A speech written and delivered by Dean John Feerick on April 17, 2009 at the Fordham Law School Sports Law Symposium gives us an insightful look into what sports mean to the world around them. Dean Feerick has been involved first hand in a number of influential sports law decisions in his time as a practitioner and this speech serves as a reminder as to the meaningful role that sports play in each one of our lives. Feerick draws from life experiences of his own as well as that of colleagues and family members to observe the timeless and universal nature of Sports.

I appreciate the invitation to contribute reflections as part of the Fordham Law Review’s tribute to Judge Denny Chin. He occupies a cherished position in the Fordham University Law School community and the American legal profession, making this tribute timely and highly appropriate. In thinking about Judge Chin, whom I have known since 1978, I am reminded of my childhood hero, Joe DiMaggio. He retired as one of baseball’s immortals after the 1951 season. Three years later another hero of mine, Check Kong Chin (Denny Chin), was born in Hong Kong, China. Though different in background and nationality at birth, Judge Chin and DiMaggio have at least one thing in common: they both approached their work as students of their subjects. In an interview he had in November 1951 with former Yankee batboy Joseph Carrieri (a Fordham College and Law School classmate of mine), DiMaggio said of the meaning of success: “Remember to stay interested in the game. You’re always a student. And as long as you live, you always have more to learn. If you can remember that, you’ll have learned a great deal about the meaning of success.”1 Before expressing that vision of life, DiMaggio recounted the joy he received from Billy Martin, a new player at the time who wanted to learn all he could about the game from its greatest player. He asked question after question and in the process revived in DiMaggio the excitement he had experienced in his own youth as a player.2 Judge Chin has found the key to perpetual youth in the law through his service as a judge and all the activities he has chosen to make a part of his total life. He is, by all accounts, a superb mentor of law interns and law clerks, not simply in terms of their work in his Chambers but in providing perspectives about careers in the law and offering reflections on advocacy in federal court litigation. His former clerks speak of his patience in dealing with counsel appearing before him, allowing them more than sufficient time to make their arguments, and granting extensions so that the work product before the court will represent their best advocacy. According to one of his former clerks, “Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike recognize that Judge Chin’s even-handedness and meticulous thoughtfulness results in

I would like to express the esteem, respect, and admiration we all had for Mary and the depth of the sadness we feel at her death. She left us much too early. I feel lucky to have known her from about the time she graduated from law school over thirty-five years ago. When she applied to Fordham Law School, in March 1969, she said that the principal reason why she wanted to study law was the “belief that the law, if properly constructed and interpreted, represents the nation’s greatest hope for racial justice.” Consider what she said at age twenty-one, and the present moment. She lived to see racial barriers fall all across America. I suspect each of us had something in common with Mary. Mary and I enjoyed much in common, starting with our Catholic faith and our love of our family. We were the products of Catholic grammar schools and high schools and both of us enjoyed an undergraduate and legal education at Fordham. Mary attended Fordham’s Thomas More College, from which she graduated with the highest of honors, as she did from Fordham Law School where she served as an editor of its law review. Mary also went on to receive a master of laws degree from New York University. Throughout her school years, she devoted enormous amounts of time to volunteer activities involving poor children and the inner city. Not surprisingly, in her application to Fordham Law School, she said that upon graduation she wanted to work in areas of urban law and on behalf of the indigent. Upon graduation, she practiced law with a distinguished firm, Rogers & Wells, and then served the public for almost ten years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. She managed and supervised the Civil Division of that office, tried cases in federal and state courts, argued appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and won acclaim for her professionalism and skill as a federal prosecutor. In 1982, when I was appointed Dean of Fordham Law School, Mary became the first person to be recommended that school year to join the Fordham Law faculty at the beginning of the next school year. She was recommended by a committee of former teachers chaired by the late

