Shaking the Founda-tions Law Conference

Page 4-5

Although student groups are still reeling from the administra-tion’s recuperation of over $50,000 dollars in surplus funds last sum-mer, the administration surprised the student groups yet again by reducing the overall Student Bar Association (SBA) budget by 36%. Due to fiscal mismanagement by the 2005-2006 SBA leadership resulting in a deficit of $10,600, the administration over the last three fiscal years has steadily re-duced the SBA budget. However, whereas the previous reductions were only a matter of a few thou-sand dollars to cover the deficit, the 2007-2008 SBA found itself presented with a budget that was $41,000 less than that of the previ-ous year. 70% of the SBA’s budget is allocated to student groups, this year leaving $49,000 to cover 40 student groups.

Another change made to the budget allocation this year is the addition of a reserve fund of $20,000 named the Dean’s Discre-tionary Fund. This new fund is meant as a source of funding for students who are not associated with a particular student group. Some student leaders have ex-pressed concern that these recent moves by the administration repre-sent a loss of faith in the trustwor-thiness of student groups.

Benjamin Ebert, treasurer of the ACLU of Northern California, is one of those student leaders. Nearly $2,000 was removed from the club’s account during the recu-peration, followed by the ACLU’s yearly budget being reduced by

30%. This leaves the ACLU lead-ership in the position of planning cheaper events, with less revenue to fall back upon if the group goes over-budget. Additionally, “plan-ning for the year is much more difficult,” says Mr. Ebert. “No one is willing to front those costs.”

The administration has re-sponded to these concerns by as-suring student groups that the new budget allocation is not meant to penalize. Says dean Polden “the $90,000 figure is much closer to what the students organizations and what the SBA have been spend-ing…not decreasing the amount of funds available because student organizations have misused them, as [much as] a matter of bringing that in line with what they’ve actu-ally been spending.” Dean Pol-den’s statement however ignores the $20,000 that has been reserved for the Dean’s Discretionary Fund, which is not available to student groups.

Niamh Doherty, president of Amnesty International, supports dean Polden’s decision. Though $2,100 was taken from her group, resulting in a zero balance, and her budget was reduced, Ms. Doherty says “nothing was put on hold.” Ms. Doherty further says that none of her group’s future plans have been jeopardized. Though Ms. Do-herty acknowledges that “Amnesty International is in a unique situ-ation where its expenses are low because its main activities are letter writing and other campaigns that mainly involve paper and repro-duction costs.”

One of the major concerns ex-

THE ADVOCATESchool of Law Newspaper since 1970 Volume 30, Issue 2, November 2007

Santa ClaraUniversity

[this month]

SBA Budget Reduction Felt Far and Wide

Setting Cell Phones toRastaman Vibrate

See REDUCTION, p. 3

When Bob Marley and the Wailers (Wailers) released their international debut album “Catch a Fire” in 1973, the cover was emblazoned with an image of Bob Marley defiantly smoking a spliff (a combination of marijuana and tobacco), proclaiming his endorse-ment of the substance. Thirty four years later, Marley’s estate is argu-ing that Verizon Wireless is try-ing to replace the joint with a cell phone.

On the eve of the thirty-year anniversary re-release of Marley’s biggest album “Exodus,” Veri-zon Wireless reached a deal with Universal Music Group (UMG) regarding Marley’s music. UMG,

which has the rights to the major-ity of Marley’s post 1972 music, agreed to allow Verizon Wireless the exclusive right to sell Mar-ley ringtones through its website. Although the value of the deal was undisclosed, users downloaded over 30,000 ringtones during the first two weeks of release, amount-ing to roughly $60,000 in sales.

Marley’s estate has since threatened to sue both UMG and Verizon because it feels that an exclusive distribution of Mar-ley’s music via Verizon Wireless amounts to a celebrity endorse-ment. Since Marley’s estate owns the rights to Marley’s image as well as any endorsement deals involving his likeness, the estate argues that it should have been

By Leland Oshins andBen Kuo, Editors

See CELL PHONES, p. 3

By John Gentile,Staff Writer

Photo illustration by John Gentile

School Responds to Scheduling and Exam Concerns Page 2

A Student’s ExperienceWorking in Vietnam

Page 7

2

The Law Records Office is particularly busy addressing stu-dent concerns around registration and exam time. Some students hit the registration time jackpot while others are inevitably unhappy. In a twist this semester, a large number of students thought their registra-tion time was so late that it must be a mistake, prompting a mass e-mail from Senior Assistant Dean Susan Erwin defining the universe of pos-sible registration times.

