Gannett House Smackdown: Internecine Warfare at the Harvard Law Review (Part 1)
As promised, here’s the first installment in our series about infighting at America’s top law journal: the Harvard Law Review. Some HLR editors are unhappy with the Review’s new fearless leader, president Andrew Crespo, and have been expressing their concerns.
We’ve been leaked a number of HLR internal emails that some of you may find amusingly ridiculous. But we should warn you that they’re not for everyone. If you don’t share our appreciation for tempests in teapots, you may have a “So what?” reaction.
But if you do enjoy the hilarity of petty law school squabbles, then check out the emails — after the jump.
First, some necessary background, from a tipster:
It is tradition at the Harvard Law Review to send out a congratulatory email when former editors get married, have kids, and get Supreme Court clerkships. Apparently, some 2L editors found SCOTUS clerkship announcements offensive (!) because it puts the prestige of the clerkship above the prestige of, say, working for the ACLU or the NAACP-LDF.Andrew Crespo addressed these concerns by deciding to only email the 3Ls with congratulatory news and then suggesting opt-out procedures and a separate “congratulations” email list. So much for community.
What follows is (1) Crespo’s email and (2) an email from a 2L editor, addressing the fragmenting HLR “community.” To provide context for his first point, a small number of 2L editors found it fit to “annotate” a picture of the Supreme Court membership with the phrase “rich white males.” The rest of the email is rather self-explanatory.
With that out of the way, we’ll let the emails speak for themselves. Like any good drama, this is a story with two sides. Some of you will side with the 2L editor, and some of you will side with Crespo; that’s fine. No matter which side you support, hopefully you will derive some amusement from the insanity of this spectacle — which is taking place, of course, at the world-famous Harvard Law Review.
Email message from Harvard Law Review President Andrew Crespo:
From: Andrew Crespo
To: Harvard Law Review editors
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:10 PM
Subject: Congratulations, generally
Dear Editors,
I want to briefly apologize for any discomfort I’ve caused through my recent emails congratulating HLR alumni for receiving clerkships with the Supreme Court. After my email two weeks ago congratulating [redactedA] and [redactedB], about five 2L editors told me that they were uncomfortable with these emails and asked that I not send them anymore. These editors expressed displeasure with the fact that current editors hear about the accomplishments of our alumni only when those alumni receive supreme court clerkships. Generally, these editors remarked that my congratulatory emails emphasize one form of achievement over others and create anxiety and competition within our community, especially since 2L editors do not know or have a relationship with many of the alumni involved.
Given this reaction, I decided upon hearing of [redactedC]’s accomplishment to email only those of you who were editors with [redactedC] during his time here. This, in retrospect, was not the best way to deal with the various concerns involved, as a number of 2Ls today have understandably expressed concern and confusion at being left out of the loop.
I admittedly did not expect my congratulatory emails to cause such a stir. My hope in sending these emails was to invite all of you to join in celebrating the accomplishments of our fellow editors and members of the broader Review community, not to invite the electronic rejoinders that seem to come immediately on the heels of each of these congratulatory messages.
I think that part of being a healthy community is celebrating in each other’s successes and the successes of our recent alumni. I do not mean to limit the word “success” to supreme court clerkships; I think it is a nice thing for us to share in all of the accomplishments our editors achieve. As one of the leaders of this community, sharing these accomplishments with all of you is something that I personally enjoy very much, and I’m sorry that this has caused some of you discomfort, as that was never my intention.
I hope that going forward many of you will see fit to share news with me of all of each other’s many accomplishments. To the extent that congratulatory emails “from the president” carry any institutional weight, I don’t want these to be limited to weddings, births, and supreme court clerkships; personally, I’d love to hear about and share the news of all the wonderful accomplishments our editors and alumni achieve. However, I recognize that these emails will continue to make some of you uncomfortable, which I’d like to avoid as much as possible. If you would not like to receive emails of this nature, please don’t hesitate to let me know; I’m happy to create a separate “congratulations” email list for these types of messages.
Again, apologies for stirring controversy through these emails. Hopefully going forward they’ll come across more in the manner in which they were intended — occasions to celebrate and be happy for one another :)
Andrew
Email message from Harvard Law Review 2L Editor:
[Ed. note: Redactions in the original. They were made by our tipster, not by us.]
