AUL is committed to accuracy in all matters and particularly in the consideration of the nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court. Our “Kagan file” release of May 21 has has been criticized for giving the impression that Ms. Kagan, while Dean of Harvard Law School, was solely responsible for the absence of Constitutional Law in the required curriculum. This entirely misses the central point of our argument. While Kagan was dean, Harvard’s curriculum – after historic reform which she initiated – did not require constitutional law and did require, for the first time, international and comparative law. Kagan should be examined by the Judiciary Committee as to why the curriculum reform she led emphasized international and comparative law rather than constitutional law. Should law students not be required to take Constitutional Law? Does nominee Kagan believe comparative and international law are relevant to interpretation by the Supreme Court of the U.S. Constitution?