ADDED: I embedded this tweet without listening to much of the "nearly 10 minutes" of "lectur[ing]," because I had to run out to catch the sunrise, but I listened to the audio track very closely while I was out, and now I need to say that I disagree with the text of the tweet.Stanford Law students shouted down Fifth Circuit appellate judge Kyle Duncan while he was trying to speak.
— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) March 11, 2023
When he asked for an administrator to control the situation, Stanford’s “associate dean of diversity, equity, and inclusion” got up and lectured him for nearly 10 minutes pic.twitter.com/tjlUPOIMmQ
I think the dean handled the situation well. The dean — whom Fox News identifies as Tirien Steinbach — says that she has come forward because the judge asked for an administrator to do something to restore order.
Responding to him and needing to manage a noisy group of students, she spoke in a "thinking out loud" way that openly considered various factors: the protesting students' passion and outrage, the judge's position of power, the interests of the students who wanted to hear the judge and welcome him, the schools' interest in making students feel valued and supported, and the traditional free-speech preference for active debate and more speech. She made her points quickly and clearly, and she successfully invited the students who didn't want to hear the judge to leave the room, and she seems to have convinced the remaining students to hear out the judge to save time for the Q&A after his speech.
The Fox News article disparages Steinbach as "emotional" and "frustrated," but that she struck me as professional and appropriate. If you're going to call other people "emotional" and "frustrated," you'd better be sure you're not emotional and frustrated. I know it's absurd to ask mainstream news media to play it straight and keep it factual, but it's my absurdity, willingly embraced.
ALSO: The judge was Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee. Here's his Wikipedia article where you will easily find material that explains the students' hostility.
Posts
306 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 306 of 306I disagree with Althouse. “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Said over and over. I think it was a setup so she could justify her position as a paid safe-space maker and virtue signal. She teaches the students that all life events are about how each student feels about them. The feels and the safety of the feels dictate if an event should be tolerated. She is teaching them that because she, the administrator, feels it is important to hear this hurtful man’s remarks, this hurtful man who has victimized so many, the students should maybe just possibly listen to the invited guest. Of course, if at any moment someone isn’t feeling safe, then s/he should raise holy hell so that the administrator can do her job again. How about teaching the students to take notes during his remarks on a yellow pad? Allow students to respectfully challenge the judge after his remarks? This performance is heartbreaking in a top law school.
I listened to the Associate Dean's comments and have to say that Althouse was much more impressed than I was. I don't blame her for her emotion, but for her inaccuracy that did telegraph a bias against the judge. Whether or not the people who come before him on the bench want to listen to what he says is irrelevant to this discussion. But she did not say that - she claims they did not CHOOSE to be there. In fact, it is because of the choices they made that they were in front of the judge at all.
The great achievement of Western civilization is that it made considerable progress in resolving all kinds of disputes with words instead of violence.
If speakers are prevented from speaking, as these fascist students prevented the Judge from speaking, and those who are in a position of authority rationalize it and attack the speaker who was not allowed to speak, and do nothing to end the unthinking abuse of their target that makes discourse impossible, what is left to resolve disputes?
Violence. The professor lives a fantasy if she believes that Dean Is Allowing You To Speak REALLY Worth It? was in the right in any way. The professor, thanks to her age, will most likely not to have to live with the consequences of what she rationalizes as being correct behavior. The hand of time will have removed her to the silent majority by then. Some of us are not so lucky.
Lefty Mark is dismissing commenters he does nopt agree with again.
They're here to try to demonstrate how my uch smarter than her they are. It's pretty funny to read their posts through tbe proper filter once you realize their MO.
The left wing filter, of course. At least most are smarter than you.
Why was the Diversity enforcer the one to address the mob in the first place?
Meanwhile, "She told Judge Duncan that “she was pained to have to tell him” that his work and previous words had caused real harm to people. “And I am also pained,” she continued, “to have to say that you are welcome here in this school to speak.”"
In other words, she poisoned the well before the Judge had a chance to speak (or sh*t in the punchbowl, if you will).
"I am pained to say that you are welcome here...to speak" is the essence of Free Speech.
There is nothing free about hijacking someone's forum and conditioning speaking (and hearing) on first being subjected to official condemnation.
You are wrong on this one Ann. Really disappointing.
Remember that Stanford is home to "Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go."
And that exercise in thuggery worked. The program was trashed afterward.
Summary of her remarks:
Judge, you are a sack of shit who has harmed every single person in this room as well as their friends, family, etc., we hate you. I do believe in free speech, even if it means allowing a shit like you to spread your hatred and lies, but I have to ask whether you have anything to say that is worth the deep hurt that you are bringing to us (again, because you are a shit). I can only hope that you (you shit) can put aside your partisan shithead viewpoints and learn something from all of these students, all of whom you and your decisions have harmed (because you are a shit). Oh, and by the way, those of you snowflakes who can't be in a room with this shit judge should leave now, to let him know how we feel about him, because no one should be exposed to viewpoints with which they disagree (except, of course, the judge, who is a shit).,
she considers your calls for student civility to be complete and utter bullshit
Thus the advent of the DIEversity dean to color the pallor of the protestors' diversity, pride, and prejudice. Throw another fetus on the barbie, it's over, maybe, baby.
So many factual misstatements!
