Yesterday, I published a column on the disgraceful actions taken by students and Stanford DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach in an event featuring Judge Kyle Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Steinbach’s condemnation of Judge Duncan was chilling but hardly surprising. It is part of a sweeping environment of intolerance and orthodoxy in our institutions of higher education. Last night, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez issued a joint apology that is commendable in its words of regret, but conspicuous in its failure to promise any action against those who shutdown this event. It is like expressing regret over the sinking of the Titanic without addressing the design flaw.
To briefly recap the controversy. Judge Duncan was invited to speak at an event hosted by the Stanford Federalist Society. Students, however, came with the clear intent to shout down the judge and prevent him from speaking. Unable to speak, Duncan asked for an administrator to intervene and Steinbach stepped forward.
Steinbach promptly declared that “I had to write something down because I am so uncomfortable up here. And I don’t say that for sympathy, I just say that I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable.”
One would expect that the next line would be a condemnation of those who refused to let opposing views to be heard in the law school. Instead, it turns out that it was the free speech itself that was so stressful and painful for the law dean.
Steinbach: I’m also uncomfortable because it is my job to say: You are invited into this space. You are absolutely welcome in this space. In this space where people learn and, again, live. I really do, wholeheartedly welcome you. Because me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech. We believe that it is necessary. We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable. And that is a policy and a principle that I think is worthy of defending, even in this time. Even in this time. And again I still ask: Is the juice worth the squeeze?
Duncan: What does that mean? I don’t understand…
Judge Duncan was right to be confused. A law school dean was legitimating an attack on free speech and supporting the claim that hearing opposing legal views on issues like the Second Amendment is harmful to students.
Later, Duncan told the Washington Free Beacon he was concerned that “if enough of these kids get into the legal profession, the rule of law will descend into barbarism.” He added that he was most concerned for how conservative, libertarian, and independent students were treated: “Don’t feel sorry for me. I’m a life-tenured federal judge. What outrages me is that these kids are being treated like dogs**t by fellow students and administrators.”
What he saw in that room was all too familiar for many of us. I have had conservative students ask me if they could speak freely in classes at George Washington. Conservative and Republican students routinely sit quietly as professors and students abuse conservatives and their values out of fear of retaliation. A poll at the University of North Carolina found that conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor themselves due to the intolerance of opposing views on our campuses.
Another recently discussed poll showed roughly 60 percent of students say that they fear speaking openly in class. That percentage is consistent with other polls taken across the country.
Consider the survey on the state of free speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The newly released Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) survey shows a growing fear among faculty over their ability to speak freely in classes or other forums on campus. Conversely, a majority of students believe that it is acceptable to shout down or block speakers who hold opposing views.
The earlier Buckley annual survey shows a sharp increase with 63% reporting feeling intimidated in sharing opinions different than their peers. That is almost identical to the 65 percent found in other polls.
None of these issues, of course, are addressed in the letter of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez in their joint apology. However, there was a more concerning omission. This event was videotaped and shows students shouting down Judge Duncan to prevent others from hearing his views. It is called “deplatforming” or silencing those with opposing views. Yet, neither Tessier-Lavigne nor Martinez promise to hold these students accountable or to sanction Steinbach. They merely express regret that “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”
We have seen this type of meaningless harrumphing before.
Years ago, I wrote about an incident at Northwestern University. Like Stanford, Northwestern embraced the idea of harmful speech as an excuse to limit viewpoints on campus. Indeed, former President Morton Schapiro was an early advocate of “safe zones” and other speech-phobic policies.
I discussed an incident involving a Sociology 201 class by Professor Beth Redbird. The class examined “inequality in American society with an emphasis on race, class and gender.” Redbird came up with an interesting comparison for her students by inviting both an undocumented person and a spokesperson for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to separate classes. Members of MEChA de Northwestern, Black Lives Matter NU, the Immigrant Justice Project, the Asian Pacific American Coalition, NU Queer Trans Intersex People of Color and Rainbow Alliance organized to stop other students from hearing from the ICE representative. However, they could not have succeeded without the help of Northwestern administrators (including Dean of Students Todd Adams). The protesters were screaming “F**k ICE” outside of the hall. Adams and the other administrators then said that the protesters screaming profanities would be allowed into the class if they promised not to disrupt the class. They promised not to disrupt the class. As soon as the protesters were allowed into the classroom, they prevented the ICE representative from speaking. The ICE representative eventually left; Redbird then canceled the class to discuss the issue with the protesters who just prevented her students from hearing an opposing view.
