Stanford President and Stanford Law School Dean Apologize to Judge Kyle Duncan

From today's letter (posted by Ed Whelan [National Review Online]):

Dear Judge Duncan,

We write to apologize for the disruption of your recent speech at Stanford Law School. As has already been communicated to our community, what happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus.

We are very clear with our students that, given our commitment to free expression, if there are speakers they disagree with, they are welcome to exercise their right to protest but not to disrupt the proceedings. Our disruption policy states that students are not allowed to "prevent the effective carrying out" of a "public event" whether by heckling or other forms of interruption.

In addition, staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university's commitment to free speech.

We are taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again. Freedom of speech is a bedrock principle for the law school, the university, and a democratic society, and we can and must do better to ensure that it continues even in polarized times.

With our sincerest apologies again,
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Ph.D.[,] President and Bing Presidential Professor
Jenny Martinez[,] Richard E. Lang Professor of Law & Dean of Stanford Law School

Whelan also quotes a response by Judge Duncan:

I appreciate receiving Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne's and Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez's written apology for the disruption of my speech at the law school. I am pleased to accept their apology.

I particularly appreciate the apology's important acknowledgment that "staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university's commitment to free speech." Particularly given the depth of the invective directed towards me by the protestors, the administrators' behavior was completely at odds with the law school's mission of training future members of the bench and bar.

I hope a similar apology is tendered to the persons in the Stanford law school community most harmed by the mob action: the members of the Federalist Society who graciously invited me to campus. Such an apology would also be a useful step towards restoring the law school's broader commitment to the many, many students at Stanford who, while not members of the Federalist Society, nonetheless welcome robust debate on campus.

Finally, the apology promises to take steps to make sure this kind of disruption does not occur again. Given the disturbing nature of what happened, clearly concrete and comprehensive steps are necessary. I look forward to learning what measures Stanford plans to take to restore a culture of intellectual freedom.

For more on the underlying situation, see the reporting by David Lat (Original Jurisdiction).

Comments

[Kazinski]

They need to fire the DEI dean that greenlighted the disruption, and was one of the disrupters.

[CountmontyC]

Fire her,end the position and suspend as many of the students involved as can be identified.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

“Unrestricted free speech, paradoxically, results in less speech, not more.”

Yoel Roth

[I Callahan]

Yoel Roth is a lunatic.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So you wouldn’t censor the students?? You are a free speech absolutist.

[igotherefirst]

The students should be--and are--free to express their opinions but not in the manner chosen. They should have protested outside the building. They are actually cowards afraid of hearing an opinion other than their own.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? The students don't have a right to express themselves in a nonpublic forum any more than they do in my living room.

If they want to express themselves, they can reserve a room and hold their own event.

[damikesc]

Doesn't Freedom of Speech not mean Freedom From Consequences?

[Scooter]

NPC Alert.

[Lee Moore]

No, no, no - there's QI for this sort of thing. You can't be fired, or suspended, or otherwise have a finger laid on you, unless there is a clear precedent for the proposed punishment. The President and the Dean would have had to have stated clearly, in writing, that chopping a visiting speaker's head off was an expulsion offense, or at least a last warning offense, BEFORE the head was chopped off.

They clearly haven't said that, and they clearly aren't going to. They are going through the motions to smooth over a bit of bad PR.

The judge should be encouraged to write back to them in say three months time to enquire how "what measures Stanford plans to take to restore a culture of intellectual freedom" has played out into "what measures Stanford has now taken to restore a culture of intellectual freedom." If stonewalled, he could usefully make it a quarterly repeat letter.

Of course, Stanford is perfectly entitled to eschew a climate of intellectual freedom, but it would be nice if the judge kept a firm grip on Stanford's PR cojones with a view to forcing them eventually to admit that they are on LawTalkingGuy's side when it comes to hecklers' vetos.

[Bellanca]

Duncan could also publicly suggest to his peers that they not employ as clerks Stanford Law grads. (Another judge last year made that suggestion regarding Yale.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

30 years in higher ed tells me that *someone's* getting fired...

I haven't seen a college president use language like this -- ever...
His job may be on the line...

[ducksalad]

Oh, I've seen a university president use language like this several times. And as you suggest. the majority of those times someone did in fact "resign" shortly afterward, but it wasn't the president.