I can’t address them all, but I do want to highlight that I did not say anything about the students’ behavior. I only said it’s easy to understand why they are hostile to him. I don’t like their shouting down the speaker, but that’s an issue I wasn’t writing about. I chose to write about the Dean. If you can’t or won’t keep that straight I’m not interested in what you’re writing.
HBTPFH: "Drago de-contexts just like leftist do."
LOL
Go ahead, break that down. We could all use a good laugh.
Note: if HBTPFH actually tried to justify this nonsensical remark it would the very first time she would have ever attempted to do so....and there's a reason for that.
“I stand with the Professor. Wouldn't have bothered to read this story had it not been for her Update. "I am pained to say that you are welcome here...to speak" is the essence of Free Speech.”
I too wasn’t going to bother with this blogpost until Althouse updated it, making me watch the video and listen to what the Dean had to say. Thanks, it was worth the few minutes of my time and reading the responses to Althouse’s update has been interesting, while not surprising.
Dumb Lefty Mark: "They're here to try to demonstrate how my uch smarter than her they are. It's pretty funny to read their posts through tbe proper filter once you realize their MO."
A combination of mindreading (again!) and incorrect conclusions!
What a perfectly perfect Dumb Lefty Mark post!
Still there is something to be said for that kind of poor performing consistency and given past performance it's clear HBTPFH can relate to Mark's "MO".
Listen to her actual words before you call her worthless. Who’s more nearly worthless, her or you?
She's part of the "diversity and inclusion" hustle, which makes her worthless by definition.
Net negative.
Even David French wrote: "Watch this video. What a stunning level of disrespect and arrogance. Remember, many of these folks are training to *argue* in front of judges and against opposing counsel. What are they going to do? Shout them down?"
I can't believe Professor Althouse thinks the mob is right.
Althouse: "I don’t like their shouting down the speaker, but that’s an issue I wasn’t writing about. I chose to write about the Dean. If you can’t or won’t keep that straight I’m not interested in what you’re writing."
The Dean's actions were in absolute concert with the students and played off of and was clearly designed with aforethought (prepared speech) to amplify the effect of the students actions.
Failure to include the students actions/statements in analysis of the Dean's actions/statements renders any analysis of the Dean's performance basically pointless.
And yes, I do realize that writing the above, with context and about context, blows up another moronic assertion by our other resident dolt, Flip-side Inga (HBTPFH).
I only said it’s easy to understand why they are hostile to him
I chose not to respond to the WIKI reference in my first post on this thread, but I will do so now since I disagree with Althouse on that sentence as well.
It is easy to understand why the students may disagree with the judge but not why they are hostile to him.
It is possible to disagree without hostility. I have been in discussions when opinions are freely exchanged and have been actually changed as a result of the discussion.
The judge was never in any danger. These students, just like the Stanford administrators, are cowards.
They rely on the rest of us remaining civil during their tantrums.
The first time someone gives them the back of the hand this bullshit will end.
TT: "You are astonishingly naive about these radicals."
Either that, or she just doesn't mind what the radicals are doing. I mean, she doesn't actually agree with them, does she?
For a while, I got the sense that Althouse had become more realistic, and in her own way had joined the resistance. Looks like I misjudged. Because I read her as an indicator of how the remaining reasonable liberal women view events, that is distressing.
These students and dean are prime examples of neobarbarians. Always undermining civil society because they cannot stand to hear something that upsets their precious little world view. Society is worse for their presence.
Affirmative action quota hire lectures distinguished judge.
News at 11...
I can't believe anyone, and especially a law professor, would think such behavior by the students and Dean, was acceptable. If they disagreed with the judge's decisions, the correct thing to do would be to respectfully listen to his speech and then ask questions during the Q&A afterwards. And, by letting the judge answer those questions.
The lack of professionalism exhibited by the students and the administration is appalling. The law school at which I previously worked, would have called a meeting for all students, and after a talk delivered by the Dean in which he expressed disappointment in their behavior and how it reflected badly on both them and the law school, he would have required they remain for an one-hour lecture given by the Ethics and Professionalism professor. The Dean would have probably fired the DIE Dean, and put the others on probation or demoted them.
The Dean would have also had notes included in the student leaders' file setting out their actions and lack of remorse, and included it in the school's submission to the Bar as to their character and fitness. And, he would have required a written apology to the Judge and the Fed. Soc members for the lack of respect shown by the activist students. I can recall him taking such similar measures due to student actions which were a bit less appalling that this instance. I hope every Federal Judge tells their staff to place any law clerk applications from Stanford law graduates directly into the circular file bin. And, I hope every professor who supports the students' actions are treated in the exact same manner the next time they speak at any function.
Ann Althouse said...
So many factual misstatements!
I can’t address them all, but I do want to highlight that I did not say anything about the students’ behavior. I only said it’s easy to understand why they are hostile to him. I don’t like their shouting down the speaker, but that’s an issue I wasn’t writing about. I chose to write about the Dean. If you can’t or won’t keep that straight I’m not interested in what you’re writing.
That is because you can't deal with the truth. You never were good with self honesty.
This "Dean" obviously set this struggle session up from the start and came in with a prepared statement where she berated this Judge who has the temerity to be a Trump appointee.
This is sad. I once had hope for you or at least thought you would be a good quiet little German.
Now it is clear you are planning on setting up struggle sessions yourself just like this Dean. Your contempt for little people has been clear for a long time.
You also clearly support a 2 tier justice system.
Just sad.
"I am pained to say that you are welcome here...to speak" is the essence of Free Speech.