The comments of the Northwestern students were predictable after being told by people like Schapiro that some offensive speech should be treated as a form of assault. SESP sophomore April Navarro rejected that faculty should be allowed to invite such speakers to their classrooms for a “good, nice conversation with ICE.” She insisted such speakers needed to be silenced because they “terrorize communities” and profit from detainee labor:
“We’re not interested in having those types of conversations that would be like, ‘Oh, let’s listen to their side of it’ because that’s making them passive rule-followers rather than active proponents of violence. We’re not engaging in those kinds of things; it legitimizes ICE’s violence, it makes Northwestern complicit in this. There’s an unequal power balance that happens when you deal with state apparatuses.”
These students were identified in interviews by name. They had no fear of any consequences in stopping a professor from teaching a class at Northwestern. They were right. The official response to students shutting down a class to silence an opposing view resulted in a statement that the actions of the students were “disappointing that the speakers were not allowed to speak.”
Stanford is repeating that pattern by hand-wringing over the loss of free speech while refusing to make the difficult decision to hold students and this administrator accountable. To paraphrase Steinbach, there will be no “squeeze” coming from Stanford on the denial of free speech.
Of course, the letter also does not address the environment of intolerance at Stanford or the loss of diversity of viewpoints. The intolerance is reflected in the overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal makeup of faculties. A new survey of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican. For these departments, the systemic elimination of Republican faculty has finally reached zero, but there is still little recognition of the crushing bias reflected in these numbers. Others, as discussed below, have defended the elimination of conservative or Republican faculty as entirely justified and commendable. Overall, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a margin of over 10-1.
The survey found 61 Republican professors across 65 departments at seven universities while it also found 667 professors identified as Democrats based on their political party registration or voting history.
That is why I am less than impressed by this letter. After all, Dean Martinez’s first response was to make excuses for her DEI dean. Martinez explained that Steinbach’s condemnation of the judge for trying to speak publicly was a “well-intentioned” “attempt[] at managing the room” that just “went awry.”
Much has gone “awry” in higher education but it is not a question of managing a room but managing free speech.
One part of the joint apology letter that JT did not highlight said in part: “We are taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again”. To ensure it does not happen again, the law school may in the end conclude (in addition to other measures) that certain punishments are necessary for this incident or for future incidents. I know people want immediate and tough action but perhaps JT and others around here should give the law school some time to review the situation and take appropriate action — how about a follow-up post by JT in 1 to 2 weeks?
“. . . take appropriate action . . .”
When pigs fly.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for any “punishment” from the law school administration.
No one will remember the non-apology. What will be remembered is the incident. The incident will tarnish Stanford Law.
For aspiring lawyers to deplatform a federal judge casts doubt on the students maturity and judgement. The DIE dean failed miserably in performing her duties as an administrator but brilliantly succeeded in displaying her contempt for free speech, fidelity to Stanford, and her immaturity and lack of judgement
The DIE (yes I know its DEI) and students would do well to remember these two things. First, you have a right to speak freely; you do not have the right to infringe on “my” right to speak freely.
Second, presuming you actually pass a bar exam, you are going to face opposing counsel before a judge. Shouting down either or both will not end well. If Stanford has not impressed on you those truisms they have failed you.
It would by interesting to look at the syllabus for Stanford’s law courses on the Constitution and free speech.
I’m sure you would find words like “racist” and “misogynistic” in the syllabus to describe the Constitution.
What is surprising to me is none of the other students stood up to defend the judge. In a room full of future lawyers, not one did so. Is it any surprise then that our governments get away with acting they way have over the last 3 years? Where have the lawyers been?
Cowards!
Stanford University is neck-deep in all areas of ESG. They teach industry leaders how to be ESG-compliant and that most certainly includes dealing with the controversies that will inevitably arise when transitioning an organization from American sane to DEI insane. So they are certainly prepared to respond to this “dustup” without compromising their ESG/DEI bona-fides.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/esg-ratings-compass-without-direction
If they don’t lose enrollment, investors, endowments or reputation, then the administration has no need to change course. Additionally, they are a private university insulated by existing in a far Eastern province of China; California.
