Unforeseen Secondary Effects

Institutions of higher learning and their students who have put their names on petitions in support of Hamas even implicitly may be in for some surprises. At Fortune Janet Lorin reports that some top law firms have warned schools:

More than two dozen top US law firms sent a letter to more than 100 law school deans telling them to take an “unequivocal stance” against antisemitic harassment on their campuses.

The letter, which was signed by firms including Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Wachtell Lipton Rosen and Katz LLP, comes after some law students saw their job offers rescinded for comments made about Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack that killed 1,400 Israelis. Israel’s retaliatory bombing of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, has fueled protests across the country.

and

The letter was written this week by Joseph C. Shenker, senior chair of Sullivan & Cromwell, after he was contacted by Jewish law students from top universities. He circulated the draft to the other firms, each of which sent a copy to the law schools they work with on Wednesday night, Shenker said in an interview.

When asked if the firms would curtail recruiting from schools where they have seen concerning behavior, Shenker said, “People can draw their own conclusions. The letter speaks for itself.”

Contrary to whatever you may believe, “no hire” lists are completely legal in the United States.

The surprises may go deeper than that. At the Wall Street Journal Leslie Lenkowsky remarks in a op-ed:

Missouri Rep. Jason Smith denounced universities and student organizations for statements “celebrating, excusing, or downplaying” the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas in Israel. “Releasing such statements, or failing to condemn them,” he said last month, “is unforgivable and runs counter to our values as a nation.”

Mr. Smith’s comments have more weight than most because he is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy. That includes policies governing nonprofit organizations, including colleges and universities as well as groups issuing statements and staging rallies throughout the U.S. Statements celebrating Hamas’s violence, Mr. Smith adds, “call into question the academic or charitable missions they claim to pursue”—in other words, their tax breaks.

The U.S. has traditionally given charities and their supporters great leeway in handling controversial issues. Constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly protect their activities and require government to demonstrate a strong reason for restricting them. But Congress and the Supreme Court—as well as nearly three dozen states—have agreed that providing aid to terrorist groups like Hamas is a justifiable reason to forbid donors from supporting them.

Mr. Smith’s statement suggests the tax exemptions of organizations backing Hamas—or tolerating such activity—may be in for congressional scrutiny. Virginia’s Attorney General Jason Miyares has launched an investigation of AJP Educational Foundation, aka American Muslims for Palestine. Mr. Miyares’s office said in a press release that it is looking into whether the group “used funds raised for impermissible purposes under state law, including benefitting or providing support to terrorist organizations,” as well as whether it was properly registered to solicit contributions in the state.

I would think that the first step might be to render such institutions ineligible for government grants. Loss of non-profit status, however, could well prove a death sentence to a struggling college. Even for a highly endowed institution like Harvard or Yale it would be a notable inconvenience.