“No Squeeze” at Stanford: President and Law Dean Issue Apology that Omits One Critical Thing…

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.




190 thoughts on ““No Squeeze” at Stanford: President and Law Dean Issue Apology that Omits One Critical Thing…”

  1. What amazes me is that every time some leftist actually proceeds to oppose free speech he always prefaces his remarks with verbiage about how much he recognizes the importance of free speech. You’d think there would occur some cognitive dissonance in his brain, but there seems already some disease there.

          1. David – I just looked it up, and you’re right, it would have to be done by Congress. So substitute “Congress” for “Biden” in the above. Thanks for pointing that out.

    1. Exactly. Not only is it useless in that the university is not about to racially discriminate against any minority, but the DEI dean inevitably tries to justify his job with annoying attempts to bring about racial discrimination – against Whites.
      After all, discrimination against whites (and possibly Asians) to obtain better proportional racial representation is what “Equity” really means.

      1. . . . (and possibly Asians) . . .

        Definitely Asians. It’s Asians who are suing Harvard before the United States Supreme Court right now on the claim they’re being discriminated against in admissions. It’s no secret Asians, although a minority, get shafted by “equity” policies because they perform so well.

        1. Kansas elder, *some* Asians. It depends upon the cultural group. My experience was that the expatriate Vietnamese weren’t so capable while the students from Hing Kong were always first-rate.

            1. The data Bears Benson out. I would note that the elevated IQ of specific asians by country masks that we are really talking about only two racial groups. The Koreans and Japanese are racially the same, as are hong kong. singapore, tiawan and China. Between them they are about 1/4 the worlds population.

            1. When the subject of IQ comes up I’m always reminded by the weakness around the edges of that type testing & the flaws in the measure it uses.

              An easy to see example of this I’ve mentioned before is the CV19 mRNA shot. Many were coerced into taking it. Millions didn’t take it even at the cost of their jobs.

              Elon Musk is known to have a super high IQ yet in the big game of life when it mattered he made the wrong choice & took a couple of the experimental jabs that have been shown now to have had no benefit & only potential for harm.

              1. I think you are conflating IQ with perfection.

                We are extremely good at measuring IQ.
                Pretty much every standardized test is an IQ test.
                If you know your SAT score and the year you took the SAT’s
                You can establish the lower bound for your IQ with a high degree of precision.

                I specified lower bound specifically because the left is correct that most standardized tests are biased against those with a poor education. If you were not taught to read well – your SAT score will be lower than your actual intelligence.
                If you have a bad day – your SAT score may be below your intelligence.

                Regardless, we also have IQ tests that eliminate educational and cultural biases – that are entirely graphic and do not rely on education. And these are used globally. When you hear of IQ research by country or race or both – these nearly always use the bias free tests.

                I would note that you do not need a bias free test if you had a decent education.

                What does IQ predict ? It predicts success. It is not the only variable that factors into success, but it is the most significant variable. IQ predicts success to a 95% standard.
                There are brilliant homeless people and mediocre billionaries – but those are at the margin.
                Further IQ is not even close to enough. BUT most people who have a high IQ also have the other factors for success.

                This is also a reverse-able correlation – If you have been successful – as Trump and Muck have – the probability of your having a high IQ is enormous.
                If you have been successful in multiple domains as Trump and Musk have – the odds that is a fluke are miniscule and your IQ is likely very high.

                It is unlikely that Either Trump or Musk have an IQ lower than about 135. Probably higher.

                All that said IQ is not a bar to poor decisions, it merely reduces the odds.

                I would note that though successful people are usually good at telling when others are lying.
                That is an independent skill, one that is also required – to a lessor degree for success.
                I would further note that honesty is somewhat independent of IQ, but success without it is rare.

                But not “I can not tell a lie” honesty. But honesty of the sort that others trust you – knowing that you are pursuing your own self interests. Some sociopaths are very successful. These are honest people – in the sense that is required for success – trustworthy. That does not mean they are not dangerous.
                It does not mean you want to be in conflict with them.

      2. Equity means disfavored privileged groups of people (ie, straight white males, all whites, asians) must work hard to earn something they may or may not be given … so that …. other groups that are owed equity be given full advantage, in lieu of their own hard work.

    2. Under communism, there is a “Political Officer” on every block.

      The communist party line must be strictly adhered to.

    1. Shareholders revolt! Conservative students should consider their own revolt.

      “BREAKING: At today’s annual shareholders meeting, shareholders revolted against Apple Inc.’s woke Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) policies, calling them “overtly bigoted against men, white people and straight people by falsely assuming they are inherently racist and sexist.”


    “It’s the [profit], stupid!”

    – James Carville


    Making Stanford Great Again

    Stanford Facts – Finances*

    In 2023–23, Stanford is a $8.2 billion enterprise. This figure represents the university’s consolidated budget for operations, a compilation of all annual operating and restricted budgets that support teaching, scholarship and research, including the budgets of all schools and administrative areas and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. It does not include the $0.6 billion capital budget and excludes the budget for Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital.

    Stanford’s $36.3 billion endowment (as of Aug. 31, 2021) provides an enduring source of financial support for fulfillment of the university’s mission of teaching, learning and research. It disbursed a $1.5 billion payout to support vital academic programs and financial aid during the fiscal year. About 75 percent of the endowment is restricted by donors for a specific purpose. There are more than 8,800 endowed university funds. Each year, a portion of investment return from the endowment is used to support annual operating expenses. The remainder of the return is reinvested in the endowment to maintain its purchasing power over time. The Stanford Management Company (SMC) was established in 1991 to manage Stanford’s core investment portfolio. SMC is a division of the university with oversight by a board of directors appointed by the university board of trustees.

    – Stanford University

    There is no mention of the, presumably, massive, inestimable amounts of laundered, double-blind meta-dollars orbiting Stanford.

  3. “Nature has never read the Declaration of Independence. It continues to make us unequal.”

    – Will Durant

  4. The decline of scholarly rigor and intellectual integrity in our leading universities continues.

  5. A kid graduates from high school. Gets accepted to a 4 year university. So as a freshman this 18/19 year old gets to tell the administration how things are going to be on campus. The inmates truley do have the keys to the assylum.

  6. Is there a transcript of the speech that Judge Kyle Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied to deliver? Wouldn’t knowing the rest of the story benefit by it?

    Stanford DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach Steinbach deceitfully precluded everyone from knowing the rest of the story when she subjectively characterized the undelivered speech as just another one that “feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people.” That value judgment summation followed by her encouragement for members of the audience to leave the room served no worthwhile purpose but to deny one person to speak and others to hear.

    The 70 student members of the Federalist Society who had unsuccessfully asked that the speech be zoomed obviously knew the outcome would be what it turned out to be. After all they abide on the illiberal campus and must coexist as best they can the hostile environment that subjects them. Perhaps next time the leaders of Stanford’s Federalist Society will agree. While zooming may feel too much like going underground, the consensus nevertheless may find the wisdom in it. History is replete with examples of all that undergrounds have done to upend despotism.

  7. With such a displayed lack of understanding of our legal system demonstrated at Stanford Law School, it is no wonder….

    “NYPD cops resigning in new year at record-breaking pace — with a 117% jump from 2021 numbers.

    New York City cops are resigning at a record-breaking pace this year as the NYPD’s alarming exodus continues, according to new data obtained by The Post.”

    “The NYPD needs to be rebuilt from the ground up — it’s unfixable in its current state,”

    “Meanwhile, precincts barely have enough personnel to meet the minimum required to safely answer 911 calls.”


      1. Increasingly no one.

        That absolutely insures that in the future we will have on average worse cops, that we must pay more for.
        It also means we will have more crime.

        Which we are seeing.

        1. John, it also means we will have to bw able to defend ourselves. The past few months I’m seeing more people are defending themselves with legal concealed carry.

          1. You are correct. I beleive the legal purchases of firearms by blacks has increased 60% – it is not up to 24%, that is significantly less than whites, but still way up from previously.

            I would separately note – that the policing problems as it has always been is almost exclusively a problem in poor and usually minority areas.

            With few exceptions the wealthy and even the middle class in this country are both well policed and affordably policed.
            The spike in crime is NOT occuring throughout the US, it is primarily in big cities, though it also occurs in some poor rural areas.

            Some of the police fleeing cities are seeking jobs in suburbs and more affluent communities.
            This is improving the policing for those of us who are not poor.

            So Democrats attacks on police have been incredibly regressive – benefiting whites and the middle class.

            There are exceptions – there are places like NYC where the poor and the wealthy live in relatively close proximity.
            Of course we are also seeing the flight of the wealthy and middle class from the cities.

            I would further note – all of this was predictable to anyone with moderate skills in critical thinking.

            That is not always the case with respect to progressive policies.
            But it is always wise to assume that whenever we act – usually through government to disrupt the status quo that there will be significant reaction. A sort of newton’s laws for human behavior. If you have not considered what that reaction would be – then you should not be moving forward.

            As I have said before – most efforts to improve the world FAIL. That is why we must do them inside the free market where failure is easily dealt with and where dangerous experiments are not conducted across society all at once.

