What if Sullivan were Weinstein’s psychiatrist and not his lawyer? Would that be okay that Sullivan had contact with HW and discussed all the facts and HW views on women, family, business?
Sullivan might have been hired to be part of the team because he’s black. The OJ Dream Team had many members who did one small piece of the defense but were there because of who they were, who they’d defended in the past. and maybe because they looked the part. Was F. Lee Bailey hired because there were no good trial attorneys in LA (no) or because he’d done big criminal trials with lots of media coverage in the past (Patty Hearst, Sam Shepherd)? Women attorneys often sit second chair on a rape case to show that not all females fear this defendant. Weinstein may have wanted an attorney who looked nothing like him, who wasn’t from LA or part of the entertainment world, who is experienced in the hardest cases.
Sullivan is the big loser here. He’s no longer representing Weinstein and no longer the House Dean. His family is ousted from the home they’ve lived in for 10 years.
Nobody wins here. Sullivans lost their home. Harvard administration lost their bragging rights as an elite intellectual community and the students who led the whining lost respect from the public and future employers.
I was catching up reading the writings of the leader of the student pack and it seems obvious that it was all about Sullivan defending Weinstein. All this other stuff claimed seems to be smokescreen by Harvard used to justify Sullivan’s removal. The young women seems alittle paranoid or at least her writings leave one with that impression.
The trial was supposed to be in the summer but was moved to the fall. He’s in school in the fall is his stated reason but no way to know if that’s the real reason.
And Harvard fired him (didn’t renew) anyway.
The article makes good points about criminal attorneys shying away from representing difficult clients because of the cost to their personal lives, both financial and physical (threats to them and family), and that often those most affected are poor and minorities who will then have less experienced representation. Hope all those Harvard students complaining about Sullivan are willing to step in and help out.
If you give SJWs an inch, they take it as an admission of guilt and their behavior is reinforced. You see it time after time when colleges give in to these type of tactics from what is usually a small, vocal minority.
There is an interesting article in the Harvard Crimson by Diana Eck who is (or has been) the Faculty Dean of Lowell House, discussing the role of the Faculty Dean.
People who have been assaulted are fragile and vulnerable for a while afterwards. It is not a permanent characteristic, but to imagine that a person can be assaulted without a difficult emotional aftermath–that’s not right, in the great majority of cases. I think it is extremely unfair to accuse an assault victim of “fragility” that should prevent her (or him) from being hired. Of course a person would be fragile for a time after an assault. Dean Diana Eck estimates that 25% of the undergraduate residents of her Harvard house will be assault victims. (That may be an overstatement, especially because freshmen do not live in the individual houses at Harvard.)
I don’t think that the article was insinuating that Prof. Sullivan was in any way responsible for the lack of rape kits at the Health Center. Of course he was not.
What the article is arguing instead is that the people who state that Prof. Sullivan should have been appointed for an additional period as Faculty Dean are defending the status quo. (Well, taken by itself, that is hard to argue.) Further, the article states that the status quo “has caused so many women to suffer for so long.” I am inclined to agree with that. If you have no close acquaintance with a rape victim, you are fortunate. There is definitely suffering involved.
In that context, the status quo includes the apparent fact that there are no rape kits at University Health Services at Harvard. This may be reasonable at the moment, because they might not have the personnel who are appropriately trained to collect them. It does raise a question or two, though.
“The dredging up of some past offenses by the Crimson seems like “cover” for the real reason Sullivan’s term was not renewed.”
But those are serious allegations that if true, could warrant removal from being Dean. A culture of hostility, retaliation, review of the house with Khurana (dean of Harvard college) for culture issues in 2016, don’t sound good. But if those were true, they should have remove him then.
“What happens when they don’t like their boss because they disagree. Do they expect HR to fire them?”
Not for disagreement, but for sexual harassment, creating a hostile workplace for women, sure, they will be fired, happened many times here in silicon valley. And they’re shown the door right away, as I said we’re in 2019, not 1950.
^“But if those were true, they should have removed him then.” Exactly my point. He was not removed then. Let’s not fool ourselves that the reason he was removed/not renewed now was for past transgressions and not for his representation of HW.
I guess it means Harvard and its defenders are just more “woke” than the rest of us.
It’s clearly obvious that the students and those who agree with them believe that by temporarily providing legal counsel to HW in the normal course of his profession and his academic credentials- Prof. Sullivan demonstrated that he is not in the woke enough club. He is an obvious part of the historical patriarchy and rape culture.
If Dean Eck actually believes 25% of the residents in her residential college are sexually assaulted (which likely means close to 50% of the women) then Harvard has way bigger problems than who is Dean.
So now the thread has degenerated into how weak and unstable women whine, moan and lie about imaginary sexual harassment and assault.
Haven’t we heard that one before. Won’t we hear it again and again. Quite likely, for instance, in a certain trial starting in December, from a number of very highly paid lawyers doing their constitutional duty.
I’m truly disgusted.
Did you read the article? So the stats @mamalion posted say 16% of Harvard female students surveyed said they had been a victim of actual or attempted sexual penetration. Another 15% said they had some other type of unwanted sexual contact, not further defined. How did that morph into half of Harvard women are assaulted? The stats are bad enough in reality, but why are they exaggerated by deans who should know better? Do you think anyone would really attend Harvard if half the women were raped there? The article also notes Harvard has implemented mandatory harassment training, which seems to have a high rate of compliance.
I really don’t want to get into this. It’s always the same misogynistic attack on women who are not really harassed or raped They are just “whining wimps who can not deal with the real world. Grow up and get groped.”
. In 2015 30+% of Harvard women reported unwanted contact or worse. 1. The wiki entry discusses underreporting. I fully believe college. 2. Attacks on women have gone up in the last two years (I wonder why). As I remember, now 4 women are killed/day in domestic violence, up from 3 just two years ago.
I’m off to work now, but I’m sure I will return to the usual acceptance of violence against women and the expectation that college girls should accept it whatever the price (and I don’t mean tuition).