University of Hawaii Law School, Class of 1976

The courses and classes we had between 1973 and 1976 seemingly kept us 95% "fully busy". They also were sources of both positive and negative engagement with the Dean and faculty. This chapter explains the other 5% - which also had its pros and cons. Topics included are:

The Committees

The Grading System

The Revolving Deans

The Newsletters

The Facilities & the A.B.A.

Why a Law School?

Long before the UH Law School opened in 1973, Governor John A. Burns and Chief Justice William S. Richardson identified the need for a law school in Hawaii. See:

"Realizing the Dream and Keeping It Alive - Part I"

"Realizing the Dream and Keeping It Alive - Part II"

Battle of the Sexes

Some of us went to the Kuhio Grill on September 20, 1973 to watch Billie Jean King play against Bobby Riggs. Mimi cheered Billie Jean and the guys scoffed... However, Mimi proved she could pick a winner:

"'Battle of the Sexes' is most famously used for an internationally televised match in 1973 held at the Houston Astrodome between 55-year-old Bobby Riggs and 29-year-old Billie Jean King, which King won in three sets. The match was viewed by an estimated fifty million people in the United States and ninety million worldwide. King's win is considered a milestone in public acceptance of women's tennis."

For many of us, this was likely a first visit to the Kuhio Grill.

The Kuhio Grill

A review from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. February 21, 2014:

"The Kuhio Grill was one of the most unique local eateries in Hawaii’s postwar history. Lunch and early dinner were regular menu fare but as the night wore on the crowd would come in for drinks and were furnished hors d’oeuveres at no cost. As each round of drinks was served. a better pupu was served ... enough to be a full multi-course meaL By the end of the evening, the bill would be for the drinks and a large tip for the food would be expected. The former editor of Honolulu magazine, once said Kuhio Grill was almost like going to a Korean bar, except the waitress was more like your mom, You didn’t buy them drinks, you just left them a good tip to pay for the "free pupus they served you, so that the next time you come, they would served you something good again."

That article also reports that the Kuhio Grill closed in the late '70s, but once we experienced it for the "'Battle of the Sexes', it became a regular weekly gathering place - probably most popular on Wednesday and weekend evenings. Kirin beer was served in sturdy 22 oz. glass bottles; that size was "just right" for the beer I brewed on Sierra Drive.

Sometime during the second and third-year, Allen Hoe, Frank Hayashida and Bob Schmitt would meet at the Kuhio Grill for coffee at 8 am before the first classes. After parking (car or bike) in the Quarry near the law school buildings, we would walk out the back gate, down Varsity Circle and enter the Kuhio Grill through the back door. John Waihee joined us infrequently. Law school, Hawaii and world problems were discussed.

Friday Afternoons

Some say it was Reinhard's idea. No matter, some unsung hero started bringing a can or two of beer around on Friday afternoons. It soon escalated (some say degenerated) and there was a hard core of at least fifteen behaving uncommonly human for law students. "Mens sano non potest vivere in corpore sicco" . The semester went from Friday afternoon to Friday afternoon, and soon it was Frank Hayashida Day.

The beer initially was Olympia and Primo, but Bob (editor and publisher) started to bring his home-brew that originated on Sierra Drive. No ill effects were reported.

Recreation and Entertainment

A very timely movie released on October 16, 1973 was entertaining, but Paper Chase did not do much to explain what we were experiencing in our first year at the UH School of Law. The fictional James Hart was having a tough time at the Harvard Law School, but his nemesis, Prof. Charles W. Kingsfield, had no resemblance to Ben Hopkins and/or David Hood. And where was our Susan? Perhaps it inspired some students to form study groups.

There was a "Lawyer's League" for touch football and our class fielded a team each fall, perhaps first in 1973. The games were played at McKinley HS. As noted on the main page, our law school team won the championship in 1974.

After touch football concluded, our class had a team entered in the Lawyer's League volleyball competition.

"Inner-Tube Water Polo"? UH had intramural competition in this (never-heard of before) sport. The UH aquatic center pool was very close to our quarry classrooms, so we entered the "Official Seals" team. Once and done.