[Dr. Ed 2]

University presidents often weather storms with their own jobs intact, but it doesn’t mean that they almost didn’t…

[Sarcastr0]

Unfalsifiable again, Ed! Such insights they literally cannot be denied!

[Longtobefree]

"We are taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again."

Better still, take steps to assure the perpetrators are expelled and never allowed to return, and the staff involved are fired without the possibility of rehire.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

At least we know Republicans agree with Yoel Roth after pretending his quote,

“Unrestricted free speech, paradoxically, results in less speech, not more.”

meant he was a Nazi. Republicans are back to being Nazi adjacent again. 😉

[Travis R]

The nazi line lost its sting long ago. We all know who the nazis are.
The people who want uncontrolled immigration.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Alex Berenson just banned me from his Substack for calling him the Jewish Hitler—Substack is his Mein Kampf and Covid is his gas chamber and he killed half a million Americans! Substackers like Taibbi and Berenson love censorship.

[Nige]

Nazis being famous for loving immigrants, yeah.

[Bored Lawyer]

You don't understand what speech is, and the difference between speech and action. Go back to 8th grade.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Lol, you get to determine what is “speech”…just like the NYTimes gets to determine who the “press” is…how convenient! 😉

[Bored Lawyer]

LOL. You think you are a serious person and not a clown.

The distinction between speech and action is well-established in case law, and the Supreme Court has been defining it since before you were born. Criticizing a judge's decision is speech. Shouting down a speaker is not. That you cannot grasp the difference only confirms your clownness.

Query: I think Biden is doing a horrible job. Can I shoot him to express my disagreement? Why is that not speech?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You have the same position as Yoel Roth! You support censorship and moderation.

[Bored Lawyer]

Keep showing what an idiot you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

What a parody he is, at least.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Criticizing a judge’s decision is speech. Shouting down a speaker is not.

Probably fair to say Samuel Adams would not have always heckled a speaker he disagreed with.

[hoppy025]

No, that'll never be enough. We instead have to line soldiers up next to the speakers, and make very clear that if anyone as much as opens their mouth inappropriately, they're getting a burst of 5.56 fire. The only thing these savages understand is brutal force. That's what they need, and that's what they deserve.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It won't take that -- all you need is a dozen cops making a half dozen arrests and it will end this...

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the staff ARE being fired. Or will be at the end of the semester.

[Bored Lawyer]

The problem is that today higher education is a buyer's market. Administrators are terrified of offending students.

[Commenter_XY]

Is this true at the Ivy League schools, tho?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hmmm…the President and Dean seem to be nipping at their own ankles. Shouldn’t they be criticizing Regent and Hillsdale instead of undermining their own liberal/libertarian institution?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

FBI agent Bill Priestep is a proud Hillsdale alum…you know the guy that initiated the spying on the Trump campaign??

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I'm a UMass alum....

[David Nieporent]

There was no spying on the Trump campaign.

[VinniUSMC]

That's right! 2+2 does equal 5.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“In addition, staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”

I, the Czar, share your outrage at the unauthorized behavior of my ministers!

[ThomasD]

Nailed it.

The "dean' who clearly orchestrated this needs to be given a choice - sincere in person apology or termination.

[MikeFr]

It is not clear she orchestrated it but she dud participate in it and apparently knew about the disruption in advance since she had a printed speech ready. She should be fired for cause. An apology is not enough.

The responsible students should be punished according to Stanford's disciplinary policies. That probably does not extend to suspension or expulsion for a first offense.

[Bellanca]

CEO’s senior staff act to subvert critical thinking and expression, while humiliating the institution.

So CEO says, Sorry, I guess I am not in charge of my senior staff.

As noted by Duncan, the DEI diva arrived with a printed statement, from which she read. She also brought the usual absurd rhetoric about the law students being “harmed” by a set of ideas they wish to erase. This was an orchestrated mugging.

I guess I would ask, were I the president and law school dean’s board, what they *are* responsible for; why they hired this gaggle of maoist thugs, why they are admitting law students who cannot think, debate or tolerate those who do; and why consequences weren’t defined and delivered by 9 a.m. today.

But then I was a ceo for 27 years and took responsiblity for my organizations and staff behavior.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"So CEO says, Sorry, I guess I am not in charge of my senior staff. "

In Higher Ed, this is accurate -- it's called "shared governance" and it's like the US President appointing SCOTUS judges -- on everything.

