March 18, 2023

Judge Duncan's Wall Street Journal column: "My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School."

Link.
Stanford Law School’s website touts its “collegial culture” in which “collaboration and the open exchange of ideas are essential to life and learning.” Then there’s the culture I experienced when I visited Stanford last week.... 
When I arrived, the walls were festooned with posters denouncing me for crimes against women, gays, blacks and “trans people.” Plastered everywhere were photos of the students who had invited me and fliers declaring “You should be ASHAMED,” with the last word in large red capital letters and a horror-movie font. This didn’t seem “collegial.” Walking to the building where I would deliver my talk, I could hear loud chanting a good 50 yards away, reminiscent of a tent revival in its intensity. Some 100 students were massed outside the classroom as I entered, faces painted every color of the rainbow, waving signs and banners, jeering and stamping and howling.  As I entered the classroom, one protester screamed: “We hope your daughters get raped!”

It was a big protest, generated by the real human beings the law school had assembled as its student body, not propaganda on the institution's website. It's real life, like the life experienced beyond the courthouse and beyond the law school, and it's not that polite. You know, it's also not polite to put "trans people" in quotation marks. It's a more polished form of incivility, but law students have long protested about the way law dresses up and glosses over injustice.

Of course, “We hope your daughters get raped!” is crude and ugly, but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges, and now, in America, a woman who has been raped may be forced to endure a pregnancy from that rape. In that context, “We hope your daughters get raped!” means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you.

I had been warned a few days before about a possible protest. But Stanford administrators assured me they were “on top of it,” that Stanford’s policies permitted “protest but not disruption.” They weren’t “on top of it.”

Yes. The school failed him. Not only did the website promise collegiality, administrators, it seems, directly promised conditions that he relied on. You could parse their promise. What does it mean to be "on top of it"? What is "it"? They didn't say they would stop the protest. The students had a right to protest. The line was drawn at disruption, and where's the line between protest and disruption? Can we have a collegial debate about that? I'll bet we can't!

Before my talk started, the mob flooded the room. Banners unfurled. Signs brandished: “FED SUCK,” “Trans Lives Matter” (this one upside down), and others that can’t be quoted in a family newspaper. A nervous dog—literally, a canine—was in the front row, fur striped with paint....

Speaking of empathy... don't bring a dog into a noisy, chaotic scene. And don't paint your dog. I wonder what size and breed. It is dangerous to everyone to have a "nervous dog" in a place like that, and it's cruel to the dog.

When the Federalist Society president tried to introduce me, the heckling began.... Try delivering a speech while being jeered at every third word. This was an utter farce, a staged public shaming. I stopped, pleaded with the students to stop the stream of insults (which only made them louder), and asked if administrators were present. Enter Tirien Steinbach, associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion. 
Ms. Steinbach and (I later learned) other administrators were watching from the periphery. She hadn’t introduced herself to me. She asked to address the students. Something felt off. I asked her to tell the students their infantile behavior was inappropriate.

One could hardly expect the dean for diversity, equity and inclusion to take the judge's instruction and call the students babies. She had a lot of interests to mediate and an important, ongoing relationship with the students. 

She insisted she wanted to talk to all of us. Students began screaming, and I reluctantly gave way. Whereupon Ms. Steinbach opened a folio, took out a printed sheaf of papers, and delivered a six-minute speech addressing the question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” What could that mean?

It's impossible for Wall Street Journal readers to guess what that could mean. It's out of context. Metaphors look weird when you don't know what they refer to. Clearly, it's questioning whether some effort is worth what you get from it. It's not that weird.

While the students rhythmically snapped, Ms. Steinbach attempted to explain. My “work,” she said, “has caused harm.” It “feels abhorrent” and “literally denies the humanity of people.” My presence put Ms. Steinbach in a tough spot, she said, because her job “is to create a space of belonging for all people” at Stanford. She assured me I was “absolutely welcome in this space” because “me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech.” 
I didn’t feel welcome—who would? And she repeated the cryptic question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

It's not that hard to understand, and you've deprived readers of the context. Steinbach's remarks made sense and dealt with the relationship between the speaker and the protesters that she needed to manage. She told him he was "absolutely welcome in this space," but he wants us to care about his feelings — he didn't feel welcome — but the students had their feelings too. Steinbach stood in a crossfire of feelings, and she did well enough.

I asked again what she meant, and she finally put the question plainly: Was my talk “worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes?” 
Again she asserted her belief in free speech before equivocating: “I understand why people feel like the harm is so great that we might need to reconsider those policies, and luckily, they’re in a school where they can learn the advocacy skills to advocate for those changes.”

That is, Steinbach acknowledged that there are different legal positions that are taken about free speech and this, too, is a subject for debate in law school. That is certainly true. Free speech rights could be lost if people don't believe in their value. It's not that difficult to articulate the arguments for limitations on free speech. Those of us who care about free speech rights need to be vigilant. They've been under attack for centuries, and they are under attack right now, from people, like those students, who would characterize some spoken words as a physical injury.

Then she turned the floor back over to me, while hoping I could “learn too” and “listen through your partisan lens, the hyperpolitical lens.”

That sentence needs editing to put "hoping" closer to "she," but you can figure it out. She told him that she hoped he could not just talk to the students and teach them but listen to them and learn from them. She accused him of being political — hyperpolitical

In closing, she said: “I look out and I don’t ask, ‘What’s going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here.’ ”

She was suggesting that protesting be seen in a positive light. Perhaps somehow the judge could have taken a lighthearted tone — I love protests! I was a student protester myself and I know how it feels to be righteously angry, etc. etc. — and connected it back to the things he came prepared to say. There was a path in that direction, but it was a road not taken.

This is on video, and the entire event is on audio, in case you’re wondering....

I've heard the audio. The judge becomes impassioned, and he expresses a good amount of hostility toward the students. As a law professor (retired), I can't imagine openly expressing hostility toward students who were aiming hostility at me. I lock into professor mode, mostly because I believe I have a duty to care for the students but also because I think a dispassionate, professional demeanor is more effective — especially when your interlocutors are highly emotional. Set the right example, and maybe they will meet you where you can coexist in something approaching conversation. 

Two days later, Jenny Martinez and Marc Tessier-Lavinge, respectively the law school’s dean and the university’s president, formally apologized, confirming that protesters and administrators had violated Stanford policy. I’m grateful and I accepted. 
The matter hasn’t dropped, though. This week, nearly one-third of Stanford law students continued the protest—donning masks, wearing black, and forming a “human corridor” inside the school... protesting Ms. Martinez for having apologized to me....

I don't think it was right to apologize for what Steinbach did. And I think the students had the right to protest. If they crossed the line into disruption, Martinez (and Tessier-Lavinge) should specify exactly where that happened. And they ought to apologize for the institution's failure to do enough to prevent the disruption or to deal with it quickly. 

The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion.

I don't think the students needed to limit themselves to "legal discourse." This wasn't the courtroom or the classroom. They were protesting, going outside of the "legal discourse" that the judge would have preferred. Protesting is an old tradition, and it's important, though sometimes rude and ugly. The students seem to have thought — with some reason — that judges like Duncan deserve to be made to feel ashamed of themselves and they went into the familiar theatrical protest style we Americans have loved and hated for so many years.  

That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker.

He keeps calling students "the mob." Where's the love? These are our young people. They did not commit violence or threaten imminent violence, so there was no occasion to protect him, as First Amendment law is traditionally understood. There's no First Amendment right not to be heckled! And calling the speaks "the mob" doesn't take away their rights. 

Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.

She wanted the students to know that the First Amendment — which Stanford, though private, is bound to follow —  is subject to interpretation and they may apply their legal skills to working to develop strong exceptions to free speech. Ironically, Duncan is arguing for a strong exception to free speech if he means to say that the students may not shout him down. 

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior.

All right, then. He stands by his angry expressions. As I said, I would not, as a law professor, talk to students that way. But he wants the freedom to lean into anger. That puts him on the same page with them. Whatever happened to "the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse."

There's a lot of fog here!

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
RideSpaceMountain said...

"reminiscent of a tent revival in its intensity."

Yes. It is a religion.

BruceWilliswelcometothepartypal.jpeg

2yellowdogs said...

"but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges"

Really? How. By what judges? Bruen just reaffirmed that individual right in the strongest possible terms. Everyone, man or woman, has the right to keep and bear the tools necessary to do so. Looking forward to your answer.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

The students are immature coddled brat assholes.

You can get any abortion you want in CA.

wendybar said...

The students WERE an angry MOB. Period. If you love protesters, you should be ashamed at the way some protesters are being treated in the DC gulag. THEY were voicing their disapproval of the stolen election. There were no fires set. No cars turned over and no police deaths...only 4 deaths of Trump supporters...2 by the Capitol police officers. This is getting stupid. The students should be reprimanded. They will continue to act like 2 year olds having tantrums, because they know they can get away with it. When the turnabout happens, and it is the woke professors who start getting heckled...things will change.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

"She told him that he hoped he could not just talk to the students and teach them but listen to them and learn from them."

So much to learn from the yelling screaming micro-ragers raging at you.

Rit said...

Fantastic. A great demonstration of how a lawyer can provide a dispassionate defense for nearly anyone or anything.

hawkeyedjb said...

"... law students have long protested about the way law dresses up and glosses over injustice."

If the protesters were able to articulate and argue against the "injustice" they see, that would be nice - then they could be thought of as law students. But all they seem able to do is shout and scream "I want it my way!" How is their understanding of the world better than that of a six-year old?

Achilles said...

He keeps calling students "the mob." Where's the love? These are our young people. They did not commit violence or threaten imminent violence, so there was no occasion to protect him, as First Amendment law is traditionally understood. There's no First Amendment right not to be heckled! And calling the speaks "the mob" doesn't take away their rights.

You are just being dishonest and continuing your Maoist quest in bad faith.

The violence has occurred numerous places and it is implied by the open hatred and intolerance that is openly displayed on college campuses. They are getting people fired from jobs for disagreeing with them. This movement has attacked thousands of people with no repercussions because it is supported by the State regime.

They are openly censoring disagreeing opinions.

They are arresting dissidents and torturing them in jail.

They are spending billions of dollars to destabilize and corrupt our elections.

Steinbech is a Maoist leader. These students are violent anti-freedom Maoist shitheads that serve a corrupt illegitimate regime.

You can’t be honest about this incident because it was obviously a set up struggle session. You ban people from this blog for a fraction of what happened to this judge.

Stop being dishonest and go look in a mirror.

holdfast said...

“Of course, “We hope your daughters get raped!” is crude and ugly, but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges, and now, in America, a woman who has been raped may be forced to endure a pregnancy from that rape. In that context, “We hope your daughters get raped!” means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you.”

Ok, now it makes sense. Conservative judges “deserve” this because Roe.

Roger that, message received.

Reddington said...

There’s a reason why abortion protestors are made to stand a certain distance away from the clinic entrance. There is freedom of speech for the protestors, but there’s also freedoms for the employees, those seeking the services, the “chaperones”, the counter-protestors, etc. The illiberal left seems to have forgotten all this and instead insists that their “freedom to speech” means shouting down so loud and disruptively that nobody else can exercise theirs. Preventing others from exercising their rights is the point of these kinds of activities. Everyone needs to do better not tolerating this behavior or else this just devolves into each side becoming more aggressive in interfering with the others rights.

Jim K said...

"The students had a right to protest."

Stanford is a private school, not subject to the first amendment. Whatever privileges students may have to protest or even disrupt is determined by Stanford, no? Calling it a right is misleading.

William said...

