Van L. Nguyen, the newly elected president of the Harvard Law Review, has a difficult job ahead of him.

A while ago, however, it would have been considered an impossible one.

After what seems like an endless period of turmoil, the tension appears to be easing at the Law Review.

The election of new officers earlier this week has given the Review a chance to finally get past the disruptive events of the previous twelve months.

The emphasis these days at the Review's Gannett House building is on trying to work together, editors interviewed said.

Editors even are even looking past the recent election, in which Nguyen defeated 13 other candidates in a pro- defeated 13 other candidates in a process some described as "bloody."

Nguyen, a second-year law student, said yesterday he feels optimistic that the publication can, "through trustful teamwork," build "a collegial and harmonious community."

That sense of community has not been evident at the Review recently.

Last spring, the Review found itself at the center of a storm of controversy when it published a parody of an article written by slain feminist legal scholar Mary Joe Frug.

The parody, which appeared in the Review's annual spool issue, was widely condemned as disrespectful and misogynistic.

Law students called for sanctions against its authors. Craig B. Coben and Kenneth Fenyo. The issue created divisions within the Review, with most editors condemning the parody strongly.

This fall the Review was once again in the limelight, with editor accusing President Emily R. Schulman '85 of racial and gender discrimination.

Schulman was cleared of the charges after an internal inquiry conducted by Ralph D. Gants '76, a former section editor of the Review.

And while the Gants report brought a certain sense of closure to the issue, the report has caused for the division at the Review.

Gants found that Schulman probably made the statements that were interpreted as discriminatory, but concluded that she did not do so with the intent to discriminate.

Nguyen says that most Review members believe "the findings of facts in the report to be credible" but the conclusions inferred from those facts "less clear."