March 22, 2023
"Stanford Law School is requiring all students to attend educational programming on free speech after protesters interrupted a speech..."
"... by a conservative federal judge earlier this month.
The law school will hold 'a mandatory half-day session in spring quarter for all students on the topic of freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession,' Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez said in a public letter to students Wednesday.
Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach, who spoke at the March 9 event with US Judge Kyle Duncan, 'is currently on leave,' Martinez said."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
124 comments:
Much like the bullying programs, which were instrumental for the leftists. Show 'em how.
One has to WANT to change.
Some targeted firings and expulsions would be far more educational.
I wonder if any students have formally ratted out Steinbach as the instigator of their tantrum.
Ridicule is a powerful weapon - especially if the facts are on your side.
Never too late to learn good manners, I guess. Too bad they didn't learn them at home.
Smart move on the part of the Dean.
If for no other reason than to try to keep their students from being informally blackballed. I don’t think any law firms would formally blackball Stanford students on the basis of the riotous and disgusting behavior of some of their classmates (and administrators), but you never know what individual lawyers might choose do to during interviews. It would not be difficult to make it much harder for Stanford students to be hired. Especially with the current economic climate, incoming classes at law firms are likely to be much smaller for the next year or two anyway.
Sanity prevails.
Part of me hopes the same protesters come a scream at this meeting.
Encouraging if sincere and they follow through. I would listen to Joseph Stalin in a setting that was appropriate while disagreeing with everything he said. I don't really understand why the progressives can't handle a dialog.
This "Session about Free Speech" is going to be put on by marxist shitheads that have been pushing the Maosit crap for decades.
At most this is going to be a "How do you persecute Trump supporters without looking like an open fascist" seminar.
Not falling for it.
Every administrator and professor that did not loudly and forcefully condemn Steinbech should be fired along with her.
This maoist crap needs to be crushed and all of the people that supported Steinbech need to be shipped to China so they can figure out why what they did was wrong.
I've made an honest effort to see this from the viewpoint of our hostess, but I don't quite get there. I cannot get past the fact that it is unambiguously clear that this was a hit job planned in advance by the DEI dean (and possibly in collusion with the protestors). For comparison, check out the recent performance of the DEI dean at the Central Connecticut screening of the George Floyd film.
Still, I agree with Ann that the judge didn't help himself out. That said, I don't think even Justice Scalia could have converted the moment to a useful conversation. Apparently, the Stanford administration agrees, but the only real test of their resolve will be when there are expulsions and firings for this kind of behavior.
- Krumhorn
Anything but actually punish students who misbehave.
It's not that they didn't know what they did was wrong. It's that they knew they wouldn't suffer any consequences for it.
"Dean Tirien Steinbach, who spoke at the March 9 event with US Judge Kyle Duncan, 'is currently on leave,'"
Why? An expert assured us she did nothing wrong.
This seems about right to me. I suspect Steinbach organized the harassment of the invited speaker: that's been suggested by multiple sources. Given Stanford's official response, I'm assuming that this was the case (i.e. that the dean provoked this scene), obviously I don't know, but it would explain the school's response:
1. The harassment was clearly against Stanford's stated policy.
2. You can't blame the students too much if they were encouraged by a faculty member.
3. Stanford should throw the book at the dean who was exhibiting gross dereliction of duty.
I know there are other constructions of this event, but this fits the facts I've seen.
”Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach, who spoke at the March 9 event with US Judge Kyle Duncan, 'is currently on leave,' [Stanford Law School Dean Jenny] Martinez said."
So maybe the raw intimidation factor of masked, black-clad protestors lining the hallway from her classroom and giving Dean Martinez the stink eye backfired? I confess that I hadn’t thought she would have the guts to push back against 60 - 100 students trying to intimidate her for her public apology to Judge Duncan.
When the bully gets his/their way, you’re assured of only one thing. It will happen again and again. The left uses this tactic repeatedly. So too Muslims.
Anything but actually punish students who misbehave.
It's not that they didn't know what they did was wrong. It's that they knew they wouldn't suffer any consequences for it.
I wonder if any students have formally ratted out Steinbach as the instigator of their tantrum.
From what I've read she made no effort to cover her tracks. She expected everybody to react the way Althouse did.
Dean Martinez sent a 10 page letter to the Stanford Law School community—an unusually lengthy message because as a law school these issues are core to its educational mission. My son, a 2010 graduate of SLS, received a copy of the letter and shared it with me. I think it is a comprehensive response. Clearly the DEI Dean has been discredited and disciplined. The reasons the students were not disciplined THIS TIME is clearly stated. Most importantly, SLS has firmly stood up for free speech going forward.
I think the students at Judge Duncan’s event who loudly disrupted his speech will be furious with the Dean’s letter.
Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach is not on leave due to her actions. Rather she is on leave because so many people took notice of her actions which shed a negative spot-light on the college. The school is now worried that their support of the ugly actions of the students and Ms. Steinbach may cause their federal clerkship program to be harmed.
Who will be the speakers? Will the students listen? Will the students learn?
I'll be a speaker but my fee is $10,000 plus expenses. Net Jet from Omaha to Palo Alto.
Steinbach is still the winner of this exchange. Another win for her is that Stanford Law School Dean Martinez’s memorandumsingled out Steinbach’s actions as a major reason for not disciplining any students:
“In this instance, however, the failure by administrators in the room to timely administer clear and specific warnings and instead to send conflicting signals about whether what was happening was acceptable or not (and indeed at one point to seemingly endorse the disruptions that had occurred up to that point by saying “I look out and say I’m glad this is going on here”) is part of what created the problem in the room and renders disciplinary sanction in these particular circumstances problematic.“
It’s a well-written legal memorandum. Martinez is protecting Stanford Law School’s flanks, as the dean of a law school should do.
Ouch!
That's going to be a tough pill to swallow for all the leftist moron future lawfare types like LLR-democratical Chuck.
Part of me hopes the same protesters come a scream at this meeting.
Same!
But I think it's more likely that the black-clad mask-wearing stink-eye ghouls will show up instead, as this training will be "literally violence" against their Gaia-given right to avoid anything that seems even mildly critical of their delicate sensibilities.
Also: if this group training exercise is as successful as, say, the group DEI training my husband had to undergo at work, it'll do a great job of teaching all the kids to keep their mouths shut at risk of their positions and nothing at all to teach them why free speech is valuable even when it's on a side you don't agree with.
It's theater. This is a university, where presumably there's a whole department devoted to research and theory about how best to educate, but they're going to use this long-deprecated method - harangues of "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! HOW can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!" and public shaming - to "teach"? No way.
A classical liberal judge rules on a civilized right conceived in common courtesy.
DIEversity, a class-disordered philosophy and practice, breeds adversity.
That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one.
>The law school will hold 'a mandatory half-day session in spring quarter for all students on the topic of freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession,
Dean Tirien Steinbach, who spoke at the March 9 event with US Judge Kyle Duncan, 'is currently on leave,' <
It is telling that even the Stanford Law School Administration appears to disagree with Althouse's position on this episode. The commenters here seem to be in good company.
Norms? We don't need no stinkin' norms!
Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach, who spoke at the March 9 event with US Judge Kyle Duncan
A civil violation of consensus or convenience and a lecture to a guest and captive audience. Her reinforcement of a premeditated mischaracterization of his speech.
Smart move on the part of the Dean [Jenny Martinez].
Fiduciary and social responsibility, novel.
Dean Martinez’s letter available on Stanford Law School website:
https://law.stanford.edu/
Well, that's not nothing.
I'm skeptical about the extent to which student participation in the mob would hurt their chances in Big Law, though, since my impression is that it's about as much captured by the Progressive left as virtually every other institution. Even Medium Law. Might be some holdouts in Little Law.
(was just on a roll there, I have no idea about law firm typology).
educational programming on free speech
What could go wrong???
Too late. The lefties have taken over. This is trying to polish a turd.
Just students?
It would be helpful to would-be employers if the Federalist Society were to publish online the membership of the National Lawyers Guild at Stanford. (And poetic justice, since the NLG posted names and pictures of Stanford Federalist Society members in the week leading up to the speech.)
I look forward to hearing the students' complaints about being forced to endure these struggle sessions.
Is Tirien Steinbach also required to attend, in order to return from her much-deserved "leave?"
The content of the "educational programming" would be interesting to know. Maybe a student activist will provide a cell phone recording of it.
It also would have been nice for the article to explain why Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach “is currently on leave.” Is it a disciplinary reason, or is it intended to protect Steinbach from the “hateful and threatening messages” that she has been receiving?
all these fascists who interrupted the event have been taught to engage in exactly the type of behavior they did. That's what happens when academia goes full commie and pushes activism instead of learning.
Good luck trying to undo the brainwashing.
A muted response from the professor to her hero Dean being told go away you're embarrassing us by the Stanford administration.
Who expects these mandatory lectures to do any good regarding respect for Constitutional principles and common courtesy? Hands, please? ... Yeah, about what I expected.
How about a whiff of grapeshot, instead? A few judicious law school expulsions pour encourager les autres? Hands, again? ... Now we're talking.
The stronger argument is against denying the Freedom to hear.
LOL.
Free speech = leftists yelling "Your white supremacy is showing" and then throwing a cement milk shake at you.
because everyone understands that the leftist victim BS is king.
Here is the full letter from the Dean of the Law School. I'm impressed.
