The Harvard Law Review, at the center of an emotional debate over issues of race and gender last spring, took an unprecedented vote of "no confidence" in its president this week amidst new charges of racism that have left the staff bitter and divided.

A complaint from a Black woman at a staff meeting Wednesday night set off a storm of similar complaints that culminated in a motion to reprimand Review President Emily R. Schulman '85 late Sunday night, editors said.

The no confidence vote, a tie with Schulman voting in support of herself, came after hours of contentious debate, accusations and counteraccusations.

Staff members interviewed yesterday were divided between those who view the events of the past week as part of a pattern of abuse of power by Schulman, and those who disbelieve the charges and see the controversy as the result of the staff's decision-making process and history of tension.

Schulman has denied the most serious accusation--that she would not let a Black editor handle a Black professor's article--and has told the staff she has no plans to resign. According to editors speaking on the condition of anonymity, she has urged the Review staff to use this opportunity to redouble their effortsto achieve an inclusive working environment.

The Crimson attempted to contact Law Reviewofficers and editors last night, but some couldnot be reached and others declined to comment onthe record.

The Review sparked a campus-wide debate lastsemester when it published a parody of a thefeminist writings of Mary Joe Frug, a New EnglandSchool of Law professor murdered in Cambridge. Theparody appeared on the anniversary of her death.

Faculty members, including Law School DeanRobert C. Clark, condemned the parody, but weredivided over whether it reflected an environmentof sexism and intolerance with in the Law Review,and within the school itself.

Schulman, who is the fourth woman to serve asReview president, was praised for how she quicklyapologized for the parody--published by herpredecessors--and kept the staff together.

But according to various third year editors,Schulman has lost much of her credibility and nowpresides over a polarized staff.

According to editors, the three mainaccusations are that Schulman refused to allow aBlack woman to edit an article by a Blackprofessor, that she changed the assignment of aBlack editor without telling her, and that shesuggested checking the academic background of aBlack editor.

According to editors, Schulman refused to allowa third-year Black woman to edit an articlewritten by Assistant Professor of Law Charles J.Ogletree Jr., who is Black. Schulman allegedlysaid that allowing the woman to edit Ogletree'sarticle "would be a disaster" and that "this 3-Leditor would be the Black editor on the piece andyou know how complicated that would get."

On various occasions, Schulman hascategorically denied making those statements,editors said.

Schulman has also been accused of reassigning athird-year Black woman's editing assignmentwithout telling the woman, and of asking othersnot to tell the woman.

It is unclear exactly what Schulman's responseto that charge has been.

Schulman also suggested contacting theprofessors of a second-year Black woman toquestion them about her abilities.