More about the Sullivan case at Harvard

The fallout continues from Harvard’s firing of Law School professor Ronald Sullivan and his wife Stephanie Robinson from being “faculty deans” (student mentors at residential dorms) at Winthrop House. (They were Harvard’s first African-American house deans.)  Despite Harvard’s conclusion, after a “climate survey” of students in Winthrop House, that there were other issues in the House, it’s pretty clear that Sullivan’s firing was due to student unrest occurring after Sullivan took on Harvey Weinstein as a client. That led to student demonstrations, graffiti (e.g., “Our rage is self-defense”), and, of course, claims of trauma.

In other words, despite Sullivan’s history of defending people on all sides of the political spectrum—including the family of Michael Brown—the students, unable to comprehend that a lawyer doesn’t necessarily agree with the view or accusations of a client he’s taken on, drew the line at Harvey Weinstein. Representing him, they implied, is an unforgivable sin, certainly disqualifying Sullivan from dealing with students at Winthrop House. After all, they argued, how could someone defending the odious Weinstein possibly understand a student who was sexually harassed or assaulted?

The sad part is that, rather than educate students about this principle, Harvard decided to cave in to student outrage and fire—or rather not renew the contracts of—Sullivan and Robinson. The main figure behind this shameful decision is the Dean of Harvard College, Rakesh Khurana. (He’s responsible for several misguided and woke decisions, like penalizing Harvard students for joining non-Harvard-affiliated “finals clubs”, which are single sex for both men and women.)

In today’s New York Times, another black Law School professor, Randall Kennedy, defends his colleague and castigates Harvard for firing Sullivan. It’s an eloquent defense of principles of legal representation as well as a critique of all college administrators who would rather truckle to the student mob than educate them. (Click on screenshot below.)

I’ll put up just two quotes:

Although Dean Khurana declared that his decision was “informed by a number of considerations,” he said nothing in his announcement about the issue that lay at the heart of the controversy: the claim that Mr. Sullivan’s representation of Mr. Weinstein was in and of itself inconsistent with his role as a faculty dean. No wonder the students who campaigned for his dismissal on that basis celebrated the administration’s action.

The upshot is that Harvard College appears to have ratified the proposition that it is inappropriate for a faculty dean to defend a person reviled by a substantial number of students — a position that would disqualify a long list of stalwart defenders of civil liberties and civil rights, including Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall.

. . . and an eloquent critique of Harvard’s hypocrisy about “safe spaces”. I’ve put the money quote in bold, a quote that should be engraved on the heart of every college administrator:

Student opposition to Mr. Sullivan has hinged on the idea of safety — that they would not feel safe confiding in Mr. Sullivan about matters having to do with sexual harassment or assault given his willingness to serve as a lawyer for Mr. Weinstein. Let’s assume the good faith of such declarations (though some are likely mere parroting). Even still, they should not be accepted simply because they represent sincere beliefs or feelings.

Suppose atheist students claimed that they did not feel “safe” confiding in a faculty dean who was an outspoken Christian or if conservative students claimed that they did not feel “safe” confiding in a faculty dean who was a prominent leftist. One would hope that university officials would say more than that they “take seriously” the concerns raised and fears expressed. One would hope that they would say that Harvard University defends — broadly — the right of people to express themselves aesthetically, ideologically, intellectually and professionally. One would hope that they would say that the acceptability of a faculty dean must rest upon the way in which he meets his duties, not on his personal beliefs or professional associations. One would hope, in short, that Harvard would seek to educate its students and not simply defer to vague apprehensions or pander to the imperatives of misguided rage.

Now, of course, Harvard authorities are dredging up various supposed delinquencies on Mr. Sullivan’s part. An exposé in The Harvard Crimson refers to allegations that he and his wife were highhanded in their dealings with the staff at Winthrop House. No one is perfect; perhaps there is something to these claims.

But these dissatisfactions, if relevant at all, were not what provoked the student protests that led to Mr. Sullivan’s ouster. The central force animating the drama has been student anger at anyone daring to breach the wall of ostracism surrounding Mr. Weinstein, even for the limited purpose of extending him legal representation. They want to make him, a person still clothed with the presumption of innocence, more of an untouchable before trial than those who have been convicted of a crime. There was no publicized protest at Winthrop House when Mr. Sullivan successfully represented a convicted murderer, Aaron Hernandez, the former New England Patriots star, who was acquitted of a separate double murder before killing himself in prison.