Our only field trip was to the newly-opened Primo brewery. Although Primo dated back to the 19th century, by our time this was its status:

"In 1963, Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company bought Primo and built an 8.8 acre-brewery in 'Aiea (an area just north of Pearl Harbor in Honolulu), which, at its height, was producing 400,000 barrels a year. The brand's popularity was such that in 1966, retailers had to ration sales to two six-packs per customer.

Schlitz closed the 'Aiea plant 1979 and three years later it sold Primo to Stroh Brewery Company and continued declines in sales prompted Stroh to shut down the company in 1997."

The visit was a grand success and the view to Pearl Harbor was as enjoyable as the free samples!

In the summer, our class entered a team in the F.L.A.B. softball league. Games were held at the Mid-Pacific Institute fields which bordered the University of Hawaii campus.  There's no record that we won any championships, but the "UH Alumni" team competed for many years after we graduated. Allen Hoe was the primary organizer.

Bob was probably the only "car guy" in our class. He most often got to the quarry by bike, but also drove a 1963 Saab and a 1965 Porsche. Lloyd Van De Car (Class of 1977) was also a car guy and they swapped stories. In September 1975, Lloyd showed Bob a Star-Bulletin classified ad that offered to sell a 1952 Frazer Nash for $500. Bob & Lloyd saw the car in a loft behind Records Hawaii, 404 Piikoi. Lloyd was not interested but Bob bought it for $500. Terry Yoshinaga and Lloyd helped tow the car to a garage that belonged to Randy Vitousek's parents - up on Round Top Drive. A few months later it was moved to Kailua, then Makiki, then Arizona and finally to New Zealand for restoration. More here!

Study Groups

Whether inspired by the dysfunctional study group in Paper Chase or by classmates at a mainland law school. several study groups were formed and met regularly. Some of us not in a study group would share class notes. Hand-written class notes were reorganized, typed and swapped for similar notes from a different class.

Evaluations

From a 1976 memo: "At the end of the first semester, the law school community, even the faculty at this point, was curious to see how well the program had performed. And having the talents of a notable (or was it notorious?) group psychologist at hand, it was given to Jim Mclntyre to perform an evaluation of the program and myriad of other events of the first semester.

Much was made of this evaluation in mid-February, and considerable time was set aside for the filling out of many forms, profiles, evaluations, racing sheets, food stamp applications, etc. Surely they would serve some useful purpose. As the story goes, most of the forms disappeared into Mclntyre's office for a considerable amount of time, or, if his version is to be believed, "they were sent to be computerized." It is amazing there are so many evils that poor machine gets blamed for!

Other evaluations had been gathered by the Dean, and while students never became privy to their contents, we were assured that "your comments will be used in evaluating teachers and programs." How much they would be used was never made clear, and still isn't. Meanwhile, somewhere between Mclntyre's office and the computer center, the bulk of the evaluations, representing maybe a few hundred student-hours of thought, disappeared into the twilight zone. But never mind, the Law School would continue to press forward with innovation, not checking very carefully where it had been. Not very scientific, eh Ben?' (end of 1976 memo)

Elsewhere on this website it's noted that "evaluations" became a real-time, serious issue. The 1974 Fall semester course, "Social Decision-Making III: American-Decision-Making Institutions" taught by Ted Becker provoked significant student controversy and criticism. A January 31, 1975 memo was sent to Dean Hood with a summary of student opinions of this course . The memo also generally criticized the poor communication about all previous course evaluations. In part, it stated:

7. I am under the impression that it is a policy of the University that all students will critique all their courses. My experience in graduate courses has been that a critique was done in each class on the last day; I cannot say what use has been made of these critiques on the "upper campus", but I do know at least the administrators on the upper campus have been serious about conducting such critiques.

8. It has been my impression, and I have no reason not to believe other students have the same thoughts, that the critique of courses at the Law school has been very disorganized. I can specifically recall, as a former member of the Curriculum Committee, not getting any response on the much ballyhooed "Mclntyre" critique of the first semester and I further recall a grand mix-up during the summer of the second-semester critique.

9. I have never, seen any summary of any of these alleged critiques; I do, however recall a promise of such a summary over a year ago.

10. I am not aware of any direct influence that these critiques have had, other than general assurances that we are "listened to."

