The exclusionary principle
By 
Sullivan & Cromwell is a classic “white shoe” (more about that in a minute) law firm. Its managing partner is leading the charge to discriminate against law students who have the wrong views on the Israel-Palestine conflict from getting hired at it or similar firms:
As pro-Palestinian protests spread across university campuses, Sullivan & Cromwell’s senior chair said Wednesday the firm will be “more vigilant” in screening potential candidates. The firm is now outlining some of its vetting processes in that effort, including reviewing resumes, social media, news reports and student group affiliations and employing third-party specialists for background checks.
While Law.com has reported that law firms are quietly reviewing their incoming associates’ views and social media statements, Sullivan & Cromwell is now one of the first to publicly detail its vetting process.
Senior firm chair Joe Shenker has maintained a strong position against hate speech and bias during the Israel/Hamas conflict, taking the lead on efforts such as a group letter signed by dozens of law firm leaders sent to law school deans that maintained an “unequivocal stance” in opposition to antisemitism. Shenker was in his Jerusalem synagogue’s bomb shelter when the Hamas-led attack on Israel began on Oct. 7.
In a statement Wednesday, Sullivan & Cromwell said it will “review resumes for participation in pro-terrorist groups and other similar activities” as well as do a “thorough review of the candidate’s online presence, school website [and] news reports” moving forward.
It will also request “lists of all campus organizations the student has been or is currently a part of and monitor activities from those groups that do no align with our ethical standards,” the firm said.
In addition, the firm said it will employ third-party specialists to do formal background checks. . . .
While the firm already had a robust screening system, Shenker said the recent protests on college campuses across the country invite additional efforts. “We do background checks on all of our hires, and with social media’s prevalence, we will be more vigilant in reviewing what they post and espouse,” he said.
In addition to the vetting of potential hires, the firm said it was going to institute a “similarly vigilant” approach to sponsorship requests from campus groups, asking the groups the firm does support financially or otherwise to “confirm they share our commitment to a harassment-free environment.”
Multiple Big Law firms have already rescinded offers to students based on controversial statements.
Sullivan & Cromwell is becoming more vigilant in its vetting approach as pro-Palestinian protests across the country make national news
Shenker of course makes the appropriate mouth noises about what the firm is screening for is not particular political views, but “hate speech and harassment.” It turns out that engaging in “hate speech and harassment” in this context means having been a member of a “pro-terrorist” (meaning pro-Palestinian) organization.
Which brings me back the white shoe designation. A white shoe law firm, once upon a not very distant at all time, meant a firm that hired prep school graduates (white shoes meant white bucks, which were synecdoches for prep school alumni), meaning, among several other things, Not Jews. So there’s a history here as it were.
For those of you who are wondering, it’s legal almost everywhere to discriminate in hiring on the basis of political views, and indeed it ought to be, within reason. No one should be forced to hire, for example, someone who openly supports a seditious traitor who is trying to install himself as a de facto fascist dictator. I’m quite sure, however, that Sullivan & Cromwell has no such policy, even informally speaking, as it would cause too great a carnage in the better legal circles.
The real question here is whether support for the Palestinians is so beyond the pale that it’s the kind of political position that ought to be disqualifying at a law firm. The rationale here no doubt is that support for the Palestinians is functionally speaking support for Hamas. But that form of argument is indistinguishable from the claim that support for Israel is support for that nation’s current political regime, which is engaging as a matter of policy in broad scale war crimes, such as starving a couple of million civilians, three quarters of whom are women and children. So if you support Israel, the argument goes, you support the intentional starvation of an entire population, which certainly sounds like the kind of political position that ought to get you disqualified from consideration.
Again, I have no objection in principle to using political criteria in hiring, as long as they are, to coin a phrase, politically correct. It’s just a question of where one draws that particular line, rather than taking the indefensible position that a person’s politics cannot be considered a valid basis for excluding them from one’s own payroll.