Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"When I attended Stanford Law School in 1991, it seemed like an obvious disconnect to me that Stanford was doing its best to attract students devoted to social causes—and then proceeded to load them up with student debt until they graduated and went to work for Wall Street corporate law firms!
Define 'professional judgment.' When you attract students and reward and facilitate their darn-near revolutionary viewpoints about social change, diversity and inclusion while they are in law school, how does that prepare them for the exercise of sound and sober 'professional judgment' in the corporate world?
Elite law schools have long tried to have it both ways. Woke culture predominates at school, yet funding comes and the legal pipeline goes straight to the establishment."
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"Nice write up as usual. For what very little it is worth, as someone who has done traditional/mainstream advocacy for Israel most of my life, I’m not sure the offer revocation is a good thing—just creates one more martyr. I’d have much preferred that they be required to read the biographies of those murdered on Saturday. I’m probably being naive, but we need solutions much more than we need blame or a pound of flesh."
The statements that blame Israel for terrorism carried out by Hamas do look suspiciously like the intellectual products of people who have never read or thought about this issue except on social media. So I'd support encouraging people to read more deeply, even though I remain pessimistic about getting ideologues to nuance their positions.
That's an interesting point and idea, although if I were at Winston & Strawn, I'd share David's concern that we had hired someone with abysmal judgment and who does not really care about the feelings of others. The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket.
"The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket."
Very well stated. It's clear they have no idea how to read the room or weigh how their words will land. I don't think that they needed to keep it to themselves, necessarily. Go on Twitter, Tik Tok, whatever. But don't abuse your position as SBA president (an org that obviously includes Jewish students) to espouse your personal opinions on such a fraught issue.
Oct 11, 2023·edited Oct 11, 2023Liked by David Lat
Agreed; the above has to do with what I’d want for my people. The business case for the firm revoking seems clear, though one does wonder about precedent.
The no-win situation in which institutions find themselves right now is just another tiny indignity piled on top of the mountain of horrors the last few days have brought.
Actually (responding to both Person of BigLaw and Charles McKenna), my guess is that Workman knew losing their job was a possibility—and did not care.
I don't agree with their email (to put it mildly), but Workman is clearly an intelligent person; I think they acted with their heart, not their head. According to news reports, they are 24, and this is the kind of thing a 24-year-old might do.
I'm not absolving Workman or saying they should not be held responsible. As I suggest in the post, I think Winston was within its rights to rescind the offer. I was just making the observation by way of explanation.
My guess is that when you're in the bubble that is academia that it never enters your mind that not only is their opinion controversial, but that huge numbers of readers will find it abhorrent. I doubt it entered her mind that she was putting her future job at risk.
I think this is a fair assessment that neither infantilizes or absolves Workman. My less intelligent summary is "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". If Workman stands by their actions, then they are privy to the obvious potential consequences.
Part of the problem with people like Workman is that we crown non-binary individuals with their pronouns, like you just did. I have no problem with their lifestyle, meaning the non-binary community—I believe it’s none of my business, it’s a free country, and she should not be targeted for her lifestyle—but I draw the line right before being compelled to address her in the plural. She’s a non-binary person, not multiple people. It’s your choice too!—but I think it’s narcissism at play here, linked to the conception circumambient in academia that her non-binary self identification also bestows social justice credentials to her as well. Feeding that never works out well, especially in a professional environment. In this case her entitlement teased out her value system. I think she was rightly “fired”.
I think it's just courtesy. And politeness is actually one of my highest values; if I had to answer the Proust Questionnaire, I'd say that rudeness is one the qualities I most deplore in others. I also have no religious or other beliefs that make me unwilling or unable to use people's preferred pronouns.
I'm happy to debate things like bans on gender transition care for minors, whether transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in girls' or women's sports, etc. But in those situations, there are arguable harms or costs. Personally speaking—and again, I have no religious or other issues—I'm not harmed by using someone's preferred pronouns.
We can debate the case of people whose religious or other deeply held beliefs create issues for them on this front. But that's not my case. And I think being willing to accommodate on something like pronouns gives me greater credibility on other issues, since it's more difficult to dismiss me as an "anti-trans bigot." If you oppose it all—including pronouns, which is much less important than the other issues I've mentioned—you end up having a meta-debate over whether you're a bigot.
Of course, I acknowledge that you can still be accused of bigotry anyway, for opposing any plank in the transgender-rights platform. But neutral third parties, the people whose hearts and minds we are trying to win, will not find the bigotry accusation convincing if you use people's preferred pronouns (and extend other relatively costless courtesies).
Despite what I wrote, I think you're correct. Politeness is a necessary quality for good human relations. I believe you are also correct that showing respect to a non-binary person comes with relatively zero cost, particularly when you're attempting to get through to people, both in that community and outside of it.
