His job as a Dean is to uphold the welfare of his charges.
His job as W’s lawyer is to undermine and discredit the scores of women who have come forward with stories of abuse. He wins by attacking W’s accusers. As said above, though W may be at this time as yet legally “innocent”, to legally uphold that means to attack women. He wins by beating victims. That’s not a good look for a person who’s job is to defend and support young people, half of whom are women.
Lawyers defend unpopular people in high profile cases. Yes, at one time that would have included MLK, and the lawyers who participated in that defense no doubt made many enemies among their students then. ACLU lawyers, who were Jewish, defended the right of Nazis to march through a heavily Jewish suburb in Skokie, IL. They continued to mentor many young Jewish lawyers and participate in Jewish causes. At one point adults accepted professional responsibilities and defended principles in which they believed, even if they disagreed personally with either the messenger or the message itself. That’s what adults do.
And could we please stop infantalizing the student adults? They are not anyone’s “charges” and in loco parentis disappeared even before I enrolled. Everyone involved is an adult.
As far as I know Sullivan hasn’t attacked any women yet. Some people seem to think defending a bad person necessarily involves ethically dubious actions. I don’t see how it has to. A lawyer can sincerely detest his client’s actions and still argue they don’t meet the criteria for a crime.
I also agree with @quantmech. Students do have a say in the tenure process. If students write bad reviews about a professor it may kill his tenure chance. If a student is harassed by a professor it may kill his tenure chance. Grad students routinely organize and enter into collective bargaining agreements. Harvard has many students who come from very wealthy families. Those wealthy families and students may direct how the money they give is to be used for capital improvements. I have socialized with a family that has a building named after them at UCLA. I am sure there are similar examples at Harvard. A few hours after my D graduated from Harvard she got an email asking her to contribute to an alumni fund. It is always a two way street between students and the university
We don’t know his role is to undermine the women involved. He might be looking into process or evidence handling. Or jury selection. That’s a big leap. And the cross examination is at times misunderstood but the most important part of the process. You have to make sure the story adds up. It prevents railroading. He is wildly unpopular and will have his day in court. These lousy cases and creepy clients getting a fair shake protects us all. Even those coeds at H. If they approached it differently perhaps they could see how something important to them maybe protected by this very process. It’s not that abstract to figure out. These are Harvard students.
It’s simple. He took on an unpopular client. One that is steeped in a political heat. Harvard caved to the heat. It’s not like his contract gives Harvard or the students the right to choose his case load. Any more than any other residence dean who investigates a academically hot topic in their field.
His wife is actually a woman too. And she thinks he can separate the two.
The students have the right to protest and to be heard. A conversation could be had but not with everyone screaming at you.
Harvard could have instituted a short term plan for any students who were uncomfortable with the professor until next year. A special advocate on call for sexual assault or abuse issues. They stand firm on academic liberty and professional license. They respond to the concerns.
I have a feeling that wouldn’t have been enough. There was an opportunity for a scalp. And safe spaces etc were weaponized with full effect.
Maybe the best thing that could come of this is a required basic course in civics for college students. Apparently many missed it previously, and an informed citizenry with a rudimentary understanding of our legal system benefits us all.
I found this article about when they were named to be Deans (Then called Masters.) https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/2/12/new-house-masters-chosen-law-school/ Back then Sullivan was doing stuff that I think was much more politically acceptable. It sounds like the House Committees (which include students) had some say, but limited, in the choice. I also note that neither Sullivan nor his wife had any experience at Harvard except as undergrads at Harvard Law School. I honestly think that’s a mistake.
@roycroftmom Sullivan has a perfect right to defend Weinstein or Nazis. That doesn’t mean he should be a Dean of a House at the same time. And I say that with someone with relatively little patience for the notion of “safe spaces”.
I thought this was a pretty interesting take on the whole issue: https://newrepublic.com/article/153945/harvard-right-fire-dean-ron-sullivan-winthrop-house
I read through that and it blames Sullivan for issues he has nothing to do with. If your complaint is University Health Services lacks rape kits, then why aren’t you demanding the head of University Health Services resign? Or maybe ask the head of their Title IX office or campus police to resign if you don’t like their protocols? Or demand Lawrence Bacow resign? Sullivan is about as responsible for the lack of rape kits at the health center as the IT department.
^It does not blame Sullivan for the lack of rape kits.
The article truly makes no sense. Maybe as a condition to enrollment, Harvard students should sign a statement that if sexually asaulted, they will go for help to the on campus hospital or police department, promptly. Some of these students need a nanny, not a dean.
