Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64077

1As the deadline for public comments has

expired, any future letters received by the Justice

Department will be treated as citizen letters and

will not be filed with the Court.

19107; and at the Consent Decree

Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor,

Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624–0892.

A copy of the proposed consent decree

may be obtained in person or by mail

from the Consent Decree Library, 1120

G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington,

DC 20005. In requesting a copy please

refer to the referenced case and enclose

a check in the amount of $12.75 (25

cents per page reproduction costs),

payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Acting Section Chief, Environmental

Enforcement Section, Environment and

Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 95–30395 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

United States v. American Bar

Association, Civ. No. 95–1211 (CR)

(D.D.C.); Supplemental Response of

the United States to Two Additional

Public Comments Concerning the

Proposed Final Judgment

Pursuant to Section 2(d) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(d), the United States

publishes below two additional written

comments received on the proposed

Final Judgment in United States v.

American Bar Association, Civil Action

No. 95–1211 (CR), United States District

Court for the District of Columbia,

together with its response thereto.

Copies of the written comments and

the response are available for inspection

and copying in Room 3235 of the

Antitrust Division, United States

Department of Justice, Tenth Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone 202/

514–2481) and the inspection at the

Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia, Room 1825A, United States

Courthouse, Third Street & Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

United States’ Supplemental Response

to Two Additional Public Comments

The United States is filing this

Supplemental Response to respond to

letters from law professors Marina

Angel and Leslie Espinoza to the

Attorney General about the proposed

Final Judgment. The Antitrust

Division’s notice under the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’)

directed that public comments be sent

to John F. Greaney, Chief, Computers

and Finance Section, Department of

Justice, Antitrust Division. Because

Professors Angel and Espinoza sent

their letters to the Attorney General

instead of Mr. Greaney, we had not

received those letters when we filed our

‘‘Response To Public Comments’’ on

October 27. Since the Government’s

Response states that it will treat as

timely all comments received up to the

time of filing that response, we provide

this Supplemental Response to these

two letters from law faculty.1

The Government has carefully

reviewed the letters from Professors

Angel and Espinoza. Entry of the

proposed Final Judgment remains in the

public interest.

1. Professor Marina Angel (Exhibit 1)

Professor Angel is under the

impression that the Antitrust Division

seeks to eliminate enforcement of the

American Bar Association’s (‘‘ABA’’)

antidiscrimination accreditation

standards. ABA Accreditation standards

211–213, dealing with discrimination,

are not affected by the proposed Final

Judgment. Nor is the enforcement of

those standards. Law schools will

continue to maintain faculty salary

records. Accreditation inspection teams

may review these records to investigate

discrimination complaints. The

proposed Final Judgment prevents the

ABA, but not other organizations, from

collecting and disseminating salary

data. Additionally, site inspection teams

may not compare salary levels at one

law school with those at another, since

the Complaint alleges that this had been

done to raise salaries illegally, but may

review the records of the inspected

school to resolve discrimination

allegations.

2. Professor Leslie G. Espinoza (Exhibit

2)

Professor Espinoza is concerned that

the consent decree would prevent the

Society of American Law Teachers from

collecting salary data from law schools

that may be used to determine if salary

levels are discriminatory. The consent

decree is not intended to relax the

ABA’s antidiscrimination accreditation

standards, and it will not have that

effect. The Society of American Law

Teachers procures salary data from law

school deans that may be used to

ascertain whether salary levels are

discriminatory. While the ABA will no

longer be permitted to collect and

disseminate faculty salary data and to

use it in the accreditation process to

increase faculty salaries, law schools

will continue to maintain salary data

and other organizations may collect it.

In this regard, we realize that

organizations, such as the American

Association of University Professors,

have collected and published faculty

salary data for many years. While the

ABA may not collect and use salary data

to raise general salary levels,

accreditation inspection teams may

fully investigate allegations of

discrimination at a law school,

including allegations of discriminatory

salaries, and may review salary records

at that law school to resolve the

discrimination allegations.

