Why You Should Vote "Yes" to Make This Class P/F

Written By A Concerned Classmate

Dear Fellow Classmates,

In light of our vote, I want to take a moment to encourage you to reconsider and vote yes on transitioning this course to pass/fail. Below are 10 reasons why this change would benefit not just Eben, but all of us:

I think this is a worthy subject of discussion, but of less weight perhaps than it is given here. I have some comments on the substance.

• First and foremost, Eben has openly shared that his request to transition the grading scale stems from his health challenges. Voting "No" would only add to his burdens, requiring him to take on additional work that could impact his well-being. This is a small act of solidarity that could make a big difference.

Because this is essentially an argument about me, I think I should rise to a point of personal privilege. Whatever you decide should be based on your judgment about what is good for your education, not what is good for my comfort or my health. If I thought now, or find in future, that I cannot do my job, it would be up to me to deal with the problem, not up to you. That's not the case at present, and you should not be participating in this discussion in anticipation of my becoming more disabled.

• Taking this class pass/fail is completely in line with this class’s purpose. We are being challenged to rethink and free ourselves from arbitrary grading systems—why not start here?

• We already have pass/fail courses on our transcripts, including LPW I & II and Legal Methods I & II—courses that provide some of the most transferrable skills for legal practice.

• Receiving a letter grade in this course would be particularly arbitrary, as it is based on a single paper with minimal feedback rather than a comprehensive assessment of our skills.

I don't agree with this characterization. A grade based on a single timed examination graded with no feedback whatever, which is the standard form of evaluation in this school, is by this argument far more arbitrary. Nor does the grade on an exam performance, taking into account class participation, constitute a more comprehensive assessment than the one I am making when I grade your performance in this course.

• If you’re hoping to receive a high letter grade, consider the risk. The grading curve means you have a much higher probability of receiving a less-than-favorable grade. If your goal is to boost your GPA, this course may not be the safest bet.

This is not quite accurate. We have discussed "the curve" in class before, so I will not repeat at length the points I have previously made about its relatively ineffectiveness. I should also point out that the curve in use in this course is the so-called "upperclass" distribution, which is more lenient than the curve applied to the grade distribution in other 1L courses. So it does not follow that grades here are more "risky" than they are elsewhere.

• We have all chosen to use our one elective in 1L on a non-doctrinal, “Law & ____” course. If a hypothetical employer truly cared about seeing a letter grade, they likely would have preferred a Black Letter course instead. You’ve already stepped outside the prestige bubble—why not fully embrace the value of this course for what it is?

• The longer Eben has to grade, the longer you’ll wait to get your final grade—which could impact your job search if that’s your concern. A pass/fail designation speeds up the process for everyone.

One way or another, the grades in this course would be available within the schedule for 1L grades (I might allocate myself seven additional days, but not more). The idea that I'm going to choose do something to hurt you in order to protect myself is not part of my personal code.

• One pass/fail class will not hurt your job prospects. Firms and employers look at the bigger picture, and this single course won’t define your resume.

• We are already stretched thin. This course is not required to graduate, and taking it pass/fail allows your other, more heavily weighted classes to shine.

• Please.

Next Steps

To ensure fairness, I propose a recount of the poll *in class on Thursday, April 3,* allowing space for discussion and addressing any concerns. As of me writing this, 36 out of 57 people (63%) have already expressed support. This is an opportunity to stand in solidarity rather than let unnecessary division weaken us (especially in a time such as this).

As a personal anecdote: I once had a screener interview with a Cravath partner, Ben Gruenstein, where most of our conversation was me explaining what Law and Contemporary Society was. We discussed Oliver Wendell Holmes and “The Path of the Law,” and then he started grilling me on my opinions of Holmes. If you’d prefer to avoid this, don’t let this class stand out unnecessarily on your transcript—especially if it could come with a risky grade.

Like most stories, this one can be interpreted several ways. I think that the chance to engage in discussion with Ben on a piece of serious reading you have done was a good thing for Dayo, and a nice change of pace for Ben, who would otherwise have been stuck in "firm advertising mode." It gave both parties a way of breaking out of the ritual of the interview, and both had a chance to learn something about the other that was special. If this happened in any small fraction of the job interviews had by students in this course, I would consider that both good for the students and a substantial success for the course.

There’s still time to reconsider and come together. Let’s choose solidarity.

In Solidarity,

Dayo Adeoye

Taylor Lawson

Ciarra Lee

Ruth Samuel

Elijah Pitt

Kristen Quesada

Sophie Dalldorf

(If you would like to sign on to this letter, please use the "Edit" function to add your name.)

I would not have suggested this change if I did not agree with the weight of the argument presented here. I do not think it matters a tinker's damn whether you receive a letter grade or a credit for this course, either to the evaluation of your job application by a law firm or for the substantive value of our work together for your legal education. I think the concentration on grades, their production and consumption, is carried in this school to an absurd extent, and that the result is a significant contribution to the many forces (including most importantly the destruction of the library) that are rapidly depreciating the intellectual quality of the education delivered by this school. I think you are being taught to care intensely about the wrong things. This course is an attempt to explain why, and to offer other routes to thinking about law that will help you to become a great lawyer rather than meat in a can.

This conversation, from my point of view, is part of that effort. Whatever you decide is best for you personally, and therefore what we decide to do collectively, the issue we are thinking about sits at the heart of our project: How does the method by which your work is evaluated either advance or inhibit the creativity of your thinking, the breadth of your intellectual resources, and your willingness to take risks in order better to understand and deliver justice in your society? I am grateful to Dayo and our other colleagues here for putting forward their views clearly and forcefully. I think it would be useful to reflect not merely on the casting of a vote, but on the nature of the course as we have experienced it so far in affecting the voter.

Cam Humphrey

-- EbenMoglen - 02 Apr 2025