OrinKerr.com

Conservatives at Harvard Law School

The latest issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy has an interesting article on the politics of the student body at Harvard Law School: George W. Hicks, Jr., The Conservative Influence of the Federalist Society on the Harvard Law School Student Body (.pdf, 96 pages).  Hicks, a recent HLS grad, traces the politics of the HLS student body from the 1960s until the present and notes a significant rightward trend within the last decade.  The article is particularly interesting because it includes a number of interviews with alumni and current faculty members.  It also includes opinion survey results from current students.

The article seems to make a fairly persuasive case that the student body at Harvard Law School is in fact notably more conservative than it was a decade ago.  The question is, why?  Here, the article falters a bit.  Hicks points out that some of the explanation may be “external factors” – that is, law students may be getting more conservative nationwide — but suggests that much of the reason is Harvard-specific.  Hicks offers two Harvard-specific explanations. First, the 1989 appointment of right-of-center Dean Robert Clark turned the school to the right.  Second, the Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society made it comfortable to be conservative and helped present conservative and libertarian views in a way that appealed to moderates. 

I think the first argument is much more persuasive than the second, although I’m not sure how persuaded I am by the first.  I went to Harvard during Bob Clark’s deanship, and I think it’s fair to say that (at least to the students) he didn’t seem to be a forceful agent of change.  However, in a particularly intriguing passage, Hicks determines that Clark reshaped the admissions criteria somewhat so that ended preferences for those who “had taken time off, engaged in public works, or participated in other significant outside activities or experiences.” According to Duncan Kennedy, those policies had “contributed to the liberal-radical strength” during James Vorenberg’s tenure as Dean.  The absence of those policies, and increased focus on LSAT scores and GPAs, apparently led to more conservative students being admitted. (See pages 701-02)  If the admissions policies really did change that much, I think this is a notable explanation.  Still, I would want to know more before making a conclusion one way or the other.

Hicks’ second explanation, that the Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society made a big difference, strikes me as mere speculation.  And it seems like pretty unpersuasive speculation, too: The Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society does what lots of law student organizations do, and I don’t know why we would think that free pizza and some outside speakers somehow transformed the political makeup of the student body.  Student organizations and faculty influence may make a slight difference at the margins, but for the most part I think the politics of the student body reflects the views of the group that matriculates.   That’s my sense, at least.