The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ilya Shapiro Is Shouted Down At U.C. Hastings
In 2018, I was shouted down at the CUNY Law School in New York. I've written at some length about the experience, including a law review article in the First Amendment Law Review. Still, nearly four years later, the experience remains surreal. It is difficult to convey what it feels like when dozens of students are screaming and shouting at you in the most vicious way. In modern discourse, we often speak of the "harm" and "violence" cause by tweets and the like. But I experienced, first hand, personal attacks. Perhaps the one redeeming aspect of the CUNY incident was that I was able to defuse the protest, engage the students in conversation, and ultimately begin a reasoned discussion–albeit not on the topic I intended to speak about.
My good friend and colleague Ilya Shapiro was not so fortunate. On Tuesday, he was slated to speak at the U.C. Hastings Law School about the Supreme Court confirmation process. Ilya has given this talk umpteen times across the country. But this lecture would be different, in light of his ongoing situation at Georgetown. Ilya was shouted down for nearly an hour straight. The students livestreamed the protest on Instagram.
Every time Ilya opened his mouth, dozens students screamed at him and banged the table. He could not get a word out. There was also an element of physicality. Students stood inches away from Ilya, and got in his face. Throughout the process, Ilya stood stoically.
https://twitter.com/njhochman/status/1499079537526775817
— Lawrence T. Hony (@lawthony) March 2, 2022
Morris Ratner, the academic dean, warned the students that their disruption violated the code of conduct. But he then took no steps to actually enforce the code, and ensure that Ilya could speak. And students yelled at him with profanity.
https://twitter.com/njhochman/status/1499171175393546246
Professor Rory Little, who was invited to comment on Ilya's talk, said on camera that he supported the protest. And, when the camera panned to Little around 44:00, he was banging the table along with a chant.
https://twitter.com/njhochman/status/1499087041417695238
The protestors also hurled bizarrely personal attacks at Ilya. One student said, "When did you start balding? Are you sad that you're balding." I hate to break it to the student, but we all go bald.
Around the 22:00 minute mark, a student shouted out, "Freedom of speech, baby." The context was not clear, but my sense was that she thought the student protest was itself an exercise of the freedom of speech. No. The classroom is not a public forum. Student organizations are permitted to reserve that space for their preferred speakers, who have priority. (Eugene Volokh and Howard Wasserman explain the doctrine). And this disruption was not brief. It lasted the entire duration of Ilya's slotted time. (At my CUNY protest, the now-self-cancelled Dean insisted that my speech was protected because the protest only lasted eight minutes).
Will anything happen to the students? Probably not. The administrators and professors are either deathly afraid of the students, or alternatively, sympathetic to the students. What I do know is that the FedSoc chapter on campus will find it difficult to hold future debates. Throughout the event, the the protestors repeatedly asked the two FedSoc officers to justify their decision to invite Shapiro. The officers were booed and ridiculed. Around the 51:00 mark, a student said "don't let it happen again, because it will be shut down too."
Perhaps the one silver lining of this event is that we can revisit CLS v. Martinez, which arose at U.C. Hastings. So much for an "all-comers" policy. It is clear now that student organizations on campus will be protested and shut down if they invite unpopular speakers. It would be a good test case if a conservative member tried to join the various affinity groups. I strongly that dispute would come out differently with the current Court. And for that victory, we have the students at Hastings to thank.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These students are Commie scum and diverses. There is no talking to them. Only ass kicking. They are the enemy of our nation and servants of the Chinese Commie Party.
First, it is insane to travel to a lecture today. Demand a video meeting, with a muting of the listeners. That is what the school board is doing. No dissent is allowed.
Second, it is a total waste of time to engage with a denier. For example, it is a total waste of time to engage about the utter failure of the lawyer profession with the denier, Volokh. He refuses to see the self evident from 10th grade, because he has a rent seeking agenda.
Third, the school agrees with the Commies, and should be shunned then shut down. Shut down this Commie scum school for not calling the cops and for not having this scum tasered.
Diverses have 4 times the rate of violence. Ilya should not have gone there, they way he should not go to the hood after dark.
One notes all are masked at this late date. It tells the world they are all Democrat douche bags.
Shapiro is masked too, moron.
Hi, Queenie. Please, don’t hurt me. I will give you my wallet.
Hi, More. I am just placing my replies in one place for your convenience, to spare you spending a lot of time searching for them. This is for your benefit.
Shapiro does not want to inhale the aerosol from these people, with high viral loads.
Ilya should have dialed 911. He should have reported he “felt threatened” by a possible school shooting, better get SWAT over here as qucikly as possible.
The only ass Behar has kicked was that donkey when his mom took him that petting zoo for aspys last week.
Is this a new record: Behar replying to his own comment twice?
Hi, More. I am just placing my replies in one place for your convenience, to spare you spending a lot of time searching for them. This is for your benefit.
” Is this a new record: Behar replying to his own comment twice? ”
No.
Is this blog genuinely the best that current movement conservative legal academia can generate?
Hey, Artie. Glad you are here. When are you resigning so a diverse from the video can take your position? Stop talking woke. Start acting woke. Resign now. Call a diverse in the video about the job opening.
Hi, Queenie. What gender was on your birth certificate? I need that for your letter.
Rory Little: “He waves and smiles: “I’m all for it.””
Understandable reply. He does not want his ass beat.
It’s handy that so many of you have such a hard-on for Prof. Blackman that you can, like the petulant children in this story…and the cowardly Professor who cheered them on…use it to avoid dealing with the substance of what’s being written about.
Making fun of Josh’s self-importance is funny and more worthwhile than the “substance” though.
How is it that the volume of the speaker can never be turned up to drown out those who conspire to deny constitutional rights?
I did see one speaker deal with a (less coordinated) protest by sticking the mike in front of a speaker until the feedback ended the interruption.
I was thinking an excellent solution would be to have a talk to text set up on a screen behind the speaker. Or just text. Then there would be no volume issue and it would be dead friendly.