To the Harvard Law Review “Community”:
As many of you know, I spend a lot of time around Gannett, and I generally consider it a fun place to spend my time and get to know many of you. However, many of you also know that I am sometimes offended by some of the things that happen and are said around Gannett. So you might imagine that I was a bit taken aback when I learned today that our new community seems to be so interested in ensuring that we never do anything to offend our fellow editors, to the point where we now have to create special email lists for certain messages to ensure that certain members of the community are not offended.
My shock, however, comes not from the fact that we’ve now created such a “community” that we must be fragmented even to the point of creating separate email lists, but that nobody really has bothered to do anything about the things around Gannett that offend me. I presume it is because I have not made them known widely enough. Since we are now so concerned that nobody be offended at Gannett, I hope that the following modest proposals will be quickly ratified by the Law Review community, so that I (and any other editors who may feel likewise) will no longer have to pay the price of being offended just for the privilege of working at Gannett.
1. I am offended by the “decoration” of the photo of the Supreme Court Justices in the Supreme Court office. I’ll assume for purposes of my offense that [redacted1] is right and that all of the men sitting on the Court at the time the photo was taken were “rich.” (Of course, we don’t know if this is actually true – what constituted “rich,” back then and did they all meet that bar? But it seems likely enough that I will not quibble.) I’ll also not dispute that they were all white. Even if they had different ethnic backgrounds, all white people are, deep down, all the same anyway.
Notwithstanding the “truth” of the assertions appended to the picture, it seems to me not just a little bit disrespectful to denigrate the portraits of these men who, despite their many failings, did play an important role in maintaining and advancing the project of the United States of America, one of, if not the most successful experiments in the history of the world in combining and reconciling the competing fundamental desires of human beings: freedom and equality.
At any rate, even if you do not share my views, I still assert that this offends me. Thus, I propose the following: we move the decorated photograph into the President’s office, which after all is not a “public” Law Review workspace and the undecorated photographs into the Vice President’s office (assuming he is not offended by them). This would be analogous to creating a separate email list – a private list/room for those not offended by certain announcements/decorated pictures and a public list/room for the whole body to enjoy and use at their discretion – just not for sending congratulatory emails/displaying pictures of Supreme Court Justices, whether decorated or not. This way, people who want to see the pictures can go to the offices we have established as private to view them [with the permission of their current occupants, of course], while those who do not wish to see them because they are offended can avoid those offices, even when they are looking for Gannett workspace.
2. I am offended by assertions that those who work for “public interest” groups are “working for justice” or “fighting injustice,” with the concomitant implication that those who are not, are not. Seeing as how we live in a pluralistic society, I am of the opinion that there are many conceptions of justice. Though many of you likely disagree with me, I am not entirely sure that justice entails ensuring that violent rapists get out of jail because their sentences are “too burdensome,” or that drug laws impose less of a burden on those who sell drugs to our nation’s children.
Regardless of how you feel about these things, I assert that I am offended by these conceptions of justice. I propose that statements like “I am fighting against injustice” or “working for justice” not be said on the second floor of Gannett house. Like a separate email list, this ensures that I (and anybody else likewise offended) will have a place to go in Gannett house where they will not have to be offended by such remarks, but that those who are not will continue to be free to say them.
3. Finally, I am most offended by the fact that in attempting not to offend people, our President decided that he would effectively keep information from the rest of the body, in effect silencing one viewpoint to cater to the demands of a few. I am not sure what portion of the 2L body enjoys hearing about the accolades of the former members of our organization, but I know that there is a subset, of least one, of our class that believes that hearing these messages is an inspiration. I know that many of my fellow editors aspire to one day be able to have the same opportunity afforded to the 4L’s we hear about in the emails, and it is motivating to know that so many people who have come before us in the organization have been able to, with continued hard work, parlay their early law school successes into such real world achievements in the legal realm.
