I was scrolling through to raise a similar issue. Unfortunately, I don't have the link, but someone made what I thought was a great point on Twitter.
If the firm had said they were rescinding their offer because they thought the author demonstrated poor judgment and felt it was likely to have implications for their future ability to repre…
I was scrolling through to raise a similar issue. Unfortunately, I don't have the link, but someone made what I thought was a great point on Twitter.
If the firm had said they were rescinding their offer because they thought the author demonstrated poor judgment and felt it was likely to have implications for their future ability to represent clients effectively, there would be no (rounded down to allow for outrage junkies) controversy about that decision.
Instead they tied it to the content of protected speech and opened up a 1st Amendment issue, which ironically demonstrates poor judgment...
Like the Harvard student that didn't read the statement before signing it. You are a Harvard law student and you don't know to read a document before signing it? Poor judgement, indeed.
I think what happened to some of these Harvard students was that the leadership of their groups signed onto the letter without the knowledge or consent of the entire group.
Agreed. Some groups may have had some type of policy about membership voting or not for officials statements but the reality is a handful of folks desperately wanted to join in on the virtue signaling.
That said: I didn't see a single student renounce the statement *until after* that CEO said he wanted to know the student names so he wouldn't hire them and a bunch of CEOs agreed.
Hahaha, it's a no win for the president of the group or whoever did it. I would be impressed if someone came forward and said "don't blame them, I signed this without them knowing, blame me". But then: I'm gonna blame that person!
Yes, I can say that as a member of a number of professional organizations that have in recent years spewed out their views on Donald Trump, George Floyd, COVID, Ukraine, Refugees, LGBTQ, Dobbs, and frankly anything else that comes down the pike, I've never been told about the statement before it goes up on the website.
It's not a free speech issue. As the line goes, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And this isn't a case of "cancel culture"--i.e., meting out severe punishments for relatively trivial statements. To endorse, or even fail to condemn, the actions of 10/7 is to present oneself as a psychopath. To be fair, there are law firms that would consider just such a person an ideal fit, so these morally stunted scholars probably won't go hungry.
I agree with that critique, though perhaps the “values” with which this person’s comments were misaligned are “not alienating our clients and/or colleagues.”
I have no problem whatsoever with rescinding someone’s job offer because they do something that reveals they’re going to be lousy at the job.
I was scrolling through to raise a similar issue. Unfortunately, I don't have the link, but someone made what I thought was a great point on Twitter.
If the firm had said they were rescinding their offer because they thought the author demonstrated poor judgment and felt it was likely to have implications for their future ability to represent clients effectively, there would be no (rounded down to allow for outrage junkies) controversy about that decision.
Instead they tied it to the content of protected speech and opened up a 1st Amendment issue, which ironically demonstrates poor judgment...
Like the Harvard student that didn't read the statement before signing it. You are a Harvard law student and you don't know to read a document before signing it? Poor judgement, indeed.
I think what happened to some of these Harvard students was that the leadership of their groups signed onto the letter without the knowledge or consent of the entire group.
Agreed. Some groups may have had some type of policy about membership voting or not for officials statements but the reality is a handful of folks desperately wanted to join in on the virtue signaling.
That said: I didn't see a single student renounce the statement *until after* that CEO said he wanted to know the student names so he wouldn't hire them and a bunch of CEOs agreed.
Hahaha, it's a no win for the president of the group or whoever did it. I would be impressed if someone came forward and said "don't blame them, I signed this without them knowing, blame me". But then: I'm gonna blame that person!
Yes, I can say that as a member of a number of professional organizations that have in recent years spewed out their views on Donald Trump, George Floyd, COVID, Ukraine, Refugees, LGBTQ, Dobbs, and frankly anything else that comes down the pike, I've never been told about the statement before it goes up on the website.
It's not a free speech issue. As the line goes, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And this isn't a case of "cancel culture"--i.e., meting out severe punishments for relatively trivial statements. To endorse, or even fail to condemn, the actions of 10/7 is to present oneself as a psychopath. To be fair, there are law firms that would consider just such a person an ideal fit, so these morally stunted scholars probably won't go hungry.
I agree with that critique, though perhaps the “values” with which this person’s comments were misaligned are “not alienating our clients and/or colleagues.”
I have no problem whatsoever with rescinding someone’s job offer because they do something that reveals they’re going to be lousy at the job.