding Skadden Arps,Clifford Chance, Debevoise& Plimpton and FordhamUniversity School of Law,featuring diverse panelscomprised of various facultyand practitioners around thecity.

Continued from page 1

InternationalMoot Court

Benefits fromNYU Faculty

Assistance

BY MADELINE ZAMOYSKI ’08

After shooting his wife, An-thony Hopkins is put on trial andproceeds to play with the pros-ecuting Assistant District Attor-ney (Ryan Gosling) in a way thatis a pure pleasure to watch. Themain attraction of the film lieswith the interaction betweenHopkins and Gosling which com-bines the elements of a psycho-logical thriller with a fairly con-sistent string of humor. The gleethat Hopkins takes in being thevillain almost makes the entiremovie worthwhile. However, therest of the movie proves itself to

be fairly lackluster. Most peoplewill see the “twist” coming abouta mile away. And by “a mileaway,” I mean the entire 5280 feet.The movie also attempts to in-corporate a side story aboutGosling looking to join a largecorporate firm and, of course, theobligatory love interest whichbuilds mainly on batting eyelashes and long stares acrosscrowded rooms. These storylinesend up taking more time than theyneed to and dragging things out.

Here’s the skinny: If you en-joy a clever villain with a quickwit, Hopkins delivers. Goslingalso gives a great performance as

Fracture Is Fractured: Half Thriller, Half Comedyan immediately likable and cockyDA. However, the incorporationof comedy in a thriller doesmangle the mood from time totime (though it’s still fun towatch), and the side story ofGosling’s corporate and roman-tic aspirations ultimately fall flatand long, like a bookmark… ex-cept it’s not really somethingyou’d want to come back to.

My verdict: Netflix it./Catchit on TV. (Possible verdicts: (1)See it. See it NOW. (2) See it ifyou can. (3) Netflix it./Catch iton TV. (4) Turn away, it’s notworth watching. (5) Close youreyes, this is crap.

The Commentator doesn’t needyou any more.But we will next year.

The Commentator is looking forphotographers, news, arts, sportsand opinions writers, as well as acomic artist or crossword designerto round out next year’s staff.

Remember the MemoriesApril 19, 2007 Page 5

“I’m pretty sure that’s actually acoke. I know it looks like adrink and I look really drunk,but I think I had just finished apaper and that’s a coke.”

CommentatorPage 6 April 19, 2007

two years in the Psychologi-cal Warfare Unit, writing analysesof messages that had been inter-cepted from Pyongyang, Beijing,and Moscow. When he completedhis service, Lowenfeld moved toNew York and began to practicewith a small law firm that special-ized in international law. It was anatural fit, given his interest in thefield and his affinity for foreignlanguages (he is fluent in Span-ish, German, and French). Afterthree years of working with Hydeand de Vries, Lowenfeld moved onto the State Department.

In 1961, he joined the LegalAdvisor’s Office as Special Assis-tant to the Legal Advisor. By thetime he left the State Departmentin 1966, Lowenfeld had also servedas Assistant Advisor for EconomicAffairs and as Deputy Legal Ad-visor. During those five years, hemade incredible and long-lastingcontributions to US policy in thefield of international law: he wrotethe amicus brief articulating theposition that was ultimatelyadopted by the Supreme Courtwith respect to the act of statedoctrine in Banco Nacional deCuba v. Sabbatino; he was thehead of the US delegation to theMontreal Convention, which even-tually led to the elimination of“tragically” low liability maximumsfor victims of international air ac-cidents; he drafted important revi-sions to the Panama Canal treaty;and he worked on the expansionof East-West trade.