Can someone explain what Judge Duncan has done to merit such outrage? As I understand it, he remanded some transsexual to a men's rather than a female prison. That's a position I can agree with. The outrage on the part of the students seems disproportionate to the offense. Judge Duncan's outrage, by contrast, seems rather muted. Not quite collegial, but debate club impassioned......How does your reasoning fit in with those who wish to protest outside of abortion facilities?

tim maguire said...

That puts him on the same page with them

No, it doesn’t. “Attack” and “self-defense” are not synonyms and the rules for each are dramatically different. As someone suggested to you what seems like ages ago, it’s time to stop digging.

rehajm said...

While Ann chooses to obsess over the free speech rights of the students within the classroom with this Old Woman Yells at Cloud post, will she choose censor the other free speech issues entangled in this event?...

- The Federalist students names were printed on Wanted!-style posters around campus
- There were calls for the rape of the judge's family members durning the hazing gamut the judge had to endure
- While demanding anonymity the classroom students are threatening a journalist and his paper for publishing their names.

Dave Begley said...

“ I had been warned a few days before about a possible protest. But Stanford administrators assured me they were “on top of it,” that Stanford’s policies permitted “protest but not disruption.” They weren’t “on top of it.”

It was a trap; an ambush. Stanford planned the whole thing and tricked the Judge into going.

The Stanford people were probably hoping that the Judge would say something stupid and they would “win.”

The Stanford people LIED to a federal judge. They did nothing to stop the disruptions. For that alone, heads must roll.

lane ranger said...

The best part of this article, contra Althouse's take, is Judge Duncan's quote that sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior. For too long, the left has shouted down people with whom they disagree, and violence has been used and excused in the cause of shutting down conservatives. Enough. Trump taught us to fight back, and even the minor resistance demonstrated by Judge Duncan is better than the submission that is demanded by our leftist overlords. Fighting back is the real reason that Trump, and now Desantis, are hated by all good leftists. This is not an argument about free speech and the limits of protest. Rather, it is a fight against the facist left and their goal of shutting down all dissent from their orthodoxy of the day. Thank God for people like Elon Musk and J.K. Rowling.

actual items said...

I don't have a whole lot to add to this ongoing saga here at this blog. (I'm probably in the camp that thinks Duncan could have handled himself better but am much more critical of Steinbach than Althouse is.)

But I feel compelled to add, I work in corporate finance for one of the largest companies in the U.S. and "is the juice worth the squeeze?" or "is the view worth the climb?" is stated by someone AT LEAST once per week, often more.

Pretty standard corporate shorthand for, "sure, there are a lot of analyses we could spend a lot of our time on, let's think through what the result of the analysis could be and if the results would change our go forward courses of action in any meaningful way before we spend limit resources on this thing that seems important but upon reflection isn't all that important."

melk said...

There is that metaphor about the hole and the digging......

rehajm said...

You know, it's also not polite to put "trans people" in quotation marks

You don't know if the judge was making a distinction between trans people and people who are pretending to be trans. I suspect NYT and WaPo didn't tell you but there are psychopaths intent on committing violent crimes who game the legal the system with transgender status in order to obtain lighter sentences and access to women's prisons (for a variety of reasons)...

Owen said...

Wait…putting “trans people” in quotes is impolite?

OMG, I had no idea. I thought that quote marks were how we draw attention to a word or phrase, because it’s novel or special and we don’t want it to be overlooked or misunderstood. But you seem to be saying that putting the word “trans” in quotes is tantamount to “otherizing” the people to whom the “trans” attribute is attached?

Interesting. It’s a handy move, though, when you want to undermine your opponent. Never mind what he’s trying to say; instead start carping about the hurtfulness of his quote marks…

Dave Begley said...

Is the juice worth the squeeze?

The students should have sat quietly and listened to the words from a judge they disagreed with. Then ask pointed, Socratic questions so that there is a free exchange of ideas and actual learning. IOW, a normal law school class.

Ann, you taught for decades in that manner. So, yes, the juice is worth the squeeze when the students observe the norms of Western civilization and what is expected of future lawyers. Just imagine you teaching your constitutional law class with the students heckling you.

I lost my TRO hearing on Friday. The judge clearly exceeded her authority and ordered my client to turn personal property over. I didn’t scream at her and my client will obey. That’s how we do things in a society that follows the Rule of Law.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Iman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lawlizard said...

I appreciate your legal critique but you sound like a defense attorney. I think the right is shining on a light on the situation not to say can you legally do these things, but on what planet is this the cream of the crop. These people are rotten selfish hypocritical garbage human beings. They are not persuasive, they are elite and yet claim to be victims. No one wants a victim for a lawyer. Further the light is shined on the school to say what legal education are you providing if your students don’t understand the basics of persuasion, legal debate and respect for the legal institutions they will have to swear an oath to in order to be an attorney. What a waste of money to go to this law school and not come out the other end as a functioning lawyer or even a functioning person.

Birches said...

@rehajm

Don't forget the students who made those wanted posters are now threatening to sue because they're names have been printed in news articles detailing their behavior. Sounds like they have a great grasp of the law.

stonethrower said...

"Of course, “We hope your daughters get raped!” is crude and ugly, but ..." BUT? There is NO "but."

rehajm said...

Really? How. By what judges? Bruen just reaffirmed that individual right in the strongest possible terms. Everyone, man or woman, has the right to keep and bear the tools necessary to do so. Looking forward to your answer.

Don't hold your breath. She's busy defending the mob...

Kevin said...

For those keeping score.

Reasons to overturn the Constitution:

1. Racism
2. Trump
3. Roe

~ Gordon Pasha said...

Wondering if our host ever invited an out side speaker of a disfavored political opinion and then sand bagged them like J Duncan was when they showed up

deepelemblues said...

Another cogent defense of barbarism from the professor.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...


It's hurtful.... for precious close-minded coddled leftists to sit and listen to something they disagree with and be expected to be respectful and formulate a coherent dissenting response. Come on, man -this is modern law skoooool.

Lucien said...

If you’re proud of what you’re doing, you don’t do it wearing a mask, and you don’t mind being identified. (They seem to think it’s perfectly fine to identify Fed. Soc. classmates who invited Duncan (sooo collegial)).
These protesters should trumpet their struggle against injustice on their resumes, with a link to video and audio of Duncan’s speech.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

William - I have the same question.

Men in prison are realizing they can switch to women, and be moved to a woman's prison. What a fantastic loophole, you haters.

Aught Severn said...

If the protestors claim that they have been handed by his speech, the implication is that speech is violence, therefore the statement "They did not commit violence or threaten imminent violence" is not consistent in the context of this event as the protestors, by their expressed standard of speech causing harm, were causing harm to the judge and thus being violent. I suspect that the DEI dean is sympathetic to the viewpoint of speech causes harm, and so he words must also be interpreted in that context, to whit: she was addressing a violent group actively causing harm to an individual.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Gutfeld: How Stanford Law became a daycare center

Dave Begley said...

For some reason, Ann has a blind spot on this topic. Just like Purdue coach Matt Painter has with the NCAA tournament.

Old and slow said...

The student's behavior was indefensible. The more we learn about the whole event, the less inclined I am to give any consideration to the notion that their actions were acceptable. The administration has disgraced itself, and the students are a lost cause. And yes, putting scare quotes around "trans" is an entirely reasonable thing to do. It is insulting, yes, because it is telling the truth to delusional people rather than enabling them.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Good practice for those kids in the courtroom. All that is missing are the cement milk-shakes.

What we need is an Antifa Brown-shirt law skoool. Are you filled with unrelenting rage? you're in!

Amadeus 48 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

In that clip I like the spoiled leftist brat who yells out...

"YOUR RACISM IS SHOWING"

Classic.

Robert Marshall said...

A lot of the rage and fury directed at Judge Duncan stemmed from the overruling of Roe. ("I hope your daughter gets raped!")

As law students, they seem rather dim not to realize that the battle has moved to another field. Roe is over and done. It won't be a Constitutional rights battle ever again, at least not in our lifetimes. Stare decisis and all that.

It's a state legislative battle now, confined (from the lefty point-of-view) to those states where abortion-on-demand is not a popular cause. The battle centers on how late in pregnancy can you get one (ranging from 'just barely implanted' to 'already in labor'), and on what exceptions are allowed (rape, incest, medical danger to the mother, mental health danger, etc.)

With the battle shifted, why are abortion-favoring Stanford law students attacking someone as peripheral to that issue as a circuit court appeals judge? Are they really not that bright?

Breezy said...

The students (and the Dean) violated code of conduct rules when they disrupted the speaker. If they can’t follow basic rules, why are they in law school? Has this type of disruption repeatedly happened at Stanford already, and thus gave license to these students to ignore the code of conduct?

Randomizer said...

From that account, the dog is the only person who performed better than could be expected.

Judge Duncan should not have taken the bait to become emotional. He'd been to Stanford before and not had a problem, but he reads the news. Judge Duncan should have been prepared to act stoically professionally.

My presence put Ms. Steinbach in a tough spot, she said, because her job “is to create a space of belonging for all people” at Stanford.

Ms. Steinbach is in a tough spot because it isn't clear whether she is the associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion or the associate dean of DEI. If she is to promote diverse views and allow people like Judge Duncan to be included, then she should clearly explain the line between protest and disruption. If diverse views are to be heard, then disruption will not be tolerated. Instead, she is promoting DEI by taking the side of the students and disparaging Judge Duncan. Ms. Steinbach makes it clear that she is siding with the disruptive students when professionalism requires her to be viewpoint neutral and focus on the manner in which a protest can be conducted.

The students are acting poorly, but that is how Stanford and the culture has trained them to act.

Dogs and children should not be painted or taken to protests.

rehajm said...

He keeps calling students "the mob." Where's the love? These are our young people.

These are young people but not so young to lack the ability to understand their actions have consequences....and they deserve the consequences.

...are these people really going to go out in the world and become remarkable lawyers anywhere outside of a campus or the political strategy firms what ring DC?

Ann Althouse said...

"Stanford is a private school, not subject to the first amendment. Whatever privileges students may have to protest or even disrupt is determined by Stanford, no? Calling it a right is misleading."

Well, you are wrong and the post has a link in it to explain why Stanford is bound. Maybe you didn't read the whole post, but you ought to look for that link, read it, then come back and let us know you were wrong to say I was misleading.

Temujin said...

Jeez. You will go to lengths to make excuses for awful behavior, anti-civil, certainly non-collegial behavior. Why does just the act of activism hold such a high place in the minds of those on the left? I've never understood the high place people on the left have for just the term 'activist'. It's not a standard, unless you consider anarchy a standard. Sure, not all 'activists' are anarchists. But too many are, or encourage those who are.

Making exceptions for the proper use of "I hope your daughter gets raped" is certainly lowering the standards. To nothing. You talk about empathy? Who would have empathy for this kind of behavior, that kind of mean? Standards. You can intellectualize this away for The Cause?

That "...propaganda on the institution's website" is actually based on how that institution was started and how it worked, for over 130 years. It has always had 'different' thinkers. But until recent times, these differences were talked out, debated, listened to, thought about. Not anymore.

Today the standard is to know nothing about opposing views and the people who might espouse them, but...deny them the ability to speak, to have their say. Deny them being in your very presence. And it comes down to abortion. It always comes down to the right to kill the yet to be born (or in some states, the just born) in favor of the fully grown. I don't have the answer for abortion. But for Ms. Steinbach to use the phrase “literally denies the humanity of people" when fighting for the right to kill a human, well...the argument loses something.

