China demands explanation as Zimbabwe understates aid figure by US$133 million – The Zimbabwean

On Tuesday, the embassy issued a statement saying that according to its records the total financial support provided by China in the period was US$133.2 million more than stated.

“The embassy has noted that in the statement [issued by Ncube] … the figure for support provided by China to Zimbabwe is US$3,631,500,” it said. “The actual [figure] is US$136.8 million.”

China extended more than US$2.2 billion worth of loans to Zimbabwe between 2000 and 2017, according to a Washington research institute. Photo: Handout

The embassy said that its figure also did not include other forms of financial support, such as the cost of providing expert help and donations made by the mission itself to local groups.

It urged the Zimbabwean government to “make a comprehensive assessment of the bilateral support figures and accurately reflect the actual situation when formulating the budget statement”.

The embassy said it understood “bilateral development support” to include funding for cooperative projects, cash and the value of donated goods.

Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting responded by saying it was holding talks with Chinese officials.

“The government has noted the query raised by the Chinese embassy regarding aid figures … [and] consultations are under way to establish a common accounting position,” it said.

According to Ncube’s presentation, the

United States

and

were the biggest donors in the nine-month period – each providing US$50 million, followed by the

European Union

 (US$41 million), Japan (US$14.2 million),

Switzerland

(US$6.4 million) and India (US$500,000).

Most of the funding from Western nations came via charities, it said.

Both the US and EU have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe over allegations of government corruption but Beijing has repeatedly backed Harare’s call to have the sanctions lifted.

And while the

International Monetary Fund

and the World Bank have been reluctant to provide financial aid to Zimbabwe, figures from the China Africa Research Initiative at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington show that China extended more than US$2.2 billion worth of loans to Zimbabwe between 2000 and 2017.

The Chinese embassy says Ncube’s figures did not include donations made by the mission itself to local groups. Photo: EPA-EFE

The Chinese embassy says Ncube’s figures did not include donations made by the mission itself to local groups. Photo: EPA-EFE

Share:

The discrepancy in the latest figures is likely to raise questions in Harare, especially from opposition politicians who have accused the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front of misreporting its debts and accepting foreign loans without parliament’s approval.

In October, reports emerged that Chinese backers had suspended US$1.3 billion worth of loans for three major infrastructure projects after

President Emmerson Mnangagwa

’s government diverted US$10 million from an escrow account for an airport expansion project to offset the country’s foreign currency shortage.

The Chinese embassy said at the time that it supported the Zimbabwean government and that the three projects were being carried out in line with agreed-upon plans. However, Zhao said the US$10 million taken from the airport project account had not been returned.

Two years after Mugabe, what’s changed for Zimbabwe? – The Zimbabwean

On November 14 2017, Zimbabwe’s army pulled off a brazen operation: it seized President Robert Mugabe and his family, placing them under house arrest. A week later, on November 21, a frail-looking Mugabe announced his resignation. It was an ignominious end to a decades-long reign.

Ordinary Zimbabweans celebrated. For many, Mugabe was the cause of the country’s economic ruin. In the euphoria of the moment, thousands of jubilant citizens gathered in the capital, Harare. They embraced and took selfies with soldiers — heroes who had brought down the autocratic regime.

Fast-forward two years, and Zimbabweans are again grappling with a crisis.

By International Monetary Fund estimates, annual inflation hit 300% in August, destroying incomes. As living standards have deteriorated, so civil servants have demanded higher salaries. And the country’s doctors are two months into industrial action.

Many rue the decision to support the coup.

“We were used,” says Eric Mubako, who works for a large wholesaler. “They got what they wanted — Mugabe out of office.”

Felix Kabango, a book vendor in Harare, expresses a similar sentiment. “The coup has brought us more suffering … People who have normal jobs don’t earn a decent living,” he tells the FM. “Samp is the new rice in town.”

Informal trader Washington William also expresses frustration. “Things have plunged to new [lows],” he says. “Electricity is expensive, water is not available … transport is too expensive and money is hard to come by.”

Not everyone is convinced of the severity of the situation. Zanu-PF supporter Farai Marapira, for one, believes President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government simply needs more time to turn the economy around.

