Randall Kennedy is absolutely right about this. Harvey Weinstein is scum and quite likely deserves to be convicted. But it is nonetheless important that everyone accused of a crime be entitled to a competent defence lawyer. Especially if the defendant is highly unpopular. Penalising law professors for representing unpopular defendants is a terrible idea.
Randy also effectively refutes the argument that Sullivan's representation of Weinstein somehow renders the students in the dorm he supervised "unsafe." If Sullivan's previous representation of convicted murderer Aaron Hernandez did not make anyone at Harvard unsafe, the same goes for this case. Neither Hernandez nor Weinstein would actually come to Harvard as a result, nor is there any reason to think that Sullivan himself somehow approves of either murder or sexual assault.
Some news reports indicate that there were grievances against Sullivan unrelated to the Weinstein case. Perhaps there were. But it also seems clear none of them would have led to his dismissal from the dean position, were it not for the case.
The one silver lining of this event is that the Harvard law faculty overwhelmingly supported Sullivan. The position he lost was under the control of the central university administration. Relatively few law professors hold such positions, and therefore the impact of the negative precedent this sets might be contained. It's also notable that the students involved here were undergrads, not law students. But the former should also know better, and -as Randy says - that goes double for the Harvard administration.