Before leaving the State De-partment, Lowenfeld co-authoredan extensive article, The UnitedStates and the Warsaw Conven-tion, with his friend and colleague,

Allan Mendelsohn. It was pub-lished in the Harvard Law Reviewin January 1967; the professor cred-its the article with opening thedoors to his eventual appointmentat NYU. When he wrote the ar-ticle, he had not yet decided topursue an academic position al-though, he says, “the thought hadoccurred to me.” The next step inhis career was a prestigious ap-pointment as one of the first Fel-lows of Harvard’s Kennedy Insti-tute of Politics; the Institute hassince become the Kennedy Schoolof Government, but in 1966, whenLowenfeld was selected as a Fel-low, it was in its inaugural year.During his year as a Fellow,Lowenfeld co-authored Interna-tional Legal Process: Materialsfor an Introductory Course. Thebook introduced an innovativeapproach to international lawteaching: a problem-oriented ap-proach that demanded that stu-dents understand the real-worldpolitical and economic context ofthe legal problems they studied.In addition to two volumes of text,the Materials included an exten-sive Documents Supplementwhich contained not only interna-tional conventions and the con-stitutive documents of selectedmultilateral organizations, but alsoUS statutes and regulations touch-ing upon international law and for-eign relations. Many of the chap-ters of this 1968 work eventuallybecame books of their own, one ofwhich is the leading treatise, In-ternational Economic Law (he iscurrently working on the secondedition). Lowenfeld had success-fully identified in his first bookwhat would become the most im-portant international law issues inthe coming years.

In the Fall of 1967, Lowenfeldand International Legal Processarrived at NYU Law School. Dur-ing his first year at NYU, he taughtInternational Law and Conflict ofLaws in the fall, and InternationalEconomic Law and Aviation Lawin the Spring. Forty years later,Lowenfeld continues to challengehis students in and out of theclassroom. Although he no longeruses International Legal Process,he continues to present his stu-dents with the most cutting-edgelegal issues, issues with which pri-vate practitioners, scholars, andgovernments continue tostruggle. In addition to contribut-ing to the intellectual and profes-sional development of his stu-dents, Loweneld’s willingness toshare his work and ideas havepositively influenced the work ofmany of his colleagues, includingProfessors Rochelle Dreyfuss,Eleanor Fox, and Linda Silberman.“He has always been incrediblygenerous with sharing his ideas,bringing in others to work on is-sues that were important to him,”says Professor Linda Silberman,who credits Lowenfeld with hertransition into the field of interna-tional litigation.

Lowenfeld is quick to pointout, however, that his teaching hasnot been limited to internationallaw courses. He has taught a widerange of the more traditional do-mestic courses – Civil Procedure,Torts, and Legal Institutions,among others. His advice to stu-dents who ask him what they needto do to become an internationallawyer is to “become a good law-yer.” When they ask him whatclasses they should take,Lowenfeld responds with, “TakeAccounting, Tax, Federal Courts,

Professor Celebrating 40th Year at NYUContinued from page 1. Corporations, and at least some of

the core courses. Certainly takeConflicts, but don’t over-special-ize in international law and ‘law andx’ courses.” Those students whotake courses with Lowenfeld learn,over the course of the semester,effective lawyering skills in addi-tion to substantive information.He encourages his students to“read the statute, and not just thelatest case interpreting the statute– sometimes judges get it wrong.”He consistently reinforces the im-portance of book-based researchto students who undertake towrite papers under his supervi-sion: “You can’t find everythingon-line,” he says. “The book-shelves have better informationthan Wikipedia.”

This coming fall will mark the40th anniversary of Lowenfeld’steaching at NYU. Throughout histenure, he has consistently madehis students the focus of his ca-reer. According to the professor,he will only take on cases that arein some way related to his teach-ing, which in recent years has in-cluded Conflict of Laws, Interna-tional Litigation, and InternationalEconomic Transactions. By adopt-ing this student-centered ap-proach to his practice, the profes-sor ensures that he remains on thecutting edge of legal issues andthat his students are exposed tothe kinds of issues they will facein their practice. Students haveoften run into Lowenfeld in the li-brary where, just as he advisesthem to do, he conducts his aca-demic and professional research“in the books.”

When he does get away fromthe books – either reading them orwriting them –Lowenfeld is muchof a “Renaissance man.” He has

extensive knowledge of art, music,literature, history – essentially ev-erything. He is also a devotedhusband, father, and grandfather.Both of his children, Julian andMarianna, attended NYU LawSchool. Julian is a private practi-tioner and a poet; he has trans-lated and published some ofPushkin’s work from Russian intoEnglish. Marianna is an attorneywith the Criminal Division of Le-gal Aid in Brooklyn.