Everyone's in charge but no one's responsible.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A dean's apology that this blog likes?

[neurodoc]

Arthur, you approve of the DEI's handling of the disruption? You think she did well by her employer, Stanford?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Her conduct seems mixed. (Check Ann Althouse's perspective.)

At worst, though, she would be roughly as bad a representative of Stanford as Kyle Duncan is of the federal judiciary and his bigoted fans are of modern America. Duncan is a reprehensible bigot. The people disregarding that point -- and the Federalist Societeers who sought to spew his bigotry at Stanford -- are deplorable low-lifes.

[Tall Paul]

I note that this apology didn't materialize until after the moderate and conservative press starting covering this event. If the speaker who was shouted down had been from a different side of the political spectrum, the apology would have far more self critical and the offending students would have already been suspended or permanently expelled.

[Bellanca]

What's different about the situation, as well, is that the heckled judge, did not take it lying down. Indeed he responded with rare and articulate contempt for the barking dogs and their administrative (the DEI freak and three others) who empowered and encouraged the barking dogs. It's probably instructive that he did so and received at least a mealy-mouthed, "we'll fix our process" apology-nonapology.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm wondering if he truly wanted to explain his viewpoints to an audience whom he knew would question them on them and is pissed about the fact he was denied that opportunity -- he wanted to debate, not this...

[Nige]

Aw the poor judge. Now he'll never be able to justify his legal decisions, ever. The people responsible must be arrested!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don't feel too badly for Judge Duncan. He still gets to be a disgusting, superstitious, obsolete bigot at the taxpayer teat.

[ChrisC]

A couple of really big donors must have a called him and said, "fix this or we are done with you". Presidents don't write letters like this unless pushed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Another thread about Stanford?

I expect Rev. Sandusky will make a million comments again.

He really hates it when his elites look as dumb and as evil as they are.

[LKB]

Stanford can easily make sure this doesn’t happen again:

(1) Fire Steinbach.
(2) Suspend the other administrators who were too scared to intervene for 6 months without pay.
(3) Expel the students involved.

If Stanford shows means business, it won’t happen again. OTOH, if Stanford shows there are no consequences for this crap, I guarantee it will.

[Don Nico]

I worked extensively with multiple groups in my professional society that have been developing codes of conduct, statements of community values, and penalties for violating those standards. I find that the majority in those support the goals and rhetoric of DEI.
Assuming the Stanford President's word about Stanford Community values, I observe that the penalty that would be sought for a disruption such as Steinberg's would be expulsion from the group.
Somehow, I expect that the simple logic would however not be followed.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, Don Nico. Hard call: Does Steinberg get fired? What is your gut call?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Stanford can easily make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Stop providing a platform for old-timey racists and gay-bashing right-wingers whose stale bigotry is an affront to the institution’s (and modern America’s) values?

[dwb68]

A letter of apology is not accountability.

Accountability would look like Steinbach getting fired. Not holding my breath.

The real losers are the law students of Stanford who think that his behavior is ok in the real world. It isn't.

[AtR]

This letter : apology as Jim Cramer : SVB

[Real American]

Know what steps will "ensure that something like this does not happen again"? Suspensions, expulsions and firings. Everything else is permission to do it again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, what is necessary is Criminal Prosecution.

"Penal Code § 403 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime for a person to willfully disturb or break up a public assembly or meeting. Doing so is a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to 6 months in jail and fines of up to $1000.00."
See: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/403/

[Stephen Lathrop]

As someone who remembers vividly the campus politics which prevailed circa 1965 and thereafter, I am not comfortable to see that history crowded from this discussion by pure ideology. Several commenters have weighed in with still-familiar demands that powerful people who expound horrific ideas should enjoy draconian protections while they do it.

I found such insistence troubling then, and still do today. It is not easy to understand why a student who heckles a powerful speaker should be expelled from school, if the Dean who administers the expulsion should not be fired for doing it. Both the student and the Dean intend interference with expressive conduct; both justify doing it in the name of expressive freedom. Both actually have a case to make, with the Dean's case founded on honored ideological tradition, and the student's case rooted in this nation's boisterous founding history.

There are two differences. Both weigh against the Dean.

First, any heckling by the student will briefly, trivially, and symbolically discomfit its powerful target. Discipline to expel the student by the Dean would be disproportionately greater in effect.