*deaf
I actually think this may be the single most serious issue our society faces, because all *other* issues hinge upon it. If we really can’t talk and debate, even when we find certain people/ideas offensive, then we have no hope of dealing constructively with all the various issues we face.
That sounds like something a racist would say.
You may be joking and some of you audience see the joke but the rest firmly agree on the most flimsy of excuses and respond disproportionately.
OK, yes, it was an attempt at a joke. What I probably shouldn’t try to do on the Internet.
Just keep making the joke, Cal. 🙂
It’s pure religious fanaticism.
And like all other kinds of religious fanaticism, people should be free to believe it, but *cannot* be given the power to coercively impose it on everyone.
It’s kids hopped up on righteousness.
It is not religion, it’s just kids as they’ve always been.
I blame Socrates.
If it’s kids as they’ve always been, why could you hold a debate 20 years ago? The kids had “always” been like that, right?
Obviously it’s not just kids as they’ve always been, because something has changed.
Seriously, Sarcastro, you’re living in a cultural revolution, and trying to tell people, “But mobs have always attacked people and made them wear dunce caps!“
Ah yes…Brett reverting to the ol’ chestnut of, “Back in the day things like this didn’t happen.”
Life was so much better before these uppity nigg. . . I mean woke commies started acting up, amirite?
Things like this DID happen and have always happened.
It’s just that we’re now well into the 21st century and the internets/social media captures and widely disseminates these activities.
Just look at this blog – if the event wasn’t recorded on cell phones and then posted on Twitter and the VC, then we’d all be eating donuts and reading the sports page instead and wouldn’t have known about it.
FFS, YouTube wasn’t even launched until 2005.
It’s not a “chestnut”, things actually changed about 20-30 years ago.
The Blue Shift of the New England Professoriate
Look at graphs 1 and 2. In ’95, Northeast university faculties ran about 4-1 liberal. By 2014, when this data was analyzed, it had reached 27-1, and many faculties were at 100%. (Other sources of data have confirmed that it didn’t stop in 2014.)
That’s not a steady state, that’s a dramatic change. In light of this change in faculty, why would you expect student behavior not to have changed?
Basically, about 20-30 years ago, Northeast Universities almost totally stopped hiring conservatives, and the existing conservative faculty have been aging out ever since. It was a purge by attrition.
Look on the bright side Bellmore. By your own reckoning, you are complaining about a trend which ended in 2014.
No, I said quite explicitly that I’ve seen subsequent data showing it continued to get worse. I used this link because of the handy graphs displaying the change.
Brett, your previous comment said that by 2014 the trend had reached 27-1, with many faculty at 100%. After that, saying the trend continued is meaningless. It cannot go farther.
1. Wrong. It can go further. It can go from “many faculty at 100%” from “more faculty at 100%” That’s further, even if it’s not linear.
2. It makes perfect sense in the context of your previous comment, “you are complaining about a trend which ended in 2014.”
27-1 is 96% already. You are straining at a gnat, to cover for Bellmore’s carelessness, which is foolish. It’s not even Bellmore at his abysmal best.
Brett, your previous comment said that by 2014 the trend had reached 27-1, with many faculty at 100%. After that, saying the trend continued is meaningless. It cannot go farther.
In this thread, Lathrop demonstrates that he doesn’t know the difference between “many”, “most” and/or “all”.
This is not about faculty, Brett.
Stay on topic.
Are you missing the part where faculty and administration are not only not stopping this, they’re supporting and encouraging it? Why else do you think the students feel empowered? Is it something different that they’re coming out of high school with?
Sarcastro just sidesteps those inconvenient facts.
1) Where does the OP talk about that?
The OP talks about faculty endorsing the misconduct in a few places.
No, it talks about individual faculty doing so. Which is not a new thing.
This was not something planned by the institution.
1) Where does the OP talk about that?
FFS…do you even bother reading anything before rushing in here to spout your tired bullshit?
Answer…No.
UC Hastings professor
@RoryLittle , who was slated to debate Shapiro during the event, appears to endorse the activists. “I’m all for the protest here.” A student asks him to look in the Zoom camera “and tell them that you’re for us.”
He waves and smiles: “I’m all for it.”
It is absolutely about faculty, and the university culture they’re creating.
Things like this were not weekly news. For example, at my university, the local communist front group would occasionally picket the school because it had an (off-campus) FFRDC, and they claimed that made it a willing tool of the US military. They didn’t try to interrupt lectures.
But I see you are flying your racist flag at full staff, not just your ahistorical flag.
“Obviously it’s not just kids as they’ve always been, because something has changed.”
It’s the faculty. Instead of telling the kids to shut the hell up and sit down, they’re egging them on. The faculty who do this should be fired.
This.
There’s a Firing Line debate from the 1990’s where the student protesters demanding greater minority representation refuse to allow one of the participants, a professor, to speak. They allow every other member and they don’t quiet themselves even after being admonished by multiple liberals on the panel including ACLU members. It’s on YouTube but I forget the subject of the debate.
“it’s just kids as they’ve always been.”
Nope, Brett is right here. this is a new phenomenon.
No, Absaroka. It is a long-precedented phenomenon. During the Vietnam War era, it was notably more disruptive than now (so far). The subject matter then was the war, now it tends to be about racism. That is a difference. Otherwise, the student conduct and the academic issues are pretty similar. During the Vietnam War, tactics on the student side evolved toward more-disruptive means than presently; counter-tactics to assert order evolved toward more-violent means than presently. The political backlash then extended to routine police clubbings, use of tear gas, bayonets, and even demonstrators shot to death by the National Guard. There was also some use of the military draft to enforce conformity. I think you probably knew all that, but forgot to remember it.
I remember the 60’s quite well, thanks – not enough drugs, obviously.
The SDS doing sit-ins was bad, but it didn’t compare to today’s society wide belief that shouting down the opposition was OK. Sorry, your memories are of a different 1960’s than the one I lived through.