11. It is my feeling (and again, this is a representative opinion), that lines of communication between faculty and students are seriously distorted. I would therefore suggest, as a first step, the faculty begin surveying the students on a continuing basis on a number of topics. I have serious doubts about the validity of whatever "method" the faculty currently uses to gauge student opinion.

This links to the memo and student survey results.

Certainly, the student petition to remove Ben Hopkins from the faculty is an "evaluation" similar to the memo regarding Ted Becker.

Finally, concerns about the law school offering tenure to a "new" faculty member, Julian Gresser, after only 3 semesters experience at the law school caused student discussion and at least one letter sent by a third year student to the Board of Regents. A memo was also sent to the Faculty Hiring committee on this issue.

The Committees

From a 1976 memo: "Meanwhile, the "free form" hour that had been student projects during the first semester of 1973 would be replaced with the faculty-originated idea of forming student-faculty committees, wherein students would be free to join curriculum, admissions, faculty hiring, student employment, or governance committees under the direction of a faculty member. Admissions proved to be popular; curriculum, under Ben's direction, attracted five students. Soon the school was awash with a blizzard of paper as the committee members took their jobs; seriously and published questionnaires, memos, counter-memos, results, etc. The actual use that would be made of product of these committees was never quite clear. The faculty was still firmly in control of all decisions at the law school and meetings were closed, no programs or minutes were published. But even at this point, there was a high degree of trust and confidence among the students in faculty decisions; they seemed to be very rational and thoughtful, so surely they would produce exemplary decisions. We were still a community and they were our wise leaders; by our silence we gave assent to their decisions. So the result of the committee would nominally be a "memo" and "the faculty always welcomes well-reasoned written input into their decision-making process."

The curriculum committee cracked first. Operating with the assurance that the faculty had already mapped out the second year and possibly even the third-year program (from Ben), it proceeded to discuss peripheral issues such as counseling, work load, remedial assistance, etc. This produced a counter-blast from Lindsay and Jerry which said, in effect, that Ben was all wet, the third-year was wide open and the faculty was interested in areas that Ben claimed it wasn't. Could this mean there was a split on the faculty? It could, there was, but they all stick together until....." (end of 1976 memo)

A February 20, 1974 memo from the Curriculum Committee to the entire law school community with fifteen topics/issues identified, requesting a High, Medium, Low ranking of each topic. The commiitte included Abbey Costa, Ben Hopkins, Karl Ichida, Nancy Jones, Bll King, Bob Schmitt & Cindy Winegar. The highest ranked topics were the third-year curriculum, counseling and remedial assistance. A memo was sent to Dean Hood with this conclusion on March 14, 1974. This is a link both memos in a single file.

Several months later, a November 19, 1974 memo to the "3rd Year Planners" from Bob Schmitt stated reasons against the "mandatory nature" of the proposed third year curriculum. It stated in part:

"The heavy experiential approach to a workshop/seminar has been defended as being capable of developing skills transferable to any future legal specialty. I might agree, but the unspoken premise is: "Assuming all teachers are equal..." I do not have any pre-conceived notions that education must be painful to be good or that some suffering must be endured to attain enlightenment. Consequently, I would quite frankly spend 15 hours listening to brilliant, personable Professor X lecture on "The Civil Code of Ancient Mesopotamia" rather than 3 hours with the dull Professor Y, who "guarantees he will unlock the secrets of the universe." Therefore I will buy no more "pigs in a poke." I think the third year class deserves "full disclosure" of teachers and courses, some second semester experience and the freedom to choose similar educational pleasures."

With the addition of a second class in the Fall of 1974, this "fresh blood" revived interest in student committees. As noted in the Newsletter section, the lead article of the January 10, 1975 newsletter stated that five ad hoc committees were being organized: Student Admissions Committee, Student Curriculum Committee, Student Faculty Hiring Committee, Student Governance Committee and Student Job Placement Committee. Four planned meetings in January.

Randy Vitousek, the ad hoc chairperson of the Student Admissions Committee, reported an analysis of the Hawaii Bar by ethnicity and sex and this committee had planned emphasis on minority recruitment. The committee also planned a media campaign and weekly meetings.

In November, 1974, a two-page memo from "a few of us (who) got together" suggested land-use topics for elective courses, workshops, seminars and research.