Anyway, I'm up to my eyeballs with this entire thing and all of what passes for 'education' these days. You can go to bat for the universities and their approach, but they are nurturing and coddling anti-intellectualism, marketing it as 'new think' or enlightened thinking or...woke. They are teaching the anti-intellectualism, giving it degrees, sending it out into the world, into corporations, media, government, and wondering why everybody is seeing bits of their civilization go away.

It's by design. And it's done a bit at a time until we are so far down the wrong road we think inviting and shouting down, threatening a judge who came to share ideas with you, is the right and noble thing to do. Just up the road from Stanford is the City of San Francisco. I encourage any of you who have not been there in awhile, to go there. Check it out. This is the end product of what is approved at Stanford these days. Standards matter.

wendybar said...

Comment from Jonathan Turleys blog on the students being pissed off that their names are being published...

oldmanfromkansas says:March 18, 2023 at 8:51 AM
. . . 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.

Ann Althouse said...

Also note that the judge himself refers to the First Amendment and claims it protects him from what he calls "the mob," asserting a right not to experience disruptive heckling.

CStanley said...

Yes. The school failed him. Not only did the website promise collegiality, administrators, it seems, directly promised conditions that he relied on. You could parse their promise. What does it mean to be "on top of it"? What is "it"? They didn't say they would stop the protest. The students had a right to protest. The line was drawn at disruption, and where's the line between protest and disruption? Can we have a collegial debate about that? I'll bet we can't!

Agree that the school failed to uphold their end of the bargain and I’ve asked in other threads whether there’s potentially a contract violation to be litigated- particularly by the Federalist society if not also between the school and Duncan.

Regarding the line between protest and disruption, in this case the school’s published codes delineate several ways it was crossed. Those rules also carve out space for both speech and protest in such a way that speakers can actually be heard. This seems to be a line that many free speech defenders claim is the correct interpretation of the First Amendment, while Prof.Althouse simply says that

“There's no First Amendment right not to be heckled!”

That statement is undoubtedly true but inadequate in defining when heckling rises to the level of disruption so that the right to speak no longer includes the right to be heard. Some prominent 1st Amendment defenders like the folks at FIRE have clearly said that this right to be heard must exist if the 1st Amendment is to have any meaningful impact on discourse.

Old and slow said...

If I worked in an environment where the phrase "Is the juice worth the squeeze?" was used every week, I think I would be looking for another job.

Dave Begley said...

Ann:

Please cite case law authorizing heckling under the First Amendment.

Levi Starks said...

Looks like “cruel neutrality” has taken a holiday.

fairmarketvalue said...

Hmmm. It looks like my comment to the effect that Althouse should stop digging has been censored for some unstated reason. To which I must respond by observing that doubling down and tripling down are both not a good look and boring.

Spiros said...

The Stanford Law students are enraged by the judiciary's rightward shift. The conservative Court is deepening our democracy and reanimating the public sphere by returning controversial issues to the people. But these "kids" (actually 25-30 year old adults) know that our democracy will reject open borders and defund the police. Our democracy will reject abortion on demand and, maybe most troublesome of all, it will destroy affirmative action. Our elites can't win at the ballot box, so they turn to the courts first and, when that fails, to vengeance and coercion.

Also can we please stop with the rape nonsense. If 25% of college students believe they have been raped, then most of them are lying. Heck, these surveys find that 25% of college men believe they have been raped by women who don't respect their boundaries. What the hell?

Jon Burack said...

I am utterly astounded by the ongoing obsession here over this incident. Astounded, for instance, by sentences like this:

"Of course, “We hope your daughters get raped!” is crude and ugly, but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges..."

No judge anywhere in Ameria has taken away the right of anyone to "defend one's own body." The crudity of this manner of speaking is what I find so astounding. Equally astounding is the rest of this paragraph:

...and now, in America, a woman who has been raped may be forced to endure a pregnancy from that rape. In that context, “We hope your daughters get raped!” means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you."

Oh, is that what it means, Ann? How the heck do you know. To me, it sounds (and looks) as if what they meant was that they "hope his daughters get raped." I at least respect them enough to take them at their word. We have seen BLM demos in recent years with ACAB scrawled all over. Do they mean it? In fact, cops have been murdered in such contexts. I believe you have little idea what mob action does to people. Yes, this mob meant it. Good grief! Enough!

Yeah Right Sure said...

Shocking to all her readers that the professor (retired) favors Westboro Baptist argumentation tactics for causes she supports. Naive, I realize, to expect that senior university staff at a school of Stanford's status would demand that students absorb their adversaries' best argument.

The DIE dean did her students an immense disservice. What contrarian would ever agree now to go there and give them a Christopher Hitchens experience? (God but I miss the man.) Those little communists will spend $250,000 merely to have their shallow platitudes reinforced. None will possess the basic skill of advancing their client's best interest regardless of their own personal beliefs. Bravo.

rehajm said...

Stanford code of conduct has a provision to require compliance with laws and regulations and its contractual obligations. Threatening a federal judge's family is probably a crime isn't it? Does Ann's vigorous 1st Ad defense of student speech supersede criminal statutes and/or Stanford Code of Conduct remedies?

Prolly not something that interests Ann all that much. Boring...

rehajm said...

Agree that the school failed to uphold their end of the bargain and I’ve asked in other threads whether there’s potentially a contract violation to be litigated- particularly by the Federalist society if not also between the school and Duncan.

2. Standards of Integrity and Quality

Stanford recognizes that it must earn and maintain a reputation for integrity that includes, but is not limited to, compliance with laws and regulations and its contractual obligations. Even the appearance of misconduct or impropriety can be damaging to the University. Stanford must strive at all times to maintain the highest standards of integrity and quality.

There are times when Stanford's business activities and other conduct of its University Community members are not governed by specific laws or regulations. In these instances, rules of fairness, honesty, and respect for the rights of others will govern our conduct at all times.

In addition, each individual is required to conduct University business transactions with the utmost honesty, accuracy and fairness. Each situation needs to be examined in accordance with this standard. No unethical practice can be tolerated, even if such practice is "customary" outside of Stanford or even if some of the goals it serves are worthy. Expediency should never compromise integrity.


Yeah, right...

CStanley said...

“Of course, “We hope your daughters get raped!” is crude and ugly, but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges, and now, in America, a woman who has been raped may be forced to endure a pregnancy from that rape. In that context, “We hope your daughters get raped!” means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you.”

This paragraph is horrifying. And I’m sure everyone can see the hypocrisy in that a conservative unhappy about a left wing judge’s decisions would NEVER be defended for voicing a threat like that.

RMc said...

Jeez. You will go to lengths to make excuses for awful behavior, anti-civil, certainly non-collegial behavior.

It's abortion. That and teh gayz (tm) make our hostess lose all reason.

Oso Negro said...

Ok. Let’s accept the argument that this is all good. What consequences may be expected if a countering group of “Louder Shouters” begins to disrupt all left wing speech? Or stand right behind the lefty kids and scream in their ears? Pretty good for society, right?

planetgeo said...

Ann, honestly, as an admirer of your normally sharp logic, neutrality, and precision of language, your continued flailing here is disappointing. Your false equivalency logic, clearly partisan sympathies, and mischaracterized language ("heckling" - seriously?) in this matter are beneath your usual standards.

Mark said...

An incredible display of rigid thinking by most in this comment section, unable to admit a single point Ann made as it goes against your politics and the talking points you ingested.

But the need to mansplain never ends for some.

Maynard said...

Can someone explain what Judge Duncan has done to merit such outrage?

He is not a member of the liberal left tribe.

Although I appreciate Althouse's honesty as a liberal, she can be somewhat disingenuous in order to keep her tribal membership.

rhhardin said...

Ha. Scott Adams says the Washington Beacon published the names of the protestors and the protestors are pissed. A public protest at a public meeting isn't private. Good luck getting a job.

rehajm said...

The judge should have called the children's speech shitting on the blog, a form of free speech Ann does not defend...

Amadeus 48 said...

Here is Scott Johnson from Powerline with a different take than Althouse has, but using a Bob Dylan line:

"...we seek to publicize the ringleaders, perpetrators, and administrators involved in the shoutdown of Kyle Duncan at the March 9 Stanford Law School event sponsored by the school’s Federalist Society chapter. To borrow a phrase from Bob Dylan, we seek to tear the rag away from their face."

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Juice worth the squeeze?

The cliché among lawyers used to be game worth the candle.

It's a bit dated.

But so is squeezing because we all know juice comes from a box.

Whatever. I don't have a dog in that fight.

Mary Beth said...

I'm afraid I still do not see the point of protesting a judge, unless it's that they think judges should legislate from the bench. Challenge him as to why and how he came to his decisions. Criticize the language he uses that causes offense. This should be done during the question and answer period.

I do not see how one can teach empathy by showing a lack of empathy. Wishing the rape of anyone lacks empathy.

The school failed him? The school failed the students.

I keep being surprised that people have not heard/read the phrase "Is the juice worth the squeeze?". I thought it had been around long enough and used enough to become trite but it seems it's like internet memes - you might be familiar with one and think it's been done to death, but then your Aunt Betty shares it on FB and all of her friends think it's new and clever.

Tom T. said...

Ann, you do know that with all the heterodox things you've said over the years, these protesters would mark you as the enemy and you wouldn't be able to teach, right? It would be your face on flyers all over the school, like the Federalist Society members. The halls would be lined with angry, black-clad students when you walked to class. Students would be shouting the vilest and most personal insults at you when you spoke. And if you ever expressed the slightest hint of anger -- even the level of irritation you sometimes show in the comments here -- that would taken as proof that you lack the proper temperament for public discourse. I get that you're now committed to an internet tough-guy approach to this incident, but honestly I think it reflects a failure of empathy on your part.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

This is my favorite tidbit from Althouse's latest defense of the Red Guard:
"As a law professor (retired), I can't imagine openly expressing hostility toward students who were aiming hostility at me."
LOL...Is there anyone who has followed this blog over the years and witnessed Althouse in a pique over comments she didn't like or agree with who thinks this is the slightest bit true?

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

We can agree that the students can yell and scream at him.
But how absurd can you be, Ann.

Whatever happened to respectful dialog and debate - at a prestigious law school?
My word - those horrible students are not using their right to free speech as a tool for advancing their ideals - they are expressing low-level behavior and stereotypical Antifa-mob tactics unbecoming of law students.

Each and every one of those rage-filled students will hopefully drop out of the legal profession - or we are screwed.

dddave said...

Does this line of argument mean that, from this day forward, heckling and disrupting conservative (or maybe more precisely non-narrative) speakers is both condoned and encouraged? In not, what are the limits and how are they to be enforced?

Oso Negro said...

Stanford Louder Shouter Society - against free speech for everyone!

Oso Negro said...

Stanford University - we welcome all speakers with whom our students agree!

Ann Althouse said...

"Is there anyone who has followed this blog over the years and witnessed Althouse in a pique over comments she didn't like or agree with who thinks this is the slightest bit true?"

I said "I can't imagine openly expressing hostility toward students." Maybe you remember the time a commenter I was going back and forth with identified himself as one of my students and I told him at that point that I wouldn't exchange comments with him any more. There is a special duty that teachers have to students.

But I can't believe you don't notice how civilly I speak to people who are being hostile to me. In fact, when do I express hostility to the person? I mean I might tell you that you're wrong and you're not very observant, but I'm relentlessly civil in the comments, especially when attacked.

CStanley said...

But the need to mansplain never ends for some.

You do realize some of us are women, right?

Oso Negro said...

Stanford University - We support free thinking and free speech; just not yours.

JAORE said...