The process is simple enough. Registration is scheduled in pe-riods with part-time students and those close to graduating having priority. The registration order is fourth year part-time, third year part-time, third year full-time, second year part-time, and second-year full-time. Within each period, students are randomly assigned a registration time. For example, a second year full-time student might be able to register as early as October 24th at 9:30am, as late as October 25th at 11:30am, or any

time in between.While student interest can be

difficult to predict, there are some registration trends. Subjects tested on the California Bar Exam tend to develop waiting lists every semes-ter, and some professors’ sections tend to fill up more quickly (or less quickly) than others. One of the first classes to develop a waiting list this semester was International Dispute Resolution, while the Tax classes are still open. Unfortunately, we do not have a system where the supply and variety of classes perfectly match student demand, which creates a problem for students with the latest registration times. Second year students registering relatively late in the period have roughly 500 people choosing classes ahead of them, at which point some of the most popular classes had already developed long waiting lists. For example, there was a 70-person waitlist for Business Organiza-tions and an 86-person waitlist for Wills & Trusts as of October 25th. Unlucky students near the bottom of the list usually hope for other

School Responds to ConcernsBy Katelyn Knight, Managing Editor

Registration and examination issues answered by administrationEditor-in-ChiefLeland Oshins

Managing EditorsBenjamin KuoKatelyn Knight

Editor EmeritusAllonn Levy

Staff WritersGemma Daggs

Tara KingJohn Gentile

Natalie MorsetteShauvi Rogers

Joe WrightKaren Wynholds

TreasurerHillary Steiner

Copyright 2007.The Advocate is the student news and

literary publication of Santa Clara University School of Law, and has a circulation of 1,000. The Columns, Opinion, & Humor sections of The Advocate are articles that reflect the viewpoint of the authors, and not the

opinion of The Advocate or its editors. The Advocate is staffed by law students. Printing is contracted to Profess Printing,

Inc. of San Jose, California.

The Advocate welcomes letters to the editor from all law students, faculty,

alumni, and administrators. No anonymous submissions are permitted. Submissions are published at the sole

discretion of The Advocate. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submissions for grammar and clarity, or shorten

submissions to fit allotted space.

If interested in placing an advertisement with The Advocate please contact the

Editor-in-Chief by phone or e-mail for advertising rates. The Advocate reserves the right not to accept an advertisement

for any reason.

Santa Clara University School of Law

500 El Camino RealSanta Clara, CA 95053-0426

(408) 554-4839loshins@scu.edu

Staffstudents to drop the class they want, or for the school to expand the number of students allowed in a section.

This semester the school re-sponded quickly to student con-cerns, adding sections of Business Organizations, Remedies, Com-munity Property, Advanced Legal Research and Writing, Patent Law Practice, and Interviewing and Counseling, in addition to cancel-ing five other courses. The new sections will effectively clear the waiting lists for the most popular courses.

Additionally, the school has re-cently announced that it will offer limited support for the use of Apple MacBooks during fall exams, addressing another longstanding student concern. The school has delayed Macintosh computer use in final exams because ExamSoft SofTest is compatible only with windows software, and Apple’s “Boot Camp” software (which al-lows Macintosh computers to run Microsoft Windows) was still in its beta testing phase. While many schools have allowed the use of beta versions of Boot Camp with SofTest, SCU was not one of them. Because Apple released its OS 10.5 “Leopard” upgrade at the end of October, which included a non-beta version of Boot Camp software, the school decided to allow Mac-Book use for exams.

Students must attend an in-formation session and have their MacBooks or MacBook Pros certi-fied to use them during exams next month. The computers must be running Leopard and a specific ver-sion of Windows XP. The school has also promised to offer full sup-port for MacBooks in the spring.

CorrectionIn “Incoming Students Learn

About SCU Law Through Orienta-tion” in Issue 1, Joseph Flannery was incorrectly identified as Joseph LaRemie.