Mandatory anything is dumb.
Damage control: no hunt for the wicked, and instead the administration of collective punishment to all students. It will be interesting to see what actually gets delivered as teaching, and what the kids do with it. At a minimum they can try to discuss the concepts intelligently in any hiring interviews they might still be lucky enough to get.
But what if someone’s exercise of free speech hurts their feelings? My god, what then?
Typical, they would be served a lot better for expelling those students and the DIE protestor. But they won't, in typical democrat fashion, they will play the long game...BECAUSE they know the news media will give them cover.
Is it OK to post a link to Ramirez' cartoon on the disaster? He's always worthwhile IMHO.
This will be as effective as the FBI having "follow up training" for agents after trying and failing to frame Trump with "russian collusion".
Nothing will change until the DEI dimwit is shown the door and those protestors get suspended for a few weeks. This is just performative nonsense to soothe the reputational damage to Stanford not being a serious college of law.
The UC Hastings policy that Dean Martinez cites has this sample announcement text to be read by administrators:
“My name is [YOUR NAME, TITLE]. Thank you for attending this event. Freedom of speech, which allows for the open exchange of ideas, is a core value at UC Hastings. As a learning environment, we never shy away from disagreement. Each member of the Hastings community has the right to present speakers and programs, as well as the right to protest speech. Today’s speaker is brought to us by [STUDENT ORG], which is hosting this event and invited [SPEAKER NAME] to UC Hastings. We understand that this talk may prompt sharp disagreement, and we recognize and value the rights of individuals to express their views. But the College will not permit a response or a protest that disrupts this event so as to effectively silence the invited speaker and prevent them from communicating with the audience. Campus officials are present and prepared to issue a warning to any individual or group that engages in disruptive behavior. If any individual or group continues to be disruptive, they will be required to leave and may be held accountable under the UC Hastings Code of Student Conduct and Discipline. Our goal today is to have a peaceful and respectful event. Please be mindful of other audience members and thank you for your attention.“
That’s a Riot Act type of warning. The original Riot Act was adopted following protests of the coronation of George I in 1714 and required the reading of this warning:
“Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.“
It's a bit late for SLS to be worried about the behavior of the subhuman garbage they admitted to their program. They knew who they were enrolling. They read their bullshit admission essays, where they bragged about how woke they were, and how they had mau-maued everyone they encountered since third grade, and how they plan to change the racist, sexist, et ceterist world once get their hands on the levers. None of this should come as a surprise to SLS. Unless they are planning to expel a third or more of their "students", they might as well just shut the shithole down. Those vermin will be a burden to society for the rest of their useless lives. Teaching them law will only make it much worse.
Is the local elementary school also participating?
I suspect alumni pressure has something to do with this. Also, there is no indication that either the law school dean or the university president was happy with this incident.
Now Stanford has to bring its students up to the mark through the free speech version of diversity training. I am sure that will work well.
The problem is NOT that Stanford law students don't understand how free speech works. The problem is that they hate the idea that anyone but them gets to enjoy free speech.
Stanford could give them a far more useful and long-lasting lesson, by applying consequences to students who try to deny speech rights to others. Shout down a speaker, get suspended for one term. Do it again, get expelled. As for administrators who promote this 'free-speech-for-us-but-not-for-you' idea, pink slips should be handed out.
"Free-speech-lessons" are likely to be received in the same spirit as D-E-I lessons: what a waste of time!
Also, the Federalist Society should get reimbursed by Stanford for whatever they had to pay to get Duncan to come to Stanford to talk. That waste of money should be on the school.
People, people, you can't free speech in here, this is a law school.
Good to know that Stanford lawyers will have had at least four hours education about the Constitution.
Never hire one.
Why do ALL students have to attend the bullying seminar?
How about just requiring the bullies to attend?
Not bad, if we can't get a good tarring and feathering.
Faced with a growing chorus of objections and complaints - and several threats - about Stanford Law School's lack of response to the admitted gross violation of its free speech policies when a federal judge invited to address the students was shouted down, the Dean has now responded, but her actions may be too little and too late.
In a 10-page letter which comes only after 13 days of inaction and great pressure from many quarters, Dean Martinez has finally decided not to discipline the students whom she admits violated the school's written free speech policy and the First Amendment (to the extent it applies to Stanford under a statute).
Instead, the entire student body will be receive a "mandatory half-day" indoctrination ["session"] on what the school will assert are "freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession."
Public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has advised Stanford of his intent to file complaints - as several commentators had suggested and some schools have in fact done - against the students responsible for the disruption with bar admission authorities, notes that U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has asked the Texas bar board should "take particular care" for students graduating from Stanford Law School during the next three years, and to require them to state in writing - presumably subject to penalties for lying - if they participated in the disruption.