So the DEI associate Dean did her job?

She apparently was a participant in establishing the ambush.

She allowed the disruptive tactic to continue for 20 minutes before acting.

She presented HER point of view in a belligerent way to the invited speaker.

But Roe. But Trans. But Womenz.

Therefore all's fair, one supposes.

Once again demonstrating that diversity has nothing to do with diversity of viewpoints.

Professor, you called for the Judge to find magic words to get the protesters to shut up, sit down and listen. Keep trying, maybe you'll come up with the magic message that converts the vast majority of your audience.

Good luck.

CStanley said...

But I can't believe you don't notice how civilly I speak to people who are being hostile to me. In fact, when do I express hostility to the person? I mean I might tell you that you're wrong and you're not very observant, but I'm relentlessly civil in the comments, especially when attacked.

I agree and commend Althouse for this.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm also completely free to moderate out anything. Look at these comments just in this one post. I didn't have to approve any of them.

And you who are into the judge's "right" to be treated with respect, why aren't you more respectful to me?

rehajm said...

But I can't believe you don't notice how civilly I speak to people who are being hostile to me. In fact, when do I express hostility to the person? I mean I might tell you that you're wrong and you're not very observant, but I'm relentlessly civil in the comments, especially when attacked.

I disagree with the suggestion of your hostility. You don't need to be hostile- you just censor. You are a bit of a hypocrite...

Ann Althouse said...

"Please cite case law authorizing heckling under the First Amendment."

You don't need your speech authorized. You need to show me where you think the First Amendment permits the restriction of heckling speech. The rule is freedom. You need the exceptions to the rule to be spelled out. Heckling isn't a "true threat." It's not "incitement." What do you think it is?

Your putting the presumption *against* free speech is quite sad.

If you want to read cases about heckling, read the incitement cases. They set a very high standard and it has to do with an imminent threat of violence that is intended by the speaker. What the students were doing was not incitement within the meaning of First Amendment law.

samanthasmom said...

One of the things that has stuck out at me through these posts is Professor Althouse's position that a professor should be expected to "care for students". While there may be an expectation for K-12 students to receive "care" from their teachers, a professor's responsibility is to teach, not to provide "care" or comfort, especially in graduate school. Graduate school students are adults. I expect Professor Althouse's attitude towards the Judge is routed in her infantilizing the students, while he expected to speak in front of a room full of adults.

Rusty said...

Would you invite someone over to your house for dinner or a barbeque and treat them this way? They could have discussed this at the session afterward. And Yes. Shouting over someone's speech is denying them free speech. A mob is an ugly thing. Mobs lynch people.

Tina Trent said...

To follow your logic, it's OK to shout "I hope your sons get raped" or "I hope your husband gets raped" because they can't get pregnant?

You've lost your decency.

You're justifying people who shout their hope that two specific young women get raped -- because of who their father is?

If you knew for one second what it felt like for me to wake up in my bedroom, confused (I'm extremely myopic) at the vague outline of a naked man crouching on my bed, a sexual sadist who put one hand on my mouth and throat and gently placed my glasses on my nose with the other so he could inhale the pleasure of my sheer terror at fully seeing him before he took the glasses away and pounced on me, you would not be so cavalier in justifying these animals shouting that they hope other women experience what I experienced then, and for many hours more, and then for the rest of my life, reliving it in my testimony and then my mind and my dreams, especially at times when he was released early again and again until he was finally caught with boxes of "trophies" taken from missing and likely raped and murdered women.

You talk a good line about empathy. Maybe someday you'll experience it. And cut the hierarchy of victimization bullshit. You are incensed when someone merely tells a joke at a political roast, a setting for semi-crude jokes, because you imagine the joke is directed at gay people, but then you justify a mob shouting that two specific young women should get raped?

Even your cruelty isn't neutral.

Aggie said...

Ms. Althouse, I've found it very interesting, your staking and maintaining a position on this particular hill, but I do wish that you would take a moment and describe what you think this hill is.

I wonder, did the judge sign a contract for his appearance? It would be interesting to understand what the terms were, the obligations of both sides.

And I'll reiterate, if I were a conservative figure scheduled to give a speech at virtually any college campus today, I would travel with a goon squad, the ugliest battle-scarred hard-back mugs I could find, and they would sit quietly in the crowd. Would I be suppressing speech?

Marty said...

For whatever reason, every once in a while our hostess goes into full Andrew Sullivan and Trig mode. She has her perspective and she's making darned sure her loyal readership gets it.

Question: how long did Sullivan cling to his bizarre Trig trutherism--and what, exactly, back in the real world did that change?

Smilin' Jack said...

“...and now, in America, a woman who has been raped may be forced to endure a pregnancy from that rape.”

Oops! “Woman”?! Don’t you mean “person”? Or are you one of those hateful TERFs?

Dogma and Pony Show said...

I imagine Ann's post is meant to seem wise and nuanced, but it strikes me as the most tendentious thing of hers I have ever read. It's not hard to see that she has an overly romanticized view of protests and protesters and that she regards law students essentially as children who, for sentimental reasons deriving from her memories as a mom and former professor, she thinks ought to be coddled and reassured. She's entitled to her feelings, of course, but this is the opposite of cruel neutrality. This is more like pedantic lecturing in service of emotion.

It's plain as day that what the dean and mob of students did here was completely out of line, not just with Stanford's stated policy but also with civic norms. And there's no equivalency between what they did and whatever the judge did that was supposed to have been wrong. His two big offenses seem to be putting "trans people" in quotes and not showing "love" from the student protesters. ("Trans people" BELONGS in quotes if it's not a term the writer cares to adopt; and why is anyone obliged to love people who want their daughters to be raped?)





Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...
I'm also completely free to moderate out anything. Look at these comments just in this one post. I didn't have to approve any of them.

And you who are into the judge's "right" to be treated with respect, why aren't you more respectful to me?



What is respectful?

Is pissing on people and telling them it is raining respectful?

You are pretending like these students just want to be heard. You are pretending like this Maoist DEI "Dean" wants an open discourse and a discussion about how to make society better.

They are using intimidation, violence, and censorship. They are funded by billionaire oligarchs and organizing with clearly and explicitly violent groups. They are supported by a dishonest media regime. They are treated with kid gloves by the State police.

You are just being flat out dishonest about this.

Robert Cook said...

"I don't think the students needed to limit themselves to 'legal discourse.' This wasn't the courtroom or the classroom. They were protesting, going outside of the 'legal discourse' that the judge would have preferred. Protesting is an old tradition, and it's important, though sometimes rude and ugly. The students seem to have thought — with some reason — that judges like Duncan deserve to be made to feel ashamed of themselves and they went into the familiar theatrical protest style we Americans have loved and hated for so many years."

Perhaps not "legal discourse," but civil discourse is surely the bare minimum to be expected. It may be exhilarating to protest out in the streets, venting their splenetic emotions in concert with their impassioned peers, but in a hall on the campus of a law school, brute expression of emotion is certainly inappropriate and unacceptable...and counterproductive. These students are studying the law, its history and precedents, the fitful (and slow) progress over less liberal social and legal conditions common in the past, and those retrograde laws which remain (or are returning) in the present. Presumably, these students know or are learning how laws are created and how laws can be changed or repealed, and how "the law" can be used to achieve social goals, (desirable and undesirable). These students need to learn how to use legal scalpels rather than a mob's pitchforks and axes if they have any mature conception how (and desire) to achieve the social goals they desire.

They need to listen and understand the reasoning of and engage civilly with their adversaries so they can come back with careful reasoning and practiced legal skills to counter those policies which they deem retrograde and damaging in order to craft better law and policies. In short, they must learn they cannot bully their way into a "better world." They must learn to win with civil discourse and behavior and strategic and dogged planning and incremental small victories that accrue into a large victory.

The Dean and the faculty should not abase themselves in the face of childish tantrums but should make clear that such behavior is not appropriate and will not be tolerated, even in the name of policies and social goals that may be desirable. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s commitment to non-violent protest showed how powerful one can be without resorting to the behavior of angry mobs, and how persuasive such careful and restrained tactics can be to those in power who see public loyalty turning away from them.

"The students should have sat quietly and listened to the words from a judge they disagreed with. Then ask pointed, Socratic questions so that there is a free exchange of ideas and actual learning. IOW, a normal law school class."

Well and succinctly put. After all, those of this throng of students who succeed in becoming attorneys will have to learn eventually how to behave, how they can behave...and how they can't, in working to achieve a desired end for their clients.

Michael said...

Very serious question: if Federalist Society (or other) students had behaved in a similar fashion at an appearance under similar circumstances by, say, Nicole Hannah-Jones, would the reactions of the other students, the University authorities, and even Prof. Althouse have been the same? If this keeps up we will find out...

Misc: It's not a First Amendment question; it's a matter of a private institution having the right (and courage) to set rules of decorum in a private space. No one is preventing the protesters from speaking elsewhere, only from suppressing speech they don't like. If law students are acting like babies we should call them babies, and treat them accordingly. If they are not babies (or spoiled brats) they are totalitarians in training.

RoseAnne said...

Of course, “We hope your daughters get raped!” is crude and ugly, but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges, and now, in America, a woman who has been raped may be forced to endure a pregnancy from that rape. In that context, “We hope your daughters get raped!” means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you.

It is crude, ugly and wrong. Period.

If you believe that judges have taken away someone right to "defend their body", then oppose THOSE JUDGES. Don't threaten a person(s) unrelated to the case with rape as a punishment because of what MAY happen to a hypothetical woman - ESPECIALLY when you are doing to get a MAN to change his opinion.

It would make more sense to threaten to rape the judges that you oppose. (And I am not saying that makes any sense.)

From WIKI (Yeah I know):

Mai's 12-year-old brother, Abdul Shakoor Tatla (or Shakur Tatla), was abducted by three Baloch Mastoi men. He was taken to a sugar field where he was gang raped and sodomized repeatedly. When the boy refused to stay silent about the incident, he was kept imprisoned in the home of Abdul Khaliq, a Mastoi man. When police came to investigate, Shakoor was instead accused of having an affair with Khaliq's sister, Salma Naseen, who was in her late 20s at the time. Shakoor was then arrested on charges of adultery but later released. In later trials, Shakoor's rapists were convicted of sodomy and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.

The Mastoi tribal council (jirga) convened separately regarding Shakoor's alleged affair with Naseen. They concluded that Shakoor should marry Naseen while Mai be married to a Mastoi man. Villagers rejected this conclusion due to the belief that adultery must be punished with adultery. Mai was called to the council to apologize to the Mastoi tribe for her brother's actions. When she arrived, she was dragged to a nearby hut where she was gang raped in retaliation by 4 Mastoi men while an additional 10 people watched. Following the rape, she was paraded nude through the village.[14][15][16]


This is just a snippet of the story, but reflects the same mindset of hoping someone's daughters get raped because you don't like the opinion you think he has.

Gahrie said...

Just for clarity here. Althouse's position is that the (literally) howling mob has a First Amendment free speech right to disrupt the speech. The Dean had a First Amendment right to scold the invited speaker.

Yet the audience had no First Amendment right to listen to the speaker, and the speaker had no First Amendment right to speak.

??

Quayle said...

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

natatomic said...

Genuine question because I don’t know the answer:

Are there actually any states in which there is no exception for an abortion in the event of rape?

Spiros said...

Am I missing something? Isn't obvious that the government must protect speakers against hostile crowds and that the police must never submit to a heckler's veto? The Heckler's Veto Doctrine forbids the restraint of expression which is "merely offensive." Isn't this what the Skokie Nazi case was about? Stanford clearly did not meet its obligations to Judge Duncan or his listeners.

