Wall Street Law Firm Scrutinizes Job Applicants’ Pro-Palestinian Activism, Sparking Controversy
A prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, is facing criticism for its new policy of scrutinizing job applicants’ participation in pro-Palestinian protests, even if they themselves did not engage in hateful speech. This move, which includes scouring social media and news reports for evidence of involvement with pro-Palestinian student groups, reflects a growing trend among elite firms to proactively address perceived threats to Jewish students on campuses.
Key Takeaways:
- Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy explicitly targets participation in pro-Palestinian protests, even if the applicant did not personally engage in hate speech. The firm believes applicants should be accountable for the actions of others at the protests, and considers common slogans like "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" to be "triggering" to Jews.
- This policy is a departure from previous "clean social media" expectations for job applicants. Critics argue that it unfairly targets specific political viewpoints and chills free speech. Supporters contend it enforces basic workplace standards against hate speech.
- Other top law firms are considering adopting similar policies. This trend highlights the growing influence of powerful figures in shaping the future of campus activism and the hiring practices of elite institutions.
The Controversy:
Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy has been met with strong criticism from legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and students. Opponents argue that the firm is creating a climate of fear and silencing legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions. They point out that the policy conflates offensive speech with political activism, and unfairly punishes individuals for the actions of others.
"When we went through big law recruitment, we knew your social media better be clean, you better not have on there anything that you can’t defend, you have to be a respectable person to be able to get a job at any of these places," said Rawda Fawaz, a lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "That has always been the practice. Why do you have to have a special policy on this?"
Fawaz argues that many Muslims and Arabs working for big firms already feel discouraged from discussing their views on Israel, and this new policy will only exacerbate this trend.
Supporters of the policy, including Sullivan & Cromwell leadership and other law firms considering similar measures, maintain that it is merely an extension of existing workplace prohibitions on hate speech. They argue that the firm is obligated to protect its employees and clients from harassment and discrimination.
"What’s happening here is really just the implementation of basic work force decency standards," said Neil Barr, the chairman of Davis Polk, which rescinded job offers to students involved with groups that blamed Israel for the Hamas attack.
The Future of Campus Activism:
This controversy raises important questions about the future of campus activism and the role of elite institutions in shaping political discourse.
Roderick A. Ferguson, a Yale professor of American studies, points out that the policy’s focus on individual responsibility for the actions of others at a protest ignores the complexities of collective action. He argues that such thinking "can mimic racist thinking, sexist thinking, homophobic thinking, that one instance becomes a character of all."
Joseph C. Shenker, a leader of Sullivan & Cromwell, insists that the firm is not seeking to exclude anyone who has criticized Israel or condemning the act of protesting itself. He asserts that the policy is intended to combat antisemitism and define acceptable speech within the legal profession.
However, critics argue that this policy will effectively silence any dissent or debate related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression within universities and beyond.
The debate surrounding Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy is likely to continue, with implications for universities, corporations, and the future of free speech in the United States. This case presents a critical moment for examining the boundaries of acceptable activism and the growing influence of powerful corporations in shaping campus culture.