“They teach industry leaders how to be ESG-compliant . . .”
Like SVB, which was neck-deep in that garbage. Go woke, go broke.
SVB has an office in Palo Alto not far from Stanford! SVB!?
Like Silvergate their stresses most likely came from Crypto in addition to sub-prime U.S. Bonds.
Of course the Migets of the left will blame Trump for these failures.
There is a strong possibility that SVB is just the fragile leading edge of a larger problem.
The Fed Rate incresases are essential to end the inflation we have caused.
I find it insane that so many democrats try to claim that the economy is good right now.
If that were actually true – it would be a BAD thing. The Fed is trying to kill the economy to kill inflation.
If they fail to do so we are stuck with inflation.
So far the economy is not as bad as the Fed wanted and inflation has not come down as much as needed.
That means the Feed will continue to increase rates.
But that has other side effects.
The Global economy is in trouble.
That alone is driving capitol to the US.
Congressmen left and right are ranting about the Chinese buying property in the US.
Rather than “spying” on us – we might consider that they are trying to get money out of a teetering economy and into a relatively safe and stable one. Would you buy property in Pakistan right now ?
Regardless the US is seeing massive inflows of capitol – that is not helping inflation – either in the US or the rest of the world.
Add to that Fed rate increases – and that means even MORE capitol flowing into the US.
Higher Fed rates mean that investors are EXPECTING a higher return on investment.
Who is going to tolerate 1.25% when T-Bills are offering 4.5% ?
So money is not only flooding into the US – but it is all seeking higher returns.
So people are taking money out of banks and putting it where they can safely get a higer return.
SVB’s Woke ESG nonsense resulted in a lower return on investment – which as Interest rates rose triggered a run on SVB, not because they are insolvent, but because Woke investment has low returns and the gap has gotten too large so some investors pulled out.
This is happening FIRST at SVB because Woke = bad ROI, but it will climb the ladder slowly through all financial institutions that offer a poor return on investment – woke or not.
From what I am hearing – the good news is that those with lots of money in SVB will get 80-90% of their money out.
SVB is not insolvent, it just has too low an ROI to hold investors and as in 2008 it is not liquid.
But those getting 80-90% are going to have to wait a year to a decade.
Anyway SVB is likely just the “tip of the iceberg” – and this will get worse if the Fed continues to raise interest, and inflation will get worse if they do not.
As we head into some unknown version of serious immediate financial problems let me say it here FIRST.
Government caused what is coming, buy flooding the market with money.
🤙
“. . . while refusing to make the difficult decision to hold students and this administrator accountable. (JT)
The Duke lacrosse hoax:
Radical faculty ganged up to frame their own students for rape. That you know.
What you might not know is this:
There were a number of Duke administrators and deans who disagreed with the race/gender/class faculty, and who sided with the (innocent) students. But they chose to remain silent.
As one *dean* told me: If I speak up in defense of the students (and for what I believe to be the truth), “I’ll be run out of town on the next train.”
So instead, he (and the others) sold their souls. And to whom? A vicious mob of hooligans.
DEI = Destroying Everything Incrementally
Yes. And the train is starting to pick up speed.
The removal of these students from any consideration for clerkships would be of great help but you don’t want to hurt those that were civil and not disruptive. A suitably equipped hall for outside speakers should require each individual admitted to show Stanford ID and all sessions recorded, no masks allowed. Then you can suitably deny clerkships from offenders. As far as the Dean (for DEI) I don’t know if this person was a Law School dean or had any official function in the law school other than DEI. Maybe this person is not even an attorney.
But these types of actions should be a means of denying federal funding to even non public universities.
Of course the impending recession might solve a lot of these problems by making non producing assets such as this Dean superfluous and expendable. Time will tell.
GB: The Steinbach is a lawyer. From her bio:
Tirien Steinbach served for seventeen years as a lawyer, clinical supervisor, program director, and then executive director of the East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC), the community-based clinical program for Berkeley Law School and largest provider of free legal services and policy advocacy in Alameda County. As a lawyer at EBCLC, Tirien founded the Clean Slate Clinic, the nation’s first reentry clinic. During her 11-year tenure as executive director, Tirien oversaw the creation or expansion of EBCLC’s programs, including community economic justice, consumer justice, education advocacy, immigration, and youth defender clinics.