Lowenfeld’s wife Elena, whohe always refers to as “a very el-egant woman,” has a Master’s de-gree in music and a long career inuniversity and public-schoolteaching. She has been singingwith the Collegiate Choral Societyfor as long as she and Lowenfeldhave lived in New York, and re-cently performed at Carnegie Hall.For the last fifteen years, Elena hasalso been a docent at the Metro-politan Museum of Art. Whenasked if there was anything elsehe wanted to tell his students, heasked me to share with them hisGood Marriage Recipe or, what herefers to as the “Fifteen-DayRule”: “If I have to go some-where for more than fifteen days,Elena has to come with me. Ifshe can’t, then I won’t go.” Oneneed only observe Lowenfeldand Elena together to see that hisRecipe has worked.

Listening to Lowenfeld de-scribe his life – his career, his fam-ily, his personal and professionalpassions – it is easy to see whyDean Koh’s closing words at theHudson Medal Luncheon were: “Iam reminded of what DukeEllington once said, upon listen-ing to Louis Armstrong improvis-ing a trumpet solo: ‘I could listento that man play all night.’”

Americans on Hold:Profiling, Citizenship and the

“War on Terror”April 24, 2007 6:00 PMFurman Hall Room 214

The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law invites you to the launch ofits new report on the human rights implications of discriminatory profiling in citizenship applications.Since September 11, 2001 counter-terrorism efforts have increasingly informed immigration policy andhave institutionalized a policy of discrimination against Muslim immigrants, or those perceived to beMuslim on the basis of their name or national origin. Increased security checks in the citizenship appli-cation process, triggered by a substantial expansion of name-check procedures, have disproportionatelyand illegally delayed the processing of thousands of applications from Muslim, South Asian, and Arabmen. Based on primary research conducted by the NYU School of Law's International Human RightsClinic, the report documents the impact of these extended name checks on the lives of those experiencingcitizenship delays, sometimes for years on end. A security check dragnet is breaking up families, engen-dering fear and insecurity, and disenfranchising entire communities. Americans on Hold analyzes boththe delays and their impact within an international human rights framework, and offers specific policyrecommendations to help end discrimination in the granting of citizenship and other human rightsviolations associated with these delays.

CommentatorApril 19, 2007 Page 7

Student Presentation & Discussion:

Understanding, Engaging, & TUnderstanding, Engaging, & TUnderstanding, Engaging, & TUnderstanding, Engaging, & TUnderstanding, Engaging, & Teaching Students of Coloreaching Students of Coloreaching Students of Coloreaching Students of Coloreaching Students of ColorPresented by Rachel Germany, Navneet Grewal, E. Tammy Kim, Sarah Parady, and Johnathan Smith on March 1, 2006

(and repeated to Lawyering Faculty on March 24, 2006)

Best PracticesThese practices were compiled after speaking with a number of students and faculty members about the greatest obstacles to increasing student of color

participation in the first-year classroom and what could be done to overcome such hurdles. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor are the practices mutuallyexclusive. Obviously, professors should tailor the practices to fit their own pedagogical preferences.

Situating Oneself- As professors it is important to acknowledge one’s point of view and choice of theory. For example, in teaching torts, I could tell my students that, while

I plan to present the material from a law and economics perspective, there are other theories and perspectives on the subject matter that are equally asimportant and valuable.

Examining Assumptions- While it is often helpful to personalize topics to emphasize their relevance, it is also important to avoid assuming that certain experiences are common

to most or all students. Comments such as, “you all come from the suburbs” or “you will be spending lots of time on discovery at your big firms” or“when your baby-boomer parents were growing up in America” can make the classroom a less comfortable place for students whose backgrounds differfrom the norm.

Supplemental Readings- With limited class time, professors may struggle to maintain the pace set by the syllabus, making it difficult to incorporate alternative theories and

perspectives. However, one can do so by providing supplemental readings either in class or distributed electronically through Blackboard. For example,as a contracts professor teaching the Walker-Thomas case, I could distribute an article using the lens of critical race theory.