I know not everybody shares these aspirations and many people have a number of other goals that they would like to achieve in their legal careers. I also have no doubt that it would be inspirational for them to hear about the successes of former editors who have chosen to follow successful paths that have not traveled through the Supreme Court. I would not be, and indeed am not, offended by messages sent to the entire list of editors detailing the achievements of Law Review alumni who have chosen to follow this type of path. Indeed, you may note that in this catalog of things that offend me I have not listed emails from people congratulating fellow editors and alumni for doing things such as accepting jobs with the Federal Public Defender’s office or winning a Skadeen Public Interest Fellowship, even though I may fundamentally disagree with some of the policies of the Public Defender’s office or the programs Skadeen Public Interest Fellows have chosen to pursue with their award. The simple proposal here is that the voice and offense of a few in the community not be elevated to the point where it is allowed to shut off the sentiments of the many again, especially without notice or opportunity to be heard.
So after all of that, I’d like to say the following. I commend our President for recognizing the error of his originally chosen tactic of dealing with the issue raised to him by 5 of our community of 43 fellow editors. It is often difficult to admit to a large group of people that you have made a mistake. However, it should have been apparent from the start that silencing one point of view was not the appropriate response to complaints from a distinct minority of editors, without considering how such an action would look and feel to the rest of the body. As is evidenced by his apologetic email, I assume that the offense created was greater than the offense avoided, which is usually the case when you try to silence one point of view in a debate to advance another.
Obviously the proposals outlined in this letter are ridiculous (save for that accompanying number 3), but so is, I would propose, the creation of separate email lists to accommodate those who are offended by certain congratulatory messages. If I am offended by “public interest” congratulatory messages, is our President going to create a special list for me? Of course not; that would be unreasonable. Am I offended by some of the things I have listed above? Of course I am, but I am not seriously advocating that either of the first two be adopted.
I put up with the Supreme Court office’s decorations because [redacted2] and [redacted1] were elected to chair that office and they reached a compromise. I just smile and nod when people assert that they are “fighting injustice” with the implication that I am either ignorant (at best) or some sort of injustice-loving bigot (at worst) for my conservative views because the people who say those things have just as much right to be in Gannett as I do by virtue of their selection onto the Review. I’d even put up with it if our President decided that he would simply stop announcing Supreme Court clerkships altogether if he thought they were of little value to the community. Of course, absent further restrictions on our email list, other editors would of course be allowed to pass along the information.
But do we really want it to come to that point, where use of our list is limited because our seemingly innocuous messages might offend people? While we should all strive to conduct ourselves in our interactions such that we do not unnecessarily offend each other, I submit to you that when we have reached the point where we have to disaggregate our email list or severely restrict its use in our efforts to avoid what seem like slight offenses, we have reached a point where “community” in the broad sense is impossible and all that we can achieve is fragmentation. I hope this is not the road upon which we are now traveling.
Respectfully an Offended Editor,
[redacted3]
(85) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Still don't care
What the hell is a Skadeen?
huh?
Idiot can't even spell Skadden. Enjoy working at whatever festering TTT firm in decline you end up working for!
Someone give these kids some more work to do. They're scaring the children.
I'm still trying to figure out how SCOTUS Clerkships are offensive...
I mean if the review only congratulated Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and (sometimes) Kennedy clerks while ignoring the others I would see a bias that some might find offensive. But when you are congratulating all clerks where is the harm again?
Someone give these kids some more work to do. They're scaring the children.
The second email is from a crazy person. You can tell by the rambling quality of the prose. Trust me.
And to think that law review editors complain about authors being long-winded....
Wow. 2L wins the self-righteous jerk of the year award.
Even if it might have been a silly decision that the EIC made too quickly at the behest of a minority of members, 2L has to have burned at least a dozen bridges with that email.
The 2L editor sounds like a whiny rich white male. You should put a footnote on his email so noting.
I found 2L's comments to be rather amusing. He plainly has the better of this argument. Of course to me, anytime anyone says the word "community" an involuntary chill runs up my spine.
I disagree 1:14, I mean he has a point and I bet when that email at written (at 3 am after far too much caffeine no doubt) he never expected it to go out to a blog. And from the sounds of things a conservative was never going to be very welcome around the review anyway.
Dude, that Editor-in-Chief needs to benchslap that editor in the second e-mail for creating more problems. The "offended" editors at least brought their problems to the Chief. The second one is going behind his back and needs to be removed. End of story... grow some balls dude!
Come on. The second e-mail isn't drama. It's making fun of the offenderati.
Lord knows I hate to defend anyone on Law Review, but that is probably about as close as anyone on staff will ever come to funny.
Ironic use of the word "denigrate" by the Harvard 2L editor in point 1.