A counter-argument can be offered that the heckler deprives other auditors of the benefit of the speaker's address, and that protection of the rights of those others is what justifies harsh policy. That has merit. It is true as far as it goes. But it is an argument that always fails to reckon the similar, but more comprehensive and more lasting, deprivation which will oppress associates of the expelled student.

Second, advocacy on behalf of expulsion relies on a presumption of disproportionate power inconsistent with the, "more-speech," ideology inevitably deployed to justify it. Paradoxical advocacy loses persuasive power, while raising questions. In this general case, the question raised is whether defense of expressive freedom, or intent to suppress symbolic affront to power, is what actually drives the advocacy for student expulsion. It is worth noting the enticement to moral hazard that mixing those motives encourages among the powerful.

During the Vietnam War, when a student expelled could also lose his life in consequence of being drafted, it became all but impossible to sustain the draconian expulsion advocacy some commenters above have insisted upon. At that time, a particularly repugnant aspect of that advocacy was not-infrequent insistence that students thus punished should lose their lives. That made the case all too vividly that what was being defended in fact was not expressive liberty, but policy preference, power, and prerogative. After that become clear, capacity of draconian arguments to get public acceptance receded. Wise administrators mostly stopped trying to argue that way.

[Commenter_XY]

All of this wall of text to tell us you're good with the Heckler's Veto. 🙂

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He's good with a Heckler's Veto when the directionality suits him.

He's opposed to it when it doesn't.

Liberalism is an ends justify the means religion.

[Michael P]

As usual, the more he writes, the less he actually has to say.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, where, “wall of text,” equals, “Not a Tweet?”

You replied. I’m guessing that means you read what I wrote. If my aging writing chops are still up to the challenge to sustain attention among habitualized internet fans, I remain content.

But why not enrich the feeble contributions this forum lets us offer in service of public debate, and pick out something I said that you disagree with, and explain why? It hardly does you credit that you offered not a bit more substance than Michael P.

[Harvey Mosley]

Maybe your writing chops exceed your reading chops. There was plenty of substance in XY's post. You approve shutting down speech you don't like with a heckler's veto. XY was also very concise and didn't use 431 words when 15 was enough.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sure Mosley, that was real substantive, by XY and by you.

By the way, what makes you suppose that if I oppose draconian punishments for hecklers, that means I support a hecklers' veto? I am sure you thought that through carefully, right?

Your judgment may not equip you for the pose you are attempting, as a champion of expressive freedom. My guess is you are more on the bullying side, but like to parade in idealistic finery while you demand that the powerful suppress views you don't like.

[damikesc]

How is abiding by the policies the students agreed to when they arrived on campus draconian?

[Kazinski]

“At that time, a particularly repugnant aspect of that advocacy was not-infrequent insistence that students thus punished should lose their lives.”

What was particularly repugnant was that college kids, mostly from more privileged backgrounds were exempted or deferred from the draft in the first place, while those of less privileged backgrounds had no recourse from war.

Thanks for that reminder of the history our privileged campus demonstrators, whose “safety” we are told is still in a precarious postition.

[Nige]

I'm with the folks who think the problem was that there was a war at all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, I agree that was a repugnant policy. Also unwise policy. It encouraged a moral hazard in favor of war.

But that argument has no power to legitimize an administrative power to punish anti-war expression with induction into the army.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, read what Thomas Hobbes had to say about life in a state of nature.

And I can (do) read your statement on power differentials as a justification of what was done on January 6th. Are you in support of that?

If not, why not? -- be consistent with what you wrote supra.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/mualphaxi/status/1634327606341369856

Here is your six-figure woke DEI executive crying because Stanford invited a Federal Society judge on campus to speak.

This is who Rev. says is our replacements and our betters.

lmao overpaid, thin-skinned, moronic, affirmative action tyrants are our betters guys! Reverend continually says so!

[Nige]

Lol don't ever call anyone else a bootlicker ever again.

[David Nieporent]

lmao overpaid, thin-skinned, moronic, affirmative action tyrants are our betters guys!

A random carjacker who runs over a crowd of kids waiting at a bus stop while trying to evade capture is your better.

