A year ago, Stanford University was embroiled in controversy after federal appellate Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down by law students. Now a survey by FIRE has found that a majority of students believe that Duncan should have been cancelled. Seventy-five percent believe that it is appropriate to shout down speakers. A year ago, I wrote a critical column on the ridiculous response of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez who declined to punish any students. Instead all students were required to watch a widely mocked video on free speech.
The Stanford Federalist Society invited Judge Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to speak on campus. However, liberal students, including members from the National Lawyer’s Guild, decided that allowing a conservative judge to speak on campus is intolerable and set about to “deplatform” him by shouting him down. In this event, Duncan was planning to speak on the topic: “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.”
A video showed that the students prevented Duncan from speaking from the very beginning. Many called him a racist while others hurled insults like one yelling “We hope your daughters get raped.” Duncan was unable to continue and asked for an administrator to assist him. Dean Steinbach then took the stage and criticized the judge for seeking to be heard despite such objections. Steinbach, who was put on leave, later doubled down in defending her widely criticized actions.
Given the tepid response of the university, it is hardly surprising that students believe that stopping others from speaking is a form of free speech.
Academics later supported the students in shutting down the judge.
FIRE released “The Judge Duncan Shoutdown: What Stanford Students Think,” including 54% of Stanford students said that Judge Duncan’s visit should have been canceled by the administration.
Another 36% stated that using physical violence to shutdown a campus speaker is “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely” acceptable.
75% said the same about shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking.
Not surprising, only six percent of conservative students now feel comfortable disagreeing with professors.
The survey is consistent with other surveys and polling in higher education.
These students have been taught for years that “speech is violence” and harmful. They have also been told by figures such as Pines that silencing others is an act of free speech. Academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. In one instance, former CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting a speech on free speech is itself free speech.
Even schools that purportedly forbid such interruptions rarely punish students who engage in them. For example, students disrupted a Northwestern class due to a guest speaker from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (after the class had heard from an undocumented immigrant). The university let the protesters into the room after they promised not to disrupt the class. They proceeded to stop the class and then gave interviews to the media proudly disclosing their names and celebrating the cancellation. Northwestern did nothing beyond express “disappointment.”
At Stanford, law students received a mixed message in the law school denouncing the silencing of opposing views but refusing to hold any students or groups accountable.
These schools are enablers of the anti-free speech movement and the rising of a generation of speech phobics. As I discuss in my forthcoming book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, academics and administrators continue to foster an environment of orthodoxy and viewpoint intolerance in higher education. This survey vividly demonstrates how schools like Stanford mouth commitments to free speech while sending a completely different message in the actual actions that it takes in the face of anti-free speech campaigns.
These Latte-Drinking, Blue Hair-Wearing, Granola-Eating Dudes will be the Death of American https://shorturl.at/CENPZ
I mean, I suppose this is a cyclical thing on the one hand.
I went to high school in Denver just several years after having your hair ‘too long’ got you suspended from school until you cut it.
I had mini dreads in front long before it was fashionable because a friend liked to experiment with my hair. She always wanted to try something new. Referees in my basketball games were always giving me some sort of warning.
There were narcs in my school undercover as hall monitors and they could openly hit you with flashlights if the mood struck them. And many school personal constantly reminded that, just a couple years previous, I’d be sent home for my hair.
There were the panic shootings a few years before that at Kent State. Police murdered Black Panthers in their homes with no consequence whatsoever.
Settling on new norms is always a painful process. Now white home invaders of the Capitol think they’re justified in their actions.
Okay Racist Commie.
Oh snap!
Anonymous is one of the leftist morons that grew up, had kids and ruined our country. This is the type that created the kids of today.
“. . . deplatform’ him by shouting him down.” “We hope your daughters get raped.” “Another 36% stated that using physical violence . . .”
From an early age, the Hitler Youth were propagandized to merge with the group, to surrender their individual identity to the Authorities, to see everything through the lens of race, to quell all dissent — by any means necessary.
And for once, the Hitler reference is apt.
Professor Turley,
FIRE’s report (and your summary) are highly misleading by including “rarely” in the YES group. Did ya actually read the responses to each question?
For example:
“Using physical violence to stop a campus speech.
2% Always acceptable
12% Sometimes acceptable
22% Rarely acceptable
64% Never acceptable”
The 36% includes 22% whom only find it rarely acceptable. The real number is 14%.
