In May, Sullivan & Cromwell unveiled a new, stringent vetting process aimed at excluding candidates involved in “pro-terrorist groups and other similar activities.” The policy has been met with criticism for appearing to equate pro-Palestinian activism with terrorism. This initiative includes scrutinizing student participation in campus organizations that might oppose certain geopolitical stances, a move perceived by some legal professionals as unnecessarily polarizing and worrisome.
In conjunction with this hiring policy, S&C has reached out to about 50 student groups at various law schools, including affinity groups at Yale Law School and NYU Law, requesting them to affirm their support for a statement denouncing antisemitism and other forms of bigotry. According to Vivia Chen, this action echoes a McCarthyist approach reminiscent of the Red Scare, where students must list all campus organizations they have been part of, thereby chilling political speech under the guise of rooting out antisemitism.
Critics argue that such measures could suppress legitimate protest and dialogue by fostering confusion about what constitutes antisemetic behavior in the context of protests. This approach diverges significantly from other law firms’ initiatives, which address campus antisemitism more directly, such as Gibson Dunn’s partnership in founding a hotline for victims of antisemitic harassment or Paul Weiss’s and Kaplan Hecker’s successful litigation against hate groups.
Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy has been endorsed by some clients, like hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who publicly praised the firm for its stance. However, within the broader legal community, concerns persist that the policy may prioritize curtailing dissent over genuinely addressing antisemitism.
For further reading on Sullivan & Cromwell’s latest policies, view the detailed analysis by Vivia Chen on the polarizing nature of the firm’s approach.