They’re they first “faculty deans” of some of the resident houses (dorms, I assume). Not sure how long those faculty dean positions have existed. I’m pretty sure they’re not the first AA deans at Harvard (which seems to have like a million deanships).
Z[quote=“Stepsongrapes, post:4128, topic:131896”]
What an amazingly stupid and cowardly thing to do.
[/quote]
I dunno, saying we’re not willing to associate ourselves with Harvey Weinstein seems like a good step. Harvard has no obligation to endorse his lawyer, and shouldn’t.
Seems like a poor precedent. Defence lawyers should not be pariahs because of who they represent as long as they represent them with integrity.
I don’t agree. Lawyers decide to represent powerful bad actors for reasons of personal gain. They’re free to do that, of course, but no one has any obligation to subsidize their rolling in shit or to get that shit on themselves. Representing high-profile scumbags isn’t the same thing as being a public defender.
So it is impossible to represent a high profile individual who has been accused credibly of crimes?
Trump’s lawyers provide good examples. McGahn appears to have acted with integrity, or at least stayed within the bounds of an attorney’s ethical obligations. He isn’t tainted by the association.
And then there’s Rudy.
Well McGahn is not Trump’s lawyer.
It stands to reason the Trump is only going to hire scumbag lawyers but I feel like that is a different scenario.
Is there any evidence Sullivan acted without integrity?
From what I’ve gathered he’s being railroaded for defending Weinstein at all.
Not at all. Are you saying that I must also employ those people, or endorse them, or support them?
Why must he defend Weinstein? Is it the case that Weinstein can’t afford other representation? I’m guessing the answer is ‘no’, so the equation becomes, Why should Harvard subsidize his defense attorney?
I can’t even.
Me, neither. So we’re agreed?
I think the idea is that it doesn’t seem quite right to set up a justice system in which every person, no matter how heinous the crime of which they are accused, is entitled to a competent defense, and then punish those who provide that defense.
Exactly. What type of lawyer would willingly represent minority gang bangers? Or anyone accused of a crime for that matter? Lawyers should only prepare contracts or something.
I think the idea is, does Harvard have no right to decide whether they will associate with people based on the actions of those people? Not based on their color, or their faith, or their political persuasion; but on their actual actions, decisions, deeds?
Put another way: Would you hire Giuliani? If not, why not?
That you think this makes some sort of point is just amazing.
No one would hire Guiliani because he’s a crazy person who is incompetent at everything he does.
But it has absolutely nothing to do with being a defense attorney for Weinstein or anyone else.
Pick another lawyer then. I’m sure you can think of a lawyer who is legally competent but so tainted you would not hire them. What’s the difference between that and what Harvard is saying?
As long as they aren’t unethical in their practice, there isn’t any.
Which is the point.
Harvard isn’t saying Sullivan is unethical in practicing law. They’re saying he’s practicing law for the wrong person. Which is the same sort of horseshit people use against people like Hillary Clinton. “She defended a rapist!!!1111!!”
And is why prosecutors are always elected to political positions and made into judges. Because even when they put innocent people away and break the rules, that’s somehow better than defending “murderers and rapists” or the like.
And then we’re all amazed when cops get free passes and our rights get eroded by the courts.
Ah. So you’re ok with Dershowitz? Or Starr? Or Barr? Or Yoo? Or Addington? As far as I know, none of them have been disbarred for ethical violations. So you’d hire them? Me, I would not.
No, they’re not. They’re saying, I think, that they don’t want to associate with Sullivan because of who he wants to associate with; and their objection is not racially based, or ethnically based, or religiously based, or based on sexual preference. It is based on Sullivan’s actual ethical choices. Do they have that right, or not?
Edit: Cutting to the chase: Are you willing to pay Sullivan to defend Weinstein? If not, why should Harvard?
You (or I) are not equivalent to Harvard. You or I are free to, say, never hire an Asian lawyer or a gay lawyer, or whatever. We’re certainly free to not hire any lawyer who has ever represented an Asian defendant or a gay defendant, or whatever.
We’re not an institution that holds ourselves out as not just representing, but embodying, certain ideals. If this wasn’t Harvard, but it was, instead, say a TV station who severed ties with him as a legal pundit, the situation would be very different.
Making decisions based on guilt by association is a perfectly acceptable principle for individuals or even certain organizations to operate on. It isn’t a good look for Harvard.