Center for Racial Erasure
Davis recently won a case in US Federal court striking down the Guam decolonization law as being "unconstitutional" or potentially opening up this sacred, albeit symbolic vote to any resident of Guam. When I saw/heard this, it scared me in so many ways, perhaps even more so than the actual losing of this round of his case. I wrote my column in the Pacific Daily News this week about the friends that Dave Davis currently keeps, who have bought into his racist rhetoric and weaponized it, targeting the Chamorro people of Guam and their aspirations for decolonization.
Davis was just an angry racist in Guam for a long time, but it wasn't until he signed up with the group called The Center for Individual Rights that he actually began to affect the world more directly with his vile ideas. I plan to write more about this group, which has made a name for itself primarily by attacking affirmative action, especially in terms of college admissions in certain states. For now though, below is an article from the 1990s, when the CIR was first emerging and their role in disrupting programs designed to increase admissions of previously or currently marginalized ethnic groups.
************************
The Journal of Blacks
in Higher Education (Spring 1999, Number 23)
Cross, Theodore. "African American Opportunities in
Higher Education: What are the racial goals of the Center for
Individual Rights?" Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Spring
1999. Not on site (2006--). http://www.jbhe.com/ Avail JSTOR, Ethnic
News Watch
African-American
Opportunities in Higher Education:
What Are the Racial Goals of The Center for Individual Rights?
What Are the Racial Goals of The Center for Individual Rights?
Dressed in the traditional garb
of a citizen reformer, the Washington-based Center for Individual
Rights projects itself as a champion of the persecuted, a white
knight whose goal is to expunge the cancer of affirmative action
that is eating away at our nation's academic standards. But this
group of racially conservative lawyers has used staged litigation,
deceptive public statements, and incitements of racial fears for
the purpose of ethnically reengineering college admissions procedures
in a way that would remove most African Americans from our leading
colleges. The goals of the Center appear to be far less concerned
with equal treatment of the races than with guarding the interests
of segregationists and protecting the established economic and
class advantages that enable whites to maintain their superior
access to the leading colleges in the United States.
by Theodore Cross
There is a self-described public
interest law firm in the District of Columbia known as the Center
for Individual Rights (CIR). Working through lawsuits as well
as through a host of extralegal pressures, this group has been
highly successful in stamping out the use of affirmative action
in the admissions offices of a number of our major universities.
As a result of litigation led by the CIR, and successful lobbying
efforts by some of its legal and political allies, race-conscious
admissions procedures are now outlawed in the states of California,
Texas, and Washington. Moreover, CIR's threats of litigation appear
to be directly responsible for drastic cutbacks in affirmative
action admissions procedures at the University of Massachusetts
and the decision of officials at the University of Virginia and
the University of North Carolina to "reexamine" their
admissions policies.
Already the classrooms of the schools
that have come under the guns of the CIR are far whiter than in
past years. This year there are only eight black students at the
University of Texas law school. This is fewer than the number
of black students at the law school almost 30 years ago in 1970.
Immediately after the ban on race-conscious admissions went into
effect at Berkeley's prestigious Boalt Hall law school at the
University of California, the number of blacks admitted suffered
a huge decline to a level of only 14 students. A year earlier,
in 1996, a solid cadre of 75 black students had been admitted
to Boalt Hall. In 1999, the first year in which the University
of Washington law school operated under a race-neutral admissions
system, African-American applications were down 41 percent. At
the Berkeley campus of the University of California, the number
of blacks admitted rose slightly in 1999. But black admittees
are still down 54.5 percent from 1997 when race-conscious admissions
were permitted at state-operated universities in California.
"There was always a Moses
crying out in loud and noble terms, 'Let my people go.' But there
also was always a Pharaoh with a hardened heart."
– Martin Luther King Jr.
speaking in 1958 at the chapel of
Bennett College in Greensboro, N.C.
speaking in 1958 at the chapel of
Bennett College in Greensboro, N.C.
In view of the broad swath that CIR
and its allies have cut through the ranks of African Americans
seeking higher and postgraduate education, the questions arise:
Who are these people at the CIR? What are their tactics and what
do they want to accomplish? Do they simply seek to establish a
nationwide system of admissions that is color-blind to race? Or
do they have an unstated agenda whose purpose is to defend the
interests of racial segregationists and protect the social, economic,
and racial advantages that enable nonblacks to hold superior access
to the leading colleges in the United States?