[Jim Harr]

There is only one way to stop this sort of thing. Expel any student who disrupts or otherwise hinders the speech of another, and fire an administrator or faculty member who in any way supports them. Do that, and this ends tomorrow. But that won't happen, so it will go on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What will end it is construction workers with baseball bats protesting the protesters. That is where this is going to end, and it won't be pretty....

[Nige]

Yeah, I can see the contruction worker and the cop and the sailor and the indian all coming to the federal judge's rescue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Disco died in 1979 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_Demolition_Night

[Nige]

Long after the idea that the working class consists of violent reactionary thugs also died.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm.....

[Nige]

What, are you trying to keep the flame alive?

[Michael P]

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/12/no-squeeze-at-stanford-university-president-and-law-dean-issue-apology-to-judge-duncan-that-omits-one-critical-thing/ links to a number of surveys that say this kind of incident is only the tip of an iceberg, and that most of the chilling effect is hidden under less blatantly outrageous methods to stifle dissent.

[hoppy025]

Scratch a liberal, uncover a fascist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is very true -- there are lots and lots of events like this which are never even held because it is known what will happen.

[Randal]

conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor themselves

Seems like a win. Why are they such pussies? You can't blame the left for that.

[hoppy025]

People are pussies if a group that outnumbers them are evil and willing to use force against them? If conservatives started fighting back and shooting these people, you'd say that they were "murderers." That's what you people said when George Zimmerman put a bullet in Thugvon Martin's heart. Apparently no limit n*gga found his limit, a 9mm. BWAHAHAHA

[Randal]

Hm, you're a bad person obviously, but I'll pretend you're somebody else for a second and give that person the courtesy of a reply.

I haven't heard of any cases of students "using force" against conservatives or even threatening to. No, the conservative fairies are afraid... of being unpopular. They're embarrassed by their own beliefs.

[damikesc]

"I haven’t heard of any cases of students “using force” against conservatives or even threatening to. "

Milo did.
Ben Shapiro did.

[Randal]

Oh, what university are they attending?

Way to change the subject.

[Nige]

Oh wow, those are some ruffled feathers.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m out and about today, but the right calling for draconian punishments when someone on the left does wrong is pretty boring stuff.

Many on here are of the diversity is actually white oppression mindset. Many others are deep into confirmation bias. Those are the main commenters and Conspirators on this, There are some with legit concerns but they don’t seem to talk much.

Julian Davis Mortenson on Twitter has some interesting takes in the other side of this. Not saying you should trust his authority either, but worth reading the other perspective…if you’d care to have your priors interrogated a bit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“I’m out and about today, but the right calling for draconian punishments when someone on the left does wrong is pretty boring stuff.”

Perhaps you should climb up and chisel the “Equal Justice Under Law” off the Supreme Court building.

All I ask is for everyone to be held to the same standard — can you imagine the outcry if someone on the right did something similar — oh wait, that happened on Jan 6th and how was that dealt with?

And this was six years ago at Berkley -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZA-mcrwvXU

[Nige]

Well, yeah, a bunch of kids being rowdy and Jan 6th. Perfectly illustrates the relative differences, eh?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you imagine what the left would have done on January 6th if it had been the other way around, i.e. they thought that the election had been stolen from them?

They would have burn the capitol to the ground -- with impunity....

[Nige]

I can think of at least two elections where Democrats had reasons to believe they may have been stolen, and not a single thing was burned as a result. How are you always so wrong about absolutely everything?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ruther-*fraud* B. Hayes, right?

And the Corrupt Bargain of 1824. John Quincy Adams is not my President!

[Nige]

Sure thing great-great-great-great etc granddad.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What 1824 did was make Andrew Jackson far more ruthless when he finally won in 1828 -- people forget that the spoils system started as a purge of what we would now call the Federal Civil Service.

[David Nieporent]

Naturally, every single thing that Dr. Ed says that "people forget" is inevitably:

1) Something well known that no reasonably informed person forgets; or
2) Something Dr. Ed made up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You have to give Nige Chinese cultural and historical references in order for him to understand them.

[Nige]

What about my 'JEW MASTERS?'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you know the Chinese Cultural Revolution was filled with Jewish influence?

I bet you didn't.

[Nige]

I'll bet there's lots of things you 'know' not many other people know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only thing that kept the 2000 election from being stolen was the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" -- when the Republicans made it clear that they, too, could shout and scream.

