In a bold move against perceived indifference to antisemitism concerns at Harvard University, Edelson PC, a prominent plaintiffs’ firm, declared its boycott of upcoming recruiting events at Harvard Law School. The decision comes in the wake of Harvard University President Claudine Gay’s Congressional testimony on campus antisemitism, which left Edelson PC dissatisfied.
In an exclusive interview with Reuters, Jay Edelson, the founder of the Chicago-based firm, emphasized that the protest is directed not at Harvard law students but at the university’s leadership and its global influence. Edelson criticized Harvard for not responsibly wielding its “megaphone” on the world stage.
The law firm conveyed its stance through a letter to Harvard Law’s career services office, announcing its withdrawal from the Spring Interview Program commencing on January 29. Additionally, Edelson PC will be absent from Harvard’s larger on-campus interviewing event in August, a critical recruitment period for summer associates.
Of note, Edelson seems to be the sole law firm taking such a stance against a specific law school due to its handling of antisemitism concerns. Harvard Law School declined to comment on the matter.
While Edelson’s boycott is not expected to significantly impact Harvard Law’s overall employment figures, given the firm’s annual recruitment of a dozen summer associates, the move underscores a broader concern. Edelson, with a focus on Harvard, Stanford, and Yale law schools, seeks to convey that even liberal firms find Harvard’s response to antisemitism unacceptable.
Harvard University President Claudine Gay faced criticism for her December 5 testimony, where she refrained from unequivocally stating that threats of genocide against Jewish people violate Harvard’s code of conduct. Despite subsequent apologies and a statement of support from Harvard’s governing body, calls for Gay’s resignation persist.
Jay Edelson clarified that his firm’s boycott is conditional. Edelson PC would resume participation in Harvard Law’s recruiting events if the university severed ties with President Gay. However, Edelson did not categorically rule out hiring Harvard law students, expressing openness to alternative recruitment avenues outside formal campus interview programs.
This protest aligns with a broader trend, as law firms pressurize law schools to address campus tensions, particularly amid incidents related to violence in the Middle East. In November, over 200 firms, including Edelson PC, penned a letter to law school deans expressing concern over rising antisemitism and intimidation on university campuses. The recent boycott adds weight to these collective efforts, signaling a growing demand for accountability.
In this challenging landscape, Harvard Law School finds itself navigating not just legal intricacies but also addressing broader societal expectations concerning the responsible handling of sensitive issues on campus.
This development underscores the delicate balance universities must strike between fostering diverse perspectives and ensuring a safe, inclusive environment for all students. Harvard Law School, facing scrutiny from a significant legal player, now stands at the crossroads of principles and pragmatism in addressing these complex challenges.