Yes. Rather it would be if said before the Judge's appearance or after the conclusion of the speech.
Not in the context of the student's immature behavior or coupled with her comments reflecting her opinion of the judge. It was just a line in the Kabuki Theater.
The Dean was primarily addressing the Judge during her remarks. She basically informed him that he will be speaking to people that are not ready to hear what he has to say. People feel harmed by his decisions, and that has made them want to heckle and not listen to him. She was emotional and uncomfortable (as she admitted).
It was hard to tell exactly from the video, but it seemed more than half the audience left after her remarks. She asked people to leave their signs on their way out so he could still see them.
So she was right - many of the students there were not mature enough, not ready, to hear the judge speak. She coddled them like children, and they applauded in their own way, by snapping fingers (very lawyerly). They did not complain about being treated that way. They demonstrated that they have no agency to determine their own way forward through whatever harm they feel. They may want to keep feeling the harm. In any case, they do not yet have the skills to get through it.
She defused the situation by asking people to leave if they didn’t feel safe, and many/most(?) did. That doesn’t help anyone, and certainly not the law school.
BTW, what do you find "harrowing" about the scene at Stanford? Stanford has made itself home to a collection of savage creatures. They grunt and howl in inchoate rage, they shriek and gnash their teeth. "Passion", I think you called it. They probably shit their cages, too, and who knows what they eat. Stanford should charge admission. Oh, wait, they do! The zoo is very profitable, with an endowment measured in billions. So, what's the problem, Althouse? Are you afraid the animals might escape, and show up in a courtroom near you?
Ann: "She made her points quickly and clearly, and she successfully invited the students who didn't want to hear the judge to leave the room, and she seems to have convinced the remaining students to hear out the judge to save time for the Q&A after his speech."
"Professional" would have been to simply instruct those who did not wish to hear the judge speak to leave the room and for the remaining students to save time for the Q&A after the speech. Her prefatory "points" were embarrassingly unfair and unprofessional.
Václav Patrik Šulik: "Even David French wrote: "Watch this video. What a stunning level of disrespect and arrogance. Remember, many of these folks are training to *argue* in front of judges and against opposing counsel. What are they going to do? Shout them down?"
It appears that in addition to coming out in favor of the radical trans agenda, David French is also quite the dunce in terms of history.
The answer to your question, David French, is "yes". Yes, the neo-maoists have every intention of arguing their cases in front of fellow lefty judges who absolutely will allow them to shout down opponent arguments and to the applause of lefty "juries" that will already have their decisions pre-programmed.
This is inevitable at this point.
I'm a woman, nearly Ann's age, with a daughter and two granddaughters.
I despise this associate dean's spiel. From her accusations of the "harms" he has "caused" the hecklers, to her chastisement of his supposed "partisan lens and hyper-politcal lens" - score a fat ZERO for self-awareness, lady - this intellectual midwit - nearly said midget, which would also do - I despise the infantilization our society has undergone since the "I am Woman: Hear me Roar" 1970's. Other women, this kind of woman, demean and defame womanhood by the encouragement of perpetual childhood wherein 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will surely CAUSE ME HARM' is the new Stanford Law School Nursery Rhyme.
At the insanity of the "Current Year" we even have MEN pretending to be women: and real-life, honest to God women are supporting this, as they then enter and win women's competitions. (Men ARE better than women at everything, including being women: right, Ann?)
And I, as a woman, look upon this parading horror of shallow thought, emotional appeal, and overwrought excess and I say, yet again, repeal the 19th Amendment; women have proven unfit for political life.
I chose to write about the Dean. If you can’t or won’t keep that straight I’m not interested in what you’re writing.
The dean wrote out a speech that she wanted to give.
That's a really lame thing to do in a Q-and-A session.
The idea is to listen to a speaker and then respond to what he said.
To write out a speech beforehand means that the dean had no intention whatsoever of listening to what the speaker had to say.
And these law students have been trained, by Stanford, to silence and shut down speakers.
Even judges!
It's anti-law training at Stanford Law.
I'm not interested in the professor's attempt to confine the boundaries of the discussion in a self-serving way, where she still manages to be utterly wrong.
She chose to write about the Dean in a thoughtless, foolish way, and I choose to not recognize that what interests her and what does not has any weight. What a pathetic attempt to be condescending.
And what an embarrassing snit the professor has worked herself into over an opinion of hers that is so self-evidently incorrect.
Read my update. I am supporting the dean.
Then it's a damn good thing for both of us I never set foot inside your classroom.
JK Brown said...
“I don't understand why these idiots keep going to universities to speak. Okay, I do know, it's for the money. And the activist ones get some clicks.”
When lefties make speeches or create events that conservatives disagree with, the common response is: conservatives should be quiet and let it happen. Why give lefties the publicity?
When conservatives make speeches or create events that lefties disagree with, the common response is: why are conservatives even making these speeches? Why don’t they just keep quiet?
Someone else might have posted. But Here is the transcript:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/stanford-administrator-remarks-event-featuring-fifth-circuit-judge-duncan-march-9
I had to find a transcript because the DEI director was such a poor speaker and I found her incredibly annoying and unimpressive. Academia really is racket, where its who you know and not..etc.
Once you get past her weird idea that the A Conservative judge is "causing harm" and that somehow the Judge has to prove to them he's "Worth it", she stands up for free speech. Of course, her academic Jargon is so bizarre its hard to even grasp that.
