Alexandra Havrylyshyn JD, Ph.D. (JSP) ’18

Hometown: Silver Spring, MD
Education: McGill University B.A. 2008, M.A. 2012
Affiliations: Student Director, Berkeley Law Mindfulness Group

There are many different ways students can do the J.D. and Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP) programs simultaneously. For my part, I tookall of the JSP coursework first—which is seminar-based, interdisciplinary law and society work. That took four years. Then I took my qualifying exams and wrote my prospectus for my dissertation. Then I did the J.D. courses for two years.  This year I am writing up the results of my dissertation research.

When I started the J.D. courses I found them to be stressful in a different way than any of my Ph.D. or Master’s or undergraduate work had been. It’s like being immersed in a totally different way of thinking, almost a different language. The cold calling was especially scary, and didn’t fit with the way I learned. I was judging myself a lot. I had to learn to take care of myself so that I could keep up endurance and finish it all.

I joined the mindfulness group to learn tools to manage stress and increase focus so I could better process the cases and readings for my first-year law classes. The practice has helped me find a sense of peace and equanimity in situations that would normally be very stressful. I also truly believe mindfulness makes our minds more efficient. I never sit down and think,“I feel like writing!” Mindfulness has helped discipline me to write whether or not I feel like it, much like the way I have a daily meditation practice.  That kind of discipline also permeates into other areas of my life.

Berkeley Law Mindfulness Group gave me a community of people who are like minded. Some of my peers grew up practicing meditation.Others, like me, were new to it. Faculty and staff here have been forward thinking about using mindfulness in the legal profession. It’s made me feel like I have a home at Berkeley Law.

Nestor Cerda Gonzalez ’20

Hometown: San Francisco, CA
Education: City College of SF, UC Santa Cruz 2014
Affiliations: BHSA 1L rep, La Raza Tenant & Workers Rights Clinic, La Raza Law Journal

One of the things I’m really passionate about is trying to even the playing field between the pharmaceutical companies and the insurers and the people who need health coverage. The system is so complicated. In my job before law school (as an advocate for people trying to secure Affordable Care Act benefits), I had to call the insurance companies to find out what the hold ups with the claims were, and most of the time I would just get the runaround. ‘You’re being transferred to this department and this department and this department.’ There was no accountability or solution for some of these people. It really angered me because it’s contrary to public policy and to the law about accessibility to health care.

The pharmaceutical and insurance companies are so focused on making a profit. And that’s fine, they’re a business. But they don’t get to put profits over people. That is something that needs to change, and it’s something that could be fixed through law.

Especially with an administration that is not making consumer rights a priority, as lawyers and advocates, we have to be the ones to push the boundaries and demand accessible health care.

Jacob Canter ’18

Hometown:  San Francisco, CA
Education: Reed College, 2014
Affiliations: Founder of Election Law@Boalt; Co-founder of the Political and Election Empowerment Project (PEEP); Board Member, Friday Activities

I’d like to think that students who were impacted by the 2016 election and want to do something about it think of ElectionLaw@Boalt (EL@B) as an avenue to take action.

Even though many EL@B members are on the left side of the political spectrum (it is Berkeley, after all) we work hard to ensure that the organization focuses on the general benefits of fair and legitimate election and political laws for the country and its citizens, not for one party or another. One of EL@B’s goals is to show that changes to the structure of our political system can improve many of our country’s political problems, and that politics does not have to divide us – so polarized, so unproductive – but can bring us together.

I decided to complete the UCDC law program this semester (fall 2017) because I wanted to help an organization that is doing substantive work to promote democracy in the United States. The nonprofit I’m working with is called Making Every Vote Count. Our mission is to improve the Presidential selection system in the United States. We work towards this mission by advocating for the passage of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the Compact, states pass legislation to allocate their Presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. When enough states to win the Electoral College pass the necessary legislation (that is, 270 electoral votes) all the legislation goes into effect. This functionally will turn the Presidential race into a national popular contest, unlike how it currently is, where more than 4/5 of the states and their citizens are ignored during the general election.

The organization is very small, so I have been involved in just about every facet of the work — from developing state-based strategies, to drafting arguments, to writing legal memos, to creating the website, to participating in major strategic meetings with outside organizations.