Amen. There are “DEI Deans”? Any wonder that the bloat in “higher education” manifests itself in hare-brained proposals to forgive student debt? “Debt” which was created to support the wildly imbalanced ratio of faculty and administrators to students. Tenured faculty leaves teaching to barely sentient grad students and University Trustees delegate authority to DEI martinets like Steinbach. The only “problem” here is that there are no adults in the room at Stanford to clearly and swiftly show Steinbach the door. She belongs in a cupcake bakery, where the only harm she could inflict on anyone would be the wrong cupcake.
“We have seen this type of meaningless harrumphing before.” (JT)
There is only one type of meaningful harrumphing: Immediate expulsion of the offending students. Immediate firing of the fascist Dean. Immediate dismantling of the DEI office. Immediate eradication of DEI’s toxic ideology.
That assumes, of course, that one can find a university administrator with a backbone.
When I saw the letter which did not include Steinbach, I assumed they had given her the weekend to think the situation over and come up with her own appropriate response before they mete out discipline. It’s analogous to a situation where parents invite a neighbor over, but their child turns the person away at the door. Then when the parents discover what happened, they immediately apologize to the neighbor and deal with the child later. If she comes up with a satisfactory mea culpa to the judge and the community by tomorrow, then she can maintain a low profile for the rest of the semester while looking for more suitable employment.
I don’t think this analogy works: “It is like expressing regret over the sinking of the Titanic without addressing the design flaw.” The Titanic’s only flaw was the captain in a hurry who recklessly went full speed through a field of icebergs.
Apparently this incident did not happen since a google search shows that only Fox News provides any mention of the disruption.
Honestly: IMO kids are caught in a loop these days; they are actually being educated through their phones via the content tech companies generate for them; it is a space that does not allow for counterpoints in a great many cases. What they ingest online is reinforced in the classroom, and these two vehicles are interchangeable in their purpose. There is very little difference from Mao’s revolution in practical terms. The baffling thing here is it could easily be addressed at home – no one is being held at gunpoint (yet), but we insist on sticking devices into the hands of children as soon as they can grasp them.
I have no idea how this will ultimately shake out, but shake out, it will, and with no course correction (no pun intended), we actually do know how it all ultimately ends.
I didn’t expect better from these folks, personally; the Ivy Leagues’ halcyon days as standard bearers of excellence are well behind them.
Mespo and Pragmatist are quite correct.
For evil to prosper all it takes is for Good Men to stand idle.
If someone commits an act of civil disobedience or is “uncivil” during any class, meeting, rally, lecture, speech or other function on campus….they pack their stuff and depart till the next calendar year’s session of classes.
If an administration wants to be seen as running a “prestigious” institution of learning…..they have to earn that acclaim by their actions…..not their words.
Where are the Lawyers who stand for the Constitutional Free Speech Rights…..why no pro bono civil actions against these many schools that do as they do?
The real way to bring about a change is to take money out their pockets and endowments…..and make it personal….and take money out of the Admimistrator’s pockets!
Use the proceeds to fund yet more cases….and do the Nation a very good service by returning Universities to places of higher learning.
Our institutions of higher learning are a failure.
Bullying is cool again!
What ever it takes to keep one’s pension and one’s head, I suppose.
“Steinbach promptly declared that “I had to write something down because I am so uncomfortable up here. And I don’t say that for sympathy, I just say that I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable.”
******************
And here, my friends, we have the problem in black and white. A feminized man whose sole response to evil, is “oh poor me, I have deal with it mildly enough to keep my pension and I really hate doing it.” Rather than “civilization demands that I flush you cretins out of this hall like the dog poop you so clearly are.” Academics lost their cahones somewhere and forgot the words on the certificate they give you with your “man card.” It reads “Welcome to Manhood. Nobody anywhere respects, loves or needs a pussy. And earned respect is really what it’s all about.”
Fooled by the name, I thought Steinbach was a man. Who knows maybe it is. Regardless it doesn’t excuse the men in this situation from the cowardice.
mespo………still, a dynamite comment, as usual.