There was also some use of the military draft to enforce conformity. I think you probably knew all that, but forgot to remember it.
Say what?
Commenter_XY, not old enough to know that? Or didn’t remember?
To understand what happened, you have to know that prior to the draft lottery, inductions were up to local draft boards, working without much more guidance than a need to meet quotas. Some boards, like the one I reported to in Maryland, got politicized. Almost all of them were packed with pro-military types, as you would expect.
So if you showed up in the news as an anti-war demonstrator, or got your picture taken somehow while demonstrating, or maybe met the wrong person at a demonstration, who was taking notes, the politicized draft boards could exercise discretion to draft you in retaliation. Nobody was going to stop them.
I was startled one day to get a draft board order with no explanation—an order to report to the draft board office itself, not for induction, and not for a pre-induction physical. There I joined a group of about 15 others, as bewildered as I was. None of us knew each other. None of us could figure out why we had been ordered to be there.
A woman who introduced herself as the chair of the board set us straight. Without further introduction or explanation, she harangued us at length about patriotism. She said, with an unmistakable show of satisfaction, that some of us in that room would soon be killed in Vietnam. That was all there was to it, utterly weird.
Afterwards, in the parking lot, we talked to each other. We figured out that every one of us had been active in anti-war protests. That was a notable coincidence, because it was mid-1967, and not that many folks were yet demonstrating against the war. In my case it was even more notable, because the only place I had ever demonstrated was in San Francisco. To this day I have no idea how my local Maryland draft board identified me as a target, but they had information from somewhere.
Shortly thereafter I got an order to report for a draft physical—the second such order for me. The first time had been at the Oakland Army Terminal, where I failed an induction physical with a wrecked knee, and got classified 4F. So I was already 4F when I got ordered to report again, this time at Fort Meade, MD. Of course I failed that physical too. So that was the end of my troubles with the draft.
Except that a sympathetic-sounding public health nurse contacted me by telephone a few weeks later, with an offer of knee surgery to be provided at public expense. I declined the offer.
Really? It happened when I was a student in the early 2000s.
It happened when my parents were students in the 60s and 70s.
The very fact that all you have is bare assertion should give you pause on where you’re getting your sense this is new from.
That is new is the media.
“…where you’re getting your sense this is new from.”
My source is … having lived through it. It’s a ‘whatever your sources are vs. my lying eyes’ thing.
Now, I may be mistaken. If you want to supply some careful historical sources, I’ll listen – it’s always possible my memory is wrong. But your unsourced assertions about the way you think things must have been aren’t enough to convince me my lived experience is wrong, sorry.
Lived through it now (or recently) doesn’t give you any information that it hasn’t happened in the past.
Went to see George Wallace in Oshkosh, WI in 1968 and good old George sure did get the young folks riled up, though I don’t recall him kicking any hippies’ asses. Too bad, I suppose, as his ass kicking days were numbered. He did demonstrate some adroitness at dodging fruits and vegetables – better than Mike Piazza dodging a Roger Clemens fastball.
Wait…what?! Lived through it means just that: Absaroka lived through it while you were still a gamete in Daddy’s pants.
Let me put this in GenX-speak: Whatchube talkin bout, Willis?
Absaroka was there. You were not. Sit back, and learn something, Sarcastr0. Why not ask him what that was like, listening to him?
I also went to school, chief.
I also studied the history of protest in America.
And there’s no way he was there for all of the history of protest in America.
Bottom line, he’s wrong about this being new. This is factually untrue.
“And there’s no way he was there for all of the history of protest in America.”
Indeed. Only the last 60 odd years. Prior to that, we’re both limited to what we read in books, with all the limitations than implies.
“This is factually untrue.”
And yet, the sun still come up in the east. I saw it just this morning.
Your evidence is just an appeal to your being around in the 60s, and having an opinion. And ignoring what we know about Vietnam and the Civil Rights era.
You’re better than this. You need more than this. You know you need more.
Bring me more.
Well, his parents told him how it was. And their experience must be universal, so anyone who disagrees must be remembering wrong or lying. Especially if it disagrees with his political priors.
(To elaborate, I think both Sarcastro and Lathrop are missing the point. The 60’s unrest was, IMHE, largely limited to some campuses, and not society at large. For example, I have a long habit of going to city council meetings, school board meetings, and zoning hearings. There are frequently people with quite different views. Until recently they politely stated their views; they didn’t generally talk out of turn, shout down other people, and so on. Now, this is my corner of the world. Maybe in other corners people still disagree politely. Maybe in places other than the several states I have lived in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s people shouted each other down, and I just got lucky never living in those places. But I’m skeptical.
Stuff like this wasn’t the norm, in my experience. Everyone got their say, in turn, but shouting down other people just wasn’t done.
Again, this was my experience. maybe Sarcastro’s parents and Lathrop were busy shouting other people down, and still think it’s OK to do. But my sense is that was minority view until recently. In fact, I still think it is a minority view.)
Absaroka, how old were you in 1967, and where did you live?
There is unrest in society at large? News to me.
“how old were you in 1967, and where did you live?”
Teens and NoVa.
“There is unrest in society at large? News to me.”
For one of many examples, you didn’t see any headlines about the threats against school boards?
“Really? It happened when I was a student in the early 2000s.”
And I’ve already pointed out data showing a distinct change in (NE) university behavior starting around the mid 1990’s, so that’s hardly a denial.
By the way, my own theory for the timing of that change is that, prior to the ’94 election, left wing faculty in the NE had viewed their conservative colleagues as harmless eccentrics, who could safely be tolerated because their ideas would always be out of power. When the GOP actually won Congress, though, they switched to viewing them as dangerous, and began a purge.
But I suppose we’ll never be sure what motivated the change, only that it happened.
Faculty demographics is different from student behavior.
In fact, you’ve *disproven* any correlation since students protesting and civil disobedience has not changed, despite faculty demographics changing.