KEYNOTE ADDRESS FORDHAM UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2006 I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak at this program on what makes for a good appointive My involvement with the subject of judicial selection comes from two roles. From 1987 to 1990, I chaired a New York State Commission on Government Integrity, (1) which Peter Bienstock was the executive director of. (2) Richard Emery, who is here, was a distinguished member of that commission, (3) which, when it concluded its work, recommended the abolition of the elective system for selecting New York State trial judges. (4) The ideas put forward did not prevail at the time, certainly, in terms of political change. (5) I am certainly happy that the views of that commission, Norman tells me, have contributed to his own thinking on the subject, and perhaps that of others. (6) More recently, I have been chairing a commission appointed by Chief Judge Kaye with a mandate of promoting and enhancing confidence in judicial elections in this state. (7) When she asked me to chair this commission in the fall of 2002, she said, Don't get hung up with appointive systems and changing the elective system and the idea of amending the New York State Constitution, because you know there's no support for that. Finding out what we could do to promote confidence in judicial elections was the task and assignment of our commission, a commission of twenty-nine citizens and judges--a lot of different backgrounds, from every part of the state. (8) We made a number of recommendations, (9) some of which have been adopted by administrative rule and by the Court of Appeals, through its rulemaking authority and supervisory functions, with respect to the court (10) But many recommendations that we made can only be implemented by the Legislature, and the Legislature has so far been reluctant to embrace any change in the elective process, with one exception having to do with campaign filings being sent to a central office rather than having to search throughout fifty-seven counties for information as to what is going on in the elective process in the state. (11) When Norman invited me to participate in today's program, I responded by email as follows (I'm not sure what was on my mind when I gave him this response, but this is what I said): What would you think of a philosophical reflection by me on the role of a judge in our society and why it is important to always look at and try to improve the way we select our judges, notwithstanding the enormous resistance to any change from public leaders, political party officials, the bar, and the people themselves, who do not vote in elective systems or get much involved in appointive systems, except for the various special-interest groups? Everyone seems to have his own idea of reform, as I have discovered, leading to no consensus or even any real attempt at consensus, thereby keeping in place a failed system. I concluded my email by saying, Are we tilting at windmills? Norman called me immediately and asked me to explain my email. I now do so. I start with a personal reflection. I have been a member of the bar for forty-five years (and I suspect that I am joined by at least a few of you) and have spent time in almost all those years on the subject of government reform--ethics reform, campaign finance reforms, voter participation reforms, judicial selection reforms, and the like. These are not subjects for the short-winded or for the faint of heart. I have noticed in all of those efforts the different points of view that manifest themselves, the difficulty of groups compromising deeply felt positions, the intense resistance by those with political power to change the status quo and give up the advantages they believe they have under the present system, and, most noticeably, the absence of a public groundswell in support of specific changes. …

As I have noted elsewhere, if I were asked to pick one moment in the legal history of the country where what ought to be came together with what is, it would be the unanimous decision of nine white men in Brown v. Board of Education dismantling the segregation of white and black children in public education. This was a watershed moment in the history of law. As Judge Robert Carter of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has written, this decision will always stand at the highest pinnacle of American judicial expression because in guaranteeing equality to all persons in our society as a fundamental tenet of our basic law, it espouses the loftiest values. Benjamin Cardozo, the legendary chief judge of New York, described the chief worth of the judiciary as making audible the ideals that might otherwise be silenced ... [and] giving them continuity of life and of expression. Unlike most lawyers, George Bundy Smith understood the importance of that decision in a very personal way. Dean William Michael Treanor of Fordham Law School has said of Judge Smith that he is someone whose life story and whose profound and inspirational commitment to the cause of racial justice are inextricably linked with the legacy of Brown. Born in New Orleans, Louisiana, Judge Smith moved with his family at an early age to the District of Columbia where he attended its public schools and experienced first hand the effects of segregation. He spoke of that experience in a graduation speech at Fordham Law School in May, 2004, stating: I still remember with extreme distaste being unable to make the left turn at the corner where we lived in Washington, D.C., and walk the one block to the white junior high school. But instead having to make a right turn and go a much farther distance to the school reserved for African Americans. The schools were separated into Division I and Division II schools with Division 1 being white schools and Division II being black schools. Other parts of that City were also segregated including libraries, restaurants, movies and even churches. Upon his graduation from Yale Law School in 1962, Judge Smith joined the legal staff of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; he became a passionate participant in the struggle for civil rights, including being arrested at a sit-in at a whites-only lunch counter. In 1964, he began what would become a forty-year journey in the courts of New York, culminating in his appointment to the Court of Appeals in 1992 where he currently serves with great distinction. His preparation for the Court was truly enormous. In addition to his experiences as a practicing lawyer and his many involvements in community endeavors, he served as a law secretary in the civil court, the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Division, followed by service as a judge in all of these courts, including service in the Family Court and the Criminal Court. This is only part of the story, however. A student of learning, Judge Smith pursued and earned a master's degree in political science and then a Ph.D. in Government from New York University. He also authored publications in the law and began to give back in another way through teaching. It was in connection with his teaching as an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School that we met. He joined the faculty in 1981, on the recommendation of then Dean Joseph M. McLaughlin, to teach a course in New York Criminal Procedure. He has enjoyed from that time to now a sterling reputation as a member of the Fordham faculty. …