Last fall, educators who feared a
nationwide demise of affirmative action in college admissions
were buoyed by the publication of an influential statistical study
completed by two former Ivy League college presidents, William
G. Bowen of Princeton and Derek Bok of Harvard. This work was
a powerful reaffirmation of the virtues of existing systems of
race-conscious admissions. The New York Times called the
book "a striking confirmation of the success of affirmative
action in creating a whole new generation of black professionals."
Before the publication of the Bowen-Bok
study, the litigators at CIR believed that their efforts were
about to bring down a final curtain on affirmative action. But
instead the Bowen-Bok book confronted them with carefully researched
evidence showing that many of their most important charges against
affirmative action had turned out to be absolutely false.
The CIR's January Ambush
on College-Bound Blacks
on College-Bound Blacks
Soon after the publication of the
Bowen-Bok study, the CIR sprung into action. Departing from its
previous practice of bringing about change through courts of law,
the CIR embarked on a nasty extralegal campaign to wipe
out affirmative action on a nationwide scale.
Starting with a widely trumpeted
kickoff publicity meeting held at the National Press Club this
past January, CIR placed a barrage of highly inflammatory full-page
advertisements in the student newspapers of 14 major colleges
and universities. In two-inch banner headlines the advertisements
screamed:
"ALMOST EVERY UNIVERSITY
IN THE COUNTRY VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW"
In this new national campaign, CIR's
notices threatened university trustees and administrators with
dire legal penalties if they persisted in their current affirmative
action practices. The CIR advertisements urged students to sue
their colleges for racial discrimination. The CIR offered free
handbooks describing how to start a lawsuit. Students were instructed
on how to uncover information to back up their legal claims. The
CIR told students how to find lawyers who would be willing to
sue the colleges. CIR urged students to go forward with lawsuits
even if they had no proof that they were being discriminated
against.
This nationwide publicity campaign
on the part of CIR lawyers to foment litigation without proof
at hand and to whip up passions against young blacks raised serious
questions of legal ethics. In this orchestrated attack on race-conscious
admissions, the CIR struck solid gold. The CIR boasted that its
ads in student newspapers quickly produced about 100 requests
for its booklet and about 100 hits on CIR's Web site. In the first
50 days after the CIR's National Press Club ceremony, JBHE counted
162 newspaper reports on the CIR's campaign to stamp out affirmative
action. CIR was jubilant. Its strategies had quickly converted
CIR from a relatively unknown public litigator to a national poster
boy for racial conservatives, as well as for southern segregationists
and anti-black partisans.
CIR's barrage of threats was an exquisitely
timed calculation to do maximum harm to young blacks. For college-bound
high school students, the days surrounding college applications
and the mailing of acceptance notices are periods of intense personal
stress. Appearing as it did in late January, CIR's publicity delivered
a cruel psychological blow to many hundreds of this year's black
high school seniors already anxious over whether they could make
the grade into a competitive college.
It was clear that CIR had timed its
scare campaign to coincide with the onset of the 1999 admissions
process at the nation's most prestigious universities. By widely
broadcasting its threats that the colleges were guilty of breaking
the law, the CIR was successful in persuading many admissions
officers that if they chose to continue to use race-conscious
admissions they would do so at great peril to themselves and to
their universities.
A Naked Effort to Mislead
But the most reprehensible of the
new extralegal tactics of the CIR was its publicized charges that
private universities were violating federal law. The CIR
created this false impression by planting its charges of university
lawbreaking in student newspapers at some of the nation's most
prestigious private universities such as Columbia, the
University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Chicago.
On the campuses of the nation's most
prestigious private institutions the damage potential was doubly
severe. For it was these institutions whose longstanding affirmative
action admissions policies have been responsible for drawing many
thousands of young blacks into highly regarded colleges where
they are then introduced into valued positions in the general
society.
"Private institutions have
always had the unchallenged option to adopt affirmative action
procedures."
