To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emily Howland
Emily Howland from American Women, 1897.jpg
Portrait of Emily Howland from American Women
Born(1827-11-20)November 20, 1827
DiedJune 29, 1929(1929-06-29) (aged 101)

Emily Howland (November 20, 1827 – June 29, 1929) was a philanthropist and educator. Especially known for her activities and interest in the education of African-Americans, she was also a strong supporter of women's rights and the temperance movement. Howland personally financed the education of many black students and contributed to institutions such as the Tuskegee Institute.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    1 159
    1 818
  • ✪ Law School Diploma and Hooding Ceremony, 530th Convocation
  • ✪ D'Youville Graduate Commencement 2018
  • ✪ Wellesley College Commencement 2016 ( Full-Length)


[MUSIC PLAYING] THOMAS J. MILES: Good morning. Be seated. Members of the class of 2017, family, friends, welcome to the 19th annual hooding ceremony of the University of Chicago Law School. [APPLAUSE] Today's a day for celebration. You, the class of 2017, have accomplished a great deal. Not long ago, you came to the law school, and had your first class. You may remember approaching that first class with a sense of excitement, curiosity, even maybe a little bit of anxiety. And in that first class, or shortly thereafter, you may have encountered a nephew, who had given up alcohol, tobacco, swearing cards, and billiards. You may have encountered a fox that was pursued by one person, and taken by another. You may have encountered a political appointee, who sought the delivery of a commission. Your encounters with these figures, and many others, were then the focus of your intense mental energies, and were perhaps sources of confusion. Now these figures trigger wistful affection, a touch of nostalgia, they've become old friends. And the fact that they have become old friends, indicates how much you have learned, and how you have grown in your time at the law school. You have learned a good deal of the law itself, good old legal doctrine. Between now and the bar exam, July 25th in most states, in case you've forgotten, you'll learn a lot more about the substance of the law. But much of your learning at the law school was not about specific points of doctrine, rather you learned how to think about legal problems, how to interpret legal texts, how to engage in common law reasoning, how to disentangle thorny legal problems. You have learned to approach legal questions with rigorous thought and careful reasoning. An analytical approach requires an openness to ideas, and a commitment to subject those ideas to careful scrutiny. This dedication to, and indeed joy in serious analytical inquiry is the hallmark of a University of Chicago lawyer. In a few moments, you will receive your degree, and your academic hood, and you will become a University of Chicago Law School graduate. But to the extent that you have dedicated yourself, to the serious analytical inquiry in law, and the fact that you are all sitting here today suggests you have, you have already been transformed into a University of Chicago lawyer. You're no longer the student who is confused about the nephew's promise, or the fox, or the appointee's commission. You are now a lawyer equipped to think about, and to tackle the hardest legal questions. This transformation didn't happen overnight. It happened over many nights and days of study and discussion, with your faculty and with your classmates. All of the hours that you spent in the classrooms, and in the clinics, in the carrels in the library, in the conference rooms, in the green lounge, and in the journal offices, studying, outlining, writing, rewriting, rewriting again, discussing, arguing, and ultimately thinking are what transformed you. It was hard work, and you did it. Congratulations. But you didn't-- [APPLAUSE] But you didn't do it alone. It's worth remembering two groups of people who helped you. First, nearly all of you had the help of family and close friends. Sometimes family and friends helped you in very tangible ways. Maybe they sent you mittens when you encountered your first Chicago winter. Maybe they sent you cookies as the deadline for the brief approach. Maybe they paid your rent. They also help you in intangible ways. They cheered you up when you thought you wouldn't ever finish law school, because you were so frustrated by that fox, or that nephew's promise, or that appointee's commission. Then they gave you rest when all the hard work of law school left you tired. And they were a patient ear when you were so excited about what you were learning in the law school, you couldn't stop talking about law. So in tangible and intangible ways, they helped you get here. This afternoon, when we go back to the law school for the reception, and they congratulate you, don't forget to thank them. It's also worth remembering the second group of people who helped get you here today. They're sitting all around you, your classmates. At times they help you in very direct ways. They worked side-by-side with you in the clinic, drafting a motion. Maybe they were your partner in the Moot Court competition. They proofread your first paper, they were your partner in the new social venture challenge. They wrote you detailed feedback on your comment draft. At other times, they helped you in less direct ways. They gave an answer to a cold call that was so great, you took notes on it, and it helped you understand the case better. They asked a question that was so insightful, you wished that you had asked it. You may have noticed that serious analytical inquiry at the University of Chicago is not a solo enterprise, it's usually a collective endeavor, a form of joint production. Your classmates helped you get here, and you, in turn, have helped them. So here you are through your own hard work, through the support of family and friends, and through the help of classmates, and maybe with a bit of input from the faculty. You are about to graduate, you're about to have University of Chicago lawyer forever attached to your professional life. And although you leave us physically, your association with the law school is permanent. It's what you wanted when you applied and enrolled here, and it's what we wanted too when we admitted you. And now together let's enjoy this relationship, this mutual association. I can assure you that the faculty stands ready to do its part to make sure that the hallmark of the