(Photo
by
Selcuk
Acar/Anadolu
via
Getty
Images)
There
are
a
lot
of
anti-war
encampments
on
college
campuses
around
the
country.
Most
of
them
aren’t
generating
any
headlines
because
their
administrations
are
taking
a
laid-back
approach.
Regardless
of
one’s
stance
on
the
protests,
the
schools
relying
upon
the
end
of
the
semester
to
naturally
transition
the
encampments
into
less
permanent
forms
of
protest
have
so
far
done
a
good
job
of
balancing
a
functional
institution
with
respecting
student
expression.
Columbia
University’s
president
Minouche
Shafik
took
a
different
angle
and
asked
the
NYPD
to
roll
in
and
leave
a
garrison
through
the
end
of
the
school
year.
The
NYPD
had
more
than
enough
resources
to
do
so,
despite
constant
claims
that
the
city
is
in
the
throes
of
an
historic
crime
wave
that
curiously
doesn’t
show
up
in
any
objective
statistical
measurement.
Shafik’s
decision
leaves
the
school
in
the
worst
of
all
worlds
with
an
irate
student
body
and
complete
confusion
about
institutional
function.
And
this
has
carried
over
to
the
law
school
as
well.
With
everything
that’s
happened,
Columbia
Law
Review
and
several
other
journals
voted
to
issue
a
statement
calling
for
the
school
to
cancel
exams
or,
in
the
alternative,
to
make
them
mandatory
pass/fail.
The
violence
we
witnessed
last
night
has
irrevocably
shaken
many
of
us
on
the
Review.
We
know
this
to
be
the
same
for
a
majority
of
our
classmates.
Videos
have
circulated
of
police
clad
in
riot
gear
mocking
and
brutalizing
our
students.
The
events
of
last
night
left
us,
and
many
of
our
peers,
unable
to
focus
and
highly
emotional
during
this
tumultuous
time.
This
only
follows
the
growing
distress
that
many
of
us
have
felt
for
months
as
the
humanitarian
crisis
abroad
continues
to
unfold,
and
as
the
blatant
antisemitism,
islamophobia,
and
racism
on
campus
have
escalated.
As
predictable
as
night
follows
day,
right-wing
troll
outlets
are
already
mocking
Columbia
law
students
for
talking
about
“violence”
and
being
“irrevocably
shaken.”
But
beyond
the
smug
posturing,
there’s
not
so
much
a
substantive
counter
to
the
arguments
laid
out
in
the
letter.
Because
it
seems
as
though
it’s
a
complete
mess
up
there.
Another
Columbia
tipster
informed
us
earlier
in
the
day:
Today,
30
minutes
before
an
exam,
some
students
received
emails
letting
them
take
their
tests
any
time
during
the
examination
period.
No
one
knows
why
and
people
are
confused.
Communication
from
the
registrar
said
everyone
was
gonna
be
able
to
do
all
their
exams
at
any
point,
but
then
the
Dean
said
this
was
not
the
case.
It’s
a
whole
mess,
and
a
lot
of
people
are
gonna
suffer
gradewise.
Canceling
exams
is
a
drastic
move
and,
to
be
honest,
it
should
be
an
unnecessary
one.
But
that
assumes
the
school
can
actually
figure
out
a
time
for
students
to
take
them
and
since
that
appears
to
be
a
hurdle,
maybe
it
is
the
right
call.
But
assuming
the
administration
of
exams
in
a
reasonably
accommodating
manner
can’t
get
worked
out,
the
mandatory
pass/fail
option
articulated
in
the
letter
is
a
sound
proposal
with
no
real
downside.
From
the
Law
Review
letter:
Instituting
an
optional
Pass/Fail
policy
is
not
really
optional
when
employers
will
see
that
some
students
have
grades
and
others
do
not.
Even
if
they
pledge
to
not
take
this
grade
disparity
under
consideration
during
their
evaluation
(which
they
haven’t
made
any
such
pledge),
this
leaves
room
for
the
introduction
of
extreme
bias
into
the
hiring
process.
This
outcome
will
leave
the
most
vulnerable
students
unable
to
perform
to
their
highest
ability.
This
should
not
be
controversial.
This
came
up
at
my
law
school
years
ago
when
external
events
created
a
problem
with
one
class
and
the
decision
was
made
to
mandate
a
pass/fail
grade
because
an
optional
model
would
create
a
stigma.
But
then
again,
NYU
is
always
ahead
of
Columbia,
isn’t
it?
Seriously
though,
the
school
can’t
get
its
schedule
straight
and
students
have
had
their
preparation
disrupted
by
unexpected
intervening
events.
What
is
the
harm
in
going
to
mandatory
pass/fail?
Employers
will
lose
a
smidgeon
of
distinguishing
information
about
candidates,
but
the
risk
that
they’d
get
inaccurate
intel
from
a
graded
exam
this
week
is
just
as
bad
if
not
worse.
Better
to
rely
on
the
pass/fail
marker
and,
you
know,
last
semester’s
grades
to
get
an
actionable
sense
of
the
applicant.
This
is
an
easy
decision.
But
there
are
going
to
be
people
quick
to
ask,
“how
can
they
be
lawyers
if
they
can’t
draft
an
M&A
agreement
every
time
there’s
an
unprecedented
paramilitary
invasion
on
their
block?”
How
indeed.
(Full
letter
on
the
next
page…)
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.