            Which is the worst possible way to do anything.

        1. Oldman, this is from my phone. Sorry, I did not want my post come through that way.

    1. The problem is easily solveable.

      Lower standards and hire more officers.

      That is what lead to the really bad murder by police by the “scorpions” recently.

      Regardless, crime will go up, and police misconduct will rise too.

      The very efforts of those on the left to “improve policing” have backfired.

      I linked to an article by Prof Haidt on mentla health and politics.

      There are many excellent observations.
      But one of those is that the lefts efforts to improve things have actually made things worse.

      Mental health, policing, all reflections of the consequences of emotional rather than critical thinking.

      Emotions are great, they improve our lives.
      I have no interest in living as DATA.
      But emotional reasoning pretty much always gets things WRONG.
      Decisions should be made using critical thinking.

      1. A police officer is not a person with a badge. It is one who learns on the job and the people around him. The numbers of police officers retiring is great so they have to increase numbers from the police academy, but the ones they can get from there are raw and need skilled officers at their sides. Trained and accomplished officers are retiring. Even those officers that haven’t become vested are moving to other states despite their pensions.

        NYC will be left with less experienced officers of lower quality without adequate trained officers at their sides. This will not be good.

        When the leftists start feeling the pinch I wonder if they will be smart enough to blame themselves.

        1. S. Meyer – good points all around, but I can assure you the leftists will never blame themselves for anything. They never do and never will no matter the reality.

        2. Correct, what you have described and more has been happening since 2020.

          The war on police has resulted in police performing their jobs more cautiously – knowing that no one has their back, and that mistake or just unfortunate video and appearance could land them in jail.

          The left thinks that the Conviction of Chauvin was a great victory – it was a huge mistake.
          While I absolutely beleive that police need to be held accountable – this was a mistake.
          Bad Optics is not murder. I do not think there is much doubt Floyd died from a drug overdose.
          Chauvin certainly did not beyond a reasonable doubt murder Floyd.

          Regardless, of what I beleive – what police officers believe is most important – and the message sent was – do your job and you may go to jail. No one has your back. You will not get reasonable doubt.

          There was a tiff in Congress recently because democrats tried to turn the weaponization of law enforcement hearings into a partisan battle – claiming that it was a lie that only or primarily republicans had been targeted.
          Jordan fortunately was having none of that.

          While it is absolutely beyond dispute that the primary targets of the corruption of government have been conservatives and libertarians. And there is a serious problem with the politicization of the misuse of power.
          It is true that a small number of democrats have been targeted too – though typically not by republicans.

          The police have themselves been targeted.

          Especially city police.

          As you noted – the consequences of this will be an improvement in policing in much of the country.
          My community has excellent policing, low crime – and our choice of highly qualified officers fleeing cities.

          Conversely cities can not and will not be able to get qualified officers and will have to work with applicants of lower calibur and poorer training.

          And this will likely have an effect for more than a decade.

          More poor minorities will die, or be victims of crime for decades.

          In 2019 there were 4 instances nationwide in which an unarmed black was killed by a white police office.

          This is the “systemic racism” that the left is fighting.

          There are 4 unarmed blacks killed in chicago by criminals in a typical weekend.

        3. Democrats rant about the electoral college and other alleged inequalities in the structure of our government.

          Yet Democrats control the government in all of our major cities – where the majority of people live.

          If democrats were doing a stellar – frankly even a mediocre job of running those cities – they would control state governments and congress, near universally.

          All democrats need to do to gain the power to govern everyone – is to govern themselves well.

  8. (Jonathan Turley Per Se) … 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. …

    Jonathan, you just described ‘Oppression’, Oppression in a Hostile Environment.
    Your Victimized-Students no doubt have a legal right to be free of this situation, as do You from the perspective of having to Work in said Hostile Environment (A valid EEOC Complaint).

    I don’t know of an Administrative Law remedy for the Students, other than have the matter to be Adjudicated in Mediation. BUT You Sir do have an Administrative Law remedy available via the EEOC.

    I wonder if the Speaking Engagements were to be held off Campus in a; Knights of Columbus Banquet Hall, Moose Lodge, or a Fraternal Order of Police Union Hall would the Scholarly Academic gatherings then be a target of the Liberals. I am a fan of Economic Clubs, and am certain that ‘economics’ strikes at the Heart of Liberalist Theology. However even though a wide verity of heated discussion of Economic; theories, rationale, hypothesis, and philosophy that would benefit both Liberal and Conservative, I do not believe that in Today’s Climate we could sit peaceable around that Table to talk.
    Détente is no longer a viable deterrent to ‘disorder.’

    “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” evidently not if you are squeezing rotten fruit, according to the Liberals.

    1. Here is the “sentence” that the guy wrote while criticizing the intelligence of the people commenting here: “(There are a a few who post good comments, not all of which I agree with.)” I rest my case.

      Of course this genius didn’t bother to comment on the DEI BOSS shutting down an invited speaker who also happens to be a sitting judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oh, I almost forgot to add that the judge was invited to speak at the LAW SCHOOL.

      When I was in law school Justice Harry Balckmun was invited to speak at the school’s one big speaking event and even though he wrote the decision in the Roe case there wasn’t one single protestor from the right that tried to silence him.

      Conservatives “change the channel” we don’t demand that an opposing view point be silenced. MSNBC is far more one sided than Fox News is (Bret Baier has a panel that has at least one Democrat on it, have you ever seen a true conservative on MSNBC?) and yet there is never a call to ban MSNBC.

      1. Justice Blackmun was also listened to respectfully at my school (the University of Arizona) in 1973, without even a rude question. We felt honored that he dropped by one day. Justice Rehnquist even “judged” our moot court competition at about the same time without protest. Today some fascist “liberal” student would show up and ruin things.

        1. I think Churchill did that to chastise a bureaucrat who wrote a pretzel of a sentence to avoid ending with a preposition. It was mockery.

            1. Oldmanfrom kansas,

              Yes. Good exact quote. He was truly a genius. However, I do think it was a comment when he was annoyed with an underling’s bureaucratic writing. I think it may have been when he was First Lord, but my memory is not exact. Could have been mentioned in “Castles of Steel”. I felt some little sympathy for the clerk. Imagine working for a master of the language and not being intimidated into trying to avoid any grammatical error. When not under that enormous shadow he likely would have written more normally.

    2. Why does this surprise you ?

      While ID is mostly innate, it is also absolutely true that there is a differnce between each individuals potential IQ and their IQ in practice.

      This is why SAT study prep programs can raise a students performance – within limits. Particularly if they are intelligent but poorly educated. SAT scores are an excellent proxy for IQ.

      Given the absymal state of education today – I would expect all measures of actual ability linked to education to be declining.

      All you are doing is proving that the left screwing up our education is screwing up our intelligence.

    3. Here is another excellent article for you referencing massive amounts of social science research over the past several decades that makes an excellent case explaining alot of what is wrong today.

      Your mental health correlates strongly to the extent that you hold each of the premises below.
      1. What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker
      2. Always trust your feelings
      3. Life is a battle between good people and evil people.

      Each of these is both a fallacy and a cognitive distortion that lead to a cycle of anxiety and depression.

      It is self evident that you and I have completely different views of the world.
      What I read from your posts is that
      you feel that you have little control over your life.
      That things are going to hell
      and that everyone at odds with you is evil.

      Just to be clear – all of us – especially today are too prone to all those fallacies.

      Repeatedly – I argue with you and others here about any number of Malthusian claims.
      Climate, racism, … you hold a plethora of dark views of the world and the future.
      I am CONSTANTLY arguing with you and others here on the left that the greatest threat to the world today is
      YOUR efforts to deal with what YOU see as the greatest threats to the world today.

      I have a few fears of my own about the future. Growing government, growing debt are just not sustainable.
      We are also on the cusp of varying degrees of population collapse in about 1/3 of the world that do not appear to have any possible good outcome.
      But aside from those – I have said repeatedly that we are blessed to live in the best moment of history in the best place in the world. That every single problem that those like you worry about is better than it has ever been before in human history.

      One of us is wrong. Both history and psychology tell us that dark views of the future are rarely true,
      that dark views of other people – are almost never true. And that life filled with these and an emphasis on emotions – particularly negative ones leads to cognative distortions, depression and anxiety.

      Jordan petersons first advice to everyone is “clean your room”.
      That has nothing to do with whether your room needs cleaned.
      Cleaning your room is something in your life that YOU can control.
      The more you focus on the things you can control – your own life,
      the better you will feel about life, the universe and everything.

      Depression and anxiety are possibly the only mental health problems that over the past 100 years psychology has found any cure for.
      And the remedy is simple.
      Take control of YOUR life – start with small things – like cleaning your room.
      And take control of your thoughts,
      With practice you can drag yourself out of the dark ruts you have created.

      I beleive that those of you on the left have trapped yourself into a recursive trap of dark thoughts and cognative distortions.

      But while this is more of an issue for those on the left – ALL of us have to deal with this.

