Poll of the Day > Harvard Dean Fired For Representing Harvey Weinstein

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/11/us/harvard-law-professor-ronald-sullivan-loses-deanship-harvey-weinstein/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Harvard law professor Ronald Sullivan has been removed as dean of Winthrop House due to his work as an attorney representing Harvey Weinstein for his upcoming sexual assault trial. According to Harvard staff, students at Winthrop House were feeling unsafe having a person tied to Mr. Weinstein as dean and that they have continued to communicate concerns about the climate in Winthrop House to the college.

Mr. Sullivan sent an email prior to the removal defending the right for representation of the "guilty, unpopular, vile or undesirable," writing "it is particularly important for this category of unpopular defendant to receive the same process as everyone else -- perhaps even more important. Despite this, both he and his wife who was co-dean alongside him were removed.
---

Theres a lot more the story and it goes further back than Weinstein. He still is a professor, he just isnt the head of a house.
---

So "unsafe" because he's an attorney, not actually the one accused of committing anything. Just pathetic

Even if I don't agree with his stance defending client, it doesn't justify the termination. Nor does it justify the termination of his wife.
---

CTLM posted...

So "unsafe" because he's an attorney, not actually the one accused of committing anything. Just pathetic

Even if I don't agree with his stance defending client, it doesn't justify the termination. Nor does it justify the termination of his wife.

There is more to the story and the issues with him as House dean go further back than representing Weinstein.

This is a very biased piece.
---

Sounds like grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. But this guy would know better than me, he's a Harvard law professor.
---

CTLM posted...

So "unsafe" because he's an attorney, not actually the one accused of committing anything. Just pathetic

Even if I don't agree with his stance defending client, it doesn't justify the termination. Nor does it justify the termination of his wife.

Yup, guilt by association at its best. Weinstein is already guilty in the eyes of pretty much everyone, so his attorneys must be evil people to represent him, and their wives must also be evil people for being married to those evil attorneys.
---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/17/18626716/ronald-sullivan-winthrop-house-harvard-law-school

There were apparently other issues with Sullivans work
A report by the Harvard Crimson on May 10 rounded up a whole bunch of complaints about the work of Sullivan and his wife as house leaders that had little to do with Weinstein.

The article featured a statement by 11 current and former staffers of Winthrop House that said:

during our time as tutors at Winthrop House, we experienced a workplace climate of hostility and suspicion generated by the Faculty Deans, Ronald Sullivan and Stephanie Robinson. Although we recognize that not all tutors shared our experience, we do believe that many tutors and staff members were subject to improper and antagonistic behavior by the Faculty Deans.
The Crimson noted the revolving door of administrators at Winthrop House 10 in a decade, when the average number of administrators at the other 11 houses in the same period was between one and two.

Four former Winthrop staff members said they saw House Administrators cry while on the job, according to the Crimson, sometimes after being told to do things they believed fell out of their purview, including personal errands and tasks for the faculty deans such as grocery shopping.

It somewhat strains credulity to think that the university would have failed to renew Sullivan and Robinsons contracts absent the Weinstein controversy. At the same time, despite the outside portrayal, this is neither a case of a prominent legal academic losing his faculty position over taking on an unpopular client nor a case of a beloved administrator losing his dorm administration job over taking on an unpopular client. Sullivan continues to be a professor in good standing at Harvard Law School, and seems to have been deposed at least in part because outside the four walls of the Weinstein controversy, he and Robinson were not running a particularly smooth-sailing ship.

---

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

It sounds more like they used the system to screw over a dick who was acting like a dick but not enough so to remove him. They then seized an opportunity and used it to their advantage.

I, for one, say good show chaps. If the system isn't working for you you gotta work the system.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

That second article seems to indicate his representation of Weinstein had nothing to do with it.

ASlaveObeys posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

It sounds more like they used the system to screw over a dick who was acting like a dick but not enough so to remove him. They then seized an opportunity and used it to their advantage.

I, for one, say good show chaps. If the system isn't working for you you gotta work the system.