It is true that the affirmative
action admissions policies of some public universities
have been successfully challenged in the courts. But private institutions
have always had the unchallenged option to adopt affirmative action
procedures. Without facing any legal claims, hundreds of private
colleges and universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford,
Columbia, Brown, Amherst, Williams, Duke, Emory, MIT, Swarthmore,
Wellesley, and Northwestern have pursued policies of affirmative
action for 30 years or more. Hundreds of these private universities
have operated under the protective umbrella of the crucial legal
factor that they are private institutions. Yet the CIR
indiscriminately levels its misleading threats with no regard
to the key issue of whether the university it attacks is a private
or a public institution.
Clearly, the CIR advertisements were
not designed simply to inform the public as the CIR self-righteously
assures us. These newspaper insertions had the clear purpose of
increasing racial animosities and fears on college campuses. Not
content to await the result of the standard legal processes, the
CIR had discovered a crude and highly cost-effective way to cut
back on the college admissions of young blacks without the necessity
of actually bringing a lawsuit.
The CIR appeared to be so obsessed
with its determination to overcome compelling data produced in
the Bowen- Bok book that it leveled some wildly irresponsible
charges. Attorney Michael S. Greve, executive director of the
CIR, drew a parallel between its accusations of race-conscious
admissions on the part of American college presidents and the
government's charges of racism made a few years ago against Texaco.
Greve wrote: "Were we to demand of university presidents
the honesty and candor on diversity policies that we demand of,
say, the management of Texaco, they'd all be in jail."
[Italics added.] The reader will recall that the charges against
Texaco vice presidents involved the willful destruction of incriminating
documents showing egregious acts of racial bigotry directed at
Texaco's black employees. Only the most obsessed ideologue could
conceive of putting the presidents of Harvard, Stanford, or Duke
in jail for the sin of adopting affirmative action in their admissions
policies.
The CIR Attack on Bowen-Bok
The attack on the universities was
accompanied by a completely unwarranted assault on the quality
of the Bowen-Bok research. Instead of preparing a traditional
brief showing possible flaws in the Bowen-Bok study, the CIR published
snide and outrageous insults. In the January 1999 issue of its
newsletter, CIR head Michael Greve writes: "The education
elite is seeking shelter behind William G. Bowen and Derek Bok's
disingenuous diversity manifesto." [Italics added.]
Clearly the word "manifesto" was used by CIR to insinuate
the Bowen-Bok book was an insubstantial polemic when in fact the
study was widely praised on both sides of the affirmative action
issue. Although there are sharply opposed views on the issue of
race-conscious admissions, the critics agree that the Bowen-Bok
book is a meticulously prepared vision of the impact of affirmative
action policies on American society. The distinguished Harvard
professor Nathan Glazer, who in 1975 wrote the first treatise
in opposition to affirmative action, enthusiastically praised
the "perspicuity, insight, thoroughness, and balance of the
Bowen-Bok presentation and analysis. The book honestly conceded
many of the harms attending policies of racial preferences. In
no way could the Bowen-Bok study be characterized as a "manifesto."
"CIR's barrage of threats
was an exquisitely timed calculation to do maximum harm to young
blacks."
The CIR next writes that the
Bowen-Bok book is "a surprise attack launched behind a pile
of unsold copies." Once again the charge is false. JBHE has
checked with Princeton University Press, the publisher of the
Bowen-Bok book. Despite the fact that the book is a highly complex
and academic tome (it contains 472 pages of tables and calculations),
the volume has already sold more than 25,000 copies - an extraordinarily
large sale for a study of this magnitude and complexity. Princeton
University Press further advises JBHE that because of the unusual
success of the book it will be reprinted shortly in a paperback
edition. It is true that the sales of the Bowen-Bok book are not
as great as Charles Murray's The Bell Curve, which the
reader will recall contends that black people generally have an
inferior intelligence to whites. But one must remember that, as
most book publishers know, an inflammatory book that defends racist
views will almost always sell better than a carefully researched
argument for racial justice.
