"Free Speech, Wokeness, And Cancel Culture In The Legal Profession"

A very interesting interview by David Lat (Original Jurisdiction) with Judges Lisa Branch and James Ho; here's Lat's summary:

Last week, I made my way up to Yale University for an event sponsored by the William F. Buckley Jr. Program, "Is Free Speech Dead On Campus?" It featured Judges James Ho (5th Cir.) and Lisa Branch (11th Cir.) in conversation with Professor Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, followed by a wide-ranging discussion with the (standing room only) audience.

Inspired by that event, I invited Judges Branch and Ho to participate in a written Q&A with me. They kindly accepted my invitation, allowing them to share and expand upon some of their points, and our discussion appears below. I thank them for their time, their insights, and their commitment to the cause of free speech.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Also interesting:

Judge Ho:

“A principle is not a principle until it costs you. . . .Everyone should have an interest in protecting speech, regardless of ideology. . . .I’m sad that students endure such extreme intolerance—not just from their fellow students, but from professors and university administrators.”

By that standard, what are we to make of Judge Ho’s claims to principle until he ostentatiously lambastes conservative-controlled schools — which collect loyalty oaths; enforce speech codes warp history and suppress science to flatter superstition; demand statements of faith; and flout academic freedom?

Judge Branch:

“Nothing about it is partisan. Currently, however, the main speech that is being silenced, at least in most law schools and law firms, is either conservative or Christian. And so, people try to paint the issue as a political one. . . . What they aren’t saying out loud is that the speakers they condemn typically are conservative or Christian. The liberal students often don’t know the specifics of what the speakers will discuss; rather, the students just want to prevent them from coming to campus to present their views.”

Her special concerns in this regard might explain why for this presentation she did not visit conservative Christian campuses, which routinely are shackled by partisan censorship; strenuously enforce dogma; aggressively reject academic freedom; teach nonsense; impose old-timey conduct codes; and engage in viewpoint-driven discrimination with respect to everything from admission and hiring (professors to bus drivers, administrators to landscapers) to discipline and firing or expulsion.

[rloquitur]

You are so tiresome.

[CJColucci]

A free speech conference named after the author of God and Man at Yale? Irony is dead.

[freedom121]

I never went to law school. But in college and professional school it never occurred to me that I had freedom to express my opinions without repercussions. It never occurred to me to give my opinion in class or for an assignment. I knew that, when asked for my opinion, what I was really being asked to do was to repeat what the professor had said was the “correct” opinion. So that is what I did. I have seen people who, for reasons known only to themselves, expressed leftist views and were severely sanctioned for it. I never saw anyone punished for expressing conservative views, even blatantly and violently racist ones. When I hear these complaints from conservatives I hear them saying “Back in the golden age, conservatives were free to speak their minds and liberals were silenced. This was as it should be and all was well in the universe. Now, suddenly, conservatives are getting the same treatment and it is an outrage!”

I would never discuss my political or religious views in a work setting. It astonishes me that some people expect to be able to do that. I assume they think that all right thinking people agree with them and their employers will support their views.

I keep my mouth shut and stay out of trouble. It is hard to take seriously someone who has made it to partner in a law firm or professor in a law school who claims to be unaware that they must conform to the political views of their bosses. When was that ever the case?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The "boss" is the client, on whose behalf the attorney may need to argue against the opposing side's point of view - which is difficult if he doesn't know the opposing side.

Or the lawyer may become a judge or administrator and be required to form and express an independent view. Different arguments need to be considered before making a decision.

Joe(sephine) six-pack may be called upon to use his/her independent judgment as a citizen - in the voting booth or jury box.

Both lawyers and non-lawyers, in preparation for those times when they may need to listen to different views, should be educated on how to do this. Don't wait for law school, have high-school debate clubs.

[Brett Bellmore]

I studied engineering in an engineering college in the late 70's; It never occurred to me to give my opinion in class on anything unrelated to the topic of the class. If I'd had an oddball opinion about steam tables or how to do truss calculations, I'm sure the consequences would have been severe.

On the flip side, I never got the slightest hint that I was unfree to express my opinion, outside class, on basically any topic whatsoever. I had a wonderful time debating every topic under the Sun with intelligent people who held different opinions.

[David Nieporent]

Unless you are very very old, or you went to a rather specific set of schools (which Kirkland would be happy to list, ad nauseam), I do not find it credible that there were students in college and professional school with you expressing "blatant and violently racist" views, let alone doing so without repercussion.

[y81]

I really don't understand why Judge Ho or Prof. Volokh accept the hypocrisy and mendacity of your colleagues. (Easier to get along if you go along, I guess.) So for example Ho says: "Powerful law firm leaders and tenured law professors from top law schools are now telling reporters—typically off the record—that they’re scared of the associates and the law students." Lies, lies, lies. It wasn't the associates who fired a Hogan partner for supporting Dobbs, it was the managing partners. It wasn't the students who threatened criminal prosecution for chalking Trump slogans on the Emory campus, it was Sasha's friend, the president of the university. When students do something that the Conspirators' colleagues in the administration don't support, like the frat boys who marched around Yale chanting "No means yes. Yes means anal," the fearful, powerless administrators have no trouble disciplining them.