“Evidence that the Public Defenders’ office is poorly funded”

by John Gentile

pressed by some student leaders is the effect that the budget reduction will have on new student groups’ ability to expand their numbers, and encourage further participa-tion. Kathryn McMahon, President of the Health Care Law Society (HCLS), which is in its second year as a student group, voiced this very concern. In October of this year Ms. McMahon planned to attend a health law conference in Pittsburg. When Ms. McMa-hon sought school funding via the Dean’s Discretionary Fund, the administrative response was to ask why Ms. McMahon was not using the club funds from HCLS. Says McMahon “it’s frustrating when they [the administration] comes back with why not use the club budget, when I would have to use the entirety of this year’s club bud-get to cover the conference.”

By reducing the budget for student groups, some have posited that the school is really hindering itself and its programs. This year Santa Clara law school instituted a new certificate program for stu-dents who demonstrate a commit-ment to social justice and public service with an emphasis in health law. One of the requirements of the new certificate is to partici-pate in an internship with a public health focus. These sorts of place-ments are difficult to obtain, and are best acquired through network-ing. HCLS puts on a networking event each year with this very purpose in mind. However, due to the budgetary constraints this year, Ms. Mcmillion is concerned, “it definitely will affect our ability to setup networking events.”

The administration has ex-

pressed a desire that student group’s work together by co-spon-soring events in order to overcome potential financial burdens. Ms. Doherty expressed optimism that even though her funding has been reduced, this could be what it takes to compel cooperation among stu-dent groups who’ve always liked to do their own thing. “We are defi-nitely looking into working with other groups and co-sponsoring events if possible.”

Nicole Clemens, president of the Public interest Social Justice Coalition (PISJC) is not convinced. Ms. Clemens opined that just because funds are reduced, does not mean that the need for those funds is reduced “We would have to be fundraising all the time. The Bannan lounge is not an unlim-ited resource that would tolerate fundraising every day of the week, and the money comes out of law students’ pockets.”

In addition, the PISJC annually fundraises for the Thurgood Mar-shall scholarship. The proceeds go directly into the scholarship fund instead of the club’s own account. Ms. Clemens emphasized that her club has no intention of cancel-ing the fundraiser, but said that it would be “threatened if we cannot get enough financial support.”

For some student leaders, one of the biggest impacts may not be financial, but psychological. Mr. Ebert puts it bluntly, “The admin-istration’s patronizing attitude is that they know what’s best for the school and we don’t. Who really has the best perspective – you looking down, or us looking up?”

members of the Marley estate and various record labels creeping into the suit, this case is sure become even more contentious.

The massive worth of the Marley ringtones and the refusal of either side to negotiate, makes future court proceedings very plau-sible. The issue being does selling a product exclusively qualify as an endorsement if only one company holds the media right? If the court

answers in the affirmative, then it’s possible that the ringtone industry could face a massive restructuring that affects single label artists such as The Police, Queen, and thou-sands of others. Should the label answer in the negative, then its very possible that the next time you get pulled over, you might want to turn your cell phone off if your ring tone is “I Shot the Sheriff.”

3CELL PHONES from p. 1

REDUCTION from p. 1

consulted about the deal and is en-titled to a portion of the income.

Both Marley’s estate and UMG agreed to enter into talks. During this time, UMG removed 20 of the 34 downloadable ringtones from its site in order to facilitate continu-ing talks. Shortly thereafter, Chris Blackwell, who often acts as a spokesperson for the Marley estate, stated that he was “infuriated that Verizon would go around the estate and initiate partnership with Uni-versal.” He further added that it was “disturbing that these compa-nies refuse to give the musicians the respect they deserve.” Black-well was the founder of Island Records and was responsible for exposing Marley to non-Jamaican audiences. In 1989, Blackwell sold Island Records, including all the rights to Marley’s 7 solo albums and 2 Wailers albums, to Polygram Records which were later acquired by Universal for over $500 million dollars. Notably, Blackwell has clashed with other record labels, including rival Trojon Records during the 1970s, when Blackwell was the target of many vocal barbs fired by Lee “Scratch” Perry, the producer of many of the Wailer’s earlier albums. After learning of Blackwell’s comment, UMG and Verizon reposted all 20 of the pre-viously removed Marley ringtones. Both parties expect the negotia-tions to be lengthy, with possible future litigation.

