Federalist Society Panel on "Discussion, Coercion, and the Pursuit of Truth" at Law Schools

The panel was moderated by Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, and included former Solicitor General Paul Clement, Prof. Renee Lettow Lerner, legal journalist David Lat, lawyer Jay Edelson, and me.

Here's the description:

Recent events at a number of law schools have raised concerns about civility and respect for opposing views. Many law schools have expressed their commitment to "fostering an environment that values the free expression of ideas," and have promised "consequences" for disruptive behavior, including Yale Law School. But are existing policies and practices effectively enforced and up to the task? Are law schools creating an environment that encourages the free discussion of ideas?

Do law schools owe their students a grounding in civility, a practice endorsed by bar associations throughout the country? Does tolerance of disruptive behavior and bullying conflict with these schools' commitment to fostering an environment that supports free expression? If law schools fail to teach students to engage respectfully with each other, or to appreciate diverse perspectives on important questions, where will students learn it? Has tolerance for ideological coercion on campus turned law schools into an informal training ground for future bad behavior that bar associations and courts will have to police?

Our experts addressed these and other important issues that relate to the role of law schools in promoting civility, a practice that future lawyers will be expected to employ.

Featuring:

– Paul Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC.
– Jay Edelson, Founder & CEO, Edelson PC.
– David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction.
– Prof. Renée Lettow Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor, George Washington University Law School.
– Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
– Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

“Discussion, Coercion, and the Pursuit of Truth” at Law Schools.

At law schools, one of those things is not like the others.

[SimonP]

Was the echo deafening?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingerfest fans can’t get enough of it.

It comforts them as they await continuing defeat and eventual replacement.

[Diogenes Radar Gun]

Yay! Let’s kill the goose laying the golden egg. Yay! Whoopie. Make Detroit, Liberia, and Haitie the universal human experience.

[Randal]

Yeah, we know. Conservatives think their dumb ideas shouldn’t be mocked and ridiculed because it’s unfair and hurts their feelings. Well, that’s how freedom of speech and academic freedom work. You get to say your thing, then your critics get to say how lame you are and decline to invite you to parties. It has always been thus.

Try having convincing ideas. Don’t just whine about being unpopular and expect that to make people take you seriously.

[Brett Bellmore]

You think attacking somebody with a bike lock is “mocking” them? I think conservatives could survive being mocked and ridiculed all day long. The discussion is about “coercion”, not mockery and ridicule.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I think conservatives could survive being mocked and ridiculed all day long.

The snowflakes at the Volokh Conspiracy can’t seem to get through a single day.

[Randal]

One incident (which no one is defending) doesn’t amount to a summit-worthy trend. Make no mistake, this is about conservatives’ hurt butts, not bike locks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just one incident. Right. Maybe just one with a bike lock.

VIDEO: Conservative suffers blow to the face at Berkeley

“Michael Knowles attacked by protester at Missouri campus”

“Conservative students attacked at Binghamton last fall sue university over melee”

“A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury”

Just one attack? I’m having trouble figuring out how you might think that. It happens over and over.

[David Nieporent]

Conservatives think their dumb ideas shouldn’t be mocked and ridiculed because it’s unfair and hurts their feelings.

And liberals don’t? Isn’t it just “people” who think that?

[Randal]

I don’t see the left complaining about being “silenced” or whatever.

[Diogenes Radar Gun]

Not now, but they were in the era of HUAC. Now that they have power, well, they use it.

[Randal]

HUAC was doing a little bit more than just mocking and ridiculing! It was prosecuting people and sending people to internment camps. Let me know when Senator Bernie sets up the Fun Mandatory Labor Camp for Racist Yokels and then you can have a cry.

[Diogenes Radar Gun]

In the “era of HUAC” (read more closely please) liberals did complain about the 1950s version of cancel culture for their commie beliefs.

Look at what they tried to do to Lucielle Ball for being, at one time, a member of the communist party.

Now that they (the ideology at least, most of those commies are dead now) captured those institutions, they don’t hesitate to use power to cancel their opponents.

[Brett Bellmore]

“It was prosecuting people and sending people to internment camps.”

I think you’ve got WWII confused with the cold war. During WWII, people were sent to internment camps, yes, but not on the basis of being left wing. On the basis of being of Japanese extraction, and they didn’t get trials.