Further, if we were to ask Rep. Stefanik whether using physical violence to stop the Iranian Ayatollah from burning the Torah and yelling “from the river to sea” in a anti-Semitic speech, would she approve?
Never is a strong word. I bet most conservatives on this blog would approve of physical force to stop certain pro-Hamas speech.
I bet most conservatives on this blog would approve of physical force to stop certain pro-Hamas speech.
I’ve not seen any evidence of that, in fact. And with all the pro-Hamas speech happening today, if that were true, we’d see a lot of evidence. So . . . can you support that claim? From what I’ve seen, all the shutting-down-of-speech is coming from the left.
Note: there is a difference between pro-Hamas speech and blocking bridges and highways, which is not speech but conduct.
OldManFromKS,
I have noticed the majority of pro-Hamas protests involved some kind of altercations with the police. Not just here in the US either.
Then, in contrast, pro-Israel protests are generally calm and peaceful with no altercations with the police. When there has been altercations, it is usually with pro-Hamas counter-protesters.
Upstate – I was thinking the same thing. This morning I watched video of NYC cops interacting with the pro-Hamas protesters at Columbia. The protesters seemed to be demon possessed, the way they were yelling and screaming. I do believe there are demonic forces behind this drive to annihilate Israel and the Jews (as in “From the river to the sea”). It is the same demonic spirit I used to see in the 1990s with the pro-abortion protesters.
Don’t worry old freak, you’ll wipe them out, not the other way around, and you know it, and fully support it.
Sure, but the question did not specify speech [without illegal conduct]. This is why the question is poorly drafted if you actually want to understand what people think on the matter.
I am ardently pro-free speech, but I would have indicated “rarely” because speech can be accompanied by illegal conduct or can incite violent conduct, and such speech may warrant physical intervention by the police. This physical intervention may turn “violent” if the speaker(s) do not comply.
Also, there is speech which is against the law (such as speech wishing death upon the President and those in the line of succession), and the police should have the right to use physical intervention to apprehend anyone who violates the law when they are noncompliant.
Again, NEVER is a very strong word. “Rarely” opens up these potential scenarios.
I read the response to mean using violence without repercussions.
The the 2% need to explain what violence is sanctioned by the govt.
“I read the response to mean using violence without repercussions.”
This is problem with surveys like this. You can ask the question 100 different ways and get wildly different results. And readers will read words like this into a question even when they are not there.
Students were asked it was acceptable to use violence to stop speech.
The response is from the student. 2% say yes. The Student would be justified in using violence to silence the speech of another purpose.
There is no ambiguity in the Question.
You insist in rewriting a very clear and simple question.
Name the scenario were you think the 2% can hide.
I agree the 2% are idiots. But, you can find 2% of any survey respondents to support anything and it tells you very little. My issue was with FIRE/Turley presenting the 22% “RARELY” responses as a YES.
I would have answered RARELY because I would support the use of police force if they wished to apprehend a speaker from wishing death upon the President (or anyone in the line of succession, such as the Speaker of the House). This is not protected speech, and I support the right of the cops to intervene, physically if necessary, to enforce the law.
Don’t you?
Police working within the law, is not violence. You added police to the question.
The question you cut and pasted is:
“Using physical violence to stop a campus speech.
Back to my question. When is a student justified in using violence to silence A campus speech? The wording of the question is clear. A , as in a singular speech. . Meaning a speech given by an invited speaker. This is a very limited scope question. You insist on remove the word “a”.
Yes, police working within the law is violence. The meaning of “violence” does not have a carveout for police acts. A police shooting a suspect to save the life of another is violence, whether or not it is justified. Come on, man.
I did not add police to the question. I presented a scenario that fall under the broadly worded question under which “rarely” would be a warranted response.
The question does not provide detail as to WHOM the individual stopping the speech would be. That is precisely my point. It is a poorly worded question because of its lack of detail. If you read “Using physical violence [by a student]…” into the question, then you added detail that was absent from the question. Words matter.
Why do you assume the physical force must be inflicted by a “student.” Where in the question is that specified?
But, you can find 2% of any survey respondents to support anything
When Should men over the age have sexual intercourse with persons under the age of 12?
The 2% answering ‘rarely’. need to be tracked down and locked up.