And what about his wife? You're ok with Law students at arguably the highest legal institute in the land stringing her up next to him for the crime of being married to him? There's a lot of ugliness to the whole thing if principles are the foundation of law.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

It sounds more like they used the system to screw over a dick who was acting like a dick but not enough so to remove him. They then seized an opportunity and used it to their advantage.

I, for one, say good show chaps. If the system isn't working for you you gotta work the system.

And what about his wife? You're ok with Law students at arguably the highest legal institute in the land stringing her up next to him for the crime of being married to him? There's a lot of ugliness to the whole thing if principles are the foundation of law.

Sure, if you ignore the actual truth of what happened.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

It sounds more like they used the system to screw over a dick who was acting like a dick but not enough so to remove him. They then seized an opportunity and used it to their advantage.

I, for one, say good show chaps. If the system isn't working for you you gotta work the system.

And what about his wife? You're ok with Law students at arguably the highest legal institute in the land stringing her up next to him for the crime of being married to him? There's a lot of ugliness to the whole thing if principles are the foundation of law.

It literally says she was also a dick. Also, yes, don't be a dick and have ten times the turnover rate as the other houses.

Also, wifey was directly accused of also being a dick.

It's not like Jean valjean stealing some bread for his nephew. These people played the game, abused their station and got out played

Theres also allegations that they did not handle Title IX complaints properly as well.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

That second article seems to indicate his representation of Weinstein had nothing to do with it.

It doesnt say however how many of those complaints were before and after he started representing Harvey Weinstein. If the proportionality of complaints is higher recently it could be argued that the premise of his accusation is correct.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

That second article seems to indicate his representation of Weinstein had nothing to do with it.

It doesnt say however how many of those complaints were before and after he started representing Harvey Weinstein. If the proportionality of complaints is higher recently it could be argued that the premise of his accusation is correct.

If the system doesn't work... just saying

aDirtyShisno posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

That second article seems to indicate his representation of Weinstein had nothing to do with it.

It doesnt say however how many of those complaints were before and after he started representing Harvey Weinstein. If the proportionality of complaints is higher recently it could be argued that the premise of his accusation is correct.

So youre not going to accept any information that doesnt already confirm your bias. (Heres a hint, it hasnt been long enough for the turnover rate to be that big of an issue since he started representing Weinstein.)
---

catatonia posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

That second article seems to indicate his representation of Weinstein had nothing to do with it.

It doesnt say however how many of those complaints were before and after he started representing Harvey Weinstein. If the proportionality of complaints is higher recently it could be argued that the premise of his accusation is correct.

So youre not going to accept any information that doesnt already confirm your bias. (Heres a hint, it hasnt been long enough for the turnover rate to be that big of an issue since he started representing Weinstein.)

Or you could just present evidence showing that the majority of the complaints were before he took the case. If he had a staff of a dozen or so people and most of them quit in a mass exodus when he took the case that could easily inflate the number.

You know, the absence of evidence and all that.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Or you could just present evidence showing that the majority of the complaints were before he took the case. If he had a staff of a dozen or so people and most of them quit in a mass exodus when he took the case that could easily inflate the number.

You know, the absence of evidence and all that.

A) this isnt a court of law
B) you could actually find and read more than just a single article that confirms your bias if youre so interested in facts
C)

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/

Since 2016, more than a dozen Winthrop tutors, students, and staff have brought concerns about Sullivan and Robinson to College administrators in meetings, emails, and reports. Many of them said they believe administrators failed to protect them.

Kohn wrote in an emailed statement that some tutors took Proctors reference to issues from three years prior to be a clear threat.

She said she understood Proctor to be referring to Winthrops history of management problems and alleged retaliation against tutors that Sullivan and Robinson deemed insufficiently supportive of them.

In the decade since Sullivan and Robinson became faculty deans of Winthrop, the 11 other upperclassmen houses have had, on average, one or two House Administrators. From 2010 to 2018, three houses had one House Administrator and five had two. In 2018, the average tenure of a non-Winthrop House Administrator was 9.45 years.

In that period, Winthrop House had nine. Winthrops current House Administrator, its tenth under Sullivan and Robinson, took office just six weeks ago, on March 26.