Should the ringtone issue be decided by a judge, many impor-tant legal issues will be decided by his gavel. The issue being, is an exclusive partnership tantamount to an endorsement? And if it is, how many sales need be gener-ated to qualify as an endorsement? These issues were briefly touched upon by a series of Doc Martin magazine advertisements earlier this year. The ads featured im-ages of deceased musicians such as The Clash’s Joe Strummer, The Ramones’ Joey Ramone, The Sex Pistols’ Sid Vicious, and Nirvana’s Kurt Cobain. In the ads, the musi-cians were dressed as angels wear-ing Doc Martin boots. Just before the respective estates of the musi-

cians sued, the magazine chose to withdraw the ads due to negative public reactions.

The Marley estate is no strang-er to lawsuits. Marley and the other two original Wailers, Peter Tosh and Bunny Wailer, first considered initiating legal proceedings in the early 1970’s. Prior to their interna-tional success, The Wailers were a local Jamaican mainstay, brought to prominence by Mr. Perry at Trojan Records. After a series of disputes between the group and the producer, the master tapes of the Wailer’s recordings made their way into the hands of dozens of unscru-pulous distributors, resulting in hundreds of sub-standard Wailers recordings entering the market.

Details on how the reels made their way into the gray market place are sketchy. Perry has at times declared that the tapes were stolen, that he had the Wailer’s consent, or that Marley himself took the tapes. It has also been sug-gested that the tapes, which were some of the most valuable record-ings in the entire music industry, sold for the rock bottom price of $400. After the dispute arose, the Wailers created their own label, Tuff Gong, which shared Marley’s nickname. Shortly thereafter, Tuff Gong went on to international distribution through Blackwell’s Island Records. After the Wailer’s became an international success, Marley pondered initiating legal proceedings against Perry for il-legal sale of the Wailer’s master tapes. Perry similarly considered initiating proceedings against the Wailer’s and Blackwell for failing to credit him for several Wailers songs he allegedly wrote, including “Kaya,” “Punky Reggae Party,” and even “I Shot the Sheriff.” Their mutual hatred has mani-fested itself in Perry’s song “Judge-ment inna Babylon,” in which Perry repeatedly calls Blackwell “a vampire,” suggesting that the distributor received proceeds of his artists without contributing to the industry himself. In the case at bar this battle is begun again, with Blackwell in a curious position having no legal or economic ties with Marley after his sale of Island Records in 1989. With multiple

Shaking the Foundations Once Again at StanfordBy Ben Kuo,Managing Editor

The annual Shaking the Foun-dations Law Conference took place once again at Stanford Law School on October 5th and 6th, over the Fall Break for Santa Clara law students. The conference brought speakers and students together from across the Bay Area and different parts of the country to dis-cuss progressive legal issues.

The two-day conference com-bined keynote speeches, panels, workshops, and a networking dinner. It was entirely organized by Stanford law students and received contributions and support from many employers and private donors. This fundraising allowed organizers to charge only $10 for the entire conference while pro-viding for two lunches, one din-ner, and snacks to every attendee. Many students from Santa Clara participated on one or both days of the conference.

Ms. Ruth Gilmore, who de-livered the opening keynote, is a professor at the University of Southern California, Director of American Studies and Ethnicity, and author of Golden Gulag: Pris-ons, Surplus, Crisis and Opposi-tion in Globalizing California. Ms. Gilmore quoted statistics placing the United States incarceration rate as the highest in the world at 737 per 100,000 people, which is five times higher than Great Britain, the country with the next highest rate. The U.S. rate is also more than six times China’s rate, despite China’s reputation for human-rights viola-tions.

Ms. Gilmore commented that the U.S. political system manufac-tures a “common, perpetual enemy who must always be fought but can never be vanquished” that results in the use of prisons as “all-pur-pose solutions to common political, economic, and social problems.” Since prisons are negative infra-structures, as opposed to positive infrastructures like highways, dams, and schools, the economic

multiplier for each dollar spent on prisons is very little compared with other public projects.

Ms. Gilmore criticized the De-partment of Corrections for being the largest employer in California. The Prison Guards’ Union, which represents Dept. of Corrections employees, practices affirmative action fervently in order to avoid being accused of racism. However, this does not lessen the fact that prisons are instruments of punish-ment. Says Ms. Gilmore “There were black police officers who en-forced Apartheid in South Africa, and there were Jews who kept the Ghettos in Nazi Germany.”

Many panels and workshops covering a wide variety of topics, such as the use of reproductive technologies to police women of color, racial issues resulting from Hurricane Katrina, queer youth in schools, and planning for alterna-tive legal careers in public interest, took place over the course of the conference.