However, I feel the "rudeness" on this issue can go both ways. Insisting that others change the standard usage of English to refer to them in the plural—and if you don't you're a bigot, contributing to transgender suicide, committing "violence," or "refusing to acknowledge their humanity"—that's also pretty rude. I understand that English usage develops over time, etc., but my gut on this is that the transgender/non-binary movement has attracted quite a few entitled narcissists who do not have good intentions. I recall the Stanford law students shouting down Judge Duncan with vulgarities and threats, in part for misgendering serious criminals. We have all seen "trans-rights" activists aggressively shouting down and assaulting parents who are concerned about what's being taught in elementary schools. But I think I've gone too far afield on this issue.
I have never refused to honor pronouns, to a point. In most cases I see it just like a person's name preference: "Do you go by Jonathan, or Jon?" That to me is a costless courtesy, and the kind everyone deserves. The other day I accidentally misgendered a non-binary person in a social setting, someone who I happen to respect very much as an individual. Thankfully, my apology was taken graciously, and I've worked hard to show this courtesy.
I think the movement in the aggregate, however, is producing costs to society, particularly as it's being used to further the oppressor/oppressed, white supremacy narrative in academia, which I believe has greased the rails for the anti-Semitic behavior we have seen since last Saturday. As a Jew, I take this very seriously, and despite formerly showing much more tolerance for the movement, I feel it is time to pay attention. I was not surprised to see that workman was non-binary. That is not the same as saying if you are non-binary, you are anti-Semitic.
In some way I haven't been able to tease out and fully articulate, there is a link between some individuals in the trans/non-binary community, academia, and the burgeoning, contemporary hatred for Jews. I hope I'm wrong.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"I see your question, and, a couple days ago I would have agreed with you, but the past couple days have shifted my perspective on these large-scale announcements.
I work at a BigLaw firm in New York City and my wife is a student in an NYC law school. Both of our institutions issued statements, albeit late and tepid. While I originally would have been dismissive of such statements, I’ve come to realize they can serve a more important goal than I once thought.
Since the events unfolded, neither my wife nor I—both of us obviously Jewish—have received any words of compassion or comfort from any of our non-Jewish colleagues or classmates. The Jews in our institutions have banded together, but no one outside of the Jewish community has even acknowledged any of the events to either of us. I don’t know if they fear weighing into politics, or haven’t been following what’s going on too closely, but I think those of us that follow the news a little too closely can forget that most people don’t.
Most people aren’t addicted to the day to day news cycle, and maybe brush off major international stories. It’s possible most people don’t realize the viciousness with which Hamas operates, and merely rubber-stamps their terror as 'conflict in the Middle East.'
Surely we can agree that it’s each individual’s responsibility to follow the news on their own, especially individuals at such intellectual institutions, but these sort of announcements can have an important function—to inform your constituents that egregiously immoral behavior is occurring overseas and it may be affecting the people next to you. Recognize evil when you see it, and offer compassion to those who need it. It shouldn’t take a firm-wide or school-wide email for people to realize such atrocities, but a strong condemnation of an evil terrorist organization is a good step in that direction."
Posting on behalf of an NYU source who emailed me (with their consent):
"I tend to think that you're correct—big institutions need not, and likely should not, feel the need to issue statements that respond to every news item near and far, immediate and obscure. I suppose we may see this phenomenon as another indica of the social-mediazation of American life. Everyone, from the ordinary social-media habitue to the big-account institution, has kind of just accepted that they must operate as their own press secretaries at all times and make grand declarations as part of a never-ending obligation of clarifying their public positions.
The problem here, however, is that if NYU Law does not make a statement, they can bet dollars to Sunday that one of the many affinity groups within the school, or even a generalist club like SBA, will make one, and more likely than not that statement will be far more extreme than what the law school can stomach. This has real implications for NYU Law not just because statements like Workman's are wrong-headed or antithetical to the school's values and therefore embarrassing as a public relations matter, but also because they have the real potential of enraging alumni and throwing donation and tuition dollars downstream into serious question. And then there's the prospect of federal government investigations, a whole separate beast.
So, the dilemma is: Make statements all the time and then get deluged any time you don't make one the right way or in response to this or that thing, or make no statements ever or make them exceedingly rarely and then let a doctrinaire 24-year-old fill the void for you. What's a school like NYU Law to do?"
It is relevant that the student made this statement in a post titled "Message from the President" and signed off as "Your SBA President." This means they are not speaking in their private capacity as a law student (or private citizen), but as a representative of the NYU student body. It seems correct that statements made in an official capacity should not have the same free speech culture presumptions as those made by a person in their private capacity. There is a difference between Elon Musk saying something on Twitter about whatever, and Elon Musk releasing a statement as CEO of Tesla.
If this student had made this statement on their private social media account instead, then I would be critical of Winston's decision to withdraw their offer. It would be healthier for society if companies didn't make employment decisions based on people's political beliefs. But here, Winston can plausibly argue that the withdrawal has more to do with the student's poor judgment in posting a politically controversial statement in her official capacity based on her private beliefs rather than from institutional policy; and thus a lack of attention to her fiduciary duties to the law school in doing so.