I'm not sure what is more insane here. That people are offended by SCOTUS clerkship announcements or that Crespo actually attempted to accommodate that insanity.
The 2L email is pretty longwinded, but look what he's responding to.
I couldn't get past the split infinitive in the first sentence of the first email. Could someone let me know how it turns out?
ESAD.
I don't know who has an interest in leaking this. Both sides come off looking bad.
The exchange only reinforces the reputation of Harvard Law Review editors as jackasses.
This is the "internecine warfare?" One snarky email exchange? I'm disappointed...
Yeah, and if that's what is getting Crespo called 'Crespolini' (in the earlier related post), that's pretty messed up. I mean, so far from being a fascist, he's really trying to do the 'please all the people all the time' thing that all EICs (and managerial types generally) have to abandon eventually, because law school kids will complain about everything. This is particularly true of the poor, disaffected Fed Soc types who seem to think that 'justice' is a word that is just up-for-grabs for anyone who'd like to use it. Read a little Rawls, or at least a little Sandel or Nozick or something.
1:18, the problem isn't that 2L isn't showing intelligence with this email--he's clearly above average in that regard--it's that he's showing a complete lack of wisdom. Would you send out an email like that to your firm after some partner made what you consider to be an obsequious decision? No. You'd bring it up at some at some more appropriate time--another meeting on the issue perhaps--or you'd bring it up with the partner face-to-face and non-condescendingly. You know, the opposite of what 2L did here.
They've got a point in that it is pretty elitist to treat only SCOTUS clerkships, weddings, and babies as worth a mention (and anyone want to brave a guess as to how many of the former editors/clerks are actually the ones CARRYING the babies???). The president would have been wiser to solicit other success stories, like the public interest success stories mentioned. Treating only traditional news as "success" is awfully stuffy and conservative.
I'm offended that my law review EIC doesn't send around ANYTHING.
1:17(2), you're kidding, right? In the current makeup of US politics, being conservative is practically a PREREQUISITE to the sorts of success the alumni were bragging to the students about. The 2L was pissed off that he might miss out on yet another chance to metaphysically jerk off on the thought that the classes behind him are sitting in awe of his conservative greatness, because people have started to wake up and realize there's more to life than SCOTUS clerkships.
1:30: Hi Crespolini!
Agree with 1:25. In the real world, you have to deal with people (bosses, judges, opposing counsel, clients) who don't always share your worldview or agree with your positions. Crespo tried to do that, although he even admitted his attempt was awkward and could have been better executed. The 2L, on the other hand, decided to throw down the gauntlet and resorted to sarcasm -- a tactic guaranteed not to win friends or influence anyone. And it's not a conservative or liberal trait; it's just bad judgment.
The first email has a split infinitive in the first sentence, and both emails start sentences with "However." If I were an HLR alum, I would be furious. Even I know better than that, and I was an editor at a school ranked in the sixties. Both of those email authors should be ashamed of themselves. I guess Harvard's not what it used to be.
E-mails such as these are evidence of why many at HLS avoided Gannet like the plague and referred to it as the "tool" box.
1:50, that's hilarious. I used to have it drummed into my head that you should never start a sentence with "however" -- then I started working in BigLaw, where persuasive writing can't take 57 pages to make its point, because real-world judges don't have time to wade through all that crap. Short, punchy, action-packed sentences are the way real law is done. Which means sometimes sentences start with "however." Anyone who thinks shit like that ACTUALLY matters might be law-review caliber, but she isn't a very good lawyer.
Interesting, that.
Jesus Christ. It's not just that they're a bunch of whiny brats (seriously, who the fuck cares what e-mails are sent out congratulating people?), it's that they are so utterly convinced of their own importance that any minor grievance beomes an issue of "justice" or "discrimination." If I ever needed validation for my decision not to do the write-on . . .
Or, 1:50, they just e-mail casually like the rest of the world.
How come the president's name is given but not the name of the 2L editor? So much for "a story with two sides."
they get on the review by competition, so it isn't suprising or interesting that some editors are immature or hard to deal with. I mean, the tipster comes off even worse than the editor, here, by dumping emails into the public domain.
2:08, read the Editor's Note:
"Redactions in the original. They were made by our tipster, not by us."
In other words, Lat doesn't have the name of the 2L editor.