Or, maybe, this is more about the Fighting Words Doctrine? The Fighting Words Doctrine recognizes a person's emotional well-being as worthy of protection. Judge Duncan's right to speak (and his listeners right to hear) is not "absolute" and unabridgable. Maybe Althouse is trying to accommodate freedom of expression with the students' emotional well-being.

Gahrie said...

You don't need your speech authorized. You need to show me where you think the First Amendment permits the restriction of heckling speech. The rule is freedom. You need the exceptions to the rule to be spelled out. Heckling isn't a "true threat." It's not "incitement." What do you think it is?

It would seem to me that Tinker and Hazelwood would allow Stanford to proscribe the mob's behavior at Duncan's speech.

Might Bethel allow Stanford to sanction those who wished that his daughter be raped, or the idiot talking about prostrates and clits?

Dogma and Pony Show said...

AA: "I said 'I can't imagine openly expressing hostility toward students.' Maybe you remember the time a commenter I was going back and forth with identified himself as one of my students and I told him at that point that I wouldn't exchange comments with him any more. There is a special duty that teachers have to students."

In fairness, the judge isn't their teacher and doesn't have that "special duty." (Is it really a "duty" of a teacher not to express hostility toward a student?)

As for hecklers, it seems to be a fairly common occurrence for them to be removed from events by police and/or security. Not sure what happens after that, typically; but perhaps they get cited for disturbing the peace or trespassing? It doesn't ring true that hecklers have the right to heckle and not face any legal response.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Professor, truly, why are you so angry with the judge and so favorable to the “mob” and the woke Dean? This was deplorable behavior and utter rudeness to an invited guest. Stanford should be ashamed and so should you. You’re better than this.

What’s it been 7 days in a row? Take a vacation professor.

Gahrie said...

And you who are into the judge's "right" to be treated with respect, why aren't you more respectful to me?

Who has prevented you from speaking (posting)?

Who has wished for your sons to get raped?

Aren't we in fact doing exactly what you insist should be done, listening to your ideas, considering them, and then responding to them?

Bob Boyd said...

Screaming by entitled Stanford brats drove an entitled Federal Judge to publicly sniveling in the WSJ that his backside was not properly smooched.

Elite-world problems.

Enigma said...

Stanford is a private university with extremely high tuition. Their often wealthy, entitled students follow the long tradition of rich students: "You pay your fees and you get your Bs." This means they know that they own the university as much as it owns them. If the entire class is disciplined...what happens to Stanford's ranking and reputation? So yes, the coddling of the American mind continues Dr. Haidt.

I do think these students would be happier at a religious tent revival than in college. I really want to see Woke baptisms, and faith healing, and people fainting, and speaking in tongues.

Eva Marie said...

It’s a tale as old as time. This is simply a retelling of Beauty and the Beast. Beast threatens, screams, yells. Beauty’s soaring intellect brings forth discussions of Socrates, Jesus Christ and Bob Dylan. Beast is tamed and Beauty emerges victorious. If only the Judge believed in fairytales.

Joe Smith said...

'You know, it's also not polite to put "trans people" in quotation marks.'

But wishing that his daughter is raped is hunky dory.

Wow.

Take the L.

The students were bratty assholes.

If DeSantis gets elected, I hope he pulls every dime from every DEI school in the nation by executive order. And you'd better believe Stanford is getting federal funds.

Jupiter said...

"It was a big protest, generated by the real human beings the law school had assembled as its student body ..."

That's the problem alright. The idea that many of those worthless criminal scum may become attorneys or even judges is horrifying. The place is clearly a nest of terrorists.

CStanley said...

A few thoughts:

1. Isn’t it fair to turn Steinbach’s question back on her and the protestors that she supported? Is the “juice” if their form of protest worth the infringement of the right of Duncan to speak AND be heard?

2. Why are standards of decorum applied to Duncan but not the students and administrators in the room? Prof Althouse describes this as a standard that should apply to teacher-student relationships and seems to take that as an absolute but IMO that is condescending to students and extremely unhelpful to promoting good debate. A professor should model good behavior but it’s a disservice to the students if that same behavior isn’t an expectation from them.

3. Then there’s the argument about different types of speech in different venues. One commenter above noted something that I feel is valid here- if the students themselves are protesting specifically because they consider certain speech as violent- then why should they have it both ways and have their counterspeech allowable as though it too is not violent? Either speech is a form if violence in which case the speaker here deserves defense or speech is not itself a violent act and their grounds for protest are disproven.

3. There is recent precedence for these protests becoming violent, eg Middlebury. In the current environment there is absolutely no rationale for giving a mob of unruly students the benefit of the doubt.

4. Even if actual violence does not start erupting as passions are inflamed (often by the school administrators), the escalation of heckling to drown out speakers has an obvious chilling effect on free speech. I don’t see how this tactic wouldn’t fall under the same reasoning as the outright cancellation of speakers or exacting higher fees. We see here, for example, demanding a type of fee from Duncan (that he rise to the occasion by keeping an unemotional demeanor) and by Steinbach (tgat he makes sure his speech is really “worth the squeeze.”) These demands make it impossible to claim that conservatives are being treated with viewpoint neutrality.

Charlie Eklund said...

Atlhouse Blog readers; we come for cruel neutrality, but stay for the slew of poppycockery.

TheDopeFromHope said...

There are two reasons the left refuses to debate:

1. They can't.

2. They don't want anyone to hear anything with which they disagree, for fear that some will be persuaded to see things a bit differently.

Gahrie said...

If I had Silicon Valley money I would fund an organization of college students to begin disrupting Leftwing speeches and presentations in exactly the same way the Left does now to Rightwingers.

As the last two weeks has shown, you can't appeal to academic discourse, you can't appeal to civil behavior, you can't appeal to societal norms, you can't even appeal to published standards of behavior.

Nothing will change until the Left is forced to feel the same pain as the Right does. I feel like we're headed for the land of the blind.

rcocean said...

Of course, “We hope your daughters get raped!” is crude and ugly, but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges, and now, in America, a woman who has been raped may be forced to endure a pregnancy from that rape. In that context, “We hope your daughters get raped!” means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you.

Yeah sure. This is the way the liberal/left always works. They have some principle they pretent to believe in, but there's ALWAYS the GRAND EXCEPTION. Y'see in this case...blah blah, its justified. usually the liberal/left uses the phrase "Too much is at stake to stand by principle X".

Crude and ugly is crude and ugly. Period. All these Stanford students can get abortions. In fact, in California they could probably murder their 3 day old infant if they wanted, and not be prosecuted. What these leftists are upset about is that the Federal Judiciary is not overturning the will of the people in some Red state and IMPOSING their views.

alanc709 said...

Cruel Neutrality was always a canard. We have no justice anymore in this country. If you are liberal, it's hard to be found guilty. If you're conservative, you are assumed to be guilty. Althouse would rather enable the seditionists than admit she puts a thumb on the scale.

Gahrie said...

Didn't I read somewhere that there can be time, place and manner restrictions to the First Amendment right to assembly? Why can't similar restrictions be applied to First Amendment rights to speech?

Gahrie said...

When you've lost Comrade Marvin....

rcocean said...

I don't like either side in this dispute. What is Judge doing at Stanford anyway? He's not a politican running for office and its not his place to Debate with college students. And the students are just antifa stalinists trying to shut down a speaker.

If there's a good side to this, maybe people will start to understand that the Federal Judiciary is POLITICAL. And if its political, then maybe we should be constraining and limiting their power - instead of worshipping Leftwing lawyers in black robes. All this nonsense about "we need judges who will respect the constitution". They haven't done that for 70 years!

Just more conservative loser talk.

Christopher said...

Althouse's alignment with the mob is some kind of intellectual collapse. Aside from the sheer calamity of it, that's interesting.

If we could post memes here (probably a good thing we can't), I'd cook up a photo of Mao's college hordes massing around a wrong-think criminal in a dunce cap, holding a placard saying WHERE'S THE LOVE FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE DUNCAN.

BIII Zhang said...

Judges should certainly not hire as clerks graduates from institutions such as Stanford.

Imagine how many of your upcoming opinions they'll be leaking to the press to undermine you and your cases.

The good thing about the #Woke is that they identify themselves so easily.

Tina Trent said...

Penal Code 415 PC, California -- Disturbing the Peace
--using certain offensive language or fighting words
--anyone who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
--Jail for up to 90 days, a fine of up to $400, or both.


Penal Code 403 PC, California -- Disturbing a Public Meeting in California
--Jail for up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
--What must be proven is that the disruptors intentionally, substantially, knowingly, and unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the meeting. In the context of protecting free speech, it is the acts themselves, and not the content of the speech, that is being punished here. The behavior of the administrators and students alone validates arrest and prosecution on these grounds. Setting aside what they said, they did intentionally, substantially, knowingly, and unlawfully interfere with the conduct of the meeting.

Fighting words include telling a father his daughter is a whore. Or deserves to be raped.

Defamation (libel, and slander) are harder but not impossible to prove in a tort action when a public figure is targeted, but when that defamation is extended to that person's family, including causing harm, there is no absolute, only conditional privilege.

Stanford may be a private school, but it is not a foreign nation: the laws of the State of California do apply there. Universities just pretend they don't.

Ann Althouse said...

"You are incensed when someone merely tells a joke at a political roast..."

Incensed? Either your powers of observation and inferences are bad or you don't mind lying.

Why not stick to what you know? You don't know my feelings. I'm almost never feeling angry while writing this blog.

My post about Pence at the roast was about his brand. Read it again. Make an effort to understand what you are reading.

Scotty, beam me up... said...

Ann Althouse said “She wanted the students to know that the First Amendment — which Stanford, though private, is bound to follow — is subject to interpretation and they may apply their legal skills to working to develop strong exceptions to free speech.”.

This is what I said on this topic the other day - some of these regressive law students one day may be Federal judges or even SCOTUS justices. They will “interpret” the 1st Amendment then as something totally different than written by our Founding Fathers and thus change the legal definition of freedom of speech as it has been since it went into effect in 1791. That is what is scary about these Marxist students - change our Constitution bit by bit (the Slow to Boil a Frog method) to fit their ideology and thus overthrow our legal system from within, which our Founding Fathers had tried to prevent with the way they wrote the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments. Get enough Marxist judges in place, and our Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.

Wilbur said...

Since these posts began, I considered the possibility that AA has been hoaxing her readers, for what reason I do not know.

I don't think this situation has much to do with the First Amendment at all. I think it has to do with behavioral norms, i.e., our willingness to tolerate tantrums in public generally. The Left demands their tantrums should be tolerated because their beliefs are righteous; it explains why they would not tolerate the same behavior done reciprocally to them.

When carried to its logical end - the screaming of hateful speech at one another - the Left's view has only one inevitable result: the eruption of violence.

Gahrie said...

I teach high school in California. Students may now stand up in class, call me a mother fucker and tell me to shut the fuck up, walk out of my room without permission, and then return to the same classroom the next day with no consequences for their behavior.

Ask me how I know.

gilbar said...

I have FINALLY seen a pic of Dean Kirien Steinbach, i just have Two Words to say:
Fat Shaming, it's a thing whose time has come!!

Ampersand said...

Supporters of the students and the DEI Admin should flip the facts and imagine an alternate universe in which right wing moonbattery was culturally and intellectually dominant.A disfavored left wing club invites a fellow traveler, and the moonbats mob the guest, supported by a right wing administrator and by students yelling vulgar sexual slurs. Is there anything wrong with that? If not, there's something wrong with you.

