There is an interesting development in the controversy at Stanford Law School where U.S. Circuit Court Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down by law students and condemned by a law school dean for discussing his conservative judicial views. Student protesters reportedly published the names of students in the Federalist Society online as part of their cancel campaign. However, Aaron Sibarium, a journalist for the Washington Free Beacon has said that a board member of the Stanford National Lawyers Guild, sent an email demanding the Free Beacon remove her name and those of other students from their reporting because it is threatening and dangerous.
Sibarium tweeted that “On Sunday, I identified board members of the Stanford National Lawyers Guild–one of the groups responsible for the posters–who in a public statement described the protest as ‘Stanford Law School at its best.’ A few hours later, the board demanded I redact their names.”
It was a highly ironic moment to be sure. However, I am more interested in another aspect of the controversy. I wrote earlier about the joint apology letter of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez. 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.”
This latest controversy highlights the fact that the identity of some of these students (including those on videotape) who disrupted a speaker at the law school are known to the school. In this case, it was a federal appellate judge but we have seen this type of “deplatforming” at other schools. These students — and many faculty — voice a twisted view that silencing the free speech of others is a form of free speech.
A chilling poll was released by 2021 College Free Speech Rankings after questioning a huge body of 37,000 students at 159 top-ranked U.S. colleges and universities. It found that sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from speaking is a legitimate form of free speech. Another 23 percent believe violence can be used to cancel a speech. That is roughly one out of four supporting violence.
They are getting these values from faculty members. Many schools have largely purged their ranks of conservative and libertarian faculty. This trend is supported by anti-free speech websites like Above the Law where Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” and argued that hiring a conservative professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach. He also mocked surveys showing that conservative students are fearful of speaking freely in class, dismissing these students as “just… conservatives being sad that everyone else makes fun of them.”
What is notable is that Martinez did not even pledge to hold students accountable for stopping the speech by Judge Duncan. Yet, that is still more than other law deans. When Professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech” at CUNY law school, CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself after using a controversial term in a meeting and resigned).
At the University of California, Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
These students have been raised from elementary schools to law school in a speech phobic environment where free speech is treated as harmful. That was evident in the disgraceful Stanford event.
Now, however, they want to be able to target others while objecting to being named themselves. Much like the Yale law students who cancelled an event and then objected to campus police being present, this objection from Stanford law students illustrates the sense of privilege and exceptionalism by many in the anti-free speech movement.
The common understanding of an apology is to first show contrition and then to say I was wrong and I wont let it happen again. When the statement, I wont let it happen again is missing it’s not an apology at all and shows complete disrespect to the one who was harmed. The only reason they apologized was to try and make the whole thing go away. What are the odds that there will be a repeat performance in the near future? My prediction is there will just be another apology without teeth that will encourage more of the same madness. These students are now coming to the realization that their actions, recorded for observance, will be evaluated by their future employers. It should be a frightening thought.
We will see how it’s implemented but I note that the last paragraph of the joint apology letter says we are taking steps to ensure something like this does not happen again.
All good points! It might also occur to these students that admission to the bar in many states is not just a matter of passing the bar exam. Many states have “character and fitness” requirements. 😊
Most bar associations “character and fitness” judgement today are in line with or at least highly tolerant of Stanford law students.
If you want in trouble with the Bar today – try to prosecute election fraud.
Or defend Trump.
In NYS the NYSBA has nothing to do with admission to the bar. It’s the Office of Court Administration.
Was anyone else reminded of the self-cancellation that occurred in Mao’s China during the cultural revolution when you read about Mary Lou Bilek’s self-cancellation at CUNY? Jet planning?
Is it any surprise that kids coddled and cuddled by their parents from birth to Stanford should behave like spoiled, entitled brats? What IS surprising is how toothless and spineless are the people who run today’s law schools, and the knots they twist themselves into to justify their malfeasance. They would rather be seen as cowards than challenge mobs of ignorant students shredding their school’s reputation and laying siege to the principle of free speech.
Nothing will change until incompetent university administrators are fired and replaced by people committed to constitutional principles, the rule of law, civility, and education not woke indoctrination.
Mike Hornbook: I agree. Judge Duncan refused to submit to “woke indoctrination” when he didn’t use the requisite pronouns while sentencing a transgender sex-offender from the bench. This pissed off the entitled Stanford mob mightily.
(Whoops. It’s Hornbrook with an “r”. My mistake, Mike).
What the dean did at Stanford was a clear abuse of power.