Good point--this student chose to speak in their capacity as SBA President, not as a student. That changes the landscape of what they can reasonably expect with regards to free speech presumptions. Also, can you imagine receiving this email as a NYU Law Jewish student? It would not be an exaggeration to view it as a threat.
Yes, there is a positive outcome from an institution taking a stand on matters of moral importance. Specifically, it supports people who are suffering as a result of the outrageous action. For example, I am quite confident that there are many Jewish and/or Israeli students at NYU Law who know people who were killed or kidnapped. Having the vocal support of the Law School is a help.
Moreover, it helps to self-select. If NYU wants to build a community of people with a shared moral compass, it is well-served to broadcast what the metes and bounds of that moral compass.
I - simultaneously - believe that (a) Ryna Workman should be shunned by all moral people, including any prospective PRIVATE employer and (b) Ryna Workman should not suffer any consequences from any governmental actor as a result of their statement. If they have the courage of their convictions (which I have no way of knowing), they will welcome the consequences.
Oct 11, 2023·edited Oct 11, 2023Liked by David Lat
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.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"I don’t think Winston should have rescinded the offer of the NYU student. I don’t want firms firing people for views they express on their own time. Next they will fire people for opposing abortion and affirmative action."
I asked this reader: what about the poor exercise of judgment, as opposed to holding a poor opinion?
"Poor judgment is a slippery slope to poor opinion. This person was still a student too. They should have even more leeway to state their views. Now we have to worry about not saying things in class lest our firms not hire us?"
To the author of this post - If you are foolish enough to believe that employers do not fire people for expressing abhorrent (in the view of the employer, or the view of potential clients of the employer) opinions publicly, you are in for a rude awakening. This is what "at will" employment means.
Yes, you should "worry about not saying things in class lest our firms not hire us". If you don't guard your tongue, and you find yourself out of step with your employer, you may be separated and have no recourse.
My practice includes employment law in NY. This is not my first rodeo.
A few thoughts. First of all, she did not post her views on her own time or in class, she posted them as "A Message From the President" of the SBA in the organization's newsletter, seemingly without consulting any other members of the the group. That shows shockingly poor judgment and is an abuse of her role as SBA president. It's not as though her offer was rescinded over a personal tweet.
Second, I agree that "poor judgment" is way too vague as a standard and that it does constitute a slippery slope to being punished for a "poor opinion". We must safeguard everyone's ability to speak their mind freely.
So where do these points reconcile? People should be free to express all opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions morally or culturally neutral. A rescinded job offer is not the same as being fired and supporting a violent foreign political action, even if you find it a legitimate form of resistance, is not the same thing as being pro-life or anti-affirmative action. If they want to be an activist for the Palestinian cause, they can do so however they see fit. But that doesn't mean that they are owed a job at a firm that vehemently disagrees with their very public views.
Well, yes, but it might be useful to consider that it's not always useful - or even good - to express opinions publicly. Is a strong opinion unexpressed any less an opinion (sincere question)?
In any case, the current internet-facilitated practice of firing off opinions as quickly as possible isn't wise and rarely, if ever, actually achieves anything.
This is a fair point I have to mull on. I work for a free speech organization so my knee-jerk reaction is always to oppose the mere suggestion to repress opinions. I think your point about the need for ‘hot takes’ on the internet is a good one.
Truth & Consequences. Speak your truth. Embrace any consequences.
The broad consensus: A 3L is firmly entrenched in adulthood. The time for coddling has long since passed.
The specifics here: There are times when one's "poor opinion" is simply...outrageously abhorrent and disgusting. Hard stop. Support for Hamas in this moment - whether direct or implied - assuredly qualifies. This younger generation's fetish for unbound tolerance in the wake of spewing abysmally-dim and/or inconsiderate orthodoxy is astonishing. Perhaps the pendulum might finally begin to swing back tepidly towards sanity.
The firm is a business. Anything that potential or current client can view as a stain on that business’s reputation must be addressed forcefully. How many of their Jewish clients or potential clients would wish to be represented by a firm that agreed to hire an applicant that appears to be an antisemite. Could this person be an effective advocate for the firm in front of a Jewish judge?
Would you trust this person’s judgment on a range of issues. No the business made the right decision for the sake of the business, their employees and their clients
The right to free speech is not the right to speak without consequences. In her position, with her platform, one would hope that she considered the consequences of her words.
What’s missing, and what might be the most interesting thing about this, is that the student very clearly had no sense that she would face professional consequences for saying what she said publicly. It speaks poorly to her education, both formal and informal. And what a bubble her world must be.
My son is a NYU law student; he immediately emailed me her statement and was shocked by it. I think it was obvious to him that this would have lasting consequences, so I'm not blaming the school. I tend to think that this person just didn't care or doesn't really value employment as much as identity.