And the left *was* organizing its own version of Jan 6th with its campaign to "count all the votes" and merely pressured the states to count the fraudulent ones.

There is a dual system of justice in this country and everyone knows it. And sooner or later, there *will* be a reckoning.

[Nige]

So, in short, wanting all the votes to be counted - no votes were show to be fraudulent - and wanting to overthrow an election based on a lie are the same thing, and the fact that the closest thing to a riot over 2000 was by Republicans – attempting to stop votes from being counted – prove Democrats and Republicans are the same. Based on this, there is a dual system of justice in the US, unfairly treating people who invaded the Capitol to overthrow an election and people who didn’t invade the Capitol to overthrow an election as if they were somehow different.

[damikesc]

If you're referring to 2016 as one of them, read up on what happened on 1/20/17.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed’s got the predictions of shootings and the criminal prosecutions and his own past heroic actions already noted.

Maximum drama; Jan 06 is just a poor follow up. But I know he can do better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was trying not to say that, but yes, I wouldn't be surprised to see some unhinged person use one of these "protests" as the venue for a mass shooting. It's an incredibly soft target because order has broken down and the police are already overwhelmed.

As to the rest, you are telling me I really should write my book about UMass....

[Nige]

I mean you've asserted that shouty activist students like this almost certainly want to go on murderous rampages at least twice before this comment, despite none of them ever going on murderous rampages.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I said they would if they thought could get away with it.

Murdering a Federal Judge — any Federal Judge — would be prosecuted…

(Query -- would that be a Federal Offense as well?)

[Nige]

That just means you completely made it up, being all full of logic and reason and stuff!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If Antifa murdered a conservative federal judge at night, the FBI and DOJ wouldn't do a single thing.

[Nige]

If the Proud Boys cured cancer the woke mob STILL wouldn't be happy!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey Sarcastr0, did you see that Politico piece where the FBI accidentally leaked those texts in the Proud Boys J6 trial where the Democrats at the FBI had destroyed 380 pieces of evidence?

I'm interested in hearing your bootlicking excuses.

[David Nieporent]

Did you read the Politico piece, where the non-existent "Democrats at the FBI" had "destroyed 380 pieces of evidence"?

The comment from an agent about destroying evidence pertained to an unrelated “20-year-old multi codefendant trial” that had concluded long ago, the Justice Department attorneys said.

[damikesc]

The FBI has a lengthy track record of honesty.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, either the DEI lady pleading with the students to permit free speech, or else (s)he “intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” Either way, *some* administrator(s) were unfair.

Maybe Dean Martinez didn’t note that “that’s amore” to the story than we’ve heard. (Get it – Dean Martin?)

Now to the students – have *they* been unfairly criticized?

And was the proper response to the students to try and reason with them, or to discipline them?

Or would that expose them to being drafted into Vietnam, as Stephen Lathrop mentioned?

[SimonP]

Thanks for the reference. Seems that Eugene needs to do more homework on this one. Just peddling misinformation at this point, apparently.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Also, I’m presuming that if the Dean of the school *and* the President of the University felt they had to write an apology to a hated Other, then something bad must have happened.

Maybe they shouldn’t have permitted the evil Judge Jeffreys (which I’ll stipulate he was) to speak at all. But having allowed it, the University assumed the responsibilities of a host to a guest, and they should have treated disruption of the speech the way they’d have treated a bunch of students in MAGA hats and Proud Boy T-shirts who interrupted a “gay rights” speech. That would have allowed the guest’s speech to proceed smoothly instead of being disrupted.

And if my view of a host’s duty to its guest is “weird” in today’s chaotic climate, then the world is indeed upside down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know about the "Judge Jefferies" but here is the bio of the judge who did: https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/duncan-stuart-kyle

While he got his LL.M. at Columbia, he got his law degree at Louisiana State. Not the Ivy League. And he spent two years working for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberties, aka Becket Law. And his positions on trannie rights are what any sane person would have had 30 years ago, in much of the country a decade ago.

I will not support trannies until they win their case with logic and reason, not hysterics and violence.

[Nige]

'I will not support trannies until they win their case with logic and reason, not hysterics and violence'

I too base my support for other people's human rights on arbitrary and unacheivable levels of perfect behaviour by anybody and everybody who claims to support them, also I use derogatory terms for them to show that I am the logcial and reasonable one.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is no "human right" to require every person to participate in your mental illness and treatment, so you don't kill yourself.