Varying Presentation Methods- It goes without saying that different students learn differently, not only according to personality, but along the lines of culture as well. This is not an

indomitable hurdle, however. By diversifying one’s presentation methods throughout the semester, one can better ensure a more comfortable learningenvironment for all students. For example, I could change the types of questions I ask, use a different method of encouraging discussion, or vary how Iteach cases, perhaps by asking students to view the facts from the perspective of the jury.

Contextualize the Learning Process- Some of the cases and issues discussed during the first-year are particularly contextual and value-laden, and students may bring extra-curricular topics

or observations to bear on the in-class discussion. Topics like rape, abortion, and the death penalty, for instance, are all widely discussed in oursociety. As a professor, it is important to be mindful of this phenomenon and to set the learning within a broader context. I can also recognize thatsome students may have personal experiences with topics like low-income housing, abortion, rape, and death, and I can discuss such topics withparticular sensitivity.

Distributing Evaluations- It is tempting to wait for the final course evaluation to get feedback from one’s students, but it may be more effective to distribute and collect evaluations

earlier in, or even several times throughout, the semester. This not only assists professors in identifying problems and improving the class substantively(for example, one could modify the syllabus based on students’ feedback), but it also signals to the students an interest in and concern for theirexperience and suggestions.

Communicating with other Professors- Since first-year students take a number of classes, it would be useful for professors teaching in the same subject area (for example, all the criminal law

professors) or teaching the same group of students (for example, all the professors who teach Section 4) to meet and collaborate, by sharing syllabi,teaching suggestions, or by discussing more general concerns or questions.

Tackling Tough Issues- Throughout the semester, controversial topics may be raised in class, involving issues of difference such as race, gender, class, or sexual orientation. It

is difficult and at times uncomfortable to talk about these issues, but because they are so significant socially and legally, they should not be summarilydismissed, especially when they are brought up by students in the class. As a professor, I can begin by acknowledging the difficulty of such subjectsand both the importance and relevance of discussing them.

Student Participation- Student participation is a vital aspect of classroom learning. Although it may seem more democratic to open up the discussion to volunteers, social

science literature demonstrates that this is the least inclusive way to proceed. Thus, the Socratic Method can encourage participation, as long as it isused in a manner that allows for diverse voices to be heard. For example, I might employ a modified Socratic method by organizing students intoscheduled panels to respond to questions, while being mindful of how I call on students in order to avoid tokenism (the phenomenon in which a person ofa particular group is made to represent the generalized perspective of that group).

- Social science literature also indicates that certain students may naturally feel more comfortable participating in the law classroom than others. Assuch, I may choose not to base grades on class participation. Alternatively, if I do decide to reward or penalize students based on class participation, Imay reserve the right to take into account individual circumstances when I deem it appropriate.

- It is also important to pay attention to the manner in which students respond to issues. For example, if I notice a student who was previously silentbecome animated while discussing a certain topic, I can make an effort to include her voice more substantially. Quieter students may also beencouraged to participate through use of a Blackboard discussion forum.

- Spending time with students outside of class can help make students feel more comfortable talking during class. Using the school-subsidized student-faculty lunch program, reaching out to students by email, encouraging students to come to office hours, and calling on students by name are simpleways to make the classroom more personal and inclusive.

Setting Parameters for Classroom Dialogue- Insensitive comments by students also have a tremendous impact on classroom dynamics. As the facilitator of classroom dialogue, my reaction to

those comments carries weight, and my silence may be interpreted as approval. When professors establish standards and procedures for responding toracist or inappropriate comments before problems arise, dealing with situations as they occur becomes easier.

- As such, I may tell students at the beginning of each semester that, although I encourage free and open dialogue, I have the highest expectations of mystudents; I expect all students to conduct themselves with respect, courtesy, and dignity toward their fellow students, regardless of the issues beingdiscussed and the viewpoints being expressed. I may also tell students that I will make my best effort to address speech that could be perceived asinflammatory or disrespectful, and that I encourage students to approach me if they feel that such speech has been articulated by their fellow studentsand has gone unaddressed.

Remember the MemoriesPage 8 April 19, 2007