Harvard asserted superior ethical stewardship without ever justifying its superior right

Evidence

Harvard claimed that I did not have the right to claim a property interest, but they had never once stated why their right was superior to mine—either in their motion to dismiss, before that, or even to date. Another argument Harvard had consistently made was about “ethical stewardship.” Their claim was that they were better equipped to decide how the daguerreotypes should be used than I was. As my lawyers stated in our response, “taking care of property that has been compelled by your own wrongdoing can never be ethical.” — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 1172

Categorization

• DEFINE: Captures the key doctrinal collision: Harvard’s stewardship defense versus Lanier’s argument that compelled custody cannot be ethical.