The experience has been challenging and educational in a way that is totally different from the classroom. The pace of work; the types of work product; the team environment; the client contact; the legislative advocacy – these are all skills that will be valuable as I develop as a lawyer (and especially as a lawyer that does political-related work).

I thought I knew how important the laws that govern democracy were before the 2016 election, and now I realize how little I knew. There are many problems with elections in the United States that span from high principles like how we conceive of and protect the right to vote in the Constitution, all the way down to how we print and post sample-ballots in local districts. But there are good people – on both sides of the aisle – working hard to resolve these problems. Even the greatest challenges: those severe, intractable issues that seem impossible to handle – we can fix those, too. It takes a long time and a little luck, but no politician and no judge has more power than the people united behind a belief.

Zainab Ramahi ’19

Hometown: Ontario, Canada
Education: University of Waterloo 2015
Affiliations: Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Middle East and Islamic Law Journal; Equity and Inclusion Chair, Coalition for Diversity; Prisoner Advocacy Network

[Editor’s note: Zainab is the recipient of the 2018 Miller Institute-American Society of International Law (ASIL) Student Fellowship and the Reed Smith Diversity Fellowship]

I was one of the co-founders of an organization called Muslim Social Services. The area where I lived in Ontario was one of the main resettlement sites for refugees. With that comes the need for a whole slew of services to help them live healthy, successful lives. So we did a lot of work relating to spiritually and culturally sensitive counseling and education. You have to meet people where they’re at, and accommodate them in their language and not just expect them to immediately assimilate. That experience taught me a lot about communicating and prioritizing the people who we purport to serve, and it definitely impacts how I think about the role of a lawyer.

My efforts with the Coalition for Diversity are focused on affirming people in the spaces in which they exist and making sure marginalized students are able to have a positive and enriching experience here. I fundamentally believe that our solution spaces are enriched by diversity. If everyone is not meaningfully at the table—not just nominally in a token capacity—you are not going to reach the best outcome.

It’s a constant struggle, even here in Berkeley. But I’ve never been so inspired as I am by my peers here. I’ve made so many strong friendships based on shared goals and values. I love how rich the diversity of experiences are among the people who come to Berkeley Law. We could do better on racial diversity, that’s no secret. But the communities I am part of are so dedicated to improving the institution, so that’s really exciting and positive work.

Universities are almost like small scale worlds in-and-of themselves. It’s a good dry run for thinking about changemaking on a bigger scale when we leave this institution. In learning how to deal with the challenges we face here and collaborating with the administration and community as a whole will help us all be better advocates in our professional lives.

Yarden Kakon ’19

Hometown: Davie, FL
Education: University of Florida 2016
Affiliations: Founder, Women in Tech Law; First Generation Professionals

When I first got to Berkeley, I attended a BCLT introduction session, and as all the different groups came up to present, I realized there was nothing focused on women. It felt so obvious since the inequalities of women versus men in leadership roles in the technology and startup space is such a big conversation right now. I started doing some research and discovered that there were almost no organizations focused specifically on women in tech law. It wasn’t even a suggested term on Google.

So that’s how Women in Tech Law (WiTL) at Berkeley started. Even at the first meeting, people came up to us to say thank you for creating this community where we can talk about the struggles that come with being a woman in this area of law. It’s also given a lot of support to women like me — who don’t have a tech background — in saying that you can succeed in tech law without a CS or engineering degree.

Our “It’s LIT” (Ladies in Tech) lunch talks bring in women from in-house, public interest, corporate, and firms to talk about their experiences. We don’t focus on the practice itself, but rather on them as women in the field. We’ll have the General Counsel of Uber or another big company sharing stories of how it feels to be the only woman in a board meeting and being otherized as a female lawyer. It’s remarkable to sit in the audience and relate so deeply with these inspiring women and realize we’re just like them, that it’s ok to feel this way, and that there’s ways to navigate it and empower yourself.

We have needs and concerns that are unique to women. A male associate is not going to need the same time off as a woman who is pregnant or has to care for her kids. This is not something to hide from or ignore. By reclaiming and embracing the needs of women, that’s how we are going to show the world that we’re not more fragile, but rather that we operate differently than our male counterparts. Women have so much to offer in totally different ways than men. We have a different perspective, a different way of approaching a conflict or a problem, a different demeanor in dealing with colleagues and clients and challenges.

