In a column that opens with a description of his inadequacy as a parent:
We were discussing a Harvard law professor, Ronald Sullivan. He had been pushed out of his secondary job as head of Harvard College’s Winthrop House after he helped give Harvey Weinstein, accused of sexual assault, the legal representation every defendant is entitled to.
To me, as a progressive baby boomer, this was a violation of hard-won liberal values, a troubling example of a university monoculture nurturing liberal intolerance. Of course no professor should be penalized for accepting an unpopular client.
To my daughter, of course a house dean should not defend a notorious alleged rapist. As she saw it, any professor is welcome to represent any felon, but not while caring for undergraduates: How can a house leader support students traumatized by sexual assault when he is also defending someone accused of rape?
I believe that Nicholas Kristof is confused. He has confused the lightning with the lightning bug. As Lincoln noted just because you call a tail a leg does not make it one. Liberalism has been abandoned in favor of progressivism and today’s progressivism has assumed a decidely authoritarian cast.
Perhaps I can help clear the fog by referring to Aristotle. In Aristotle’s elaboration of Plato’s theory of forms, “essence” is the set of properties that makes an entity or substance what it is. It must have these properties. Without them it does not retain its identity. It may have other qualities as well that are not essential. These qualities are termed “accidents”.
Freedom of expression is essential to liberalism. Without freedom of expression it is not liberalism. It should also be added that subscribing to a code of ethics is essential to professionals. Legal ethics requires attorneys to provide a vigorous defense even to those with whom they disagree and of whom they disapprove. Whatever Mr. Kristof’s daughter believes, she is not a liberal and she believes that political beliefs transcend professional ethics.
I believe that Harvey Weinstein is probably guilty of the crimes with which he has been accused or at least some of them. I cannot know whether he is since I wasn’t there but I believe that he is. I disapprove wholly with what he has done but nonetheless I still believe he should have a vigorous defense.
When one believes that organizing mobs to defame people who have done nothing wrong because you assume that the only possible explanation for their behavior is based on race, you cannot be a liberal. You cannot even be a progressive.
To what view are suppression of freedom of expression and abandoning of ethical obligations in favor of the political passions of the day essential? I would claim that they are essential to authoritarianism.
I sincerely hope that the views of the young brownshirts whose activities are so much publicized these days are not typical of their age cohort. Mr. Kristof’s column suggests that they are.
Read more about this than I intended. The guy and his wife were lousy at their jobs. His representing Weinstein made for a convenient excuse to finally dump him.
Steve
Do you believe a physician would be ethically obligated to treat Harvey Weinstein for, say, a heart condition? That using that ethical obligation as pretext for discharging him from a position as proctor would be acceptable? IMO it would be understandable but not liberal. It would be illiberal.
To the woke, wrongthink and wrongspeak, not just wrongdo, all deserve the death penalty (or at least the canceling). And anyone one asks exactly what those things are is guilty of wrongthink and wrongspeak. And the beat goes on.
But have hope. Polls and surveys show that the upcoming generation are getting increasingly tired of of all the PC and TG BS. Tolerance isn’t having to let people run over you repeatedly and like it, and that’s what the woke activists do.
“Read more about this than I intended. The guy and his wife were lousy at their jobs. His representing Weinstein made for a convenient excuse to finally dump him.”
I haven’t read much about this, but if that is true then that is even more damning.
That would show that you can’t fire someone for doing a job poorly, but it’s acceptable to fire someone for doing another job correctly.
I agree with you on this Dave but I’m also coming around to the view of Kristoff’s daughter. That is, of course Weinstein deserves a vigorous defense. This is America and, while we agree that he’s probably guilty, he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence in court and competent counsel to ensure the state doesn’t have an unfair advantage. If Harvard were firing a law professor for defending Weinstein on the grounds that it signals Harvard’s support for sexual assault, it would be a decidedly illiberal act. But I’m coming around to the argument that, in his capacity as the house dad for a quasi-family of undergraduates, he probably ought not be in the business of defending accused sex offenders. There are plenty of other competent laywers out there to defend Weinstein who don’t have a quasi-parental role.
Attorneys have an affirmative obligation to defend people regardless of how heinous those people are. IMO that is a vitally important lesson, particularly in a law school. People should not be penalized or shamed for doing what they are ethically obligated to do.
Is it true that, “Attorneys have an affirmative obligation to defend people regardless of how heinous those people are”? I’ve never understood that to be the case. Physicians? Yes. But attorneys decline to take bad cases all the time, no?
Additionally, Sullivan wasn’t fired from his job as a law professor. They just didn’t offer him a second ten-year contract to be the house dad for a residency hall. Additionally, as noted when I wrote about this at OTB back in March, it appears that there were other “climate” issues at work and this was either a pretext (bad) or the last straw (defensible).
Yes. Check the ABA’s model code of legal ethics. I checked it when this incident first came out. The language is pretty strong and unambiguous. Something to the effect that lawyers have an ethical obligation even when the behavior of which the defendant is accused is deplored by the majority of the legal profession.
Was the residence hall associated with the law school? I don’t know. Regardless Harvard has a law school. What will young lawyers learn from this incident?
@Dave Schuler
The sound you are hearing is the alarm clock. It is time to wake up.
We make a number of exceptions for physicians who dont want to do stuff they find unethical, like abortions, tubals and Jehovah’s Witnesses. You are not obligated to take care of every patient. I dont remember, maybe PD can tell us, if all lawyers are ethically obligated to represent anyone who asks. I kind fo doubt it. While a person may be entitled to counsel, I dont think they have to have the lawyer they want.
Steve