BTW, my guess would be that Stanford Law School is NOT a battle. And that pretty much everyone graduates. My guess is that this elite group of Law Students are pampered and have never "Battled" anyone in their lives - and will go on to powerful/well paying positions since they will part of the "Good Ol' Elite Boys/Girls network".
Again, my main takeaway is that these sort of people (aka stanford law graduates) should have their power to affect our lives severely limited. But American Rightwingers love their "Kings in Judicial robes" and would rather get fucked in the ass at compulsory Drag Queen hour than do anything about it.
Possible analogy?
School invites a man in drag to read to a bunch of 10-year-olds.
The kids yell at him.
"You're not a woman!"
"You've got a dick!"
"We know you have a dick!"
They're jumping up and down and yelling at him.
The fourth grade teacher comes out and quiets all the kids down. Then she pulls out her typewritten statement and reads it to the drag queen, criticizing him for appearing in front of the kids dressed like a woman.
Fair?
(I think I would laugh at that video, but what I would not do is hire the kids for a judicial clerkship, nor would I applaud the 4th grade teacher for being professional -- her actions would make me suspect that this was not a student-led revolt, but quite the opposite).
I am wondering if Althouse should be censored.
Her words are literally violence and are causing many of us great harm.
At least by modern academic standards.
Read my update. I am supporting the dean.
You are out of your ever-lovin' mind. This is Maoism. Smuggled in via safetyism. The cult of safe spaces--safe for the left. That just happens to be what works at the moment, but gagging the opposition is the point. Permitting small, occasional exceptions, at the pleasure of the Party, is theatre.
Really, your support of this is outrageous.
These weak-minded young people make me both angry and sad. They are not strong enough to withstand and overcome what is coming. I don’t know the specifics about what’s coming - no one does - but I DO know it will be unspeakably bad.
Imagine a law professor at Stanford teaching a free speech class
and the students are interrupting her and screaming at her
and then this dean walks in and reads from a prepared text about how awful the professor is
would that be professional?
would it be appropriate?
or is it way the fuck out of line?
And the “associate Dean” is not helping them, she is coddling and giving the little darlings pats on their poo-poos.
Not helping.
"Who’s more nearly worthless, her or you...?"
Calling that wretch "worthless" is greatly exaggerating her actual value.
My assumption is that the law school dean (who skipped it!) and the law professors are under siege from the DEI class of administrators (i.e. the sweet-talking fascist brigade that runs Stanford now).
I listened to the Dean's entire speech. But once she validated the students feelings by asserting that the judge had caused them harm, the rest didn't matter. That was absolutely wrong. Subsequently mouthing some boilerplate mush about free speech does not negate the damage she caused from first agreeing with the students' grievances against the judge.
I've been reading this blog for almost 20 years. As a conservative lawyer, I really appreciate that this blog hasn't become just another right-wing "echo chamber" like Gateway Pundit and other so called conservative blogs. I may not agree with everything that Professor Althouse posts, but I like that she allows dissenting posts here, even from people that most posters here hate and personally ridicule every single day. As conservatives, we need to know what the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and other liberal media outlets are reporting. It seems like almost none of the commentators here ever read these media outlets, but just dismiss them outright as liars. My position is that sometimes these media outlets actually report the truth, and even if you disagree, it is important for you to know what the opposition is thinking and reporting. Althouse gives use this. I also note that there has been a real increase in genuine misogyny here. Some of it is directed at Professor Althouse. I hope it stops.
I wish to associate myself with the comments made by deepelemblues at 3:34 pm. Like the commenter, I consider the hostess’s ongoing justification for such obviously outrageous remarks and behavior of the Dean to be both condescending and transparently erroneous. Unfortunately, I’ve never read anything remotely like a mea culpa from her when it’s become obvious her opinion on a particular topic was not well founded. Very disappointing behavior in a legal professional.
From David Lat.
“ When the Stanford FedSoc president (an openly gay man) opened the proceedings, he was jeered between sentences. Judge Duncan then took the stage—and from the beginning of his speech, the protestors booed and heckled continually. For about ten minutes, the judge tried to give his planned remarks, but the protestors simply yelled over him, with exclamations like "You couldn't get into Stanford!" "You're not welcome here, we hate you!" "Why do you hate black people?!" "Leave and never come back!" "We hate FedSoc students, f**k them, they don't belong here either!" and "We do not respect you and you have no right to speak here! This is our jurisdiction!"
It's been a long time since I've seen Althouse ratioed this badly. I am supporting the general consensus of the group here. It appears to me that the Dean intended to pre-but the speaker and set up the circumstances to do so. She had a prepared speech and used the students actions as a pretext. Whether she coordinated with the students or not is unknown at this time, but I think in a few days we may find out that it was staged. I would not be surprised that the students were supposed to respond meekly to her request to make her appear the hero.
In my opinion, her real responsibility should have been to do as others here suggested. Chastise the students for unbecoming behavior, remind them what true learning means and even suggest they make a fun assignment about the event by having them produce papers that factually address what the speaker says. THAT is what a learning institution dean should say. I have a feeling that is what YOU might have told your students who might have whined and moaned in your class about some disfavored speaker.
Email from Dean at SLS. Nothing is going to happen.DEI Dean keeps her job despite planning this whole thing.