It now appears that CIR has taken
leave of all notions of good taste. The January 1999 issue of
the CIR newsletter compares the American educational establishment's
commitment to affirmative action with Bill Clinton's attachment
for Monica Lewinsky. As to the supporters of affirmative action,
the CIR newsletter states: "We've found that our esteemed
opponents' activities provide as much (and more wholesome) entertainment
as the thong and cigar stuff. [Italics ours.] The establishment's
earnest diversity show, says the CIR, 'Springtime for Hitler.
. . . ' "
Funding the CIR Crusade
CIR's claim that it is simply interested
in broad civil libertarian principles and in protecting equal
treatment for all citizens is refuted by its sources of funding.
Laura Flanders of the Center for Democracy Studies in New York
City is conducting research on opponents of affirmative action.
She has determined from the CIR's income tax returns that CIR
on at least three occasions received funding from the notorious
white supremacist foundation the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund
was founded in New York City in 1937 by textile industrialist
Wickliffe Draper to support the use of eugenics to restrict the
births of Negroes and thereby "better the lot of mankind."
For more than 60 years the chief purpose of the Pioneer Fund has
been to support research that seeks to prove the genetic superiority
of white people.
"CIR had discovered a cost-effective
way to cut back on the college admissions of young blacks without
the need of actually bringing a lawsuit."
Here is a partial list of academic
racists whose efforts have been funded by the Pioneer Fund:
• J. Philippe Rushton
of the University of Western Ontario: He teaches that Caucasians
have larger brains, smaller penises, and lower sex drives than
blacks.
• Robert Gordon of Johns Hopkins University: Gordon advocates government payments to blacks to encourage them not to breed.
• Daniel Vining Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania: He contends that the human race is becoming less intelligent because blacks breed more often than whites.
• Garrett Hardin, University of California at Santa Barbara: Hardin argues for the sterilization of blacks and lower classes.
• Richard Lynn, professor emeritus of the University of Ulster: He calls for the phasing out of inferior cultures.
• Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley: He believes social spending on blacks is a waste of money because their problems stem from genetic inferiority.
• Robert Gordon of Johns Hopkins University: Gordon advocates government payments to blacks to encourage them not to breed.
• Daniel Vining Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania: He contends that the human race is becoming less intelligent because blacks breed more often than whites.
• Garrett Hardin, University of California at Santa Barbara: Hardin argues for the sterilization of blacks and lower classes.
• Richard Lynn, professor emeritus of the University of Ulster: He calls for the phasing out of inferior cultures.
• Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley: He believes social spending on blacks is a waste of money because their problems stem from genetic inferiority.
It is true that racist motives on
the part of one organization cannot be proved by the fact that
it keeps company with, or receives money from, another demonstrably
racist organization. On the other hand, it is important to note
that the CIR has received three grants from the openly racist
Pioneer Fund. Surely this tells us a lot about the underlying
racial agenda of CIR.
Of course, CIR is free to represent
any group or individual that it chooses. But CIR's racial sympathies
are further confirmed when one notes that it provided legal help
to Professor Michael Levin in his dispute with his university,
CCNY. Levin is an infamous advocate of the biological inferiority
of black people and the reintroduction of the chain gang for black
prisoners. A Michigan college professor who has monitored the
activities of academic racists for many years reports that the
CIR provided legal help to Levin in connection with his advocacy
of the segregation of young blacks in guarded subway cars. Levin
is also a grantee of the white supremacist Pioneer Fund.
Other donors to the CIR are the standard hard-line racial conservatives: The Bradley Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, the American Standard Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Randolph Foundation, and the Scaife Family Foundation. These foundations have a long history of pursuing repressive racial agendas. And when they send money they are accustomed to getting their money's worth.
Other donors to the CIR are the standard hard-line racial conservatives: The Bradley Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, the American Standard Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Randolph Foundation, and the Scaife Family Foundation. These foundations have a long history of pursuing repressive racial agendas. And when they send money they are accustomed to getting their money's worth.
Major Law Firms Supporting the
Objectives of CIR
It is a mystery why a number of highly
respected U.S. law firms are lending their attorneys on a pro
bono basis to the work of CIR. Almost all of the firms that CIR's
annual report identifies as supporters are generally believed
to have strong affirmative action policies in place within their
own firms. Yet these firms are said by the CIR to be providing
personnel support and expertise to the CIR, a hard-line partisan
with the goal of striking down affirmative action at any institution
in which it occurs. Even more surprising is that these law firms
that are seemingly dedicated to affirmative action appear to be
supporting the work of the CIR despite its concurrent funding
by white supremacist organizations such as the Pioneer Fund, a
foundation that explicitly advocates the genetic superiority
of white people.
