In the aftermath of Donald Trump securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College — an institution which Wilfred Codrington III (which by the way is a first-ballot Hall of Fame name) of the Brennan Center recently reminded readers of The Atlantic was “designed to empower southern whites,” so mission accomplished in 2016 — many, if not all, left-leaning Americans found themselves caught up in the Kübler-Ross model, aka the five stages of grief. However, a funny thing happened when it came time for acceptance. Rather than decide there was nothing to be done about a Trump administration, many decided to take part in the #Resistance. Groups such as Indivisible and Run for Something went beyond mere protests and organized candidates for elections across the country. I would be lying if I claimed such opportunities were not at least a tangential interest of mine.
Image via Giphy
One of the primary benefits of moving from Washington, D.C., to Tennessee is that I am no longer one of the 600,000-plus taxpaying Americans who, shamefully, lack voting representation in Congress. But the downside for someone of a more progressive bent is that the politics of Tennessee are quite different than those of the nation’s capital. While Tennessee will have an open Senate race in 2020 due to the retirement of Lamar! Alexander, my Elizabeth Warren minivan bumper sticker would probably be met with a different form of #resistance in places like Sevierville or Kingsport. Closer to home, an AOC-esque challenge from the left to blue dog Congressman Jim Cooper is particularly intriguing considering: Hillary Clinton won Tennessee’s Fifth Congressional district by over 18 points, the district has only gotten more blue (i.e., Democratic) in the intervening three years, and Cooper voted “present” in the most recent House leadership elections after having voted for Colin Powell to be Speaker of the House not once, but twice. But aside from the fact that I’m not the most qualified to serve in Congress, Cooper already has a liberal primary challenger. So where can I funnel my combination of outrage and my desire to serve? As luck would have it, National Association of Law Placement (NALP) is in the midst of their own electoral process.
Each year, NALP solicits nominees, including self-nominations, for a slew of positions ranging from President-elect to Conference Planning Coordinator. This year, I have decided to throw my hat into the ring for a position on the NALP Board of Directors. The foremost question any candidate for office has to answer is why. While seemingly straightforward, that line of inquiry can fluster even the most seasoned politicians who are seeking the nation’s highest office. While numerous factors contributed to this decision, one stands out among the rest: Were it not for the abandonment of the NALP Guidelines this time last year, I would probably be content to sit out the election. As I have discussed numerous times in this space, I think the decision to abandon the Guidelines was wrong when it was made and what were then merely theoretical concerns have manifested into actual problems during the first recruiting cycle post-Guidelines. But my critique is not just with the decision to abandon the Guidelines, but rather, with the way that decision was made and announced. If an organization is going to abandon what had been a pillar of its structure for several decades, it needs to do so in a manner more transparent than sending out a terse email in the middle of the winter holiday season. If elected — though that term is a misnomer, the Nominating Committee goes through all of the applications for Directors and then selects a slate of candidates which is voted on, in toto, by the membership at the annual conference, a process seemingly as archaic as the Electoral College and similarly in need of reform — I promise to bring as much transparency to the inner workings of NALP as possible. While such calls of transparency can ring hollow, or be extremely limited in scope, I have the benefit of the national platform that is Above the Law. While likely the opposite of clickbait, I will use this space to talk about what is going on in the upper echelons of NALP and how I am approaching various issues that come before the Board.
Furthermore, if elected/slated, I promise to revisit the issue of Guidelines. The transparency issues surrounding last year’s decision are not merely limited to the way in which the news was delivered but also the simple fact that it was never explicitly announced why the Guidelines were being abandoned. At best, references were made to antitrust concerns that could be pounced on by political appointees at the departments of Justice and Education, eager to slap around academic institutions and “elitist” white-collar professional organizations. Assuming that was the primary reason, aside from the aforementioned elections in Tennessee next year, there’s also a pretty big national 2020 election that has gotten its share of media coverage. There could be new leadership throughout the federal government in just over a year’s time, or, given the string of revelations that come with every impeachment hearing, sometime next week. While I have no doubt that President Elizabeth Warren (wow, that feels good to type) will be focused on matters of antitrust, I think more likely targets are entities such as Facebook and Google, as opposed to NALP.
But this campaign is not just about the NALP Guidelines. I recently renewed my NALP membership, in large part because Vanderbilt generously covers the cost. However, if I had to pay out of my own pocket, I cannot say for sure that I would be a dues-paying NALP member. While others might not agree with my stance on the Guidelines, what I have heard time and time again from folks at law schools and law firms is a variation of “What good is being a NALP member?” My honest answer is, “I don’t know.” That has to change. As a member of the Board, I promise to make the organization more of a value add for its members. That does not mean a longer newsletter, but rather providing tangible materials so that those of us in Career Services and our counterparts in legal recruiting, as well as the rest of the NALP universe, can perform their job more effectively. While I have some ideas (e.g., making some of the valuable materials, such as the Associate Salary Survey, free to members rather than an additional $135), I would definitely want to hear from NALP members about how they want the institution to work better for them.
I also want to advocate on behalf of those who are deeply affected by NALP policies, but who do not have a seat at the table: law students. The NALP leadership structure is not a representative democracy, so while I would not have constituents per se, each decision I make would be viewed through the lens of how it impacts Vanderbilt Law students specifically, and the broader law student population more generally.
Diligent readers of this column might well be asking, wait, how are you going to have time for this, don’t you still have #4fourandunder? True, my family has not gone anywhere, and there are days when I struggle in the morning to find five minutes to shave and where I pass out on the couch at 9 p.m., the latter of which explains why this column’s regularity is far more sporadic than I would like. But as children tend to do, mine continue to get older, and with that comes, slowly, a bit more time for activities that do not involve diapers or acting as a de facto car service. Plus, of the three scheduled board meetings for 2020, one is going to be in Nashville, so I could make that while doing pick up and drop off at daycare.
In recent presidential election cycles, it has seemingly become standard to say that each election is the most important one in our lifetimes/modern times/the history of the nation. When the same claim is made every four years, it is easy to understand why the claim loses some of its resonance — though seriously, the 2020 election is the most important in American history so you better vote. I cannot say that the upcoming NALP elections are the most important in the history of the institution, but I am confident that some substantive issues need to be addressed and some reforms need to be undertaken to make the organization stronger for its members than those who rely on it in ways both known and unknown. I am excited about the prospect of leading this charge for change.
Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.