Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(149,151 posts)
Fri May 31, 2024, 02:15 PM May 31

White-shoe law firms tell law schools they won't hire antisemites amid Israel-Hamas war [View all]

I was at a couple large law firms earlier in my career including one of the firms who signed the letter attached below and my oldest child is a partner at one of the largest law firms (another signer of the letter attached below). These law firms will not hire persons who are antisemitic. Big law firms are interesting creatures. I am not surprised by this position


Top US law firms are warning law schools that they will not hire graduates who engage in “discrimination or harassment” against Jewish students on campuses that have been roiled by the Israel-Hamas war.

Two dozen white-shoe firms — among them Skadden Arps, Cravath Swaine & Moore, and Paul Weiss — attached their names to the Wednesday letter sent to 14 elite law schools whose graduates are among the most sought-after job candidates on the market.

The prestigious firms “have zero tolerance policies for any form of discrimination or harassment, much less the kind that has been taking place on some law school campuses,” according to the letter, earlier reported on by the New York Times.

Joe Shenker, senior chair at Sullivan & Cromwell, spearheaded the letter, whose other signatories include Wachtel, Lipton, Debevoise & Plimpton and Davis Polk.

The latter firm made headlines last month when it rescinded job offers to law graduates from Columbia and Harvard over statements they had signed that condemned Israel following the Oct. 7 attacks.

Shearman & Sterling, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Cadwalader have also signed onto the letter.

66 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I am surprised, why are they taking this position? Irish_Dem May 31 #1
Having been at a Big Law firm, I am not surprised LetMyPeopleVote May 31 #2
That makes sense, yes it has been appalling. Irish_Dem May 31 #3
Yes, they were played, and you would think that they would realize that, but MarineCombatEngineer May 31 #4
Yep JonAndKatePlusABird Jun 1 #22
Yes good point. Irish_Dem Jun 1 #27
This is simple. I had absolutely zero MotownPgh Jun 1 #29
Very smart. Irish_Dem Jun 1 #36
Nope...they understand bigotry...being lawyers and all. Demsrule86 Jun 1 #25
I am thrilled. jimfields33 Jun 1 #30
A couple of months ago, a protestor disrupted a private dinner at a law professor's house for graduates LetMyPeopleVote May 31 #5
TY for this, LMPV.. That was So Stupid of he "protesters'". Cha Jun 1 #63
K&R betsuni May 31 #6
They better have very clear & defined objective criteria. I sympathize with their issues, but otherwise they will be hlthe2b May 31 #7
Are you referring to the law firms? If so, I am certain these attorneys know all they need to. Hekate May 31 #10
I am well aware. Even bigshot lawfirms make such errors in judgement. hlthe2b May 31 #12
Saying they won't hire anti-Semites is no different than opposing hiring Nazis and white supremacists. tritsofme May 31 #11
One cannot make such accusations without justification and valid criteria--which I presume they will impose. hlthe2b May 31 #13
Being a Hamas sympathizer is not a protected class. tritsofme May 31 #14
One cannot accuse and conclude someone to be a Hamas sympathizer without proof. hlthe2b May 31 #15
A law firm doesn't require "proof" to decline to hire someone. Jedi Guy Jun 1 #21
They do if they do not wish a liability discrimination lawsuit or a Federal EEOC suit. hlthe2b Jun 1 #24
Kindly point to the portion of the EEOC legislation that designates opinions as a protected class. N/T Jedi Guy Jun 1 #33
You can seek it out. hlthe2b Jun 1 #42
"You can seek it out." Jedi Guy Jun 1 #55
You can pay an attorney just as anyone else would or look it up. There are tons of sources on employment hlthe2b Jun 1 #56
So what you're saying here, essentially, is that you can't provide a source to support your assertion. Jedi Guy Jun 1 #59
It depends on who applies for the position. hlthe2b Jun 1 #60
"This is a discussion forum--not a paid seminar." Jedi Guy Jun 1 #62
I spent over a dozen years on my County's Affirmative Action Commission, 7 years as chair Hekate May 31 #16
You seem to agree with me--enough to echo the requirements for validation/proof. hlthe2b May 31 #17
If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. DU's been a bit fractious and triggering... Hekate May 31 #18
Yes. It has been a difficult period. hlthe2b May 31 #19
If I apply for a job and express strong bias against any ethnic group RandomNumbers Jun 1 #35
Yes.. and this is the documented justification they legally need. Do you not understand that? hlthe2b Jun 1 #41
I understand that companies can make whatever hiring choices they want RandomNumbers Jun 1 #45
Two words: 'Descriminatory pattern' (sans a legally-defensible and documented policy) hlthe2b Jun 1 #46
I do think employment protections theoretically apply. I guess I am more cynical RandomNumbers Jun 1 #49
No one is saying there are not employers who violate. But, they do so at their own risk... hlthe2b Jun 1 #50
I wonder how they justify hiring Republicans? ExciteBike66 May 31 #8
They most likely would not hire convicted J-6 Republicans jimfields33 Jun 1 #31
I find this enormously encouraging, especially since they were on it so quickly. Your post ... Hekate May 31 #9
Bravo! Behind the Aegis Jun 1 #20
Sounds more like "Jackboot Lawfirms", not white shoe maxrandb Jun 1 #23
Sorry I disagree... in many cases, students were harassed on social media, locked out of campus building... Demsrule86 Jun 1 #28
"Sounds more like "Jackboot Lawfirms", not white shoe" Jedi Guy Jun 1 #34
It would be my reaction if "they" get to decide who is a "white supremacist" maxrandb Jun 1 #40
"Seems like just about EVERYTHING can get you labeled as an antisemite." Jedi Guy Jun 1 #58
Sure, it's just as simple as "immigrants are rapist" and "shithole countries" maxrandb Jun 1 #65
Pure and unadulterated whataboutism. AnrothElf Jun 1 #66
I'll make you a deal maxrandb Jun 1 #44
Law firms are NOT state actors and the First Amendment does not apply LetMyPeopleVote Jun 1 #38
I wish someone would explain "white shoe" vs other colors of shoe professionals Model35mech Jun 1 #57
No it Doesn't .. they don't want "Anti Semites". Good on the Law Firms. Cha Jun 1 #64
They shouldn't be hiring antisemites at any time, ever as general policy. I certainly wouldn't ... marble falls Jun 1 #26
Is there an argument that they should? edisdead Jun 1 #32
There is an idiot suing a large law firm because their job offer was rescinded LetMyPeopleVote Jun 1 #39
The article cited in OP has some examples of law firms rescinding job offers to graduating law students LetMyPeopleVote Jun 1 #37
There's a problem with such a blanket characterization of antisemitism. Lonestarblue Jun 1 #43
If you blamed Israel for Oct. 7th, as these law students did... that's antisemitism. AnrothElf Jun 1 #48
I did not say that. Certainly there were students and outsiders who were antisemitic. Lonestarblue Jun 1 #51
Right but that's misrepresenting what the letter is saying. This is about students who DO engage in antisemitism. AnrothElf Jun 1 #53
All these firms are saying is that anti-Semites don't have a right to employment at their firms. PeaceWave Jun 1 #47
Interesting that the term "white shoe law firms" is now being used to niyad Jun 1 #52
One of my former partners (now deceased) was unable to get a job at a major Houston law firm in 1950s LetMyPeopleVote Jun 1 #54
So Glad they're Taking a Stand, LMPV! Cha Jun 1 #61
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»White-shoe law firms tell...