So conflict of interest, basically.
Of course, Harvard is saying that firing Sullivan(s) have more to do with a toxic environment already there, but surely this was the proverbial straw.
I frankly think there are arguments on both sides that are persuasive and the debate is healthy. I hope the students are having them too.
So is the main problem, the case is highly publicized? It’s okay to defend rapists and murderers as long as the case doesn’t make the front page of The New York Times? That line might make some sense as a matter of Harvard marketing.
There is a conflation in this discussion I believe needs to be teased apart. Many people keep on saying that ‘accused are innocent until proven guilty’ and therefor any disapprobation is inappropriate. I believe it is important to realize that in our legal system - the accused are considered innocent until/unless proven guilty. In the non-legal world - none of us are under any requirement to believe ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
I believe Mr. Weinstein to be guilty of all sorts of crimes. I also believe he is generally a repulsive human with whom I would wanted no association. As long as I am not on the jury chosen to determine his legal guilt/innocence - there is no moral issue with my beliefs. And no requirement that I hold onto a legalistic views of whether he is guilty or innocent.
To take this further, even if a person is determined to be innocent in the criminal courts (hello, Mr. O.J. Simpson) no one is required to believe the person didn’t commit a crime. But maybe those vigorously arguing the innocent until proven guilty idea are also loudly proclaiming they believe O.J. was and is innocent in any connection to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. You know, because he was acquitted.
So, I don’t think the students of Harvard (or anyone else) needs to believe the possibility that a defendant is innocent until being proven guilty in a court of law.
Not being a house dean doesn’t stop Mr. Sullivan from representing any of the clients he has chosen to take on. It does stop him representing the students living in the house where he used to be Dean. Seems as reasonable for the students to help make that choice as much as Mr. Sullivan’s choices were reasonable.
Looking at this matter from a reverse point of view, let’s say a Harvard student at the subject dorm is involved in a legal organization that espouses some issue that feels threatening to some of the dorm mates, and Harvard kicks that student out of all dorms. That would also be no big deal because the student can still attend Harvard by renting a place at some apartment nearby. I guess I am ok with some dorm students finding it uncomfortable and voicing their opinions, but I disagree with Harvard getting involved and firing them from being the dorm head or whatever.
The sixth amendment says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to … the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
I missed the part where it says there is an exception for representing a creep. Can you find it for me?
@roycroftmom I think you hit the nail on the head. While sexual abuse is a real issue that should be vigorously addressed, it scares me that this discourse is moving towards representing women as weak and fragile creatures who may be scarred for life by an inappropriate touch and need special considerations going well beyond physical safety to feel comfortable. That is, we’re going back to centuries-old ideas about women.
Sigh.
I just can’t let it go, you’re all putting words in my mouth.
Weinstein is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. He is legally entitled to counsel for his defense.
Whether the case is one of the most highly publicised and scandalous in entertainment history? No matter. I never said otherwise and you are attacking straw men, every single one of you.
He is not entitled for anyone to not have an opinion about him, or about the case. He is not entitled to have a Harvard Law professor represent him, nor was that professor constitutionally or otherwise required to accept this representation. However, as a Harvard law professor i assume he is legally free to do so, no one is stopping him. No one can. I’m sure he’s not the first, nor will he be the last Harvard Law professor taking on a highly publicised and controversial case, it’s probably partly expected.
He is, however, also contractually required, as a house dean, to represent not the law school, but Harvard College and one of its residential Houses. Both the college, as the institution that hired him, and a sizable number of the students apparently feel he should not do this at the same time as being Mr, Weinstein’s counsel of defense.
I suggested that he should have quietly refused - assuming he wanted to stay dean. He might also have quietly chosen to step down as dean.
To paraphrase Voltaire (I hope it was Voltaire ?!): I will defend to the death the right of Mr. Weinstein to legal counsel, and of any Harvard law professor to provide that counsel, but also to have the feelings of the students in his House respected who do not want to be associated residentially (not intellectually! No one will remove him from the law school) with a representative of Mr. Weinstein’s.
We were strong enough to build our own safe spaces if we needed them, and we weren’t scared by anyone’s opinions or representation. How did we raise such delicate little girls who need coddling by big strong adults? The students are supposed to be the adults, for heavens sake, and could be doing a lot to help the truly vulnerable ( those who really are children, the disabled, etc). Instead of using their smarts and strength, they play dumb and weak. Sigh. Full circle.
I don’t actually think it is “dumb and weak” to oppose a continuing appointment for Prof. Sullivan as Dean of the Harvard house. It seems to me that there are certain areas where it is becoming more common to see moral standards imposed on institutional actors–some newly imposed. There are pros and cons of this.
My spouse feels emphatically that Harvard should have kept Prof. Sullivan on as Dean. I can see the argument behind saying that if Harvard did not want him to take on legal cases while he is Dean, that should have been stipulated from the get-go.
On the other hand, I have to agree with those who have noted that Mr. Weinstein would hardly be without counsel, had Prof. Sullivan not stepped in. I am not sure that the message sent to the Harvard students is “Everyone has a right to legal counsel, no matter the accusations against them.” In this particular case, it seems more to send the message, “I think Mr. Weinstein has enough of a case that I am willing to help present it.” As Will Rogers once observed, “I only know what I read in the papers,” and I certainly understand that journalists get it wrong. So I don’t know about the details of the case itself. And Mr. Weinstein may well have a defensible case with regard to some of the allegations. I understand that he is legally innocent at this point.