The Placement Committee requested resumes and general interest in summer jobs by a form published January 31, 1975.

The Student Governance Committee identified urgent current and future "certain matters" - evaluations of the Fall semester course, the faculty, grading and admissions, as noted below. An February 4 announcement urged further committee organization.

Late in February 1975, there were several memos on a "Student Law Review/Journal" that were deemed to be outside of the established committees. The proposed review/journal was an initiative by Jerry Hiatt.

In July 1975, Mimi Durant and Susan Connor-Lum wrote to both classes that their proposal for student input the the Dean Search Committee had been dismissed by the UH Acting Chancellor. Mimi and Susan urged our input. Tom Kaulukuki and Carol Quindara eventually were appointed as such class representatives, as noted on a September 1975 memo.

Dean Selinger formalized the committee procedures by a September 19, 1975 memo. This followed separate meetings of all three classes on September 12 and 15. This September 19 memo contained the proposed committees:

1. Academic Regulations and Governance — including regulations of the Preadmission to Law School Program, student retentions, and the adjudication of alleged violations of academic regulations.

2. Admissions — including student recruitment, admission to the Preadmission to Law School Program, and student financial aid.

3. Curriculum Development and Evaluation — including academic arrangements with other University schools and departments, and co-curricular academic programs (e.g., law review, moot court).

4. Faculty Personnel — including faculty appointments and evaluations.

5. Professional Programs and Relations — including clinical programs, special student projects, continuing legal education, the Paralegal Program, clerkships and placement activities generally.

Student representatives to the committees were to be elected, as described in this memo. A voting ballot was included. It was apparently not used.

Bruce Anderson immediately sent a memo to all student, suggesting an alternative to the secret ballot - having any student desiring to be a committee representative obtain signatures from fellow students authorizing his/her appointment to a specific committee. A student with the most signatures would be appointed to such committee. This alternative was not adopted.

Darwin Ching reported on the Professional Programs and Relations committee by memo dated October 31, 1975. It covered externships, student law practice and clinical programs.

The Academic Regulations and Governance committee reported law school examination procedures on December 5, 1975.

The controversial Land-Use Planning course warranted a December 13 memo from the (Faculty) Personnel committee requesting course evaluations.

A short vitae on three Dean candidates was sent by a January 29, 1976 memo. They were George Alexander, Frank Askin and Sam Dash.

A new Law Review Planning subcommittee was announced in a February 2, 1976 memo.

John Cater sent a Academic Regulations and Governance committee report on February 11, 1976 reporting a vote against class rankings, an opinion on which type of degree should be granted - simple J.D. or with honors, etc. Also on student discipline and student data privacy.

Hayden Burgess reported from the Graduation Activities committee on March 1, 1976.

The Grading System

The first notice of a grading system came in a memo dated November 15, 1973 from "Dean Hood and Faculty". A mere two pages, it proposed that the traditional "A" through "F" grades from the Catalog be given for three courses, and that "Credit/No Credit" be given for the Seminar, Legal Education, and the Student Workshop. Just a few days later, Ben Hopkins thought the initial memo was insufficient and used four pages to propose new issues - seemingly to "lessen student anxiety". Ironic in view of the emotions caused by the Modern Methodology final exam! More memos followed until there was a final memo from "Dean and Faculty" on April 4, 1974 which deferred to the Academic Regulations. This was my view from 1976:

"As an illustration of the importance of knowing one's law school history, the grading system and how it developed is especially appropriate, since attempts to tamper with the original concept seem to be still ignorantly evident. The how's and why's of grades at all is obviously a complex topic, and those who think we should have a more traditional grading system for the benefit of employers probably really don't understand all the ramifications of this issue.