Four former Winthrop staff members said they saw House Administrators cry while on the job sometimes after being told to do things they believed fell out of their purview, including personal errands and tasks for the faculty deans such as grocery shopping.

The list goes on and on and on. This is not simply because he represented Weinstein. As Ive said repeatedly, its been a long time coming.

And, he wasnt fired from the college. Hes still a professor there. He simply isnt the House Dean anymore.
---

catatonia posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Or you could just present evidence showing that the majority of the complaints were before he took the case. If he had a staff of a dozen or so people and most of them quit in a mass exodus when he took the case that could easily inflate the number.

You know, the absence of evidence and all that.

A) this isnt a court of law
B) you could actually find and read more than just a single article that confirms your bias if youre so interested in facts
C)

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/

Since 2016, more than a dozen Winthrop tutors, students, and staff have brought concerns about Sullivan and Robinson to College administrators in meetings, emails, and reports. Many of them said they believe administrators failed to protect them.

Kohn wrote in an emailed statement that some tutors took Proctors reference to issues from three years prior to be a clear threat.

She said she understood Proctor to be referring to Winthrops history of management problems and alleged retaliation against tutors that Sullivan and Robinson deemed insufficiently supportive of them.

In the decade since Sullivan and Robinson became faculty deans of Winthrop, the 11 other upperclassmen houses have had, on average, one or two House Administrators. From 2010 to 2018, three houses had one House Administrator and five had two. In 2018, the average tenure of a non-Winthrop House Administrator was 9.45 years.

In that period, Winthrop House had nine. Winthrops current House Administrator, its tenth under Sullivan and Robinson, took office just six weeks ago, on March 26.

Four former Winthrop staff members said they saw House Administrators cry while on the job sometimes after being told to do things they believed fell out of their purview, including personal errands and tasks for the faculty deans such as grocery shopping.

The list goes on and on and on. This is not simply because he represented Weinstein. As Ive said repeatedly, its been a long time coming.

And, he wasnt fired from the college. Hes still a professor there. He simply isnt the House Dean anymore.

Of course this is not a court. Duh. . What does that have to do with anything?

If this was a long time coming then what caused it to come now? He alleges the recent allegations, which again we have no statistics for, are all about his representing his client. If true, it begs the question why hes being dismissed from his position at this point in time, especially since everything you claim to be egregious was a long time past?

And fired from a post is still being fired. Just because he had two positions and now only has one doesnt mean he wasnt fired from the other. Does the post still exist? Yes. Is he in it? No. He was fired.
---

I... I just cant fathom how you think half of that is even an actual argument. Why is it not a court relevant, because of your demands of evidence. Nevermind evidence had been served you just didnt want to read it.

It even said that the reason it came to a head was because of the protests over he Weinstein defense. But that isnt why he was actually fired, like at all.

As for the third paragraph, thats nothing more than fluff in an attempt to sound like you have a point.

You dont. It quite simply wasnt ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS ON WEINSTEINS DEFENSE TEAM like you tried to portray it. From my first post I said this wasnt the case. It isnt, and no amount of supufluous paragraphs you try to type will change that.

He was a shit house dean. Simple and thats it. He should have been fired long ago.

Dont like it? Doesnt matter.
---

catatonia posted...

It even said that the reason it came to a head was because of the protests over he Weinstein defense. But that isnt why he was actually fired, like at all.

So then he was correct. This mustve missed that. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

There is absolutely no reason who he is representing should effect his job. If he is receiving complaints due to that then the ones complaining need to re-evaluate their choices, and if need be depart like the 9 others. Obviously.
---

Or fuck the system. He loses the students win.

aDirtyShisno posted...

catatonia posted...

It even said that the reason it came to a head was because of the protests over he Weinstein defense. But that isnt why he was actually fired, like at all.

So then he was correct. This mustve missed that. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

There is absolutely no reason who he is representing should effect his job. If he is receiving complaints due to that then the ones complaining need to re-evaluate their choices, and if need be depart like the 9 others. Obviously.

Good thing it wasnt why he was fired then, right? Im glad we agree
---

catatonia posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

catatonia posted...