Here is a partial list of major law
firms that the CIR claims as pro bono supporters: Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (Washington, DC); Covington &
Burling (Washington, DC); Davis, Polk & Wardwell (New York,
NY); Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman (Philadelphia, PA);
Faegre & Benson (St. Paul, MN); Hogan & Hartson (Washington,
DC); Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago, IL); Mayer, Brown & Platt
(Chicago, IL); Nutter, McClennen & Fish (Boston, MA); Sidley
& Austin (Chicago, IL); Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (New
York, NY); Steptoe & Johnson (Washington, DC); Stroock, Stroock
& Lavan (New York, NY); Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington,
DC); Winston & Strawn (Chicago, IL)
The legitimacy of the work of CIR
has been further credentialized too by the fact that some of the
most prominent corporations in the nation support some objectives
of CIR. According to CIR's public reports, corporate donors and
contributors to CIR include Pfizer, Philip Morris, Chevron, Archer
Daniels Midland, Texaco, Brown Forman, and UNOCAL.
Conclusion
Let's now summarize the tactics that
tell us much about the goals, ethics, and values of the CIR.
• On three occasions the
CIR has accepted funding from the Pioneer Fund, a self-proclaimed
white supremacist organization that specializes in supporting
research attempting to prove the biological superiority of the
white race.
• In an effort unrelated
to affirmative action, the CIR has protected efforts of a leading
academic racist in his advocacy of legislation requiring "criminally
inclined" blacks to use separate subway cars in New York
City.
• In its published newsletter
the CIR makes an outrageous charge that college presidents who
follow race-conscious admissions policies may belong in prison
for violating U.S. laws against race discrimination.
• CIR press releases were
calculated to attack the academic credentials of college-bound
black teenagers at the very time in their lives when they are
most anxious about their ability to get into college.
• While embarking on a
campaign of systematic removal of black students from the application
pool of competitive colleges, the CIR partners show no sense of
compassion or regret for the human beings whose life chances they
have damaged.
• Without having secured
a court order ending racial preferences at a particular institution,
the CIR accomplishes precisely the same result by the extralegal
device of threatening admissions officers at schools where it
showed no evidence of an intention of bringing a lawsuit.
• CIR appeals are aimed
at the racial stereotypes and biases of university alumni in order
to persuade them to place financial pressures on their admissions
officers, administrators, and trustees.
• As licensed lawyers,
the CIR is subject to strict ethical rules against fomenting litigation.
Yet the CIR has embarked on a nationwide mission of inciting young,
and often impressionable, college students to sue their universities.
• The CIR has used underhanded
tactics to end affirmative action admissions procedures at private
colleges and universities by falsely suggesting that these schools
are law-breakers when, as the CIR well knows, court decisions
have not been applied to private institutions that have adopted
race-conscious admissions policies.
Many of the most powerful intellects
in our country have made a strong case against race-conscious
admissions in higher education. Important conservative thinkers
such as Glenn C. Loury, Nathan Glazer, Richard A. Epstein, Thomas
Sowell, James Q. Wilson, and Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom have
produced carefully researched and persuasive papers and briefs
explaining why affirmative action is bad policy for black people
and for the country as a whole. In the end it may turn out that
the serious and well-reasoned arguments made by these and other
conservative scholars will bring an end to affirmative action
in the United States. But the public crusade mounted by CIR lawyers
is beyond the pale of acceptable professional behavior. CIR, by
reason of its aggressive tactics and its association with proclaimed
racists and advocates of white supremacy, stands apart from the
other conservatives who are striving to end, or moderate, affirmative
action by traditional policies of argument and debate.
Because of the conservative mood
in the country, CIR will probably get away with its malevolent
campaign to frighten and whip up passions of white students against
young college-bound blacks. But whatever the final outcome on
the perplexing issue of affirmative action in higher education,
the nation will look back on this January ambush on college-bound
young blacks as an act of enormous evil.
