University of Virginia Library

Law Students Concerned
Over Move To Copeley Hill

A group of 13 law students, including
the School of Law's two representatives
to the Student Council, have signed a
statement of concern outlining their
reasons against moving the law school
beyond Copley Hill.

"It is an absolute necessity that the
Law School be an integral part of the
University, both academically and
institutionally. Locating the Law School
away from the Grounds seriously
threatens this relationship," the
statement begins.

"The trend in legal education is
toward an interdisciplinary approach to
questions of law. Certainly the
complexities of modern society require that the
lawyer have a grasp of the economic, political
and sociological consequences of specific legal
actions.

"Not only is the lawyer increasingly called
upon to decide issues influenced by these
considerations, but professionals trained in the
social science and humanities disciplines look to
lawyers for assistance in achieving social,
political and economic goals," the statement
says.

The statement was signed by the Law
School's Student Council representatives,
Edwin W. Finch and Denis F. Soden, as well as
John S. Edwards of the Judiciary Committee,
William M. Thompson, Peter R. Pettit, and
Edward I. Hogshire, all of the Student
Advisory Council in the School of Law.

The Ad Hoc Committee that sponsored the
statement is made up of Michael L. Layman,
Christopher J. Murphy. Frederick W. Beinecke,
Alan C. Bainger, David H. Ibbeken, Meade
Whitaker, and Charles A. Shanor.

These students "believe that the present
Administration's decision to move the new
building beyond the Copeley Hill apartments
were made without sufficient consideration of
the academic and institutional consequences of
such a move. This decision has been presented
as the only alternative to remaining in Clark
Hall.

"We contend that there are viable and
attractive alternatives which should be
considered in an impartial hearing on the issue
of site relocation. We further contend that the
present decision will result in a significant
detriment to the Law School and the
University.

The group plans to petition the Board of
Visitors to reconsider the current building
plans.

The statement closes by saying "We support
the need for a new Law School. We contend,
however, that the site for the new Law School
should be in closer proximity to the academic
core of the University than to its athletic
complex."