      There are many here – even myself, that on some occasions seek the future as dark and attribute malice to the error of those we disagree with.


  9. I will believe Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and SLS Dean Jenny Martinez are serious when the Dean of DIE is fired for cause.

    1. The dean of DIE. Sounds like a communist political officer from the old soviet union.

  10. Two issues I see here:

    First, these students are not “kids.” Law students are typically between 22 and 25 years of age. They are clearly adults and should be treated as such.

    Second, these students think they are untouchable because we, as a nation, are obsessed with status. Magazines publish lists every year of they “best” colleges and graduate schools. If one graduates from an elite law school, he or she is guaranteed a lucrative job or coveted clerkship. This type of outrageous behavior likely wouldn’t happen at a lower-tier law school, because the students there are working hard simply to land an average job in an already over-crowded profession.

    Thus, we have created the very problem we condemn. We treat young adults as spoiled children for whom there will never be any consequences for their tantrums.

    1. The Judge is correct – if this is what top Tier law students think is acceptable – the future of law is bad.

      The best we can hope – is that Stanford grads do not get the prestigious clerkships and jobs – their more hardworking and rational peers in lessor schools do.

      This is not an entirely unreasonable prospect.

      Law firms and businesses can pretend to be as woke as they wish.

      Real success is measured by what you produce.
      Law firms do not hire lawyers that do not make them money.
      Law firms that do not make money – can not afford to hire or pay lawyers well.

      Businesses do not hire law firms that do not provide good advice, and do not financially benefit the companies that hire them

      And on through the market.

        1. We can learn from the past. We can learn from history, we can learn from Brilliant minds of the past – Mill, Locke, Brandeis, ….

          Or we can learn from painful experience.

          One way or the other we will learn.

          The future is bright – but we must go through a storm to get there.
          If stanford law students have a say – that storm will be a hurricane.

    2. I notice they don’t give any ‘prestigious clerkships’ to the poor law school students.

      I recall, long ago and far away, a humorous Professor required me to defend ‘nuclear energy’ in a large public debate. It was an issue the good Professor knew I opposed. .. shortly after Three Mile and Chernobyl

      *it was, and still is, the most frightening day of my life .. . and I’ve been shot at many times.

      1. My wife came from a poor background. Her father did not graduate from HS. Was the sole bread winner and never held much more than a MW job.
        She did very well at a third tier college, had absolute top LSATs and got in to University of Pensylvania Law School – While Elizabeth Warren was a professor their. Did very well at Penn and very nearly landed a clerkship with a federal feeder judge – next stop would have been a supreme court clerkship.

        She Still ended up with a federal clerkship before becoming a public defender.

        She was also a Keaty Cup winner at law school – Successfully arguing a position that she personally disagreed with.

        If you can not do that – you should not be a lawyer.

  11. Jonathan: I watched the video of the incident at Stanford law. A lot of shouting. DEI Dean Steinbach was clearly uncomfortable trying to moderate but “welcoming” Judge Duncan–and eventually most of the students left in protest while Duncan called them “idiots” and “bullies”–and then commenting: “if enough of these kids get into the legal profession the rule of law will descend into barbarism”. Not a lot of room for compromise. And not a way for Duncan to endear himself with the students.

    Judge Duncan is no stranger to controversy. Appointed by Trump in 2018 he is a darling of the conservative Federalist Society that selected all of Trump’s appointees. He is opposed to LGBTQ rights. No doubt why the student chapter of the FS invited him to speak at Stanford and why most law students didn’t want him there. Prior to his appointment to the 5th Circuit Duncan successfully represented Hobby Lobby opposing providing contraceptive coverage for their employees. We don’t know much else about Duncan but some judges appointed by Trump refuse to hire clerks from Stanford (the second ranked law school in the country), Yale and other law schools accused by conservatives of being “woke social justice warriors”.

    What is interesting is that a week before Duncan’s scheduled 70 law students asked the FS student chapter to cancel the speech and put it on Zoom. The FS refused. Could it be the FS wanted and expected a confrontation so it would be covered by the press–which it was by Fox and the NY Post along with other smaller conservative outlets. And then you followed up with this column. Coincidence? Hardly. It was another opportunity for you argue that “conservatives and Republican students routinely sit quietly as professors and students abuse conservatives and their values…”.

    The Q is where were all the FS students to defend Duncan against all the heckling? Probably few in number so they had to get US Marshalls to escort Duncan out of the building. This raises the Q again of why conservatives are in such short supply on university campuses? You have a theory–well of sorts. You say a “new survey of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican”. Wow! Are you arguing that there should be a political litmus test for hiring faculty? I doubt any university would go along. Professors are hired based on their academic qualifications–not their party affiliation! Do you really think a faculty hiring committee would ask an applicant his/her party affiliation? You even claim there is a systematic attempt at “the elimination of conservative or Republican faculty…”. What is your evidence for such a bizarre theory? Do you really think administrations are identifying and firing any Republican faculty? Cite one case where that has happened.

    I think the reason conservatives and Republicans have so little appeal on university campuses is pretty simple. Most students, especially those entering law school, are keenly aware and support social justice issues. They oppose continuing racism and support the rights of the LGBTQ community. To use the conservation expression they are “woke”. That’s probably why Judge Duncan will not hire clerks from Stanford or Yale and why he was so unwelcome at Stanford Law. Why would a law student want to listen to someone who would not even consider them for a clerkship because they are not “conservative” enough. That’s, strangely, discrimination in reverse!

    1. “Judge Duncan is no stranger to controversy. . . .”

      In other words: By wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it.

    2. “70 law students asked the FS student chapter to cancel the speech and put it on Zoom. The FS refused.”

      Right, so the answer to free speech that is not suppressed by disruptive Woke Goons is to force speech out of public spaces and put it behind electronic walls. From the twisted logic of a Woke perspective, that makes perfect sense.

      And “The Q is where were all the FS students to defend Duncan against all the heckling? Probably few in number so they had to get US Marshalls to escort Duncan out of the building.”

      The twisted logic of Dennis McIntyre continues unabated as “they” blame the security requirements to protect judge Duncan on the FS members who wisely chose not to physically engage with the Woke Goons.

      Note that I respectfully refer to Dennis McIntyre as “they” since they have not chosen to share their gender identity with us.

      1. My guess is that Dennis’ preferred pronouns are “She/It”….always said in tandem 😉

      2. This is a common mantra of left wing nut schools – while many conservative groups have found funding for security for guest speakers – the courts long ago rules that the cost to provide security for a speaker at a public forum falls on the forum – in this case the college.

    3. Dennis McIntyre is true to form. He believes that speakers should be shouted down and not allowed to speak. Dennis believes that if a judge was appointed by a Republican his thoughts are not worthy of a hearing. Dennis, thank you for your authoritarian view on things. Do you have any other Marxist thoughts that we should be aware of?

      1. Dennis also thinks that the Judge is evil for correctly noting that lawless conduct with respect to the students at a law school, leads to lawless conduct as lawyers.

        As an SPLC lawyer is arrested for domestic terrorism in Atlanta.

      2. Thinkitthrough/JohnSay/Radical pragmatist: You might be surprised to learn that I do not believe that “speakers should be shouted down”. When I was in school there were many controversial people invited to speak. Some student groups opposed and got up and left in protest. I stayed to hear the speaker because I wanted to hear what they had to say and make up my own informed opinion. Surprised?

        In the case of Judge Duncan I would have supported his right to speak. Hear him out but in the Q & A I would have asked Duncan some Qs. I would have asked him about some of his decisions and why he opposed LGBTQ rights. Questions like whether he hires clerks from schools like Stanford or Yale? If not why? What is his general position on reproductive rights? His judicial philosophy? Is he an “originalist”? Is he a member of the Federalist Society? Why he called the students who opposed his speech “idiots” and “bullies”? Why he thinks a majority of the students opposed his speech? All the natural Qs you would ask him flowing from his speech. Now that’s what I would have done.

        It’s kind of ironic that some of you on this blog don’t believe in reasoned dialogue. In a way you do exactly what you complain about what happened when Duncan tried to speak. You call me a “Marxist”–which I am not. You Q my “gender identity”, call me an “authoritarian” and other pejoratives. Does that add anything to reasoned dialogue?

        In my comment that prompted your non-sensical responses I pointed out the Prof. Turley implied there should be a litmus test for hiring university faculty. More applicants for university positions should be hired based on political party affiliations–to get more conservatives/Republicans hired. Turley even makes the assertion, without any evidence, that administrators are identifying conservative professors and getting rid of them. None of you addressed this important issue that is the core of Turley’s frequent unproven claims.

        I have yet to see you actually analyze anything Turley has to say in his columns. Your response is a slavish acceptance of of everything he says without even questioning his flawed arguments. And you attack anyone who might disagree without even bothering to offer a counter argument. That’s a sure sign of small minds!