In addition, U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, and U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch announced that students who engage in such behavior should be subject to future professional consequences for their “intolerance.” They wrote that schools should “at a minimum […] identify the disrupters so that future employers know who they are hiring” and “inform employers if they’re injecting potentially disruptive forces into their organizations.”
California bar authorities have indicated that they will thoroughly investigate any incident which might reflect on the applicant's "respect for the rights of others and for the judicial process."
Great, but I think that ship had sailed/horse has left the barn.
Is a half day of forced corrective training going to impact a lifetime of propaganda?
Stay classy, Stanford.
"Part of me hopes the same protesters come a scream at this meeting."
All of me.
That'll learn those young heathens. But I can't help wondering how mandatory it really is. Will Stanford not graduate anyone who doesn't attend? Magic 8 Ball says, "Don't count on it."
They must be hearing a lot of blowback from alumni, colleagues in the field, and maybe even within to do something like this.
If Stanford had provided proper "training" in the first place, the situation would never have arisen in the first place.
Lipstick on a pig.
I wonder how many deep pocketed donors let the Stanford administration that no more donations would be forthcoming unless this debacle was dealt with poste haste.
Here is the letter from Dean Martinez. Her take on events in the room is interesting.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-school-dean-jenny-martinez-campus-community-march-22-2023
Does anybody else think these "mandatory half day training sessions" are kinda slimy? Didn't that CNN anchor have to through one too? They just feel way off to me for a bunch of reasons.
The karmic irony of DIE dean the captive audience.
I bet Antifa will attend.
Oh Hell No!
Make the belligerent/protesting students attend your re-education camp, not everybody.
So students who weren’t even there are now required to attend a “civility” course (civility bullshit course) because these fascists have no common decency? What about the Fed Soc members who got cheated out of hearing the invited guest speaker? They get punished too?
I’d be pissed, and I’d refuse to attend.
Make the guilty pay. Don’t punish the whole class.
The complete letter is interesting:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jRUIkNjH7T7iPvp4kiChwL9ehoK_Awgz/view
I am, frankly, surprised.
From the National Review Article:
Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez released a detailed letter Wednesday criticizing the students who heckled federal judge Kyle Duncan and announcing that DEI administrator Tirien Steinbach, who interrupted his lecture, is now on leave. Martinez declined to submit to calls that she retract her letter of apology to Duncan and emphasized that Stanford’s speaker disruption policy was violated by both students and administrators.
...
In a ten-page letter to the Stanford community, Martinez announced that no students would be punished individually, instead preferring “mandatory educational programming for our student body” on freedom of speech and academic freedom.
She also announced that Steinbach was on leave and that moving forward “the role of any administrators present will be to ensure that university rules on disruption of events will be followed, and all staff will receive additional training in that regard.
Read Dean Martinez's letter — it is forceful, direct and thorough.
It is very critical of student behavior, Dean Steinbach's actions, and the notion the heckling is free speech.
Those here who thought otherwise have some explaining to do.
will the incoming class be tested on their grasp of free speech principles?
why not require them to submit written essays about it and hope it is grammatical!
"Mandatory anything is dumb."
You think? I think the problem may be that the students at Stanford have not received sufficient mandatory teaching in Constitutional Law, the First Amendment, and our nation's Bill of Rights. Being allowed to just select their classes and choose ones that support their world view doesn't exactly do them any favors. If every professor is teaching only Critical Race Thinking then the students are going to graduate with no knowledge of actual law. So mandatory classes should be required.
Their behavior with the Judge shows that a lecture on the First Amendment and Ethics is sorely needed. I think every student at Stanford should be required to submit a paper showing a full understanding of the First Amendment before being allowed to graduate.
recalled from reading Georgette Heyer novels :
Rustication is a term used at Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Universities to mean being suspended or expelled temporarily,
the guts to push back against 60 - 100 students trying to intimidate her
====
Class size 184 for 2022 application cycle
Amadeus 48 said...
Here is the letter from Dean Martinez. Her take on events in the room is interesting.
Clickable link to letter.
Excellent link.
Key excerpt IMO:
"Second, with respect to the students involved in the protest, several factors lead me to conclude that what is appropriate here is mandatory educational programming for our student body rather than referring specific students for disciplinary sanction (which at Stanford is administered by the central university’s Office of Community Standards and involves a deliberate process including fact-finding and hearings)."
This just highlights that the SLS is not really serious. If they were serious about discouraging this behavior these maoist shithead students would be expelled.
They deserve to be on a plane to China right now.
Hey Skipper said...
Read Dean Martinez's letter — it is forceful, direct and thorough.
It is very critical of student behavior, Dean Steinbach's actions, and the notion the heckling is free speech.
Words words words.
Dean Martinez said many things, but the actions did not match the words.
