The truth is that the world is an ugly place sometimes, and full of contradictions, and there are no safe spaces in the long run. Part of going to college is learning to live with that. It’s unfortunate that the Harvard students didn’t learn from the experience.
Oh please. I worked at a criminal law firm and we had clients accused of murder, sexual assault, drunk driving. Some of them were innocent, most were guilty because that is the nature of a criminal practice. It didn’t mean I was pro murder or assault, but it was my job to defend them so I did. It didn’t mean I couldn’t give comfort and support to friends or family that were crime victims. I didn’t invite my clients home for dinner.
How do you think Sullivan got to be a good enough attorney that Harvard Law school wanted him? He defended a lot of criminals. So did Alan Dershowitz. So do a LOT of public defenders who have wives and daughters (or husbands and sons and siblings) who they would support if they were victims of crimes. Are those public defenders never to have the prestige of working for a University like Harvard? Are the dean of house positions only saved for people who have ‘nice’ jobs? No wall street bankers who may do deals the Harvard students don’t approve? No doctor who ever made money with a pharmaceutical company? No doctor who ever did plastic surgery just for the bucks?
Did Harvard students break all ties with Weinstein and Co.? Don’t watch the movies, don’t want internships at the company, don’t want jobs there?
Fire him for not doing his job, not for who his friends or clients are.
@misty88981, I agree with you. The right to feel safe, physically and psychologically, in your own house is not some idea invented by “snowflake” undergraduates. Your house actually is a “safe space” under the law, which is why home burglary is such a serious crime, and why it is lawful in most states to use deadly force against home invaders. And, yes, those are examples of threats to physical safety, but, the point is, by treating home invasions harshly, the law aims to provide emotional and psychological comfort in the home as well. “Your home is your castle,” a literal and figurative safe haven from the dangers of the outside world. Unfortunately, statistically, we know that at least some of the undergraduates in Winthrop house are victims of sexual assault. Mr. Sullivan can honorably represent Weinstein, and he can honorably serve as residential college dean, but he should not do both at the same time. It was appropriate for Harvard to remove him as dean.
My answer might be different if Mr. Sullivan were the only lawyer willing to represent Weinstein, but that’s not the case. Weinstein, a wealthy man, has an all-star legal team. Comparisons to Atticus Finch don’t hold water, IMO.
@misty88981 Most criminal attorneys represent some very unsavory characters at some point in their lives. Students in Harvard, of all places, should recognize that doesn’t reflect on the attorneys themselves. A surgeon who saves a life of a gang member or a sexual predator shouldn’t be ostracized for this; neither should attorneys. This is in the nature of the job.
Basically, everyone is for the ideals until their own kid feels uncomfortable. That’s what I gleaned. For example, if he defended a well known actor who beat up and killed a young Vietnamese American college student, and there were several Asian American students in the dorm who feared, without evidence, Sullivan is a racist against Asians, Sullivan should be removed from his position also when the Asian American students in the dorm feel very uncomfortable with Sullivan? Or Sullivan defended a neo Nazi student who was against USA support for Israel and who also beat up Jewish kids who were pro Israel, and there were some Jewish kids in the dorm, the college should remove him also?
I sympathize with the students or their parents, and see where they are coming from, but asking myself what I would do as a parent.
FWIW, I will add, when I was at Harvard I lived in Dunster House and our Master (now renamed Dean) was also a law school professor. I always felt that we would have been better off with someone who taught undergrads, though I think the pre-law kids liked having him around.
When I went to college we were mature and smart enough to understand both constitutional rights and professional representation. Sorry that some Harvard students are not.
It seems Harvard no longer supports the Bill of Rights. I wish that were an exaggeration.
I would not assume he was bad at his job. To my eye, the trumped up “climate survey” was performed to justify his firing. This looks very bad for Harvard.
The same Dean Khurana led the charge against students’ freedom of association, a move which has reportedly crushed female social groups, while leaving male social groups (the actual target of the initiative) relatively unchanged. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Harvard-Cracks-Down-on/245436
I recommend Harry Lewis’s blog, “Bits and Pieces,” for the view of a true Harvard insider, Dean of Harvard College from 1995 - 2003.
@misty88981 makes some excellent points here. A lot to think about.
Everyone in the US has a right to a criminal defense attorney. Full stop. Maybe Harvard could mandate Gideon v. Wainwright as summer reading for incoming students to understand why that is the case-I guess not all children understand it.
-
This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or Freedom of Speech. It’s disturbing that this is even being brought up by folks who should know better.
-
Weinstein is not being denied an attorney. He will continue to have better access to good attorneys than 99% of Americans, with his so-called “Dream Team” (yeah, we’ve heard that term before.)