In the Writing for Justice panel, Steve Bogira, Au-thor of Courtroom 302, said “the jour-nalist’s obligation is to shed light on the human condi-tion.” He related the story of Tony Cameron who was convicted of armed robbery. Mr. Cam-eron tried to tell the story of his broken childhood at his plea conference but the judge would not listen to him. “He was troubled, mentally ill, and in a previous psych test said that a person jumping out of a window was a happy person. Yet the system did not care about his story.” To avoid more cases like Mr.

4

Cameron’s journalists and legal professionals to tell their stories even when no one is listening.

In the Lawyering Strategies for Working With Communities work-shop Reverend Daniel Buford, founding organizer of the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, exhorted the participants to think outside the box. While socializa-tion causes us to fall into line, “it also makes us racist or sexist.”

Reverend Buford spoke of the four sides of a box; time, resourc-es, organizational structure, and policy. Says Mr. Buford these are the ones that “bureaucrats like to rely on for resisting change...The system preserves itself through the use of time or the lack of resources. Bureaucracy exists not to transform institutions but to preserve them.”

Reverend Buford invited attendees to engage in a power analysis by identifying all the sources of influence in a poor and underserved community. He called it the “Foot Identification” because

each organization is like a foot that puts pressure on the community. Participants were eventually able to identify more than fifty private and public “feet” that affect com-munities, as varied as the FBI, the courts, and debt collectors.

The use of language was the main focus of this workshop. While people who live in under-served communities may only be able to tell you that they wish to “hook up the ghettos and the trailer trash across the railroad tracks,” according to Rev. Buford, commu-nity organizers must be able to use words like “risk, disadvantaged, disenfranchised, underprivileged, and target area.”

Another panel on Friday af-ternoon was entitled Future of the Death Penalty. Larry Marshall, Professor of Law and Associ-ate Dean for Public Interest and Clinical Education at Stanford Law School, spoke of the “Thurgood Marshall hypothesis” regarding the death penalty. The hypothesis

An insiders view on the annual progressive law conference

Evidence the Public Defenders’ office is not performing sufficient conflict of interest evaluations

states that people would not sup-port the death penalty if they had an opportunity to learn about it. “I have met people who have grown to oppose the death penalty,” he said, “but not people who have grown to support it because it is race neutral, accurate, or fairly administered.”

Executive Director of the Cen-ter for Capital Assistance Schar-lette Holdman, who has only lost one case in her representation of death-eligible defendants, said that attorneys who can “contextualize the death penalty” can most suc-cessfully avoid its imposition on their clients.

She related a story about how an L.A. gang member who had killed six people avoided the death penalty through zealous advocacy. In representing him, she showed the jury a slide that consisted of his family tree in Mississippi, where he had grown up. Colored circles dotted the slide, which represented persons related to the defendant who had been killed or raped.

While the prosecution would like to focus on the crime and “nothing but individual stories expand into families, communities, and the nation as a whole.” Says

Ms. Hodman, the way to overcome “the circle of prejudice and fear” is always to focus the attention on the humanity of the client, and to never give in to the pressures of the community or government that swiftly condemn without regard for the defendant’s story.

On Friday night, a networking

dinner took place between attend-ees and various local organizations, such as the Public Interest Law Project, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, and the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. Many of these organiza-tions were looking for students willing to do public interest work after graduation, and virtually all were willing to accept pro bono hours from practicing attorneys even if their specialties were not directly related to the nature of the work.

Another panel, Preserving Voting Rights for All, took place Saturday morning. Robert Rubin, Legal Director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, spoke of the reason why voting rights are so contentious. Mr. Rubin succinctly described the reason as “It is about power.”

He theorized that current in-terests would be threatened if the

right to vote was more widespread. “What if Latinos came up with their own ballot proposition against corporate welfare? In Modesto, California, whites live in moder-nity while the Latino community uses septic tanks. That’s what the lack of political power does.”

David Dill, Professor of Com-puter Science at Stanford, fo-cused on trans-parency in the voting process, particularly with computerized voting systems. With the move toward comput-erization, Mr. Dill expressed that there was actually less confidence in the system. Mr. Dill notes that even where the ma-chine provides a paper trail, “People tend to trust machines and not look at the printout.”