Thank you, David, for your thoughts. My feelings are still raw, so please forgive this confused post: It bothers me greatly that she made her statement on behalf of a student organization. If she'd posted on her personal Facebook/Twitter/whatever account, I think she might have learned a bit from the blowback (if there was any). This way, she becomes a very public martyr for Palestine and I'll expect her to be snapped up by some firm or organization with similar views to hers. (Kudos to Winston & Strawn for acting as it did, though we could quibble as to the wording.) On an unrelated note, many Muslims and Muslim states have denounced the attack, publicly, as it did nothing for Palestinians, and was a sickening, inhumane act in every respect. https://www.memri.org/reports/arab-social-media-users-criticize-hamas-large-scale-attack-defacing-corpses-raping-girls
This is a fair point—and I suspect it will be cited in the upcoming removal proceedings. It's not clear that Workman had the authorization to use the SBA newsletter in that way.
And since NYU Law eliminated Coase's List, its school-wide email listserv, the ability to email the entire student body is no longer something that just anyone can do. Workman was able to do this only by virtue of their position as SBA president.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"NYU 2L here. Some thoughts, anonymously.
(1) First, in defense of Dean McKenzie: I think it's uncharitable and incorrect for the anonymous NYU source to have said that 'it’s unsatisfactory insofar as it manages to give the impression that there’s a legitimate division of views over whether it’s appropriate to support the massacre of civilians.' What in the text of the Dean's message gives that impression? One gets the sense that the anonymous source would have preferred the Dean of the law school to publicly ream out Workman specifically and explicitly. The problem with doing so is not political. It's that he's the Dean and she's a student, and a public message that is any more explicit would have been mean and inappropriate, and contra to his duty to have compassion for all the students at the law school. Readers can read and understand the condemnation between the lines.
(2) Second, many students wrote emails very similar to Workman's on our private, intra-student (though unofficially run) list-serv. The specific problem with Workman's of course was using an official platform for it (without any assent by the students). So I agree that the issue was poor judgment and not per se the expression of contrary beliefs, and perhaps her firm should have said that more particularly. But the thing is that her comments were deeply offensive, and extended well beyond a rational political critique of the Israeli government or whatever, but seemed to blame the victims for the loss of innocent life. This, of course, feels like a line too far. And though our common discourse about free speech (and SCOTUS jurisprudence) doesn't seem to draw these lines (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church case), society does. Words, in short, can be deeply hurtful and without much social value beyond the injury they cause people. And it's a law school after all, where students (many of whom have family and friends in the conflict) still have to come to class and learn. So there ought to be a high priority on civil discourse.
(3) As we all recognize, behavior like this is nothing new by law students or college students. Perhaps with the benefit of this situation, students and faculty will look back at the Stanford incident, and upon any future incidents, with more clarity."
I just received an email from the principal of my six-year-old's elementary school and thought, "Really?"
But it was less performative and more practical, providing advice for talking to your kids about sensitive subjects (or protecting them from news and social media if that's your choice as a parent), linking to online resources, mentioning offline resources at the school, and the like.
This shouldn't be hard. If an organization's purpose is to directly related to some topic(s) in public discussion, it should have a clear position(s) on that(those) issue(s), and state that position clearly and publicly. For instance, an organization dedicated to protecting wilderness in the western US should take public positions on issues related to western wilderness. An organization dedicated to improving education for poor children should take public positions related to education for poor children.
No organization should take public positions on controversial issues not directly related to its primary purpose. Doing so will distract both members and the larger public from the organization's avowed purpose. Certainly, members of these organizations are likely to have opinions, but the organization doesn't need to take a position, and shouldn't. Officials of these organizations shouldn't make public statements that would be seen as representing the organization, nor should they take advantage of their positions to promote their views to their members.
I recommend a look at UVA President Jim Ryan's statement as an exemplar of how to respond in a manner grounded on institutional interests rather than political engagement.
Thank you! I agree that it's a good statement focused on UVA's institutional interests rather than, say, geopolitics (about which a university president would not have any particular insight, unless that was their area of scholarship).
I still think it's fair to debate whether even well-done statements should be issued, though. Sometimes it's less about a particular statement and more about the precedent or expectations it sets.
In a perfect world, I agree with you completely. In the world in which university presidents find themselves, the challenge is to respect his line if possible. I remember the spring of my freshman year (May 1970) when Kingman Brewster, the president of Yale and a former law professor, professed to be "appalled and ashamed that things should have come to such a pass in this country that I am skeptical of the ability of black revolutionaries to achieve a fair trial anywhere in the United States." It was both the most and the least that he could do.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"When I attended Stanford Law School in 1991, it seemed like an obvious disconnect to me that Stanford was doing its best to attract students devoted to social causes—and then proceeded to load them up with student debt until they graduated and went to work for Wall Street corporate law firms!