Whatever you think here, can we stop the sensational pearl-clutching? I swear, y’all are worse than the students, with less excuses.
Assuming a defense attorney somehow condones his/her defendant’s actions is the kind of thinking that bright people I know didn’t maintain past the age of about 10. With all the police & legal shows on TV, “How can that nice lady defend that bad man?” is a question that I thought was generally answered before people reached their teen years.
A person can think it’s not a great choice for a house Dean without thinking it means he condones it. There is no evidence he condones it. It’s much more likely that he chose the case for its notoriety.
So a teen whose parent is a criminal defense attorney, or a politician with views the student doesn’t support, or a meat eater when the teen is a vegetarian should ‘fire’ that parent so that the teen has the right to feel safe, both physically and psychologically?
If the schools allows professors and deans to have outside clients, the school can’t then control who those clients are. Chemistry professors can work on vaccines but not bombs? History professors can only come out with works supporting the mainstream views of history?
Colleges, even Harvard, are supposed to expose students to a lot of views and experiences. Remember Harvard law produced both Ruth Bader Ginsberg (with a little influence from Columbia) and Antonin Scalia, who were great friends with totally different views on the law.
My daughter lived in Winthrop House but before Sullivan’s time. And the way she explained the concern is that at Harvard the House Master is the face of the university to the student. When you graduate, along with the university president, your House Master signs your diploma. The House Masters are the one key college official who is primarily concerned with ensuring the safety, welfare, and academic performance of the students under their charge. Your House Master is the one person you are supposed to turn to when there is trouble.
So given that special relationship between House Master and student, it’s not hard to imagine that a young woman who has been sexually assaulted might wonder whether the Master’s advocacy for her welfare might be a little less vigorous or a little less sincere if at the same time he is out there defending a notorious public figure who stands plausibly accused of dozens of sexual assaults by dozens of young women. Can he out of one side of his mouth provide appropriate care & concern and seek justice for the female sexual assault victims in his House while at the same time out of the other side of his mouth portray Weinstein’s accusers as liars?
Maybe he can. Maybe a skilled attorney can completely compartmentalize two conflicting roles in that way. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect young college students, especially ones who have recently been sexually assaulted, to be quite so cool and academic in accommodating these conflicts.
Thus to resolve this conflict, I think it’s appropriate that he not serve as a House Master He hasn’t been fired. He’s still a professor. But if he is going to be a a House Master he has to be effective in that role. And that may not possible if the students do not trust that he is fully in their corner.
Considering that Sullivan is famous for helping to exonerate wrongfully accused, especially people of color, I’m wondering how safe will URM students and other students who may have been wrongfully accused feel after his removal.
RE: the Crimson article in post 7: My limited understanding is that the issue (and dismissal of the House Deans) in Winthrop House has more to do with a longstanding toxic environment, in which tutors and administrators have been dismissed or felt retaliation, than it does with the Weinstein representation. The leadership of each house makes a real difference in the living conditions for students in that house. You all can speculate and admonish the kids living there or call it a trumped up climate survey but I’m told directly (by a kid who does not live in Winthrop and who is generally unaware of conflict around her) that this is a Very Big Deal to the students in that house.
I expect it is a very big deal to the law faculty, and all African Americans there, as well.
Very fine private lawyers routinely are asked by judges to represent some of the worst offenders in high profile cases-the spy Aldrich Ames case, for example. Judges recognize that it can be very hard to find a decent attorney willing to take the case, that we all want to avoid an “ineffective assistance of counsel” claim, and that prosecutors too find it easier to work with a skilled defense attorney, even when s/he is an aggressive defender, than an inexperienced one.
It is in everyone’s interest to have skilled counsel on both sides, regardless of whether the defendant is a terrorist or war criminal or whatever. If you made it all the way to Harvard without learning this, get educated now. Your doctor at student health might also treat the drunk frat guy who attacked you; your therapist there might also counsel a criminal; your Dean may sign on to a legal team for the worst criminal ever-none of this should impact the quality of professional services you receive from these adults. Your relationship with them is professional, not personal-they are not your friends or your parents or guardians, and students don’t get to decide what they do outside of work, so long as it is legal.
And so exactly WHY do students feel they are not safe? Are they afraid he’s going to let criminals into the house? The answer is because they don’t like his POV and it doesn’t align with their particular unformed untested world view… Because they don’t like that he’s choosing, as a lawyer, to defend someone they do not like who happens to be “gasp” a rapist. This is really bad decision making I think… Horrible precedence for Harvard. Clearly “client happiness” is far more important to Harvard than anyone knew but they will have a nice continued stream of naive spoiled suburban children to educate so more bravo to Harvard I guess for dreaming up this business plan.
There are African American students in the House who object to the House leadership. ** This does not have to do with the choice to represent Weinstein. **