Harvard Corporation to Drop Law School Shield Linked to Slavery

The announcement follows a Law School committee’s recommendation to abandon the shield. 

The Harvard Corporation has agreed to abandon the controversial Harvard Law School (HLS) shield, per the recommendation of a committee of HLS faculty, students, and alumni released early this month.

“[T]he Corporation agrees with your judgment and the recommendation of the committee that the Law School should have the opportunity to retire its existing shield and propose a new one,” President Drew Faust and Senior Fellow William Lee wrote in a letter to HLS dean Martha Minow Monday. “While we accept the request to change the shield, we do so on the understanding that the School will actively explore other steps to recognize rather than to suppress the realities of its history, mindful of our shared obligation to honor the past not by seeking to erase it, but rather by bringing it to light and learning from it,” the letter adds.

Minow had appointed the committee to study the shield—which displays the crest of a slaveholding family whose fortune endowed Harvard’s first law professorship—in late fall, after portraits of African-American law professors hanging in Wasserstein Hall were found defaced with strips of black tape. Racial justice activists at HLS had been calling for the change throughout the fall, and their demands gained currency after the incident.

In its report recommending dropping the shield, the committee argued that “[M]odern institutions must acknowledge their past associations with slavery. For the Law School, this means reminding ourselves and others of the role of wealth derived from slave labor in its founding and using that knowledge as a spur to promote racial justice…We cannot unsee what we now know, nor should we. The Law School would not today honor Isaac Royall and his bequest by taking his crest as its official symbol.”

Two of the committee's 12 members, Professor Annette Gordon-Reed (one of those whose portrait was defaced in November) and second-year law student Annie Rittgers, presented a dissenting opinion. They argued that abandoning the shield would improperly distance Harvard from its historical links to slavery:

Disaggregating the benefit achieved from the labor of the enslaved—the money accrued from the sale of Royall land—from the ‘burdens’ of being constantly reminded of from whence that money came, and of letting people outside the community know from whence it came, would be an abdication of our responsibility to the enslaved and a missed opportunity to educate. 

Read more articles by Marina N. Bolotnikova

You might also like

What of the Humble Pencil?

Review: At the Harvard Art Museums’ new exhibit, drawing takes center stage

Harvard Research Funding Will Resume, Government Signals

Notices of grant reinstatements follow a court ruling, but the Trump administration could still appeal. 

At Harvard College Convocation, an Emphasis on Open-Mindedness

Garber, other leaders sidestep politics but welcome international students.

Most popular

How MAGA Went Mainstream at Harvard

Trump, TikTok, and the pandemic are reshaping Gen Z politics.

Irna Phillips, soap opera’s single mother, by Lynn Liccardo

Brief life of soap opera’s single mother: 1901-1973

Free Speech, the Bomb—and Donald Trump

A Harvard cardiologist on the unlikely alliances that shaped a global movement to prevent nuclear war

Explore More From Current Issue

Will Makris in blue checkered suit and red patterned tie standing outdoors by stone column.

A New HAA President at a Tumultuous Time

A career in higher ed inspired Will Makris to give back.

David McCord in suit reading a book at cluttered wooden desk in office filled with framed art and shelves.

The Pump Celebrates Its 85th Birthday

Giving Harvard traditions their due 

Catherine Zipf smiling, wearing striped shirt and dark sweater outdoors.

Preserving the History of Jim Crow Era Safe Havens

Architectural historian Catherine Zipf is building a database of Green Book sites.