The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Yale Law Prof. Kate Stith Confirms that the Protest of a Fed Soc Event She Moderated was Extremely Disruptive
There have been conflicting accounts of the infamous March 10 protest of a Yale Federalist Society event. Some accounts contend that the protest was brief and not-all-that disruptive in the scheme of things; others claim that the protest disrupted not only the event, but was so noisy that it disrupted classes and meetings elsewhere in the building.
Among other participants in this debate, a Yale Law professor who claims to have been at a faculty meeting in the building at the time told me (and others) on Facebook that various accounts from "right wing media" have grossly exaggerated the protest's disruptiveness. This professor specifically asserted that the faculty meeting was not interfered with.
Professor Kate Stith, who was the moderator of the Fed Soc event, begs to differ. In a memorandum circulated to the law school's tenured faculty (and published, via an anonymous source, at journalist Vicky Ward's substack), she writes:
The hallway disruption was far more than excessively noisy. An audiotape released on March 29 by the group FIRE* reveals disruption and interference even while the protesters were in Room 127. The audiotape further reveals the shocking and extraordinary disruption of the event after the protesters moved (twice) to the School's main hallway—yelling, stomping, powerful chanting, and wall-banging. Students and faculty have also reported serious disruption of a faculty meeting and of two classes that were being conducted in other classrooms off the main hallway…
As it happens, events on March 10 were shut down by the remarkably loud and multisource hallway noise. For instance, whoever was running the faculty meeting decided to shut down its in-person portion and proceed solely on Zoom. Students in the class in Room 128 have said the instructor urged them to "yell" in order to be heard. The instructor in Room 121 stopped the class at one point explicitly because the noise so interfered with the teaching function. And we in Room 127 ceased even trying to talk or listen on multiple occasions.
Professor Stith concludes that the students' behavior was a blatant violation of university policy, though she stops short of calling for any penalties to be imposed:
As a former prosecutor, I know well that not every violation has to be an occasion for sanctions. In my judgment we should use this moment as an opportunity to educate our students about the core importance of free expression to our academic mission—and to make clear, as Dean Gerken has forcefully written, this can never happen again. That said, we cannot make the most of this opportunity unless we recognize that a blatant violation of Yale's Free Expression policy occurred on March 10.
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
Eh. I'm sure it was mostly quiet. After all, people in those classrooms were able to communicate well enough to agree to stop talking during the very few loud moments, to agreed they could yell over the even fewer really loud moments, and agree to continue over zoom, which most people will agree is not as good as face-to-face meetings.
Mostly quiet, I am sure.
Six posts about this.
Nothing about Ginni Thomas, QAnon activist (or her "best friend").
Nothing about continuing Jan. 6 and "stolen election" revelations (John Eastman, Ted Cruz, etc.).
Nothing about Republican gay-bashing.
Nothing about Republicans' censorship bills (and enactments).
Six posts about this.
#TheClingerWay
#LatheringTheirRubes
If there's anything Kirkland hates, it's multiple posts or comments on the same topic.
But it's quite relevant to Kirkland's concerns, because it shows what he means when he talks about getting stomped into submission by one's betters.
Take a good look at the future Kirkland endorses.
".... by one's better."
Nobody is better than Kirkland.
I used to vote for Nobody for President, for the same reason.
The problem is not multiple posts. I criticize the cherry-picked, misleading, polemically partisanship; the vivid lathering of a downscale, backward audience at an ostensibly academic and libertarian blog that misappropriates the institutional franchises of some strong schools.
What's a "polemically partisanship?"
Polemical partisanship. It’s what you find at this blog.
Physician, heel, thyself.
"Nothing about Republicans' censorship bills (and enactments)."
Are those Republicans censoring the government again?
Have you used any racial slurs yet today, Arthur?
I do not use coke racist slurs. I am neither a proprietor of this white, make blog nor an obsolete clinger.
What's a "coke racist slur[]"?
Two misplaced keystrokes from vile racial slur — in particular, the vile racial slur that the bigots at this white, male, Republican blog publish more than once a month.
I can think of a vile racial slur involving Coke. It's a nasty schoolyard rhyme about a particular nationality and the adulteration of Coca-Cola products.
You might make the distinction between “government speech” and private speech, but it’s not at all clear that Republican legislators will adhere to that line. There’s already talk about restricting what may be said about race in private schools and what books people can borrow from public libraries, in these states that have pushed through anti-CRT and anti-LGBT bills.