“In fact, you’ve *disproven* any correlation since students protesting and civil disobedience has not changed, despite faculty demographics changing.”
Huh? Did I miss the part where you proved that students protesting and civil disobedience have not changed?
It sounds like you’re claiming that students protested then, and students protest now, so student protesting has not changed. That’s pretty sloppy, Sarcastro.
It sounds like you’re claiming that students protested then, and students protest now, so student protesting has not changed. That’s pretty sloppy, Sarcastro.
You’re being generous. His track record clearly points to intentional dishonesty.
You call everyone you disagree with intellectually dishonest.
You’re not some arbiter of intellectual honesty; you’re just an asshole.
I gave examples of pretty big student nationwide protest movements in the 60s and 70s. Are you saying this ‘yell at speakers’ thing is bigger than that somehow?!
We’re not talking about “protest movements”, we’re talking about protesters busting in on a debate and shouting down one side, and the university not doing anything about it besides issuing a toothless “tisk, tisk!” press release.
Sarcastr0 plays word games in defense of bad behavior, as always.
It’s one of his typical MOs
“it’s just kids as they’ve always been”
Give an example before the rise of the New Left in the 1960s.
Here’s the thing Sarcastr0 isn’t saying: he completely agrees that the feelings of the special people are sacrosanct and that Shapiro sinned against those feelings and is guilty.
He just likes word games and oblique belittlement of what anyone else thinks about anything.
Nice telepathy, but as usual you’re completely wrong.
‘hopped up on righteousness’ is not an endorsement.
You don’t think that the feelings of minorities are extremely important?
No new goalposts. You overplayed your hand.
Sit down.
I’m pretty sure you think the feelings of minorities are sacrosanct and that anyone who threatens to injure those sacred feelings commits a sin.
You’d use different words, obviously. But you value the feelings of the special people very, very highly. And you’d never claim otherwise, even for the sake of argument, because it might threaten your place in the intersectional congregation.
You’re pretty sure of a lot of untrue things.
Quit telling me what you’re sure I think.
Nah
1229 University of Paris strike. That’s something I learned abuot today.
It’s kids hopped up on righteousness.
You’re saying that the Professor who supported their antics is just a kid?
Oh zounds, you have discovered some professors are dumb!
Truly, a new era has dawned.
Faculties are more liberal than they used to be; that’s provable. Everything else is anecdote and hogwash.
“UC Hastings professor [Rory Little], who was slated to debate Shapiro during the event, appears to endorse the activists.”
Wow. I guess you never really know a debate opponent until they get pressured to join a mob against you…
When your arguments are nonsensical and pathetic why wouldn’t you enlist a violent mob to endorse your beliefs.
Exactly. As it happened, he “won” the debate.
He occasionally writes good stuff at SCOTUSBlog, if that’s the same Rory Little. Disappointing from him.
Maybe they were upset because they thought they got a lesser Jewish guy instead of a better qualified speaker?
Somehow, I knew you’d bring Jews into this …
Did you also predict that Ilya Shapiro would bring the bigotry to the debate?
Again, Artie? Come on. You need to resign, and to call the people in that video to replace you.
Looks like your enlightened crew are actually a bunch of fascist hooligans. Tell me again who are the clingers.
Artie needs to resign to be replaced by the people in the video. Stop talking woke, Artie. Start acting woke.
Those mouthy students are immature boors. Mr. Shapiro is a not-quite-polished-enough bigot.
No winners here.
But Bored Lawyer will side with the bigot every time.
No, I side against the fascist hooligans you support.
“Immature boors” describes someone who belches while they eat.
This was an organized, ideologically driven effort to silence someone. IOW, fascism.
Which you support.
QA cannot just hide the anti-semitic bigotry.
Hi, Queenie. What is your religious affiliation? I need it for the letter.
How is it that such student behavior passes the “character and fitness” aspects needed to pass the bar?
The standards are lower for them in California.
That is a good point. We need the names of the students, to submit to the bars of all the states, along with the videos.
Considering the ideology of the ABA, it probably helps them.
Because the people assessing character and fitness have equally bad or worse character as the students, but have learned to hide it in order to infiltrate institutions to slowly sabotage them one decision at a time, year after year. Just a guess.
Disaffected, dispirited right-wing misfits are among my favorite culture war casualties.
” I hate to break it to the student, but we all go bald. ”
Why do people publish stupid statements?
Riiiight…
Dammit!
https://www.mensxp.com/grooming/hairstyle/81488-hollywood-celebrities-before-after-wearing-wigs.html#Al_Pacino
Why do you want to limit the students’ free speech?
It is not speech. It is intimidation and violence. The students traumatized me. They failed to issue a trigger warning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOnENVylxPI
If the students want to speak, they can reserve a room like the Federalist Society did and speak all they want. It’s not a public forum.
Either Shapiro or the Federalist Society people must have known that something like this would happen at one of the most left-leaning law schools. They may have even outdone Milo.
She must’ve known that something like this would happen, going out dressed like that, at night, in a bad neighborhood!
Shouting down a speaker for a few minutes to make a point is legit. Preventing him from speaking at all isn’t. If these students are disciplined, fine. That’s how civil disobedience works. It they’re allowed to skate without consequence, free expression is the victim.
“Shouting down a speaker for a few minutes to make a point is legit.”
Not unless the point you’re making is that you’re an asshole. Otherwise, if you’ve got a point to make, make it.
Legitimate expression isn’t just stuff I approve of. It’s everything that’s entitled to protection. In that category, which includes actual nazis, bolsheviks and pedophiles, dopes who want to use their (limited) time banging on the table may not be my cup of tea, but they’re relatively benign.
Shouting down isn’t expression at all, it is obstructing expression. It’s censorship, not speech.
But forceful suppression of student speech is not censorship? You have not thought this one through, Bellmore. It is a complicated problem, without easy answers. Resort to extreme methods on either side is probably wrong.