University of Chicago lawyer continues to be dedication in, and joy in serious analytical inquiry. When the JD class of 2020 and the LLM class of 2018 matriculate next autumn, we will introduce them to the fox, and the nephew, and the political appointee just as we did for you. But now you must also do your part to maintain that hallmark. Most people's impressions of the law school come not from reading the scholarship of the faculty, it comes from encountering one of our graduates, and observing their professionalism and the quality of the work that they do. Now as you graduate, you will help through your work, through your professional life, to shape what it means to be a University of Chicago Law School graduate. Your careers may take many paths, clerkships, government service, big law, small law, leaving the practice of law altogether for business or some other great adventure. All of these paths are worthwhile, all of them need rigorous analytical minds, and sound judgment. So as you go into the world, continue to learn and to think hard, and to analyze those thorny questions closely. Your education doesn't end when you walk out of this chapel or when you leave the bar exam on July 26, in most states. Continue to collaborate with your colleagues, just as you did with your classmates. Keep in touch with your law school classmates, they are the lawyers who know you best. And please stay connected to the law school, stay in touch with our faculty, tell them about the exciting work that you do. And tell them and share with them your professional successes and professional challenges. Today we celebrate your accomplishments, we are proud of you. Now go out into the world and make us proud again. [APPLAUSE] It's now my honor and privilege to introduce our distinguished alumni of the year, Lisa Monaco, class of 1997. Miss Monaco has pursued an extraordinary career in public service. Her interest in government began before she came to law school. She graduated from Harvard College, and then worked as a researcher in the Senate Judiciary Committee, under then chairman Joe Biden. Among the legislation that she worked on was the Violence Against Women Act. As a student here at the law school, Miss Monaco served as the Editor in Chief of the law school RoundTable. And upon graduation, she clerked for the honorable Jane Richards Roth on the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Miss Monaco then began a stellar and varied career in the Department of Justice, and in federal law enforcement. First, she served as counsel to US Attorney General Janet Reno. She then became an assistant US Attorney, and was assigned to the Enron task force. As a member of the task force, she won multiple awards from the Department of Justice, including its highest honor for exceptional service. She then became the Chief of Staff to then FBI Director Robert Mueller. She returned to the Department of Justice, and focused on national security issues. She became the Assistant Attorney General for national security, where she oversaw 350 lawyers and staff. And she had responsibility for matters ranging from espionage to terrorism cases to applications for FISA warrants. In 2013, President Obama, who had taught her Con Law 3 when she was a student of the law school, appointed her to be the Homeland Security adviser, the chief counter-terrorism adviser to the President. And in this role, she had responsibility for security issues ranging from terrorist threats to cyber security to public health emergency such as Ebola. With a portfolio of such weighty responsibilities, President Obama came to call her Dr. Doom. As impressive as these accomplishments are, the best way to really know a law school graduate is to, of course, ask their classmates. So I did. I found one of Miss Monaco's classmates, who had worked with her on a clinic and prepared a trial together. Her classmate said this about her, that her professional success came as no surprise. That Miss Monaco was, and I quote, "perfectly, and deeply prepared. An incredibly hard worker, and also funny, and a very good friend." The classmate continued that once Miss Monaco became the leader of our national security system, she always felt safer, because she knew the strength of Miss Monaco's character, and the strength of her purpose. Please join me in welcoming Lisa Monaco. [APPLAUSE] LISA MONACO: Thank you very much, Dean Miles. It's great to be here. I want to say thank you to the other alumni who are present, the soon-to-be alumni, distinguished guests, members of the faculty. Most importantly, though, I want to say thank you, and welcome, and congratulations to the class of 2017, and to your family and your friends who are here today. It is really a privilege to be part of this day. Now having spent the last several years in the White House, I could talk about all those grim topics that Dean Miles mentioned. Because I did use my rigorous training that I received here every day in the White House. But, today I want to talk about how being armed with that training and possessing a craft is only a start. I want to talk about what it means to be a lawyer in public service at this moment in our country. And why, although, you absolutely should savor that sense of accomplishment that you feel today, it is well-deserved, and we know it is hard-earned, your work is not yet done. Now I confess to indulging in a bit of nostalgia as I was preparing for my remarks, and I was thinking about the last time I was in this chapel. And it actually wasn't on my graduation, it was three years later when I came with my then boss, Attorney General Janet Reno to attend a memorial service for one of her predecessors, the 71st Attorney General, the great former dean of this law school, and president of this university, Edward Levy. Now the dignitaries that day were all on hand to honor a man who not only was a fixture here in Hyde Park, but who had restored faith in an institution, and in the rule of law. And the credibility of an institution, the Department of Justice, that I would come to love. And that would have everything to do with forming me as a lawyer, and as a public servant. Ed Levy became Attorney General in the throes of Watergate. It was 1975, and the Watergate scandals had thrown institutions fundamental to our democracy into chaos. Norms and traditions were upended by the actions of a president and those who served with him that did not respect the rule of law. Faith in government, accountability of those in power, credibility