New York Law School Professor Art Leonard, former President of LeGaL, posted a thorough review of the events on his NYLS blog on Monday, which, to my mind, raises serious questions about the LeGal Board's conduct in this matter. For the curious, read this post all the way to the end. Professor Leonard's take on the Board's apparent ignorance of the Scheich matter (despite the receipt by LeGal's office of many critical emails immediately following the ABC News interview) is as follows:
That nobody on the LeGaL board was apparently aware of any of this a few days later when they elected Jack president suggests the rather limited circle in which this has been a subject of consuming interest. The Law Journal, the Times, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Observer and other media were all over it, but somehow Jack's remarks quoted by ABC had escaped their attention...
2 comments:
If Lavi or others were looking for a definitive investigation into the LeGal procedures in the days between Scheich's ABC comments and his resignation, I'm not surprised they were disappointed by my piece.
For me and what I assumed to be the level of interest and detail my readers would be looking for, the important point was that the leader of an LGBT professional group had made comments that to many lay readers and observers would, I expect, seem unusual regarding a case that had not yet been litigated.
Scheich brought his comments to the board's attention, the board issued a statement distancing itself from the ABC comments, and Scheich resigned. I felt as though that was the appropriate level of detail for my readers.
I certainly did not intend to suggest that anyone viewed the Scheich comments as "a small matter," and I did not pass any judgment as to whether "the Board took precisely the correct measures to deal with it." I simply reported that they issued their statement within 24 hours (if that is not correct, I welcome a correction) and that some days later Scheich wrote a letter resigning.
With all due respect, the inner workings of a professional association (as distinct, let me say, from a community advocacy group) are not the central concern here. The legal back and forth between Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwll is the issue, and that is what I endeavored to cover, in what was a relatively short story.
My readers, for the most part, have not been following the daily blog communications on this case, and I could hardly pull them deep into that pool with the space I had.
I was particularly intrigued by the question as to whether I had spoken to all the board members, as I never indicated in the story that I spoke to any. Scheich and the board had written statements on the record and relying on that record was as much attention as I thought appropriate for the LeGal component of the story.
I was also, in any event, left puzzled as to Lavi's perspective is on the central issues facing LeGal in this matter. He makes respectful comments about Scheich's service to the organization, says that the board members have things to answer for, but then quotes Art Leonard essentially suggesting that it is not implausible that the board members were unaware of his statements to ABC given "the rather limited circle in which this has been a subject of consuming interest."
So, now I am a bit intrigued as to what Lavi's perspective on this is, and would be interested in hearing more on that matter.
Of course, I appreciate Lavi and others reading my article, and welcome any letters to editor@gaycitynews.com
Paul Schindler
Editor in chief
Gay City News
646-452-2503
Mr. Schindler:
Here is the part of your piece that I took issue with: "Scheich told at least one friend that he regretted making that statement immediately"
First, you report that Scheich "immediately" regretted the comments to ABC news. It seems as if you never spoke to Scheich - you attribute his statement to an unnamed friend (perhaps you spoke to no one at all and the unnamed friend is Art Leonard, who posted the same comment on his blog, and who, I might add, is an employee of yours - don't you think you should have revealed that your "source" is your employee? Why else would you not identify him?).
More importantly, the reader is left with the impression that Scheich "immediately" regretted what he said. With all due respect, this is absolute nonsense. You had lots of information sent to you, easily checked, that showed that in the days following the comments, Scheich repeated (and escalated) them in letters to Charney, Soloway and others. Hardly an "immediate" expression of regret.
So, my quarrel is not that you didn't provide enough detail on the LeGaL aspect of the story. I understand that the limited space for the article, along with the fact that the LeGaL piece was a sub-plot, foreclosed a more thorough examination. Rather, I was perturbed that you left the viewers with the impression that Scheich was contrite from the get-go. This is simply not so. It was only after constant coverage by the bloggers that Scheich finally caved in.
In addition, I took issue with your statement that: [T]he LeGal board . . . on the spot appointed a committee to review the situation." What is missing from this is that the Board in all likelihood knew of the controversey when they elected him President (easily checked by a few phone calls) and afterwards appointed the committee to look into it. By using the word "on the spot", you accept the LeGaL party line (without talking to anyone) and leave readers with the impression that they went into action immediately when they learned of the comments.
Otherwise, it was a fine article.
Post a Comment