Wall Street Law Firm Sullivan & Cromwell Institutes Vetting Process for Anti-Israel Protesters Seeking Employment   

Edited by:  Fern Sidman

Since the October 7^th Hamas attack on southern Israel in which 1200 people were brutally massacred and over 250 others taken into Hamas captivity in Gaza, pro-Hamas  students have repeatedly mobilized to express their seething animus towards Israel and Zionism, as was reported on Tuesday in the New York Times. What stands out is the intensity of the student protests , reaching a peak that saw campuses erupt in violence until the summer recess.

Historically, these protests have been met with resistance from powerful financial stakeholders who view the unrest as detrimental to their interests and the institutions they support. According to the information provided in the NYT report, certain law firms and banking institutions have not hesitated to leverage their influence to push for the removal of university leaders who are either supportive of or insufficiently opposed to the protests.

One of the most striking developments in this ongoing saga is the proactive stance taken by Sullivan & Cromwell, a venerable Wall Street law firm with a 145-year history and a client list that includes giants such as Goldman Sachs and Amazon, as per the information in the NYT report.  In a move that signals a more direct intervention in campus activism, the firm has announced that participation in protests—whether on campus or off—could be a disqualifying factor for job applicants.

Joseph C. Shenker, 67, a senior leader at Sullivan & Cromwell, elaborated on the firm’s policy, emphasizing the thorough vetting process applicants will undergo. The firm has enlisted a background check company to scrutinize candidates’ involvement with pro-Hamas student groups, combing through social media, news reports, and protest footage, as was reported by the NYT. This rigorous examination seeks to identify explicit instances of anti-Semitism and any statements or slogans deemed “triggering” to Jewish communities.

In the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack, Mr. Shenker took a proactive stance by writing a letter, co-signed by around 200 other firms, urging law school deans to ensure campus protesters act civilly and to increase protections for Jewish students. The NYT report said that the firm has engaged HireRight, a background check company,  to scrutinize applicants’ social media activity and public statements about the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Mr. Shenker, who served as Sullivan & Cromwell’s chair from 2010 to 2022, is now one of two senior chairs at the firm. The NYT report also said Mr. Shenker’s personal history adds another layer to the policy’s context. His great-grandfather was a leader of an influential Orthodox Jewish community in Jerusalem, and Shenker maintains strong ties to Israel, including belonging to a synagogue there. His professional stature has allowed him to play a significant role in addressing anti-Semitism and defining acceptable speech in academic and professional settings.

A particularly controversial aspect of Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy is the notion of collective responsibility. According to Mr. Shenker, even students who did not personally engage in problematic behavior but participated in protests where such behavior occurred could be penalized. As per the NYT report, he argued that by being present at these events, individuals implicitly endorse the actions of the crowd, thereby adopting a “mob mentality.”

Mr. Shenker’s influence extends beyond Sullivan & Cromwell. He has represented high-profile clients, such as Saudi investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, billionaire hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman, and Frank McCourt, who has expressed interest in purchasing TikTo, as was indicated in the NYT report. His reputation and connections have enabled him to mobilize support from around 200 other firms, pressing law school deans to encourage civility among campus protesters and protect Jewish students. Shenker argues that if these schools had taken more proactive measures, the need for Sullivan & Cromwell’s stringent policy might have been obviated.

In the United States, private employers enjoy considerable latitude in their hiring practices, constrained primarily by laws designed to prevent discrimination. This flexibility allows employers to make decisions based on a wide range of factors, including potential employees’ actions and statements.

While Sullivan & Cromwell remains the only Wall Street law firm to publicly announce such a policy, it has garnered attention from its peers. The NYT report indicated that leaders at four other elite law firms, who spoke anonymously to the paper revealed they are contemplating similar measures. This suggests that Sullivan & Cromwell’s stance might be the beginning of a broader trend within the industry, potentially reshaping hiring practices across top legal firms.

Critics of Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy argue that it is an attempt to stifle criticism of Israel and equate all protesters with those who have engaged in heckling and threatening Jewish students. Speaking to the NYT, Rawda Fawaz, a lawyer with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, pointed out that law firms have always expected candidates to maintain a clean and defensible social media presence. The report added that she questioned the need for a special policy targeting protest involvement, suggesting it unfairly singles out a specific form of political expression.

The debate surrounding Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy touches on critical issues of free speech, corporate responsibility, and the boundaries of acceptable political expression. Supporters of the policy argue it is necessary to combat anti-Semitism and ensure a respectful workplace. They believe distinguishing between legitimate protest and hate speech is crucial for maintaining ethical standards.

Conversely, opponents view the policy as an overreach, infringing on individuals’ rights to express their political beliefs and participate in activism. They argue that such measures could deter meaningful discourse and marginalize voices advocating for Palestinian rights.

The firm’s policy involves a rigorous vetting process for job applicants, scrutinizing their involvement in pro-Hamas protests, especially those where certain slogans, such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” were used, the report in the NYT said.  This particular slogan, which is common at pro-Hamas rallies, has a highly disputed intent. Many Palestinians view it as a call for the end of Israeli oppression and the attainment of equal rights, while many Israelis interpret it as a threat to the existence of Israel.

The policy in question involves a meticulous screening process for job applicants, particularly those from top law schools such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and New York University. Applicants are also required to list the student groups they have joined. The NYT report explained that participation in protests or involvement in groups deemed objectionable by the firm triggers further questioning, where applicants must explain their role and actions, including efforts to curb offensive or harassing statements made by others during protests.

Neil Barr, chairman of Davis Polk, another global law firm, echoed Shenker’s sentiments. Speaking to the NYY, Barr asserted that the policy aligns with maintaining basic workforce decency standards. Davis Polk itself has rescinded job offers to students involved with groups that issued statements blaming Israel for the October 7 Hamas attack, as was indicated in the NYT report.  This calls attention to the broader trend among elite law firms to implement similar measures.

The strategy adopted by Sullivan & Cromwell and potentially other firms highlights how businesses are trying to shape the behavior of future employees, well before they enter the workforce. As per the information contained in the NYT report, this preemptive approach, as noted by Roderick A. Ferguson, a Yale professor of American Studies, characterizes all protesters under a single mindset, which raises concerns about the fairness and inclusivity of such policies. Speaking to the NYT, Ferguson pointed out that disqualifying individuals based on the actions of others nearby fails to recognize the diversity of thought and intention within protest movements.

The policy has not been without its critics. Kenneth S. Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, has raised significant concerns about the policy’s inability to distinguish between unpopular opinions and genuinely hateful speech. According to the NYT report, Stern, who supports the importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland, warns that such policies risk excluding potentially valuable candidates who may hold dissenting but non-hateful views. He acknowledges being offended by certain protest chants but stresses that offense alone should not be grounds for disqualification.

At the heart of this issue lies the debate over free speech versus hate speech. Supporters of Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy argue that it is necessary to prevent hate speech and maintain a respectful and inclusive workplace environment. The NYT report said that by implementing these standards, they believe they are upholding ethical principles that are crucial for the professional and social dynamics of their firms.

The implications of these policies extend beyond the immediate context of hiring practices. They signal a broader trend where corporate influence reaches into the personal and political lives of future professionals, as was detailed in the NYT report. By setting these precedents, law firms like Sullivan & Cromwell are not just shaping their workforce but also influencing the broader discourse on political activism and free speech.