“But forceful suppression of student speech is not censorship? You have not thought this one through, Bellmore. It is a complicated problem, without easy answers.”
It turns out that people have thought about this. Colleges have viewpoint-neutral systems where student groups who want to hear people speak can reserve rooms, and decide for themselves what speech is allowed during the time they have reserved the room.
So if the BLSA students want to speak, they can reserve a room and speak all they want.
They can even host a “Shout down Shapiro” event, invite Shapiro, and if he attends, they can spend the entire time shouting him down.
But they don’t get to disrupt the Federalist Society’s event, where the students presumably want to hear Shapiro speak.
Not that it matters to your point, but was this a FedSoc event? I did not see that mentioned anywhere in the OP or the linked Tweets.
Oops, now I see it, it was in tiny print in one of Hochman’s tweets. It was a FedSoc event.
If a right-winger who disparages Blacks is the speaker at a law school, it is a reliable — although not infallible — conclusion that the Federalist Society is involved.
But forceful suppression of student speech is not censorship?
Damn, Lathrop…that’s mind-bendingly stupid even for you.
Shouting down isn’t expression at all, it is obstructing expression. It’s censorship, not speech.
Preventing someone from getting their message out is censorship. Briefly interrupting them is expression. Rude, Trumpian expression, but expression nonetheless.
“Shouting down a speaker for a few minutes to make a point is legit.”
Bullshit. Shouting down a speaker for even a few minutes is just a gateway drug to shouting them down the whole time. It’s sticking a toe in the water to see if it’s cold, before diving.
How would you have punished Clinger Barbie 2 (Boebert) and Clinger Barbie 3 (Greene) for their conduct at the recent State of the Union address, Mr. Bellmore?
Bullshit. Shouting down a speaker for even a few minutes is just a gateway drug to shouting them down the whole time. It’s sticking a toe in the water to see if it’s cold, before diving.
Dancing is a gateway drug to teen pregnancy. That doesn’t make dancing illegitimate. We draw lines, allowing all manner of gateway activities while discouraging and sometimes prohibiting the destination results. The differences matter.
BTW, I don’t remember you calling for Trump’s mic to be turned off when he repeatedly interrupted Biden during the debates. I didn’t either. Because it was obnoxious, but it wasn’t censorship.
“BTW, I don’t remember you calling for Trump’s mic to be turned off when he repeatedly interrupted Biden during the debates.”
Well, human memory IS fallible.
I stand corrected, sort of*. But the crux of my point, i.e., that brief, albeit obnoxious interruptions aren’t censorship, remains.
(*”Sort of” because the automatic pre-agreed format you suggested, which I think would be fine, isn’t the same as saying Trump’s mike — and apparently from your POV Biden’s too — should have been spontaneously cut off when they started interrupting, despite there being no such prior agreement. But I do give you credit for a sort of consistency, even if you did draw that risible equivalence between Trump’s interruptions and Biden’s.)
I didn’t realize dancing with my wife was causing teenagers to get pregnant. I’ll stop!
You’re welcome.
“Shouting down a speaker for a few minutes to make a point is legit.”
I disagree. The point of debate is to facilitate finding the best solutions. Shouting people down down, even briefly, impedes that.
How do you talk to your wife? Just shout her down for a few minutes? Is that OK?
If a husband does shout down his wife, should she be punished if she replies?
If a husband does shout down his wife, should she be punished if she replies?
You need to talk with your shrink about adjusting the dosage of whatever he has you on…or putting you back on whatever he took you off of.
I think you’re off base, Wuz. I took it as a Buddhist koan. Something along the lines of:
“The dove calls in the morning, is the Kiwi ripe?”
Unfortunately, I’m not Buddhist, but I’m sure there is a deep meaning.
Alternatively, it might be a joke, something similar to one of my wife’s favorites: “If a man is in the forest, miles from anyone else, and he says something … is he still wrong?”.
I think you’re off base, Wuz. I took it as a Buddhist koan. Something along the lines of:
You’ve been here long enough and read enough of Lathrop’s nonsense to know better.
UC Hastings Prof Veena Dubal:
“For me, the central intellectual query here is not whether Shapiro can speak, but why he was invited,”
A lesser intellect would have just had a question.
TwelveInch, I just have a question. If you had to set aside dudgeon, and provide a forthright answer to Dubal’s question, would it be a simple one-sided answer, or would you feel you had to deal with any more-nuanced issues the question implies?
For instance, not many will suppose Shapiro’s appearance considered in context of his recent controversy was not expected to be controversial again. In fact, it was reasonable to expect one side in this debate to take the Shapiro invitation as a provocation, or even an attack. After all, there is a long legal advocates’ tradition of backing the worst advocacy anyone can find, regardless of its content, to make a principled point about free expression.
What too often gets overlooked while that happens is that if assertion of that legal principle extends to suppressing counter-speech, it privileges the worst advocates over the others. Maybe it was wise that no one attempted to suppress heckling while Nazis marched in Skokie.
Does any of that raise any valid questions for you? If you choose to answer, please do not charge me with comparing Shapiro with Nazis. I am not doing that. It would not be a substantive response.
“TwelveInch, I just have a question. If you had to set aside dudgeon, and provide a forthright answer to Dubal’s question, would it be a simple one-sided answer…”
It would be very simple: “I don’t know. Ask the Federalist Society. They invited him.”
Now, she may or may not find fodder for her intellectual curiosity from their answers, but the place to start is with a simple question.
TwelveInch, I asked you for a nuanced answer and did not get one. Why should I expect anything more forthright from the Federalist Society?
“TwelveInch, I asked you for a nuanced answer and did not get one. Why should I expect anything more forthright from the Federalist Society?”
Huh? Because the Federalist Society knows why they invited him and I don’t.
That’s the correct answer. Is your idea of a nuanced answer different than a correct answer?
It occurs to me that what you mean by a “nuanced answer” and what Prof Dubal means by “intellectual query” is something like what grb engages in below, that is, uninformed, narrative-fueled speculation.