        1. “I would have asked him about some of his decisions and why he opposed LGBTQ rights. Questions like whether he hires clerks from schools like Stanford or Yale? If not why? What is his general position on reproductive rights? His judicial philosophy? Is he an “originalist”? Is he a member of the Federalist Society? Why he called the students who opposed his speech “idiots” and “bullies”? Why he thinks a majority of the students opposed his speech? All the natural Qs you would ask him flowing from his speech. Now that’s what I would have done.”

          Yes! And wouldn’t that have been an interesting discussion for ALL students to listen to and learn from? That’s the point of “higher education.” But these dum dum fascist’s on the left demand that anyone they define as “architects of systems of oppression” should not be permitted to speak. And universities are allowing it. For shame on all of them.

        2. btw Dennis, imo why lots of people are put off and take issue with your comments is because you insist on attacking Turley, the messenger, every time –rather than simply commenting on the issues he brings forward in his articles.

        3. Dennis: “Prof. Turley implied there should be a litmus test for hiring university faculty.”
          Dennis: “Turley even makes the assertion, without any evidence, that administrators are identifying conservative professors and getting rid of them.”

          lin: Dear Dennis, here is the information you are looking for. The good professor was merely highlighting and commenting on results and analyses found in the following: https://www.thecollegefix.com/zero-republican-professors/
          From that article:
          “In almost all cases, the analysis relied on political registration of professors. However, the University of Georgia analysis used primary voting records, since the state does not have citizens register by party.”
          “Six of the seven states analyzed are primarily Republican, with the exception of New York. Yet, all universities showed a strong Democratic tilt among their faculty…When broken into Democrat and Republican, 92 percent of professors identify as Democrat and only 8 percent identify as Republican. That amounts to Democrat professors outnumbering Republican professors by a ratio of 11 to 1.”
          “’One of the emerging ideas to solve this problem is to place ombudsman or nonpartisan trustees on faculty hiring committees to ensure all applicants, including Republicans ones, are given due consideration during the hiring process,’ Kabbany [editor-in-chief] said.”
          “The foxes are guarding the hen house,” she said. “If parents, politicians and watchdogs wonder why students go into college as innocent and eager 18-year-olds and come out four years later as mouth-breathing progressive-socialist Democrats, look no further than the people teaching them what to think day in and day out at college.”

          This is where Prof.Turley cited his source in the very first paragraph:

          I regret that you missed this.

          1. lin: No I didn’t miss the surveys cited by Turley. All they show is that in a very selective survey of primarily Republican states Democratic professors out number Republicans by a ratio of 11 to 1. What does that prove? It doesn’t prove universities intentionally select registered Democrats over Republicans. It’s a bizarre claim without any factual basis. Party affiliation has nothing to do with how university faculty are selected. I worked as a university administration so I know how the process works. Faculty hiring committees consider only the academic qualifications of the candidate, e.g., previous teaching expertise, expertise in a particular discipline, academic articles, etc. The candidate’s political party affiliation is no factor in determining whether or not to hire a particular candidate. Ask Turley whether his party affiliation played any role when he was hired to teach at GW Law School.

            Read Turley’s column again. He relies on the selective surveys to make the claim about “the systemic elimination of Republican faculty…”. And, “others have defended the elimination of Republican faculty as entirely justified and commendable”. Does Turley cite anyone who has endorsed such a proposition? Turley wants us to believe there is some conspiracy to keep conservatives/Republicans off university faculties.

            Now you quote Kabanny, the editor-in-chief of the one survey, where she argues the solution to the 11 to 1 ratio is “to place one ombudsman or non-partisan trustees on faculty hiring committees to ensure all applicants, including Republican ones, are given due consideration…”. In my experience any attempt to impose a political litmus test on how candidates are selected would rightly be rejected.

            There is no doubt there is a lack of political diversity on university campus. What is to be done? Some conservatives have given up and want to create alternative institutions. That does not make sense because it doesn’t solve the lack of diversity problem. Do we really want a further divide of a few “conservative” universities surround by a sea of “liberal” ones? Others want to starve universities–cut off their funding. Gov. DeSantis is trying to change things by putting more “conservatives” on school boards and university boards. Others, like the conservative Koch Foundation, are are funding university chairs. Some conservatives are demanding that universities create special “affirmative action” programs for conservative students. That could be a dilemma for conservatives who oppose affirmative action programs for other marginalized groups.

            In the end I don’t think much is going to be done to solve the present divide. Ultimately, maybe the answer is for more conservative students to enroll at prestigious universities and demand programs that meet their ideological needs. But judging from the views of the incoming class of 2023-24 and the reception Judge Duncan received at Stanford Law don’t expect that to happen any time soon. Maybe you conservatives need to come up with some ideas that actually appeal to students and faculty–beside being anti-everything liberals and “leftists stand for. Now there is a novel thought.

            1. Dennis: Thanks for response. You almost made it through without slamming me and others near the end of your comment (“Maybe you conservatives need to come up with some idea….”) So here’s my response.
              (1) I am not a conservative. I am a middle-of-the-roader. But left-wing machinations for control/power have greatly alienated me and left a bad taste in my mouth.
              (2) One of my law specialties is employment and labor law (for the defense). You and I both know that faculty hiring committees who made the decisions (about 10-25 years ago) affecting most currently-tenured faculty were private, closed-door events of little or no record. Private probing (in the absence of the applicant) into personal political affiliation, religion, or sexual orientation was common and continues to this day. The development over the years of burden-shifting “pretext” arguments in litigation has tempered the number of classic discrimination cases, but you are in non-credible denial if you believe that political/social ideology does not play into the selection process. As you know, political affiliation is not a “protected category.” Your note that “in a very selective survey of primarily Republican states, Democratic professors out number Republicans by a ratio of 11 to 1”–is amusing. Did you think that “a very selective survey of “primarily Democratic states” would show that Republican professors greatly outnumbered Democrats at the institution???
              (3) Since “currently-tenured faculties” are overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated, the article cited by Turley further notes, “We’ve already seen the retiring old guard of classically liberal professors being rapidly replaced by budding scholars trained up in critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion dogmas. Today, hiring committees also have so-called diversity and inclusion monitors and require applicants to submit diversity statements,” Kabbany said.
              (4) You state, “I worked as a university administration…” One-man show? self-aggrandizing slip? Or did you mean “administrator?” Either way, you clearly are not privy to the thoughts of a contributor to such hiring decisions, when he or she may “pretextually” create some reason why a particular candidate is not welcome.

              (5 )I’m going out to dinner so you can get the last word in. thanks anyway.

          2. The data about the makup of colleges and universities is damning.
            I would further note that the 92:8 ration is deceptive.
            In business or STEM areas republicans likely make up 15-25% of the faculty.
            In the humanities, arts, and social sciences they make up less than 1%.

            As Jordan Peterson is famous for saying when some one complains of conservative bias effecting social sciences studies.
            There is ONE conservative social scientist in the entire world – and your looking at him, and even that is not true. Peterson is not an actual conservative.

        4. “You Q my “gender identity”, call me an “authoritarian” and other pejoratives. Does that add anything to reasoned dialogue?”

          Dennis when you write your posts you should ask yourself the same question. You are guilty of the things you complain about. That is why it is fair to do to you what you do to others.

          You state how you like dialogue and discussion but that is not your modus operandi which is to hit and run.

        5. There are only a few here – and you are not one of those that are universally wrong about absolutely everything.

          At the same time – one way or the other you have absorbed and frequently shill for false and dangerous ideas that are often inseparable – either ideologically or in practice from those you claim to hate.

          I will return to something I periodically note here.

          I am libertarian – not conservative. I have some common ground with the left and the right.

          But there is a fundimental difference between the left and right today (as well as historically).

          The left is far far far more dangerous.
          The left is an existential threat. The right is not.
          At various times in history the right has been fairly evil.
          It is never a fraction as dangerous as the left.

          We can go backwards to almost any prior set of values in US history from where we are today – and that would be bad. But it would not be nearly as bad as what the left is capable of and frequently delivers.

          Today free speech is under attack. The free press is under attack – and the left, our institutions – including the press and the democratic party are either leading the attack or hiding the fact that it is occurring.

          free speech is an absolutely critical value – we saw in the past 3 years the consequences of even relatively minor successes in censoring speech. If we have to choose between the consequences of small infringements on speech and absolute free speech including child porn, defamation, and threats of violence – the harm from absolute free speech is far lower than the consequences of even small censorship – unemployment, declining wages, inflation, rising crime. suicide, drug addiction, drug overdoses, loss of education, declining real income, reduced safety, increases in cancer and heart attacks – these and more are the negative consequences of censuring on a single topic.

          Nor are we even talking universal censorship.

          To a small extent the left is correct – the censorship we have seen has NOT prevented the truth from getting out.

          Nearly everyone had heard about virtually everything that was censored. But all of it was significantly reduced in distribution and many of those who “heard” about it, ONLY heard about it from those who disagreed and who called it all debunked, right wing conspiracy theories – even when the information came from people on the left.

          Free speech requires not merely that all ideas can be discussed – but that even the most crazy ideas must be allowed to be argued by their advocates – those who know them best.

          Very very few of us (probably only libertarians) are capable of accurately presenting the best arguments of our opponents.