Define 'professional judgment.' When you attract students and reward and facilitate their darn-near revolutionary viewpoints about social change, diversity and inclusion while they are in law school, how does that prepare them for the exercise of sound and sober 'professional judgment' in the corporate world?
Elite law schools have long tried to have it both ways. Woke culture predominates at school, yet funding comes and the legal pipeline goes straight to the establishment."
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"Nice write up as usual. For what very little it is worth, as someone who has done traditional/mainstream advocacy for Israel most of my life, I’m not sure the offer revocation is a good thing—just creates one more martyr. I’d have much preferred that they be required to read the biographies of those murdered on Saturday. I’m probably being naive, but we need solutions much more than we need blame or a pound of flesh."
The statements that blame Israel for terrorism carried out by Hamas do look suspiciously like the intellectual products of people who have never read or thought about this issue except on social media. So I'd support encouraging people to read more deeply, even though I remain pessimistic about getting ideologues to nuance their positions.
That's an interesting point and idea, although if I were at Winston & Strawn, I'd share David's concern that we had hired someone with abysmal judgment and who does not really care about the feelings of others. The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket.
"The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket."
Very well stated. It's clear they have no idea how to read the room or weigh how their words will land. I don't think that they needed to keep it to themselves, necessarily. Go on Twitter, Tik Tok, whatever. But don't abuse your position as SBA president (an org that obviously includes Jewish students) to espouse your personal opinions on such a fraught issue.
Agreed; the above has to do with what I’d want for my people. The business case for the firm revoking seems clear, though one does wonder about precedent.
The no-win situation in which institutions find themselves right now is just another tiny indignity piled on top of the mountain of horrors the last few days have brought.
Actually (responding to both Person of BigLaw and Charles McKenna), my guess is that Workman knew losing their job was a possibility—and did not care.
I don't agree with their email (to put it mildly), but Workman is clearly an intelligent person; I think they acted with their heart, not their head. According to news reports, they are 24, and this is the kind of thing a 24-year-old might do.
We hold persons much younger than 24 years old responsible for their actions, not least in criminal law. We should not infantilise this person.
I'm not absolving Workman or saying they should not be held responsible. As I suggest in the post, I think Winston was within its rights to rescind the offer. I was just making the observation by way of explanation.
My guess is that when you're in the bubble that is academia that it never enters your mind that not only is their opinion controversial, but that huge numbers of readers will find it abhorrent. I doubt it entered her mind that she was putting her future job at risk.
I think this is a fair assessment that neither infantilizes or absolves Workman. My less intelligent summary is "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". If Workman stands by their actions, then they are privy to the obvious potential consequences.
Part of the problem with people like Workman is that we crown non-binary individuals with their pronouns, like you just did. I have no problem with their lifestyle, meaning the non-binary community—I believe it’s none of my business, it’s a free country, and she should not be targeted for her lifestyle—but I draw the line right before being compelled to address her in the plural. She’s a non-binary person, not multiple people. It’s your choice too!—but I think it’s narcissism at play here, linked to the conception circumambient in academia that her non-binary self identification also bestows social justice credentials to her as well. Feeding that never works out well, especially in a professional environment. In this case her entitlement teased out her value system. I think she was rightly “fired”.
I think it's just courtesy. And politeness is actually one of my highest values; if I had to answer the Proust Questionnaire, I'd say that rudeness is one the qualities I most deplore in others. I also have no religious or other beliefs that make me unwilling or unable to use people's preferred pronouns.
I'm happy to debate things like bans on gender transition care for minors, whether transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in girls' or women's sports, etc. But in those situations, there are arguable harms or costs. Personally speaking—and again, I have no religious or other issues—I'm not harmed by using someone's preferred pronouns.
We can debate the case of people whose religious or other deeply held beliefs create issues for them on this front. But that's not my case. And I think being willing to accommodate on something like pronouns gives me greater credibility on other issues, since it's more difficult to dismiss me as an "anti-trans bigot." If you oppose it all—including pronouns, which is much less important than the other issues I've mentioned—you end up having a meta-debate over whether you're a bigot.
Of course, I acknowledge that you can still be accused of bigotry anyway, for opposing any plank in the transgender-rights platform. But neutral third parties, the people whose hearts and minds we are trying to win, will not find the bigotry accusation convincing if you use people's preferred pronouns (and extend other relatively costless courtesies).
Despite what I wrote, I think you're correct. Politeness is a necessary quality for good human relations. I believe you are also correct that showing respect to a non-binary person comes with relatively zero cost, particularly when you're attempting to get through to people, both in that community and outside of it.
However, I feel the "rudeness" on this issue can go both ways. Insisting that others change the standard usage of English to refer to them in the plural—and if you don't you're a bigot, contributing to transgender suicide, committing "violence," or "refusing to acknowledge their humanity"—that's also pretty rude. I understand that English usage develops over time, etc., but my gut on this is that the transgender/non-binary movement has attracted quite a few entitled narcissists who do not have good intentions. I recall the Stanford law students shouting down Judge Duncan with vulgarities and threats, in part for misgendering serious criminals. We have all seen "trans-rights" activists aggressively shouting down and assaulting parents who are concerned about what's being taught in elementary schools. But I think I've gone too far afield on this issue.