For years, conservatives have tried to cast COVID mandates as some kind of baby step towards totalitarian control. It’s extremely frustrating that they don’t see the same thing happening on their own side. Kinda makes me think that they were being disingenuous all along…
Artie, you lathered rube, we need the resignation and your interview of your replacement by a diverse. Stop lathering, you white, old, male, supremacist rube. Stop the woke talk. Start acting woke.
Don’t forget all the time spent obsessing over the Shapiro affair.
It is perhaps not surprising that a blog written exclusively by legal “academics” is preoccupied by law school scandals, law school bureaucracy, and self-promotion with an eye toward advancement within the legal “academy.” They only seem to care about current events when they happen to touch on things they’re working on or other pet interests.
I take it just as a reminder of this blog’s limited purview and utility.
Hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. You won't have to deal with a forum you clearly feel is beneath you, and we won't have to deal with your consistently piss-poor attitude.
Talk about a win-win.
Professor Stith concludes that the students' behavior was a blatant violation of university policy, though she stops short of calling for any penalties to be imposed:
If Yale doesn't punish the offenders, what's to deter them from doing this again? Without punishment, Yale is going to have more of this in the future.
Billy,
Why would you assume this? You might be correct. But the professor herself seems to suggest that if Yale uses this as a true teaching moment (which presumably, would clearly lay out possible punishments if this were to happen in the future), that the lesson might be learned without the need for immediate sanctions.
The person actually working at Yale (and, who, obviously, does NOT support in any way the tactics of the protestors) thinks sanctions are not needed in this particular case. Do you also work at Yale, and you therefore have a fact-specific basis for coming to a different conclusion? Do you work at a different law school, and this informs your different conclusion? Or is your opinion (and, for argument's sake, I'll concede that your opinion might actually be the correct one) based on just your own layperson commonsense?
"Why would you assume this? You might be correct. But the professor herself seems to suggest that if Yale uses this as a true teaching moment..."
Did you see the video? The students were told that disrupting the event was a violation of policy, and that they were welcome to go outside as long as they didn't disrupt the event.
Then they went outside and proceeded to disrupt the event.
If they didn't learn the first time they were told, why should we think they've learned now?
The demeanor of the students doesn't seem like they're open to learning anything, they clearly felt like they should be the ones doing the teaching.
By all means limit sanctions to some education about the policies, but in fairness don't subject the innocent students to such an experience.
I'd say that a student should be able to get out of the "teaching moment" by simply signing a statement declaring, on their honor, that they didn't take part in the disruption. Then teach the rest.
I see that I was softer on disruptors than the canonical Woodward Report (see below).
"Do you also work at Yale, and you therefore have a fact-specific basis for coming to a different conclusion?"
You know who else worked at Yale? The historian C. Vann Woodward. He was appointed to chair a committee to recommend free-speech policies for the university. Were *you* ever appointed to a Yale free-speech committee?
From the Woodward Report (on Yale's Web site, no less):
"...It is plain, however, that if sanctions are to work as a deterrent to subsequent disruption, they must be imposed whenever disruption occurs. They must be imposed and not suspended. They must stick."
https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-dean/reports/report-committee-freedom-expression-yale
For more fun quotes from the report, see below. Also, I note that various law-school students invited George freakin' Wallace to speak in 1963, after a free-speech controversy in which the administration persuaded undergraduates to revoke the invitation. (Wallace didn't come)
Wait, it gets even more fun!
One of the signatories of the Woodward Report was "Elias Clark, Master of Silliman College, Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law."
He was Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law, which is the same professorship Kate Stith holds.
https://law.yale.edu/kate-stith
"Elias Clark (1921–2011), a member of both the Yale Law School and Yale University communities, served on the faculty of Yale Law School from 1949 to 2004, and as Master of Silliman College from 1962 to 1981. “Eli” Clark earned a B.A. from Yale College in 1943, an LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1947, and a Master of Arts degree from Yale University in 1958. From 1944 to 1945, he flew C-47s as a pilot in the Army Air Corps. As a faculty member of Yale Law School, he specialized in property, family law, and estate taxation. He was named a Professor of Law in 1958 and the Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law in 1969. In 1991, he was named the Lafayette S. Foster Professor Emeritus and Myres S. McDougal Professorial Lecturer in Law. He retired from Yale Law School in 2004 after more than fifty-five years of service."
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/17665
As I discussed with you a couple of weeks ago, that report recommends what should be on the table - the ceiling. It does not recommend maximum penalties in every case.
You're using this report to advocate for stuff the report doesn't advocate for.
Because you want scalps, not educatinon.
"It does not recommend maximum penalties in every case."
What an excellent refutation of the voices in your head.
