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university was allegedly prepared to hire Harms as the Associate Director for Judicial Clerkships and Internships, but rescinded its offer after one of her court decisions sparked controversy.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.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
What about the sterilization issue she brought forth? And how do you suppose the reaction of the appellate judges who overturned this case has reverberated throughout the law community? Seems relevant to me.
BU Law’s faculty is esteemed, but her experience of 23 years in probate wouldn’t exactly qualify her as a top-notch candidate.
Not to mention, it seems like her publicist is doing a really great job of intentionally seeking out attention.
This is an employment issue, not news. And which schools do you think would employ her now?
No disrespect because I think the DFP usually does a good job; but you should have read the Appeals Court decision before writing the editorial. Judge Harms’ peers essentially believed she her decision came out of “thin air” — in other words, she wasn’t “progressive” — she was doing a poor job of being a judge by basing her decision on virtually no caselaw.
BU got lucky on this one. As the Judge’s efforts to publicize this in every way indicate; this was a potential candidate who would have tarnished an otherwise excellent faculty and staff of the law school.
You need only to review the divorce cases processed under her to see how she acted under her own discretion and NOT MA law. The joke and horror of having her as a judge for a divorce case is well known by all who practice at Family Court in Canton. “I’m so sorry you got Judge Harms assigned to your case” it’s going to be a crap shoot with her! So many lawyers are SO relieved that Judge Harms has really put her foot in her mouth to show what kind of nasty human being she is!!!!!
I agree, my family was a victim of Harms. How ironic her last name.
This “Judge” handled my family court case and I have to say I am very glad she is no longer on the bench. Her decision in my case was also overruled and she Abused Her Discretion in her ruling regarding property settlement. I lost all assets, gained all debt and most importantly she took two children and placed them in sole custody of the man that abused them (documented by DSS 3 counts). No trial, No Proof just a lying exhusband and his lawyer’s accusations (who should not be a lawyer) and lots of money. She used her Opinion to make that ruling, NOT THE LAW. Every Family Court Matter ever ruled on by this Judge should be sent to the appeallate court for review, as she violated her authority in her rulings. Unfortunately, when you don’t have the money to hire a lawyer to appeal her poor decisions you loose and there is no recourse. She destroyed my family and I am grateful she can no longer destroy anymore families in the state of Massachusetts.