“Our economy couldn’t [recover] without some fundamentals being addressed,” he explains. “Chief among these was the perennial budget deficit. This was the main issue that caused austerity [measures] to be introduced. Now, ahead of time, austerity is over.”

Upon taking office, Mnangagwa sought to break with Mugabe’s ruinous path, launching an open-for-business policy — an invitation to foreign investors to invest in the country. Under Mugabe, the doors had been shut to investors owing to, among other things, indigenisation legislation that compelled investors to cede controlling equity stakes in businesses, and general disregard for property rights. Mnangagwa pledged to institute political reforms and do things differently.

But the wheels have since come off.

Just last week, finance minister Mthuli Ncube said the government would fall short of the targets in its turnaround programme.

“Refraining from unbudgeted activities and borrowing from the central bank will, therefore, constitute a key obligation for both Treasury and the central bank authorities from 2020,” he said.

Zanu-PF spokesperson Simon Khaya Moyo says the government has been hobbled by problems beyond its control, including drought and sanctions the US and EU imposed on dozens of Zanu-PF members and affiliated entities in 2001. These, he says “block lines of credit for the country”.

But Kipson Gundani, CEO of Africa Roundtable, says that while Mnangagwa inherited some economic problems, his administration has contributed to the downturn. “If you look at the level of money creation since [Mnangagwa] took over, you’ll realise this is a function of the Mnangagwa regime alone,” he says by way of example.

Gift Mugano, an economics professor at Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University, believes the economic reforms were doomed to fail because they were implemented without a “supporting institutional framework”.

“Zimbabwe was trying to model its reforms around Rwanda,” he says. “Rwanda has the Rwanda Development Board, and here they were trying to have the Zimbabwe Investment & Development Agency — and that has not taken off, two years later.”

But it’s not just a faltering economy that’s battering the government’s image. The same security forces who posed for selfies with the masses two years ago have come under fire for human rights abuses.

During nationwide protests in January, sparked by a dramatic fuel price hike, they allegedly used “excessive lethal force” — including firing live ammunition at protesters, killing 17, according to Human Rights Watch. And in August, antiriot police reportedly assaulted hundreds of protesters demonstrating against economic hardship.

For the moment, the security forces seem to be well protected. In his 2020 budget, announced last week, Ncube said the ministry of defence & war veterans would be allocated $3.1bn — the single largest line item.

Given the economic downturn, it may be a necessary move for Mnangagwa. “You can’t starve your boss,” political scientist Innocent Ncube told the Sunday Times this week. “A happy army is a cushion for rulers, especially in a country where there has been a fresh coup.”

Both Houses of Parliament Have Adjourned – The Zimbabwean

The 2020 National Budget Presentation on 14th November, noted briefly in Bill Watch 59/2019 [link], was not the only important event of the last Parliamentary week.  This bulletin is to update readers on other noteworthy developments in the National Assembly that occurred last week.

Progress on Bills

Restoration of Six Lapsed Bills to the Order Paper

On 12th November the National Assembly approved a motion by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs the restoration of six lapsed uncompleted Bills to the Order Paper at the stages they had reached in the last session.  [See Bill Watch 58/2019 [link] for a list of these Bills and the stage reached for each Bill in the last session.]  

Introduction of Bills and Referral to PLC

On 13th November the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs presented three Bills, which immediately received their First Readings and were referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC]  for its report on their consistency or otherwise with the Constitution:

Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill [link]

Constitutional Court Bill [link]

International Treaties Bill [link] – for commentary on this Bill see Bill Watch 56/2019 Bill [link].

The PLC initially has three weeks within which to submit its reports, but can ask the Speaker for an extension of this period.

Approval of Agreement for an Economic Partnership Agreement [EPA]
between the United Kingdom and Eastern and Southern African States [ESA]

This Agreement was approved on Tuesday 12th November 2019.  If it is also approved by the Senate, the President will then be able to ratify it. The Agreement provides for continuity in the UK’s trade relationship with Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles and Zimbabwe under the present EPA between the European Union [EU] and these states.  It will only come into force when/if the UK leaves the EU.  This continuity includes replication of the language of the Cotonou Agreement and the present EPA to ensure that respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, and good governance remain as essential and fundamental elements of the ESA EPA; and that if needed, appropriate measures can be taken in the event of a violation of these elements.