“ The school is reviewing what transpired and will work to ensure protocols are in place so that disruptions of this nature do not occur again, and is committed to the conduct of events on terms that are consistent with the disruption policy and the principles of free speech and critical inquiry they support.”
Judge Duncan, “ “I get the protesters, they are socialized into thinking the right approach to a federal judge you don’t agree with is to call him a f**ker and make jokes about his sex life. Awesome. I don’t care what they think about my sex life. But it took a surreal turn when the associate dean of DEI got up to speak…. She opens up her portfolio and lo and behold, there is a printed speech. It was a setup—and the fact that the administration was in on it to a certain degree makes me mad.”
Stanford Law students to a federal judge.
“You couldn't get into Stanford!" "You're not welcome here, we hate you!" "Why do you hate black people?!" "Leave and never come back!" "We hate FedSoc students, f**k them, they don't belong here either!" and "We do not respect you and you have no right to speak here! This is our jurisdiction!"
My great respect for Althouse notwithstanding, I think she's got this one all wrong. Jonathan Turley has it right, https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/11/is-the-juice-worth-the-squeeze-stanford-dei-dean-joins-mobs-in-denouncing-federal-judge-at-law-school-event/:
"... A video shows that the students prevented Duncan from speaking and the judge asked for an administrator to be called in to allow the event to proceed.
Dean Steinback then took the stage and, instead of demanding that the students allow for the event to proceed, Steinback launched into a babbling attack on the judge for seeking to be heard despite such objections. ...
... Free speech is now often portrayed as harmful and threatening to the safety of the community. Steinbach suggested that it was Judge Duncan who should be ashamed in trying to speak when others object to his views, including clearly herself.
Dean Steinbach then encouraged people who opposed Duncan to walk out in protest. Many did. That was not a problem. The problem was coming to the event to disrupt it. What is critical is that Steinbach was asked to step forward as an administrator to speak for the law school, not another protester.
The response to Steinbach’s shameful intervention was also all too familiar. MSNBC regular Elie Mystal defended the law students in preventing the judge from speaking. He called it conservative “victimization” and whining simply because the students are expressing themselves. ...
Cancel campaigns are now a common occurrence in schools ranging from Yale to Northwestern to Georgetown. Blocking others from speaking is not the exercise of free speech. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Nevertheless, faculty have supported such claims. ...
Stanford must now decide whether the “juice” of free speech is worth the “squeeze” of the mob. That distasteful juice mocked by Steinback is the very thing that defines and sustains higher education."
Althouse is defending insurrectionist kids. Now I understand 😉
Wa St Blogger: "Whether she coordinated with the students or not is unknown at this time, but I think in a few days we may find out that it was staged."
This has backfired so badly, despite Althouse's determined effort to put lipstick on this maoist piggery, that I fully expect a report shortly that the poor, put upon Dean has found a makeshift "noose" in her office as part, no doubt, of a large scale Stanford-Palo Alto-based MAGA-country White Supremacist rebellion against the "Brave And Courageous Woman Of Color". To be followed up with a minimum 27 FBI Agent Task Force assigned to "get to the bottom of it all".
After about 9 weeks we will hear of video footage of the perpetrator being reviewed by Stanford personnel followed by 6 months of silence followed by a quiet announcement by Stanford that the "investigation" has been resolved with no reported results and no further information available but, BUT, an additional $184M has been allocated from the Stanford Campus Police budget to the DEI department of Stanford in the name of EQUITY!
“The school is reviewing what transpired and will work to ensure protocols are in place so that disruptions of this nature do not occur again...."
LOL
The "protocols" guarantee the disruption that transpired will occur again. This type of treatment of non-maoist speakers at Stanford is now official policy and will be replicated over and over again.
I'm only surprised that Merrick Garland hasn't announced this incident will be added to the database of white supremacist violent actions on US college campuses.
Its shows how dumb the Right is, that instead of ADOPTING The language of the Left, they use this dumb "You're just a bunch of snowflakes" Rhetoric.
Christian students should be saying that THEY feel UNSAFE. And that their Leftwing professors are "Harming them". Why should they tolerate Anti-christian or anti-white rhetoric when others don't when its addressed to their religion/ethnic group? Everything the Left says, and what Jewish and Muslim students say, can be used by Christians.
But of course, asking Christian Whites to fight back is like expecting a herd of Deer to join together and drive out the wolf. That they outnumber 20-1. Never gonna happen.
DEI Dean keeps her job despite planning this whole thing.
Diversity [dogma] breeds adversity. Subversion from within is insidious.
That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion
I also note that there has been a real increase in genuine misogyny here. Some of it is directed at Professor Althouse. I hope it stops.
I have never read anyone here referring to women as "cum dumpsters" or anything similar. I have seen repeated references to men as "splooge stooges".
The only useful thing a University administrator can say to rowdy law school students who won't allow an appellate court judge to speak is
SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.
Kyle Duncan refuses to accommodate science deniers.
Well done, Kyle.
Jesus, Althouse! You defend any nutjob speaker that has a twat.
The desire for authoritarian control is strong in this one.
"ALSO: The judge was Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee. Here's his Wikipedia article where you will easily find material that explains the students' hostility."
Althouse's take on this episode was inevitable, IMO. Duncan has gored her particular ox. I do think that the report, if true, that the Dean read from prepared remarks might be cause for some reflection.
