Letter to Dean Schizer

Dear Dean Schizer,

We, the undersigned alumni and students, write to request a meeting with you to discuss the recent changes to the Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP). Columbia Law School has a history of producing lawyers committed to public service and social justice—from the Roosevelt presidents and Justice Ginsburg to dedicated advocates in the fields of the civil rights, women’s rights, anti-poverty, international human rights and the indigent defense movement; LRAP is a hallmark of the school’s commitment to fostering the next generation of leaders in public interest law.

Many of us have been in discussions with you since you began your tenure as dean about how to make LRAP truly responsive to the needs of its graduates, and we thank you for the changes which you have worked to create. In 2005, Columbia reduced the interest rate on LRAP loans and accelerated the pace of loan forgiveness. This year Columbia further accelerated that rate, and made provisions for adjustment based on spousal educational debt, parental leave, and benefits for those who work part-time to care for children. These are meaningful and important changes, and we sincerely thank you for your efforts.

However, we are deeply concerned that Columbia is excluding all current alumni from the most significant change to public interest law funding in the school’s recent history: the increase of the LRAP income threshold from $25,000 to $50,000, and the decrease in “expected contribution” rates. As you know, starting salaries across the country, including the prestigious Equal Justice Works and Skadden fellowships, range from about $38,000 to $55,000; this does not correlate at all to the $25,000 threshold. Added to the overwhelming burden of law school debt is the high cost of living in large cities such as New York, where most of our alumni are employed.

Doubtless, the recent changes to LRAP stem from your recognition of the financial difficulties with which public interest graduates struggle; that is why the rupture of LRAP into two regimes—one highly beneficial program, showcased to prospective students and applied to new graduates, and a second, concededly deficient program, the policy of which has even been taken down from the school’s website—is especially stinging to those of us who continue to contribute to Columbia not merely as a credit to our school in our professional accomplishments, but in our efforts to give back to Columbia by fostering the next generation of public interest lawyers. We have:

  • Advised prospective students and assisted recruitment by explaining the advantages of Columbia over its peer institutions and the critical importance of Columbia’s strong public interest graduate network;
  • Personally counseled current students, advised on career development strategy, including “insider” guidance on interview tactics, resume and cover letter content, and networking;
  • Facilitated current students' interest and development by leading panels and giving talks at Columbia on public defense, human rights, immigration law, public interest lawyering generally, and career development, and by conducting interviews and selection for the Human Rights Internship Program.

As alumni, we open the doors to public interest law for Columbia’s current students, welcoming them to a vibrant, cohesive community. Columbia boasts of this “proud tradition” in many of its communications. But that tradition only continues when the community is valued and supported. Unfortunately, in the past month, Columbia decided to create significantly unequal LRAP regimes, failed to inform alumni until weeks after it was first announced to current students, and only partially disclosed the extent of the inequality in the regimes in a recent email to alumni. All of this was harmful to our sense of community. These actions have created feelings of frustration, alienation, and distrust among graduates and students pursuing all types of careers:

  • Public interest alumni are surprised and angered by the gross inequality of the reform and Columbia's quiet disregard for their financial distress;
  • Those working at large firms are angry about the new two-tiered system as they realize that their alumni donations will not assist their friends and classmates;
  • Even current students are distrustful as they wonder how they will be treated by Columbia once they leave its classrooms.

Especially because these actions constitute recent alumni's first significant post-graduate interaction with Columbia, they negatively affect public interest alumni's willingness to participate in recruitment and counseling programs, and general alumni financial giving.

Like our predecessors, many of us will go on to occupy important positions in government, civil rights firms, and not-for-profit organizations, and we will be in a position to speak publicly about Columbia's commitment to public interest law. That is why we want to work with Columbia to undo the harm that has been done, and we are confident that together we can develop creative ways to support alumni and make Columbia’s public interest program the strongest in the country. At our meeting with you, we want to discuss the launch of a fundraising initiative specifically dedicated to the creation of a “corps” of life-long public interest lawyers: individuals who, thanks to Columbia, are able to spend their early careers developing skills specific to public interest law, rather than joining large firms out of financial necessity, and who, thus advantaged, quickly rise to become leaders on the ground in New Orleans, in the halls of New York non-profits, and in county courthouses across America. In addition, we will urge you to take immediate steps to equalize the income threshold across all classes so that all graduates contribute 34.5% only after their salaries surpass $50,000.

In the long-term, it is the public interest alumni community which LRAP serves—not LRAP itself—that will attract prospective students and ensure that Columbia continues to be a top public interest law school. For now, Columbia can boast that it has one of best loan forgiveness programs among its peer schools. But that will be only a short-lived advantage. Our peer schools, with their larger endowments, will undoubtedly soon offer similar benefits. In fact, Harvard Law School just announced an entire year's tuition break to assist public interest students. The repercussion of the creation of two, unequal LRAP regimes has a lasting degenerative effect on Columbia’s most valuable asset: its public interest community. Our peer schools know this; indeed, our preliminary research shows that Harvard, Yale, NYU and Stanford have never chosen to exclude their alumni from LRAP improvements. Columbia should follow their lead, and we are eager to help it do so. Those of us residing in the New York City area look forward to scheduling a meeting with you as soon as possible.

(Signatories' employers are referenced for identification purposes only; no endorsement by any employer is implied.)