Instead of actual punishment of the Maoists SLS opted for mandatory struggle sessions for the entire student body which is darkly humorous and ironic.
Dean Martinez is acting in a dishonest manner. This will not do anything to deter the maoist campus movement.
Mr. T. said...
If Stanford had provided proper "training" in the first place, the situation would never have arisen in the first place.
Lipstick on a pig.
========
can be considered heroic when applied to snout! but this is lipstick on assholes
Programming.
The operational word in this sentence is "educational programming."
Teaching.
That's what they're now calling "programming."
The children who attend Stanford University Law School need to be "programmed" to not bully a sitting Federal judge.
How in any sane world does this entire episode not bring horrid un-eraseable disrepute on a once-respected University?
I see now that the instigator of the entire sordid event has been placed on what I can only presume is paid leave, which it's pretty obvious was her intent.
To be paid for nothing. To be paid to shut up. To be paid to NOT destroy Stanford.
Bravo.
Lessons in how to work the system are being taught effectively.
Bravo, Ann. Your support for the bedraggled, put upon Dean doesn't go without notice.
Achilles said...
"This "Session about Free Speech" is going to be put on by marxist (sic) shitheads that have been pushing the Maosit (sic) crap for decades. At most this is going to be a "How do you persecute Trump supporters without looking like an open fascist" seminar.
Every administrator and professor that did not loudly and forcefully condemn Steinbech should be fired along with her. This maoist (sic) crap needs to be crushed and all of the people that supported Steinbech need to be shipped to China so they can figure out why what they did was wrong."
------
Achilles, when I suggested earlier today that you should start drinking this morning to calm yourself down, I didn't think you would actually do it. Cheers!
"Stanford University’s President Marc Tessier-Lavigne later apologized to Duncan in a March 11 letter"
I thought Prof Marc Tessier-Lavigne was proven by a student journalist to have committed research fraud and was going to be fired immediately. Was there not an award of some kind?
Mandatory retraining is a common way to approach these things, very non-judgmental in a passive aggressive way. Perhaps the students will get the message: Stanford is selective, you got in, someone else equally qualified is waiting to take your place.
Having sat through mandatory trainings plenty of times, I have little hope that they will change the culture of the student body; re-establishing norms is hard.
The suspension of the dean makes sense to me if it has become clear that she strategized with the disruptive students, which the prepared remarks seem to indicate, but perhaps not. If she was making decisions in the heat of the moment, I might disagree with her methods for calming down the crowd and getting protestors to leave, but that is not worthy of suspension*.
I've been thinking about Althouse's description of what the judge should have done in the situation, but I wasn't commenting last week. I have little faith that the judge could have used his overwhelming eloquence to engage the students in reasoned debates, like some sort of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment. I don't think that is how mobs, or that mob, works. But Althouse suggested discussion and debate, and there was an opportunity there to directly engage the Dean. Have a conversation about whether the "juice is worth the squeeze." What does she think the juice is, and more importantly what is the squeeze? The harm to students by the presence of the judge? Or the disruption by the protestors? Either could be a squeeze. And does she, personally, think the juice is worth the squeeze, and why are why not? Is there ever a place appropriate to squeeze a hard lemon, why is it not a law school? Could the squeeze be limited by asking those who feel they might be squeezed the most to not attend, rather than protest?
*unless non-leftists just head into eye for an eye territory and Alinsky anyone who makes themselves available.
Dean Martinez begins her letter by bemoaning the "hateful and even threatening messages directed at members of our community." She continues that she wants "to be clear that the hate mail and appalling invective that have been directed at some of our students and law school administrators in the wake of March 9 are of great concern to me." Finally she states that "All actionable threats that come to our attention will be investigated and addressed as the law permits."
One question: does that include "We hope your daughters are raped?"
Those here who thought otherwise have some explaining to do.
Steinbach is still the winner of this exchange. - Left Bank
I wouldn't hold my breath.
If they want to show they're supporters of free speech, they'll invite the judge back to, you know, speak.
Anything else is performative nonsense.
"Those here who thought otherwise have some explaining to do."
************
Starting with our blogmistress. Who might be reached in that deep anti-constitutional hole she has dug herself into.
As for firings and expulsions, I'd demand that Jabba the DEI Monster be shown the door. SHE had a leading role in all this.
A guest has been invited to lecture, attendance is voluntary? Ok- fine. If you don't like the lecturer or his opinions, you're free to not attend and save a seat for somebody who wants to hear him. If you decide to go, sit your ass down, shut your piehole and listen to what he has to say. Think about what you just heard. If you have questions, ask them if the event includes a Q&A session afterwards.