          Where do YOU fit in ? You are NOT for the most part the most bat$hit poster from the left here.

          To a small extent YOU are my audience – though really those closer to the center than you.

          The problem with you is that you enable this nonsense.

          Let me repeat this again – there is no parity or equivalence between the left and the right today.
          Pick however many decades you want to reverse issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia,
          and the consequences of actually doing that – though bad, would still return us to a time that was far batter than what proceeded it, That was enlightened compared to what preceded it.
          We should not return – and with few exceptions the right is not seeking to return. They are just seeking to end capping of actual improvements in sexism, racism, … with utter nonsense.

          The Right is NOT dangerous – today. When they do become dangerous, I will join in opposing them.
          When the left becomes sane again – I will find common ground with the left against alot of what the right seeks.

          But there is no reason to fight over virtually non-existent threats to gay marriage when we are facing a growing threat of pedophilia by increasing the sexualization of children at ever younger ages.

          And that is just one small example.

          The left is very dangerous. Covid alone should tell you that. We still have nutjobs like Gigi claiming Trump killed hundreds of thousands while Biden has had nearly 1M people die of Covid.
          But Covid itself is NOT the issue – it should be self evident to everyone now – that at best we could have had small impacts arround the edges. Covid was going to kill LOTS of people – and it did, and it did not give a $hit what we tried to do about it.

          The problem is not with Covid – it is with our response. It was not with the extreme left – though they provided cover.
          It is with the actual socialist left policies – the concept that whatever the problem government is the solution, and the concept that those in government both know what they are doing, and will do the right thing.

          It is increasingly evident that the public experts KNEW what they were doing – that they KNEW the truth and that they did the wrong things anyway. That they KNEW that masks did not work, that the KNEW that the primary danger of Covid was to a very small portion of the population, That they KNEW lockdowns did not work, that they KNEW Covid was likely man-made, that they KNEW fairly quickly that the Vaccine would not work.

          And yet they did them anyway.

          And much of the country was either Fooled or complicit.

          Covid is not the only demonstration of the failure of statism, socialism, leftism.
          But it is one that should be easy to understand. Especially now.

          It is also self evident that without the censorship we experienced, we likely would have avoided much of the harms emanating from the policies that were inflicted on us that those selling KNEW would not work.

          My problem with you is that you do not understand this. You do not understand the harm that has been caused, and that you do not understand that the harm we have already seen is the consequence of a relatively weak regime of censorship and thwarting free speech.

          That you provide cover for those who have ALREADY done us all great harm – and ESPECIALLY the “most vulnerable” who the left claims to love.

          I sometimes cite the bible – I am not offering it as some divine authority.
          But as excellent literary examples of truths.

          Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
          You will know them by their fruits.
          Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?
          Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
          A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
          Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
          Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
          Matthew 7:15-20

        6. I will bet that I can answer your questions quite accurately.

          “I would have asked him about some of his decisions and why he opposed LGBTQ rights.”
          I would bet that he DOES NOT – every human has the SAME rights.
          There are no special rights for those who are LGBTQ.
          As an adult you are entitled to live as you are able to acheive in your own life.
          You are not entitled to a job.
          You are not entitled to the respect of others.
          You are not entitled to impose your views on any by force – particularly not children.
          You may dress as you please.
          As an adult you may take whatever hormones, you wish,
          You may have whatever surgery you wish.

          But whether what you want is within the norms or far outside it – you may not demand it of others.
          “By the sweat of your brow, you shall earn your daily bread”.

          If you think something is a right – such as pronouns, that requires another person to act – then you are wrong.
          It is polite to refer to others as they prefer – by their name, by whatever pronouns they wish – and most of us will do so much of the time – unless we are demonoized for mistakes or unless your demands are egregious or offensive.
          But you are not entitled to anything from others, aside for tolerance of the choices you make that harm no one but yourself.

          I would note – this is not merely a matter of law and constitution, but it is a fundimental of the social contract and a requirement for living in society.

          Modern western society is fairly anti-fragile – we can by force impose a fair amount of bad ideas without causing significant failure. But each and every bad idea – each and every effort to manufacture a right lowers the standard of living and quality of life for all. Maybe not enormously – but more than any possible benefit.

          It is likely that the Judge would not use the same language. He might refer more than I have to caselaw and tradition or to the constitution. But the gist would be the same.

          “Questions like whether he hires clerks from schools like Stanford or Yale? If not why?”
          Federal judges – especially appellate court judges get the pick of the best law school graduates in the country.
          It is near certain that the Judge gets 100 absolutely fantastic applicants for every clerkship he has.

          Like every single employer in similar circumstances, he is actively looking for reasons to say NO.
          That is hard for most people to grasp. We like to pretend there is a “best person for the job” and that it is us, and that if we do not get the job, it is because we are black, or female or gay or from Stanford.

          It probably isn’t. But lets assume it is ? So What ? You are not entitled to be a law clerk. You are not entitled to any job.
          As I noted the judge with near certainty must say NO! to 99 unbelievably well qualified people – before he says yes to one and only one. If he has 100 choices that can not be distinguished based on merit, it is perfectly acceptable for him to chose to hire you because you graduated from Stanford, or because you did not. Because you are black, or because you are not. Because you are trans or because you are not.
          What he SHOULD NOT do – but is entitled to do, is choose someone who is actually less qualified – for any reason at all.
          But that happens too – ALOT. Quite often the distinguishing criteria for getting a job is that you know someone, who knows someone who knows someone. That is LIFE. When people doing the hiring have to make choices and they have too many applicants with very little to distinguish them, they end up making choices based on arbitrary or inconsequential factors – Because on the consequential factors all things are equal.

          I own and rent apartments to people. Aside from such factors as – did you committ a violent crime recently, did you lie on your application – did you even submit an applicaiton, and have you been evicted recently or owe large amounts of money you obvioulsy can not pay, the primary criteria for getting an apartment from me is – being the first person to show up with the deposit and the first months rent.

          “What is his general position on reproductive rights?”
          You have the right to try to reproduce. There are no other “reproductive rights”.
          You have no right to birth control – though you are free to buy it for yourself.

          “His judicial philosophy?”
          Follow the law and the constitution. That is what Judges are required to do.
          It is what they swear to do.

          “Is he an “originalist”?”
          Of course he is – anything else would be immoral and logically stupid.
          A better question would be exactly what does originalism mean to him.
          i.e. how does he apply the cannons of staturoty interpretation – how does he prioritize those rules, relative to each other.

          “Is he a member of the Federalist Society?”
          You can check that on wikipedia.
          I hope so. All judges should be members of he federalist society.
          Unfortunately – that tells you far less than you think.
          Randy Barnett and Antonin Scalia are both members of the federalist society.
          Barnett’s originalism is more morally correct than scalias. Though both are more moral that living constitutionalism which is just anarchy.

          “Why he called the students who opposed his speech “idiots” and “bullies”?”
          Because they are. If you oppose free speech you are an uneducated or poorly educated idiot.
          If you use force without justification you are a bully by definition.

          “Why he thinks a majority of the students opposed his speech?”
          Because there is lots of data to support that.
          Why do you want to argue over provable facts ?

          “All the natural Qs you would ask him flowing from his speech.”
          In your mind.
          I answered nearly every one of your Q’s for him.
          Your Q’s have obvious answers.
          What would be disturbing is if his answers departed in substance from what I offered.

          The answers I provided are the principles of western law and government.
          They are what makes it possible to have self government – or frankly stable and prosperous government of any kind.

          “Now that’s what I would have done.”
          Yes, you would have asked kindergarten questions to a federal appellate judge.
          You ask why he called those opposing him idiots – this is why.
          Stanford Law is supposed to be the best of the best.
          That there is even a question – legally constitutionally, or morally and ethically regarding free speech – or even the other questions you asked would be proof that they are not even close tot he best of the best,

          “It’s kind of ironic that some of you on this blog don’t believe in reasoned dialogue.”
          Dennis – I spend a great deal of time addressing Kindergarten stupidities like you have raised – or even worse.
          The claim that there is no reasoned dialogue is nonsense.

          What is disturbing is that we have to repeat the same “reasoned dialog” over very fundimental things over and over and over.

          The distinguishing feature of humans is “free will”. If you wish to disagree, we can have that discussion. But I would point out to you BEFORE hand that every other legitimate position has no foundation for morality and permits human slavery.

          Free will is the core principle for all human morality. All morality derives from the determination of whether something infringes on the free will of another and whether that infringement can be justified.

          What is and is not a natural right, and unalienable right comes directly from free will.
          What is an is not a civil right – the lessor rights created by government such as voting, are still required to meet the same justification and analysis.

          “In a way you do exactly what you complain about what happened when Duncan tried to speak. You call me a “Marxist”–which I am not. ”
          I will agree that you do not think you are. But what has been obvious here is that you are not very good at critical thinking.

          I prefer the broader terms statist to marxist. Because the flaw in marxism, and socialism is present in all forms of statism.