of institutions that we rely on for the impartial administration of justice, we're all in question. Our institutions were being tested in ways we hadn't seen before. Ed Levy took the helm at the Department of Justice after the famous Saturday Night Massacre, the resignation of an attorney general and his deputy, and after the firing of the man who was investigating the president. Now Levy is rightly credited with restoring faith in the Justice Department, and its proper role. That of an independent investigator and prosecutor free of political influence. He did so, by among other things, establishing a set of guidelines to govern the most sensitive investigations in keeping them free of politics. He is said to be the model of the modern attorney general, because of two fundamental things. He believed deeply in the separation of powers, and the independence of law enforcement from politics. Now the first is, of course, enshrined in our constitution, but the second is largely a function of customs that have grown up over time to ensure faith in institutions that we rely on to enforce and uphold the laws. Levy understood that these customs require custodians. He understood that the institutions entrusted with great powers must be guided by norms that check those powers, and ensure public servants who are temporarily entrusted with power are held accountable for how they exercise it. This understanding allowed Levy to reverse a crisis of legitimacy in Washington by restoring the public's faith in an institution, and belief in the rule of law. Now I begin with this reference to Ed Levy, because he exemplifies the role the lawyer has in upholding norms and institutions at a time of crisis and change. The world you enter, when you cross the midway today, holds tremendous challenges. Whether in public service, or wherever you decide to apply your talents, you'll be called upon to confront hard questions. You'll have the opportunity, and I believe the responsibility, to navigate those questions while following practices that can make a difference between merely advising on what is allowed, and doing what is wise. So today I want to share a few observations from my time at tables in government. I want to make the case to you that the skills you leave with today are necessary, but not sufficient, to enable you to confront hard questions. I hope to persuade you that no one can teach you the craft of being a lawyer better than the University of Chicago. But you will also need to bring to it your own framework, that extends beyond that craft, to navigate a complex world, and to act as the custodians we need today, and will in the future. We are experiencing some of the most complex challenges in our nation's history. Now this might sound like commencement hyperbole to you, or maybe not. Only time will tell, and you will help us decide. The forces of globalization, technological evolution, proliferation of powers that defy traditional structures, whether it's ISIS, an increasingly assertive Russia, a new microbe, or artificial intelligence, the problems you face today make me convinced that Tom Friedman has it right when he says, we are living in an age of acceleration. The problems you face today will challenge the very conceptions we have now of privacy and security, of the law of nations, and the international order the United States has led since World War II, of science and inequality. It's a complicated picture, but it's also one that is filled with tremendous opportunity for you. My prediction is that in the not too distant future, one of you will counsel a client on intellectual property of a vaccine for the next disease. One of you will advise on issues of digital sovereignty that are confronting a start-up that another one of you will have started up. One of you will try to figure out how a system of laws, designed with human agency in mind, should apply when machines are the ones that are learning, and are guided by artificial intelligence. One of you will wrestle with the responsibilities and opportunities inherent in a world in which huge volumes of data can be collected, analyzed, digested, and used for good or for ill. And all of you will think about the social compact enshrined in our constitution, and when our governments responsibility to protect us may or may not yield to the belief that you, alone, should have access to your data. There will be questions that the law doesn't answer, and that's where you'll need to go beyond the ability to slice and dice a case, or a Supreme Court text. You'll need to go beyond that and to exercise judgment. So what do I mean? The law doesn't always provide pat solutions, you know this. The Constitution itself is full of open-ended dictates. Searches and seizures must be reasonable, individuals are entitled to all the process that is due. The president must take care to faithfully execute the laws. And in international law, we don't even have a Congress or a Supreme Court to settle the question of whether a cyber operation violates another country's sovereignty, or constitutes the use of force. To answer these questions, it's essential to know what the law is. But that's just the first step. You'll also need to know how to handle the unresolved issues and navigate the gray. When should you read the existing law in a way that government deems is necessary? When should you not? Lawyers don't answer these questions by themselves, a lot of times it's the client that gets to make the call. But you'll be forced to think through these issues. What are the ethical and moral implications? Is it consistent with our nation's values, and who we are? What precedent will you be setting that others might follow? Your clients will be looking not only for your legal acumen, you've got that, they'll be looking for your good judgment, and a sense of responsibility that is much more rare, and harder to define. Society will need those who can navigate the gray space. Those who, like Ed Levi, respect and uphold practices, norms, and institutions, that while not written into law, are the connective tissue that keep the rest of our rule of law muscles strong. Now I am purposely drawing a distinction here, between that which we prescribe in law, and that which we adopt as a custom, or practice, or a model for our behavior. Because what's allowed is not the same as what's wise. It's important for a lawyer to make clear when she's providing legal advice, but there will be moments when it would be a grave mistake for