Harvard officials are certainly capable of withstanding student pressure. This time, though, they don’t want to.

 I’ll also add two letters that were written to both Dean Khurana and President Bacow. The first is by Greg Mayer and me; Greg did the heavy lifting and I suggested a few changes.

Dear Dean Khurana:

As alumni, we are writing to express our dismay over the non-renewal of Prof. Ronald Sullivan and Stephanie Robinson as faculty deans of Winthrop House. We urge you to reconsider your action.

The instant cause of their non-renewal appears to be Prof. Sullivan’s representation of Harvey Weinstein, a widely reviled defendant, which some students, in inexcusable ignorance of the customs and usages of the judicial system, objected to. Your letter to the Winthrop House community, referring to the “climate”, when read in the context of events since February, demands such an interpretation of the cause of their non-renewal.

This an absolutely unacceptable reason to sanction a law professor. The right of accused to counsel, even if  guilty, is a bedrock principle of liberal democracy, and an academic defense attorney should be lauded, not sacked, for taking a case against the tide of social fashion. John Adams said the best service he ever did for his country was to defend the British soldiers accused of murder at the Boston Massacre.

We have read the recent Crimson article detailing high turnover and other difficulties with the House staff. It is entirely possible these issues in the running of the House may be serious. Nevertheless, the evidence presented in the Crimson suggests that these issues affected primarily staff—and the students only indirectly. If the non-renewal was based on these issues, and the ill-informed attacks on Prof. Sullivan by students were coincidental rather than causal, then this needs to be stated clearly and publicly.

Unless a convincing case can be made, publicly and soon, that the cause of their non-renewal was some combination of administrative and staffing missteps at the House, and not the legal representation of an unpopular defendant, this will rightfully be seen as a black mark against Harvard. Indeed, even if Sullivan and Robinson are guilty of administrative inadequacy, it would be better to keep them, in order to reinforce core legal principles, lest it seem to put Harvard’s imprimatur on rank prejudice

Gregory C. Mayer, AM ’81, PhD ’89

Secretary of the Faculty
Professor of Biological Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Parkside

Jerry A. Coyne, PhD ’78
Professor Emeritus of Ecology & Evolution
University of Chicago

(I’ve left out our contact information.)

And, with Steve’s permission, I’m putting up a letter that Steve Pinker wrote to Khurana, which was cc’d to Lawrence Bacow (President), Alan Garber (Provost), and Claudine Gay (Dean).

Dear Rakesh,

I appreciate the complexity of any contested administrative decision, and know that there may be facts behind it that I’m not privy to. Still, I must register my dismay at the recent announcement of the decision not to renew Ron Sullivan’s appointment as Dean at Winthrop House.

The decision, of course, was made in the wake of highly publicized protests over his decision to serve as legal counsel to Harvey Weinstein. Even if the decision was based instead on Sullivan’s performance in his role of Dean, the timing of the decision, together the fact that the public announcement did not make it clear that Harvard was not punishing him for his unpopular professional activities, conveys the impression to the wider world that Harvard caved in to pressure from immature students and endorsed the notion that justice consists in joining a mob against an unpopular villain rather than an impartial system in which the accused has the right to a vigorous defense.

If our students claim to “feel unsafe” under the leadership of an eminent defense attorney who takes on unpopular clients, then we have failed to educate them on how the justice system in a liberal democracy works.  We should use this as a teachable moment, rather than indulging juvenile reactions. Whether or not assuaging noisy students and acceding to a shaming mob was the motivation for the decision, that is the public perception.

As a public figure who interacts with many intelligent non-academics from diverse backgrounds and political orientations, I am frequently challenged on the integrity of the academy. “Why should we trust what academics say on climate change, or vaccine safety, or gun control?” they ask; “Everyone knows that universities are echo chambers of political correctness, with no commitment to impartiality or principle.” Incidents like this undermine the credibility of the academy in an age in which we must safeguard it more assiduously than ever.

Best
Steve [Pinker]