I have never refused to honor pronouns, to a point. In most cases I see it just like a person's name preference: "Do you go by Jonathan, or Jon?" That to me is a costless courtesy, and the kind everyone deserves. The other day I accidentally misgendered a non-binary person in a social setting, someone who I happen to respect very much as an individual. Thankfully, my apology was taken graciously, and I've worked hard to show this courtesy.
I think the movement in the aggregate, however, is producing costs to society, particularly as it's being used to further the oppressor/oppressed, white supremacy narrative in academia, which I believe has greased the rails for the anti-Semitic behavior we have seen since last Saturday. As a Jew, I take this very seriously, and despite formerly showing much more tolerance for the movement, I feel it is time to pay attention. I was not surprised to see that workman was non-binary. That is not the same as saying if you are non-binary, you are anti-Semitic.
In some way I haven't been able to tease out and fully articulate, there is a link between some individuals in the trans/non-binary community, academia, and the burgeoning, contemporary hatred for Jews. I hope I'm wrong.
It's a complex issue. Thanks for answering.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"I see your question, and, a couple days ago I would have agreed with you, but the past couple days have shifted my perspective on these large-scale announcements.
I work at a BigLaw firm in New York City and my wife is a student in an NYC law school. Both of our institutions issued statements, albeit late and tepid. While I originally would have been dismissive of such statements, I’ve come to realize they can serve a more important goal than I once thought.
Since the events unfolded, neither my wife nor I—both of us obviously Jewish—have received any words of compassion or comfort from any of our non-Jewish colleagues or classmates. The Jews in our institutions have banded together, but no one outside of the Jewish community has even acknowledged any of the events to either of us. I don’t know if they fear weighing into politics, or haven’t been following what’s going on too closely, but I think those of us that follow the news a little too closely can forget that most people don’t.
Most people aren’t addicted to the day to day news cycle, and maybe brush off major international stories. It’s possible most people don’t realize the viciousness with which Hamas operates, and merely rubber-stamps their terror as 'conflict in the Middle East.'
Surely we can agree that it’s each individual’s responsibility to follow the news on their own, especially individuals at such intellectual institutions, but these sort of announcements can have an important function—to inform your constituents that egregiously immoral behavior is occurring overseas and it may be affecting the people next to you. Recognize evil when you see it, and offer compassion to those who need it. It shouldn’t take a firm-wide or school-wide email for people to realize such atrocities, but a strong condemnation of an evil terrorist organization is a good step in that direction."
As a non-Jew, this is disappointing to read. With all the news about Israel, I can't imagine how Jewish people are coping. Saddening and infuriating.
Posting on behalf of an NYU source who emailed me (with their consent):
"I tend to think that you're correct—big institutions need not, and likely should not, feel the need to issue statements that respond to every news item near and far, immediate and obscure. I suppose we may see this phenomenon as another indica of the social-mediazation of American life. Everyone, from the ordinary social-media habitue to the big-account institution, has kind of just accepted that they must operate as their own press secretaries at all times and make grand declarations as part of a never-ending obligation of clarifying their public positions.
The problem here, however, is that if NYU Law does not make a statement, they can bet dollars to Sunday that one of the many affinity groups within the school, or even a generalist club like SBA, will make one, and more likely than not that statement will be far more extreme than what the law school can stomach. This has real implications for NYU Law not just because statements like Workman's are wrong-headed or antithetical to the school's values and therefore embarrassing as a public relations matter, but also because they have the real potential of enraging alumni and throwing donation and tuition dollars downstream into serious question. And then there's the prospect of federal government investigations, a whole separate beast.
So, the dilemma is: Make statements all the time and then get deluged any time you don't make one the right way or in response to this or that thing, or make no statements ever or make them exceedingly rarely and then let a doctrinaire 24-year-old fill the void for you. What's a school like NYU Law to do?"
It is relevant that the student made this statement in a post titled "Message from the President" and signed off as "Your SBA President." This means they are not speaking in their private capacity as a law student (or private citizen), but as a representative of the NYU student body. It seems correct that statements made in an official capacity should not have the same free speech culture presumptions as those made by a person in their private capacity. There is a difference between Elon Musk saying something on Twitter about whatever, and Elon Musk releasing a statement as CEO of Tesla.
If this student had made this statement on their private social media account instead, then I would be critical of Winston's decision to withdraw their offer. It would be healthier for society if companies didn't make employment decisions based on people's political beliefs. But here, Winston can plausibly argue that the withdrawal has more to do with the student's poor judgment in posting a politically controversial statement in her official capacity based on her private beliefs rather than from institutional policy; and thus a lack of attention to her fiduciary duties to the law school in doing so.