So one of the goals of WiTL is to flip the narrative about these differences being negative. We’re saying: ‘We have a perspective and value that you need. You should show us why we should work for you.’

We’ve attracted a lot of attention from law firms. Basically all of the tech law firms in the Bay Area have reached out to get involved with WiLT and help us and even recruit our members. It means that firms recognize the value that comes from having more women in the tech law field and how the difference in perspective women bring is helping build and grow their law firm to become an even more successful entity. It’s really encouraging.

Maureen Stutzman ’19 & Samantha Lachman ’19

Co-presidents of If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice at Berkeley Law; research assistants with the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley Law

Sam: As a politics reporter at the Huffington Post, I covered reproductive rights litigation happening all over the country. I knew I wanted to do that kind of impact litigation eventually, so I was looking for a law school where reproductive justice work was more than just a niche thing. Berkeley Law has so many connections to the reproductive rights and justice movements and leaders in that area, which was a huge reason why I wanted to come here for law school. For example, Jill Adams ’06, founded Law Students for Reproductive Justice (now called If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, which refers to the concept that reproductive justice will exist when every person has the right to decide if, when, and how to become a parent) as a student, then served as director of the national organization before returning to Berkeley Law to serve as executive director of the Center for Reproductive Rights and Justice (CRRJ). I had also heard before coming here that Professors Kristen Luker and Melissa Murray wrote the first casebook on reproductive rights law.

Maureen: I worked at Physicians for Reproductive Health, an organization that works to improve access to comprehensive reproductive health care. I helped our doctors do reproductive rights advocacy, such as lobbying and legislative work in their local governments. I was also on the board of directors of the New York Abortion Access Fund and am currently on the board of the National Network of Abortion Funds.  This has been my work and passion for a long time. I never thought I’d go to law school—I’m on the older side of law students here—but after years of policy work I felt like I could make more of an impact as a lawyer.

One thing that’s really special about Berkeley Law is that there’s a pretty clear reproductive justice path you can take: As a 1L you can become an If/When/How member and join the Reproductive Justice Project (RJP); 2L year you can run for a leadership position with If/When/How or RJP, and become a research assistant for CRRJ; 3L year you can do a semester in the UCDC program working with a nonprofit in Washington, DC, or do an externship with any number of organizations doing this work in the Bay Area.

Sam: We’re lucky to have the national chapter of If/When/How located nearby (in Oakland). So, we’ve been able to do a lot of really timely events with their support. When Jane Doe, an undocumented teenager in Texas, couldn’t get an abortion because the Trump administration was barring her from leaving an ICE detention facility, we co-hosted an event with the Women of Color Collective and La Raza Law Students Association on the connection between immigration justice and reproductive justice. The whole room was packed, there wasn’t a seat open. It felt really good to be able to bring in different practitioners who are working on this intersection at the same time as Jane Doe’s case was unfolding.

Maureen: Sam and I are also CRRJ interns. The way CRRJ defines reproductive justice in a broad sense brings a lot more people to the table — you get people working to end restrictions on welfare, people doing criminal justice reform, and others who wouldn’t be strictly considered doing reproductive rights work. We helped with the Center’s recent fifth anniversary symposium. CRRJ is really well respected in the field, so they were able to bring together a who’s who of academics, lawyers, and activists from across the spectrum of the reproductive rights, health and justice movements. It was such a privilege for us to be a part of it.

Sam: Seeing the way CRRJ goes about doing its work and going to this conference and meeting practitioners from so many different backgrounds has really expanded my conception of the range of possible careers in this area of the law.

15 1Ls Named CA Bar Foundation Diversity Scholars

Fifteen Berkeley Law 1Ls are recipients of the 2017 California Bar Foundation Diversity Scholarship! Congratulations Martha Cardenas, Saxon Cropper-Sykes, Lana El-Farra, Chante Eliaszadeh, Nestor Cerda Gonzalez, Cristina Mora, Su Myint, Bill Nguyen, Cremeithius Riggins, Anna Rodriguez, Patrick Rubalcava, Seema Rupani, Dru Spiller, Joanna Torres, and Esther Yang! Read their stories at

PAC Students Present at UN Forum on Poverty & Human Rights

On Wednesday, December 6, members of Berkeley Law’s Policy Advocacy Clinic presented their research relating to the criminalization of homelessness at a community forum with the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. Hosted by the Western Regional Advocacy Project, Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco, St. Anthony Foundation, and St. Mary’s Center, the purpose of the forum was to aid the Special Rapporteur in developing a report on extreme poverty and human rights in the United States by discussing how poverty in the Bay Area affects poor and homeless people’s ability to enjoy civil, political, and human rights protections.