Two Important Committee Reports Presented

Compliance Issues for the Reserve Bank: Public Accounts Committee [PAC]:

On 12th November Hon Biti, chairperson of the PAC presented the Committee’s comprehensive report on the Reserve Bank’s non-compliance with constitutional and legal requirements – to the tune of billions of dollars.  The report mentions disagreement between the Bank and the Committee [and its legal adviser, Counsel to Parliament] on disclosure of information to the Committee.  Its recommendations include making amendments to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act, and the presentation of Bills by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development to regularise unauthorised activity by the Bank.  Debate on this report is obviously far from over.

Welfare of War Veterans: Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs & Security Services

This report was presented by Hon Mayihlome, chairperson of the portfolio committee.  It is the product of the committee’s action on a petition to Parliament from Mr. B. Kundhlande received by Parliament in May 2019 and referred to the committee.  The committee enquiry conducted to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of Government policies and programmes targeted at empowering and improving the general welfare of war veterans across the country.  After hearing evidence from the Ministry of Defence and War Veterans’ Affairs and conducting public hearings the committee prepared this report incorporating its findings and recommendations. This report will be a yardstick by which to assess the recently-gazetted Veterans of the Liberation Struggle Bill [link] and its implementation if it becomes law.

Ministerial Statements Promised

On 12th November points of privilege raised by MPs included the following topics:

Audit of and Report on Payments for Airport Road, Harare

Hon Markham, a member of the PAC, complained that Parliament had been waiting too long for the Minister of Local Government to present a report on the audit of payments made for the ill-fated Airport Road.  He said the road had in effect been paid for twice.

Crisis in Health Sector and Hospital Doctors’ Strike

Saying that the doctors were now in their 69th day on strike, Hon Biti asked the Speaker to demand that the Minister of Health and Child Care make a Ministerial Statement to the House on the crisis in the health sector .

Giving feedback the following day, the Speaker said there would be Ministerial statements on these topics soon, plus statements  requested previously on the water situation [from the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water and Rural Resettlement] and on the state of Zimbabwean soccer vis-à-vis FIFA [from the Minister of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation.

Position of MDC-A MPs as a Result of MDC-A Attitude Towards President

There were three new episodes in the drama unfolding on the Parliamentary stage as ZANU PF reacts to MDC-A MPs’ attitude towards the President’s visits to Parliament:

Suspension of 23rd October Ban on MDC-A MPs Questioning Ministers

On 13th November, before Question Time, the Speaker handed down a new ruling suspending indefinitely – but not reversing – his ruling of 23rd October banning MDC-A MPs participating in Question Time.  The suspension, he said, was “to avoid a paralysis of Parliamentary processes” in view of the importance of Private Members’ Business in Parliament.  The text of the ruling is available on the Veritas website [link].

Committee of Privileges to Inquire into MDC-A Acts of Disrespect to President

On 14th November MDC-A MPs absented themselves from the National Assembly during the 2020 National Budget presentation.  In the brief proceedings that followed the Budget presentation, still without MDC-A MPs present, Hon Togarepi, ZANU PF chief whip, raised a matter of privilege.  At some length he detailed five separate occasions on which, since the opening of this Parliament, MDC-A MPs had conducted themselves in a manner disrespectful of President Mnangagwa.  He concluded by submitting that their “untoward Parliamentary conduct” should be visited with a charge of contempt of Parliament.  His full speech is available on the Veritas website [link].

The Speaker then ruled that Hon Togarepi had made out a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament, and Hon Togarepi formally moved a motion for the appointment of a Committee of Privileges by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders [CSRO], which the House immediately approved.  The Speaker ended the proceedings by there and then convening a meeting of the CSRO the following morning for this purpose.