Before I peeked at the Woodward report, I was open to just having them attend classes, per Professor Stith's no-prosecution recommendations.
Then I saw that distinguished Yale figures, more distinguished than myself, said there should be sanctions for every guilty person.
But where did "maximum penalties in every case" come from? It didn't occur to me to me to recommend that. If it's in the Woodward report I'll endorse it; if not, not.
(I'm at a disadvantage because I didn't bookmark what I said a few weeks ago, but if you did, please furnish a link)
And I *do* recall saying that the references to getting scalps is racially offensive, because of the stereotype of Native Americans scalping people.
Just to make clear what you're alleging - in the University context the maximum punishment would be throwing the student out of the university and preventing from re-enrolling ever again. So please provide a link to my advocating that in every case, or else kindly quit the silly straw-manning.
Well, get back to me when you find the evidence.
Still waiting for your evidence...
So to sum up, you damage your case when you have to make up stuff about the opposing position.
I show that Yale's announced policies call for sanctions "whenever disruption occurs," and in opposition to this, you invent a straw-man position so absurd you can't be bothered to cite any evidence for it. But perhaps you hope that this little distraction will throw sand in the readers' eyes and get their attention off of the need to punish the misbehavior.
Now, in fairness, the Woodward Report suggests one alternative, and only one alternative, to university sanctions, in rare cases - "the administration may call the city police and the criminal law."
So take your choice, or else explain why the Woodward Report is wrong. And this time try not to invent facts.
It isn't a stereotype. It happened, and it was widespread.
I'm trying to out-woke him, just as I'm trying to out-Yale him.
The call for sanctions in possible future cases is to enable them to use sanctions against any possible right wing protesters.
I learned a long time ago with my kids ... if there are no consequences, the misbehavior continues. It's almost a natural law at this point.
Did you try giving the kids a stern talking-to?
Probably stressed that it was wrong, and that the proper disciplinary procedures were followed in this case, so that future repetitions of the same behavior can cite this incident as precedent of what is allowed.
Good luck with that ... my kids make fun of me when I just do a "stern warning": "And if you don't listen, Dad will ask you again!"
Among the children in their social group, this is more or less the standard response.
AtR,
Interesting. Almost every parent I know has come to the exact opposite conclusion. That Cal's suggested stern talking-to actually does solve the vast majority of issues. If that does not work, then of course a parent should move on to more substantive consequences, which presumably happen on some sort of continuum...based on the severity of the issue, how many times it's cropped up in the past, etc.. (I'll also point out the obvious: that a talking-to *is* a consequence--albeit not a particularly severe one.)
"Cal's suggested stern talking-to"
I was trying to be amusing, and perhaps I failed, but maybe with children a stern talking-to would work.
Or tweaking that just a bit, maybe it would work with children *or* adults if they have a sense of shame.
But what if, let's say, someone is utterly shameless?
Or what if the rule-breaker is self-righteously convinced that rules apply only to other people, and that (s)he (the rule-breaker) is part of the woke elite and are entitled to make their own rules?
In other words, what works for a normal child might not work for a juvenile delinquent, and what works for a reasonable adult may not work for a member of the Junior Fascist Brigade.
the Junior Fascist Brigade.
They call this begging the question.
I don't know what the law is at Yale Law School, but even semi-barbarous peoples recognize the law of hospitality. You don't invite someone to your house and then insult them. And if you have a policy against such insults but don't enforce it, that itself is an insult.
No, they call this hitting the nail on the head.
Q: Looking back at historical events in various countries, what happens when you let fascists get away with "small" stuff, like this incident?
A: They get bolder. They hurt people.
Borderline (at best) accurate as history, but irrelevant here. The only proto-fascists in attendance were the protesters.
That's who he was referring to as fascists.
Let’s test your sincerity on the need for consequences.
What punishment, in your judgment, should the UCLA law dean have imposed on Prof. Volokh recently when leniency limited the consequences of his misconduct to a dean-issued apology to the public?
The same Dean who said the remarks were constitutionally protected. so that legally there could be no consequences? For someone who obsessively discusses that incident, you seem to have trouble mentioning important facts which get in the way of your narrative.
If you didn't like obsessiveness, you wouldn't be at the Volokh Conspiracy, which whines incessantly and repetitively concerning a few points from the white male grievance perspective.
"If you didn't like obsessiveness, you wouldn't be at the Volokh Conspiracy"
*Youre* at the Volokh Conspiracy.
I am not here for the reasons that attract this blog's core audience -- the multifaceted bigotry; the white male grievance; the nipping at the ankles of better Americans; the calls for affirmative action for movement conservative professors at legitimate law schools.