Gahrie said...

So at this point, the victims of this incident are the howling mob, the biased administrator and Althouse; while Duncan, the Federalist Society, and those who disagree with Althouse are the oppressors?

Lurker21 said...

Perhaps somehow the judge could have taken a lighthearted tone — I love protests! I was a student protester myself and I know how it feels to be righteously angry, etc. etc. — and connected it back to the things he came prepared to say. There was a path in that direction, but it was a road not taken.

It's easy to say things like that if you aren't put in that position. People react emotionally to emotional situations. Moreover, the judge may have heard the stories of university presidents and deans who tried to play that gambit when their institutions were being taken over in the Sixties. At this point, there's an instinctual distaste or disgust or contempt for officials who can't stand up for themselves, their institutions, and their values. The judge may have thought that he'd look foolish and contemptable if he tried to joke and anecdote his way through the evening.

As I said, I would not, as a law professor, talk to students that way. But he wants the freedom to lean into anger. That puts him on the same page with them.

Seen from a far enough distance, all kinds of false equivalencies are possible.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer


Didn't we establish yesterday that knowing the only Yeats poem that everybody knows is nothing to pride oneself on?

Tom T. said...

Ann, your First Amendment analysis depends on the assumption that there was no prior coordination between Steinbach and the students, correct? Because if Stanford is bound by the 1A, and Steinbach (Stanford's agent) participated in organizing a group to shout him down, that seems like a clear violation. And if the judge is correct that Steinbach read from prepared remarks, that sounds like strong evidence of prior coordination.

Or is it your position that even under the 1A, the government is free to heckle a speaker into silence? In that case, what exactly does the amendment protect, in your view?

Steven Wilson said...

In reference to the wish that president DeSantis pull all the federal money from schools that have DEI programs:
Stanford may think its a private school, but you damned well know that it has students accepting federal money in the form of loans. This is the same standard the Feds used to come down on Hillsdale in the 80s. Well, Hillsdale got around that by seeing to it that none of their students have that type of loan. Can Stanford go down that road? Probably with their endowment, but they'd probably hate to. That's less money for administrators.

As for your interpretation of "We hope your daughters get raped" to actually be a plea for empathy. I think back to the old Jew who was asked what he learned about his experiences in Nazi Germany and escaping the concentration camps. "I learned that the next time someone tells me they want to kill me I will believe them." Converting rape to empathy is a little too much lipstick on this pig.

Quayle said...

AA: "I said 'I can't imagine openly expressing hostility toward students.' Maybe you remember the time a commenter I was going back and forth with identified himself as one of my students and I told him at that point that I wouldn't exchange comments with him any more. There is a special duty that teachers have to students."

Is the state or status of being a student lost when the person has no intention of listening or learning. The students weren’t there - it seems to me they weren’t there to learn. Are they still “students” and deserving of your deference or particular treatment?

Christopher said...

Ha. Scott Adams says the Washington Beacon published the names of the protestors and the protestors are pissed. A public protest at a public meeting isn't private. Good luck getting a job.

The thing is, many of them will get jobs. Another commenter quoted a stat, I can't find it now, showing a majority of students agree with shouting down a speaker you disagree with. Some of Biden's (and Obama's) appointees agree with that, even if in a lawyerly way. More are in the pipeline with many tentacles that vigorously stretch all the way back to the Stanfords of our country and beyond.

I think a key difference between Duncan and Althouse is that Duncan recognizes he was, in fact, the target of a struggle session. Once you recognize that, you're past the point of appealing to the sensibilities of young people saying your daughters should be raped.

Ann Althouse said...

I don't *like* the students' speech.

Many of you have lost the thread.

Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis? That's what you need to do to support traditional free speech rights. It's not about thinking the speech was good.

Scotty, beam me up... said...

From watching the video of this “protest” before Tirien Steinbach stepped up to speak, I was watching Ms. Steinbach in the video. Her body language leads me to believe that she was the organizer of this “protest”. She blends into the crowd in the front row, saying nothing verbally but her body language makes it look like she was enjoying the harrassment and verbal abuse being hurled at Judge Duncan. Her prepared words to the crowd, to me, appeared designed to incite and rouse the mob even more. Considering a DIE co-ordinater’s job is to promote the line of thinking and positions as exhibited by the mob, she definitely wasn’t there as a neutral party as the reporting on this protest is being portrayed as.

What we witnessed is classic fascist / marxist tactics to shout down someone they oppose instead of having civil discourse. It gets the adrenaline going in the mob totally disrupting a meeting. And, yes, marxism and fascism is on the same side of the political spectrum and recognized as such until World War 2. When the US jumped into the fight, the Communists were on our side in our fight against Nazi Germany / Fascist Italy so it was decided to relabel fascism to the right despite their political ideology being in the socialist left.

Gahrie said...

Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis?

Do you actually think they would still do so today?

That's what you need to do to support traditional free speech rights. It's not about thinking the speech was good.

No one has a problem with the student's protesting outside the event. No one has a problem with students holding a counter event. No one has a problem with the students attending the speech, listening to the speech, and then expressing themselves during the question and answer period.

No one is denying the students' right to speech. We're opposed to the time, manner and place of that speech.

ColonelZag said...

Ann, your stubborn defense of the Stanford folks goes a long way towards explaining why some of the divisions in this country are insurmountable.

CStanley said...

I don't *like* the students' speech.

Many of you have lost the thread.


I’ve continued to assume that’s true although you have expressed quite a bit of empathy for their point of view and have supported a romanticized view of student activism. You have also held Duncan to a much higher standard which I posit as a type of cost you are expecting a conservative speaker should have to pay before being granted his or her rights.

Tina Trent said...

Sorry. I had no idea that Pence has some unique responsibility to not tell a joke because jokes aren't his "brand." Nor did I know that "brands" are something that must be universally conformed to. As someone who works in politics and has been a PR person for.both bills and elections since 1994, I imagine I am more qualified than you, to talk about political brands at the least.

And in both politics and law school speeches, context matters. A political roast is the appropriate place for jokes, even bawdy ones.

I know and have written quite a lot about the slippery enforcement of laws in the grey areas around protected speech that have been created by hate crime codes. In real courts, not pedagogical spaces. There are many examples of people being charged with simple assault hate speech when mere shouting was involved. In this case, both racial and sexual hate crime simple assault do apply, though it is highly unlikely the DA will act on it as the victims are a white man and two (presumably) heterosexual white females. That's not the way the law is written, of course: it's just the way it is enforced.

Rabel said...

"In that context, “We hope your daughters get raped!” means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you."

Or it simply means what it says.

That may be the most bizarre thing I have ever read here.

Gahrie said...

Is wishing someone's daughters be raped "fighting words"?

MerryD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MerryD said...

In this case, the Judge is the speaker, the students are the silencers. I think you have lost the thread.

MerryD said...

In this case, the Judge is the speaker, the students are the silencers. I think you have lost the thread.

Michael K said...


Blogger Ann Althouse said...

Also note that the judge himself refers to the First Amendment and claims it protects him from what he calls "the mob," asserting a right not to experience disruptive heckling.


Ann just can't leave this story alone. Maybe she thinks if she brings it up enough times more commenters will agree with her.

The drift of law schools to the political left is worrisome. This was an example of why this worries us. Apparently this is OK with white middle aged retired law professors.

Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis? That's what you need to do to support traditional free speech rights. It's not about thinking the speech was good.

Have you noticed that the ACLU is now a hard left advocacy group?

TaeJohnDo said...

"Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis? That's what you need to do to support traditional free speech rights. It's not about thinking the speech was good."

I do, and it seems that now the ACLU only defends leftist protestors and attacks conservatives.

American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said:
“The fact that President Trump and his followers didn’t succeed doesn’t change the core fact: Members of Congress who wanted to set aside the Electoral College slate and agitators who stormed the Capitol were both involved in a failed coup attempt. We shudder to think how police departments would have responded had Black and Brown individuals stormed a government building to protest police brutality. These are not protests — we know protests. These violent acts are meant to overthrow the legitimate outcome of a democratic election.”

“What we saw today are violent acts meant to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, the very hallmark of our democracy. The American people have voted, and the states have certified their electoral votes. A peaceful transition to President-elect Biden is the only patriotic path forward.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"but the right to defend one's own body has been taken away by the judges"

Uh huh....Sure.

Smilin' Jack said...

“Set the right example, and maybe they will meet you where you can coexist in something approaching conversation.”

No. Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Iman said...

We either have rules and laws or we don’t. We have a civil society or we don’t.

We either have clear thinking or we don’t.

Jupiter said...

"The rule is freedom. You need the exceptions to the rule to be spelled out. Heckling isn't a "true threat." It's not "incitement." What do you think it is?"

I think that people who are disrupting a public presentation are routinely ejected from the venue. I would suppose this is legal because the site is private property and the presenter is a private citizen or organization. It may be that Stanford is a government actor and therefore faces a different standard. Is that what you are arguing?

typingtalker said...

National Institute for Civil Discourse

Who knew?

Tim said...

I too am finding it strange that the professor can't seem to let this one go. The fact that a lot of normally pretty reasonable people find the students behavior unacceptable is drawing a lot of posts from someone who also normally seems to find disagreement a normal part of this blog.

hombre said...

"It's real life, like the life experienced beyond the courthouse and beyond the law school, and it's not that polite. You know, it's also not polite to put "trans people" in quotation marks."

What are you doing, Althouse? Will you be rationalizing Antifa violence next? This bullshit violated Stanford policy, was irrational and brought the law school into disrepute. In short, it was indefensible as were the masked attacks on the Dean for apologizing.

Putting "trans people" in quotes was called for because he was a quoting a term with which many are not familiar. There was nothing impolite about it.

Tina Trent said...

Ok, to get granular, I withdraw my written belief that you were incensed. You may have only being ignorant or perhaps playful or ironic when you wrote a post saying that Pence should stay in the lane of non-funny "brand" politicians.

I'll amend that. You were just being provocatively illogical. These guys rarely write their own jokes.

I never resorted to purist First Amendment arguments. I am quotidian. I observe court actions, not theoretical discussion. But for decades I have been collecting cases in which people are selectively arrested for mere verbal alterations and charged with simple assault hate crime, or enhanced sentencing vandalism hate crime using only words and minor property damage that definitely would. It be prosecuted otherwise.

I am guided by one principle: equal justice for all. It doesn't exist anymore, and I have already proved it. So my last job was working overnight in a grocery store, where at least I could respect my co-workers, despite my degrees.

There are real consequences to your cohort's attitudes, playful or ironic or not. They certainly aren't informed by real-life legal experiences or real-life disparate enforcement of laws.

And your discussion of rape is repugnant, cruel, and ignorant.

Dude1394 said...

I'm kinda amazed that you continue to condone this type of protest. Maybe we should all go through one so we can understand it. But it appears democrats will never have to.

hombre said...

"...law students have long protested about the way law dresses up and glosses over injustice."

Oh. Is that what was going on here? This judge has perpetrated "injustice"? And there is no remedy other than a bunch of students making asses of themselves and a joke of their law school?

Who knew?

gilbar said...

Ampersand said...
Supporters of the students and the DEI Admin should flip the facts and imagine an alternate universe

hmm, let's imagine THIS universe.
The laws preventing ProLife Protestors from talking (NOT obstructing!) gals going to abortion clinics?
Good? Bad? Not Relevant? How so?

Jane Fonda OPENLY calling for the Murder of ProLife Judges?
Good? Bad? Not Relevant? How so?

"trans" activists saying that JK Rowling's tweets "caused the deaths of 'trans' people"?
Good? Bad? Not Relevant? How so?