I saw the video in color first, and assumed that she’s a lesbian.
Mespo727272 – Apparently, the modern “liberal” test for censorship is whether an idea makes this lady professor feel “deeply, deeply uncomfortable” [DDC]. This cannot possibly succeed as a standard. What if we censor someone because she feels DDC and then it turrns out she just had hemmorrhoids?
One of the purposes of higher education is to get people out of their comfort zone.
If students and professors are comfortable with everything on campus
Then the college is doing something wrong.
Professor Turley, if you read these comments, the obvious solution to disruptions to free speech on university campuses is to video record all attendees as they enter the meeting space and also the event itself. Facial recognition technology would be used to map event disrupters with members of the university community. Students who are found to have disrupted a peaceful speech event should by default be suspended for the current semester with a forfeiture of tuition payments and fees as well as any academic credits.
The policy would be inserted into the university code of conduct and broadly disseminated. A basic axiom of civil disobedience is willfully accepting the punishment for doing so. Students could disrupt peaceful speech on campus, but they would be fully aware that it would cost them tens of thousands of dollars and months in academic limbo for doing so.
Bravo!
The letter of apology looks suspicious– too informal: No address of the court house, no salutation, as in ‘Honorable Judge”. I have written to the signers of the letter seeking confirmation. https://eppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/letter-from-Stanford.pdf
You have a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals being shut down by a DEI administrator, that is life today on campus. There is a reason that companies are starting to fire DEI staff first when recessive economic conditions start affecting their bottom line. DEI staff brings nothing to any table at which they sit, they create nothing but problems, they exist in a self-perpetuating manner that requires, actually requires, that they find problems or if they can’t do that they create problems.
This DEI woman is a weak, useless admin person who if fired would allow the school to open up a seat for another poor student to attend the school for free. I am guessing that this useless parasite has a staff under her and they all spend their days looking to find some made up racial, sexual or trans microaggression with which they can then go about policing with a sledgehammer.
A family member attended Philips Academy and the welcoming speech given by the Headmistress headlined the critical importance for civility and tolerance for all view and opinions and that respect was to be given at all times…especially in times of disagreement and/or when there were differences of opinion.
Great advice then…though our institutes of higher learning have allowed quite the opposite to foment on their campuses…what a shame!
If the Federal Judiciary collectively decided to cease hiring clerks from any law school that allowed this kind of disruptive behaviour to go unpunished it would cease in a heartbeat.
Probably true. I agree that denying clerkships to the entire student body will incentivize the normals to put social pressure on the cranks. But it is unfair that the normals are denied clerkships because of the actions of the cranks.
What needs to happen is the Law School governing board needs to adopt a zero tolerance policy. Students must not be allowed to engage in conduct that prevents an invited speaker from completing their prepared remarks. Make the boundaries clear and unambiguous. After the speaker has concluded his remarks, then during the Q&A the students can be as hateful, rude, obnoxious, smug, and self righteous as Natacha.
But students are no notice that if they prevent an invited guest from expressing himself, then they will be expelled. And their tuition for the semester will be forfeited. Then strictly enforce that policy.
I imagine the disruptive students also want clerkships. And the administrators would crack down to prevent their schools from being blacklisted.
Also, there is the distinct possibility this episode was staged. It was a little too cute. That would be administrative conduct for sure.
Oof! I meant to write “administrative misconduct.” A spontaneous student protest is one thing, but when faculty and administrators stage a student protest, that’s insidious and abusive of their authority. It can intimidate students. I think Stanford needs to investigate that possibility.
“administrative misconduct.”
Diogenes, I think you are correct. Steinbach had remarks in writing, and the parade out of the room looked staged.
I don’t want to look at the video again but weren’t there a lot of women marching out compared to the number of men?
Sadly, yes.
One can charge them with disorderly conduct, or suspend them, or expel them. My vote is for suspension on the first offense (with no reimbursement) and expulsion on the second (no reimbursement).
Suspension and expulsion can be handled quietly and individually–give them and their parents a chance to figure it out. If it keeps happening, it’s clear the student is damaged goods and has to go.
No charge for disorderly conduct unless they also do serious vandalism or assault. Bringing in cops sacrifices control. That should always be a last resort.
Half the federal judiciary is woke too.