Good point--this student chose to speak in their capacity as SBA President, not as a student. That changes the landscape of what they can reasonably expect with regards to free speech presumptions. Also, can you imagine receiving this email as a NYU Law Jewish student? It would not be an exaggeration to view it as a threat.
Yes, there is a positive outcome from an institution taking a stand on matters of moral importance. Specifically, it supports people who are suffering as a result of the outrageous action. For example, I am quite confident that there are many Jewish and/or Israeli students at NYU Law who know people who were killed or kidnapped. Having the vocal support of the Law School is a help.
Moreover, it helps to self-select. If NYU wants to build a community of people with a shared moral compass, it is well-served to broadcast what the metes and bounds of that moral compass.
I - simultaneously - believe that (a) Ryna Workman should be shunned by all moral people, including any prospective PRIVATE employer and (b) Ryna Workman should not suffer any consequences from any governmental actor as a result of their statement. If they have the courage of their convictions (which I have no way of knowing), they will welcome the consequences.
Agree on all points!
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
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"I don’t think Winston should have rescinded the offer of the NYU student. I don’t want firms firing people for views they express on their own time. Next they will fire people for opposing abortion and affirmative action."
I asked this reader: what about the poor exercise of judgment, as opposed to holding a poor opinion?
"Poor judgment is a slippery slope to poor opinion. This person was still a student too. They should have even more leeway to state their views. Now we have to worry about not saying things in class lest our firms not hire us?"
To the author of this post - If you are foolish enough to believe that employers do not fire people for expressing abhorrent (in the view of the employer, or the view of potential clients of the employer) opinions publicly, you are in for a rude awakening. This is what "at will" employment means.
Yes, you should "worry about not saying things in class lest our firms not hire us". If you don't guard your tongue, and you find yourself out of step with your employer, you may be separated and have no recourse.
My practice includes employment law in NY. This is not my first rodeo.
A few thoughts. First of all, she did not post her views on her own time or in class, she posted them as "A Message From the President" of the SBA in the organization's newsletter, seemingly without consulting any other members of the the group. That shows shockingly poor judgment and is an abuse of her role as SBA president. It's not as though her offer was rescinded over a personal tweet.
Second, I agree that "poor judgment" is way too vague as a standard and that it does constitute a slippery slope to being punished for a "poor opinion". We must safeguard everyone's ability to speak their mind freely.
So where do these points reconcile? People should be free to express all opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions morally or culturally neutral. A rescinded job offer is not the same as being fired and supporting a violent foreign political action, even if you find it a legitimate form of resistance, is not the same thing as being pro-life or anti-affirmative action. If they want to be an activist for the Palestinian cause, they can do so however they see fit. But that doesn't mean that they are owed a job at a firm that vehemently disagrees with their very public views.
Well, yes, but it might be useful to consider that it's not always useful - or even good - to express opinions publicly. Is a strong opinion unexpressed any less an opinion (sincere question)?
In any case, the current internet-facilitated practice of firing off opinions as quickly as possible isn't wise and rarely, if ever, actually achieves anything.
This is a fair point I have to mull on. I work for a free speech organization so my knee-jerk reaction is always to oppose the mere suggestion to repress opinions. I think your point about the need for ‘hot takes’ on the internet is a good one.
Truth & Consequences. Speak your truth. Embrace any consequences.
The broad consensus: A 3L is firmly entrenched in adulthood. The time for coddling has long since passed.
The specifics here: There are times when one's "poor opinion" is simply...outrageously abhorrent and disgusting. Hard stop. Support for Hamas in this moment - whether direct or implied - assuredly qualifies. This younger generation's fetish for unbound tolerance in the wake of spewing abysmally-dim and/or inconsiderate orthodoxy is astonishing. Perhaps the pendulum might finally begin to swing back tepidly towards sanity.
The firm is a business. Anything that potential or current client can view as a stain on that business’s reputation must be addressed forcefully. How many of their Jewish clients or potential clients would wish to be represented by a firm that agreed to hire an applicant that appears to be an antisemite. Could this person be an effective advocate for the firm in front of a Jewish judge?
Would you trust this person’s judgment on a range of issues. No the business made the right decision for the sake of the business, their employees and their clients
The right to free speech is not the right to speak without consequences. In her position, with her platform, one would hope that she considered the consequences of her words.
What’s missing, and what might be the most interesting thing about this, is that the student very clearly had no sense that she would face professional consequences for saying what she said publicly. It speaks poorly to her education, both formal and informal. And what a bubble her world must be.
My son is a NYU law student; he immediately emailed me her statement and was shocked by it. I think it was obvious to him that this would have lasting consequences, so I'm not blaming the school. I tend to think that this person just didn't care or doesn't really value employment as much as identity.
Alternately, this could've been an intentional - consciously or subconsciously - act of self-sabotage.