her only to provide such advice. Let me give you an example. The Constitution clearly gives the president a role in law enforcement, he's the head of the executive branch, he has the power of the pardon. But as time has shown us, it's vitally important that the government's power to deprive persons of liberty be divorced from partisan politics, and be done without fear or favor. That's why it's important to have practices, like the Levi Guidelines. Another example might be how the government handles transparency. There's a body of law that dictates when the executive branch must make information public, but even when there's no law requiring it, transparency about what is being done in the people's name is important for the credibility of government actions, for confidence in its operations, and accountability of those elected and appointed to serve. Some measure of transparency may be the difference between public confidence and public cynicism. And when it comes to national security, this norm of transparency may well yield to legitimate concerns about security and safety. But the lawyers and the policymakers are going to have to be the ones who strike that balance. There will come a time when your ability to both practice the craft you've been taught and navigate the gray will have nothing to do with your LSATs, the clerkship you got, your grades, and everything to do with your credibility and integrity, just as our confidence in government's judgments rests on how credible the actors and institutions are that are making those judgments. This is particularly true when you can't say everything about what you're doing. There are times when I found myself in exactly that space. The terrorism operation that couldn't be fully explained, the intelligence tools, whose efficacy was only as good as the secrecy surrounding them. In these times, the process used to reach a decision is critical. We're all the key players with different points of view in the room. Were the subject matter experts relied on, or were they marginalized? These are the questions that dictate when a decision has integrity. When I was at the Justice Department and on the National Security Council, I was conscious of being part of a strong tradition of professionals who viewed themselves and believed deeply in their role as stewards of an institution where process mattered. These are examples from my government service, but regardless of your path, you'll be looked to not only to answer the narrow question of what's allowed, but to be custodians of institutions that enable us to also get it right. And you'll need more than raw, legal horsepower. That's why I said at the outset that there's more work. You'll need a framework to help you transcend the tactical. Before I close, let me ask you to consider the following. Imagine you are seated at a table in your future life. That table could be anywhere, a boardroom, a court room, your kitchen table, or the table in the White House Situation Room. You'll be well-equipped to answer the tactical issue at hand to determine what's allowed, to assess the risks, to guide your client on how the legal rules apply. But the questions that will prove the most challenging will require you to look beyond these issues. The framework you'll need at this future table might include questions that you ask when you're confronted with an issue that doesn't accommodate black or white as easily as it fits itself into a shade of gray. The first question your professors will be happy to know should be, is it legal? Now you're taught here to weigh risks, and costs, and benefits, I suggest to you that the cost in malpractice fees of not making this your first question, may well be substantial. But if I leave you with nothing else today, please don't let this be the only question you ask yourself. In the Situation Room, we always started with the question of whether the options we were considering were lawful. But no matter what the issue, intervention in Syria, elsewhere in the world, disruption of a terrorist attack or cyber aggression. Knowing what the law says was almost always just the threshold question, not the end of the inquiry. While you're seated at this table, imagine that the questions are continuing to come at you. The stakes are exceptionally high, the time is exceedingly short. This is when you'll need to reach for your framework. In the Situation Room you might confront the following question, are we or our allies facing an imminent threat? Is the force being contemplated to disrupt that threat necessary and appropriate? The question comes to you, do facts exist to justify the path the group is leaning toward? You ask yourself, do they? Another way to put this is, and another question you might ask is, is the exercise I'm engaged in lazy? Is there rigor attached to it? What do the experts say? Are they involved? Were considerations afoot that somehow left them out of the room, along with dissenting voices? Are other voices trying to drown out those who just don't get it? Do the arguments in favor seem to be leaning too heavily on expediency and urgency? Well, you look back and say the decision was reached through a process with integrity? And even if the result isn't perfect, will it be more legitimate because of the questions you asked? Another question familiar to anyone now will be, is there precedent for the path you're choosing? Here in this imaginary room, at this future table, precedent should not be a straight jacket, but it should be a blinking yellow light, cautioning you to avoid the result that is backed into. Some of you may be thinking that I've spent my time telling you today to consider issues outside the law, to supplant hard analysis for values that divert you from a lawyer's expertise. That's not in your client's interest, you may say. That's the cardinal sin of a lawyer. That's not my intent. I would argue that the ability to counsel a client about issues beyond the law, such that you can convince them that even if the law says yes, the right answer may be no. That's the hallmark of a good lawyer. Lawyers, particularly in public service, will confront decisions that are of such moment that as Janet Reno used to say, you'll be damned if you do, damned if you don't, so you might as well do the right thing. Well, the right thing can be hard to discern, but the framework that you operate with will provide the ballast you need to navigate, both what's allowed and what is wise. The story goes that when Ed Levi met with