I am learning from College Confidential threads that a large number of Americans, even educated Americans who attend or send their kids to top colleges, either do not understand or do not value the American system of government. They do not believe in the right of people, whether guilty or innocent, to representation by competent attorneys, if they are charged with a crime that offends the poster’s view of what is right and wrong. They do not believe in the right of people to freedom of speech if those people want to say something that offends the poster’s view of what is right and wrong.
They want to enforce an orthodoxy supporting their own views. This is rampant on college campuses and on CC.
Where does this culture of orthodoxy vs. a right to a fair hearing lead? Ultimately, it leads to authoritarianism. The loss of rule of law and the birth of rule by a government-sanctioned mob. It leads to a stifled society where some people have lost their rights altogether, like in The Handmaid’s Tale.
A few small comments on the article:
One, what exactly is the “on-campus hospital”? The Health Center is not a hospital. To what is the writer referring?
And students certainly CAN live of campus, but only 2% do. If anyone is interested, financial aid will apply to that off-campus housing.
I continue to be a little confused by all the references to the duties of a faculty dean versus the resident dean. In our experience, the resident dean tended to student problems and issues. The faculty dean hosted get togethers in their residence and was a more distant (in our case, benign) presence. Can anyone clarify?
I believe that ultimately this kind of censure for defending someone who has a right to representation, is going to harm innocent people without the resources of a Harvey Weinstein.
The New Republic article is not intellectually honest and is a prime example of the unfortunate current trends in projecting the worst on people as an absolute moralistic “truth” because the other person happens to disagree with your position, no matter how nuanced, because that position does not toe the line with your (your group’s) orthodoxy.
The writer begins by accusing Sullivan’s defenders of hyperbole and leaps of logic, “In addition to such hyperbole, Harvard’s decision not to renew Sullivan’s deanship has inspired fantastic leaps of logic.” Then after spending some 2 paragraphs on her bonafides as an impartial observer (and not a PC driven commentator), she injects hyperboles and projections of her own.
"Women on campus reasonably wondered how, as one student wrote in the Crimson, they could be “expected to live in Winthrop House under the authority of a man who … has exhibited hostility to survivors of sexual assault.” Because you defend someone accused of sexual assault automatically makes you hostile to survivors? Because you defend neo-Nazi’s right to march makes you automatically hostile to Jews? I think the ACLU would be offended by that leap.
“Casting doubt on victims’ compelling accounts of trauma doesn’t make a man a sexual assailant himself, but it doesn’t make him an advocate for women either.” Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. What is the full body of work of his actions on this? Acting as a lawyer and trying to cast doubt on the memory or veracity of an opposing witness’s testimony is a basic function of any trial lawyer. Doing this does not make him an advocate of or not an advocate of anything, other than his duty to zealously defend his client within legal and ethical guidelines.
Perhaps the most disturbing passage I read was, “In the role of faculty dean at Harvard, a lightning rod like Sullivan is wrong for the job. No doubt, there are countless exceptional academics in the nine faculties of Harvard who would not meet this standard of commitment to compassion, making them wrong for the job, too.” So, if you take strong and controversial positions, it means you lack compassion because you might upset the sensitivities of a group of students? So if a professor engages in a serious statistical study of mismatch it automatically disqualifies the professor as being uncompassionate? The writer tries to walk this back a bit with examples of Sullivan being insensitive, but it just circled back to the fact that Sullivan chose to defend an odious man who represents a terrible injustice practiced on women for far too long. I just don’t see how acting as a lawyer for anyone determines that person’s level of compassion or suitability for a faculty dean position. If in fact Sullivan had shown a lack of compassion, sensitivities or suitability throughout his years as faculty dean, then his contract should not have been renewed for those reasons. The dredging up of some past offenses by the Crimson seems like “cover” for the real reason Sullivan’s term was not renewed.
Of this I am certain, not many qualified people will be interested in serving as a Dean in the future. Contrary to the article, the position does not carry academic prestige, according to the Yale Dean I knew. Why would anyone of stature put up with the kinds of incidents we’ve seen recently at Harvard or Yale?
The Deans at Yale have a different role from the Deans (Heads of House) at Harvard. The Deans at Yale are sometimes pre-Ph.D., and often recent Ph.D.s. The Dean I actually know at Harvard was a Nobel laureate. Different circumstances, different expectations, different roles.
Well some of the Harvard Heads of House, anyway. I see that at least one is more similarly placed to Yale’s Deans of colleges.
I looked around on the Harvard web site and found that they have Faculty Deans and Resident Deans. The Resident Deans are more like the Deans at Yale. The Faculty Deans used to be called “Masters,” which made the distinction more apparent. But that terminology has been dropped. Yale had just-plain-Deans, who are like the Resident Deans, and “Masters,” probably now also replaced as a title.