Note:  On 15th November Hon Gonese, MDC Secretary for Justice and Legal Affairs and an MDC-A MP, issued a statement saying that their MPs had genuine reasons for their absence, namely, attending to the funeral of party members who had died in a motor  accident and that the Leader of the Opposition had, as a courtesy, given prior written notice to the Speaker that they would be absent on Budget day; the statement also reminded the public that MPs are not legally obliged to attend any particular Parliamentary sitting and recorded that fact that MDC-A members of CSRO had reported for the special CSRO meeting at the time stipulated by the Speaker but that the meeting had not proceeded because ZANU PF members had not turned up, meaning that there was no quorum.   

Comment:  Mr Gonese was correct in his statement that an MP is free to absent himself from a Parliamentary sitting without leave.  The attendance register for the Budget sitting shows that that only 148 other MPs were recorded as present. 

ZANU PF MPs walk out on PAC meeting chaired by Hon Biti

On 15th November a specially arranged Friday morning meeting of the Public Accounts Committee chaired by Hon Biti of MDC-A had to be abandoned because ZANU PF committee members would not participate.  Hon Nduna – the ZANU PF MP who had enthusiastically seconded Hon Biti’s presentation of the PAC report on the Reserve Bank only three days before – was reported as explaining that he and his party colleagues had decided not to recognise Hon Biti as PAC chairperson until MDC-A started accepting President Mnangagwa as President.  Under time-honoured Parliamentary tradition the PAC chairperson must be an Opposition MP.  Hon Biti was appointed chairperson at the inception of the present Parliament.

Note on Mr Nduna’s legitimacy as an MP:   Ironically there is serious, as yet unresolved, uncertainty over the legitimacy of Hon Nduna’s title to the Chegutu West seat in the National Assembly.  After Mr Nduna had been declared the winner in last year’s election by a slender margin, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission [ZEC] admitted that it had wrongly attributed to him 120 votes actually cast for the MDC-A candidate, and Mr Konjana MDC-A should have been the winner. But it was too late for ZEC to correct its error and that could only be done by the Electoral Court.  The case is still bogged down in the Supreme Court to which Mr Konjana has appealed from the Electoral Court’s rejection of his election petition on procedural grounds.  Meanwhile, Mr Nduna has sat in the National Assembly for over a year, despite having really lost the election to Mr Konjana. 

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Two years after Mugabe, what’s changed for Zimbabwe?
Who will Guard the Guards?

Post published in: Featured

Who will Guard the Guards? – The Zimbabwean

The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (the Forum) is disturbed by violent conduct of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) officers against civilians and urges the authorities to sanction the officers who attacked civilians in violation of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

On 20 November 2019, supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change Alliance (MDC-A) gathered at the party headquarters in Harare for the Hope of the Nation Address which was scheduled to be addressed by the party President Nelson Chamisa. The hostile response by the police who indiscriminately beat the crowd with baton sticks, with booted feet and fired tear gas in the busy Central Business District resulted in many citizens involved in their daily business being injured or bundled into police vehicles.

Horrific images and videos were captured by the media showing shocking unprovoked violence by the police. This brutality is unacceptable in any civilised society. It is unfortunate that senior members of the police like Assistant Commissioner Charles Ndoro were recorded by the media at the scene of violence, issuing instructions to the police to perpetrate violence.  This unconstitutional action by the police is deeply regrettable and must be challenged after the events of 20 November 2019.
Members of the Forum who attended to the victims of the attacks have noted that 47 people were assaulted yesterday, including 20 women.  Two children were also assaulted.  8 people were illegally detained including a 10-month-old baby and the mother.  Of the 8 people arrested, 7 are still incarcerated at the time of report compilation.

The conduct of the police is deplorable and is contrary to the rhetoric of the Government of Zimbabwe on promoting and protecting human rights. (Section 44 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe obliges the State and every person, including juristic persons, and every institution and agency of the government at every level to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights and freedoms set out in the Constitution.

The Constitution of Zimbabwe is clear in section 58 that every person has the right to freedom of assembly and association. Section 59 gives the right to demonstrate and this must be exercised peacefully.