President Ford to discuss becoming attorney general, Ford asked him what he thought the Justice Department needed. Levi is said to have answered, "A soul." As you go forth from here with skills that will allow you to answer any hard legal question, I wish for you the joy and the privilege of exercising a unique responsibility, to provide the soul we all need to navigate the world ahead. Congratulations. [APPLAUSE] THOMAS J. MILES: Thank you, Miss Monaco. It's now my pleasure to introduce our faculty speaker, Professor Richard McAdams. Many of you, in the class of 2017, need no introduction of Professor McAdams. Before our guest, I will tell you a bit about him. Professor McAdams is one of the nation's leading experts in criminal law and criminal procedure. He obtained his law degree from the University of Virginia, and clerked for the then Chief Judge, Harold Winter, of the 4th circuit. He then practiced law in Philadelphia. He then launched a stellar academic career, serving on the faculties of Boston University, the University of Illinois, and Chicago Kent, before joining our faculty in 2007. Professor McAdams is a prolific scholar. He writes extensively on criminal law and criminal procedure. He is one of the leading writers in the area of law, and social norms, and the expressive theory of law. His scholarship is intensely interdisciplinary, often borrowing concepts from economics and social psychology to illuminate the conduct of actors within the criminal justice system, such as the behavior of police. In recent years, he has taken an interest in law and literature, and has written on topics such as Othello and the law of complicity. Professor McAdams is also an exemplary teacher, as many of our graduates know. I looked at his teaching evaluations and I will just pull out one quote from a student that I think summarizes it aptly. "Professor McAdams is awesome." Enough said? Yes, enough said. Please join me in welcoming Professor McAdams. [APPLAUSE] RICHARD MCADAMS: Has it really been less than three years since we put the JD class on a bus to Naperville, to have you do trust falls and a rope course? I want to thank everybody who is here today to celebrate this remarkable class. It's an honor and a privilege to be part of this great day. I thank my dean, the wise Tom Miles, for his kind introduction. I thank my fellow speaker Lisa Monaco, who has spent her public service career working tirelessly and in some very demanding and important jobs. I must confess that I'm a bit envious of Miss Monaco, the president called her Dr. Doom. I've always wanted Dean Miles to call me Professor Doom. Perhaps after this speech. You earned your law degree during a momentous period for the law school and the nation. You enjoyed the exceptional leadership of not one, but three deans. Mike Schill, Geoff Stone, and Tom Miles. The speakers that this class welcomed to the law school included President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan, and 1985 Chicago classmates Senator Amy Klobuchar, and former FBI Director James Comey. You began law school in the midst of a controversial series of police shootings, you leave during a momentous and unusual legal investigation into a successful presidential campaign. You were in law school when Justice Antonin Scalia died, and when Justice Neil Gorsuch replaced him. And for that day, last September, when atmospheric CO2 levels, at their seasonal low, exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. Well, some might quibble with my examples, but I don't think anyone will disagree with the general point that there was a lot going on in the world while you were studying to become lawyers. Zora Neale Hurston once wrote, there are years that ask questions, and years that answer. She was not talking about law school, but what graduate would deny that the years of law school ask a great many questions? Yours, more than most. It is the next few years and decades, in which all of us will find or make some of the answers. I take comfort that we are sending the classes of 2017 out into the world. I have enjoyed your high irreverence, underneath I see dedication and brilliance, and it gives me faith and optimism for the future. Soon you'll be concerned with the consequential and pressing tasks of mastering your first job, and paying off student loans. But today I want to spend a few minutes discussing how you might use your law degree to answer some of the broader questions we face. You've already shown your commitment to causes broader than yourself. That's why many of you came to law school, why this class tallied over 10,000 hours of pro bono service. I just want to say something about the how, how lawyers can serve the public interest. And I want to do that by reminding you of three exemplary Chicago law graduates, a professor, a corporate lawyer, and a politician. And their years of the past may help answer your questions of the future. The professor was Sophonsiba Breckinridge, born 151 years ago in Kentucky. Her father and brother were lawyers, but they resisted her efforts to study law. No woman had ever been a lawyer in that state. Nevertheless, she persisted. Studied in her father's office, and passed the oral exam. She joined the bar by swearing, as all Kentucky lawyers did, that she had quote, "never fought a duel with deadly weapons." The obstacles to her practicing law remained, she moved around them by coming to the University of Chicago, where she earned a PhD in political science and economics, then one field. Despite graduating summa cum laude, she received no offers to teach. Yet she kept going. She entered law school, and became a member of our first graduating class of 1904. Persistence rewarded, she received an academic job at the University of Chicago Department of Household Administration. That began an extraordinary career. Breckenridge and a few others essentially created the professional and academic fields of social work. She introduced the case method, borrowed from her study of law. Her work on poverty, immigration, juvenile justice, and women's suffrage was heavily influenced by her legal training. She became the first woman a president ever sent to represent the United States at an international conference. Her life exemplifies persistence. Breckenridge once wrote, quote, "If the progress seems often incredibly, unendurably slow, the social worker must pray the prayer of the poet to be filled with the passion of patience. The same is true of the lawyer. For the causes