This strikes me as a great big red herring. Harvard isn’t deciding based on a case of a defendant with a particular race or ethnicity or sexual orientation, and I can’t really understand why you suggest they are. They’re deciding based on the behavior of the defendant. Based on his actual choices, acts, etc.
Sullivan isn’t opting to defend Martin Luther King or Chelsea Manning, or represent the plaintiffs in Masterpiece. He’s opting to defend a rich and powerful man accused of using his power to sexually assault and harass women with impunity. There’s no good reason for a university professor to do that; Weinstein has a universe of private practice lawyers from whom to choose. He’s not a charity case.
Ah, so if Harvard decided to drop a dean for representing Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, or a black kid accused of killing a cop, that would be okay, too? Or do you have a list of types of defendants that you’re okay with blacklisting a defense lawyer for representing, but not others?
They might as well cut to the chase and start screening deans based on political affiliation.
Timex
4152
The reason that it’s wrong to condemn a lawyer for performing their duties ethically, but in service to someone you deem bad, is that you then reduce the ability for wrongly accused to receive competent legal council.
Sullivan, especially, has done quite a lot of work in exactly this area.
Hell, even for those who are actually guilty, you have a right to legal council in our system
A lawyer is not being unethical by providing such services.
No. Where on earth would you get that idea? I mean, it is the exact opposite of what I wrote.
What does ‘blacklisting’ mean? Do you own a business? Is your business obligated to employ John Yoo? If you don’t employ him because you think it would be bad for your business to associate with him, on account of his condoning torture etc, are you ‘blacklisting’ him? If Stanford declined to employ him for that reason, would they be ‘blacklisting’ him?
Will you hire Sullivan? Aren’t you obligated to? If not, why is Harvard obligated to?
I completely agree. The question is, is the current employer of that counsel obligated to tolerate the association?
(Is anybody in this conversation under the impression that Harvard is a public institution?)
Sharpe
4155
All of these have performed active conduct, other than representing clients, that makes them bad people who I would not hire. Dershowitz has published numerous op-eds and other content taking heinous legal positions furthering autocracy, justifying torture, etc. Yoo, likewise. Starr, Starr did many, many things in terms of actively seek to politicize his investigative role for partisan purposes. Barr, again, lied, deceived, manipulated, etc.
What did Sullivan do? Did he actually do anything, other than represent a heinous client? If so, that conduct should be looked it. If he represented a heinous client within the law, then I view that as very much protected by our constitutional system.
Fair enough, but what does protected mean? Private employers should be obligated to employ him, or endorse him, or otherwise subsidize him?
That’s what I’m struggling with. What is Sullivan’s motivation? It is manifestly not Weinstein’s need for counsel, because Weinstein can hire almost anyone. It’s hard not to conclude that Sullivan’s motivation is notoriety for gain. Must Harvard subsidize that?
Also: What is the difference between the heinous legal position of representing rich rapists, and the heinous legal position of representing the White House by endorsing crimes? I’m struggling to find it.
Aceris
4157
Why not accept that it’s the general motivation of defence lawyers? To provide counsel when asked in exchange for money. Generally defence lawyers consider it unethical to refuse to represent a client on the basis of their crimes, because that would endanger their right to representation of their choice.
You can make a technical argument that attempting to organise boycotts and to urge punitive action against lawyers who represent people you don’t like it both legal and constitutional, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s an attempt to deprive people of their sixth amendment rights by the backdoor, by making lawyers unwilling to represent people in need of it for fear of the “justice” your mob will inflict. It’s positively Maoist.
There is a difference between being obligated to employ someone, which is what you are implying, and choosing to terminate them, which is what happened.
Sharpe
4159
For a private employer, they are free to discriminate against him, but we as the public are also free to criticize the hell out of the private employer for so discriminating, which is what we are doing. They are not legally obligated to hire him, but firing him for the mere representation of a heinous client, without indication of other good reason to fire, is a poor use of Harvard’s discretion to hire/fire, and worthy of criticizing.
Because, generally, he isn’t a defense lawyer. He’s a law professor who sometimes defends clients.
I admit I laughed out loud at this. Of course you’re so right: private citizens expressing their displeasure over the actions of private institutional representatives is exactly like totalitarian dictatorship.
Both Sullivans are still employed by Harvard to teach law. What’s happened is that they have not been renewed as faculty deans, which seems to be some sort of student liaison role. As I understand it, faculty deans have terms of office and are periodically appointed or re-appointed, and what Harvard has done is decided not to re-appoint them. This has no bearing on their employment status at Harvard.
I disagree. I criticize Stanford for employing Yoo and would cheer them if they terminated him. I do that because of Yoo’s choice of clients and client actions he defended. I judge him for his willingness to use the law to enable horrible acts, by defending his client from exposure and censure for those acts. To my view, Sullivan is doing the same thing, because if he successfully defends Weinstein, Weinstein will have been shielded from the consequences of his actions and will no doubt repeat them in the future. In some ways Sullivan is worse, as one can at least plausibly argue that Yoo was doing his job. Sullivan is pursuing a hobby. Harvard has no obligation to appoint him as their face to the student body, and I’m glad they’ve decided not to.
Wasn’t sure if this should go here or the NCAA thread. Things could get very bad for Ohio State, and the man responsible isn’t around for victims to get justice - he killed himself 15 years ago
Timex
4162
Syphilitic moron, Rep Jim Jordan, was involved in this.
I noticed this also. I general resist @ArmandoPenblade, call for the wholesale execution of Republicans but in Jordan’s case, I’d happily be part of the firing squad. It’s bad enough what he done as a Trump toady, but covering up that level of abuse.
Well, this was a shoe that was waiting to drop:
The Max Landis stuff has been a thing for a long time. I never understood how he got past all the MeToo blowouts.
Also, didn’t expect this.
This could have gone in a Trump thread, as he’s mentioned, but here is an excerpt from one woman’s litany of offenses against her. It’s pretty horrific.
How soon till someone blames her silence in 2016 for his victory?