          And statism is the extent to which you allow government to encroach on liberty.
          The more you allow, the more statist you are. The less moral you are, the more hostile to free will and individual liberty you are.

          If you think I misidentify you are heavily statist – please provide evidence.

          “You Q my “gender identity””
          I do not know or care what your “gender identity” – what I would challenge is Your or anyone else’s right to FORCE that on me.
          Nor am I aware of others on this blog questioning your gender – or any other identity.

          You can identify however you please – just as others can call you a marxist if they please.
          You can identify as a homosexual teradactyl for all I care.
          But you can not force others to identify you as a homosexual teradactyl or anything else.

          You are free to identify as you please and each and every other poster here is free to identify you as they please.

          Your choice of identity – is your free choice. It is not a fact of nature. Someone else’s choice of your identity is their free choice. It too is not a fact of nature.
          That is how freedom works – you can make stupid choices or wise ones. Others can make stupid choices or wise ones.

          You have power and authority only over yourself – not others.

          “call me an “authoritarian” and other pejoratives. Does that add anything to reasoned dialogue?”
          Yes. Calling Hitler or Stalin or Mao an authoritarian is reasonable isn’t it ?

          Just because an assertion is perjorative does not mean it is not true or reasoned.

          You see government as the answer to most every problem posed. You are statist.
          Government is force – the more government you seek, the more statist you are the more authoritation you are.

          “Ad hominem is a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself”

          If the argument is about the power of government in our lives, and your position favors greater power – then calling you authoritarian is both and insult and true. and not ad hominem.

          “In my comment that prompted your non-sensical responses I pointed out the Prof. Turley implied there should be a litmus test for hiring university faculty.”

          If you seek to be a professor at a law school and you do not believe in the principles of the constitution or western law – you should not be a law professor.

          I would not hire a burger flipper from McDonald’s as a machinst.

          “More applicants for university positions should be hired based on political party affiliations–to get more conservatives/Republicans hired.”

          If you believe in affirmative action by race, then it is perfectly acceptable by politics.
          Ultimately the criteria for a law school professor with not have much to do with politics per se.
          Nor favoring conservatives. But it would hinge on the principles of the constitution and western law.
          And today I doubt anyone but a conservative could meet those criteria.
          Marxism, Socialism, Authoritarianism are incompatible with our constitution and law.
          Would I hire a dentist whose only field of expertise is podiatry ?

          To the extent marxists belong in university at all – they belong in the political science faculty
          Where a few token marxists should exist to make fools of themselves defending the most vile and bloody political system anywhere ever. That has resulted in copious bloodshed nearly everywhere it has been tried.

          If you have not read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or so many many others – you should not be speaking about the wonders of marxism.

          “Turley even makes the assertion, without any evidence, that administrators are identifying conservative professors and getting rid of them.”
          The evidence has been provided that college faculties and lawschool faculties are not only incredibly biased against conservatives (and libertarians) but that they are literally overrun by left wing nut idiots who shill systems that have never worked anywhere ever.

          I will be happy to agree that the litmus test for law school should not be “conservatism” – but it should be an acceptance and fealty to the constitution and law.

          If you do not like the constitution or the law – change it – from the political science department.
          The role of lawyers and law school is to teach the law and constitution we have – not the one nut jobs wish we had.

          Just as the role of physicists is to teach the physics we have – not failed and rejected theories of the past – atleast not as anything beyond failed and rejected theories.

          Would you want an engineer to design your kids school who questioned whether Newton’s laws should be applied to the structural design ?

          “None of you addressed this important issue that is the core of Turley’s frequent unproven claims.”
          Correct – because most of what those of you on the left assert is an “unproven claim” is either obviously true, proven true, or highly likely true.

          No one is forcing you to agree. But you should not be surprised when you are called stupid for demanding proof of the obvious.

          Recently we witnessed the lunatic debacle of democrats trying to “cancel” Taibbi and Shellenberger testifying regarding what they uncovered at twitter.

          This is the kind of nonsense we are talking about – this is what I addressed regarding your purported Q’s to the Judge.

          Come to the public debate prepared. I and others here should not have to constantly go over kindergarten fundimentals.
          Only to have those of you somewhere on the left come back days, or minutes later as clueless as before.

          2 + 2 = 4 in the real world where we live. We are not debating hypothetical worlds.
          Others here have provided the data to prove the political bias in colleges and universities.
          As I noted – those figures are overall – the average the STEM fields and business against law schools, and humanities.

          The 92:8 ratio is far worse in Law Schools arts humanities and social sciences.

          Do we really need a debate about that ?
          Do posters here have to constantly prove the obvious and well known to those of you on the left ?

          What is wrong with calling you stupid – when you continuously challenge FACTS that have been proven over and over ?

          If you do not wish to be called authoritarian, then both say and show consistently that you understand:

          “You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well, I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up to] man’s old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course…”

          “I have yet to see you actually analyze anything Turley has to say in his columns. Your response is a slavish acceptance of of everything he says without even questioning his flawed arguments. ”

          I have criticized Turley frequently. That does not however mean I have treated him with disrespect – or demanded that he prove things that are obviously true.

          Nor do I as is common from those and the left pretend that Turley or anyone else can be disregarded – because they appear on Fox. What is true is true regardless of who says it or who pays them. It is one thing to more critically consider a claim based on the sources. It is another to out right reject it. Particularly claims coming from people who have earned respect and credibility.

          Turley is not right about everything – he still is too influenced by his liberal roots.
          He is still far to willing to accept unquestioningly far too many claims made by democrats and the left.

          Turley has earned respect and credibility. Democrats and those on the left constantly burn what little credibility they have.

          When Democratic representatives are calling democratic journalists who have discovered inconvenient truths – “socalled”journalists” and attack absolutely everything except the facts and issues, when they are arguing that what everyone knows occured – did not – with the evidence right in front of them. When they are running from and trying to discredit the truth as fast as they can. And when this has been an everyday occurance for years.

          These are people not to be trusted – at all, with anything.

          If Rep. Schiff claimed the sun would rise tomorow – I would have to check the facts, because Schiff is only truthful by accident.

          Turley like far too many others still knee jerk trusts the institutions that have lied over and over and over.

          That is my most important criticism of Turley.

          “And you attack anyone who might disagree without even bothering to offer a counter argument. That’s a sure sign of small minds!”

          There is not a single assertion made from those of you on the left that has not been counter argued to death.

          It is crystal clear you are not listening – at all. That is fine, that is your right. It is also stupid, and it is acceptable to stop making counter arguments to obvious stupidity and just resort to calling it what it is – stupidity.

          The fact that it is even necescary to defend fundimental free speech – espeicially political speech today is the absolute proof of the stupidity of the left.

          In the US we have a history of free speech law dating back to the founding. The Liberals in this country have been fighting – mostly successful for the greatest possible free speech right up to the present. They have won incredibly difficult fights over the centuries. The PRESUMPTION today – one reached over 250 years of argument and counter argument by the most brilliant minds on earth, is that with very few exceptions government can not regulate, censor, or interfere with free speech.
          There is no “hate speech” exception to the first amendment. There is no trigger warnings, safe spaces requirement.
          There is no hecklers veto.

          This is the result of 250+ years of debate by the best and the brightest.
          It is our law and constitution.
          It is what americans fought and died for – here and throughout the world.
          It is our law, and constitution. It is SETTLED.

          If you wish to challenge that – you are free to.
          The burden of proof is on YOU, and it is high, and if you fail to meet it – and the entire left has repeatedly failed to meet that burden – then the rest of us are free to call you stupid, ignorant, authoritarian.
          And we are free to do so without counter argument

          You and anyone else is free to challenge the most sacred tenants of the world, of physics, of law, of politics.
          That freedom is important – and once in a blue moon there is a significant challenge to SETTLED facts and science that causes us to rethink.
          But that is not the norm.
          The burden is on those challenging actually settled issues – those that have held up to scrutiny for decades, even centuries or longer.
          There is no requirement for a counter argument.

          If you challenge things like free speech – either you actually make a good argument – I have not heard one yet.
          Or you will legitimately be called stupid, ignorant authoritarian.

          I would note the left makes exactly the argument I am making all the time.

          Except they make it with assertions that are relatively new, are not actually settled, that have not even been close to fully explored.

          Science is not settled by faux concensus.
          As we now see – the Facts about Covid are not “settled” by the pronouncement of government experts.
          Election integrity is not settled by blocking the sunlight, and courts that refuse to conduct inquiry and silencing those that question.
          What happened at J6 is not determined by 30min of carefully edited video by democrats or onesided hearings with an agenda.

          The near immutability of free speech is settled.
          For the longest time – the collusion delusion was not settled – because the truth was hidden, it is now.
          The authentication of the hunter Biden laptop and its contents are now settle, the scale of the meaning of those contents has yet to be rigorously examined. The conduct of Joe Biden is inarguably corrupt. What is not establised is how corrupt and whether it is also illegal.

          What actually occured on J6 is not mostly settled – though there was no insurrection, and it is clear to all that democrats and the left lied to us all – even if precisely what the truth is, has not been established.

