I was talking to someone I respect, and he was very disturbed by what was happening at universities across USA, one of examples is how Harvard U has treated Prof. Sullivan and his wife. Long time ago, I demonstrated against my University’s investment in South Africa which operated under the apartheid system and was arrested for my action, but I would demonstrate against Harvard administration for its cowardly action against Prof. Ronald Sullivan and his wife if I were student at Harvard.
I agree it’s a disgrace. Appalling and shortsighted.
I always felt that in “To Kill a Mockingbird “ Tom Robinson should have been guilty of the crime so that the very right that he had for a good defense was highlighted.
It’s been considered a point of honor and morals NOT to defend a presumed guilty person especially of heinous crimes when it is paramount in our legal system that all are presumed innocent and have qualified counsel to make that case in a court of law. IMO, the case of the little boy killed when lost from school several years ago in Brooklyn , that the scorn for any lawyers that were going to represent the accused, caused a real problem in the system.
The inmates are running the asylum.
He is still a professor, just not the Dean of an undergraduate house. How can you be dean of a house if the students don’t want anything to do with you?
See post #2
With all due respect, had it been written that way, the moral of the story would not have been universally read as a plea for a good defense, but as: "look-- the black dude did it, figures, " especially in that time and place. I’m very glad that’s not what Harper Lee chose to write.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Let’s not drift away from the original topic, please.
The Weinstein thing aside, it sounds like he was a terrible house dean. I sure wouldn’t have wanted my D in that house.
From the Harvard Crimson:
“Since 2016, more than a dozen Winthrop tutors, students, and staff have brought concerns about Sullivan and Robinson to College administrators in meetings, emails, and reports. Many of them said they believe administrators failed to protect them.”
“Eleven current and former staff members endorsed a statement sent to The Crimson Thursday stating they experienced “a climate of hostility and suspicion” while working for Sullivan and Robinson.”
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/
It would have been helpful if post #0 had some information about what the controversy was all about (though it looks like many of the pages that pop up on a web search are heavily opinion).
https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/05/sexual-harassment
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/05/11/harvey-weinstein-lawyer-loses-post-dean-harvard/sOdUgXc2YxRREahAZQG4yI/story.html
The Harvard Crimson, this year’s board anyway, is not known for its unbiased reporting.
I have no dog in this fight. I don’t know Ronald Sullivan or Stephanie Robinson from a hole in the wall and I don’t live in Winthrop House. To the best of my knowledge, I never set foot in Winthrop. That said, I never even heard whispers of what the Crimson reported before it was actually in print.
If, and this is a big if, Sullivan is an ineffective administrator, Khurana could have done a much better job organizing a transition.
As I see it, if Harvard is allowing him to work as an attorney while he works for them, and their contract has no stipulations as to who he can represent, they have absolutely no right to fire him over any case he chooses to take.
On the other hand, it’s hardly surprising. Harvard primary concern has always been, and continues to be, their reputation. It is more important to them than their academics, research, faculty, or non-donating students. That is why they are the richest university in the USA, and one of the most recognized university names in the world. It is all about branding, and Sullivan is hurting the brand. To protect their brand, it would not be enough to quietly let him go with a large chunk of money. They have to be seen firing him.
They did not fire him before, even though he was evidently not that good at his job, because his name compensated for any of his actions. Because they care more about their reputation than anything else, they also care more about the reputation of their employees. The incompetence of many university administrators is something that universities are very good at keeping under wraps. So long as the person has a reputation that benefits Harvard, they will be very effective at keeping incompetence hidden from the general public. As for the claims of time commitment, if Sullivan’s defense was something that would reflect positively on Harvard, they would not be removing him.
The only thing that surprises me is that Sullivan, who is a very smart person by all accounts, didn’t predict that this would happen when he agreed to represent Weinstein.
I think it is disturbing. If this is indicative of what is occurring on supposedly elite campuses it is alarming and disturbing.
As the parent of a young woman who is a current Harvard undergrad, I absolutely disagree with this. She was not assigned to Winthrop House for her remaining years there, but had she been I can assure you that we would have supported her request for a different living arrangement.
The potential for sexual assault is an ever present reality for every young woman in the world, and it is the responsibility of Harvard to ensure the presence of faculty deans who resident students can trust with the personal details of their lives when they have the potential to impact their college experience.
A dean who is representing a man with a long history of documented complaints of sexual assault, harassment, and abusive behavior is NOT someone young women can expect to offer full support when she is victimized. Period.
Sometimes people have to make choices in life. Sullivan made a decision to represent Weinstein, which was at odds with his professional obligations as faculty dean at Winthrop.
The article in the Harvard mag referenced in post #8 said that another person has the responsibility for receiving such reports, not Sullivan.
[/quote]
That’s all very rational. A person who has been the victim of an assault cannot be expected to say, “Oh, it’s fine. Someone else is the designated contact person for sex assaults so I guess it’s okay if my resident dean is trying to ensure a sexual predator does not have to be accountable for his crimes.”
The feelings that Winthrop students have about this are real, valid, and should be respected. They deserve to feel safe in their living spaces.
What does this mean, exactly? How does Sullivan (and/or, his wife) being nearby threaten their safety?
Can you honestly imagine how it would feel to a victim of sex assault to share living space with someone actively defending a sexual predator? I didn’t say that Sullivan being nearby threatens safety- but it could certainly impact a student’s feeling of safety. The nuance is important.
Women are often told how they should feel- which changes exactly nothing about how they actually feel. If young woman living in Winthrop who have been victims of sex assault are uncomfortable, that’s enough for me. Again, he made a decision at odds with his professional responsibilities as faculty dean. We all are charged with making decisions in life that have real consequences. Frankly, I can’t believe he didn’t recognize that before accepting a role defending Weinstein.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but it doesn’t seem like a difficult position to understand.
Hooey. He’s an attorney of note. He’s representing someone under our legal system and integral for all, even the guilty, to receive sound counsel.
Having a really good lawyer and still being found guilty, which he will, helps society.
If he were representing a known terrorist, I would expect that wouldn’t be hearing a peep. If fact, he may be commended for doing so to protect the system. And I would be in agreement.
I watched enough seasons of “The Practice” to get that even bad guys deserve fair representations, but that doesn’t meant that it’s a good idea for those lawyers to be the Dean of a residential House at Harvard. You can avoid a professor (unless he’s teaching a required course in your department), but you can’t avoid the Deans, they are the heart of the House system. I think he should have known that the optics were terrible.
Part of the tenure track is for academic license and professional flexibility in their respective fields. Maybe he’s using this for future research or legal understanding.
I don’t think he was only supposed to represent innocent clients or clients the school approved of, as a matter of course. That’s basically the Maytag repairman at that point.
II understand the reason why they did it, I just don’t agree with it.
Have some guts to stand up for what is correct and honest. He’s not tampering with evidence or going on tv talking about what a swell fella his client is, he’s following legal protocol.
He is being a professional attorney.
I don’t like his client or his choice either.
Professional independence be damned and mob rule wins the day.
Just be careful and consistent if you agree, if the mob represents a view of things contrary to your world view. They could very well run someone out of town representing some doctor down south in the near future. Perhaps a conservative college or local donors could pressure a school to dismiss someone for defending that person. And we wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.