1:30, "being conservative is practically a prerequisite" to clerking for Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens? To having children, getting married?
Get a grip.
1:58 - First, I disagree with your implied assertion that counterpoints can't be effectively and efficiently flagged without starting a sentence with however. Second, as a clerk who regularly wades through your epic BigLaw briefs, I assure you that improper use of however has not substantially improved the readability of your work product. It has produced, however, a distracting nails-on-the-chalkboard effect. Third, and finally, my point is that things like however uasage do matter to law review types, among whom the President of the Harvard Law Review should stand as an example of grammatical perfection. Finally, please observe the depth of cheek into which my tongue has been placed.
I'd like to address the issue of wit, because I have no idea whether 2L was attempting to use it. If 2L were someone on law review who's always cracking jokes, and then sent that email with only points 1 and 2, I would probably find it absolutely hilarious.
Then the postscript comes along, and 2L indicates that points 1 and 2 were not serious, but I don't believe it. I think 2L was dead serious in points 1 and 2, and then realized that it was so absurd that she'd better say she was just kidding.
I think 2L probably is the kind of person who gets offended, which is fantastic because the email is a perfect caricature of someone who is overly sensitive and easily offended...except it's authentic!
I, for one, would very much like to meet 2L for the unintentional comedy that would undoubtedly be created by her very presence.
what a stupid tempest in a teapot.
1:20 - oh, come on. split infinitives are grammatically acceptable these days. not always well employed, but acceptable.
(http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/splitinfinitives)
2:14, you're an idiot.
To go boldly - I would be shocked if any students writing on to HLR who used split infinitives in their submissions were selected.
--1:50
2:28, you need to fucking get the fuck over yourself.
See how that works?
Yes. It makes you sound stupid. --2:28.
My reaction: Oy.
I still don't see the Crespolini. Roll out the fascism. Making fun of Crespo for being too nice to his crazy crew is weak.
I'd like to know the 2L editor's name just to make sure I don't hire him or her.
mmm, burger
Bring back Obama!
I agree with 2:14--the second emailer sounds like someone who is actually an easily offended whiner, but who mistakenly believes that s/he is just kidding about it, so the email reads as the rantings of a crazy person.
Because, really, who cares if someone wants to be taken off the "congratulations" email list? It's crazy, yes, but how does it harm you? Why should it inspire you to write a half-bitter, half-fake-joking treatise?
P.S. The idea that you should not start a sentence with "However" has been debunked: http://www.dianahacker.com/rules/subpages_language/however.html
I'll now take extra pleasure every time I kick to crap out of a Harvard grad in court.
Diana who? Unless Strunk and White says it, it's not good enough for me, and it surely shouldn't be good enough for HLR. --1:50
Crespo's trying to satisfy everyone and pleasing no one.
2L editor's response was witty and spot-on, if a tad long.
2:28:
if you're going to be an obnoxious jackass about silly grammar rules, at least use perfect grammar yourself. in your post, "who" technically modifies "HLR," not "student" because of its placement. Please consider rephrasing.
Wrong, Elihu. The response was whiny and entitled. The problem is not that he thinks it's dumb to be offended (and there are witty ways to make fun of political correctness, none of which are apparent from the email) -- the problem is that he's offended that people aren't thinking about HIM and HIS NEEDS.
Shorter 2L email: But what about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Why doesn't Lat cover every single massive email chain in which seemingly intelligent, literate people get mired in the stupidest, most trivial arguments. Oh wait, that's every single legal/consulting email ever sent. Get on it, Lat! Your task is arduous, but your prize is great.
The split infinitive rule was never well-founded in English. It is based on Latin cases, in which "to __" was a single word, and therefore could not be split. It was then roughly brought into the English language by Latin-o-philes with sticks up their asses centuries ago. A split infinitive is totally fine, unless it is such a "wide" split that it actually leads to ambiguity or reading difficulty (e.g., "We encourage both spouses to utilize the best efforts *to understandingly, sympathetically, and professionally try* to work out a compromise"). See Bryan A. Garner, Modern American Usage (Oxford 2003), 742-44. (That's the same Bryan A. Garner who edits Black's Law Dictionary.)