    4. So being correct is evil, but being wrong is good ?

      Regardless the Judge is correct.

      Courts and the law are hierarchical. We have opposing parties with differing views. We have rules for each party presenting their views, we have a judge whose role is to assure compliance with those rules, Often the judge also has the role of deciding using facts, logic and reason which party is correct, others we delegate that to a jury.

      Regardless that is the structure and hierarchy we have worked out for law over many milenia.

      How do you expect a court to work if one side shows up fillibusters the other, and the judge refuses to enforce the rules ?
      Very quickly both sides will learn that there is no enforcement of the rules – essentially there are no rules and the result will be anarchy.

      The structure of a college speaking engagement is not identical – but it is very similar.

      Again there are rules – those are slightly different from courts, But not radically.
      The rules are the audience listens quietly and the speaker speaks, Sometimes questions are taken in an orderly fashion at the end.

      When the rules are not followed – as at Stanford – the administration is supposed to step in and enforce the rules.

      But that is not what the DEI dean did. She stepped in with new made up rules – essentially anarchical rules.

      Whoever can stomp their feet the most and drown out opposition – prevails.

      That is barbarism.

      Do you honestly have difficulty understanding why that will not work ?

      The incredibly pushback on J6 is specifically because on J6 Republicans appeared to be adopting the same anarchical rules as those on the left.

      That absolutely can not be allowed. If we are going to decided issues by who stomps their feet and yells the loudest and those on the right are permitted to yell and stomp their feet – the right likely will prevail.

      The left can only all the right to free speech. to protest, to petition government when those doing so are on the left.

      Leftism can not actually endure ANY system that has uniform rules.

      On J6 those on the right – having watched the left all summer engage in protest and rioting and arson and violence – end up getting what they wanted. They melted down the entire country over the mishandling of the near impossible task of arresting a high drug addicted counterfeiter who on arrest before search shwallowed his stash as well as likely that of the drug dealer that put him up to the counterfieting. So we have a big completely out of control criminal, and the message sent by BLM was unless you get everything perfect – we will burn it all down.

      So having seen that for months – Trump supporters had the mistaken idea that They too were allowed to protest – even to get a bit rowdy.

      What we have since learned is that for those on the left – turn about is NOT fair play. Only the left is allowed to protest.

      The dean’s job was to tell protestors, they could stay quietly, or protest outside, or schedule their own even.

      What they could not do was shout down the invited and scheduled speaker.

      She failed to do that. It is irrelevant whether she did something that was not her job in a touchy feelly way that you like.
      It is irrelevant if the judge was peeved at being disruptive.

      Society has rules – that is actually more fundimental than free speech.
      It was the administration and the deans role to enforce the rules.

      Instead Stanford law school just taught a bunch of future lawyers and judges that lawlessness gets you what you want.


        1. I just posted a link to an incredible article by Prof. Haidt summarizing a large body of current social science research.

          I would strongly encourage everyone to read it – through to the end – while I disagree with some of his proposed policy changes.

          The big point is “do not catastrophize” – because it mentally screws you up, it leads to anxiety and depression, and it leads to serious cognitive distortions.

          I am depressed because the collapse of woke is taking longer than I expected.
          But I remain optomistic that all of this cognative distortion on the left eventually collapses under its own weight,

          I have said REPEATEDLY that modern leftism is unsustainable.

          I hope that we chose to change course as a result of small failures, and as a result suffer small harms.
          But if we do not, then we will change course after large failures and larger harms.

          But always I remember advice I heard – I think by Sen. Benson in the 90’s.
          “What can not go on, Doesn’t”

    5. “Professors are hired based on their academic qualifications…”

      haha, sure….regardless of DEI ‘qualifications,’ of course.

    6. Okay. So, the event was a trap by the Federalist Society to demonstrate the intolerance of the woke lefties. Just because it was a trap doesn’t mean the woke lefties had to fall for it. They didn’t have to go to the event if his opinions offended them so. Or if they couldn’t resist attending, they could have sat there politely and listened to what he had to say then courteously challenge him during the QnA session. He didn’t make then act like “dog$h*t.” That is all on them. All universities should have a commitment to free speech engrained in its student code of conduct. Each of these students should be given a suspension with the threat of dismissal if the conduct is repeated. I don’t care if it is Hitler preaching Deutschland Uber Alles. Either don’t go or be polite, there should be no exception at the university. If you want to get rowdy, go to a political rally at a beer hall. A university is suppose to be different.

      As for the long Fabian March through the institutions that resulted in the near elimination of conservative faculty across the nation, you are clueless. It has gotten so bold that positions are now being conditioned on formal loyalty oaths, but even before we fell off that slippery slope, the tenure process has always been political. Leftists are intolerant. They believe conservatives are EVIL. Do you really think a selection committee would offer a position not to mention tenure to someone who is evil? Any academic of a libertarian conservative or populist bent knows that any indication of his beliefs will kill his career advancement. It is just the way it is.

      1. The trap thesis is interesting – but Wise students do not invite a Federal Appellate court Judge to speak knowing he is going to get cancelled. – unless the judge is prepared.

        Federal Clerkships are incredibly prestigious – and my Guess is that Duncan is a “feeder Judge” – meaning you successfully clerk for him, and you follow that with a SCOTUS clerkship.

        Regardless, even a clerkship for the worst federal Judge will put you ahead of your peers for life.

    7. ” Not a lot of room for compromise”

      Dennis, what you call compromise is others yielding to the power of an autocracy. Not realizing this is a strike against your understanding of freedom.

      Those children acted like the children they are, and despite studying law at a premier institution, do not understand how to listen and learn. I am afraid as attorneys, they will fail to understand the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and our Constitution which will lead to a failure in their representation..

      Based on the number of useless words you use in your responses, I find it difficult to believe that you lack an understanding of speaking and letting people speak.

      “He is opposed to LGBTQ rights. “

      This statement is an outright expression of ignorance. There is no such thing as specific constitutional rights for specific people. There are rights for all people, and LGBTQ has the same rights, not the special right to rule over others because of their choices in life.

      “This raises the Q again of why conservatives are in such short supply on university campuses? “

      Your lack of understanding represents ignorance again. It is pretty clear what has happened on college campuses. The left has no interest in others and will censor anyone disagreeing with them. That is not the way the rest of the country acts.

    8. There already exists a “political litmus test for hiring faculty.” It’s in the form of required DEI statements that are in line with the DEI office’s views.

    9. Dennis McIntyre: Good post overall, but I believe ascribing motives as to why certain things were done weaken the piece. It is always better to state the facts in neutral language and allow readers to do their own shading.

      Like many here, I cannot defend a speaker not being heard because some dislike the speaker or do not agree with the speaker’s views. Yes, I do not care who the speaker is or what the views are.

    10. Dennis – This is a naive argument. In terms of IQ, it seems that there is slight difference between Republicans and Democrats, slightly favoring Republicans.
      “In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081 Leftists hire leftists.
      I suspect that if you looked at grades, there would a similar result. Of course, it is possible that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to seek academic careers, but more likely proves, that disproves. thet left-wing bias in academic life.
      And, it is not necessary to ask for party affiliation. The likelihood of party or ideological affiliation is fairly obvious from the backgrounds of the candidates, even the way they dress or talk. As for your claim that faculty positions are granted on acedemic merit, I leave you with two names: Ibram X Kendri and Liz Cheney.

      1. There is lots of competing Data over whether Republicans have higher IQ’s than democrats.

        For the most part the outcome depends on whether Libertarians are included as part of republicans.

        While libertarians make up a small portion of the country libertarian IQ’s are 20pts above the average.
        Including libertarians with republicans – despite their small numbers raises republicans from a few points below democrats to a few points above democrats.

        This is not to say that there are not very smart republicans as well as very smart democrats.
        There are probably more smart republicans and democrats than there are smart libertarians.

        But nearly all libertarians are 20pts above average. While democrats and republicans as a whole are of average intelligence.

      2. edwardmahl: Let’s see if I understand you. For the sake of argument let’s assume Republicans have slightly higher IQs than Dems. What are you saying? That there is a “left-wing bias” in academia that gives more professorships to the Dems than conservatives and registered Republicans who have higher IQs? Do you really think candidates for academic positions are evaluated on the basis of how they “dress or talk” or their party affiliation? That’s the most preposterous thing I have heard in a long time.

        I don’t know. Maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene has it right. Maybe we need a divorce. We can’t agree on anything. You see it on this blog. In this “age of rage”, as Turley calls it, we are now more tribal than 18th century Afghanistan. And that’s saying a lot!

        1. Over the course of my life academia has gone from predominantly liberal, to almost exclusively progressive.

          Absolutely there is a political bias in academia. That is self evident.
          Are you honestly claiming that you can not find 10 qualified conservatives or libertarians for each 90 marxists ?

          As Jordan Peterson has quipped when someone in his audience has claimed that the studies he cites reflect a conservative bias – “The only conservative psychologist in the world is right here in this chair” – And Peterson is not actually conservative.