The resis-tance to com-puterized voting

tends to be “in-versely proportional” to the tech-nical knowledge of the protester. Mr. Dill cautions that in order to combat suspicion of computer-ized voting, the machinery must be made more transparent or with open-source software so that their inner workings may be audited by independent entities.

Participants then headed across campus to lunch and a closing key-note speech by Professor Patricia Williams, a professor at Columbia University School of Law and a regular columnist for the Nation. Ms. Williams painted an Orwellian future where DNA is used for tracking purposes, employment and where education selection will be ubiquitous. Ms. Williams expressed further concern regard-ing the rise of genetic technology and the class divisions that this may create between those who can afford designer babies and gene

modifications and those who can-not.

Ms. Williams spoke of a case in Great Britain where the tabloids sensationally reported the “pain and grief” of a white couple who conceived using sperm from a sperm bank only to discover upon birth that the child is black. She fo-cused on the language that labeled the child as a “mistake” and of the damages that the parents should be entitled to because they had to raise a black child. She hoped that in the brave new world of genetic engineering, people would not lose sight of who they are in their pursuit of “perfection.”

Reactions from Santa Clara law students were generally positive. Laura Jacques, 3L, thought that “there was great range and variety in the speakers, in terms of level of expertise, field of interest and type of work. It showed that you re-ally can make a career of pursuing specific legal problems in creative ways.”

Nuritzi Sanchez, a senior majoring in International Rela-tions and Psychology at Stanford University, also liked the way the conference was organized. Specifi-cally citing “The larger seminars that split into the smaller work-shops with different topics.”

There were also suggestions from attendees for improvement. “The timing management could have been much better,” said Ms. Jacques. “There was no time for questions from audience partici-pants. I also expected more practi-tioners attending and more oppor-tunities for networking.”

Ms. Sanchez thought that the practitioners failed to address the “pink elephant in the room” of how much people in public interest careers earn. “Money is a huge part of any job, and I think we needed to get a better idea.” On the is-sue of whether the conference has changed her career aspirations, Ms. Jacques says “I don’t think it af-fected how I will plan my career.”

5

From left to right: Rober Rubin, David Dill, Ron Hayduk, Dorsey Nunn, and Student Organizer Eunice Cho, of the Preserving Voting Rights for All panel discussion.

For those of us who have been here awhile, the decadence of past Social Justice benefits are alive in our memories. These were glamorous affairs indeed, notable for their revelry which was all the more sweetened by the excessive generosity that translated into ever more funds for the Public Inter-est and Social Justice Coalition (PISJC). Sadly, this year, those carefree times were gone. In their stead, we had a basement in Ben-son, jeans, and what little merri-ment there was to be had was soon checked by an angry shush. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn by this dramatic shift is that the commitment of our school to social justice is not what it once was.

Though PISJC did everything in their power to make the best out

of a bad situation, the results spoke for themselves. Attendance this year was notably diminished. The acoustics for the room made any attempt of listening to the bid-ding impossible, despite Professor Peterson’s best efforts. Whereas before there was a lush dinner and drink tickets included in the $25 event, this year there were luke-warm appetizers and huge lines for drinks that were nonalcoholic or overpriced. In comparison to past social justice benefits which found revelers present late into the night, the California Mission Room cleared out a mere two hours after the event began, well short of already truncated 10 pm scheduled closing time.

Reasons for why the admin-istration dispensed with the for-merly successful formula of “well lubricated” law students having a

good time and thereby motivating them to be more generous at the auction, can only be speculated. However, the general consensus for the sudden shift is a caution-ary tale that has gained an almost urban legend status. Depending on who is telling the story, the tale goes something like this: following last year’s Social Justice Benefit, a young student was found un-conscious in the bushes outside of the Rose Gardens, who may or may not have had their hand in the locale of a sensitive area, and who may or may not have been seen by parents of undergraduates visiting for parents’ weekend.

Other anecdotes from years past indicated that students who were clearly intoxicated none-theless made the poor choice of driving home and were arrested. The only hard fact that may be

discerned is that the consequences of the event seemingly reflected poorly upon our administration.

