As usual, David better understands the delicate balance of free speech and offense/listener harms than most law school deans and now, apparently, the leadership of a leading Big Law firm.
My only other thought here is that in addition to citing "professional judgment" W&S should have offered the student the opportunity to learn from this …
As usual, David better understands the delicate balance of free speech and offense/listener harms than most law school deans and now, apparently, the leadership of a leading Big Law firm.
My only other thought here is that in addition to citing "professional judgment" W&S should have offered the student the opportunity to learn from this mistake and rectify it - for example, by writing a statement acknowledging the lack of judgment, the poor taste, the obvious harm the statement would have inflicted on a grieving community, and the inappropriate forum for such a message. W&S could also have conditioned the student's return to the firm on taking sensitivity and workplace judgment trainings, and meeting with relevant Jewish/Israeli organizations to understand the Israeli perspective and really complex history of the region. That would then be a learning opportunity not only for the student, but for young people everywhere: there are consequences for extremely poor judgment and horrific and reductive positions, but also a path to redemption and reform.
If there's anything I dislike about cancel culture, it's that instead of providing opportunities to "call in" individuals and bring them back from the outskirts of a normative community, it outcasts them even further. This student will almost surely now feel more outside the mainstream and take even more extreme positions in the future, because they have been afforded no path back in. That's a shame, and a lost opportunity, because this student will surely not be the last to take stupid, offensive, and reductive positions with respect to Israel and Palestine.
As someone who shares your overall instinct to "call in" rather than "call out," I think this is a thoughtful and sensible approach, and I would have been fine with Winston taking it. I could also see Workman telling them to take their job and shove it—but at that point, that's on Workman.
As usual, David better understands the delicate balance of free speech and offense/listener harms than most law school deans and now, apparently, the leadership of a leading Big Law firm.
My only other thought here is that in addition to citing "professional judgment" W&S should have offered the student the opportunity to learn from this mistake and rectify it - for example, by writing a statement acknowledging the lack of judgment, the poor taste, the obvious harm the statement would have inflicted on a grieving community, and the inappropriate forum for such a message. W&S could also have conditioned the student's return to the firm on taking sensitivity and workplace judgment trainings, and meeting with relevant Jewish/Israeli organizations to understand the Israeli perspective and really complex history of the region. That would then be a learning opportunity not only for the student, but for young people everywhere: there are consequences for extremely poor judgment and horrific and reductive positions, but also a path to redemption and reform.
If there's anything I dislike about cancel culture, it's that instead of providing opportunities to "call in" individuals and bring them back from the outskirts of a normative community, it outcasts them even further. This student will almost surely now feel more outside the mainstream and take even more extreme positions in the future, because they have been afforded no path back in. That's a shame, and a lost opportunity, because this student will surely not be the last to take stupid, offensive, and reductive positions with respect to Israel and Palestine.
As someone who shares your overall instinct to "call in" rather than "call out," I think this is a thoughtful and sensible approach, and I would have been fine with Winston taking it. I could also see Workman telling them to take their job and shove it—but at that point, that's on Workman.
In general I agree with call in. But that seems more appropriate for someone who already works there who could undergo some sort of remediation.
I still remain concerned about rescinding the offer as I am a proud prolifer and could see it happening to me