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
I find it interesting that not one commenter finds this practice concerning. Thank you, certainly, for showing how the law firm makes decisions.
I agree wholeheartedly with this policy. The intellectual acrobatics that have been played with me to try to explain how “from the river to the sea” is anything but a call for the destruction of the state of Israel makes my head spin. Everyone is accountable to their actions and if schools and government will not take a stand, I am glad that lawyers and law firms are the rationale voice.
They should refrain hiring anyone from Columbia law school a major culprit in anti semitism
Kudos as you said. However, the bigger issue here is why law firms/employers are forced to act - rather than the legislature and/or police who have abjectly failed to do so. There is a big difference between free speech which I am all for, and threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress (Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK). Hate speech and broader antisemitism must be called out for what it is by the Police. Were offenders actually arrested and handed criminal records, it would be harder for them to find employment in the first place. That they feel they can act with impunity wearing masks is a worrying state of affairs.
Their names and faces should be on a registry to be accessed by anyone who is hiring . Some people don’t want to hire violent extremists for their company or rent to them for that matter.
That's what courage looks like Let's hope they won't be sued for discrimination
Thanks to Sullivan & Cromwell LLP for its leadership. I hope other law firms follow suit. I am announcing the formation of Law Firms United Against Antisemitism or LFUAA with my law firm, The Axelrod Firm, to be its first member firm. I would be happy for Sullivan & Cromwell LLP’s to partner with us in this endeavor.
Look, I kinda sorta agree with that… to support a government who hates our western beliefs is asenine… But imagine if they reduced the likelihood of hiring Pro Black Lives protestors. Imagine if a law firm reduced the measure of hiring pro israel protestors. I, personally, wouldn’t have made this hiring process publicly known.
Special Counsel @ Jia Law Group | Cross-Border, Corporate Law, & Litigation
1wThe real issue for law firms, here, should be reasoning skills. Not hiring antisemitites, racists, etc., should just be obvious. However, if someone takes part in a protest that even might be supporting Hamas, they absolutely need the ability to articulate their reasons for having done so (or be able to provide a credible alternative description) — That’s at a minimum. If they cannot, I most certainly wouldn’t trust them representing any of my clients. And that’s not suppressing free speech. It’s a recognition that speaking entails informed civic responsibility. Group-think does not lead to successful advocacy, morality, or comprehension.