There was exactly one way for DIE Dean Steinbech, as well as a seemingly endless series of deans extending at least as far back as the Evergreen debacle, to handle this:
1. Read the student handbook policies regarding free speech
2. Announce that another failure to adhere to the handbook will result in immediate suspension for the rest of the semester, and the forfeiture of all fees.
3. And subsequent failures will be cause for expulsion with prejudice.
Having epically failed to do the obvious, the university president should have told Dean Steinbech that diversity and inclusion also applies to opinions. And equity is a morally bankrupt concept.
How you can defend Dean Steinbech, other than asking sympathy for someone clearly out of her moral and intellectual depth is a real mystery.
When I was in law school I would never thought of shouting down a judge I disagreed with. Its rude, unprofessional, and dumb.
I've finally seen the essence of the DEI Dean and all others, across all institutions, who hold DEI responsibilities. I have a simple equation: DEI = Political Commissars. And here I thought that the political commissars died with the collapse of the USSR.
I think the dean handled the situation well
Apparently the leadership at Stanford agrees with us and not Althouse: Link
"In addition, 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."
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/11/stanford-president-and-stanford-law-school-dean-apologize-to-judge-kyle-duncan/
Stanford President and Dean issue an apology to Judge Duncan. Women and children hurt worst.
Ann, this post should get your "r"tag -- whatever it means!
I honor you for responding to the commenters, and then allowing them to have their say in this section, even those who are not totally respectful.
If the students had let the speaker speak, and then asked him hard questions in the Q-and-A, every law professor in the world would be happy. That's what you want!
Imagine some hacker seizing the Althouse blog and not allowing her to speak. And the hacker says all sorts of offensive things about Althouse. And then some "nice lady" from Blogger takes over the Althouse blog. And she tells the room that Althouse is partially to blame because her blog makes "our community" feel unsafe.
It's Stasi as shit.
Apology made and accepted.
According to Ed Whelan in National Review, the President of Stanford University and the Dean of Stanford Law School have written a joint letter of apology to the judge, saying, inter alia, 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.” So it seems that they do not agree with AA’s assessment of the Stanford Law DEI Vice Dean.
quote: the schools' interest in making students feel valued and supported
Socrates would have lasted about ten minutes in this group. Come to think of it, it was because he valued truth over hurt feelings that causee them to kill him.
If the University wants to make this right, the path there seems simple to me; expel the students who were rude to the invited speaker and fire the Dean who backed ‘em up.
This has probably already been posted, but I think it puts to rest any thoughts that the DEI administrator and other Stanford swells in attendance were in the wrong.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/11/stanford-president-and-stanford-law-school-dean-apologize-to-judge-kyle-duncan/
It appears that the President of Stanford and the Dean of the School of Law do not share Althouse’s evaluation of the performance of Associate Dean Steinbach. Here is their letter of apology to Judge Duncan:
Dear Judge Duncan,
We write to apologize for the disruption of your recent speech at Stanford Law School. As has already been communicated to our community, what happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus.
We are very clear with our students that, given our commitment to free expression, if there are speakers they disagree with, they are welcome to exercise their right to protest but not to disrupt the proceedings. Our disruption policy states that students are not allowed to "prevent the effective carrying out" of a "public event" whether by heckling or other forms of interruption.
In addition, 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. [My rmphasis]
We are taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again. Freedom of speech is a bedrock principle for the law school, the university, and a democratic society, and we can and must do better to ensure that it continues even in polarized times.
With our sincerest apologies again,
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Ph.D.[,] President and Bing Presidential Professor
Jenny Martinez[,] Richard E. Lang Professor of Law & Dean of Stanford Law School
Judge Duncan’s response combined graciousness with a hard-nosed “show me” attitude:
I appreciate receiving Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne's and Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez's written apology for the disruption of my speech at the law school. I am pleased to accept their apology.
I particularly appreciate the apology's important acknowledgment 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." Particularly given the depth of the invective directed towards me by the protestors, the administrators' behavior was completely at odds with the law school's mission of training future members of the bench and bar.
I hope a similar apology is tendered to the persons in the Stanford law school community most harmed by the mob action: the members of the Federalist Society who graciously invited me to campus. Such an apology would also be a useful step towards restoring the law school's broader commitment to the many, many students at Stanford who, while not members of the Federalist Society, nonetheless welcome robust debate on campus.
Finally, the apology promises to take steps to make sure this kind of disruption does not occur again. Given the disturbing nature of what happened, clearly concrete and comprehensive steps are necessary. I look forward to learning what measures Stanford plans to take to restore a culture of intellectual freedom.
"Apparently the leadership at Stanford agrees with us and not Althouse."
Well, that's totally unexpected. I wonder what's up?
It was like the Sopranos when Tony tries to act like the kind voice of reason to “smooth over” all threats Paulie and Christopher made against an extortion target. Tony sounds reasonable compared to the threat of violence. But the only reason Tony sounds reasonable is because of the threat of violence.
This dean orchestrated this entire thing. She wanted to make a point. He wanted to force the judge to hear it. She used her students as a thug mafia to get what she wanted. Maybe if they wore brown shirts or declared their loyalty to the CCCP, it would be more apparent to you.
I guarantee if this happened to a DEI speaker, the conservative protesters would be kicked out of school and likely arrested.
"I particularly appreciate the apology's important acknowledgment 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." Particularly given the depth of the invective directed towards me by the protestors, the administrators' behavior was completely at odds with the law school's mission of training future members of the bench and bar."