          Regardless, there are almost no conservatives or libertarians – and very few actual liberals in the entirety of social sciences.
          Even progressives capable of understanding math and statistics are either rare or silent – because if you actually point out that the social science claims of the left just flat out are contradicted by real world data – you will be cancelled.

          In fact the vast majority of academic cancellations – efforts to get people fired are pretty close to exclusively progressives and marxists canceling progressives who speak inconvenient truths.

          The few conservatives and libertarians left in academia are exclusively in the STEM fields – the fields that require intelligence, logic and Math.

          And there is gargantuan amounts of data to support that.

          Finally – it does not matter really at all whether academia is predominatly progressive or predominantly conservative.

          The huge problem is that we have crossed a tipping point. There is a gargantuan academic difference between academia heavily favors one view – and it has become a monoculture.
          That is an absolute disaster – not for conservatives – but for students.

          You can not get an education if you are not exposed to multiple divergent points of view

          It is not education when debate does not occur and inconvenient viewpoints are silenced.

        2. It is not necessary for us to agree – so long as no one seeks to impose their will on others by force.

          We do not need a divorce – we just need those of you on the left to mind your own business – to clean your room – before you decide that you are entitled to dictate to me or anyone else how to live their lives.

          I would further note that a pluralistic society – purportedly one of your values and certainly one of mine.
          REQUIRES that we allow and expect differences and disagreement, and that we avoid FORCING our will on those who do not agree with us.

          Finally – agreement is not all that difficult to acheive on a significant part of what we are in conflict over.

          All that is required is for those on the left to resolve their cognative distortions and live in the real world.

          If you are not able to agree with the statement “we live in the least racist country in the least racist moment in all of history”
          Then you are suffering from mental health problems that impede your ability to accurately perceive reality.

          We can not rationally discuss – what do we do next – without an honest appreciation of where we are now.

        3. Dennis – as Richard Nixon used to say: “Let me be perfectly clear.” You are naive to believe academic positions are granted solely or even mainly on academic merit. Politics, and race, and other factors tip the scale. Now progessive Democrats are denying that there is such a thiing as merit. (There may be an exception for strictly scientific positions but even here a candidate who is found to have ridiculed the global warming hoax would have no hope of securing apppointment to a chair at a prestigious school.) Democrats control almost all faculties and they pick candidates who “look” and “talk” like them. That is their definition of “qualified”. If you do not accept that fact, how would be explain that Republican have gone from almost 50% of academic posts (admittedly, I am making a rough guess about the situation in the 1920’s) to a situation where almost all Professors at prestigious schools are Democrats.

  12. If these Marxist, Woke cretins would occasionally experience actual, REAL, good old fashioned moderate “violence” – as in a swift punch to the nose – from the people whose fundamental rights they are grossly violating, far less of this sort of thing would happen

    The actual “Nazis” in these situations are these Leftist thugs who will do anything – up to and including actual violence – in order to get their way and to suppress their ideological opponents. Being passive and pleading for authorities to “do something” has proven fruitless and futile.

    America’s nightmare of a Chinese style “Cultural Revolution” will not resolve all on its own. It will continue to accelerate this country down the Hellish path to totalitarian tyranny unless people on the Right start pushing back just as hard, if not harder, responding to every aggression by the Left with superior aggression from our side.

    This is going to mean that things are gonna get mighty ugly out on America’s streets. But WEAK MEN have brought on the current HARD TIMES. The only thing that will bring back the GOOD TIMES are when STRONG MEN on the Right do what they must to restore the Rule of Law and civilization back to our stricken Republic, Professor Turley. Otherwise, we are all destined for the Gulags because we stood around bleating like sheep in protest as these Leftist wolves devoured us, one by one, due our terminal passivity.

    I am afraid that the time for attempting to reason with these barbarians is over.

    1. There is something missing. None of the leaders of the left are offering any criticism of the actions of these students. Why should they? These students are the grassroots soldiers in the Pelosi, Schumer army. These students get their marching orders directly from a Democratic leadership that is calling for more censorship. To think that they will not resort to force to carry out their orders is to be completely naive. In response we should not be calling for punches in the face but we should to do everything we can to support those who stand in opposition to the lefts quest for control. I’ve been around long enough to have read most of the stories many times but I still buy books that reiterate the same presence of danger in order to support the messengers. I’m going now to buy the new book by Ron DeSantis. Pulling from your pocketbook is the way to defeat those who would silence your voice.

  13. How do these students (& teachers) get to be this age and not understand that in a law class where they are supposedly preparing to ARGUE cases (argue means discuss opposite points of view) in a courtroom means they should be practicing that skill. That means listening to other points of view, even if it is to find ways to discredit them. Shutting their ears to other points of view simply makes them intolerant and will make them very inept attorneys. They will all be the kind of attorneys we see in black disguises at blm events throwing fire bombs (yes they have actually arrested attorneys for this).How ignorant of an institution to block free speech but especially of one where it is teaching how to refute other points of view without hearing them. How arrogant, rude, mean, and ignorant to invite speakers where you have no intention of letting them speak but only invite to insult and degrade. That shows who is the truly caring person by his showing up to a place with your reputation. The students and faculty should be so ashamed for the disgrace they brought upon themselves. But that would require a level of humanity I am believing they do not have.

    1. Because they are being taught to make idiotic arguments and then to demand that opponents are silenced.

  14. Dear Prof Turley,

    Well, you can’t get blood out of a turnip, no matter how much you squeeze it.

    I don’t know Judge Kyle Duncan, and shain’t shed no tears for him. He’s Tenured, which is a hell of gig if you can get it. Only God and congress can impeach him .. . and congress is busy right now.

    I suspect the demonstrators (who shouted him down) smelled a Trump monkey MAGA hat in the Judge Duncan’s closet? No offense to any present MAGA hatters.

    That’s all it takes; just a whiff of a MAGA hat and crowd goes wild! Literally, the very ‘thought’ of Trump shuts down all debate (I have detailed files.). The fixated, obsessive hatred of the ‘Poosy Grabber’ CEO of Trump University blinds them to the reality of any other malefaction. .. no matter how consequential!

    *you’ll have to call back ltr .. . Joe Biden is taking a nap.

    1. This is not about the Judge. It is about Free speech on Campuses.
      It is irrelevant whether it is a federal Judge. Anne Coulter or Richard Spenser.

      Frankly students should be Mandated during their 4 years to attend something at which Richard Spenser speaks.

      Not because he is write about anything – but specifically to address the nonsense by the DEI Dean.

      If college does not make you uncomfortable – your at the wrong college.

      It is irrelevant what protestors “smelled.”

      They are free to protest silently.
      They are free to protest loudly – outside.
      They are free to have their own event and bring in their own speakers.
      They are free to encourge people to boycott.

      What they are not free to do is shout down, censor or silence.

      No one – including left wing nuts gets to decide what others are allowed to listen to.

  15. Judge Duncan has it exactly right accusing these people (including the DEI boss) of treating fellow students as if they are “dogsh*t”….and those students sit there and accept it???!!! Essentially, they are being told “eat sh*t and die” and they just passively accept these attacks?

    The conservative students must stand up and get loud. They must assertively, courageously, fearlessly defend their rights –because literally no one else will. Not even the president of the freakin’ university.

  16. These people rage about policing ‘word violence’ while at the same time advocating for not policing or punishing ‘actual violence.’ These people are insane. You cannot rationalize with insane people. The conservative students must stand up and get LOUD defending their rights. Do like the idiot Democrats do in Congress: “I am Reclaiming MY time! I am reclaiming MY time!”

    1. It needs to be stipulated that when an invited speaker is speaking, there are agreed upon conditions: That it is the speakers time, that is their ‘safe space’ to speak, that is their ‘speech zone.’ If protests interupt and prevent their speech, the speaker must assert that they are reclaiming their time. This is MY time. Reclaiming MY time. You will have YOUR time at the appropriate time. It’s called decorum, decency, manners, civility, respect, tolerance and learning to LISTEN. Then the protestors, disruptors, who refuse to abide by the stipulated “civility rules,” must be dealt severe consquences, and in no uncertain terms.

      Hahaha. Just kidding. As if THAT would ever happen in today’s upside down, clown world of indoctrination calling itself, “higher education.”

      1. The consequences must be suspension or firing outright. Including the immediate firing of any dean, faculty member or staff who fails to protect free speech on campus for ALL students and invited guests.
        It should be a zero tolerance policy. Protect free speech or you’re fired.
        Unfortunately none of these woke college administrators have the balls to do what’s right and put a stop to this anarchy.

        1. The administrators and faculty don’t have balls, backbone or the ability to rationally think clearly enough to see the problem, let alone resolve the problem. Anarchy and unruly student protest is a-okay because they don’t see it as a problem, they see it as their right.
          They do not see the actual trampling of other students’ speech rights. Left is right. Right is wrong. Deal with it, suckas.

          These ‘woke folk’ think giving students a safe space with baskets full of stuffed animals is a solution.
          These are the same people who tremble in fear of micro-aggressing a student — just not the conservative ones.

Leave a Reply