How Harvard dissed the Bill of Rights

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Shortly after Claudine Gay stepped down as president of Harvard University last month, an interesting sidelight to her years as a university administrator emerged: As dean of the faculty of arts and sciences a few years earlier, Gay was involved in removing a law professor from his secondary role as the dean of a campus dormitory.

The professor, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., had caused an uproar on campus in 2019 when he joined the legal defense team of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who was accused of rape or sexual assault by more than 80 women and whose case launched the MeToo movement. Weinstein was later convicted of rape on two coasts, as well as other crimes, and is serving a lengthy sentence.

But at the time that Sullivan chose to defend him, Weinstein was legally an innocent man. He was as entitled to a robust defense as anyone else, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Harvard administrators backed Sullivan’s right as a lawyer to defend Weinstein but also saw his act as one that failed to take into account, as the dean of a house, the turmoil felt by the students in his dormitory. When Sullivan responded to students’ concerns by explaining the importance of a strong defense for unpopular defendants, Gay deemed it “insufficient” to address their feelings of being unsafe. Sullivan was pressured into stepping down as dean. Soon after, he also resigned from Weinstein’s defense.

This was hardly the first time that a lawyer has been vilified for representing people accused of heinous crimes. One hundred years ago, iconic lawyer Clarence Darrow, who already had a reputation for taking on controversial cases, was widely criticized for defending two teenage thrill killers.

Does it always work out that way? No. Wealthy people can afford entire teams of brilliant lawyers. Black men have historically received stiffer sentences than white men for the same crimes, according to a study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. But either way, everyone is entitled to a defense, whether in criminal or civil court. That almost always means they need a lawyer.

The same issue came up this month involving the contentious race for the 47th Congressional District in Orange County, which has included mudslinging on both sides. The campaign of Dave Min launched a political ad that accuses another Democratic candidate, Joanna Weiss, of funding her campaign with the money her husband earned representing the Catholic Church in sexual molestation cases. (The Los Angeles Times endorsed Min in this race as the better candidate.)

Weiss’ campaign, which has its own ad attacking Min, responded to Politico that most of her husband’s work for the church was on employment issues.

But that’s not the issue. The church had a right to legal defense on sexual abuse as well as any other matter, and lawyers (and their families) should not be demonized for providing it. Lawyers simply serve a function in the legal system, just as a judge does. Min, a former law professor, certainly knows this.

Ultimately, better public understanding begins with better communication. And in this, Harvard missed an opportunity to educate by example by standing up for a basic principle.