I always find it’s better to start with evidence.
TwelveInch, I asked you for a nuanced answer and did not get one. Why should I expect anything more forthright from the Federalist Society?
TIP is currently thinking of a number between 1 and 100. Now I ask you, what is that number? Don’t dodge. Just give me a forthright answer.
His question is easily answered: He was invited because he had a perspective the Federalist Society students wanted to hear. A secondary aim might have been to demonstrate that the school administration were not living up to their pretensions of supporting free expression.
Dubal thinks this question needs to be asked, because she thinks his perspective shouldn’t be heard.
Brett Bellmore : “He was invited because ….”
He was invited because he’s the latest Holy Martyr of the Right, which I find an interesting contrast. I don’t defend the students because what they did was crudely uncivilized & ignorant. So I’m amazed to see Shapiro hailed as a champion of anything. He was crude & uncivilized as well, and can’t claim age as an excuse.
His favorite candidate wasn’t going to get the SCOUS nod, the most meritorious choice (his opinion) wouldn’t be picked, and politics would play a role. You’d think he’d be used to that; politics having always been major component of every Justice selection in U.S. history. How many times would you guess Shapiro’s optimal pick has been selected?
Certainly not Amy Coney Barrett. No one on the face of the planet thought she was the “objectively best pick” (Shapiro’s words). He didn’t claim she would “always have an asterisk attached” to her name (Shapiro’s words) because Trump said he was reserving her for RBG’s seat. Shapiro didn’t care about any of that stuff then. Instead he gave gushing interviews about how “nice” and “graceful” she was to CBS & the NYT. I haven’t see him opine on Judge Jackson’s niceness or grace yet. Big surprise, huh?
Instead, it was a “lesser black women”, so Shapiro threw a twitter tantrum. Talk to a black person about race and you find they’re used to that. The standards of discourse always shift and loosen when there’s an inch of dark skin involved. Shapiro must be inured to raw politics in Court nominations a thousand-times over, but given a “lesser black women” he was free to vent. Free to indulge his inner-two-year-old. It’s always open hunting season with that kind of target and no rhetorical limits. So Shapiro loaded-up both barrels & blasted away, knowing there’s always an eager audience for that sort of thing. Just like Tucker knows there’s an audience for demanding Jackson’s LSATs.
Meanwhile, the Mississippi state legislature just passed a bill banning “Critical Race Theory” from being taught in any state school, community college or university. The main text of the bill doesn’t define the phrase, and recent history shows any teaching about race uncomfortable to the Right automatically morphs into “CRT”.
What do you think the ratio will be on this forum: Posts about Shapiro vs the Mississippi law?
5-to-1? 10-to-1? 20-to-1?
“Meanwhile, the Mississippi state legislature just passed a bill banning “Critical Race Theory” from being taught in any state school, community college or university.”
Sounds good. Universities need to focus on study and scholarship instead of intensely training students to behave a certain way.
“Meanwhile, the Mississippi state legislature just passed a bill banning “Critical Race Theory” from being taught in any state school, community college or university. The main text of the bill doesn’t define the phrase, and recent history shows any teaching about race uncomfortable to the Right automatically morphs into “CRT”.”
SB2113:
“(1) No public institution of higher learning, community/junior college, school district or public school, including public charter schools, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt or adhere to any of the following tenets:
(a) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion or national origin is inherently superior or inferior; or
(b) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.
(2) No public institution of higher learning, community/junior college, school district or public school, including public charter schools, shall make a distinction or classification of students based on account of race, provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the required collection or reporting of demographic information by such schools or institutions.
(3) No public institution of higher learning, community/junior college, school district or public school, including public charter schools, shall teach a course of instruction or unit of study that directs or otherwise compels students to personally affirm, adopt or adhere to any of the tenets identified in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section.”
Literally the only place the law mentions CRT is in it’s title, and it clearly defines what it bans.
What conspiracy theory web site was grb reading?
NPR maybe:
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/22/1075055539/critical-race-theory-mississippi-protest
‘“Critical race theory” is in the title of the bill, but the main text of the bill does not define the phrase.’
grb got played by BlueAnon.
I’ve had some fun looking up the text of actual “anti-CRT” bills being criticized. This one is pretty typical of the genre.
They may or may not mention “critical race theory” in the title, but what they generally do is prohibit public schools from teaching racial hatred and racial superiority.
And the CRT defenders go nuts over them. Why?
I’ve had to conclude that despite all the chaff being thrown out, and all the desperate motte and baileying, it’s because racial hatred and racial superiority really IS what they want taught.
Myopically focusing on the text, pretending there is no ambiguity, ignoring legislative intent.
Great way to pretend the implementation will be no big deal.
They may or may not mention “critical race theory” in the title, This is just disingenuous, Brett. Everyone knows what this bill is working to do, and yet you pretend ignorance.
“Myopically focusing on the text…”
I LOLed. How dare you try to use the actual text of the laws to determine their effects, Brett!
” He was invited because he had a perspective the Federalist Society students wanted to hear. ”
Precisely how big a draw among the clingers at that school was Mr. Shapiro’s downscale right-wing bigotry?
” In fact, it was reasonable to expect one side in this debate to take the Shapiro invitation as a provocation, or even an attack.”
Provocation perhaps but it is absolutely NOT reasonable to take the invitation as an attack. To think so is intellectually immature.
“After all, there is a long legal advocates’ tradition of backing the worst advocacy anyone can find,”
Are you seriously suggesting that saying “lesser black woman” instead of saying “lesser qualified black woman” is the worst advocacy anyone can find?
This is why we can’t have nice things. Battalions of folks seemingly spend their time searching the intertubes for something to be outraged about. The smallest things are blown out of all proportion.
I think President Biden has his next Supreme Court nominee.
Utterly unsurprising that the first line of her bio contains the word “intersection.”
The next logical step is essentially when the Brown Shirts respond by cracking skulls….