Dave Begley said...

Ann:

The students heckled, disrupted and shouted down the Judge. Listen to the audio! The Judge’s right to Free Speech was denied. That’s the heckler’s veto.

Obviously, we disagree on this.

Joe Smith said...

'Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis? That's what you need to do to support traditional free speech rights. It's not about thinking the speech was good.'

That ACLU is dead and buried.

The man was INVITED to speak, he didn't just show up.

I realize that civility is dead, but schools are supposed to be for learning, and for being open to ideas, even ones you may not like.

18-22 year old kids need to listen more and speak less...

guitar joe said...

I have mostly walked a line between feeling Steinbach did, on balance, the right thing and thinking the judge was somewhat mistreated. The more he speaks out, the more convinced I am that this man doesn't have the calmness and thoughtfulness to be a judge.

If the judge would let this go, perhaps Ms. Althouse would.

Dave Begley said...

I have another NE Supreme Court argument this year, but this time as appellee. I’m going to shout down the appellant. Not let her get a word in. Use up her ten minutes.

The Chief Justice would disbar me on the spot. As he should.

William said...

Robert Cook at 9:51 presents a reasoned and reasonable rebuttal of Althouse. Go figure. Well, Althouse has convinced Inga...Socratic dialogue works best when you have someone like Socrates exchanging views with someone like Plato on subjects that don't touch a nerve with either party.

n.n said...

Whether collusion or opportunity the DIE dean exploited a captive audience to peddle her ostensibly "secular" religious beliefs.

n.n said...

Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis?

They crashed someone else's event? The very model of SS BLM, Antifa, etc.

Ralph L said...

You know, it's also not polite to put "trans people" in quotation marks.

You know, they're not actually changing their sex?

William said...

Here is an example of Socratic argument as practiced at Stanford:

Socrates: Is it not true, Pythagoras, that the mind sometimes fails to distinguish between actual and perceived threats?

Pythagoras: Go fuck yourself, you bald old buggerer. I hope your wife gets raped by a leprous helot.

rehajm said...

Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis? That's what you need to do to support traditional free speech rights. It's not about thinking the speech was good.

You'd do yourself a favor by defending the rights of the journalist to publish the names of the student hecklers and/or the rights of the judge to speak*. With this statement it looks like you're suggesting an equivalency of student hecklers = KKK and Nazis. It's a worthy debate for certain but I suspect that isn't a debate you're interested in having...

*...or at least tell us how long a time period of heckling before the judge's rights are violated by the student hecklers. If I read correctly you believe ten minutes isn't long enough...

ADDED: I'm old enough to remember when the ACLU defended free speech but it was a long time ago...

vermonter said...

Boring

Tom T. said...

Why not stick to what you know? You don't know my feelings. I'm almost never feeling angry while writing this blog.

You're misunderstanding the discourse. To the students, it was irrelevant what Duncan felt. What mattered was what they thought Duncan felt, and how Duncan made them feel.

If you're actually going to put yourself in Duncan's place, you have to respect what your commenters are saying about the way you address them and stop fighting their feelings.

Mason G said...

"Looks like “cruel neutrality” has taken a holiday."

Or aborted, perhaps?

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...


Bullshit.

These students are part of a violent coordinated movement that includes the Biden Regime, Universities, Media, and oligarch funded leftist mobs that run around and call regime opponents racists/fascists/misogynists while getting them fired from employment and censoring them in the public square.

You are defending a clearly Maoist movement that is funded and supported by the government and the largest corporations in the world.

You are defending political persecution and violence. Right now posters are going up with pictures of Federalist Club members at Stanford.

Wanted Posters.

And you are supporting this persecution.

Just because you put your students through struggle sessions for decades doesn't mean you need to support the next steps which is what you are doing right now.

If the students wanted to stand outside and hold signs that's fine.

But the first amendment also provides for Freedom of Association. I know you don't want to deal with the actual text of the constitution but that means people have a right to meet somewhere together in peace. If Stanford wants to refuse to provide such a place for people like Judge Duncan they should be honest about it.

But that is why Ann and Stanford and this "Dean" are all just being openly dishonest. They cannot support what they are actually doing because it is Maoist bullshit and they know it.

At some point we are going to start treating you like you are treating us. You never really have respected us at all. I have known this for a long time and now everyone is picking up on it.

Most on this board have lost all of our respect for you because of your dishonesty here. Your words and your actions do not match.

We all know if the roles were reversed and it was you listening to pro-life protesters yelling vile racist sexist things at you rather than Judge Duncan you would demand to be treated differently.

Mr. Majestyk said...

It's very simple. We're trying to have a civilization here, Althouse. Unfortunately, there's nothing funny about what happened here. Shouting down an invited speaker with "counterspeech" (whether in the form of rational argument or, as here, crude sexual taunts and rape threats against family members) destroys the possibility of reasoned persuasion. And without reasoned persuasion, society is left with two options: (1) submit to the howling mob, or (2) violence to resolve disputes. Attempting to blame the judge in this situation is a distraction from those fundamental truth.

Eva Marie said...

1. “In that context, ‘We hope your daughters get raped!’ means: You might feel some empathy for us if it happened to someone close to you.”
That’s more insulting to these students than anything the Judge said. They said what they wanted to say.
2. Steven Wilson wrote: I think back to the old Jew who was asked what he learned about his experiences in Nazi Germany and escaping the concentration camps. "I learned that the next time someone tells me they want to kill me I will believe them."
That bears remembering.




Mark said...

"The more he speaks out, the more convinced I am that this man doesn't have the calmness and thoughtfulness to be a judge.

If the judge would let this go, perhaps Ms. Althouse would."

The judge is quite happy riding this wave of MAGA fame, likely having accepted the Stanford invitation expecting this very experience.

Hopefully he has a longer shelf life than Milo Yiannopoulos who also tried to parlay student protests into online fame, only to be kicked of the Ye Presidential team.

CStanley said...

It’s civility BS to lecture conservatives about defending speech they don’t like on the basis that tge ACLU historically did so, because currently they do not.

N.n. Raised another valid point- the ACLU defended the right of groups like Nazus and KKK to hold their own events. Gas there been a case where counter protests at an organized events by groups like that were defended if their protests were disruptive and contained threats of violence? That would be the correct analogy. The only instances I can think of were the Westboro people and I don’t recall if any civil liberties groups defended them.

The Tangerine Tornado said...

It was an ambush. On the plus side, it lets all future guest speakers know that Stanford allowed a guest speaker to be ambushed.

Going forward only hard left speakers will accept invitations to speak, which is fine with the mob because they don't want to hear from anyone who disagrees with them anyway. If they could shut them up permanently from speaking at any venue that would be greeted with cheers. You don't have to win any arguments if your opponents are silenced.

ALP said...

Yeah Right Sure @ 9:00am
"What contrarian would ever agree now to go there and give them a Christopher Hitchens experience? (God but I miss the man.)"

You said it. We miss The Hitch deeply in our household, my own partner (a very hard sell) has even proclaimed (in the past) "I love that man". May I suggest Katie Herzog of the Blocked and Reported blog as a worthy successor?

JK Brown said...

How do you call the students "babies" without saying it

Perhaps ask, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

In any case, the judge obviously got paid, because otherwise, why not just move on with your day and leave the toddlers to their tantrum?

Anthony said...

Oh FFS, there is no such thing as a "trans-woman" or a "trans-man". They are women or men pretending to be something else.

Goodbye, Enlightenment, it was nice knowing ya. . . .

Ron Nelson said...

I call “anti-civility” bullshit on Althouse on this and other commentary about Judge Duncan’s Stanford attempted speech. He was a guest. Not a guest lecturer or attendee in Ann’s Con Law class. Law students do debate. But it has to be orderly. People get their say, then are challenged in a way that let’s the understand the objection and respond. Guest speeches a not a form of theater with catcalls and tomatoes. Unless, of course, that is what the speaker signs up for. It’s not the Prime Minister “question time.” Yes Judge Duncan may have lost his cool but why must he keep it. The DEI dean should have enforced the speech rules and not sought to ingratiate the students in their grievance. To do so underlines how bankrupt DEI is if it cannot tolerate speech.

Lurker21 said...

It's real life, like the life experienced beyond the courthouse and beyond the law school, and it's not that polite.

Sure, it's "real life," but the article about pandemic Zooming makes me question just how "real" our "hyperpolitical" theatrics really are.

You know, it's also not polite to put "trans people" in quotation marks. It's a more polished form of incivility, but law students have long protested about the way law dresses up and glosses over injustice.

Is it really? There are reasons why one might put "trans people" in quotes. Maybe one isn't speaking about real transpersons, but rather about imposters. Maybe one thinks the proper term is "transperson." But even if Duncan's motives were less pure, is it really an incivility?

Somebody may be wrong, offensive, or repugnant in putting quotation marks around "trans person" or "Palestinians," but have they really violated the rules of civil discourse? It's not like they used actually insulting words.

Civility is pointing out to people where they may be wrong, not shouting them down and attacking them. In the "real world" of political theatrics, people scream about slights, real or imagined, civility demands that most of us be a buffer between partisans so that we aren't always at each other's throats.

Good luck getting a job.

HR departments hire people. HR departments are full of people who protested in college and continue to protest, and law firms are always looking for people who "want to make a federal case" out of minor disputes.

I'm old enough to remember when the ACLU defended free speech but it was a long time ago...

Tirien Steinbach was Chief Program Officer for the Northern California ACLU. Free speech hasn't been a concern of theirs for some time.

Bruce Hayden said...

“And yes, putting scare quotes around "trans" is an entirely reasonable thing to do. It is insulting, yes, because it is telling the truth to delusional people rather than enabling them.”

Keep in mind that the judge got in trouble here sending a self proclaimed trans woman to a men’s prison (where he probably belongs). There are a number of reported cases of such conveniently trans women in women’s prisons knocking up the cis female inmates. My guess is that the scare quotes around “trans” was intentional, suggesting that the judge believed that the convict’s change of sexual identity was more opportunistic, than deep felt. Why wouldn’t a straight guy prefer a women’s prison, where he can fuck women, instead of being fucked by guys? Heck, if you have been around women’s prisons, you would know that there are plenty of women there who would essentially fuck anyone there with a dick. Anyone, and why male guards are esp vulnerable.

And the judge’s job is to do what is right for everyone - society, other inmates, and lastly, the inmate. Believing convicted felons that their conversion to trans was heartfelt is esp idiotic if there is any evidence that they only decided to transition after having been caught. In short, the judge probably saw through the scam. And, of course, the left doesn’t allow that. They demand that if someone claims to be trans, that we all have to believe them, regardless of what we see with our lying eyes. 1984 all the way.

Bruce Hayden said...

Oh, and the abortion protesters, screaming that the judge’s daughters should be raped, forget where they live and go to school. Palo Alto is in one of the richest, most progressive, parts of maybe the most progressive state - California. If a woman gets raped there, she can very likely get a free abortion, even if she dithers for 8 months, down the block.

Godot said...

Reverse the philosophies of judge and protestors.
Leave the administrators just as they are.
Same results and consequences?

JaimeRoberto said...

I look forward to a similar defense of distributive protesters when the Proud Boys or some such group shuts down a Drag Queen Story Time at the local library.

rehajm said...

In any case, the judge obviously got paid, because otherwise, why not just move on with your day and leave the toddlers to their tantrum?

As Ann eluded to previously, a trap by The Federalists. If it was the lefties fell for it hard. Who wins remains in question. So far we've all lost...

Quayle said...