Of course the school has every reason to be concerned with not associating itself with facilitat-ing or encouraging drunkenness. However, perhaps a better way of advocating this message would be to offer panel lectures about the dangers of excessive drinking or organizing designated drivers as opposed to penalizing PISJC. What is perhaps most irrational of all is why the school would seek to punish the many, when making examples of out the few would be as effective. Those of us who remember the benefits of previous years might have stayed loyal to the cause. However, future classes will likely pass on the knowledge of the dull time they had last year.

Santa Clara Law students, you have a professional at your dis-posal. J.T. Service, a 3L at Santa Clara, ran in the Marathon Olym-pic Trials on November 3rd in New York City. After qualifying for Olympic Trials in Duluth, Minne-sota on June 12th, he was invited to run the 26.22 miles in the Big Apple for a shot at going to the Olympics. While he didn’t finish in the requisite top three to go on, he completed the race at a personal best of 2:21:12 – faster than most can read Marbury v. Madison. How does this affect you? Well, he’s back and he’s here to help you get out of the library and start run-ning – and for a great cause too!

Last year, J.T. started a pro-gram called Swift Justice. With the help of J.T. and his father, Tom Service, Track Coach at Santa Clara University, the program calls for Santa Clara law students,

faculty, and staff to train for local ½ marathons and in the process raise money for the Katherine and George Alexander Community Law Center (KGACLC). Each runner is expected to find sponsor-ship through friends and family for their intended efforts and donate the received proceeds to KGA-CLC. This past August, a com-bined twelve students, faculty and community members ran for Swift Justice in the San Jose Rock ‘n’ Roll Half-Marathon and eventually raised $7,000.

For those not already familiar with KGACLC, the law center provides pro bono legal advice and representation in several areas including consumer rights, work-ers’ rights, workers’ compensation, and immigration rights. KGACLC provides clinical for Santa Clara Law students by having them work under attorney supervision to pro-vide free legal services to whoever is in need. Students meet with clients, write memorandums, and

sometimes even appear in court on both the clients’ and the Center’s behalf.

In the spring, Swift Justice will once again be raising money for KGACLC and getting students out of the library to do something positive for themselves and the community. Swift Justice is an all-inclusive program that welcomes any runner from experienced to be-ginner. Says J.T. “We have people walking the whole ½ marathon to people running really fast.” It is a fantastic outlet for law students and a great way to keep your body and mind healthy, all while simultane-ously helping the community.

The event has the added benefit of being a great resume booster, especially since its for a great cause. If persuading an employer that volunteer marathon runners will suit their needs is not what motivates you, then at the very least, you’ll better yourself and the community through participating in Swift Justice. As J.T. puts it,

“a well balanced law student is a more effective law student.”

For more information, search for “Swift Justice” under the KGACLC home page, or see http://www.scu.edu/law/kgaclc/File/Swift_Justice_-_Version_3.pdf.

6Service Serves Swift JusticeInspired by law student and runner, students run half-marathons to raise funds for law centerBy Joe Wright, Staff Writer

...and Social Justice for All (except PISJC)Santa Clara School of Law’s latest Social Justice Benefit falls short of expectationsBy Leland Oshins,Editor-in-Chief

7

Putting the Viet in VietnamA law student’s adventures from halfway around the globeBy Steve Jacob, Foreign Correspondent

Coming from the States I’m used to a certain kind of line: single file, orderly, and easy to navigate. Sometimes there’s a switchback, like at Disneyland, the airport, or at the coffee shop in Benson, but I can deal with that, I understand how it works and I know that I’ll get my service when I get to the front. I can predict how long it will take and I can guess what’s going to happen between now and then. Vietnam’s a whole different kind of line.

Viets have a thing with lines. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t understand them or because they don’t like waiting. Either way any queue ends up a funnel of flesh jostling and maneuvering for posi-tion. Shoot the gap. Slide into an opening and ignore the guy behind you. They drive the same way. I’ve started rooting for my taxi driver, cheering when he zooms ahead and cuts back in the line ahead of a Mercedes. It’s fun, frustrating, and fascinating, just like their law.

Vietnam operates on a different system, part civil part communist, that lends itself to confusion, con-tradiction, head-shaking, and a fre-quent desire to punch something. It

took some effort, but I managed to get through two months without an assault and battery charge. Good news for me, because I wasn’t registered at the consulate and I wasn’t part of the university sum-mer abroad program. I was on my own.