Recently, the Government of Zimbabwe presented to the United Nations and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights that its police officers have gone through human rights training.  Clearly, the conduct of the police, in this case, did not reflect a police service that is human rights conscious and has undergone any training.  While the Forum acknowledges that the State has an obligation to maintain public order to prevent social disruption, damage to property, injury and loss of life, a clear set of international human rights law standards has been developed in respect to the use of force by law enforcement officials. From the reports received and eye-witness statements, the crowd gathered at Morgan Tsvangirai House was not violent in any way and the documented conduct of the police was disproportionate to the threat paused by the crowd. The indiscriminate beating of passers-by, women and children who were in no way linked to the demonstration was criminal and must be investigated.

What this incident tells us is that as a nation we have learnt nothing from the past and are not willing to undertake the reforms necessary to build a peaceful society.  Recently, the government reported to the African Commission of their intention to implement the recommendation of the Montlanthe Commission. The behaviour of the police shows lack of sincerity in such statements.  The Motlanthe Commission in its report after the August 1, 2018 post-election crackdown by the Zimbabwe National Army made recommendation for the law enforcement agents to be capacitated to handle protests in a way that does not see a recurrence of the August 1 killings and assaults where 6 innocent civilians were killed
The government has always denied reports by the Forum of human rights violations. It gives us no pleasure to report that the events of 20 November 2019 vindicate all our reports released in 2019 including the most recent 2018 State of Human Rights Report, the 2019 Anti-Impunity Report, the New Deception and the special report – Hear Their Cry – A Report on State Violence Against Children During the 2019 January Protests.

It is also regrettable that the behaviour by the police shows utter disrespect of the recommendations of the United Nations.  The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, Clément Voule who was in the country in September expressed concern in his preliminary findings on 27 September 2019 over the reports of excessive, disproportionate and lethal use of force against protestors, the indiscriminate use of teargas, batons and live ammunition in Zimbabwe. The Special Rapporteur recommended that law enforcement agents must desist from broad discretion to disperse public gatherings and to follow guidelines of the United Nations Basic Guidelines on the Use of Force in promotion of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

The Forum calls for adherence to human rights as the pact is clear in section 44 of the Constitution that government must respect, protect promote and fulfil human rights.

The Forum calls on the Government to do the following,

  • Enact a law in terms of section 210 of the Constitution for the establishment of an Independent Complaints Handling Mechanism investigating state security agents.
  • Comply with the the use of proportionate force in maintaining peace and order.
  • To stop all forms of impunity and criminalizing freedom of assembly and association.
  • Ratify the Convention against Torture.
  • Investigate the cases of police brutality and hold those responsible to account.
  • Compensate victims of torture and police brutality.

The Forum also calls on the following;

  • The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission to investigate cases of torture, assaults and arbitrary arrests which occurred on 20 November 2019.
  • The Zimbabwe Gender Commission to investigate cases of brutalized women by the Zimbabwe Republic Police during the events of 20 November 2019.
Both Houses of Parliament Have Adjourned
Masvingo Residents Calls For An End To Partisan Distribution Of Government Aid

Post published in: Featured

The Price Of Joining A Firm That Doesn’t Match Your Bonus

Most of the bonus season follows form. A leader announces, most folks follow, some outlier goes over the top to garner a little press but no one follows, then Am Law 100 firms start coming in with bonuses that either outright don’t match or have some sneaky caveats designed to save firms a few bucks. Later payout dates, higher billable requirements… stuff like that.

As far as I know, we’ve gotten into the phase 3 bonus announcements. As the shorting goes its impact isn’t too extreme, but it’s unfortunate for those who will be caught in the crosshairs.

Dechert Price just announced its bonuses, and more or less they follow true to form.

Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 and senior – $100,000

Associates will need to be in good standing with 1950 “bonus hours” which is a combination of billables, pro bono, firm-as-client work, and 25 hours of shadowing. Bonuses will be paid on January 23, 2020. The memo says January 23, 2019, but it’s doubtful that they possess a time machine.

Only Wachtell has one of those.

What’s missing from this matching list is, of course, the class of 2019. Most firms are granting the newcomers class appropriate bonuses prorated based on their start dates. Dechert is extending that offer too, but only to associates who joined between December 1, 2018 and July 1, 2019. In other words, all the first years who joined in the Fall of 2019 are getting nothing for their efforts.