+100
“Free speech” is the canary in the mine. When it goes, you can be sure the mine is a dangerous place to be. As it happens, there isn’t “free speech” anywhere in America where power trumps principles. The mainstream media — left and right — blocks the truth about anything the government doesn’t want the people to know. Sometimes they do this by not publishing facts, but lying and spin are also rampant in the US media. We were lied to about Ukraine, Russia, Israel, and Iran. “Free speech” doesn’t exist as an independent right anywhere in America — it’s conditioned on who’s in power and what the stakes are for the powerful.
Here here !
Conservatives do something that the left never seems able to do…CHANGE THE CHANNEL. We don’t like MSNBC or CNN, we don’t watch them. We don’t like the NY Times, the LA Times or the idiotic Boston Globe, we don’t buy them. We don’t like what Disney stands for these days, we don’t visit them. The left tries to get cable to take Fox, or Tucker or Laura off the air, they try to demand that people boycott and divest frim Israel, they shout down speakers with which they disagree, they close highways, they burn buildings and they censor speech on social media.
The right stops books that are pure porn from being in LITTLE KIDS libraries and they call it book banning while they demand that Dr Seuss stop being printed or To Kill a Mockingbird be banned from ADULT libraries.
As an aside, the most maddening thing that I see happening is when leftist supporters of HAMAS block a major highway and the police just stand there for hours without moving them and arresting them immediately. Do you suppose if there was another 9/11 attack and the NYFD needed to get to a site that they couldn’t clear the streets in 5 minutes? Well you know what…if you have a chemo treatment and you are stuck for 5 hours due to this illegal activity it actually is a 9/11 moment for you. If you have a job interview it is vital that you pass, if you need to pick up a child at a daycare facility it is important that you aren’t 5 hours late.
Watching blue state police not open the streets and arresting these punks is sickening. This would end in 5 minutes if they gave these idiots the J6 treatment, but they won’t because these are the Democrats shock troops.
Many factual issues with your rhetoric. How exactly did ‘the left’ try to take Tucker or Laura off the air? Can’t wait to hear the fever dream behind that particular toilet treat!
I will tell you how. The left tried to organize boycotts of companies advertising on the channel during Tucker and Laura’s shows. Has there ever been a call to watch Joy Reid and then list the ads and call for them to be boycotted? Huh? Can you see the difference or do you not want to see it?
HullBobby,
Well, here is this blast from the past, FCC commish blasts House Dems’ suggestion that providers should drop Fox News
https://nypost.com/2021/02/22/fcc-head-blasts-house-dems-suggestion-that-providers-drop-fox-news/
I went to one of the few conservative law schools in the US. The faculty made clear to us that shutting down speech, including left-wing speech, would not be tolerated. This created a very free and civil environment conducive to learning.
Heaven forbid the snowflakes should be exposed to opinions with which they disagree. If they cannot control themselves and listen respectfully, how will they ever practice law?
They will practice law the same way that their professors teach, biased, closed-minded and radical. They will practice law like Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg and Andrew Weisman “practice law”. They will attack the system (i.e. our way of life) from within.
I don’t get it … If You don’t want to hear it, then don’t show up.
This Generation is being contradictory. They don’t want to hear an Opinion, but they are constantly online watching their Influencers.
These “Influencers” have more efficacy than the Speakers invited to these University Lecture Halls.
Hey – If you don’t like it, then don’t go. If it’s a ‘thing’ then the Lecture Halls will be empty when these Speakers come around.
Perhaps this is more about ‘Shooting A-Fish (The Speaker) in a Barrel” then protesting the content of the Speaker’s advocacy.
And again, I don’t believe that the Speaker is there to “Influence” the audience, these aren’t recruitment rallies.
Stay home on your Porcelain Throne and swipe TicTok YouTube all day and night, that will teach you, then maybe someday you’ll realize that You are the Fish in the Barrel.
Sort of like the computer world and AI. If you put in garbage then what comes out is also garbage. Many of these students have no concept of what violence is and what it can do to them. Seems strange that many many such people have a lightbulb moment when the are robbed on the street or beaten in their car, or even have to suffer the violence of not getting the job that thought was their due. The real world often changes you, sometimes drastically.
As more and more data pours out about the harm and lack of efficacy of the transition of gender in young people, I think many of those revolutionary doctors will change there ways as the malpractice suits start to heat up. Except for Maine, maybe.
It does happen, I was a democrat in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. Never again.