Last school year, at the height of OCI stress, I met a guy who knew a girl. The girl was a partner in VILAF-Hong Duc, probably the biggest and best Viet owned law

firm in Vietnam. Sure there are big-ger ones, and sure there are better ones, but foreigners run most of those. It took two seconds for me to jump on the guy’s offer to intro-duce me. He did, by email. I sent my resume, a writing sample, and the expected bone fides in a hurry, and then I waited.

I sent out other applications and sat for interviews with Bay Area folks, but no one I was interested in seemed interested in me, a middle of the pack law student from Santa Clara Uni-versity with a resume that didn’t just scream international law, it swung a rusted pipe at the base of the interviewer’s skull.

Come February, I got anx-ious and acted out of turn, I sent a follow-up email. A couple days later in the middle of class I checked my inbox and found an offer for the summer, paid, and paid well enough for me to come out in the black. After enough time to weigh the offer against my other options—taking summer classes so I could qualify for a loan to pay rent and buy Ra-men, try to get a job at Borders, or wander the streets of Oakland with a cup and a frayed Raider’s jacket—I accepted. Apparently, I wasn’t the only contestant. They

had received a parcel of applica-tions and they picked me. They told me later that my Vietnamese did it; edged out the competition. I smiled and nodded. Thank you gift horse, I’m sure your teeth are fine.

Skip to May.Finals ended, I packed, said

goodbye, and hopped on a never ending plane ride for my third summer in Vietnam. Two flights and a day later I hobbled up the jet-way into Tan Son Nhat airport and

Ho Chi Minh City. Later that week I started work and felt the culture shock—which I’ve never had a problem with in Vietnam—attack my system.

To paraphrase an old Chinese saying, what happens in the For-bidden City doesn’t affect what

happens in the villages. In Vietnam the National Assembly passes law after law, chasing Vietnam’s WTO commitments like Homer Simpson after a doughnut, oblivious to the confusion and chaos left behind in their rush to please the global busi-ness community. First the National Assembly passes a law and then they wait to see how it works. After a while they start to fill in the blanks, issuing a decree or a decision that offers further guid-ance or completely rewrites parts of the law. With luck, that means someone removed a contradiction in the law or clarified ambiguous language or gave instructions to the front lines. If you’re not lucky, then you get a document that adds new contradictions and erects a series of hoops, the kind that require jump-ing through, and that, without a judicial branch to interpret, leaves lawyers to guess at its meaning. At least until some unrelated ministry decides to speak up.

The biggest problems, how-

ever, lie in the translation. Over and over I would scour the English version to reconcile some contra-diction. After banging my forehead against the door jam and convinc-ing a colleague that the law was actually Mao’s secret love child in hiding, I would check the Vietnam-

ese version to see…the opposite of the English. Brilliant, I would then mutter to myself and proceed to tear my hair out over the next sentence.

After two months, though, I began to save more brain cells and lose less hair. I began to understand how things worked. I read more law in Vietnamese and ignored the English translations. I recognized the ambiguities and knew when the only recourse for interpretation was a phone call to the agency in charge. I learned to ask the right questions and I learned to think a little differently. In line at KFC, I didn’t hesitate to shoot the gap and step in front of the lady with two kids who was slow on the queue. Maybe that makes me a bad per-son, but I don’t think so. It makes me different. I’m no longer just a common law student, I’m a civil one as well.

Photo Provided by Steve Jacob

“In Vietnam the National Assembly passes law after law, chasing Vietnam’s WTO commit-ments like Homer Simpson after a doughnut”

COURSES & PUBLICATIONS

CALIFORNIA TOLL FREE:

(800) LAW-EXAM(949) 770-7030

(800) LAW-EXAM(949) 770-7030

(800) LAW-EXAMEMAIL info@ffol.com

WEB ffol.com26170 Enterprise Way • Suite 500

Lake Forest, California 92630

4California Bar Review4National Performance Workshop4National Professional Responsibility Review4California Baby Bar Exam Review4Legal Examination Writing Workshop4Exam Solution® Final Exam Reviews4National Performance Exam Solution4Essay Exam Writing Workbook, Vol. 1, 2, 3 & 44Multistate Exam Writing Workbook, Vol. I & II

FLEMING’S COURSES INCLUDE...4Legal outlines for all major subjects4In-depth substantive law lectures4Extensive essay analysis & writing training4Memory retention devices4Live lectures / CD lectures4Personal attention4Audio cassette personal critique

25Years of Excellence