You think it's the intellectual cream of the crop who will be doing all the stomping and throat-forcing. Like the Mensa candidates in the Blackshirts who forced castor oil down the throats of dissidents, or the SA and Red Guards who stomped dissidents into submission.
Save the recordings and when any of the protesters have an occasion to address an audience or they are in a meeting, turn the recordings on every time they open their mouths.
Fresh from the Seventies, it's Yale's Woodward Report (the one about how the university should safeguard free expression).
[numbering of paragraphs omitted]
"...There is no right to protest within a university building in such a way that any university activity is disrupted. The administration, however, may wish to permit some symbolic dissent within a building but outside the meeting room, for example, a single picket or a distributor of handbills.
"...In the room where the invited speaker is to talk, all members of the audience are under an obligation to comply with a general standard of civility. This means that any registration of dissent that materially interferes with the speaker’s right to proceed is a punishable offense. Of course a member of the audience may protest in a silent, symbolic fashion, for example, by wearing a black arm band. More active forms of protest may be tolerated such as briefly booing, clapping hands, or heckling. But any disruptive activity must stop when the chair or an appropriate university official requests silence. Failure to quit in response to a reasonable request for order is a punishable offense....
"...It is plain, however, that if sanctions are to work as a deterrent to subsequent disruption, they must be imposed whenever disruption occurs. They must be imposed and not suspended. They must stick."
https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-dean/reports/report-committee-freedom-expression-yale
The instructor in Room 121 stopped the class at one point explicitly because the noise so interfered with the teaching function. And we in Room 127 ceased even trying to talk or listen on multiple occasions.
That is an exact description (but an under-description) of what happened once-a-minute throughout the high school my son attended, whenever a strong northwest wind blew. The school was located under a final approach to Logan Airport, and had been since before the jet era. A radio beacon at the edge of the school parking lot marked the center-line of the approach.
Aircraft directly overhead flew about twice as close to the school as they ever got to the control tower at the airport. FAA policy acknowledged the noise level made the location, "unsuitable for residential use."
Because the school was used also for community meetings—including the annual Town Meeting—those were likewise disrupted. A school district committee on which I sat to vet candidates for a new School Superintendent had to abandon its attempt to meet.
Those facts might have come to legal attention following a proposal to approximately double use of that approach to the airport. Courts proved unconcerned. They refused to hear a case proving that the noise increase consequent to the proposed doubling was ignored in the EIS for the project. Instead, the problem was bypassed politically. The court green-lighted an FAA-approved plan to revise the EIS, but not until after the project was completed.
Toughen up, Yale Law School.
Did Russian troops attack your city? Then toughen up, a little airport noise isn't so bad.
I'm sure if you gave the pilots and air traffic controllers a stern talking to about the noise it will serve as a teachable moment. Problem solved.
Check it out, the American Humanist Association cut Monica Miller (its own counsel) off at the knees:
"Recently, an opinion piece was published in the Daily Mail that misrepresented the AHA’s stance on recent student protests at Yale Law School and student activism in general....
"...The AHA rejects the article’s admonishment of a lack of 'civil discourse.' Protests are a meaningful and effective form of discourse, and to demand civility is to misunderstand the purpose of the protest and prioritizes the comfort of those in power rather than lifting up the voices of those seeking justice and redress."
https://americanhumanist.org/news/statement-from-the-aha-on-yale-student-protests/
Elsewhere on their Web site, they boast of their "compassion" and their support of "the dignity of each human being." Each human being except their own counsel or those who join their own counsel's side in the Supreme Court.
"Since joining the AHA in 2012, [Monica] Miller has vigorously defended the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state by litigating Establishment Clause cases across the country. She has served as lead counsel in over 25 federal cases, including before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Miller has presented oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (twice), Fifth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit. She has filed a number of briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and served as counsel of record in our Supreme Court case challenging the Bladensburg Cross. Miller has appeared live on Fox News and MSNBC, as well as local television stations and radio shows, and is regularly quoted by national and local media outlets throughout the country, including Fox News, NPR, ABC, NBC, Aljazeera, USA Today, Newsweek, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the National Law Journal, among many others....
"In pursuit of her concern for fundamental rights, Miller is also an attorney for the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), working to obtain common law personhood rights for nonhuman animals. Miller’s work at the NhRP has captured the interest of the world’s leading legal scholars, scientists, and journalists. She is also featured in an HBO documentary, Unlocking the Cage."
https://americanhumanist.org/about/staff/miller-monica/
So not only is the American Humanist Association compassionate, it's just brimming over with gratitude for its hardworking staff!