To the Editors of the Crimson:

(The signers of this following letter are faculty members at Harvard Law School.)

We are writing as lawyers and law teachers to express our dismay at the standards evidently governing the President's selection of nominees for the Supreme Court, as most recently reflected in the list of six potential nominees submitted to the American Bar Association screening committee.

In making such nominations, the President carries out a stewardship entrusted to him by the Constitution. Implicit in that stewardship are certain widely accepted criteria of eligibility for the office of Supreme Court Justice. These include, we believe, a rich experience and distinguished performance in the realm of law, and qualities of mind and spirit promising a wise and fair search for the legal merits of cases undistorted by partisan, personal, or regional bias.

Regarding the reported list of six, we are certain on the basis of our own investigations that at least half do not nearly measure up to the minimum standards we think the nation can expect and should demand of a Supreme Court nomination. Moreover, we know of many lawyers, judges, and legislators--of various political backgrounds, from every part of the country, of both sexes, with a variety of experiences and specializations--who unquestionably would meet the basic standards for appointment, and would meet them more convincingly than any of those named on the President's list.

We are, therefore, left with the conviction that the President has approached his task improperly, giving too much weight to factors which should have been subordinated to an overriding goal of locating candidates of the highest quality. This presidential conduct, resulting in the inclusion in the list of some plainly unqualified persons, demeans the Court and risks undermining public respect for it so as to impair its performance of its crucially important role. Some of the persons named may turn out to merit serious consideration. The flawed process which generated their candidacies argues, however, for the most meticulous and searching examination by the ABA Committee and the Senate.

We know that our concerns are widely shared, and we urge all who share them to voice them in appropriate ways. We hope that the President can be convinced to reconsider his approach to these appointments; that the ABA Committee will not hesitate to disapprove as many of the names proposed as its investigation warrants; and that the Senate--also entrusted with a constitutional stewardship--will hold the President to the appropriate standards in considering confirmation. Derrick A. Bell, Jr.   Gary Bellow   Harold J. Berman   Abram Chayes   Morris L. Cohen   Vern Countryman   Jerome P. Facher   Richard H. Field   William B. Gould   Charles M. Haar   Livingston Hall   David R. Herwitz   Phillip B. Heymann   Morton J. Horwitz   Benjamin Kaplan   Lance Liebman   Louis Loss   Karen S. Metzger   Frank I. Michelman   Arthur R. Miller   Charles R. Nesson   Albert M. Sacks   Frank E.A. Sander   Austin W. Scott   Henry J. Steiner   John P. Sullivan   Stanley S. Surrey   Donald T. Trautman   Laurence H. Tribe   Donald F. Turner   James Vorenberg   Robert B. Washington, Jr.   Lloyd L. Weinreb   David Westfall   Ralph U. Whitten