During the Cold war, under the Mundt-Nixon bill, members of the Communist party or its front organizations, not leftists in general, were caught in a catch 22 where they could be imprisoned for being party to a foreign conspiracy if they registered as Communists, or be imprisoned for failure to register if they didn’t. But they went to regular prisons, not internment camps. And the CPUSA actually WAS controlled by the USSR, as a matter of historical fact. That’s why it imploded when the USSR stopped funding them. Still a nasty position to find yourself in, though, since even useful idiots who didn’t realize they were working for a foreign intelligence agency were liable.

In the 1930’s, the same thing had been happening to American NAZI party members… HUAC was originally organized to go after them, not the left.

[Randal]

The House Committee on Un-American Activities also put together an argument for the internment of Japanese Americans known as the Yellow Report. The committee investigated charges of fifth column activity in the camps.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t see the left complaining about being “silenced” or whatever.

They complain about having their humanity denied or being made to feel unsafe because they’ve heard things that are unfair and hurt their feelings.

[Randal]

Yes, and it’s pathetic, but it’s a different grievance entirely. The opposite grievance, really.

[Eric VonSalzen]

As too often happens with Comments on VC, many commenters here are ignoring the issue(s) raised by the post and are using the Comments as a forum to parade their own (often neither original nor cogent) opinions on subjects only loosely associated with the post.

After nearly a half century of law practice I can assure any law student who asks that civility is a skill or practice that is essential to the successful practice of law. Try disruptive behavior before most judges and you will be lucky if all you get is a tongue-lashing. Try to negotiate a settlement or a contract with an adversary by shouting at her and telling her to shut up.

But it’s worse than that. Bullying behavior, shouting down opinions with which you disagree, etc., grow out of a mind-set that “only my side’s opinions and positions are valid”. If that were so, there’d be no need for lawyers. Thugs will do just fine. In fact, some law schools seem to be training a bunch of thugs. If you want to be a thug, don’t waste your time and money on law school.

[Randal]

As too often happens with Comments on VC, many commenters here are ignoring the issue(s) raised by the post…

Not ignoring. We’re pointing out that it’s a contrived issue. It’s not real. It’s a figment of the right-wing culture war and grievance-stoking campaign.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it’s not a figment of our imagination. Ask Andy Ngo. Antifa basically put out a hit on him, he’s still got brain damage from the beating.

[Randal]

What are you talking about? Do you even know what a hit is, or are you using the word “basically” to mean “did nothing at all like”? But mainly, what does Andy Ngo have to do with free speech on campus?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If this program focused on civility — rather than partisanship — I would be stunned. Did these clingers criticize the boorish anti-abortion zealots, white supremacists, and Republican trolls who strive to bring strife to reasoning, liberal-libertarian campuses? Did they criticize the conservative-controlled schools that won’t hire agnostics, atheists, Jews, and Muslims?

They complained about good schools being insufficiently inhospitable, in their judgment, to racists, gay-bashers, misogynists, white supremacists, and other conservative, Republican clingers. Probably patted each other on the back a bunch, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This was a 90-minute whimperfest, highlighted by these complaints from Prof. Lerner:

‘It is difficult to understand what conservative students are going through in law schools today’

‘Conservative views are dismissed and ridiculed among their peers’

‘the problem is [not so much faculty and administrators but instead] their fellow students’

conservative students are “shunned” by other students

‘most of the problem is informal peer pressure’

Not sure which of the assembled clingers proposed this, but there seemed to be general agreement that law schools should ‘add courses to familiarize student with conservative thought’

What a bunch of paltry, whining losers.

Want to your thinking to be more popular, or to have others respect you rather than want to avoid you? Ditch the multifaceted bigotry and the backwardness, clingers. Until then, don’t expect your whining to accomplish much.

[EscherEnigma]

Paul Clement?

I’m reminded of his defense of DOMA in 2013.

Simply put, he put all sorts of anti-gay nonsense and rhetoric, really homophobic, bigotted stuff, in his briefs. Then when he got in front of the SCOTUS for oral arguments, he pretended he never wrote any of that and refused to defend his own words.

It’s kind of a pattern for conservatives, really. They’ll do all sorts of awful things. Then when back into a corner and expected to defend it, they’ll pretend none of that happened and people are just being mean to them for no reason.

Which is to say… if conservatives feel that students on “elite” campuses aren’t respectful enough of conservative ideas, maybe it’s because, like Clement, the ideas they put out there aren’t worthy of respect?