JBHE
Professor Michael
Levin on Why Race Matters
He has an ally in the Center
for Individual Rights
Surely the Center for Individual
Rights has the right to represent anyone it chooses. Yet the ideology
of any public interest firm tends to equate with the character
of its clients. CIR represented CCNY professor Michael Levin in
a dispute over Levin's charges that young blacks should be segregated
in guarded subway cars in New York City. Professor Levin, a strong
advocate of the moral and intellectual inferiority of black people,
is funded by the extreme white supremacist Pioneer Fund which
has also made at least three grants to the Center for Individual
Rights.
Here are a few statements from Levin's
1997 book, Why Race Matters:
• [The worst black criminals]
"display viciousness almost unknown among whites. The most
effective step might simply be a return to now-discredited practices
like the chain gang."
• "The labor of many
blacks is not valuable to most people."
• "Any multiracial
society will find blacks less law-abiding than whites."
• "Blacks today enjoy
full access to a system of public schools supported primarily
by whites."
• "Blacks are less
intelligent than whites and more impulsive, for largely biological
reasons."
• "The limited interest
in blacks shown by conventional historians is best explained by
the belief that further interest was unwarranted."
• "No amount of training
and childhood enrichment can shrink the race gap."
According to the Center for Individual
Rights, a Number of Law Firms That Presumably Adhere to Affirmative
Action Policies Within Their Own Firms Have Provided Support to
Various Litigating Activities of the Center for Individual Rights
The Following Major National
Law Firms Are Listed as Pro Bono Litigation Aid Supporters of
the Center for Individual Rights
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &
Feld (Washington, DC)
Covington & Burling (Washington, DC)
Davis, Polk & Wardwell (New York, NY)
Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman (Philadelphia, PA)
Faegre & Benson (St. Paul, MN)
Hogan & Hartson (Washington, DC)
Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago, IL)
Mayer, Brown & Platt (Chicago, IL)
Nutter, McClennen & Fish (Boston, MA)
Sidley & Austin (Chicago, IL)
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (New York, NY)
Steptoe & Johnson (Washington, DC)
Stroock, Stroock & Lavan (New York, NY)
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington, DC)
Winston & Strawn (Chicago, IL)
Covington & Burling (Washington, DC)
Davis, Polk & Wardwell (New York, NY)
Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman (Philadelphia, PA)
Faegre & Benson (St. Paul, MN)
Hogan & Hartson (Washington, DC)
Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago, IL)
Mayer, Brown & Platt (Chicago, IL)
Nutter, McClennen & Fish (Boston, MA)
Sidley & Austin (Chicago, IL)
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (New York, NY)
Steptoe & Johnson (Washington, DC)
Stroock, Stroock & Lavan (New York, NY)
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington, DC)
Winston & Strawn (Chicago, IL)
The Following Major National
Law Firms, All Ranked Among the Nation's 25 Largest Law Firms,
ARE NOT Listed as Supporters of the Center for Individual Rights
Morrison & Foerster (San Francisco,
CA)
Pillsbury Madison & Sutro (San Francisco, CA)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (New York, NY)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Washington, DC)
Foley & Lardner (Milwaukee, WI)
McDermott, Will & Emery (Chicago, IL)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York, NY)
Latham & Watkins (Los Angeles, CA)
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (Washington, DC)
Vinson & Elkins (Houston, TX)
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (New York, NY)
Shearman & Sterling (New York, NY)
Fulbright & Jaworski (Houston, TX)
White & Case (New York, NY)
Bryan Cave (Washington, DC)
Pillsbury Madison & Sutro (San Francisco, CA)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (New York, NY)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Washington, DC)
Foley & Lardner (Milwaukee, WI)
McDermott, Will & Emery (Chicago, IL)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York, NY)
Latham & Watkins (Los Angeles, CA)
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (Washington, DC)
Vinson & Elkins (Houston, TX)
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (New York, NY)
Shearman & Sterling (New York, NY)
Fulbright & Jaworski (Houston, TX)
White & Case (New York, NY)
Bryan Cave (Washington, DC)
Sources: CIR's Report of
Activities 1993-1994 and CIR's Statement of Mission, Principles,
and Governance.
Comments