What you don't do is act up like a spoiled child, shouting down the speaker for- what? You haven't heard his speech, so how do you know you disagree with what he hasn't said? Unless, of course, you're too fragile to hear anything you don't approve of. In which case, one might ask what you're going to do once you're away from your campus safe spaces and people don't recognize how fragile you are. Are you going to wear a badge or ribbon to let people know not to challenge you with anything thought-provoking? I mean- you're just a Stanford graduate and it would be awfully presumptuous to expect anything more from you. Right?
This isn't rocket science (at least IMO) but then, I'm not a lawyer or ever attended college in an attempt to become one. So there's that.
Oh, yeah- fire the dean.
Ten pages to tell law students what they should already know, with lots of language about understanding their concerns. Does anyone think that citations to caselaw--even the obvious pandering citation to a case upholding the rights of gay students to speak--will have any impact on these "scholars?"
How about: This is an outrage which has no place in a law school. Acting like spoiled children does not advance your cause. You embarrassed yourselves and you embarrassed Stamford Law School.
Students identified as attempting to disrupt the event will be disciplined according to the Stamford Speech Code, which preceded this outrage, so none of you can complain about it being applied.
Good for you for posting this, Professor.
Any comment? Do you agree or disagree with it?
Hey Tirien Steinbach - I hope the juice was worth the squeeze!!!!
"Read Dean Martinez's letter — it is forceful, direct and thorough. It is very critical of student behavior, Dean Steinbach's actions, and the notion the heckling is free speech.
Those here who thought otherwise have some explaining to do."
Glad to oblige. Here is a quote from the Dean's letter, "Moreover, because of the special role of lawyers in our system of justice, lawyers are held to higher standards of professional conduct and interaction with one another than lay people."
Not at SLS they aren't. This letter pretends to take seriously the idea that these little shits were ignorant of the rights they were violating. Apparently the five SLS administrators who sat and watched it for several minutes, and the one who then got up and joined in, were equally ignorant. SLS is rotten to its stinking left-fascist core.
lonejustice said...
Achilles said...
"This "Session about Free Speech" is going to be put on by marxist (sic) shitheads that have been pushing the Maosit (sic) crap for decades. At most this is going to be a "How do you persecute Trump supporters without looking like an open fascist" seminar.
Every administrator and professor that did not loudly and forcefully condemn Steinbech should be fired along with her. This maoist (sic) crap needs to be crushed and all of the people that supported Steinbech need to be shipped to China so they can figure out why what they did was wrong."
------
Achilles, when I suggested earlier today that you should start drinking this morning to calm yourself down, I didn't think you would actually do it. Cheers!
You are just a really stupid and boring person.
Isn't collective punishment for the actions of a few or just one, a war crime?
Pillage Idiot said...
Why do ALL students have to attend the bullying seminar?
How about just requiring the bullies to attend?
You are touching on the real point here.
SLS is not trying to stop the Maoists.
It is trying to force everyone to participate in these struggle sessions. This is furthering the Maoist agenda in the guise of "protecting free speech."
And while we are on the lamentable subject, let's recall that the supposed basis for these hooligans' hatred of Judge Duncan is complete and utter BS. They pretend to be the victims of imaginary "harms", when in fact they are intent upon harming others. They are vicious thugs, and they feel entitled to harass, threaten and intimidate anyone they disagree with. And SLS selected them, knowing full well what they are like. The thought that these reckless criminals will be admitted to the practice of law is horrifying. But don't kid yourself that that silly twat Martinez, with her noxious gabble about "inclusion", has any intention of doing anything to stop it.
Known Unknown said...
Mandatory anything is dumb.
Some students and their allied administrators are putting people who disagree with them.
So now we are going to force all students to learn that using struggle sessions to attack people who disagree with you is bad...
By having them attend a mandatory struggle session.
This is not how you fix this issue. This is how you make it worse.
No Civility Bullshit tag?
Stanford has become so painfully bourgeois.
@Achilles: “Instead of actual punishment of the Maoists SLS opted for mandatory struggle sessions for the entire student body which is darkly humorous and ironic.”
Given the circumstances — years of institutions across the US similarly enabling Maoist mobs, the DIE Dean first instigating the mob, then failing to provide the leadership her position required — SLS wasn’t in a position to bring out the hammer. This letter drew the line which, at the very latest, should have been drawn following what happened to Yale’s Nicholas Christakis seven years ago.
Now the line is drawn.
Bob Peschel said what needs to happen next: invite Judge Duncan back to make his presentation to Stanford’s Federalist Society.
The Maoist mob has had their Mulligan.
Still waiting for those ‘splanations.