Conclusion

The ABA used the accreditation

process to fix and raise faculty salaries.

They collected extensive salary data and

used it to pressure schools to raise their

salaries to an artificial level. The

consent decree is narrowly tailored to

prevent such illegal collusion in the

future. It does not affect the ABA’s

enforcement of antidiscrimination

accreditation standards.

Dated: November 3, 1995.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne K. Bingaman,

Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust

Division.

John F. Greaney,

D. Bruce Pearson,

Jessica N. Cohen,

James J. Tierney,

Molly L. DeBusschere,

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,

Computers and Finance Section, Judiciary

Center Building, 555 Fourth Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20001, 202/307–6122.

Temple University, School of Law

1719 N. Broad Street (055–00), A

Commonwealth University, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19122, (215) 204–7861, Fax:

(215) 204–1185

October 16, 1995.

The Honorable Janet Reno,

Attorney General, Department of Justice, R.

4400, Tenth and Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20530, FAX 202–

514–4371

Dear Attorney General Reno: I was shocked

to learn that the Justice Department is

seeking to eliminate enforcement of the

antidiscrimination Accreditation Standards

of the ABA.

I didn’t substantially financially support

the election of President Clinton to have you

destroy what limited antidiscrimination

protection law school faculty, staff and

students currently enjoy.

I suggest you explain your

antidiscrimination position to your Antitrust

Division.
64078 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

Sincerely,

Marina Angel,

Professor of Law.

MA/teb

Enclosure

Boston College

885 Centre Street, Newton, MA 02159–1163,

Law School, (617) 552–8550, FAX (617) 552–

2615

By Facsimile: 202–514–4371

October 17, 1995.

The Honorable Janet Reno,

Attorney General, Department of Justice, R.

4400, Tenth and Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Reno: I am very

disturbed that the consent judgment

proposed in the matter involving the ABA

Accreditation Standards and your antitrust

division would eliminate the most important

antidiscrimination provision of the ABA

standards: review of salary and/or fringe

benefits by race and gender.

The ability of the ABA Standards to put

teeth in antidiscrimination policy is

important. The ability of review teams to

have access and to force disclosure of actual

data is crucial. Last January, I testified before

the ABA Special Commission to review

accreditation standards. I have enclosed a

copy of my testimony. I hope that it will help

illuminate what an important role

accreditation plays in the integration of law

schools, and ultimately the profession.

I also am a member of the Board of

Directors of the Society of American Law

Teachers (SALT). SALT has long been

concerned about the systematic salary

discrimination against women and

minorities. Indeed, SALT publishes an

annual nationwide salary survey. That survey

has been used by many women and

minorities to address salary inequity in their

own law school. SALT obtains the data from

law school deans. The deans are generally

willing to release it because it is released in

any event in the ABA accreditation process.

The deans also are unable to claim they do

not have it—because the ABA process

requires them to keep it.

I hope that the Clinton administration will

take a second look at the proposed consent

judgment. As so often happens, those who

are most affected by certain provisions are

outsiders to the power process that

negotiated the proposed judgment. Please do

not hesitate to call with any questions.

Sincerely,

Leslie G. Espinoza,

Professor of Law.

AALS Section on Minority Groups

Newsletter

May 1995.

Testimony Before the Special Commission To

Review the Substance and Process of the

American Bar Association’s Accreditation of

American Law Schools

Professor Leslie G. Espinoza, Chair, AALS

Section on Minority Groups, January 6, 1995

Good Afternoon, I would like to thank the

Commission for affording the AALS Section

on Minority Groups this opportunity to

comment on the ABA/AALS Accreditation

process. Within the time frame permitted by

these hearings, I will make two points.

First, in addressing issues of accreditation

the legal community, particularly those of us

in the academy, should be mindful of the

monopoly power we exercise. Our monopoly

control is profound. Indeed, it is protected

and perpetuated by us. Persons who engage

in the unauthorized practice of law can be

prosecuted—under the law.