Their objection, as stated, confirms that their intent in publishing the Federalist Society names was to threaten and endanger them. This should make it actionable.
Jonathan: Enough of the controversy over Judge Duncan’s cancelled speech. You apparently won’t be satisfied until the Stanford administration will “hold students accountable for stopping the speech by Judge Duncan”. Do you really think the protesting students should be should be disciplined or expelled for simply shouting, holding up signs and walking out. There was no violence. Duncan was not physically attacked. He left without giving his speech because no one wanted to hear it. And what the protesting students did was protected 1st Amendment activity. Frankly, I would like to have heard what the Judge had to say that was so controversial. In the interests of fairness and free speech maybe you should post Judge Duncan’s speech so we can judge for ourselves.
That said, what does Donald Trump know that we don’t? This morning the former president predicted he would be arrested on Tuesday over the Stormy Daniels hush money payments. This was confirmed by his attorney who said Trump will surrender to authorities without incident. The attorney said “there won’t be a standoff at Mar-a-Lago”. But Trump lashed out at DA Alvin Bragg and called on his supporter to show up on Tuesday to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”. After what happened to them after Jan. 6 I think the Proud Boys will have second thoughts about showing up on Tuesday!
Dennis says, “He [Duncan] left without giving his speech because no one wanted to hear it.”
Well, that would have been the correct way to handle it, n’est ce pas? And if no one attended, he would get the message, yes?
But instead, we had the opposite, didn’t we???
How is it that those who invited him and wanted to hear what he said were drowned out and denied that right by protesters?
The judge wasn’t able to give his talk. He was being protested based on his career decisions on the bench, which the kiddies were told they didn’t like.
Dennis McIntyre tells us that no one wanted to hear the Professor’s speech. If this is so all of the students would have walked out which did not happen. Some stayed who wanted to hear him speak. Hush, don’t tell Dennis that everyone doesn’t think like Dennis. Or not think like Dennis.
Not true that “no one wanted to hear it.” The Federalist Society invited him and can be presumed to have “wanted to hear it.” The protestors attended only to disrupt. You cannot even claim that the protestors “didn’t want to hear it” because they had no way of knowing what the Judge was going to say. They went and disrupted because their professors told them to, to protect their ignorance. Now it has occurred to them that their actions may impact their career plans someday.
Do not confuse Dennis with Facts.
Cassidy to McIntyre: I am grateful to Professor Turley for his coverage of this important topic. Regrettably, many folks will never know about this unfortunate occurrence. However, for those who read the WSJ, see today’s edition at Page A15 for Judge Duncan’s own account of his recent experience at Stanford.
Catherine Cassidy: I read Judge Duncan’s op ed in the WSJ. It’s apparent the Stanford administration supported his right to speak–with some reservations by Steinbach. It was clearly the majority of law students who opposed his speech. As I stated I think Duncan should have been given the opportunity. That said, the students had the right to protest. It was also their 1st Amendment right to do so. How do we reconcile the two? I don’t have an answer. But I have some Qs. Why did Duncan decide not to give his remarks? He says in his op ed that: “I didn’t see how I could continue, so after the partial walkout, I dispensed with my prepared remarks and opened the floor”. That did not go well so the Judge left. If his remarks were so important why give up? During my university days there were a lot of controversial speakers who faced protests. David Duke was one. But he never backed down. The Q that has to be asked is if conservatives are so committed to their ideas, no matter how objectionable to some, why do they stand down so easily when confronted with protest? Why are they so in need of support from Jonathan Turley who runs to their defense? Any ideas?
How do we reconclile the right to protest ?
Trivial – they can protest silently.
They can protest loudly outside.
They can stage their own counter event.
They can write letters to the editor.
They can picket the event.
There are many many ways they can protest.
There are two things they can not do.
Silence the invited speaker.
Deprive those who came to hear him the right to do so.
The right to hear is part of the right to free speach.
You can not use force to take aware anthors rights.
Duncan backdown because Stanford was not going to do what was necescary to allow the speech to go forward – threaten those disrupting with actual consequences.
https://youtu.be/w4NSqpOeS0A
Dennis – you say: “That said, the students had the right to protest.” What were they protesting? That someone with different legal and political viewpoints is allowed to speak or just be on campus? That is the mentality of an authoritarian. Judge Duncan’s civil rights do not depend on approval from the mob.
He left without giving his speech because no one wanted to hear it??? Then why the need to shout h down?
