But why not for defending murderers? Or violent criminals of all sorts? Still no response to the therapist question which is telling in of itself. Sure it’s private. But if it was released and confirmed.
I think he could take the heat. Who saying he is all contorted over this? This isn’t about his reaction.
It’s the administration that couldn’t handle the situation and stand up for what is really correct.
How about a simple.
“We agree the defendant is accused of terrible misconduct but we are not in the business of squashing or intimidating our tenured faculty from their legal professional pursuits. Even defendants as seemingly malignant as in this case, have the right and the actual need for competent legal representation.
Anyone who feels uncomfortable in the house are directed to x or y for access to support for any allegation of x or y.
Dean Sullivan has a long career of defending and representing marginalized people as well. He is an advocate of the rule of law. We stand behind him as an academic while not standing behind the accused. Our enlightened and academically focused students will understand the nuance. “
One of Harvard’s core principals is it believes in the #metoo movement That is a movement against sexual harassment and sexual violence. It is a movement that aims among other things to protect young and vulnerable women. S saw HW as a big money payday. Harvard saw HW as conflicting with S’s Title 9 responsibilities and his duties to counsel victims of sexual harassment and violence. I think all the Harvard bashing in this thread has more to do with jealousy than anything else
How do you possibly know how he saw the case or the client. And as a big money payday. He could be doing it for free for all you know. Assigning ones own moral code and judgements to professional legal services is uninformed and wrong. This is what we are all talking about.
And Desn Sullivan can support me too and practice law. Just as a therapist can and still have predator clients. And the doctor.
Once again, no one is actually in danger because this professor is also a criminal defense attorney. Just because someone represents a criminal defendant does not mean they are in favor of the underlying crime. There is no evidence that activity as a criminal defense attorney prevents one from carrying out legal obligations under Title IX.
Agree there is nothing, absolutely nothing that says Sullivan is a sexual predator or that young women need to “fear” him or his wife in anyway. Think about it this way, Harvard “supported” the following and it is not something I think Harvard should be proud of:
A parallel I see is a situation where a lawyer works for a private agency that runs a shelter home giving legal advice to women escaping domestic violence. If said lawyer decides to take on a side job to defend a man who beat his wife, his primary employer would most likely view this as a direct conflict of their mission statement and, as a private business, they could take action accordingly.
S is still able to practice law on the side as he sees fit but his primary employer is Harvard. If Harvard views his side job as a conflict of interest with their institution’s core values then, as a private business, they have the right to do what is in their best interest for the school and the school’s students.
Many states are “at will” states. I don’t know what role this plays on private campuses with tenured professors but S did not lose his primary job as a professor. I’m sure Harvard consulted with their legal team to see what compromise would be best for them legally to keep both the students and S placated.
Just a thought but maybe Harvard’s motivation was to head off any potential lawsuits by a student or students for “mental anguish” by keeping S on as house dean. Who knows, I think they were just really trying to appease both sides with what they felt was the best compromise.
I don’t think the dean of a diverse residential house at America’s oldest, wealthiest, and most selective university has a primary role that is consistent with an executive director of a homeless shelter for battered women.
Huh? This was no compromise, it was a Admin decision that 100% favored one side. (Of course, there really was no way to play Solomon and come up with a compromise. H only had a binary choice, where one side wins and therefore the other loses.)
That wasn’t the analogy I was making nor did I use the term executive director. I said a lawyer who works for an agency where his job is to provide legal advice to women of domestic violence then takes on a side job defending a guy who beat his wife. The analogy I was making was the conflict of interest analogy - a lawyer doing a side job that his/her employer may view as incongruent with its values.
We’ve seen many professionals all over this country, for example, fired from their jobs for posting certain things on social media. The analogy here is not what they posted, what type of job they did or how old, wealthy or prestigious the company is or is not but that what they posted was viewed by the company as inconsistent with its values. Businesses care about how the public perceives them and Harvard is no different.
I have no dog in this fight and I am certainly not some big fan of Harvard so don’t get mad at me. I’m just trying to point out the business side of this decision. It seems many of you are very irate by their decision. Perhaps you should voice your concerns to Harvard or send letters to their student-run newspaper if you feel this strongly about it.
You do know that I was not privy to the goings on behind the scenes, right? I was just guessing that that’s how they approached the situation. They had students making an uproar- so remove S as house dean. Keep S on as professor - which is his primary job at the school.
Does Sullivan have tenure? So removing him would be a very difficult and maybe impossible task. On the other hand, my guess is he will have very little to do with Harvard students in the future and will cut back his teaching to the minimum required by his contract. I don’t imagine he is feeling very generous towards Harvard or its students right now
^^except that being removed as a tenured faculty member was never a possibility. The college only had two options: renew his contract as house dean, or not renew his contract. There could be no ‘compromise’ per se, only a decision in which one party ‘wins’ and the other ‘loses’.
This seems like a lose-lose. Harvard is stuck paying an unhappy and maybe bitter faculty member for the forseeable suture, and he lost his living space. Hmm.
Title IX imposes no duties to counsel victims of sexual abuse. It requires schools to give equal educational opportunities to all students.
I believe Sullivan worked on the appeals for the Jena 6. They were appealing their sentences as unfair, that white people in the same circumstances got shorter sentences.
Harvard appoints the House Deans to 5 year terms. This is the natural time for his term to be renewed or not renewed. His was not renewed. The nature of the beast is that if there are issues with employment or re-election early in a term, they are often overlooked when it is time for renewal or re-election. If the issues arise right before the contract renewal or election, the issues weigh heavily in the decision. Timing is everything.
The question will be does Harvard automatically renew the appointments or is it common for Deans to serve 5 or 10 years and then leave, either voluntarily or with non-renewal. Have other Deans been replaced because of their outside work or their views or because students complained that they felt unsafe in the homes?
Dean khurana is dean of Harvard college. Harvard college has nothing to do with Harvard law school. So I doubt Dean khurana cares what the faculty at HLS think. Twoinanddone title 9 doesn’t impose duties on house deans. But house deans are supposed to counsel students who are having issues. And one of those issues may involve title 9 or sexual harassment.
And how did those appeals work out in the Jenna 6 case? You dont make 100k for appealing a battery conviction. The record was probably fairly short. It was worth maybe 7500. I dont blame S for attempting to maximize his dollars and work three jobs at once. I am sure he felt fully capable of putting in the 120 hours a week for his work. Likewise Harvard did the right thing by using the best option available to them
I would also point out that Dean Khurana was involved in the final clubs issue at Harvard and in that case he also spoke up for the rights of women. I know a lot of posters are jealous of Harvards great success and keen awareness of social issues. That is probably one of the reasons their current yield rate stood at 83 per cent which is off the charts good
Are you the mistaken impression that everyone wants to attend Harvard? And that if they can’t that they are jealous? I’m kind of in shock by someone saying that.
Did you consider instead that many of us admire Harvard and therefore expect more of it than the cowardly action that they have taken?
Why in the world would we task house deans to counsel students about all issues. If they have roommate problems or have complaints about the facility or want advice on getting an extension on an assignment, I could see going to a house dean. If you experienced serious trauma or have other mental health issues, you should see a licensed psychologist or therapist who is properly trained to give counseling on those issues. If students have a Title IX issue, refer them to the Title IX office or campus police or University Health Services.