Morning News Roundup: Law firms; Trump in your kitchen; the profs creating a "NATO for higher ed"
When we fight, we... win?
Lots of interesting things in the failing New York Times this weekend.
Last month, Microsoft—no one’s idea of the Rebel Alliance—dropped a law firm that had signed an agreement with Trump and replaced it with another (Jenner & Block) that had taken Trump to court. Microsoft, and the law firms, gave no reason, but the Times article hints at one possibility. While firms that caved to the administration justified doing so by a concern that clients would avoid them if they were under federal scrutiny, the Microsoft situation, the Times writes, “is an early indication that there may be a risk in the opposite direction.” They go on:
In some cases, a client may worry that a law firm that has reached a deal with the White House has a conflict of interest that prevents it from aggressively representing the client. For example, the client may be a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the federal government and worry that a settling law firm would be reluctant to stand up to the administration.
Other clients may have broader concerns. A senior partner at another firm that does not have an agreement with the White House said his firm was beginning to attract clients from firms that had settled with the administration. The partner, who was not authorized to discuss client matters publicly, said prospective clients had indicated that they had lost confidence in settling firms for not standing up to an attack on the rule of law.
The argument at Columbia between those who want to fight and those who want to settle has sometimes been framed, by both sides, as an argument between principles and financial responsibility. Yes, says the side that wants to fight, money is very important, but our honor and freedom are more important. Well, says the side that wants to settle, principles are very important, but what use are they if we lose our research funding, our tax status, and our Pell grants?
But we should not underestimate the financial cost of a ruined reputation. What use will our research funding (which, by the way, has not been restored) be if top researchers worry that their research will be subject to the whims of RFK Jr? What use will Pell grants be if prospective students worry that the university will not stand up for them? Caving to the federal government’s illegal demands is not just a matter of principle. It is bad for business.
It was to a partner at one of the law firms fighting Trump that we heard ascribed the following wise statement:
If Trump came into your kitchen and said, “Take out the garbage,” you wouldn’t say, “OK, I was going to take it out anyway.” You’d say, “Get the fuck out of my kitchen!”
And don’t miss this inspirational piece on the two Rutgers professors—one teaches chemistry and wears a blazer; the other teaches psychology and wears a Rutgers baseball cap—who started the mutual defense pact for Big Ten schools.
So late last month, Professor Salas-de la Cruz and Paul Boxer, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University-Newark, drafted a one-page “mutual defense compact.” It was a one-for-all, all-for-one statement of solidarity among schools in the Big Ten athletic and academic conference — 18 large, predominantly public universities that together enroll roughly 600,000 students each year. “An infringement against one member university,” they wrote, “shall be considered an infringement against all.”
You don’t have to like NATO to think this is a good idea.