I keep the books at a Law Review, and I interact with the students a lot. They have to write notes and comments for credits. The editor in chief particularly is expected to write for one of the issues. This is why I find it strange that as head of the Harvard Law Review particularly, one of the most prestigious law reviews in the country, he didn’t contribute at all.
“The editor in chief particularly is expected to write for one of the issues.”
Right, but Obama was not editor, he was president of HLR. I don’t know how many journals have both positions or how the responsibilities are supposed to divide between them. My impression is that Obama viewed his role as “figurehead” whereas the complaints from the editor at the time suggests others thought he should have rolled up his sleeves to help out more than he did.
I think what’s key is that law reviews tend to attract individuals with a passion for writing and learning how to do that better. Regardless of expectations, the HLR president surely COULD have made written contributions to the review had he elected to do so. That Obama elected not to do so displays a curious lack of ambition (or at least a very different form of ambition in which he sought positions not to actually DO anything, but as a stepping stone to higher office etc.). It’s hard to imagine a John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, or Samuel Alito being content to do so little with such an honor. ‘Nuf said.