[Nige]

Remember than next time claims the election was stolen get roundly rejected.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I don’t know about the “Judge Jefferies”"

I was describing the university's responsibilities to its guests, even if we assume that Duncan was Jeffreys-like - which I don't know, it's simply making the disruptors' case as strong as possible, and showing that even then, their case fails.

[Nige]

The Rains Of Castamere playing over the sound system was the signal.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wikipedia informs me that this was the song in the "Red Wedding" episode in Game of Thrones, with "Red Wedding" referring to a massacre of guests.

I presume that, since they let the judge depart alive, they weren't *really* violating their duty as hosts?

[Nige]

Can't believe they didn't tell him the Lannisters sent their regards.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So…they didn’t kill him, and that exhausts their obligations as hosts?

Instead of patting themselves on the back that at least they didn’t kill him, they should simply have declined to invite him in the first place, if they didn’t conscientiously believe that they could be good hosts. That would have been more forthright.

Or they could have insisted he sign a form – “I acknowledge that I can come on campus, but on condition that I can legitimately be abused with anything short of deadly force.”

[Nige]

We'll see what Lady Stoneheart has to say about this!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You don't really think I'm comparing his treatment to a massacre. You simply wish to be excused from the labor of thinking - instead of defending the university's behavior, or explaining why its apology was wrong, simply flail at straw men.

[Nige]

THEY BROKE THE ANCIENT LAWS OF HOSPITALITY!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So they did. Putting it in capital letters doesn’t make it false.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that some self-professed modern and hip people think it’s OK to insult a guest. (Maybe, to them, the mere fact that people respected their guests in the past is a reason to disrespect them today in the name of modernity.)

I was trying to criticize this behavior without endorsing the idea that a university has to welcome everybody who wants to talk, or recognize any group of students which wants its own organization.

Private institutions should, as part of their education program (publicly announced) decide for themselves what extracurricular activities to approve and who gets to come onto the campus to speak.

So they could have simply refused to let the guy come on campus.

In hindsight, that sounds like it would have been the better option, if they didn’t think they could, in good conscience, treat their guest with the proper respect.

This is a moderate position, and no amount of all-caps shrieking can change that. My position doesn’t go to the extreme of welcoming everyone the students want, regardless of educational value. It simply means that *if* they approve of him coming to campus to speak, they have to treat him right.

[Nige]

Yeah, it’s sad the federal judge got yelled at by excitable kids, I’m sure he’ll recover and this too shall pass, but honestly the shrieking snowflakey over-the-top response has gone stratospheric compared to the actual offence committed by the kids, and it’s so obviosly and painfully performative and cynical, how many comments have you wasted now on handwringing over the INVITED GUEST being INSULTED? You’re all so tightly wound no wonder you eagerly explode at the slightest provocation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You seem to have made more than a few posts yourself. A lot of them in reply to me, and (as proof of the strength of your case) straw-manning.

And again, I was fairly moderate, defending the institution's right not to have him on campus in the first place and even stipulating he's as bad as Judge Jeffreys.

Again, you seem to think the issue is the judge's ego and that this is just about some one guy getting inconvenienced.

Yet, curiously, this seems to happen a lot, not just to this particular fellow, and not just to judges, and not just on campuses. Other than that, your focus on one specific judge's feelings is perfectly rational.

[Stephen Lathrop]

This business about, "hosts," seems peculiar. The protestors violated no duty to host a guest properly. He was not their guest. They opposed his presence forthrightly.

Your criticism can only be against the university administration, for failing so far to administer punishment, against people who played no part in setting up the provocation in the first place. The administration's own representative showed courtesy to the guest, while declining to interpret draconian punishment as appropriate to the case.

The faux outrage parading through this comments section is not about courtesy to a guest. It is about resentment over a missed opportunity for the powerful to suppress forcibly enough some people the complainers want harshly targeted—targeted for opinions the complainers disapprove.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So...the speech went off as planned? It wasn't disrupted? Nothing to see here?

What were the university president and the Dean apologizing for, then?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you *sure* the President and Dean are using fake outrage to conceal an agenda of punishing the students?