that matter to you, when the progress is unendurably slow, and interrupted by setbacks, we need a passionate patience, the willingness to engage for the long haul." Persistence also defines the corporate lawyer, Earl Dickerson. His journey started in Mississippi, the grandson of slaves. At age 15, his mother put him on a train to Chicago. They did not have enough money for the whole trip, so when his ticketed destination came and went, he became a stowaway. With the help of porters, he hid from the conductor, spending hours by the coal bin and in the baggage car sitting on a casket. Years later, Dickerson explained his arrival. Quote, "I left the desperate life of a black person in feudal Mississippi. I fled, clothed with little else than a burning to sense of outrage and a driving resolve, cradled in the Declaration of Independence, not to be bullied, browbeaten, or held hostage ever again." He started law school here in 1915, he did extremely well. When the US entered the First World War, Dickerson volunteered and went to France as a Second Lieutenant. Whereas French fluency allowed him to work as an interpreter, he also saw plenty of combat. After the war, he returned to Chicago and finished his law degree. The law school's first dean, Ernst Freund, a mentor of Sophonsiba Breckinridge, wrote letters recommending Dickerson to three major law firms in Chicago. But none were willing to hire their first African-American lawyer. So Dickerson opened his own law office. An early client was Liberty Life Insurance, he would eventually become president of the firm. In 1937, when he was general counsel, he convinced the company to make a loan to Carl Hansberry to buy property in Hyde Park, notwithstanding the consequent violation of a racially restrictive covenant. When Illinois courts would not listen to his challenges to the covenant, Dickerson took the case to the US Supreme Court, argued it, and won a unanimous decision. The lawsuit is but one example of Dickerson's lifelong commitment to civil rights. He never lost his outrage at injustice. He wound up serving on FDR's fair employment practices committee, he served terms as president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the National Bar Association, and on the National Board of the NAACP. When he was 72 years old, he was part of the 1963 March on Washington, and was on the stage when Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. Dickerson never saw an either/or choice between working as a corporate lawyer and working to reshape the world. With great persistence, he did both. My final story is about a politician, Abner Mikva. Now some of you may have met him when he delivered the Benton lecture during your first year here. He passed away last summer at the age of 90, after an exemplary life of public service. Mikva served at a high level in all three branches of the federal government, in Congress, for the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit, and as White House counsel. His beginnings were more humble. The child of Jewish immigrants during the Depression, he attended college on the GI Bill. In law school, Mikva was successful, became editor in chief of the law review. A story, one day the Chicago dean passed onto him a letter from the dean of the Harvard Law School, advertising the Harvard Law Review for students whose law school did not have a journal. Mikva's reply to the Harvard dean is something I'd like to think one of you might have written. Quote "Thank you for your generous offer, but the University of Chicago has a law review of its own. But your proposal raises an interesting possibility. Perhaps we should merge our two law reviews, there might be a problem about the name, so I suggest a simple solution. We use the first half of our name and the second half of yours, hence the new journal would be known as the University of Chicago Law Review. [LAUGHTER] In law school, Mikva was interested in political campaigns. One night he stopped by his ward headquarters and said, I'd like to volunteer. As Mikva told the story, quote, "A quintessential Chicago committee man took the cigar out of his mouth, and glared at me, and said who sent you? I said nobody sent me. He put the cigar back in his mouth, and he said, we don't want nobody that nobody sent." This was the beginning of Mikva's political career, and a classic line in Chicago political lore. Starting in the statehouse, he then won a congressional district, containing Hyde Park where he lived. But because Mikva was a Democrat, outside of the democratic machine, he saw his district gerrymandered in a way that made reelection impossible. And this is how many promising political careers end, but Mikva was persistent. He moved. He moved from Hyde Park to Evanston to run in a different district, and he lost. But he ran again, and he won. And then he was re-elected two more times, left Congress only to become a judge, left the bench to become White House counsel for President Bill Clinton during some busy times. After that, he returned to Chicago, and taught here for several years, serving as Senior Director of the Mandel Clinic to great acclaim from his students. His commitment to public service is reflected in an organization he created, the Mikva Challenge, a vital force in civics education in public schools, encouraging students to engage democracy as by serving as poll watchers or campaign staffers. President Obama recounted last summer, Ab believed in empowering the next generation of young people to shape our country. Like many of you, Mikva started out in a very good law firm, but his career shows many other ways that a lawyer can contribute to the greater good. All three graduates contributed to causes larger than themselves. They illustrate how many different careers are possible with your law degree. I hope their different paths are an inspiration to you, whatever path you choose for yourself. Also, their persistence. They knew that the years that answer may come only after lifelong struggle. I'm excited to see what answers the class of 2017 will provide. Yet as I have gotten to know many of you, I'm also sad to see you leave. You will visit often, I hope. As another writer once said, "the pain of parting is nothing to the joy of meeting again." Thank you. [APPLAUSE] THOMAS J. MILES: Thank you, Professor Doom-- I mean, Professor McAdams. We will now proceed to the conferral of degrees, and the hooding of the graduates. RICHARD I. BADGER: Dean Miles, it is my honor to present these