Should Law Schools Weigh In On Political Matters?

David Lat, Biglaw Firm Rescinds Job Offer Over 'Inflammatory' Anti-Israel Email:

While it is often tempting for law deans and firm chairs to publicly declare their opposition to obviously bad things like massacres and racism, a strong policy against public statements may be preferable. If a legal leader makes clear that they never issue such statements—no matter how pressing the issue, no matter how just the cause—then they can’t be pressured into commenting on this controversy or that one.

After a while, members of the law school or law firm will stop expecting their leader to make such pronouncements. This will spare leaders the inevitable criticism when their public statements are viewed as inadequate or even wrong by some constituency or other, and it will allow them to focus on their day job of running a complex and diverse organization, undistracted by having to run a think tank or newspaper editorial board on the side.

So, readers, what am I missing? Are there benefits to these public pronouncements that I am overlooking or underestimating? Are certain events so egregious that something must be said? 

New York Times, At Harvard, a Battle Over What Should Be Said About the Hamas Attacks:

Within a few days of the George Floyd killing and Russia’s war against Ukraine, Harvard and other universities issued statements, claiming solidarity with the victims.

Immediately after the Hamas attacks in Israel — in which assailants killed women and children — Harvard was quiet even as criticism mounted over an open letter from a student coalition.

The letter, from Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups, said it held “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”

The backlash to that letter turned Harvard’s silence into a roar.

On Monday, Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and former Harvard president, condemned the university’s leadership, for not denouncing the pro-Palestinian letter. ...

The debate over Israel and the fate of Palestinians has been one of the most divisive on campus for decades, and has scorched university officials who have tried to moderate or mollify different groups.

But Dr. Summers’s pointed criticism raised questions about the obligation of universities to weigh in on difficult political matters.

A famous 1967 declaration by the University of Chicago called for institutions to remain neutral on political and social matters, saying a university “is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” But students over the years have frequently and successfully pressed their administrations to take positions on matters like police brutality, global warming and war.

Dr. Summers said in an interview that he could understand the case for university neutrality in political disputes, but that Harvard had forfeited that prerogative by speaking out on many other issues.

“When you fly the Ukrainian flag over Harvard yard, when you issue clear, vivid and strong statements in response to the George Floyd killing,” he said, “you have decided not to pursue a policy of neutrality.”

But the controversy at Harvard is “a moment to think about the virtues of neutrality,” said Tom Ginsburg, faculty director of the newly created Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression at the University of Chicago. ...

Avoiding statements allows the university to channel its energy into “more important things,” Dr. Ginsburg said. “But that’s not the trend. Schools seem to be speaking out. And that’s why they find themselves in political trouble.”

• Chronicle of Higher Education, Here’s What Colleges Are, and Aren’t, Saying About the Israel-Hamas War
• Inside Higher Ed, Colleges Draw Criticism for Slow Response to Hamas Attacks
• NBC News, As War Rages Between Israel and Hamas, Debate Heats Up at America's Colleges
• Wall Street Journal, Blaming Israel for Hamas Attacks Sparks Backlash Across U.S., Exposing Deep Rifts
• Washington Post, At Colleges, Violence in Israel and Gaza Ignites a War of Words