From Judge Duncan's acceptance of the apologies of the president of Stanford University and the dean of the Stanford Law School.
Well, Althouse, someone else might agree that I am not worthless. Shame on you.
I see the "adults" at Stanford have now apologized. Ann?
Eva Marie said... (in response to my earlier comment of why people keep trying to speak a colleges)
"When conservatives make speeches or create events that lefties disagree with, the common response is: why are conservatives even making these speeches? Why don’t they just keep quiet?"
No, I did not say "keep quiet". I wondered why bother with college venues when there are a plethora of other ways to get you speech out. Hell, at least, have a pre-recorded version so that when the university admin supports the students shutting down the speech, you post the web link for those who were there to hear the talk. Or, do as Jordan Peterson said he does, schedule the event for 8am when the toddlers are still sleeping in.
I think it would be hilarious if a pre-recorded version was substituted to circumvent the toddlers. I'm no expert on toddlers, but I do know when something stops working, they stop acting up since they aren't getting the desired response.
Using Wikipedia as a source for anything political is like a defense attorney accepting the prosecutor's evidence just as he presents it.
Look up news organizations and political figures and notice how conservative are describe, and compare them to how the left leaning ones are. Example: Read their article on Fox News or Newsmax, then compare with how CNN is described. One is biased, extreme, conservative or right wing and the other is just a news organization. The articles on individuals are even worse.
Free speech has no purpose if you don't listen to people you disagree with. Without it, you are simply dumber, and apparently some people are fine with that.
" If you can’t or won’t keep that straight I’m not interested in what you’re writing."
First, this is not a classroom. We are not commenting to get the teacher's approval.
Second, if there is ever a time to not be interested in what someone is saying, it's when they shout down someone who they invited to speak to them, and insult and demean them instead.
This seems pretty simple if you want to get somewhere other than just chaos, and barbarism.
" the schools' interest in making students feel valued and supported"
Who here thinks that's really the problem, or that they would ever be satisfied. There is no power for the undisciplined in that kind of admission. These students are using the feminine strategy of power: always be dissatisfied with what you get, but pretend it's not simply your decision.
"I'm only surprised that Merrick Garland hasn't announced this incident will be added to the database of white supremacist violent actions on US college campuses."
The weekend has just started, it's still early...
Well, well, well..... https://twitter.com/sfmcguire79/status/1634702924201750535/photo/1
Althouse,
"Read my update. I am supporting the dean"
That's reprehensible.
It would be sensible to support the dean, if the dean's remarks had been made in response to students who had requested a meeting in the dean's office, to express their opposition to the judge being invited to speak.
But in response to their brownshirt / maoist actions? They deserve immediate expulsion, nothing less; and the dean should go be assistant manager of a department at Walmart, or maybe a greeter.
"It should be noted that protesters had put up posters with the pictures and names of FedSoc members during the days leading up to this in an attempt to intimidate them."
The lefty students claim to be threatened by the Judge's opinions, while perpetuating actual threats upon the safety of the conservative students. Charming.
Big Mike @ 8:16: Thanks for posting the apology letter and the Judge’s reply. They form book-ends to a squalid and frightening incident at what used to be a great school.
The apology letter was workmanlike. It sets forth the obvious and necessary admission of failure to adhere to the promised standard of conduct, and in partial recompense to the Judge —and to *all* who care about freedom of speech and the rule of law— it offers a new promise: to do better, in unambiguous and observable ways.
Yes: IMHO that’s what the usual unctuous blather —“mistakes were made! A review will occur!”— is intended to signal.
The Judge’s reply was gracious and, key point, he accepted the apology. And then he made his bigger move; that made his letter not just good but great. He took the apology and cashed it in and gave the proceeds to the right people: stating his hope that a similar apology be extended to all the Fed Soc students and to all the many unsung members of the wider law school community who value —who are right to expect— free speech and civil debate.
And the Judge didn’t leave it there. He ended on the best possible note: treating the school’s apology as more than the empty bullshit its authors might have hoped to sell. He said he’ll be watching with interest to see what the school does “to restore a culture of intellectual freedom.” Paraphrasing freely, he is saying “Stanford, you are in deep trouble here and all your fine words are not enough. You have lost the jewel in your crown —intellectual freedom— and if you do not restore it you are lost. I will not abandon you. I will be watching you with ‘tough love’—looking for tangible and specific and sustainable evidence that you have truly changed.”
"Intimidation of conservative Supreme Court Justices, including protests at their homes, has normalized intimidation of conservative jurists. It’s no surprise that it has trickled down to elite law schools and an attack on Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan."
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/03/stanford-law-student-shout-down-reflects-normalization-of-intimidation-of-conservative-judges/
This juice >is< worth the squeeze.
Thanks for the rip-roaring robust content here, Althouse blog!
Stanford Law issued an an apology to the Judge, which is appropriate. The Dean finally came around to reinforcing the idea of free speech, but she sure took the long way around the barn. It's simple. You're in law school. Lawyers listen to the opposition in order to form an argument.
Clearly, the comments have gotten to Althouse. Wicked burn.
Is social credit awarded for being vulnerable to main stream political and cultural themes? If a guy breaks down in tears because the latest Maverick/Top Gun movie is showing nearby more likely to get laid?
What is the point of faking immaturity?
We're H.Sap. We spent a million years coming up the hard way and now the great predators are extinct, or nearly so.