students who have completed the program of studies prescribed by the faculty of the law school. They have been awarded the degree of Master of Laws by the Board of Trustees. THOMAS J. MILES: I congratulate these graduates on the successful completion of a program of advance study of the law school, culminating in the degree, Master of Laws. RICHARD I. BADGER: Will the graduates please come forward to receive your diploma, and then your academic hood, as I call your name. Walter William [? Andonionse. ?] Pieter Alliet. Isabel Arantes Diniz Junqueria. Xiao Bai. Beatriz Sampaio Barros. Ingo Mattias Berner. Lydia Bitsakou. Felipe Borges Lacerda Loiola. Pedro W Buchanan. Karina Cancellaro Azevedo. Fernando Castillo Villalpando. Deep Choudhuri. Omar Colome Mendez. Pedro Cordelli Alves. Laurent Cousinou. Rodrigo de Almeida Manso Vieira. Audrey Deborah Durand. Hugo Samuel William Farmer. Elliott Fosserpez. Shahar Gonen. Arturo Ernesto Griffin [? Valdivieso. ?] Ilayda Gunes. Bilei He. Shoichi Hikami. Hao-Ling Hung. Marcel Jakob. Vitor Luis [INAUDIBLE] Jorge. Thiajo Braga Junquiera. Theresa Thomas Kalathil. Naoko Kawabata. Christian Kolb. Andrew [? Dontago ?] Farrad Constant. Luis Antonio La Rose Airaldi. James Michael [INAUDIBLE] Leung. Martin Lodeon. Summer Massad. Maria Mondeja Yudina. Guilherme [INAUDIBLE] Margulis. Amrita Mukherjee. Gustavo R. Nicolau. Yali Peng. Natalia Lucia Pichon Hernandez. Juau Manuel Poggio Aguerre. Piyush Prasad. Bruna Eduardo Rey. Humberto Enrique Romero-Carrillo. Joao Gustavo Santiago. Ziv Schwartz. Shubhangi. Bakhtawar-Bilal Soofi. Hirokai Sugiyama. Hongru Sun. Kamolnich Swasdiphanich. Miao Tang. Sachiko Tangiuchi. Odysseas Theofanis. Santiago Tinoco Martinez. Luis Marcelo Torales [? Ovilo. ?] Laura Simone Tscherrig. Dusan Valent. Nills van Den Broecke. Joost van Rossum. Gilda Velazquez-Mason. Alberto Maria Vergara Puccini. [INAUDIBLE] [? Jincheng ?] Yang. Julius Shi-Rong Yam. Jincheng Yang. Khun Yang. Junqi Zhang. Xiaoyu Zhang. Congratulations to the LLM class of 2017. [APPLAUSE] Dean Miles, the student I now present has attained scholarly distinction in advanced studies, and has prepared a dissertation, which contributes to knowledge in a particular field of research. On behalf of the faculty of the law school, I have the honor to present the recipient of the degree of Doctor of Jurisprudence, as conferred by the Board of Trustees. THOMAS J. MILES: I congratulate this graduate on the successful completion of a program of advanced study in the law school, culminating in the degree, Doctor of Jurisprudence. RICHARD I. BADGER: Will the graduate please come forward to receive your diploma, and then your academic hood, as I call your name. Vera Shikhelman. [APPLAUSE] Congratulations to the JSD graduate of 2017. [APPLAUSE] SHANNON B. BARTLETT: Dean Miles, it is my honor to present these students who have fulfilled all of the requirements prescribed by the faculty of the law school to qualify them for the profession of law. They have been awarded the degree of Doctor of Law by the Board of Trustees. THOMAS J. MILES: I congratulate these graduates on the successful completion of a program of advanced study in the law school, culminating in the degree, Doctor of Law. SHANNON B. BARTLETT: Will the graduates please come forward to receive your diploma, and then your academic hood, as I call your name. Adedola O. Adeyosoye. [APPLAUSE] Michael P. Alcan. Hayley L. Altabef. Hayley will be hooded by her father, Peter Altabef, law school class of 1983. Gabriela Eva Alvarez. Omar N. Ammash. Lance L. Arberry. Shantel Haruko Asada. Mitchell T. Athey. Justin Anthony Avellar. Nina Bakhtina. Amy N. Barber. Russell E. Barnwell Kaitlin Danielle Beck. Christina Claire Bell. William G. Blakely. Claire Celeste Bonelli. Timothy Scott Breems, Jr. Michael B. Brightman. Nicole M. Briody. Lauren Anne Capobianco. Nicholas Alexander Cast. Amy S. Chen. Huiyi Chen. Shannon Cheng. Theo M. Chenier III. Young-Min Cho. Elizabeth K. Clarke. Ian L. Cohen. Thomas H. Collier. Philip M. Cooper. Dylan Thomas Cowart. Robert Joseph Crawford, II. Peter J. Dalmasy [? Kunhardt. ?] Adam Amani Davidson. William Bernard Decker, III. Richard Roberto Deulofeut-Manzur. Carmel Inas Dooling. Noah B. Driggs. Joshua W. Eastby. Charles C. Eaton, II. Aria [INAUDIBLE] Eckersley. Joseph Abraham Egozi. Philip [? Pomeranz ?] Ehrlich. Luke Charles Elder. Sky A. Emison. Nathan Ezra Enfield. Zachary J. Esposito. Max Leo Fin. Katherine B. Fishbein. Samuel P. Fleuter. Craig Alexander Fligor. Jordan Michael Fossee. Kali Hypatia Frampton. Cole R. Francis. Lisa D. Frasco. Jason R. Freck. Conor Scott Gilligan. Jeongu Gim. Annie Marie Gowen. Victoria Christine Grant. Kristoffer Agner Gredsted. Kristoffer will be hooded by his spouse, Monica Norzagary Gary Pedraza. Law school class of 2014. Maury Jacob Greenberg. Maury will be hooded by his uncle, David Greenberg. Law school class of 1981. Andrew Scott Gregory. Jacob Aaron Grossman. David Eric Grothouse. Jennifer I. Gullotti. Lindsay Gus. Julia Haines. Devra [INAUDIBLE] Hake. Ryan Isaac Halimi. Jonathan Patrick Hawley. Peter Jonathan Hegel. Scott Harriman Henney. Scott will be hooded by his spouse, Revan Henney, law school class of 2016. Marc Justin Hershberg. Emily Beth Hoffman. Kelly C. Holt. Drew Michael Horwood. Corbin D. Houston. Thomas R. Howland. Jason L. Hofendick. Sae-Jan Hwang. Vito Iaia. Vera M. Iwankiw. Vishal Iyer. Mary E. Jardine. Shiva Jayaraman. Sten Jernudd. Sten will be hooded by his aunt, Sigrid Jernudd, law school class of 2012. Jasmine Karen Johnson. Stuart Reeves Jordan. Anna Michaela Kabat. William Kalas. Julia Kerr. Elizabeth Ashley Keirnan. James A. Kilcup. Charlene Kim. Matthew A. Klomparens. Shelby L. Klose. Mark A. Kunzman. Matthew E. Ladew. Curie Lee. Seo-Young Lee. William Scott Leonard. Zachary David Levine. Eric Benjamin Lewin. Allen [INAUDIBLE] Li. Jingjing Lin. Nicholas Grant Linke. Hannah Ming Yi Loo. Taylor Christian Lopez. Nathaniel R. Ludewig. Andrew Reed Mackie-Mason. Trevor Sean Mann-Ohalloran. Gregory E. Marchesini. Samantha Elizabeth Marcy. Lee N. Mason. Patrick J. Maxwell. Amanda J. Mayo. Megan Lee McCreadie. Ndjuoh Mehchu. Katherine J. Miller. Jason Peter Mongillo. Benjamin R. Montague. Micah L. Moore. Sharon K. Moraes. Adam Motiwala. Ellen [INAUDIBLE] Murphy. Holly Elizabeth Newell. Amanda Ng. Neha Nigam. Aisha [? Mahavesh ?] Noor. Margaret C. O'Connor. James Nicola Oliveto, III. Josephine [INAUDIBLE] Oshiafi. Steven Andrew Page. Beth Erin Palmer. Kyle Kwame Panton. Albert N. Parisi-Esteves. Grace