Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. could be talking about Oberlin College. But he’s talking about Harvard’s capitulation to students seemingly unable or unwilling to understand the rights of accused people to legal representation. Sullivan is representing the vile Harvey Weinstein; because of this, students demanded that he be thrown out as faculty dean of one of the school’s residential houses as he made students feel “unsafe.”
Sullivan writes that he is “willing to believe that some students felt unsafe,” but UD ain’t willing. It is beyond pitiable to fear that a vile person’s attorney is going to hurt you, and UD‘s going to go on record believing that any undergraduate woman impressive enough to get into Harvard (assuming she got in legitimately…) simply can’t be that pitiable. UD does these trembling babes the honor of assuming that their real motive is to keep national attention focused on the issue of sexual abuse, and they saw an opportunity here.
June 25th, 2019 at 11:56AM
about as believable as someone feeling “threatened” by a statue.
June 25th, 2019 at 1:29PM
Even less believable than that. I think I was probably spooked by some statues when I was younger.
June 25th, 2019 at 4:19PM
i hope that you outgrew that by college….
June 25th, 2019 at 5:05PM
Those Harvard idiots should be a lot more upset about student loans than Unctuous Harvey’s lawyer…
June 25th, 2019 at 6:23PM
john: I did!
June 26th, 2019 at 11:07AM
Sorry, can’t agree. Sullivan has undertaken a highly publicized role that is likely to involve putting a particular tendentious spin on the kinds of situations he must address as a dean – in effect, he’s put himself into a conflict of interest, or a least incurred a reasonable perception of such.
June 26th, 2019 at 11:56AM
What’s the difference between Sullivan representing Harvey, and Dershowitz representing Jeffery Epstein? Alan’s being sued for allegedly defaming one of his client’s victims. Is there a safety issue with Dershowitz, as well?
June 26th, 2019 at 1:35PM
andre
that reasoning would preclude any criminal lawyer from the job.
June 26th, 2019 at 4:14PM
Andre: I’d like to back up charlie’s point. Even as an emeritus professor, Dershowitz is a profoundly important, influential Harvard presence. Why doesn’t his defense of a woman who for years performed female genital mutilation on seven year old girls here in the United States make Harvard undergraduate and graduate women feel threatened by his high-profile presence there, or at least feel like protesting his continued high-profile participation in Harvard life? Why are they silent on this matter – to say nothing of the arguably worse than Weinstein Jeffrey Epstein, with whom Dershowitz is reportedly affiliated?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alan-dershowitz-sued-defamation-connected-epstein-sex-abuse-claims-n995271
And the latest on Dershowitz. As it typical, the article’s first word is Harvard.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232012352.html
June 27th, 2019 at 2:44PM
I’m afraid FGM is not a thing anymore, UD. Twenty years ago here, we had faculty crusading against it–I mean, who could actually be for it?
Mum’s the word now, UD.
June 27th, 2019 at 3:20PM
tp: Well, when I finish shouting my head off – about littering – in the most prominent intersection of Mediocreburgton or whatever you call it, I shall proceed to shout even louder about FGM.
I disagree that it’s not a thing – circumcision, another barbarity, is indeed not a thing, but FGM is coming through louder and clearer all the time (note legislative action against it in the states).
The problem in getting it talked about is all too clear – no one wants to talk about women and sexual organs/pleasure – but that too is changing. (The other problem – degenerate moral relativism – is I think diminishing, and in any case is a pathology only of elites.) There’s something about 200 million women being carved up that concentrates the mind. Or should.