Save Summer PI Funding for 2Ls

We, the undersigned, come to you out of concern regarding the potential reduction in the summer public interest grant for second year students. As the Levin Center can no longer guarantee 2L summer funding at the $10,000 level, we write to ask you to use law school funds to assist the Levin Center in this time of need. Stanfords offer of $10,000 in funding for our second summer, for many of us, tipped the balance in favor of coming here. Reneging on that offer hurts us after it is too late to vote with our feet, and so we stand together in protest.

We understand that the law school is not solely responsible for this problem: SLS draws on Stanford University's work study program to fund public interest work. The university has reduced this pool of money, precipitating the reduction in public interest funding for 2Ls. While the exact amount that will be available this summer has yet to be determined, the Levin Center anticipates a fifty percent cut in funding, barring an unexpected windfall. News of this cutback has been devastating to some of us, causing us to question Stanfords other promises of funding, and to seriously reconsider the viability of a public interest career.

This situation is untenable. Regardless of the law schools role in creating the problem, it can play a significant role in its solution.

The 50\% cut in summer funding for 2Ls runs contrary to the principles, espoused by Stanford Law School, that compelled us to select this school above all others. It also puts the credibility of SLS at stake. During Admitted Students Weekend in 2008, as we weighed the benefits of each school, SLS repeatedly stressed the strength of its support structure for public interest work, touting the advantages of attending Stanford over all other institutions. Indeed, in comparison with its peer institutions, SLS promised better support for gaining the necessary track record and network to pursue a public interest career by virtue of its generous funding for summer public interest work in the second year. The guarantee of a specific and announced amount of summer funding was an important part of the delicate calculus that pushed us towards choosing this school. In particular, the relatively low amount of funding that SLS offered for the first year ($5,000, as opposed to $6,000 offered by competing schools) was offset by doubling this funding for the second year. For many of us, this advantage compensated for other public interest support that SLS does not provide at the same level: a deep and broad network of public interest alumni, post-graduate public interest fellowships and reductions in tuition for students committed to public interest careers.

After our arrival at SLS, we found an environment that confirmed those impressions, at least initially. With words, you have provided endless support for the pursuit of public interest at Stanford, urging us to pursue our dreams, even in the face of an economic crisis unprecedented in our lifetimes:

Every choice you make involves trade-offs, but the most important one should start with a job that genuinely interests you and advances your personal career goals. It would have been better had something other than an economic downturn forced a change, but this change is good in and of itself. Now is the time to think hard about what kind of career you want, while you are still in school and can prepare and get our help. (On the Upcoming Job Season, open letter from Dean Kramer to the student body of SLS, July 1, 2009.)

We have taken your advice to heart. We remain committed to providing legal support for the needy, even in these uncertain times.

In the spirit of discussing trade-offs, however, we beseech you to appreciate the consequences of reducing funding for public interest work. Those of us electing a public interest position for the second consecutive year continue to choose service over considerable monetary gain, a particularly hard choice in these tough economic times. For those of us committed to service, the reduction in funding forces us to choose between working for social justice and working to pay the bills. For the luckiest, the difference between $10,000 and $5,000 means the difference between choosing a job based on the opportunities it provides to expand our network and build our careers, and choosing based on where the cost of living will be lowest. For those considering, but not yet committed to, public service, the $10,000 stipend provides a plausible alternative to the $30,000 salary of a private firm, while the $5,000 provides an extremely tight budget, which is a significant disincentive to exploring the public interest path. For the rest, the difference between $10,000 and $5,000 means the difference between choosing a job in the public interest and abandoning that path at a crucial time for developing the resources necessary for public interest career development. The second summer is different than the first year summer. We are cultivating job offers, determining where we will be following law school, and geographic decisions based on these choices severely undermines this process. Due to the structure of the public interest funding, this choice between $5,000 and $10,000 is absolute: we cannot take a second job during the summer to supplement our inadequate income, we can only rely on the charity of private loan companies or of relatives who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Jobs in the public interest are the most difficult to find, and are the most dependant on summer experience to foster contacts and resources. Especially in this economy, the students choosing to pursue a second consecutive summer in public interest are those most devoted to this path. Limiting our options for the second summer severely limits the options available for the early part of our careers. As SLS works steadily to improve its strength and reputation in the public interest field, it is crucial to maintain support for these key areas in the development of public interest careers.

We know that there are some possibilities for student self-support. Recently, the idea of fundraising to benefit public interest students has been suggested; for example, students at law firms can choose to donate a portion of their summer salary to the others in less lucrative positions. We believe, however, that this specific kind of fundraising puts public interest students in the undesirable position of obtaining hand-outs from their classmates. It is one thing to have the amount of funding for a public interest position guaranteed, and then replenish the funds in a general way (this is the SPILF model as we know it); but it is quite another matter to have a publicly known group of students receive funding that is dependent upon another student's charity.

Furthermore, individual charity should not be used to replace institutional responsibility. We take great pride in your position as the only law school dean on the Board of Directors of Equal Justice Works, but we worry when your decisions regarding Stanford set it markedly behind other schools in its support for public interest. As you emphasized in your summer letter, the recession is not the time to back away from our dreams; rather, it is the time to look to the future, to reconfirm our passion for public interest, and to recommit to the reasons why we came to law school. Public interest is our future, social justice is our passion, and support for this choice is the reason we came to SLS. Please do not add to the barriers we face by leaving our fate to the fluctuations of the Universitys annual work study budget.

The students who have signed below represent not only public interest, but all career paths available to SLS students. We sign together in solidarity to affirm our commitment to SLSs continuing leadership among the nations law schools in supporting public interest careers.