Law School Dean James Vorenberg '49 once joined a march on his own office.

Several years ago, in what he calls his favorite demonstration, Vorenberg left his office to greet about 200 protesters, and watched them file past him into his office until he found himself tagging along in the back of the line.

But colleagues say they can cite few other instances when Vorenberg--law dean since 1981--has acted as a follower. Although Vorenberg was caught in the middle of a bitter ideological debate that rocked the school and virtually split the faculty, his initiatives have largely shaped the policies that have been implemented in times of calm.

Just months before announcing his plans to step down from the deanship, Vorenberg set in motion what may prove his most enduring legacy at the Law School--a program of long-range planning to review the physical, curricular and financial aspects of the Law School. Carried out under the leadership of Associate Deans Andrew L. Kaufman and Frank E.A. Sander and with the help of about 20 other faculty members, the comprehensive project was completed earlier this spring.

And the findings of the report mirror the broad goals for the often-embattled Law School which Vorenberg has espoused throughout his eight-year tenure: increasing the size and diversity of the faculty, enhancing the school's international law curriculum and building up the clinical studies program.

"I think the entire process and result of having a long-range plan was what was most important to him and also his major accomplishment as dean," says Associate Dean for Development Scott G. Nichols. "It reflects [Vorenberg's] great vision."

In a show of support for the departing Vorenberg, the faculty voted unanimously in April to accept the planning report, "which doesn't happen very often at Harvard Law School," as one administrator notes.

For most of Vorenberg's tenure, however, observers have criticized the Law School for what they perceived as an unproductive set of political battles over tenure decisions. Polarized along ideological lines, the law professors have fought bitterly over normally routine promotions from tenure-track to senior-level positions. As a result, the school has seemed less attractive to both students and scholars.

These conflicts were most visible with the tenure votes on Daniel Tarullo, David Trubek and Clare Dalton--in 1985, 1986 and 1987, respectively. Denied promotions amidst allegations of political bias, the three scholars were adherents of the radical Critical Legal Studies (CLS), a school of thought holding that the law is rooted in dominant social norms and not abstract notions of justice.

Politics and ideology forced the normally staid law faculty into warring factions. And Vorenberg, unable to resolve the political infighting, asked President Derek C. Bok to intervene--prompting charges that the law faculty had lost its autonomy by calling in the president. In the end, none of the CLS scholars received tenure, as Bok reversed the faculty vote granting Dalton tenure and later confirmed the faculty's vote to deny a post to Trubek.

Despite all the controversy, though, sources say Vorenberg backed both Trubek and Dalton in their attempts to win promotion.

Vorenberg "tried very hard to arrive at his own considered judgments on each case and to state those judgments candidly," says Professor of Law Frank I. Michelman. "And he tried to state his judgments in a fashion that was moderate and non-adversarial."

"He's been a healing spirit at a time when we needed to be brought together," says Professor of Law Phillip B. Heymann.

In Search of Diversity

But beyond the aftertaste of mistrust, the tenure disputes have left the Law School with a reputation for intolerance of ideological difference.