And the ability to determine who is

authorized to practice law is primarily

controlled by the law school community. We

are the gatekeepers to the profession. For

admission to practice, nearly all state bars

require graduation from an ABA accredited

law school. Admission to law school is

controlled by individual law schools through

their admissions offices. Admission is also

controlled nationally through the consortium

of laws schools that forms the Law School

Admissions Council. The LSAC is the

organization that designs and administers the

LSAT. At the other end of the process, law

school curriculum largely drives the content

of bar examinations—increasingly so since

the universalization of the Multistate Bar

Examination.

With the privilege of power comes

responsibility. Access to law is fundamental

for the protection of personal and public

rights. Indeed it is often lawyers who are

responsible for the recognition or creation of

those rights. Lawyers dominate legislatures

as both elected officials and legislative staff.

It is the duty of law schools, encouraged and

enforced through the accreditation process,

to ensure that the future legal community is

responsive to the society as a whole.

The need to be legally relevant and

responsive to the whole community is the

second point I will make today. Historically

exclusion of persons of color from law was

nearly complete. This was particularly true

for women of color. Frankly, this is still

largely the case. Richard Chused’s study in

1986 documented the absence of outsiders in

the academy. One third of law schools had

no minority professors, one third had only

one. In 1992, Professors Merrit and Reskin

empirically documented the double standard

in the hiring of minority women in the

academy. The exclusion of persons of color

from the academy continues.

The impact of those outsiders who have

gained entry is significant given our small

numbers. We have worked to increase the

number of and to support minority law

students. We have contributed to the legal

literature, in theory, substance and method.

We have changed the discourse by bringing

our voice to the law. Despite these

contributions, there is much more work to

do.

Accreditation has been the foundation for

our inclusion in the academy. It forces

accountability. Importantly, accreditation

requires law schools to have historic

accountability. Self studies and site team

reports view processes in the law school. The

standards require scrutiny of admissions,

placement, curriculum, hiring of faculty,

tenuring process and results and

administration. Thus the accreditation

process has been the only forum for

addressing issues of inclusion and

discrimination in all aspects of the

institution.

I will end with reference to the letter by

the consortium of fourteen deans that gave

rise to these hearings. The members of the

Section on Minority Groups fear that what

underlines the deans’ challenge to

accreditation. The letter questions the need

for law schools to explain, ‘‘any departure

from the pattern that has been prescribed for

all schools—why, for instance, the clinical

faculty are treated differently than the

research faculty in some respect, or what

plans exist for increasing square footage in

the library, or how the ‘right’ composition of

the faculty will be achieved.’’ The members

of the Section on Minorities do not doubt

that this is coded language for an attack on

the ‘‘diversity’’ or ‘‘multicultural’’

requirements in the ABA standards.

Finally, the letter from the 14 deans

indicates that there are some law schools at

the apex of the pyramid of all law schools—

‘‘schools with unquestionably strong

educational programs [that] are not quickly

given the ABA’s seal of approval * * *’’

These law schools, the letter implies, should

be beyond the review of accreditation. The

Second on Minority Groups strongly

disagrees. Indeed, the arrogance of many of

the elite schools has too often blinded them

to their own exclusionary practices in hiring

and student composition. The accreditation

process must apply uniformly to all law

schools in order to ensure a diverse and

relevant legal profession for the next century.

[FR Doc. 95–30289 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Arrayed Primer Extension

(APEX) Research Consortium

Notice is hereby given that, on

September 26, 1995, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),

Arrayed Primer Extension (APEX)

Research Consortium, a joint venture

formed as a cooperative research

consortium by the parties set forth in

this notice (the ‘‘Joint Venture’’), has

filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing (1) the identities

of the parties to the Joint Venture and

(2) the nature and objectives of the Joint

Venture. The notifications were filed for

the purpose of invoking the Act’s

provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiff to actual damages

under specified circumstances. Pursuant

to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities

of the parties are: Pharmacia Biotech,

Inc., Piscataway, NJ; Baylor College of

Medicine, Houston, TX; Duke

University, Durham, NC; and