But the question about the duty to treat (physicians vs. lawyers) has been covered earlier in the thread in accord with what I thought: There was not an actual legal duty for Prof. Sullivan to accept this case. It was at his discretion. So it is legitimate to try to interpret what that says.
well, we will just have to disagree, quantmech. In my book, yes, it is dumb and weak for smart privileged women to be scared of being in a college with people whose views you oppose, however abhorrent you find them. Sullivan does not bite, to the best of my knowledge, and to demand his resignation because you feel scared of his professional opinions is unworthy of an adult.
Some of our young adults are way too shielded from the realities of life. What happens when they don’t like their boss because they disagree. Do they expect HR to fire them? Its quite laughable. Some of these young adults will eventually have a rude awakening when things don’t go their way as that is how life works for many of us.
My D is a rising sophomore at H but is not assigned to Winthrop House next year. She has no opinion on the current matter because she was busy with finals and wasn’t following this story. I, on the other hand, do have an opinion. I think this is a very tricky situation in which Dean Khurana was in a no win situation. I do agree with his decision in not renewing Sullivan’s contract as Residential Dean. I don’t think Sullivan was “fired”, but that he and his wife will not have their contract renewed as Residential Deans starting in the Summer.
Obviously, Sullivan has every right to defend Weinstein or any other defendant. But I also see the point of students at Winthrop who are uncomfortable with their Residential Dean defending such a man. The job of a Residential Dean in large part is to create a safe, comfortable, welcoming environment for the students. I liken this to a lawyer who is defending “big tobacco” in one case but then is in charge of health and wellness at his office. It just seems incongruous to me.
roycroftmom and I have agreed closely on a separate thread recently, and roycroftmom’s view is consistent with my spouse’s view (which I understand), so I am quite willing to agree to disagree.
The reason that I disagree, though, is that I don’t see it as just a question of being in a college with people whose views you oppose. One of my closest colleagues disagrees with me on the nature of the van der Waals dispersion force. I am right, :), but we get along fine.
In this particular case, it is a question not just of “being in a college with,” but rather “having the house headed by.” It also is not a question of Prof. Sullivan’s opinions–I have no idea of those, perhaps he just thinks that a few of the allegations against Mr. Weinstein are not supportable, but he shares others’ views on some of the remaining allegations–but rather it is a question of his actions.
All of the evidence that I have at hand suggests that some of the residents of the Harvard house are likely to be raped during their time at Harvard. This is a deeply traumatic experience, in my observation. There is vulnerability associated with being raped and with the aftermath, which has nothing to do with being “weak and dumb,” but has to do with a very personal reaction to a bad physical violation. So if one were telling the women to “man up” (ironic, right?) and take Prof. Sullivan’s class if it is on the planned curriculum, I would see that as one thing. But heading the residential location is different.
One of my faculty friends at Harvard has headed a house there–he is very genial, and organizes all sorts of events to entertain and relax the students, in addition to the standard “duties” of a Dean of one of the houses. It would be a quite different experience to have been in his Harvard house.
Eighteen-year-olds are adults, yes, but they are adults in transition to full independence, and relatively few of them have arrived.
Finally, while my university has nothing like houses, I would expect the largely not-so-privileged students here to react in the same way to the same set of circumstances. I don’t think the privilege of Harvard students really comes into this question.
Outside of this situation do students in the residential College house at Harvard ever get a vote or say on who the house master is or how they feel about him/her?
Say the house Master is known to be a real jerk, hates animals, thinks a woman’s place is in the kitchen or that men who don’t like sports are ninnies. Is the opinion of students in the house ** ever ** factored into the decision to renew a house master’s contract?
They are now 
Professor Sullivan did not rape anyone. Professor Sullivan did not sexually assault anyone. If this were Weinstein that was head of the house I get it.
But Professor Sullivan did nothing wrong. The idea that these students “are afraid” as people on here have said is ridiculous. I’m not convinced that was their reason.
I’m totally with @roycroftmom on this one. These are supposed to be our most intelligent students, and yet they can’t deal with opposing views or deal with the fact that a lawyer would actually be a lawyer.
No, not in any formal binding sense. Nor should they. They should also have no say in the tenure process, the search for new deans/presidents/tenure-track faculty, collective bargaining agreements, capital expenditures, etc. If, upon graduation and meeting any applicable degree requirements, they want to apply for a position at Harvard, they are more than welcome. For the most part, undergraduate students are on campus for 4 years; the faculty and staff who were there before the students ever set foot on campus will be there long after the same students leave.
I think the reasonable solution to this problem would have been a round table discussion on the issue between Sullivan and the students of his house. This discussion might have led to students being reassured about his views on sexual assault and his support of victims, or possibly to complete loss of trust and voluntary resignation. Protests instead of dialog seem to be the preferred method of action for students nowadays. I think this is unfortunate.
Basically, the way I see it, there were no Constitutional issues involved, no free speech, no representation. Weinstein has a dream team of lawyers; Sullivan taking part or not changed that not one iota. So he’s demonstrably there not to uphold representation. I have no idea why he is–maybe he loves a challenge (personal reason). Maybe he loves the notoriety (personal reason). Maybe he loves the money. Whatever the reason, it’s a personal choice.
And a conflict of interest. Given whatever his personal reason for wanting to take this case, it wasn’t for a value. Which is fine. But it’s a conflict of interest. Whatever his personal reason for wanting to take this case, the reasonable thing would be, knowing it was a conflict with his Dean role, would be resigning that first.
Choices have consequences.
And I just want to add, whoever conflated taking this case with defending MLK, that was unbelievably offensive.
How is it a conflict of interest? The only way I could see that if he wasn’t able to perform his function but that does not appear to be the argument.