Dennis, do you see the replies to your asinine comment? A speaker is INVITED to give a speech and this moron says nobody wanted to hear him?!?!?
Dennis and Svelaz are defending the indefensible because they are little fascists themselves. How could anyone that isn’t a fascist defend shouting down speakers? Sorry morons but you are the Baddies.
What rock do you live under? Disruptions by muddle-head law students and others are happening everywhere, not just Stanford. Every one of them should be punished: suspension, the first time; expulsion after that. Students will get the message about bad behavior when enough of them get booted.
“You apparently won’t be satisfied until the Stanford administration will “hold students accountable for stopping the speech by Judge Duncan”. Do you really think the protesting students should be should be disciplined or expelled for simply shouting, holding up signs and walking out.”
In a word – yes. Anyone who interferes with someone else’s free speech should be sanctioned.
August 1966 has been called “Red August.” That’s when Mao’s Red Guards began harassing, insulting and disrespecting the “capitalist educators.” It then escalated from harassment to violence. The first person murdered was a female school principal. A mob of teenage girls in the Red Guard murdered her. In total, the Red Guard murdered 27 educators that August. Several other educators succumbed to the onslaught of harassment and pressure and committed suicide.
Just curious, how disappointed are you that your party’s version of the Red Guards did not murder Judge Duncan?
Your side has at least one suicide of a conservative academic it can take credit for, Mike Adams.
How many more suicides will it take to make you happy?
So for the 23 percent who believe that violence is an acceptable way to silence someone they don’t like, let’s as the next questions. How much violence? And by whom? And does this apply to both sides? Should speakers arrive with AR-15-bearing delegations of people who support the speakers’ positions? The knife cuts both ways, and what goes around may come around.
So the fascists publish the names of the students in the Federalist Society and then scream when their names get published? What is going on here is that the little whiners that demanded that a speaker be silenced, verbally attacked the speaker and then published the names of those inviting the speaker are now, all of a sudden, worried about law firms and judges/Justices being able to find their names on Google and not hire them because they are anti-free speech, trouble makers and little snow flakes.
Hey radical big mouths why the need to wear masks at UC Davis? Why the need to scream when your names are published at Stanford? I don’t recall MLK or Gandhi hiding their faces. You want to hold the most vile and vulgar signs, I could not even state what they said on this site…and I wouldn’t, but then scream when we mention who you are. It is laughable.
Hey lady, your name is now Googleable and it will be forever and I hope you lose opportunities because of it.
Poor little entitled babies can’t stand the heat when it’s turned on them. So typically hypocritical.
The very idea of ‘debate’ has been discarded and replaced by ‘protest,’ which in its various forms now rules the game. Protest, of course, is nothing like debate, which requires participants to engage in an exchange of informed opinion based on knowledge. Protest demands only that you strike the right posture and hold the right attitude. Hence the descent into purely theatrical power plays, involving emotional incontinence, raised voices and ad hominem attacks. Lots of sound, but no light. Knowledge and intellect are banished, along with reason and skepticism, not to mention good faith. It all represents a profound decline, even more so as it seems to be emanating chiefly from our universities. Until this toxic downward spiral is reversed, it will exact a terrible toll on our society and its institutions.
willbarthelmy: I regret that you are correct, and I relate to this personally, having been raised in a household where politeness carried the highest value, along with respectful debate/exchange. Now, as example, and as a member of the local planning and zoning commission, I have watched (in public meetings) as someone interrupts, disrupts, shouts, etc., –and others simply cast their eyes downward in polite embarrassment and silence, not wishing to “get involved…”
The art of polite but steadfast verbal presentation of an opposing view for consideration… is lost to acerbic confrontation, volatile argument, and escalating tension….(as I have oft stated, we all are being reduced to the lowest common denominator).
“and others simply cast their eyes downward in polite embarrassment and silence, not wishing to “get involved…””
So the bully wins the day, I bet. 🙁
I wonder where they get that sense of exceptionalism? Kind of like NATO saying it has the right to build up a military presence on Russia’s borders, but Russia has no right to react.
I don’t know how Russia relates to this but…
Just as the students could have FREELY protested the event OUTSIDE the event, Russia was free to react to NATO by protesting at the UN, issuing economic sanctions against NATO countries and leaders, etc. What it was not allowed to do was invade another country’s borders, destroy its infrastructure, kidnap and murder its citizens or try to depose its government in hopes of getting one more favorable to Russia’s interests…
These aren’t difficult concepts.