“A majority *of” (title)
I try not to be a Karen about the small typos but I feel like if I were writing this blog I would want the titles to be correct at least.
And what is there left to say about America’s censorship-hungry youth? Apparently they will have to learn the hard way that maybe censorship ain’t so great, just like millions of voters are learning the hard way that maybe Joe Biden, whom they knew to be corrupt and a serial liar when they voted for him but couldn’t get past “orange man bad,” ain’t so great either. We could have told you. Oh wait, we did tell you.
Let’s just accept the fact that a good percentage of America’s youth are ruined forever. They have been indoctrinated in both subtle and blatant methods from birth and will never see the world in a normal or rational way. If we are to preserve our nation as it was created we must find a way of neutralizing their uncontrolable rage and willingness to follow the fanatics who have created this nigghtmare. How to control them until they age out will be a test of our constitution and our moral fibre. Firstly,we must stop any further constitutional ignorants to be appointed to our judiciary.
Mama, I hate to say it but we lost. The battle is over, the 60s radicals have won all of the battles and they are just finishing up the war. They took over the schools, elementary, middle and high school, that made it easier to take over the colleges which made it easier to take over med schools and law schools and then the students went on to take over businesses and the media.
The genie will not be put back into the bottle unless conservatives win at least 3 elections in a row, including House and Senate control, which most likely won’t happen.
I am older and I am among the lucky ones, I had my time with America, but it is coming to an end thanks to leftists.
@whimsicalmama
Agreed, the time to intervene was at least 15 years ago, now we’ll just have to deal with what we’ve created, it’s just too late for so many of these kids. I personally still think it’s possible, but it’s got to start now and it will not be fun by any stretch of the imagination.
Agree about the courts, too. They really are the thin line at present. It can’t be overstated how important November is.
These little tyrants are a product of a public school system and university system that is flush from top to bottom with far left wingers. These radicals instill their leftist ideology in these kids from day one, in one form or another. It’s no wonder these leftist lawyers/judges go after Trump with a vengeance…it’s what they were trained to do…they hate anyone with conservatives values and want to punish them. These hate-filled little cowards need to be dealt with before we end up with another civil war to deal with it.
Another 36% stated that using physical violence to shutdown a campus speaker is “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely” acceptable.
I’m not sure that’s a meaningful stat.
I believe we should know without a doubt that physical violence to shutdown a speaker is NEVER acceptable! That 36% should be less than 1%
Let’s be clear. The left must lump in criminal speech with free speech, to rationalize their untenable position.
“Rationalize” is just a 4 syllable word for lie.
We will include the 17 intelligence agencies, the US military, and the collusion of silicon valley with the leftists, and the current presidential administration.
The number of our enemies here and now in full force activity is far greater than some deranged drag queens and their supporters.
Add the msm, the magazines, newspapers in the vast majority, and the corporate board and ceo tiers nearly universally, as well as the top wall streeters.
The crushing power is almost unimaginable. Whining about lefties is missing the boat, you’re screaming at the bobber.
What is more alarming is that disruptions, shouting down and preventing speakers who have an opposing view takes place in law schools. It demonstrates to me the intolerance of opposing views, by law students will lead to a one view legal system. If that becomes the future reality, the country will truly be “lost” as a democracy.
So glad I graduated college 1979. Nowadays I think I would quit.
Wonder if anti-free speech campaigns are a reaction to the Surveillance Society we live in, No-Speak = No Surveilled I.D. .
It used to be Silence = Death in the 80s, now it’s Silence = Survival. Dumb-Phones are back in vogue.
See no evil, Hear no evil, and Speak no evil.
The fourth monkey is seen as the logical result of the first three monkeys. If you see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, you will therefore do no evil, in the eye’s of Big Brother.
This is not a fight over free speech but a fight over religion and moral virtue. Whose religion and moral code is superior, Christ or anti-Christ. Christ bring the protection and defense of the weak and the innocent and anti-Christ, fairness for everyone, homos, the sexually confused, child molesters etc etc… You down with the Moshiach are you?
Wait, speech is violence but violence is free speech (when used to shut down a conservative speaker)?
I call for the END of Federal Aid to Colleges…including backing Student Loans. Defund Democrats…see if they can fund themselves
Also End Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits. Currently the WORSE Democrats make it…the MORE money they get.
Let Democrats fund their OWN failures, not taxpayers from middleclass towns!