Suzanne E. Weiss, MD’s Post

Kudos to the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP for implementing proactive measures to reduce the likelihood of hiring people who participated in antisemitic protests or engaged in other antisemitic behavior while in college or law school. According to the article at the link below, the firm believes individuals who participated in college protests should be held responsible for their actions, as well as the actions of those around them. To this end, the firm will conduct background checks on potential first-year associates to scrutinize applicants’ involvement with pro-Palestinian groups and campus protests, looking for examples of antisemitism. According to the new policy, an example of disqualifying behavior will include use of the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” As Joseph Shenker of Sullivan & Cromwell explained, “People are taking their outrage about what’s going on in Gaza and turning it into racist antisemitism.” I expect other law firms and businesses will take similar approaches (if they have not already) to reduce the risk of hiring individuals who participated in antisemitic protests or engaged in other antisemitic behavior. As I noted in a post several months ago (see https://lnkd.in/eprwQ2_x), hiring such individuals exposes employers to potential liability under a variety of legal theories. By being more vigilant in the hiring process, as Sullivan & Cromwell is doing, employers will reduce the risk to these potential liabilities and foster more hospitable and productive working environments. https://lnkd.in/eJshwtsH

What is your law firm's practice? "Now, a prominent Wall Street law firm is taking a more direct approach with protesters. Sullivan & Cromwell, a 145-year-old firm that has counted Goldman Sachs and Amazon among its clients, says that, for job applicants, participation in a protest — on campus or off — could be a disqualifying factor. The firm is scrutinizing students’ behavior with the help of a background check company, looking at their involvement with pro-Palestinian student groups, scouring social media and reviewing news reports and footage from protests. It is looking for explicit instances of antisemitism as well as statements and slogans it has deemed to be “triggering” to Jews, said Joseph C. Shenker, a leader of Sullivan & Cromwell. Candidates could face scrutiny even if they weren’t using problematic language but were involved with a protest where others did. The protesters should be responsible for the behavior of those around them, Mr. Shenker said, or else they were embracing a “mob mentality.” Sullivan & Cromwell wouldn’t say if it had already dropped candidates because of the policy. “People are taking their outrage about what’s going on in Gaza and turning it into racist antisemitism,” Mr. Shenker said. Private employers in the United States can hire whom they want, with only a few restrictions meant to prevent discrimination. Some have fired workers over their actions or statements since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy stands out because of the way it holds applicants accountable for the actions of others, and considers commonly used protest slogans to be out of bounds. No other law firm on Wall Street has publicly discussed a similar policy toward protesters, but leaders at four of Sullivan & Cromwell’s elite rivals privately said they are considering adopting similar rules. To Sullivan & Cromwell’s critics, the policy is an effort to silence criticism of Israel on campus and to paint all protesters as equivalent to those who have been heckling and threatening Jewish students. ... Sullivan & Cromwell’s screening will take place after students apply for a job or arrange for an interview through top law schools, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia and New York University. The firm has engaged a background check company, HireRight, to scour social media and recordings of public appearances for statements or actions about the conflict. Applicants will also be asked to list student groups they have joined. Participation at a protest or involvement in a group that Sullivan & Cromwell finds objectionable will prompt questioning. Applicants will have to explain their role, including what they did to stop other protesters from making offensive or harassing statements."

This is a dangerous, short-sighted and overly political move by these judges. Law schools don't teach any one viewpoint and students should not be disqualified based on disagreement with any law schools' governance or leadership. What would conservatives say if judges selected by a Democrat blacklisted all students and all law schools led by conservatives? Do we really want to see this level of politicization in the judicial branch? This is another step in exactly the wrong direction. American Bar Association Association of American Law Schools Columbia Law School https://lnkd.in/e3C9Qrkw