2:14: I seriously doubt 2L is female.
the editors who raised the original stink are a bunch of fucking pussies. there is no way around it. they clearly come from the "everyone gets a trophy" mindset that has proven and will continue to prove to be exceedingly toxic.
how the HELL can you possibly be offended by notice of congratulations for such an achievement? shut up, get a life, and grow a pair.
Every single person involved in any way with this stupidity is an utter jackass.
Gallion OUT!
Way to go 2L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great response to an insane situation.
3:25, given the relatively low percentage of women on most top ten law review boards, I imagine they're dicks rather than pussies.
I am so glad that I am no longer in law school. And that I never have to go back.
Eh. I see the second e-mail as only partially a slap at Crespo and much more a rejoinder to the original complaints. It goes after Crespo only for trying to accomodate unreasonable people.
1:50 & 2:13 -- I'm swooning.
Unless things have changed since my recent stint as an HLR editor, there is no position (or office) of Vice President, making me doubt the veracity of the email (though the bickering over petty matters is not unfamiliar).
4:15 - Things have indeed changed; the title of Vice-President was added to the office formerly known as Treasurer in order to better reflect the responsibilities of the position. The current holder of the office signs emails and letters using both titles (retaining treasurer, as I understand it, in order to make sure alums know who he is).
Crespo sounds like a little bitch.
I would suspect the best is yet to come.
Since when do 1Ls know the inner workings of law review politics?
43 editors?! HLR must make everyone an "editor" instead of a staff member. That way no one feels left out, and everyone has something nice to put on their resume. If there are really 43 actual editors, in addition to normal staff members, that would explain why these toolboxes have enough spare time on their hands to write this jibber-jabber.
Weak.
HLR Editor here. I've basically stayed out of these emails (and HLR politics) since I'm one foot out the door (I'm a 3L), but although these emails seem petty in isolation, the problem is that there seem to be a lot of them. And they all seem to involve Andrew making a bad unilateral decision.
I don't approve of leaking internal HLR emails, but if anything is to become of this, I hope Andrew will learn to involve the board earlier in the decisionmaking process.
7:16. nice try - hlr doesn't have a "board", and an editor wouldn't refer to one.
10:18: Sorry.
See http://www.harvardlawreview.org/editors.shtml
"Volume 120 Board of Editors."
This is not an example of fascism. From what I've heard, there may be plenty, but take this for what it really is. This is an example of a kid who with no life experience who had just been handed his first position of leadership and didn't understand how to act. Using the word "community" a lot is not good leadership (especially for someone who created and exploited the ideological divides being ignored). Neither is showing favoritism to the wishes of his extremist friends. But these are the mistakes of youth. They could be called divisive, biased, unfair, or unprofessional, but it's not fascist. He tried to appologize. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Shouldn't it be Crespolin rather than Crespolini? He is more of a communist than a fascist.
I personally appreciated the 2L editor's response. It nicely highlighted how the situation was kind of ridiculous and regrettable. I think his email makes even more sense when you consider that Gannett -- based on what I have heard from those I know who spend time there -- generally is a tight-knit, close community, and Crespo's actions (and the whole debate surrounding whether to send congratulations) came after there had already been a fair amount of division and dissention among the editors. In that kind of situation, I can totally understand how someone fed up with squabbling and everything would send that email -- which does make his point pretty nicely.
Is it an accurate characterization to say that this is basically a political dispute, with the conservatives (if any), libertarians (if any), centrists (if any), moderates and liberals on one side, and the extreme wacko leftists on the other?
Here's a random question: what the hell is the "Supreme Court Office"?
First issue of each HLR volume is the Supreme Court Issue (covering major decisions from prior term). Two editors are responsible for organizing that issue and they get an office -- the "Supreme Court Office".
All of which reinforces why I didn't want to go to Harvard - the petty PC politics would drive you nuts!
"All of which reinforces why I didn't want to go to Harvard - the petty PC politics would drive you nuts!"
Keep telling that to yourself, friend.
If 2L editor were truly just annoyed and witty, and not simply ax-grinding, his email would have been about 1/4 the length.
But yeah, poor Crespo, and poor HLS law review. They should make a policy that internet "tipsters" leaking inter-group emails get immediately booted off law review. I mean, really.
2L editor sounds just like the type of guy who has no friends and blames that on the fact the the crazy liberals hate him for being sensibly conservative - when the truth is that he's just an unattractive person all around.