E. Park. Andrew D. Parker. Kashan [INAUDIBLE] Pathan. Alexander Michael Pechette. Alexa K. Perez. Jared A. Petermeyer. Stacey Elizabeth Petrek. Joshua Michael Phillips. Joshua Bennett Pickar. Fara N. Pizzo. Maya Elise Powe. Zeshawn Qadir. Sudhir [INAUDIBLE] Rao. Richard W Redmond. Alejandro D. Rettig Y Martinez. Lisa Marie Richards. Ryan J. Rivera. Alexander K. Robinson. Elizabeth Diane Roque. Taylor S. Rothman. Andrea J. Ruiz. Daniel J. Ruvolo. Matthew L. Saathoff. Emily Elizabeth Samra. Ryan Jacob Scarcella. Stephen Alexander [? Schwier. ?] Allison Abra Schneider. Joseph C. Schomberg. Daniel James Scime. Alexandra Jean Scott. Antonio Agosto Passo Senra. Noorjit Singh Sidhu. Kirby M. Smith. Nicholas William Smith. Woosung Son. Lindsay Sarah Stone. Miranda Rose Stuart. Laura Ashley Supple. Madeline Dover Swan. Derrik Wayne Sweeney. Tammy Tarboush. Roee Talmor. Naira Florencia Testai. Ruth Sarah Thomson. Ruth will be hooded by Jonathan Dean, law school class of 1970. Michael Trajkovich. Bridget Maureen Tully. Margo Uhrman. Fabiola Teresa Valenzuela. Jose Manuel Valle. Taylor Nicole Votek. Lauren Jean Walas. Hannah R. Waldman. Alexandra R. Waleko. Jacob L. Walley. Evan D. Walters. Kevin X. Wang. Amanda Watts. Joseph Liam Wenner. John Marshall Wilson. Joshua T. Wilson. Adam G. Woofinden. Regina M. Wood. You-You Yang. Sai Yarramalla. Vaishalee Vivek Yeldandi. Mary Sung Min Yoo. Zachary Z Zermay. Yuji Jimmie Zhang. Tianya Zhong. Hangcheng Zhou. Congratulations to the JD class of 2017. [APPLAUSE] THOMAS J. MILES: This concludes our 19th annual diploma and hooding ceremony. Now it's often said that lawyers like three part tests. Here's your three part test. First, allow the party and the graduates to process out of the chapel first. Second, another unit of the university will be coming in shortly after us for their graduation ceremony, so please do not linger in the chapel, and please don't linger in front of the chapel. Third, please join us all at the law school for reception with our graduates. Congratulations again. [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC PLAYING] [APPLAUSE]


Emily Howland was born at Sherwood, Cayuga County, New York,[2] on November 20, 1827.[2] She was the daughter of Slocum and Hannah Tallcot Howland, who were prominent in the Society of Friends.[2] She was educated in small private schools in the community, and the Margaret Robinson School, a Friends school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[3]


An active abolitionist, Howland taught at Normal School for Colored Girls in Washington, D.C. from 1857 to 1859. During the Civil War she worked at the contraband refugee settlement of Camp Todd in Arlington, Virginia, teaching freed slaves to read and write as well as administering to the sick during a smallpox outbreak and ultimately serving as director of the camp during 1864-1866.[3]

Beginning in 1867, she started a community for freed people in Heathsville, Northumberland County, Virginia, called Arcadia, on 400 acres purchased by her father, including a school for the education of children of freed slaves, the Howland Chapel School.[4][5] She continued to maintain an active interest in African-American education, donating money and materials as well as visiting and corresponding with administrators at many schools.[5]

Returning to Sherwood NY after her father's death in 1881, she ran the Sherwood Select School until 1926 when it became a public school and was renamed the Emily Howland Elementary School by the state of New York.[5]

Howland became one of the first female directors of a national bank in the United States, at the Aurora National Bank in Aurora, New York in 1890,[6] serving until her death, at age 101.

Howland was also active in women's suffrage, peace, and temperance movements and was a member of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. When the suffrage movement split into two groups, the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association, Howland did not take sides, but attended meetings of both groups.[7] She has been credited with persuading Ezra Cornell that, as a Quaker, he should make Cornell University a coeducational institution.[7]

In 1926 she received an honorary Litt.D. degree from the State University of New York at Albany, the first woman to have this honor conferred upon her from this institution.[5] Her papers are held by several universities, including: Cornell University,[8] Haverford College,[3] and Swarthmore College.[9]

She was also the author of an historical sketch of early Quaker history in Cayuga County, NY: Historical Sketch of Friends in Cayuga County.[10]


  1. ^ Locke, Mamie E. (February 2000). "Emily Howland". American National Biography Online. Retrieved 2 March 2017.
  2. ^ a b c "Obituaries". The Quarterly Journal of the New York State Historical Association. 10: 346–348. October 1929. JSTOR 43565516.
  3. ^ a b c "Finding Aid for the EMILY HOWLAND PAPERS,1926-1975 (Haverford College Library Special Collections)". Retrieved March 10, 2018.
  4. ^ Jeffrey M. O'Dell and Carolyn E. Jett (June 1989). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Howland Chapel School" (PDF). Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
  5. ^ a b c d "United States Department of the Interior OMB No. 1024-0018, National Park Service. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.CONTINUATION SHEET. Section 8: Significance. (Property Sherwood Equal Rights Historic District. Location Cayuga County, New York)" (PDF). Retrieved March 10, 2018.
  6. ^ "Woman of the Century: Fourteen Hundred-seventy Biographical Sketches Accompanied by Portraits of Leading American Women in All Walks of Life (Moulton, 1893)". Retrieved March 10, 2018.
  7. ^ a b Hope., Bacon, Margaret (1989). Mothers of feminism : the story of Quaker women in America (c1986) (1st paperback Harper & Row ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row. ISBN 0062500465. OCLC 21550452.
  8. ^ "Emily Howland Papers,1797-1938. Collection No.2681 (Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections Cornell University Library)". Retrieved March 10, 2018.
  9. ^ "An Inventory of the Emily Howland Family Papers, 1763-1929 (Friends Historical Library of Swarthmore College)". Retrieved March 10, 2018.
  10. ^ Judith Colucci Breault (1981). The Odyssey of a Humanitarian: Emily Howland, 1827-1929. Ayer Publishing. ISBN 0-405-14076-2.
This page was last edited on 17 January 2019, at 02:05
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.