Suppose that SLS expelled every "student" who participated in this criminal outrage. Harsh, you say? Well, harsh how? SLS had no qualms about turning away thousands of equally qualified kids. Was that harsh? I'm sure many of them would be happy to take the places of these whining miscreants. If SLS were serious about its supposed "mission", it would shitcan these assholes, and bring in a new group. "We made a mistake. A third of our students actually believe that it is acceptable to try to intimidate a Dean in her classroom. We realize they are piss-poor material, and much better is available. We're going to get rid of them and start over."
The fact that SLS is -- not "reluctant". Flatly unwilling -- even to consider doing any such thing tells you exactly how seriously they take anything other than their salaries and careers. These "students" will do just fine, thank you. We think they'll make great judges.
There is quite a bit in common with this situation and the infamous attempt to extort and harass a local bakery by the College of Stalinist Nuttery at Oberlin. Pretty costly ending, and a black eye for the Stalinist left in general.
The Dean here is hardly sincere, but she may be smart enough to know the taxpayers, and by extension prosepctive juries, are getting mighty fed up with the corrupt largess of the campus leftism. Experts may scoff at Duncan's chances, but a lawsuit that goes to jury will likely be a thousand papercuts at best for Standford.
Plus the students are a part of the National Lawyers Guild-who are famous for producing domestic terrorists like those in Atlanta, and leftwing traitors like Lynne Stewart.
Achilles said...
"Some students and their allied administrators are putting people who disagree with them."
What, with a putter?
I agree the students and the Dean broke the code of conduct and deserve reprimand for their breach. From the presidents POV, though, it can be difficult to prevail in a clean reprimand or expulsion or termination without having fulfilled an obligation to be sure that the bad actors knew that their actions were bad and subject to discipline. So I think she’s laying the groundwork to meet that threshold of ensuring that everyone on campus knows the expectations and consequences of breaching them. Anything that happens after that mandatory session would have a strong bulwark against ignorance of the rules, so any terminations could not be challenged for insufficient notice. It’s a reasonable step to prevent a recurrence, or enable discipline if it does recur. The mandatory session should be an annual event for the foreseeable.
Oops, Dean, not President.
I'm a Stanford Grad from long ago. I've felt for a long time the administration was barely in charge of the University. This is encouraging.
Mason G @ 6:49: Your advice is spot-on but therefore unacceptable, because it embarrasses the SLS Administration. Here they are, waving their hands furiously and expostulating about the Very Special Teaching Moment that will be inflicted on every last student this spring --a very big deal with a budget and a priority commensurate to its suddenly-urgent status-- and in about a hundred words of common sense you have upstaged them all. Can't have that!
As for Dean of Safe Spaces Tirien Steinbach: is her leave paid or unpaid? How long will it run? Does she continue to accrue vacation days and sick days? Does this constitute a break in service for purposes of pension and seniority? Is the length of her banishment dependent on stated conditions, either "Tirien has finished writing 'I won't screw up again' 50,000 times" or "Dean Martinez has decided the coast is clear, so you can come back now."? Can we see the communication(s) that effectuated the leave?
Pass the popcorn!
It's true as many here say that this response did not go quite far enough. But I think this misses the larger significance. The norm has been to accord these mobs respect and go through the pretense of accepting how unsafe they feel and how committed they are to a better world, how much the administration cares about their feelings, etc. This time that part of the script did not happen. I know of no other university top brass who have done what this dean has done, who is sticking to her judgment against the mob for its mob behavior, specifically rejecting the mob;s totalitarian mind set and implying the institution will not accord it any respect. Okay, she did not kick them out, fire the DEI dean, etc. What she did do was tell every college administrator in the country that it's time to take back the initiative. I believe this is in that sense a turning point moment. The cowardice and complicity at the top have been the absolutely essential element in the long marchers' project. We will see.
One thing I have not seen enough of here or many other places is attention to the role of the National Lawyers Guild. Dershowitz has a good rant on this. The NLG is down the line Stalinist, still, in whatever new form that takes. They are, he says planning much more of this sort of thing at law schools.
Hey Skipper said...
Now the line is drawn.
Bob Peschel said what needs to happen next: invite Judge Duncan back to make his presentation to Stanford’s Federalist Society.
The Maoist mob has had their Mulligan.
This has happened repeatedly in history over the centuries.
None of these despotic tribal movements have ever just stopped. Maoism, Nazism, Socialism, Communism, General Despotism all have the same goal. They all use the same tactics.
When they aren't running Reg Guard struggle sessions on college campuses they are going Soviet trying to arrest Donald Trump in NYC. When they get all crazy they have BLM/Antifa brown shirts burn down some small businesses. Everyone that opposes them is a hoarder or wrecker orracist. The Jews/White males/Asians are in control of everything.
The historical comparisons are obvious and legion.
One thing that these movements has never done is stop peacefully. The only way to stop them has been to force military surrender. That means reducing the military age male population by 30%. I don't mind substituting exile for a necessary number of these shitheads.
