Nearly a week after a Harvard Law Review parody of an article by the late Mary Joe Frug was leaked to the Public, the prestigious organization is reeling form almost universal condemnation.

Law School students and professors, Law Review President Emily R. Schulman '85 and Dean Robert C. Clark have all condemned the Revue spoof issue, calling it hateful and misogynistic.

And according to The Boston Globe Several faculty members feel that disciplinary action should be considered against the students involved with the parody.

The authors of the parody--which was distributed on the first anniversary of Frug's murder--are expected to issue an apology soon, which may put this specific incident to rest.

But the Question remains, how will the Law Review, long the embodiment of elitism in the Law School, face a future in which there is likely to be ever increasing pressure to diversify its ranks?

Schulman, the newly-elected president of the journal, finds herself in a unique role. As the Review's third woman president in its 106-year history, Schulman is one of the strongest critics of institutionalized male power at the Review.

But she also must defend the academic journal from critics as the tries to pursue reform form within.

"It is important," Schulman wrote in an open letter to Law School students this weekend, "Not to overlook the fact that, in the very year that the Harvard Law, Review was insensitive and misogynist enough to produce the 'Revue' it was also able to elect only the third women president in its 106 year history. That can be taken as a sign of hope."

She also acknowledge a need to "confront and deflate the arrogance and elitism that Law Review Culture breeds and rewards."

In an interview yesterday, Schulman emphasized the need to use the incident to improve the representation of womenand minorities on the Review.

"I do think this is crisis and an opportunity,"Schulman said, adding that she hoped it would"inspire people to want to effect change."

"There is an active recruitment effort underway right not to reach out to women inparticular," said Schulman, who pointed out thatwomen constitute a quarter of the LawReview's staff. She explained that withgreater staff diversity, "the more expansive avision the journal will have.

Not everyone associated with the Reviewagrees with Schulman, however. The day after herletter was released, five editors penned a letterto the Review itself, praising thepresident but coming down harder on what theycalled the entrenched male dominance of thepublication.

"A few of our membership find naked insults tothe integrity of women funny and think that thosewho object lack a sense of humor," they wrote.

The editors also criticized the organizationfor not identifying the students responsible forthe parody. "[The Revue incident]represents a perfect example of the way that womenand men who do not play by the rules are treatedat theReview," the editors wrote.

And in an interview yesterday, Professor of LawElizabeth Bartholet said that the Review'sproblems are very deep seated.

"[The Law Review] is an extraordinarilyexclusive white male preserve," Bartholet said. "Ithink the notion that a group of people on theLaw Review could have thought the parodyedition a funny joke is an example of what kind ofinstitution it is."

But, in addition to Schulman, others criticalof the parody put a hopeful spin on their visionof the journal's future.

Susan Estridge, the first female president ofthe Law Review in 1977, shares Schulman'swish that the Revue debacle does notfurther inhibit women from joining theInstitution.

"In the interest of [fighting] sexism, weshouldn't boycott an institution headed by awoman," said Estridge, a law professor at theUniversity of Southern California.

Estridge said the Revue "reflects poorlyon a small number of students who are graduating,"but not on the Law Review as a whole.

Professor Andrew L. Kaufman '51 concurred."After all, the Review did publish thearticle," he said, referring to the subject of theparody, an unfinished article written by Frug andpublished posthumously.

"That's the official action of theReview and attitudes towards thepublication ought to be judged by that," Kaufmansaid