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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64079

Indentigene, Inc., Houston, TX. The

general area of planned activity is to

develop and demonstrate arrayed

primer extension DNA analysis systems

for sequencing in DNA diagnosis.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 95–30284 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

act of 1993—HDTV Broadcast

Technology Consortium

Notice is hereby given that, on

September 11, 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’’),

HDTV Broadcast Technology

Consortium has filed written

notification simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing (1) the identities

of the parties and (2) the nature and

objectives of the partnership. The

notifications were filed for the purpose

of limiting recovery of plaintiffs to

actual damages under specified

circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b)

of the Act, the identities of the parties

are: Advanced Modular Solutions, Inc.,

Acton, MA; Comark Communications,

Inc., Southwick, MA; David Sarnoff

Research Center, Inc., Princeton, NJ;

International Business Machines, Inc.,

Yorktown Heights, NY; MCI Network

Architecture, Richardson, TX; National

Broadcasting Company, Inc., New York,

NY; Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff

Manor, NY; Sun Microsystems Federal,

Inc., Mountain View, CA; and Thomson

Consumer Electronics, Inc., Washington,

DC.

The purpose of the Joint Venture is to

develop and demonstrate ‘‘HDTV

Broadcast Technology’’. The activities of

the Joint Venture project will be

partially funded by an award from the

Advanced Technology Program,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Department of Commerce.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 95–30285 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Realtime-Micro-PCRAnalysis System

Notice is hereby given that, on August

21, 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’’), Realtime-Micro-PCRAnalysis System, a joint venture formed

as a cooperative research company 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 plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances. Pursuant

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

of the parties are: Perkin Elmer Corp.,

Norwalk, CT; EG&G IC Sensors, Inc.,

Milpitas, CA; Cornell University

Medical College, New York, NY;

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,

MN; and Louisiana State University,

Baton Rouge, LA. The general area of

planned activity is to develop integrated

systems for genetic analysis employing

micromachined elements.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 95–30286 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Petitions for Modification

This notice amends a petition

document published in the Federal

Register on November 13, 1995 (60 FR

57025), docket number M–95–156–C,

Amax Coal Company and Clipmate

Corporation, Chinook Mine (I.D. No. 12–

00322). The petitioner filed a petition to

modify the application of 30 CFR

77.1303(y) (1) and (2) (explosives,

handling and use) instead of 30 CFR

75.1303(y) (1) and (2).

The following parties have filed

petitions to modify the application of

mandatory safety standards under

section 101(c) of the Federal Mine

Safety and Health Act of 1977.

1. R.S. Coal Company

[Docket No. M–95–157–C]

R.S. Coal Company, 729–B West

Shamokin Street, Trevorton,

Pennsylvania 17881–1461 has filed a

petition to modify the application of 30

CFR 75.332 (b)(1) and (b)(2) (working

sections and working places) to its No.

1 Slope (I.D. No. 36–07108) located in

Northumberland County, Pennsylvania.

The petitioner proposes to use air

passing through inaccessible abandoned

workings and additional areas not

examined and which is currently

mixing with the air in the intake

haulage slope to ventilate the active

working section, and to ensure the

maintenance of air quality through the

sampling of section intake air for carbon

dioxide, methane, and oxygen

deficiency at the gangway level during

the preshift and on-shift examinations.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed

alternative method would provide at

least the same measure of protection as

would the mandatory standard.

2. R.S. Coal Company

[Docket No. M–95–158–C]

R.S. Coal Company, 729–B West

Shamokin Street, Trevorton,

Pennsylvania 17881–1461 has filed a

petition to modify the application of 30

CFR 75.335 (construction of seals) to its

No. 1 Slope (I.D. No. 36–07108) located

in Northumberland County,

Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a

modification of the standard to permit

alternative methods of construction

using wooden materials of moderate

size and weight due to the difficulty in

accessing previously driven headings

and breasts containing inaccessible

abandoned workings; to accept a design

criteria in the 10 psi range; and to

permit the water trap to be installed in

the gangway seal and sampling tube in

the monkey seal for seals installed in

pairs. The petitioner asserts that the

proposed alternative method would

provide at least the same measure of

protection as would the mandatory

standard.

3. R.S. Coal Company

[Docket No. M–95–159–C]

R.S. Coal Company, 729–B West

Shamokin Street, Trevorton,

Pennsylvania 17881–1461 has filed a

petition to modify the application of 30

CFR 75.364(b)(1), (4) and (5) (weekly

examination) to its No. 1 Slope (I.D. No.

36–07108) located in Northumberland

County, Pennsylvania. Due to hazardous

conditions and roof falls, certain areas

of the intake haulage slope and primary

escapeway cannot be traveled safely.

The petitioner proposes to examine

these areas from the gunboat/slope car

with an alternative air quality

evaluation at the section’s intake level,

and to travel and thoroughly examine

these areas for hazardous conditions

once a month. The petitioner asserts

that the proposed alternative method

would provide at least the same

measure of protection as would the

mandatory standard.