And as another commenter says, hypothetical hypocrisy is the best kind of hypocrisy. You know to a certainty (because you *feel* it strongly) that I wouldn't mind an invited speaker being disrupted so long as she was a left-handed lesbian pipe-welder speaking on the evils of the patriarchy. The fun part is you don't have to provide any evidence.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave, however the speech went off, what do you see that connects anything I wrote with any particular speechmaking occurrence. I favor expressive freedom for all, without enforced privilege for would-be speakers who lack ethos, logos, and pathos sufficient to command an attentive audience. As far as I am concerned, if the president and the Dean propose to defend with force so deficient a speaker, they ought to be apologizing for themselves.

You seem to be off on some tangent of your own, sacralizing invited speakers, for who knows what reason. I don't ascribe to you the targeted hostility I impute to other commenters here. My aim has been to note a few reasons they might be wrong.

You seem to want to oppose me, while not understanding them, which just seems confused both ways.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“sacralizing invited speakers, for who knows what reason.”

Because I want to allow for the possibility of a university simply refusing to allow a speaker they don’t like. Outside speakers are part of the curriculum, and the university, not the students, controls the curriculum. I reserve the right to not-complain when a private university simply chooses, per its preannounced policy, not to host a given speaker.

That’s not the same as sabotaging an invited speaker, which is rude and plain offensive and, yes, contrary to the duty a host owes to a guest..

So if by “sacralizing invited speakers,” you mean “letting them do what they were invited to do, without obstruction” and “not publically hectoring them for several minutes about what an awful person they are,” then yes, I guess I do sacralize them.

“an attentive audience”

Unless the university requires attendance at a speech, the speaker legitimately runs the risk that nobody will show up except the sponsors. In other words, if the administration promoted the speech properly but nobody showed up anyway, that would be embarrassing, but not deliberate sabotaging by the administration.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave, what would you say about a university which announced a policy?:

“Our student groups are free to invite speakers at their pleasure. We always hope invited speakers will accept. But if you do plan to speak, understand that this university will not punish any who heckle you at their pleasure. We expect invited speakers to command the respect of their audiences by the force of their presentations, and not by force of any other kind. Expect a standard of decorum similar to that which prevails in the British Parliament.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, warning off potential speakers tht they can't expect normal speaking experience would be only fair (and would reduce the number of speakers), but the following might raise false hopes:

"Expect a standard of decorum similar to that which prevails in the British Parliament"

The Parliament has a Speaker and officials to deal with disruptors. I don' tthink a truly woke university would want to promise that.

[Mark Regan]

Doesn't the Internet offer a solution to the heckler's veto -- given the theme of some of the comments here that the students ought to be expelled?

1. Judge Duncan shows up, the students shout him down.
2. Stanford Law administrators escort Judge Duncan to a quiet room, with a podium and an iPad -- actually, maybe his iPad on which he had written his remarks would work -- and Judge Duncan makes his presentation to anyone with a laptop or smart phone, with the students unable to shout him down.
3. Maybe Stanford Law offers would-be questioners an opportunity to submit questions in writing, which could be screened by the Federalist Society hosts.

No expulsions, no yelling (including yelling by Judge Duncan), no real problem.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why did the fledgling culture war casualties at the Stanford Federalist Society chapter believe it was worthwhile to bring a bigot to campus? It's one thing to be a 60-year-old bigot in modern America . . . but a 20-something supporter of religion-inspired gay-bashing, race-targeting voter suppression, and the like is more difficult to understand.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, so send the speaker to the quiet room. Just send away the speaker, not the heckler(s). Is that right?

I have a better idea. Send the hecklers to the quiet room, instead. No real problem. 🙂

[Nige]

Presumably the point is to get the hecklers and the judge into seperate rooms. Presumably the non-heckler audience goes with the judge. Probably not as easy as it sounds, though.

[damikesc]

So, since the judge had authorization to be there and the hecklers did not, the hecklers should be removed.

And then punished per the code of conduct they agreed to.

[ReaderY]

I am wondering if ssomething of a tide is starting to turn in academia. With events like the firing of an art professor for showing a famous medieval painting depicting Mohammed and various other excesses, including threats and violence against people universities have to deal with, cooler heads may be prevailing, starting to realize that DEI ideology can lead to significant injustices and won’t be supported by the public, and are starting to feel more secure about clamping down.

[Ed Grinberg]

DEI ideology can lead to significant injustices

Yeah, like a stove can make things really hot!