If you ascribe to the worldview that bonuses mean “bonuses” in Biglaw — that bonuses are a purely discretionary perk to reward a year’s worth of effort — then this all makes sense. New associates didn’t work even half a year yet so they don’t deserve anything on top of the regular salary.

But bonuses aren’t “bonuses” in these firms. It’s an adjustable but a routine and expected component of an associate’s salary. To keep these associates paid in line with their peers at other firms, then they need to be paid what their peers are getting paid. It’s not a terrific amount of money… why skimp here?

In any event, congratulations to most of Dechert’s associates. For the newbies, better luck next year.

(Full memo captured on the next page…)

Biglaw Firm Delights With Up To $40,000 Extra In Bonus Money For Big Billers

Complain and you shall receive. Not just a few hours ago I was whining about the relative slowness of this year’s Biglaw bonus announcements. Yes, it is understandable since Milbank’s surprise move the first week of November bumped up the usual timeline. But still, I want more bonus announcements, and I’m sure a lot of you agree.

Well, looks like Schulte, Roth & Zabel heard me. Today, they announced the following bonus scale:

Class of 2019 – $15,000 (prorated)
Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 – $100,000
Class of 2011 – $100,000
Class of 2010 – $100,000

Plus, the firm will give extra money if associates hit the 2,300 and 2,500 billable-hour marks with $20,000 and $40,000, respectively.

(Full memo on the next page.)

Remember, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for your help!


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Law School Students Want Picture Of Robert E. Lee Removed From Diploma

General Robert E. Lee 1807 – 1870

How do you feel about portraits of prominent slaveholders? If you’re against them, then you’ll probably be sympathetic to a new petition circulating at Washington & Lee University. You see, diplomas at that school display portraits of the school’s namesakes, George Washington and Robert E. Lee, and law school students are circulating a petition to allow students the option of a diploma without the slaveholders’ pictures.

The students take issue with the legacies of both namesakes. Washington’s place in history is somewhat complicated because while he did a pretty good job as the country’s first president, he was also an extremely problematic slave owner. Lee’s role in leading the Confederate forces makes his historical significance more straightforward, and a symbol of the racist legacy of slavery that mars the United States’ history.

“Given the aftermath of the 2017 Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville and the heightened awareness of making Washington & Lee an inclusive and compassionate environment to all students, we believe this request provides alumni the ability to honor their alma mater without the presence of the portraits that some may find controversial or offensive,” the petition reads.

The petition has been signed by students, alumni, faculty, and staff and is supported by the law school’s Student Bar Association; the Women Law Students Organization; the Black Law Students Association; OutLaw; the Jewish Law Student Association; and the Latin American Law Student Association.

But of course, the move is not without controversy. As reported by Law.com, a group — Generals Redoubt — that “seeks to prevent further retreat from the University’s history, values and traditions; protect revered campus buildings; and continue to honor the magnificent contributions of its Founders” [yikes] had something to say about the petition:

“The petition is a symptom of strong undercurrents within the university to dismantle the traditions, values and history of Washington and Lee,” according to a statement released this week by the Generals Redoubt, a group that says it’s dedicated to the preservation of the tradition and history of Washington and Lee University. “The removal of the likeness of George Washington and Robert E. Lee, which adorns the offices and homes of many of our alumni is a severe affront to the generous and loyal alumni who respect the character and values of our namesakes.”

Yeah… they are trying to take a stance against a value shared by the school’s namesakes — specifically the value that you can own people.

As for the university’s powers-that-be, a spokesperson said university president William Dudley has yet to officially receive the petition and the school has no comment.

Listen, I’m on board with all the attempts to stop valorizing the Confederacy and agree that Washington’s legacy is correctly under fire. But… I’m not sure removing these portraits does a lot. The school is still named after these problematic folks, and their names will still be displayed on the diploma even if the petition is successful. I suppose it is a step in the right direction, but not giving your hard-earned money (or Sallie Mae’s money that you’re on the hook for) to an institution named after a Confederate general might be a better one.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Louis Bacon Closes Hedge Fund To Ensure He Doesn’t Miss Humiliation, Incarceration Of Neighbor