Op-ed: Ronald Sullivan and the Case for Due Process of Law

“This is not about defending Ronald Sullivan or any one individual; it is about affirming the right for lawyers to defend their clients without facing condemnation in their personal and professional lives.”

Harvard has decided not to renew its contract with professor Ronald Sullivan to continue as Winthrop House’s faculty dean.

The professor, who had joined Harvey Weinstein’s legal team at the beginning of 2019, faced a strong backlash from some Harvard students for his decision to represent the embattled film producer. Those who protested him argued that “Sullivan’s representation of Weinstein conflicts with his role as a faculty dean.”

The case opens a discussion not only on the due process of law but also on moral trials promoted by mobs. When these groups dismiss long-standing and well-established— principles and institutions cave to their demands—intellectual insecurity becomes rampant.

Due process requires the State to apply and respect a person’s legal rights, providing a fundamentally fair procedure. In the past, many questionable actions were taken by judges and prosecutors, hence the need for due process, which has been evolving since the composition of the English Magna Carta in 1215, a document written to limit the powers of the monarch—and a document which has influenced several constitutions all over the world.

Regardless of the identity of the accused—or the crime he or she has allegedly committed—this is a constitutional guarantee extended to all, and even the most repugnant criminals must be properly advised by a lawyer. In the case of particularly egregious criminals, perhaps this is a hard pill for the general public to swallow, but a failure to respect the need for the accused to receive competent counsel makes for an extremely dangerous legal and political climate.