We are not this weak. It has to be a put-on.
Part of the apology received:
"In addition, 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."
Ann excuses this disgraceful incident by the assertion (made without evidence as those of that ilk are inclined to say) that the balm of the DIE Dean's words allowed the event to continue.
That's not what the Powerline report says: "Judge Duncan then tried to continue with the event, but further disruptions, I’m told, brought a quick end to it." The Washington Free Beacon, which actually practised journalism by interviewing the judge, reported on what happened after the DIE Dean's intervention: "Eventually, one of the leaders of the protest instructed the students to "tone down the heckling slightly so we can get to our questions," a video obtained by the Free Beacon shows. So began a contentious question and answer session between Duncan, who never got to read his prepared remarks, and his critics, who continued to disrupt and jeer as he spoke." That's very, very different from Ann's sanitised account.
Honest fact checkers would rate Ann's post as "mostly false".
The exemplary standard in support of free speech is willingness to defend the right of your opposition to speak against actual violence, not a claim that you are suffering because you have to allow the speech as a matter of an official policy.
"lonejustice" should change his username to "whiteknight"
Known Unknown: "lonejustice" should change his username to "whiteknight"'
You haven't seen anything yet. Check out the first comment on the Sunrise 6:19 thread.
I think the dean handled the situation well.
You are wrong
The correct way for a school administrator to handle the situation is to tell the students to sit down and shut up, or else lave.
Tolerance doesn't mean you like the speaker, or agree with the speaker. Academic freedom doesn't mean that you must agree with the positions presented
But both REQUIRE that you allow people you disagree with to be able to talk to those who wish to listen.
You have a right not to listen. You do not have the right to prevent other people from listening
That is what the students were doing, and that is that Tirien Steinbach is supporting.
That talk was not her time to shoot of her worthless mouth about her stupid and evil positions. She stole the time of Kyle Duncan, and of all the people who came to listen to Kyle Duncan, to harass and bully them.
When Kyle Duncan is giving a talk, you are free not to come and listen. you are free to come and listen, and then challenge Kyle Duncan during the Q & A.
What you are not allowed to do, what no moral or decent person would ever do, is come there and sabotage or hijack Kyle Duncan speaking time.
The evil students did the first, Tirien Steinbach did the second.
Both should be punished
Responding to him and needing to manage a noisy group of students, she spoke in a "thinking out loud" way that openly considered various factors: the protesting students' passion and outrage
Your "passion and outrage" are meaningless bullshit, and no one else should ever care about it, or pander to it in any way.
Certainly not at a law school, where either what matters is reason and logic, or you've abandoned the law and replaced it with mob rule
Stop endorsing mob rule
Hare's another justice appointed by Trump. Does our esteemed host also excuse the issues raised in this post?
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/12/deep-in-the-heart-of-amarillo/
moral of the story: some are more equal than others.
Althouse wrote:
So many factual misstatements!
I can’t address them all, but I do want to highlight that I did not say anything about the students’ behavior. I only said it’s easy to understand why they are hostile to him.
So what? Their hatred of them entitles them to not attend his talk.
Their hatred of him does not entitle them to block his free speech. But you pretend that it does when you talk about their hatred of him in the context of the fascistic attack on his free speech.
You of all people know that words and arguments matter.
No one makes excuses for behavior they actually find indefensible. So by offering up the excuse that "they really hate him", you are defending their behavior.
So here the misstatement is clearly on your side
I don’t like their shouting down the speaker, but
There's no "but". Either you find it wrong, or you don't. Since you're making excuses for it, you clearly dont' find it wrong.
that’s an issue I wasn’t writing about.
When you chose to make excuses for their behavior, you were clearly writing about it, and clearly CHOSAE to write about it.
No one stuck a gun to your head and forced you to write about why their hatred was
"justified"
I chose to write about the Dean. If you can’t or won’t keep that straight I’m not interested in what you’re writing.
The Dean defending their actions, and defended the intent of their actions, which was to silence any view she disagrees with
The Dean worked with those students, getting them to harass the speaker so that she could them come up with her prepared remarks to harass the speaker some more
If you're trying to pretend that the Dean was not intimately tied in with the students actions, you're pretending to be incredible stupid, which we know you aren't.
You can't honestly write about the Dean and her actions, without also dealing with the fact that it all came about because of the student harassment.
You could have simply wrote: the student harassment was wrong, and I totally oppose it.
You didn't. Instead you blamed the victim, writing that the judge deserved the hatred of the thug students.
And yes, it is entirely reasonable for us to look at that and see it as you defending the students
https://stanfordreview.org/fire-tirien-steinbach/
And she ended by encouraging the protests: “I’m really grateful to be in this institution. I look out and I don’t ask ‘what is going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I'm glad this is going on here.’”
Were you unaware of her saying that? Because you defended her, and she celebrated the Brownshirt students preventing the invited speaker from speaking.
You defended her, saying that what she said was appropriate. Well, one of the things she said was that she was happy her Borwnshirts were blocking the invited speaker from being able to speak.
Since you did not explicitly condemn that part of her statement, it's entirely reasonable for the rest of us to state that you were defending the students' actions, just like she was.
The only misstatements here are on your side
sorry I have not gone through the hundreds of comments. Anne, this dean asked the speaker if his opinions were so important that it was worth the emotional damage they were causing. If you think this was the right way for the dean to respond, I am disappointed in you.
Post a Comment