It even said that the reason it came to a head was because of the protests over he Weinstein defense. But that isnt why he was actually fired, like at all.

So then he was correct. This mustve missed that. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

There is absolutely no reason who he is representing should effect his job. If he is receiving complaints due to that then the ones complaining need to re-evaluate their choices, and if need be depart like the 9 others. Obviously.

Good thing it wasnt why he was fired then, right? Im glad we agree

And yet you just said it was.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

catatonia posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

catatonia posted...

It even said that the reason it came to a head was because of the protests over he Weinstein defense. But that isnt why he was actually fired, like at all.

So then he was correct. This mustve missed that. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

There is absolutely no reason who he is representing should effect his job. If he is receiving complaints due to that then the ones complaining need to re-evaluate their choices, and if need be depart like the 9 others. Obviously.

Good thing it wasnt why he was fired then, right? Im glad we agree

And yet you just said it was.

No. I didnt. I think I see the problem. Youre missing a very large portion of how the English language works.

So thanks for letting me know youre unable to learn and absorb factual information.
---

That's gotta be a wrongful termination lawsuit. That's like getting fired because in your second job as a car salesmen, you sold a car to a guy that used it in illegal streer racing
---

Behaviorism posted...

That's gotta be a wrongful termination lawsuit. That's like getting fired because in your second job as a car salesmen, you sold a car to a guy that used it in illegal streer racing

Your analogy is so bad and its based off incorrect information.
---

catatonia posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

catatonia posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

catatonia posted...

It even said that the reason it came to a head was because of the protests over he Weinstein defense. But that isnt why he was actually fired, like at all.

So then he was correct. This mustve missed that. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

There is absolutely no reason who he is representing should effect his job. If he is receiving complaints due to that then the ones complaining need to re-evaluate their choices, and if need be depart like the 9 others. Obviously.

Good thing it wasnt why he was fired then, right? Im glad we agree

And yet you just said it was.

No. I didnt. I think I see the problem. Youre missing a very large portion of how the English language works.

So thanks for letting me know youre unable to learn and absorb factual information.

No. The problem is the hidden quotes. Youre unable to see the bolded portion where you clearly said that. You need to click show hidden quotes.
---

It's Harvard...these poor little "snowflakes" are triggered or threatened by anything and everything that isn't their way or the highway. They need to grow up and realize the world isn't always going to agree with them.
---

Decoy77 posted...

It's Harvard...these poor little "snowflakes" are triggered or threatened by anything and everything that isn't their way or the highway. They need to grow up and realize the world isn't always going to agree with them.

Basically this. More useless sjw's being useless.
---

You really shouldn't bother, Zang.

Everyone was already locked in opinion-wise as soon as they saw the topic title.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

You really shouldn't bother, Zang.

Everyone was already locked in opinion-wise as soon as they saw the topic title.

Is Zang Cat?
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

You really shouldn't bother, Zang.

Everyone was already locked in opinion-wise as soon as they saw the topic title.

Is Zang Cat?

Look at his sig. :p
---

Sarcasthma posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

You really shouldn't bother, Zang.

Everyone was already locked in opinion-wise as soon as they saw the topic title.

Is Zang Cat?

Look at his sig. :p

Lmao I didnt even see that!
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

You really shouldn't bother, Zang.

Everyone was already locked in opinion-wise as soon as they saw the topic title.

Is Zang Cat?

Look at his sig. :p

Lmao I didnt even see that!

I mean, it goes with the rest of the topic where obvious and easily readable things are missed by you.

Sarcasthma posted...

You really shouldn't bother, Zang.

Everyone was already locked in opinion-wise as soon as they saw the topic title.

I know. I should have just stayed out instead of tried to educate people to not believe a biased story. But thats the funny thing about people who complain about outrage culture by engaging in outrage culture.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw7GY9KMzdM" data-time="
---

CTLM posted...

So "unsafe" because he's an attorney, not actually the one accused of committing anything. Just pathetic

Even if I don't agree with his stance defending client, it doesn't justify the termination. Nor does it justify the termination of his wife.

At least he can represent himself in a wrongful dismissal suit.
---