React to what? NATO is a defensive alliance of countries pledged to defend each other against Russian aggression. You’re suggesting a homeowner shouldn’t lock his doors at night because it would threaten thieves. Totally illogical.
Ukraine is not Part of NATO
Putin has made it clear that if countries at Russia’s Border start disussing Joining NATO Russia will respond militarily.
You can dislike that. You can call it wrong. Even evil.
But Putin has NOT been ambiguous about it.
Further, he has on several occasisn invaded neighbors over lose talk of joining NATO.
So Anyone not a moron knew what was coming when the Ukraine NATO talk started again under Biden.
Putin has invaded somebody over loose talk about NATO under Clinton. Bush, Obama and Biden.
But Not Trump. Why ? Because while Trump strengthened Ukraines defesnse, he did not engage in stupid talk about joining NATO.
Russia is a fading Superpower.
They would barely be a regional power – but for half the worlds Nukes.
The US has a serious future problem as Russia inevitably collapses in about a decade – in securing half the worlds nukes.
THAT is what we should prepare for.
Biden is an idiot and a clown.
The best way to fight back…..is to use the exact same tactics and strategy the Leftist Loons use…..to the very letter.
Fight fire with fire folks.
Being an old fashioned Law Enforcement Officer I connect with the advice given to Elliott Ness by the Chicago Cop played by Sean Connery in the movie “The Untouchables”.
Always reply with a step up in the escalation scale.
I saw that happen with a counter demonstration called “Gathering of the Eagles” in Washington DC…..the radical students stayed on their side of the street and wisely did not offer any violence or vandalism to our National Monuments during their protest in which they promised to damage or destroy some monuments and buildings. When they saw the folks that were standing in their way they decided making a lot of noise on a street corner was the best they were going to do that weekend.
No violence occurred because it was not offered by those who had promised it as there were thousands of Good Men and Women that chose to protect and defend National Monuments and did.
I guess we can say that Stanford is no longer an el33t [sic] err… elite school.
How these kids can attempt to justify their actions is astounding.
They know that certain law firms and clerkship positions will now be closed to them… therefore they want to act in secret.
Can you say mens rhea?
-G
F them.
Why have these PUNKS and THUGS been allowed this level of nonsense.
Oh wait……. Marxism.
“I can exercise stochastic terrorism against you, but you can’t against me.” It is more than just hypocrisy. It is an admission of their violent intent. Not sure what we can do about it, because we cannot legitimize illiberal concepts like stochastic terrorism, but it is shocking evidence that these people are monsters. When they identify and isolate a target, they intend to motivate some Antifa scumbag to take it to the next level.
It’s so wonderful to see your name up their in lights when you have been acting like an ass. Congratulations to the Washington Free Beacon. I think this has something to do with that goose – gander allegory. Surely these Stanford National Lawyers Guild students realize that posting names of their fellow students like that is going to lead to physical confrontations. And at some point in time maybe even violence. One day they are going to scream and threaten the wrong person and someone will get shot. I hope that never happens but they are pushing the envelope.
CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech.
Thirty years ago anyone would have been laughed out of law school for such an idiotic statement. Once the law students of today become the judges of tomorrow, we’re lost.
One can only hope that they will mature as they get older.
Most liberal kids become conservative once they start earning and gaining possessions.
I think you’re right–most will become more conservative. That’s what happened to me.
Unfortunately, I’ve noticed two problems unique to our times. First, the snobbier the school, the more stubborn and hidebound the leftist, which only proves Orwell’s observation: “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” There’s nothing like sandbags of money and privilege for defending stupidity.
Second, the left has figured out voter maturity can be cancelled out by runaway immigration. The young people who voted for Biden fail to understand that he’s using the border to make sure their vote is never needed, again.
I have no idea how this will play out, but it doesn’t fill me with confidence about the future.
That is a frightening thought, indeed! We have reached a tipping point.
. . . sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from speaking is a legitimate form of free speech.
Interesting. A similar poll found that 66% of toddlers think that throwing a temper tantrum is a legitimate way to get candy.
When that happens, the parent who gives in and gives the toddler candy is at fault for raising someone who will turn out to be dumb and mean, a depressing combination.
That is the truth in a nutshell.
They won’t be held accountable by the faculty because they are doing the faculty’s dirty work. In their quest for power, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin all knew how useful students with their young, impressionable minds could be to their causes.
“… students demand….” Give me a break.
That noun and that verb have no business in the same sentence . . . or, for that matter, in the same school!