In your hamster wheel of a logical universe, I don’t doubt that all roads lead to marxist nazis.
It is just called reality….
Jimmy isn’t wrong. In Germany, long before Jews were beaten up in the street, they were shouted down in college classrooms. There is a connection.
To: Georgetown U Board of Trustees
Re: Cut our losses? We surely are not standing by our man!
==========================================
This is what Professor Shapiro can expect from here on out. Constant agitation, constant protests; all of which was caused by a thoughtless and careless post by an Executive Director who we hired. Although we hired him, do we need to retain him in that position? Maybe not.
We Trustees chose not to publicly stand by our man, and let Professor Shapiro twist in the wind. The ‘investigation’, you see.
Hopefully Professor Shapiro has learned that life as an Executive is not the same as being a luminary in academia. The rules are more uncertain, and the solutions brutal.
It is time to end the charade, and cut our losses….since we are not standing vociferously by our man. Remove him as Executive Director, and return him to teaching in the classroom. He is simply not executive material – at this time.
“Among other things, activists demanded that faculty advisers “undergo intensive CRT training””
It’s telling that CRT is increasingly being described, even by its own proponents, as “training” rather than scholarship or study.
They’re two very different things, and “training” has a very limited place at a University, beyond training students how to uses the photocopiers in the library or the lab equipment.
CRT “training” has no place in a university, and it’s good that authorities are taking steps to bring that about.
“Intensive CRT training” = “Struggle sessions”.
Strong teaching and research institutions constitute a substantial problem for movement conservatives such as Josh Blackman.
Our strongest schools are operated in, for, and by the liberal-libertarian mainstream. This has been true for decades.
Conservative-controlled schools are generally downscale yahoo factories — imposing speech and conduct codes; mocking academic freedom; collecting loyalty oaths and statements of faith; suppressing science and warping history to flatter silly superstition and to defend right-wing dogma; engaging in hobbling and invidious discrimination in everything from hiring (professors to basketball coaches; administrators to landscapers) to firing and admissions to disciplinary actions; and teaching nonsense.
They have mediocre faculties, substandard students, low rankings, sketchy accreditation, undistinguished alumni, shabby reputations, and downscale curricula.
This chronic condition aggravates conservatives, such as those promoting conservatism from bottom-of-the-barrel schools such as South Texas. So they disparage — and nip lamely at the ankles of — their betters.
They do not build strong conservatives schools that would fill the ostensible market gap claimed by conservative; the record on that point indicates right-wingers are not just disinclined but indeed generally incapable of building or operating first-rate colleges and universities.
Right-wingers don’t much criticize — let alone work to improve –the hundreds of failed conservative-controlled schools. They prefer to snipe at their betters. Especially at The Volokh Conspiracy.
This is part of the reason the American culture war has been settled (although it is not yet over). May the better ideas — reason, education, tolerance, progress, science, inclusiveness, freedom — continue to prevail against superstition, ignorance, backwardness, bigotry, dogma, insularity, authoritarianism, and pining for illusory good old days in modern, improving, liberal-libertarian America.
“Strong teaching and research institutions constitute a substantial problem for movement conservatives such as Josh Blackman.”
Yes, they allow a few of their students to shout them down without engaging the merits of their arguments and deprive other students from engaging the viewpoints.
It’s encouraging that you were able to follow the post.
Thank you for your distracting rant.
So let’s be clear, the future of America is fascist hooligans like we saw in this case. And you are celebrating that.
The future of America is not the immature boorishness exhibited by those students, nor the counterproductive attempts at insurrection by disaffected conservatives, nor the vestigial bigotry of downscale Republicans, nor the pining for illusory good old days among defeated right-wingers.
The future of America is the continuing trajectory of progress — toward reason, education, tolerance, science, modernity, fairness, and inclusiveness — shaped by our culture war’s deserving victors, the liberal-libertarian mainstream, against the wishes and efforts of our vestigial clingers.
Do the students in this video seem self-confident to you? They apparently have a different notion of who their “betters” are, and resent them. Unsurprising, I suppose, given the racial quota system at these schools.
There’s nothing one can do if the administration is unwilling to enforce its own rules.
That is the takeaway here. Sure, those law students are a misbehaving bunch of a**hats, but the only reason — the only reason — their misbehavior is effective is because the administration is colluding with them.
Would a judge in a courtroom allow a mob to shout down the proceedings? Of course not. He would call security and have them thrown out.
What should really happen here is that U.C. Hastings should suffer. Its credibility ought to be called into question. Prospective students should be warned away, and it should no longer be on anyone’s recommended list of places to learn about law.
Publishing the names of the students who shouted Ilya down might also be helpful to prospective employers who would prefer to avoid newly minted lawyers who are incapable of reasoned debate.
I was thinking an excellent solution would be to have a talk to text set up on a screen behind the speaker. Or just text. Then there would be no volume issue and it would be dead friendly.
*deaf
So sad. These are some of the smartest, best educated young people in the country. (Law students, including the 3rd year folks who were “triggered” by the mere mention of the Federalist Society) I have read you guys here enough to know that Textual/Originalism & its promotion is WAY more important than any of the social issues involved. Prof. Shapiro made an intellectually correct, but foolishly chosen observation. And has been publicly pilloried for it. This “protest” was disgusting. And what was the point?
What’s different now? The internet has a lot to do with the increased tribalism. Overpopulated primates with powerful technical levers have a lot to do with higher levels of violence & confrontations. Goodwill leading to Respect which requires Honesty is fundamental to healthy human relationships of all kinds. Look at what we have instead. A broad spiritual movement away from traditional dominant male power distribution is the only way I see forward that doesn’t lead to Armageddon. And Macho is really fighting against that. Vladimir Putin is pure old school Macho
“And what was the point?”
Tearing down others to feel better about themselves. Zealots do that sort of thing.
So sad. These are some of the smartest, best educated young people in the country.