The student team, Rawan Elhalaby (MPP), Shelby Nacino (JD ’18), Zachariah Oquenda (JD ’19), and Daisy Quan (MPP), spoke to the assembly about the findings of PAC reports on the enactment and enforcement of anti-homeless laws, the role of Business Improvement Districts in policy advocacy and policing practices that criminalize homelessness, and criminal fines and fees imposed on homeless people.

“The students’ presentation to the UN Special Rapporteur highlighted ongoing human rights violations in the heart of one of the most progressive cities and states in this country,” said Professor Jeff Selbin, faculty director of the Policy Advocacy Clinic. “At a time when the federal government is poised to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich — and use the subsequent budget deficits to justify further shredding of the social safety net — I am proud of our students’ rigorous and principled work focused on the dignity and needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our community.”

Observed 3L Nacino, “sharing our research at the forum alongside community members demonstrated to me how we as law students and lawyers can support the critical work that communities are doing to fight for themselves everyday.”

Joel Sati

Ph.D. student in the Jurisprudence and Social Policy program at Berkeley Law
Hometown: Nairobi, Kenya by way of Rockville, MD
Undergrad: CCNY 2016
Affiliations: Founder and Executive Director, Undocumental

After Trump got elected last November, it became pretty clear the narrative against all immigrants would be making a turn for the worse. My goal for Undocumental is for it to become a forum where illegalized immigrants use political analysis to take control of the political discourse on immigration where they are being talked about, but not talked to. I reached out to a few people and the concept quickly gained a lot of support. With that support I was able to recruit an editorial staff with various disciplinary backgrounds from different parts of the country. I also had a lot of support from the Human Rights Center at Berkeley Law who helped me build capacity as well as helped us put together our formal launch this past November.

The mission is to offer incisive analysis of noncitizenship — not only looking at policy and trying to change people’s views, but also analyzing the debate itself around illegalized persons.

The intent of the phrase “illegalized” is to shift the focus onto institutions that make people illegal. The way undocumented immigrants are talked about — especially when the phrase “illegal immigrants” is used — is as if illegality is part of who they are, there’s something about them as a person that is intrinsically illegal. Focusing on illegalization also gives us a new framework from which to analyze certain policies. For example, though a policy may look to legalize a certain group of people on paper, it is imperative to as whether or not it illegalizes other people in turn.

Editor’s note: This concept was at the heart of an op-ed Joel published in the Washington Post following President Trump’s announcement that he would end the DACA program, excerpted here:

How DACA pits ‘good immigrants’ against millions of others,” Washington Post, September 7, 2017

See also, “Noncitizenship and the case for illegalized persons,” UC Berkeley Blog, January 24, 2017

Deborah Oh ’20

Hometown: Chicago, IL
Education: USC 2013
Affiliations: BHSA, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Asian American Law Journal

English wasn’t my first language. I was raised by my grandparents who spoke Korean. So I joined debate in high school to try to be more confident and it helped me become empowered to speak in class. That’s one of the reasons I decided to go to law school. The idea of helping people who are struggling with language confidence… I wanted to give that voice to others who didn’t have the training and good education that I had to overcome that obstacle.

I decided to run for 1L BHSA rep because I saw the position as a student support role. There are 300 of us in the first year class, and no matter how hard the staff and administration tries, there is no way for them to know every student’s needs and interests. As the 1L rep, by virtue of going through the same experience as my classmates, I can see what students need and what they are feeling. So I thought I could make a difference in this role by making people feel like they had the chance to be heard. Ideally every student will feel like Berkeley Law is their home and they can grow and thrive here. Helping them do that is why I was really passionate about the position.

If I wasn’t a BHSA rep I probably would have stuck with my core group of friends and been much more solitary in my studies. Because of this position I have to interact with students I barely know, and constantly think about how to better the 1L class and better the school. I hope every student has the chance to have a role that gives them a sense of investment in the school, whether it’s through a journal or student government or whatever, it has enriched my experience a lot.