Friends of Academia

Kennedy writes that the firing of Sullivan and Robinson has “thoroughly embarrassed” Harvard. He calls on all those concerned with higher education to “insist that Harvard answer the question: Why is serving as defense counsel for Harvey Weinstein inconsistent with serving as a faculty dean?”

The problem begins with the position of Faculty Dean itself. As Kennedy writes, “as a faculty dean, Mr. Sullivan is responsible for creating a safe, fun, supportive environment in which students can pursue their collegiate ambitions. Winthrop House is meant to be a home away from home; faculty deans are in loco parentis. Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Robinson are expected to attend to the students as counselors, cheerleaders, impresarios and guardians.” In conversations with other Harvard colleagues, I’ve been told that the Faculty Deans are, in spite of their title, not academic positions, but rather have a therapeutic mission. But this begs the question: why should an eminent faculty member be qualified to offer parental or therapeutic advice to college students? Why should they be cheerleaders? Harvard has a large and vibrant counseling service, as do all colleges.

The premise of having prominent faculty live amongst students is laudatory. These faculty provide a model for academic and intellectual engagement. Faculty mentors in student housing at Bard College, where I teach, often organize social events with an intellectual bent or meals to discuss political or ethical questions.  The idea is to model for students the life of the mind outside of the classroom. It is not to offer therapy which is better found elsewhere. It seems that the Faculty Dean position fundamentally devalues what faculty can and should offer students. Safety is important. But it is a mistake to think that faculty are or should be the gatekeepers to student safety. This is true for Faculty living as residential Deans as well. As Kennedy suggests, to hold faculty members even as Faculty Deans responsible for student’s emotional safety risks devaluing the academic enterprise.

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….

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. Some high-ranking administrators have clearly been guided by an affinity for the belief that Mr. Sullivan’s representation of Mr. Weinstein constituted a betrayal of enlightened judgment. Others have simply been willing to be mau-maued.

In March, when it seemed that the administration was getting ready to do what it’s now done, 52 members of the Harvard Law School faculty, myself included, signed a letter supporting Mr. Sullivan’s “dedication to the professional tradition of providing representation to people accused to crimes and other misconduct, including those who are most reviled.” We called upon Harvard “to recognize that such legal advocacy in service of constitutional principles is not only fully consistent with Sullivan’s roles of law professor and dean of an undergraduate house, but also one of the many possible models that resident deans can provide in teaching, mentoring and advising students.”