The issue of grades arose sometime during the introductory block, evidently at least a few students were concerned about the "bottom line", for as well and good it might be to be thoughtful, inquisitive, etc about this rather free-form experiment, to what degree were we expected to "perform" for the faculty and be suitably rewarded? The tentative word was reassuring - any evaluations of this period would be for our own use solely, but then this turned out to be little more than the highly colored or subjective opinion of one faculty member anyway, who may or may not have had good judgment. And what of the rest of the semester? The issue became part of a faculty-student dialog during the first semester and continued into the spring semester. While there were many thoughts on each side, the student sentiment was based on the idea that grades encourage competition that is very probably destructive of much of a learning process and more likely destructive of any spirit of "working together" or cooperation. Polls taken of the students were overwhelmingly indicative of this concept; even those students who would accept some of the faculty rationale for a numerical grading system only did so in the light of a hybrid system (very much like the present system) that would promise the best of both worlds. But this is getting ahead of our history, for very early on in the dialog we were promised that we could have any grading system that we wanted. And at this point, probably at least 80% of the students favored a pure "credit/no-credit" system. This probably wasn't the type of response expected by the faculty, for the dialog of the first semester was then ended, and giving as a rationale 'both the protection of the rights of those students who wanted a traditional grading system and the need to make some showing of "tradition"' to prospective employers, the promise was forgotten and the Dean and faculty presented their system, a "compromise" that wasn't in the cards of the original promise. Soon after, Ben Hopkins presented his system, which was well-worked out to the degree of even having a sample transcript, and which attempted to rationalize itself by presenting sub-issues and arguments. However good the merits of either the Dean's or Ben's proposal, it was clear to the students that the communication channels the between them and the faculty were getting muddy, and in light of hokum going on in Ben's class, it was getting difficult to distinguish between ideas of merit and B.S. from this source. In other words, pronouncements of the faculty had taken a giant step, even at this early stage, of being in the category of "inherently suspect". Some of us kept faith with the faculty much longer, but this only delayed the ultimate betrayal."

The Revolving Deans

As noted elsewhere, David R. Hood, was the dean of the law school when we started until he resigned in 1976. Jerry Dupont became the acting dean until Clifford Thompson took over, but he only stayed for two years. His salary was $43,000 per year, up $4,000 from what Hood was paid. Marvin J. Anderson became the interim dean in January, 1980 for two year. He was followed Richard S. Miller, one of our original faculty. His salary was forecast to be $60,000 annually.

The Newsletters

In the spring semester (1974) of our first year, fourteen classmates expressed an interest in working on a newsletter for the law school community. At least six issues of the "Newsletter" were published in March and April, 1974. This project was intended to be a one-credit "Student Workshop" course.

In our second year (1974-75) there was another series of newsletters. One was titled "Law School Goings On..." and only one was dated: October 25, 1974. Soon thereafter, the "LAW SCHOOL REVUE" Volume 1, No. 1 appeared, dated November 6, 1974. The first article, "Trick or Treat" was a critique of the proposed third-year program. Cindy Winegar and Mimi Durant claimed authorship for this issue, but suggested writing and editing be done by other students on a revolving basis.

The editors/writer on the second issue on November 14 can be partly identified by the unique typewriter font - an electric Olympia owned by Bob S. On the last page, the Editorial Board lists Reggie, Bob & Tom. Although there was a serious article on the third-year program, most of this issue was humorous - a plea to clean up the Student Lounge, a review of Primo beer's revised formula and a suggestion to visit the brewery. Who takes credit for the 2-page article "The Big Interview"?

Volume 1 No. 3 was dated December 5, 1974. Two pages of serious news were overshadowed by five pages of satire. This was possibly acceptable back in 1974, but today it would cause Class of '77 author "Jerry" a scolding - or worse.

"The Manoa Lawyer" appeared on January 10, 1975. The lead article informed us that five ad hoc committees were being organized: Admissions, Curriculum, Faculty Hiring, Governance and Job Placement. Four had scheduled meetings. It was five serious pages and two were mostly sarcasm.

An untitled "newsletter" came out in January 1975 - one factual page, nine sarcastic. Probably the work of Jerry Hiatt, the "new guys".

"Pro Hac Vice" was the next title of a newsletter with issues in October, November and December 1975. The first issue was 12 mostly informative pages. November's issue was eight pages, all factual and one cartoon. It mentioned that Robert G. Schmitt's paper on the Hawaiian Archipelago was published by the UH Sea Grant College Program. The final December issue was six pages. Five were informative, the last page was poem with an extensive set of Christmas wishes:

"The Law School Review, Final Edition, Going Out of Business Issue" was an undated newsletter written by Jerry Hiatt. In five possibly libelous, sarcastic pages, it falsely reported that Bob Schmidt (sic) was "optimistic about something". Jerry's "Review" will be added to this webpage if requested - or shredded, at a price to be negotiated.

