AN OPEN REPLY LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY: My Script Commentary 13 March, 2014 Attorney Ara B. Gershengorn (General Counsel at Harvard University): This email is to kindly respond today to the Office of General Counsel at Harvard University respectively. At issue before us today is: whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove age and disability discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at Harvard Law School (HLS)? Despite non-disclosures of age and disability at HLS Class Profile and Facts 2014 site, HLS admission process is thwarted. That is, law school admission is based on an assumed political public policy under the “equal but for separate” standard. The OCR Complaint No. 01-14-2143 speaks on the inclusion for disabled and senior citizens, who seek admission into the law school. Harvard Law School (HLS) is the oldest operating law school in the nation. Since 1817 the elite law school is one of the professional graduate schools at Harvard University. As a preeminent center for legal education, HLS is based on merit and dedication through public service, research, and teaching. While there is no grading system based on percentages or scores under the Honors, Pass, and Low Pass rubrics, HLS covertly undermines the University’s Nondiscriminatory Policy through a pattern of disbarment, exclusion, and restrictions to applicants with disabilities and applicants over forty years old on record. In other words, HLS, subsequently, accepts all applications and all LSAT scores from all individuals with the systematic and purposeful ideals toward the “equal but for separate” standard for the admission process. HLS is perhaps an active practitioner in discrimination because the “equal but for separate” standard is a form of “nepotism” on its face. HLS graduates nearly all applicants with a 99% graduation rate on record. While Harvard’s notable graduates include U.S. President Barack Obama, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay, Businessman Reginald F. Lewis, Activist W.E.B. Du Bois, Actress Ashley Judd, Author E.E. Cummings, and former Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States William Rehnquist, Chief Justice Rehnquist exposes the grave 20th century federal judiciary ideologies and life-long patterns on discrimination, predating Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which transforms admission and selection procedures in 21st century higher learning. In Rehnquist’s 1952 memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregations Cases”, Rehnquist said: “In these cases now before the Court, the Court is being asked to read its own sociological views into the Constitution. Urging a view palpably at variance with the precedent and probably with legislative history, appellants seek to convince the Court of the moral wrongness of the treatment they are receiving. I would suggest that this is a question the Court need never reach; for regardless of the Justice’s individual views on the merits of segregation, it quite clearly is not one of those extreme cases which command intervention from one of any conviction. If this Court, because its members individually are ‘liberal’ and dislike segregation, now chooses to strike it down, it differs from the McReynolds court only in the kinds of litigants it favors and the kinds of special more claims it protects. To those who would argue that ‘personal’ rights are more sacrosanct than ‘property’ rights, the short answer is that the Constitution makes no such distinction. To the argument made by Marshall that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional rights, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are. One hundred and fifty years of attempts on the part of this Court to protect minority rights of any kind — whether those of businesses, slaveholders, or Jehovah’s Witnesses — have all met the same fate. One by one the other establishing such rights have been sloughed off, and crept silently to rest. If the present court is unable to profit by this example, it must be prepared to see its work fade in time, too, as embodying only the sentiments of a transient majority of nine men. I realize that this is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be re-affirmed. If the Fourteenth Amendment did not enact Spencer’s Social Static, it just as surely did not enact Myrdahl’s American Dilemma. Specifically, Rehnquist represents the totality of Harvard’s stance in every single written correspondence by the Office of General Counsel at Harvard University and Harvard Law School (HLS) to-date. Despite state and federal rules that protect senior citizens and the disabled, or the Equal Protections Clause, as amended in 1868, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Harvard University contends that “there is no evidence of unlawful discrimination.” A pattern, by definition, means a repeated design or model, or a recurring style or shape. After two consecutive denials of good faith law school applications for Fall 2013 and Fall 2014 at HLS with recurring LSAT score of 124, B.A. in Arts and Humanities at Columbia College Chicago, M.A. in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), three Letters of Recommendation (LOR’s) from the late Honorable Chicago Park District Commissioner Dr. Margaret T. Burroughs, Founder of Du Sable Museum of African American History, Dr. Linda Phaire-Washington, Associate Provost for Research at Alabama State University and former Senior Researcher at Argonne National Laboratory at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Glennon Graham, Professor of History at Columbia College Chicago and post-graduate at Northwestern University, HLS clearly demonstrates a pattern on age and disability discrimination by way of permanently barring, excluding, and restricting such law school applicants in the overall final selection process. The Equal Protections Clause, as amended in 1868, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. constitution includes “all persons” regardless of status, citizenship, age, or disability. Harvard Law School (HLS) is an active practitioner of the equal but for separate standard with a pattern of discrimination on the basis of age and disability under the rule of law as a matter of principle. Senior citizens and individuals with a mental, cognitive, or physical disability are neither a permanent underclass in 21st century higher learning, nor in any facet in human life development in American culture or abroad. Upon discussions with President Dr. Drew G. Faust and HLS Dean Martha L. Minow, I, therefore, am available to discuss our restorative justice mediation plan dated on 4 February, 2014 on record. Again, peace leadership like responsible leadership is only by human example. Warmest Regards, Executive Director L. Jacqueline Gillard (pronounced Jillar) Founder, Chairman and CEO THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. Civil and Human Rights Activist Disabled American Zen Buddhist P.O. Box 805993 Chicago, Illinois 60680-4121 USA [NOTE: All communications are made in good faith and not for the purposes of harm, harassment, delay, or evasion under the penalty of perjury, Code of Ethics, and Rules of Professional Conduct by law. As we operate under the highest levels of integrity and probity with total transparency, all communications are open and public information for state and federal records. This public posting is an electronic signature of approval and authorization by its sender on record.]
Posted on: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:04:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015