Boston University’s School of Law has become embroiled in an employment scandal regarding the potential appointment of Judge Christina Harms. The university was allegedly prepared to hire Harms as the Associate Director for Judicial Clerkships and Internships, but rescinded its offer after one of her court decisions sparked controversy. According to an article published in The Boston Globe yesterday, Judge Harms has come under severe criticism for ruling a pregnant, schizophrenic woman should get an abortion. The woman in question already aborted her first pregnancy and kept her second child, currently looked after by her parents. With abortion being such a hotly contested and controversial topic, the appeals court eventually overturned her decision.
Harms has recently retired after a career spanning 23 years. She vehemently defended her decision, claiming the mentally unstable woman’s medication was harmful to the fetus and terminating the medication would be putting the mother’s health at risk. As a result of these proceedings, Harms left her job with her reputation tarnished and a potential job offer terminated.
The position Harms was offered at BU was not in a teaching capacity, so her decisions made in court should not have affected her possible position in the university. If Harms had come to a rash decision without any justification, BU would have had legitimate grounds to sever any potential employment opportunities. Judges in a court of law are not responsible to make decisions that always align with public opinion; inevitably in a career spanning more than two decades, decisions will be made that are perceived as unpopular. Her potential job at BU would be facilitating internships, which have little to no relevance to her court activity. BU is a private institution and has the capacity to hire faculty who are progressive in their practice.
Obviously, BU would have liked to keep this matter private. The School of Law maintains that its decision was not based on the case’s outcome, but on the public reaction to its conclusion. While this line of reasoning is a valid concern given the marketing focus of the position, the public backlash was not intentionally sought out by Harms herself. The severity of the situation is lessened because no physical contracts were signed, but the issue remains that a decision made with sound logic behind it has now ensured an experienced judge can’t join the esteemed faculty at the School of Law.