No, they’re not. They’re a small fraction of the student body, the remainder of which is mostly comprised of others who are smarter and more well-educated than they are. But due to the combination of spinelessness on the part of college administrations, as well as so many of the latter possessing emotional maturity at the same level as the more child-like students, that small minority is able to exercise a disproportionate amount of influence in cases like this.
Perhaps the students were upset because they thought they were getting Ilya Somin.
As I’ve said before, GMU should fire Ilya Somin over this. It’s true that he had nothing to do with Ilya Shapiro’s remarks, but that doesn’t make the pain felt by people who confuse the two any less valid.
The most reasonable explanation for the behavior I think.
What a cowardly performance by Prof. Rory Little. He agrees to participate in the event, suggesting at some point he was comfortable with the concept of allowing Shapiro to speak, rebutting Shapiro, and letting people of good faith hear both sides and reach their own conclusions. Then, when the mob arrives and shuts the whole thing down, he meekly sits on his hands until they demand a statement for the camera. He then looks into the camera and professes loyalty to the mob.
One can debate all day whether academia needs more intellectual diversity. But what seems clear is that as long as it is populated by Rory Littles, the greater problem is unwillingness to stand for principle – any principle – in the face of even the slightest professional risk.
You figure our better should schools begin to emulate shitty schools by hiring more backward, bigoted, superstitious right-wingers for faculty positions?
I’m not sure I understand this question. If there’s some kind of network of right wing law schools populated by unqualified religious zealots, it’s a phenomenon that has escaped my notice.
Anyway, if the question is whether less qualified conservative law professors should be selected in place of more qualified progressives, the answer is obviously no. Aside from qualifications, I think ideological bean counting is not desirable when it comes to hiring decisions in academia (neither is race and gender bean counting, by the way).
My point is not about that. My point is that academics, whatever their politics, ought to have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to resist pandering to anti-intellectual mobs.
” If there’s some kind of network of right wing law schools populated by unqualified religious zealots, it’s a phenomenon that has escaped my notice. ”
Essentially every conservative-controlled school.
Wheaton, Regent, Hillsdale, Ouachita Baptist, Biola, Liberty, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Dallas, Franciscan, King’s, Messiah, Grove City, Ozark, Cedarbook.
More than one Concordia.
Any school whose name includes Baptist or Bible.
There are at least a couple of hundred of these fourth-tier (or unranked) yahoo factories, operated by conservatives.
Being loudly & proudly rude has become some sort of social statement. As an expression of unbowed freedom. There are so few reasons to be deliberately offensive. Except to prove you can. To a great degree the Politicly Correct speech debate is about civility. And dominance of course.
Simple free market response:
1. Announce all members of the audience will be charged a conditional $50 to enter.
2. If there is no disruption, the $50 will be refunded to each audience member (with, say, a ticket to prove payment.)
3. This creates a strong incentive a) to not disrupt and b) to stop disruptions.
That’s an excellent idea.
But add that if the money is not returned, it will be spent to hire security at future meetings to remove those who disrupt. If the security fund grows over some size, the excess is contributed to the organization hosting the event (so disruption causes the disrupter’s money to fund the very thing they are disrupting).
There is, of course, the question of who gets to determine what a “disruption” is.
This is a bit of collaborative performance art. Shapiro and the Federalist Society got together with some leftist students and faculty and decided to put on an event that would bring attention to all of them.
Shapiro promises to say or do something offensive, aiming at the traditional people he and Fed go after. Perhaps something sexist, something racist, maybe both. “Let me work on it and see what I come up with”
Fed Soc then arranges an invitation to speak at a venue where he can expect a vigorous response.
Fed Soc and the local leftists agree that an inflammatory tweet would be just the thing. They agree on the wording and Shapiro puts it out.
Leftists (with some behind the scenes help from Fed Soc) “find” the tweet and start complaining.
Suddenly, people who have never heard of Hastings discover that they should care deeply about who is invited to speak there and how they are received. Umm, because why??
Protestors, clearly organized, shout insults, Shapiro tries to look aggrieved, it is all recorded and then posted. Leftists can show how strenuously they oppose racism and sexism. Fed Soc and Shapiro get to both show their support for racism and sexism AND claim that the other side cannot take fair criticism. Which, of course is how the right would characterize a claim that a black woman must be inferior.
A good time was had by all, some, certainly Shapiro, got their names in the paper.
Then the event is written up as if something important happened.
Entertaining, but hard to take seriously
Entertaining, but hard to take seriously
Your post? Sure…though I’d say that “entertaining” is being generous.
Do you actually have any evidence for this… theory, or are you just another BlueAnon?
freedom121, I am sure you have that wrong. But it would give me comfort if I could prove it. You are a sardonic commenter.
Why should you have any need to prove him wrong? He’s alleging collaboration. Let him produce some evidence that the Federalist Society and the hecklers were working together.
Don’t demand proof of a negative.
Bellmore, don’t be a knucklehead. He is writing satire. Pretty good satire. Which is why you and Toranth took him straight. It was a bit too deadpan for you.
Hi, Josh, here is the video I did in 2018 about you being shouted down at CUNY Law School:
https://youtu.be/JkN4L6mfBKs
I was thinking an excellent solution would be to have a talk to text set up on a screen behind the speaker. Or just text. Then there would be no volume issue and it would be deaf friendly.
If Shapiro actually wanted people to hear what he had to say, as opposed to simply see law students shout at him, he could have delivered his talk online. Anyone who wanted to could tune in. He could have done this as soon as the shouting started. He could have gone to another room, apartment of one of the Federalist members or somewhere else and given his speech. People who disagree with him could have shouted all they wanted, but those listening need not have been in the same room.
Shapiro could record his talk and post it all over the internet and those objecting could not stop him.
Not only could he have done this at the time, he could have done this after the scheduled talk.
But that would have detracted from the point of the story, which was not to give a talk but to complain about those who objected.
So, Mr. Shapiro, if you have something to say, post it online and let whoever wants listen.
Advertise it on your Twitter feed.