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP may as well have put out a statement saying “Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims need not apply.” There are no Terrorist Law Student Associations - when firms say that they’re investigating the groups students are involved in for terrorist activities they are referring to groups like the Muslim and Middle Eastern Law student associations. Spokespeople for zionist groups like the ADL have conflated Palestinian cultural symbols like the keffiyeh with terrorism and doxxing websites like Canary Mission have been listing students on their platform for being involved in groups like the Muslim Students Association for decades. Just like in the decade post 9/11 - Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are being penalized for their mere existence. Students who hold these identities aren’t stupid. Lately, when they’ve called me to game plan summer recruiting, our calls haven’t focused on what firms have practice groups that would appeal to them, but instead on what firms might not be too racist to hire them. There are far more firms that have investigated students for involvement in identity based groups or interrogated Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students about their political opinions than there are firms condemning this type of behavior. The names of the firms may not be floating around news articles, but they are floating around Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab lawyer networks and we are sharing them with students. Employers who are actually committed to recruiting people from all backgrounds should make that clear now. More than the behavior of the firms themselves, it’s the lack of outrage from the legal profession that’s disappointing. For a firm to be as bold and openly discriminatory as Sullivan & Cromewell without condemnation is deeply disturbing. Law schools cannot claim to be creating an equitable experience for their students when allowing firms openly applying discriminatory hiring practices to recruit on their campuses. Decades from now, the legal profession will look back at this moment the way we look back on mass hysteria and anti Palestinian/Muslim/Arab racism after 9/11. Moments we look back on with regret and shame. Unfortunately for current Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim law students that condemnation will come too late to salvage their careers.

What Areeba has pointed out in her post, they will soon find an argument that the charter does not apply to us. While they become outraged when someone points out that you are abusing your position by policing students who believe in free expression and refusing them to articles that they have applied year ago. Also, if the Law Societies are unable to regulate these law firms that purposefully refuse students after sending them offer letters, they should allow students to practice without these so-called Principals and make the necessary changes to allow those who are ineligible to have students tag along, such as the Law Society of Alberta, which requires four years of post-bar experience. Perhaps they make better Principals than these bully law firms. #Bully #Law #Firms #Stop

🚨 Wisconsin - Challenging Update in My Legal Journey 🚨 As many of you know, my connection to Wisconsin runs deep. Back in 2005, while exploring options for law school, I had the privilege of visiting both the University of Wisconsin Madison and Marquette University. Each institution left a lasting impression with their vibrant campuses, welcoming people, and extensive law libraries. Although my path ultimately led me to Northern Illinois University College of Law, my ties to Wisconsin remained strong, particularly to Milwaukee where I moved shortly after graduation to start my legal career and where I sit (virtually) on the Board for the Oconomowoc Chamber Orchestra. Today, nearly two decades later, I find myself in a poignant position. I am representing a client in a lawsuit against Marquette University, an institution I have long respected. My client, a Black man, has courageously stepped forward to challenge what he perceives as unlawful discrimination and retaliation after voicing concerns about discriminatory practices within the university. This case is more than just a legal battle; it's a crucial conversation about workplace culture, the importance of listening to and genuinely addressing employee grievances, and the profound impact of discrimination and retaliation on individuals' lives and careers. Through this lawsuit, we aim not only to seek justice for my client but also to encourage a deeper understanding and reform within the institution. It is my hope that this case will highlight the challenges faced by those who speak out against discrimination and will foster a more inclusive and responsive environment at Marquette University. As always, I am committed to fighting vigorously for my clients while upholding the highest standards of the legal profession. This case holds a special significance for me, intertwining my professional endeavors with personal history and my ongoing commitment to civil rights. #LegalUpdate #CivilRights #DiscriminationLaw #MarquetteUniversity #JusticeAdvocate #Wisconsin

D3 | Edelson PC pulls the plug on Harvard. #legalnews #legalcareers #lawfirms #legalrecruitment #lawstudents #lawschools #edelsonpc #harvarduniversity #d3search

This is more than unseemly but predictable.

"Should minorities receive different - 'special' - treatment when applying for jobs after law school if their credentials are just not as good? In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision against affirmative action and pending litigation against diversity fellowships at two of the nation's largest law firms, many people are asking some version of this difficult question." (New York Law Journal) https://lnkd.in/e_XYmNSd #legaljobs #lawjobs #legalindustry #diversityinlaw