Or self-aggrandizement.
Thank you, David, for your thoughts. My feelings are still raw, so please forgive this confused post: It bothers me greatly that she made her statement on behalf of a student organization. If she'd posted on her personal Facebook/Twitter/whatever account, I think she might have learned a bit from the blowback (if there was any). This way, she becomes a very public martyr for Palestine and I'll expect her to be snapped up by some firm or organization with similar views to hers. (Kudos to Winston & Strawn for acting as it did, though we could quibble as to the wording.) On an unrelated note, many Muslims and Muslim states have denounced the attack, publicly, as it did nothing for Palestinians, and was a sickening, inhumane act in every respect. https://www.memri.org/reports/arab-social-media-users-criticize-hamas-large-scale-attack-defacing-corpses-raping-girls
This is a fair point—and I suspect it will be cited in the upcoming removal proceedings. It's not clear that Workman had the authorization to use the SBA newsletter in that way.
And since NYU Law eliminated Coase's List, its school-wide email listserv, the ability to email the entire student body is no longer something that just anyone can do. Workman was able to do this only by virtue of their position as SBA president.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"NYU 2L here. Some thoughts, anonymously.
(1) First, in defense of Dean McKenzie: I think it's uncharitable and incorrect for the anonymous NYU source to have said that 'it’s unsatisfactory insofar as it manages to give the impression that there’s a legitimate division of views over whether it’s appropriate to support the massacre of civilians.' What in the text of the Dean's message gives that impression? One gets the sense that the anonymous source would have preferred the Dean of the law school to publicly ream out Workman specifically and explicitly. The problem with doing so is not political. It's that he's the Dean and she's a student, and a public message that is any more explicit would have been mean and inappropriate, and contra to his duty to have compassion for all the students at the law school. Readers can read and understand the condemnation between the lines.
(2) Second, many students wrote emails very similar to Workman's on our private, intra-student (though unofficially run) list-serv. The specific problem with Workman's of course was using an official platform for it (without any assent by the students). So I agree that the issue was poor judgment and not per se the expression of contrary beliefs, and perhaps her firm should have said that more particularly. But the thing is that her comments were deeply offensive, and extended well beyond a rational political critique of the Israeli government or whatever, but seemed to blame the victims for the loss of innocent life. This, of course, feels like a line too far. And though our common discourse about free speech (and SCOTUS jurisprudence) doesn't seem to draw these lines (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church case), society does. Words, in short, can be deeply hurtful and without much social value beyond the injury they cause people. And it's a law school after all, where students (many of whom have family and friends in the conflict) still have to come to class and learn. So there ought to be a high priority on civil discourse.
(3) As we all recognize, behavior like this is nothing new by law students or college students. Perhaps with the benefit of this situation, students and faculty will look back at the Stanford incident, and upon any future incidents, with more clarity."
I just received an email from the principal of my six-year-old's elementary school and thought, "Really?"
But it was less performative and more practical, providing advice for talking to your kids about sensitive subjects (or protecting them from news and social media if that's your choice as a parent), linking to online resources, mentioning offline resources at the school, and the like.
This shouldn't be hard. If an organization's purpose is to directly related to some topic(s) in public discussion, it should have a clear position(s) on that(those) issue(s), and state that position clearly and publicly. For instance, an organization dedicated to protecting wilderness in the western US should take public positions on issues related to western wilderness. An organization dedicated to improving education for poor children should take public positions related to education for poor children.
No organization should take public positions on controversial issues not directly related to its primary purpose. Doing so will distract both members and the larger public from the organization's avowed purpose. Certainly, members of these organizations are likely to have opinions, but the organization doesn't need to take a position, and shouldn't. Officials of these organizations shouldn't make public statements that would be seen as representing the organization, nor should they take advantage of their positions to promote their views to their members.
This is very likely a tough lesson the members of the organization learned.
I recommend a look at UVA President Jim Ryan's statement as an exemplar of how to respond in a manner grounded on institutional interests rather than political engagement.
Thanks—would you happen to have a link (or be able to post the full text here)? My quick searching didn't immediately locate it.
https://news.virginia.edu/content/ryan-appeals-compassion-offers-support-aftermath-attacks-israel
Thank you! I agree that it's a good statement focused on UVA's institutional interests rather than, say, geopolitics (about which a university president would not have any particular insight, unless that was their area of scholarship).
I still think it's fair to debate whether even well-done statements should be issued, though. Sometimes it's less about a particular statement and more about the precedent or expectations it sets.
In a perfect world, I agree with you completely. In the world in which university presidents find themselves, the challenge is to respect his line if possible. I remember the spring of my freshman year (May 1970) when Kingman Brewster, the president of Yale and a former law professor, professed to be "appalled and ashamed that things should have come to such a pass in this country that I am skeptical of the ability of black revolutionaries to achieve a fair trial anywhere in the United States." It was both the most and the least that he could do.