Fear of segregationists may have caused the recent dearth of criticism levied against the Supreme Court, a Law School professor suggested yesterday.

"There may be reluctance to criticize the work of the Court for fear that any such criticism would be taken out of context by opponents of the segregation decisions and used to bring disrespect to the orderly process of constitutional adjudication," Clark Byse, professor of Law, declared in the December Law Review.

Byse was discussing a statement made by Henry M. Hart, Charles Stebbins Fairchild Professor of Law, which deplored the inadequate tradition among law school faculties of "disinterested criticism" of the Court's decisions.

The reason for this inadequacy, Byse felt, is the attitude of contemporary law schools. Such institutions should recognize two functions, he said. First, that of helping students develop their own critical capacities, but, second and just as important, that of exercising a professional responsibility by investigating and criticizing actions of the Court and interpretations of American law.

But any professor would find it hard to research extensively and to teach at the same time, Byse noted. Therefore, to help fulfill the dual responsibility of law schools, he suggested increased financial aid for legal research. If funds were used to enlarge faculties, each professor could focus his attention, both as a teacher and a scholar, on a particular section of the law, he explained.

Another Law School faculty member, Mark DeWolfe Howe '18, professor of Law, stated that the lack of criticism perhaps appears greater than it is because people overlook that criticism which is expressed in class and implied in case books.