It is sheer blindness to not know that the weapons you invent against others will eventually be used against you. The Stanford really want an end of all guest speakers?

And let’s explore the idea that current case law around protesting (not peaceful assembly, not petitioning the government, but unrestrained protesting) is misguided in our procedural democratic republic. If the students didn’t like the decision to judge made on a particular case or on many cases, they can express that dislike in writing, they can talk, and the next time they go to the voting booth, they can vote. Eventually if they can persuade enough of their fellow citizens, a change will be brought about in the fifth circuit with the replacement appointment of a different Judge. Or they might be able to speed to change by voting in representatives that impeach the judge and throw him out. Those are the options they have. Coercion, mob-like intimidation, preventing others from expressing themselves in writing or in speaking: where in our system of civil society and government do these fit in? The students have a vote equal with every other citizen. That’s the true equality. But that’s not enough apparently. They want what they want, they want it their way, and others be damned. And they dream such a process will bring about utopia. They can’t see the hell that’s coming under that approach- both for themselves, and for all the rest of us. This week I wonder if our hostess can see it coming. I’ve never thought that before.

Finally, was it a teaching moment? It certainly was. It was an opportunity to teach that if we seek justice as God sees it, then each of us are imperfect and are striving and therefore, we need to respect each others’ efforts, eschew coercion and intimidation, and let people alone unless they’re directly harmful or injurious. And if the students want to completely rule God out of the picture and say that there is no God and that we are all here because of Darwinian evolution, then it was a teaching opportunity to point out that there infatuation and obsession with the evils of oppressive hierarchies is utterly illogical and ridiculous in the world they’ve stated was built on the Darwinian oppressive hierarchies of the weak being eaten by the strong.

They claim they live in the world of Darwin, but they demonstrate their innate sense of the true universe by appealing to God’s fairness and justice.

Michael said...

I long for the day one of these lawyers sits across from my very own very thick skinned lawyers.

rehajm said...

Most on this board have lost all of our respect for you because of your dishonesty here

Just for the record I showed up here when Ann received national attention for putting her foot in her mouth. She was busy trying to wedge her other foot in there…

rehajm said...

And you who are into the judge's "right" to be treated with respect, why aren't you more respectful to me?

Wake me when your ability to speak here is curtailed by your commentariat…

hombre said...

Mark (1:00): "The judge is quite happy riding this wave of MAGA fame ...."

This judge has no need of "MAGA fame." He has a lifetime appointment paying $175,000 a year, subject to increases over time.

But I'm sure you knew that, right. LOL!

The arguments maligning this judge are lefty nonsense typically arising when they are clearly in the wrong, but hate the opposition. Stupid. Illogical.

Mason G said...

"They demand that if someone claims to be trans, that we all have to believe them, regardless of what we see with our lying eyes."

Somewhat off-topic but if progs are okay with that, perhaps those with gas stoves can claim them to be trans-electric and we can get past all that banning nonsense?

Hey Skipper said...

(Apologies in advance for length.)

Left almost entirely unexamined is what Judge Duncan has actually said on various matters.

According to the WSJ Op Ed The Tyranny of the DEI Bureaucracy, Dean Steinbach had this to say:

Ms. Steinbach characterized the judge’s speech as something “that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people.” And she lectured Judge Duncan: “Do you have something so incredible and important to say about Twitter, Guns and Covid that it is worth the division of these people?”

Further, as has been noted above:

Ms. Steinbach had riled up protesters before the event with an email alerting them that “Numerous senators, advocacy groups, think tanks, and judicial accountability groups” opposed Judge Duncan’s nomination because of his legal advocacy “regarding marriage equality and transgender, voting, reproductive, and immigrants’ rights.”

The federal judge has caused “upset and outrage,” she continued, and has “repeatedly and proudly threatened healthcare and basic rights for marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ people . . . prisoners, Black voters, and women.”


Those are serious charges. Are they justified? I'm going to bet that neither Dean Steinbach nor any of the howling Maoists, have actually read anything he has written. Instead, they have availed themselves of activist screeds, which do violence (metaphorical, to make sure everyone knows I, unlike Maoist students, am not intending the metaphorical literally.) to anything remotely approximating accuracy.

Hey Skipper said...

This Lambda Legal Foundation letter to Senator Grassley, entitled 39 LGBT Groups Oppose Confirmation of Stuart Kyle Duncan, charges him, among other things with:

Mr. Duncan is driven by a deeply held view that same-sex marriage “imperils civic peace” and he has gone to great lengths to thwart efforts to achieve legal equality for same-sex couples

NB: when only several words are surrounded by quotes, without so much as the required ellipses, that is nearly a sure sign the writer is lying. And so it is the case here. In Marriage, Self-Government, and Civility, this is what he said regarding same sex marriage and civil peace:

Many Americans believe marriage should extend to same-sex relationships. Many do not. In the name of civic peace, the Supreme Court must do what the lower courts have largely failed to do—treat Americans holding opposing views on this question as honorable participants in a debate over a question of profound civic importance.

But a decision from the Court declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would have the opposite effect. Inevitably, it would validate in the public mind the numerous decisions that have characterized this issue, not as a debate between good people on either side, but as a battle between those who love individual freedom and those who cling blindly to tradition. That would do incalculable damage to our civic life in this country.


What Lambda Legal wrote was either shockingly stupid, or deliberately disingenuous. Nowhere did (then) Mr. Duncan say same-sex marriage per se would imperil civic peace. Indeed, nowhere in that article did Judge Duncan characterize same-sex marriage as either a good or bad thing.

(This Vox article makes similar claims, and contain links to various opinions and friend of the court briefs.) I haven't read them all, and I am not a lawyer, so perhaps Judge Duncan did indeed write something abhorrent, harmful, denying the humanity.

But based upon what I have seen, those charges are scurrilous. They have no basis in truth. She couldn't back up one of them with evidence.

I'm pretty sure the Stanford code of conduct has something to say about intellectual honesty. For that alone, Dean Steinbach needs firing.

Then there are the Maoists. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I'd bet one quality of a good one is the ability to steel man the opposition's position. There is no evidence any of these poo-throwing howler monkeys are any more familiar with Judge Duncan's writings than is Dean Steinbach.

Their conduct is indefensible.

Jim at said...

I'm glad Duncan isn't letting this go. The thugs and their enablers need to be held accountable. Otherwise, what comes next will be far, far worse.

Jim at said...

What is Judge doing at Stanford anyway? He's not a politican running for office and its not his place to Debate with college students.

He was invited to speak. Good grief.

Jim at said...

The judge is quite happy riding this wave of MAGA fame, likely having accepted the Stanford invitation expecting this very experience.

You mean like the last time he spoke at Stanford?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I have to admit: I never thought I'd see Prof Althouse make excuses for someone shouting that they hope someone's daughters get raped, but here we are.

Has Prof Althouse, once, made any comment about the feelings of the FedSoc students who invited this judge and wanted to hear his speech? She cares about the feelings of the protestors, of the DEI admin, of a dog, but seemingly doesn't give a shit about those students--no empathy expressed for them. Some people matter more than others, apparently.

Set the right example, and maybe they will meet you where you can coexist in something approaching conversation. With whatever respect is due, this is bullshit. It's bullshit because there's no way you'd treat an angry crowd heckling you at a speech that way (you don't treat hostile, disruptive commenters to your blog that way!) and it's bullshit because the subject here is not a law professor but a judge invited to give a speech, so the comparison fails.

If they crossed the line into disruption, Martinez (and Tessier-Lavinge) should specify exactly where that happened. If? IF? Do YOU think they crossed the line into disruption, Professor Althouse? Are you pretending to be very stupid to prove some point that many of us are missing, here? "Hey, it's a debatable point, who's to say what's disruptive and what's not anyway--if someone can argue that they're not being disruptive then we have an obligation to allow their behavior until we can settle that debate" is profoundly stupid and I'm almost certain you're not stupid enough to be gneuinely making that argument.

But he wants the freedom to lean into anger. That puts him on the same page with them. This is stupid enough that I'm now getting worried that I've misjudged you all these years and you are in fact very stupid. Maybe this is a bit, though, a joke I'm just not getting. No, it doesn't "put him on the same page with them." Reacting angrily to being provoked doesn't make you the same as the people who broke the rules in order to provoke you. The Judge didn't interrupt their lecture, didn't break the Stanford Code of Conduct to try and prevent people from hearing their invited speaker, didn't tell them he hopes their families were raped.

Is the First Amendment the ONLY consideration when judging these students' behavior? That seems stupid, but that sure seems to be how you view this. If it's permissible under the First Amendment then Professor Althouse is ok with it, is that what you want to convey?
Pretty sure the 1st Amendment allows people to shout racial slurs at speakers they dislike--would you defend that as well? Hey if someone yells a racial slur at the DEI admin you'll defend them, yeah, and say the DEI admin shouldn't respond with anger, right?

Oh but the judge is being impolite by putting "trans people" in quotes! Can't have that impoliteness--if the Judge expects to not be heckled, have his speech disrupted, and be subject to "crude" insults and wishes that his daughters get raped then he'd better be scrupulously polite--otherwise a guy like him has it coming, right Professor Althouse?

Stupid, stupid, stupid. I really do hope there's some pedagogical goal with saying such stupid things, that it's a tactic we're just not grasping.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Yeah Right Sure said...Shocking to all her readers that the professor (retired) favors Westboro Baptist argumentation tactics for causes she supports

Nah, worse; the Westboro assholes set up in public, outside events and then sue if they're attacked--Professor Althouse is defending Westboro tactics being applied INSIDE events in order to disrupt them.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Michael said...Misc: It's not a First Amendment question; it's a matter of a private institution having the right (and courage) to set rules of decorum in a private space. No one is preventing the protesters from speaking elsewhere, only from suppressing speech they don't like.

Bingo. Professor Althouse's empathy apparently doesn't extend to the people who wanted to hear the speech and expected the university to uphold its own rules regarding student conduct.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Do you not remember how the ACLU staunchly defended the KKK and the Nazis? That's what you need to do to support traditional free speech rights

Did the ACLU defend the Nazis' right to disrupt other people's speeches in private venues? Did the ACLU support the KKK's desire to intimidate others and exercise a heckler's veto to prevent them from speaking on a campus?
No? Oh, then this is a stupid, inapt comparison. The ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to obtain a public permit to hold THEIR OWN MARCH--to engage in their own speech. These students could have done that and no one here would object. We object to their disrupting someone else's speech--to shouting down another speaker in a non-public forum. The ACLU doesn't defend the rights of the KKK nor the Nazis to do that!

Michael K said...

Lefty Mark shares his wisdom:

The judge is quite happy riding this wave of MAGA fame, likely having accepted the Stanford invitation expecting this very experience.

Hopefully he has a longer shelf life than Milo Yiannopoulos who also tried to parlay student protests into online fame, only to be kicked of the Ye Presidential team.


Do you think judges seek publicity ? Do you have an "Encyclopedia of Stupid" in your library ?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...I lock into professor mode, mostly because I believe I have a duty to care for the students

Does your belief that you have a duty to "care for the students" extend to those members of he FedSoc who invited the judge to speak (scheduling him, filling out all the paperwork to reserve the venue, arranging the logistics, etc) and wanted to hear him uninterrupted by the hecklers who were violating the student code of conduct? You care about the protestors and want to make sure we all understand their rights and treat them with compassion but don't seem to care at all about those other students, the ones who followed the rules and didn't want to be subject to the abuse and disruption.
Why don't they count for anything? Why don't you care about them? You're concerned about the judge being unkind to the protestors but don't seem to care about those protestors being unkind to the FedSoc students.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»