I am reposting a response to Dean Schill's email because I think it gets at the issue that his assurances attempted to evade better than I could:
'Dear Dean Schill,
I write out of concern that your letter -- reassuring us that "the Law School’s grading curve" has not changed -- may not have entirely addressed [redacted] X's stated concern regarding smaller classes and/or seminars.
At the beginning of the year, Section 1.13 of the Law School Student Handbook, as it appeared on page 105 of the student planner, stated, "There is a mandatory curve for classes of more than 50 students.... We encourage professors in all classes to adhere to the recommended curve, though the median may be slightly higher for seminars." (emphasis added).
This language has been entirely eliminated from the Student Handbook as it appears online.
This change to the Student Handbook might be seen as supplying more basis than simple "rumor" to the suggestion that there are modifications at work in the law school's grading system.
I encourage you to put this lingering confusion to rest, and to address this issue in a forum more publicly accessible than an LSA meeting.'
In short, the issue isn't whether the curve has changed. The issue is, whether the curve is now mandatory for classes of 10+ people. In the past, professors were allowed to curve at their discretion in all classes that consisted of 50 and less people. We want to know what has happened to that policy.
Dean Schill's email did not answer that question. Instead of breathing a sigh of relief, we are even more concerned over such evasiveness. Moreover, the complete (and entirely silent) elimination of the relevant language from the Handbook that the quoted email refers to pretty clearly suggests that alterations are in fact occurring.
Also allow me to add that I have received none of my grades back and neither have the vast majority of my friends. (The only ones to have received grades back without fail appear to be 1Ls). We should have had everything in as far back as the 18th.
In short, to consider the matter put to rest would be a mistake.