Harvard Law May be Covering Up Defacement Investigation, Suggests Law Prof John Banzhaf

Washington, DC, December 04, 2015 --(PR.com)-- It is suspicious that Harvard Law School, about two weeks after it very publicly denounced whoever placed black tape over the photos of several of its black law professors, and referred the incident for investigation as a possible hate crime - all according to the Washington Post - have not yet released the identity of the perpetrators, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

This seems very strange if not downright suspicious, he says, since the number of likely suspects - those with both a motive and access to the building late at night when the taping apparently occurred - seems small. Also, the culprits behind similar incidents at other schools have often been uncovered within only a few days, says Banzhaf.

Although it is possible that the tape was applied by racist white law students late in the evening, others [see below], including Banzhaf, have suggested that the action was much more likely to have been done as simple retaliation for two earlier defacements by black law students likewise involving black tape.

In the first, according to the Powerline web site, black law students had in a very similar manner used tape to cover the pictures of black law professors.

Then, according to the Harvard Law Record, just before the incident now under investigation, the well known seal of Harvard Law School itself was covered over by an organization of black law students using exactly the same black tape as that used in the most recent incident now being investigated as a possible hate crime.

Perhaps that’s why Randall Kennedy, a black professor at Harvard Law, has now written in the New York Times that the most recent act may simply have been "a rebuke to those who have recently been taping over the law school’s seal.”

Another theory which has been mentioned - for example, in The College Fix - for the most recent defacement is that it was a hoax by one or more black students, similar to other campus situations in which black or Jewish students had themselves posted symbols allegedly aimed at their own groups in order to create controversy, says Banzhaf.

For example, Kennedy said, in the New York Times, of the incident: "maybe it was meant to protest the perceived marginalization of black professors, or was a hoax meant to look like a racial insult in order to provoke a crisis."

Also, Elie Mystal, a black columnist writing in AboveTheLaw website, lends support to this hoax theory, writing: "Other people think that it was done by a black student to protest black professors who aren’t using their positions to do enough to help black students at the school.”

If, in fact, the taping over of black professors was done by one or more racist white students, the great majority of Harvard law students who oppose the defacement should have been able to identify the most likely suspects, since it probably would have been very difficult for them to completely suppress such strong racist feelings from fellow students for months, argues Banzhaf.

Moreover, it appears that only a very few such students would have no alibi, and may have been in Wasserstein Hall when the defacement occurred, suggests Banzhaf.

But if the identity of one or more of such racist law students has been discovered, Harvard may now have a good reason for keeping the information secret from its students and the public, says Banzhaf.

If the school sought to punish these white racist students, Banzhaf argues, it would have to explain why it took no similar action a year ago when black students similarly defaced the pictures of black professors, or more recently when a black student organization openly and proudly similarly defaced, with exactly the same black tape, the seal of the Law School.

This is especially true since, even if the message being sent in the most recent defacement was racist in nature, it is nevertheless fully protected by academic freedom, suggests Banzhaf.

As Charles Ogletree, one of the black law professors whose picture was defaced, told the Harvard Magazine, he believes the incident represents protected speech.

If, on the other hand, the taping now under investigation was done by students simply retaliating for the two earlier instances of similar defacement by black students, Harvard would be in an even more embarrassing position if it sought to punish them, says Banzhaf. This is because those who engaged in the two earlier defacement actions did so openly and apparently faced no university discipline, much less a request that they be investigated by the police for a hate crime, Banzhaf argues.

Finally, if the defacement now under investigation was the work of black students, as either Kennedy or Mystal has suggested, Harvard would be in an even more embarrassing predicament, argues Banzhaf.

Having very strongly and publicly condemned this recent taping, it would be very difficult for Harvard to now seek to excuse it solely because the perpetrators turned out to be blacks rather than white racists, or simply because the Law School’s administration happened to sympathize with their message, he suggests.

All of this very strongly suggests that schools, especially very prestigious ones like Harvard, should not speak and act about on-campus expressive speech prematurely before most of the underlying facts are known, and that it certainly should not denounce - much less refer for possible criminal prosecution - expressions which are fully protected by academic freedom, suggests Banzhaf.