Nah I've said the same thing since the beginning. It helps to back up and connect it to the original story

The whole thing caught fire because it was supposed to be an example of the 'intolerant left' on Ivy League campuses. The supposed intolerance coming from a person who's just doing their civic duty having their livelihood threatened because of who they're defending.

It turned out that the second part wasn't true. The guy was just losing a ornamental post that he was apparently not doing very good at.

What I've been saying is that the first part isn't quite true either. Defense attorneys as a whole group don't get a pass for any activity they do as a defense attorney. When it comes to these Ivy League guys it's far less "I'll take a hit defending this guy as my civic duty" and a lot more about money and prestige. Which is fine, but then you have to accept the consequences of going after money and prestige. You can't run back and say "I'm just fulfilling my civic duty, I'm blameless"

I'm only making this point as a generality against the defense that a lot of elite corporate etc defense lawyers make. If this guy wins his suit against Harvard and gets his job back then good for him, if he loses it and doesn't get his position, oh well. He's not really that much worse off and Harvard isn't that much better off either way. It doesn't much matter.

They must think people are stupid. If they wanted to morally justify their action at least pay some empty lip service to living frugally and giving the proceeds to charity.

How much time did Sullivan spend working for other clients such as the Hernandez family, or the many pro-bono cases he's contributed to? Did Harvard benefit from Sullivan's high profile in the cases and his pro-bono work? Did Harvard complain about Sullivan being distracted by these cases?

The more I read about this situation the more solidly I'm on Sullivan's side.

Seems like Harvard's reasons given are excuses made up after the fact.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...nstein/589300/

Also interesting that the narrative changed from "Sullivan was a bad Dean" to "Sullivan was too distracted to be Dean".

It strikes me as laughable that being too busy to be Dean could be a non-nonsense reason to force Sullivan out of his Dean position. Just ask him to scale back his activities, maybe?

But since an internet criminal defense attorney and ex prosecutor thinks it's reasonable... Must be true, right?