People are naive if they think anything less is going to work this time. It never has before.
A half day of 'mandatory training' can't replace 16+ years of indoctrination but at least it's enough so that next time, after another X number of SLS students behave like anarchists, the university administrators can give official warnings to them. And then the time after that, they'll be able to expel a couple.
The 'Oberlin bakery case' (I can't remember the family's name) doesn't seem to have brought too many university administrators to their senses, does it?
From the Dean's letter:
Finally, it should be obvious from what I have stated above that at future events, the role of any administrators present will be to ensure that university rules on disruption of events will be followed, and all staff will receive additional training in that regard.
So it's not just the students who will be collectively punished. It's also "all staff". I wonder if faculty are included.
It appears to me that over half of the commentators here didn't even bother to read the Dean's letter before commenting.
This comes down to the ideals of Stanford University (free speech and open inquiry) versus the opinions and actions of students and some administrators (words in themselves are harmful and cause hurt).
This has been a long time coming. The foundation was laid by the New Left back in the 1960s, when the baby boomers entered college and there was a war on and a draftee army. Free speech was flying a different flag in those days (see Berkeley Free Speech Movement).
We were raised with the playground mantra, sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. Althouse has interjected various observations about this controversy from the standpoint of critical legal theory (from which critical race theory is derivative) in which she notes who remains in power. As long as the ideals remain free speech and open inquiry we as a society have a chance to observe and correct egregious error.
Half (more or less) of Americans do not in any way shape or form approve of this behavior. When they show up at big law firms and give a list of lawyers they will not work with by school and an after 2015 grad date, then things will change.. These same half will also very carefully screen college options for their children. Eventually, they will get the message. Next will be medical schools.
"Never too late to learn good manners, I guess."
Sometimes it may be.
I have to wonder if those who have not already learned good manners (or intuited on their own the need for them) before they have arrived at college (or law school!) will be able or willing to learn them or agree to adopt them. But then, the necessity of earning a living can often be convincing to even the most obdurate.
“Isn't collective punishment for the actions of a few or just one, a war crime?”
After the fall of Germany the US Army required local citizens to view the local Nazi death camps and see all the carnage. This was a mandatory reeducation event, and did not result in a trial at Nuremberg. So there it is.
"This time that part of the script did not happen."
Wrong again;
"I also recognize that the protest originally grew out of a desire by students to bring greater attention to discussion of LGBTQ+ rights in the current legal environment. I have spoken with faculty whose scholarship and teaching gives them relevant expertise, and who will
work with students to plan events in spring quarter to substantively engage on this topic."
Adults. We are having to 'educate' adults on what is really basic decency? In a law school?!
Martinez's letter is the good, stern talking to that these kids needed. Watch 'em straighten up and fly right NOW.
If the leader of the re-education camp training isn't Clarence Thomas, or maybe his wife, I suspect it won't change much in the minds or behaviors of the students.
Jupiter said...
Suppose that SLS expelled every "student" who participated in this criminal outrage. Harsh, you say? Well, harsh how? SLS had no qualms about turning away thousands of equally qualified kids. Was that harsh? I'm sure many of them would be happy to take the places of these whining miscreants. If SLS were serious about its supposed "mission", it would shitcan these assholes, and bring in a new group. "We made a mistake. A third of our students actually believe that it is acceptable to try to intimidate a Dean in her classroom. We realize they are piss-poor material, and much better is available. We're going to get rid of them and start over."
The fact that SLS is -- not "reluctant". Flatly unwilling -- even to consider doing any such thing tells you exactly how seriously they take anything other than their salaries and careers. These "students" will do just fine, thank you. We think they'll make great judges.
Exactly.
The Dean's letter was a tacit endorsement of this maoist struggle session.
This is followed up by forcing every student in the school to go to another struggle session.
I will bet at least half of these "free speech" struggle sessions are going to focus on how to not be racists and how to not offend others with your opinions that are to the right of Mao and any support of free speech, expression, or association will be mere lip service.
The leftists will still be allowed to attack their political opponents and put up wanted posters at Stanford.
This is all pretense until the fascists are actually suppressed and removed from our society.
I’m not sure that this quite deserves term “vandalize”, but it is certainly compelling evidence that these students are a bunch of immature, entitled little sh@tstains.
Does anyone really think that any of these leftist thugs will be fit to become officers of the court in a year or two or three?
I guess that’s just one more norm that the Left had to sacrifice in their zeal to destroy anyone to the right of Joe Biden. They have already worked mightily to ensure that President Trump is never able to obtain good counsel. And turned the DC District Court into a disgusting kangaroo court worthy of Stalin.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11861201/Stanford-law-school-students-line-halls-dressed-black-masks-Judge-Kyle-Duncan-row-rumbles-on.html
Post a Comment