If the position of Dean carries with it no academic prestige, then it stands to reason no one should be upset if someone’s contract is not renewed. If ‘not many qualified people will be interested in serving as a Dean in the future’, then maybe Harvard, Yale or any other university dealing with these issues will rethink their positions.
But, I somehow feel like there must be some reason why these colleges are able to find academics willing to take on these roles and they won’t have to scrape the ‘bottom of the barrel’ to find other qualified Deans. Harvard and Yale don’t struggle to find/retain faculty - I am sure there will always be highly qualified persons willing to get the privileges to come with the position of Dean. I haven’t heard that Professor Sullivan is even choosing to look elsewhere to teach - somehow even with this incidence -Harvard still works for him in every other regard.
For all the handwringing and caterwauling shown on this thread in regards to the students, tutors and staff vigorously sharing their ideas and values within the residence house they are community members of - it seems like the free market of ideas is functioning exactly as so many here say they ask for it to do. Sometimes your ideas don’t win in the marketplace. Sometimes you find the marketplace functions differently than you would like. Sometimes you find other priorities have replaced the ones you valued. The number of times some posters come back to argue the same point over and over (in a forum which specifically says it is not a debate society) seems to indicate that those posters have a problem with their ‘safe spaces’ being taken away rather than that other argument in the debate is winning.
I really don’t understand why some commenters keep bringing up a presumed lack of knowledge regarding the Constitution on those Harvard students, tutors and staff who don’t want Professor Sullivan to be the Dean of Winthrop House. It is a fallacious straw man argument which, if I were to take it seriously, calls into question the Constitutional knowledge of those making the argument.
No one’s right to legal representation has been negated. No one’s right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law has been taken away. Being a Dean of a undergraduate residence house is not a constitutionally protected right, nor is acceptance/approval of your personal choices/actions by your peers or community members in a private institution. Maybe everyone here needs to go back to read the Constitution (and Federalist Papers) before continuing with inaccurate arguments that imply a lack of government/civic knowledge on that part of those who don’t agree with you.
No one gets tenure, or an endowed chair, by serving as a Dean. Not career-enhancing in academia. The counseling and paternal/maternal skills some seek in such positions aren’t relevant to their field of study.
Faculty Dean/Head of House @ H = Head of Residential College (formerly Master) @ Y. Usually established tenured faculty who is in charge of all aspects of life in the House/College. Prof Christakis was the Master of Silliman and had the equivalent position as Sullivan.
Resident Dean @ H = Dean of Residential College @ Y. Usually junior faculty and serves largely in personal and academic support. At Y at least, they are the writers of the coveted “Dean’s excuses” that allow students to take exams or turn in papers later than scheduled for various reasons.
Both positions though require extensive student interaction. In that sense, the tone the Universities set with respect to student life and “safe spaces” affect both positions and might “chill” any ambition/desire that a faculty member may have to take such positions.
How are these young adults are going navigate life and the workplace in three or less years is beyond me. Safe spaces are actually echo chambers.
Maybe there’s a business model here. Safe Space retail locations for graduates. Go and hang out for a few hours after a bad review or missed promotion.
Every one has a right to physical security and safety from mental abuse. But this country was not and should not be about safety and exclusion based on ideas and thoughts. Yes ignore bigots and idiots.
But the desire to mute simple disagreements on philosophical grounds or reasonable political discourse is what it’s morphed into I’m afraid.
Criminal defense lawyers have (mostly) criminals for clients. That’s just how it is. Is Sullivan only suppose to represent the ‘nice’ criminals, those accused of ‘nice’ crimes like murder or insider trading, but not of rape or discrimination in the workplace? It doesn’t work that way.
Public defenders do not choose their clients but many choose the profession because they WANT to represent the worst criminals out there because they are the most in need of support. As a new law school grad, I interviewed for a job at the public defenders appellate division. I was asked if I could represent anyone, for any reason, if I could argue for full release or pardon for a child killer, for rapists. and that those on death row to be returned to society. The women (and they were all women) were very liberal and very likely to be working at the women’s crisis centers to help te’he victims of these crimes.
I worked with a guy (very good attorney) who had been a public defender and one of his former clients was arrest for a horrible crime of kidnapping a women, stabbing her, driving around with her dying in the trunk of his car while she bled to death. My friend said he was the most evil person he’d ever met, but the public defenders not only had to give him a good defense, they also had to continue to fight for him to get off of death row for about 15 years, until the guy died in prison.
It is the nature of criminal law. Bad guys are involved.