On December 5, 2023, MP Elise Stefanik (Rn.Y.) became the scourge of the university’s leader when she baited the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the apparently tools, demands for “genocide of the Jews”.

Her Lukewarm Answer Cost two of them her Jobs. In the subsequent gentlemen of the committee for training and workforce of the House of Representatives, Stefanik sank other university presidents because she gave ambiguous answers to campus anti -Semism.

Stefanik’s most recent goal was a legal clinic at the City University of New York School of Law Cuny clearAn acronym for creating accountability and responsibility for law enforcement authorities.

With a.hearingLast week StefanikinsultCuny Chancellor Felix Matos Rodriguez for free from Mahmoud Khalil, whom she called “the chief-pro-Hamas agitator who led to the anti-Semitic camps in Columbia”.

Regardless of Stefanik’s other accusations, she is absolutely wrong about Cuny Clear. The representation of a controversial client lies in the best tradition of legal training.

Khalil was a Leader From the pro-Palestinian occupation in Columbia, which drives inflammatory claims and demands. He was also a lawful constant resident – a Green Card owner – married to an American citizen.

In March last year, Khalil was vaulted by agents of the US immigration and customs authority.

Although he was not charged because of a crime, the Minister of State claimed

Khalil became a whiskLiabilityin central Louisiana. He was helped for 104 days for 104 days. His release was ordered by a federal judge. He still looks like the deportation.

Stefanik was outraged that Cuny Clear had played a key role in Khalil’s representation, and called Rodriguez to dismiss the Cuny, which calmed down the defense.

Rodriguez was non -binding and only promised to examine the situation. That was the tactful answer, but he missed a taught mother.

Out ofFailureFrom Cuny Clear, it is to support customers and communities “from local, state or federal government authorities under the guise of national security and counter -rorism”.

Although this may be closer to Stefanik, Rodriguez should be explained that unpopular clients are what lawyers should do and what should be taught law students.

Clear Half, Khalil from the discovery in Louisiana to his family, including a newborn son, in New York. This also gave him greater access to his lawyers, which is essential when he has a chance to question his deportation.

I almost don’t agree with the Khalil, but I firmly believe in you process and fair exams. There is no right to apply a lawyer in immigration cases, so Khalil’s representatives only from organizations such as the ACLU and Clear.

In my years as a lawyer in the Bluhm Legal Clinic from Northwestern from 1975 to 1987, I represented many unpopular or outcast customers.

Some were dark, including a lesbian mother who showed custody for her daughter from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (which was hardly a clear conclusion these days). Others were notorious, like the Ukrainian parents who wanted to bring their 12-yaar money son back to the then Soviet Union.

I also represented Jews for Jesus who chose the selection of the American headquarters of the Nazi party and the Jewish defense league for the same.

I represented Jewish left, which prevailed in a Nazi raly in a park in Chicago. I worked with the Illinois ACLU during the Nazis-in-Skokie controversy.

There were certainly northwestern trustees and local politicians who were dissatisfied with some aspects of my list of customers, which included used to accustomed gang members and various criminal defines as well as members of the revolutionary communist party.

Nobody told me that the representation should be due to unpopular associations or opinions.

There is actually anti -Semitism CunyAnd throughout the science that I have documented. The representations of Khalil are located in a completely seventy category. It is a Gristander like Stefanik, but it is not an example of antisemaism.

Most of my reward experiences made a clinic force

In 1976 I was unable to convince the prosecutors to treat my client as a abused child as a criminal. The only evidence against them was a confession, excerpt from the police, which my students and I succeeded, to suppress them as involuntarily.

Decades later I told the story in class. “So you can get them out,” said a student.

“No, we get their righteousness,” I explained. This is what legal clinics do.

Steven Lubet is emeritus Williams Memorial Professor at the Pritzker School of Law from Northwestern University.