The Facilities & the A.B.A.

There were very few - perhaps none - complaints about our "temporary" classrooms, library and other facilities during our first two years in those quarry buildings. EXCEPT when we learned that a few classes were assigned to a former music school building higher up on Lower Campus Drive and much closer to the off-ramp from H-1.

This complaint was sent by August 7, 1975 letter signed by 34 first and second year students to Dr. Fujio Matsuda, the UH President, with copies to the UH Director of Administrator, the Chancellor and the Board of Regents. This is part of that letter:

"The third year class has now spent two years in classrooms with severe noise and dust problems with little complaint. The planned location of these two buildings, however, is close to being intolerable. The buildings will be placed between the Manoa exit from the freeway, the freeway entrance to the parking lot, and the Dole Street entrance and exit from the parking lot. Additionally, the guard station and a speed-bump adjacent to the classrooms means all cars entering or leaving the parking lot will slow and accelerate next to the classrooms, contributing to the noise level.

The conditions of the past years have not been pleasant, but it appears that this location will not only be uncomfortable, but also a severe-interference with classroom lectures and concentration. We therefore would like to draw the attention of your office to this matter and request a meeting so that we might discuss this and other plans for the School of Law."

Here is the the letter; the signatures continue on pages 2 & 3:

The Board of Regents acknowledged our August 7 letter by a letter dated August 18, 1975. It stated:

"The Board, through its Chairman, Mr. Fujiyama, will do everything within its authority to help alleviate the chaotic conditions at the School of Law. Chairman Fujiyama has asked the Chairman of the Regents' Committee on Physical Facilities and Planning, Mr. Tom Shibano, to look into this matter, not only to solve short-term needs but long-range plans for the School of Law.

Professor Miller has expressed this concern to both of us very convincingly.

The Board believes that if we are to have a first-rate law school, we should have the facilities to accompany it. Unfortunately, we were not given CIP funds to do the job."

It was noted that the American Bar Association (ABA) had similar concerns:

Just ten days later, Ka Leo O Hawaii got right to the point:

Because the problem continued, a October 24, 1975 petition signed by 45 students was sent to the law school "Deans, Faculty, Administration". The substance of this petition reads:

"1. In August, as construction plans became evident at the Law School, and unable to receive a satisfactory justification for those plans from Lau School personnel, 35 students sent a petition to University President Matsuda expressing dissatisfaction with the planned facilities.

2. It was also evident to concerned students that decisions made by Law School personnel regarding the arrangement of offices, library facilities, classrooms and seminar roams were, from the students' paint of view, extremely illogical and wasteful of space and construction resources.

3. The meeting with President Matsuda produced no satisfactory explanation for the poor facilities planning, nor did Dean Hood offer justification for the facilities and room arrangements at this meeting.

4. Ths ABA Accreditation Committee and tha Honolulu and University media have concurred with the student judgment of August that the classrooms are extremely inadequate. Library and administrative facilities, however, were judged adequate.

5. To data, there has been no general communication with the students regarding future facilities improvements.

6. Sources of information indicate funds have been released for law school facilities and quits obviously construction will soon be underway. Ironically, the first work is taking place In library and administrative offices, although these were judged adequate and previously had been satisfactory classrooms.

We therefore request:

1. Public disclosure of the current construction plans. We would expect to find classrooms, seminar rooms, and a student lounge receiving highest priority in these plans.

2. Identification of the law school personnel involved in prior and current facilities planning and their qualifications for such decision-making.

3. Decisions involving future facilities planning should seek regular and wide-spread student opinions. Further, there should be continued public disclosure of the resources available for facilities and the manner in which student opinion and other data is utilized in the facilities decision-making process."

Bob Schmitt sent a letter to Wallace Fujiyama, Chairman of the Board of Regents, on November 10, 1975 and to Rep. Tony Kunimura, State of Hawaii House Higher Education Committee, on February 2, 1976 re-stating the concerns about the facilities and construction, as outlined above. Specifically, the letters were critical of facilities planning and lack of any communication to the law students. These letters were acknowledged.

Next: Chapter 10 - Later On

Table of Contents

May 31, 2025