Controversy at the Law School

Public service awards and governmental investigations rarely pair well. Just ask Robin Steinberg, suspended founder and executive director of the Bronx Defenders.

Several weeks ago, the Women’s Law Association and the Law and International Development Society at Harvard Law School tapped Steinberg as one of 50 honorees for an International Women’s Day Exhibit. The event planned to display the portraits of the nominees for two weeks in the Law School’s Wasserstein Hall.

Then, long-brewing controversy came to a boil. In early December, The New York Post had reported the cameos of two attorneys from Bronx Defenders in “Hands Up,” a music video about police brutality that seemed to advocate retaliatory violence. Bronx Defenders scrambled into damage control, but uproar erupted, occasioning a month-long investigation by the New York City Department of Investigation. The examination found that Steinberg had lied about her knowledge of the video and neglected to punish the participating employees. Since then, the two attorneys have quit, and Steinberg has accepted a 60-day suspension.

Steinberg’s Cambridge award and her New York punishment collided this week when a New York Post article bashed the Law School exhibit. Within hours, the WLA and LIDS revoked Steinberg’s award, setting off a heated round of opinions that included a statement of support for Steinberg signed by more than 180 Law School affiliates.

No matter the size of the current controversy, one instance of directorial wrongdoing should not overshadow a career defined by dedication and, indeed, justice. Founded by Steinberg in 1997, Bronx Defenders provides legal services to over 35,000 needy Bronx residents every year. Steinberg also advocates for gender equality, and Bronx Defenders has a record of hiring and supporting women in the traditionally male legal profession. Viewed over the course of her lifetime, these facts make Steinberg a worthy honoree. Notably, the New York City Department of Investigation did not find that Steinberg knew of the content of the video in which her employees participated. In short, she is a fair-minded public servant, and no evidence indicates that she advocated violence against police.

At the same time, the selection committee clearly did not perform its due diligence in spotlighting Steinberg. Announced after reports of wrongdoing had already surfaced, the invitation was poorly timed and therefore regrettable. If the WLA and LIDS had qualms about Steinberg’s untruthfulness, as they should have, then the planners should not have recognized Steinberg at all this year.

After the initial invitation, however, it was inappropriate to rescind the offer, especially given the short period between The Post’s condemnation and the event planners’ decision. As loudly as newspaper headlines scream, they should not bully the WLA and LIDS into one decision over another. Caving to negative publicity was an act of anxiety, not discretion. Moreover, the explanation given by the Law School groups betrayed a lack of knowledge of the case. Though they referenced the possibility of Steinberg’s exoneration, the investigation is over and her punishment seems unlikely to change. If the groups feel that she is deserving of the honor despite her lapse in judgment, they should simply give it to her and explain that reasoning.

The events of the past two months have been regrettable at essentially every step of the way. WLA and LIDS were mistaken to honor Steinberg while her organization was under scrutiny, and were also wrong to withdraw their award simply because of public pressure and with an inadequate explanation. All groups at Harvard need to exercise care when choosing public figures to honor, and show resolve in the face of foreseeable objections. In this case, the WLA and LDS exhibited neither.