Stanford Law Dean Jennifer Martinez's Excellent Defense of Free Speech and Civility

After a more ambiguous initial reaction to student disruption of Judge Kyle Duncan's speech, sponsored by the Stanford Federalist Society, Dean Jennifer Martinez has issued a passionate, well-argued, and occasionally blistering letter explaining why the students behaved inappropriately, and expressing the view that Stanford's "commitment to diversity and inclusion means that we must protect the expression of all views." (emphasis in original)

Some might be disappointed that no students will be penalized for their misbehavior. But I think the letter is a much greater victory for academic values than if Martinez had stayed silent and meted out relatively small penalties to the most egregious perpetrators, which is almost certainly the maximum that would have been done.

However, I think some additional soul-searching at Stanford is in order. Dean Martinez and her faculty should ask themselves why students at Stanford felt it appropriate to disrupt Judge Duncan's speech. Surely some of it is a product of illiberal trends in elite academia more generally. Some of it, though, surely has to do with the fact that Stanford Law is virtually a left-wing monoculture.

On a faculty of over sixty, Stanford has exactly one faculty member known to be right-of-center politically, Michael McConnell, compared to dozens on the left. While the pool of academic talent available to Stanford leans strongly to the left, no one sensible believes that the pool is that skewed. So intentionally or not, the Stanford faculty is sending its students the message that right-of-center views are not respectable, and not worth listening to, such that Stanford (not unlike other top law schools these days) won't hire professors who hold them. And if they are not worth listening to, it's not much of a leap for students to conclude that the law school (unofficially) believes that people who hold such views are contemptible, and as contemptible people with worthless viewpoints, they shouldn't be given a forum at Stanford.

So if Dean Martinez really wants to promote a culture of civil discourse at Stanford, she could build on her letter by urging not just that invited guests not be shouted down, but that right-of-center voices be part of daily academic life at Stanford.

UPDATE: For those who are interesting in getting the gist of Dean Martinzez's letter without reading the whole thing, FIRE has a good summary and analysis.

Comments

[mulched]

In the letter she lays into Dean Steinbach multiple times and very pointedly. I'd be surprised if she comes back from her "leave."

[Drbusybody]

Omitted from your analysis is the biggest news in the report: on page 8, "Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach is currently on leave.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Liberalism Consumes Itself at Stanford Law

“The Stanford mob claims to champion . . . free speech and liberty

“[by] Adrian Vermeule”

“…The struggle here is not a war between liberalism-cum-free speech and some antithetical set of political principles, such as “progressivism.” It is instead a civil war within the liberal camp, a conflict in which both sides act within, and appeal to, a shared framework of liberal principles….

“….The students take themselves to be good Millians applying the remedy of counter-speech, the “moral coercion of public opinion,” to prevent harm to individuals and to the community as whole….

“…Refusal to recognize transgender status in court, on this view, is itself deeply illiberal, denying the free choice of social and even biological identity. It represents the enforcement by law of coercive constraints imposed by society and even nature. The transgender movement is just the latest, and not the final, movement in favor of human liberation, a recognizable descendant of the principles of 1789.

“…To attempt to cope with such episodes by reasserting fundamental liberal principles, then, is an inherently self-defeating enterprise; it merely strengthens the very ground on which the Stanford students have taken their stand.”

https://postliberalorder.substack.com/p/liberalism-consumes-itself-at-stanford

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of room for commentary but that Vermeule guy and his classical legal tradition of hidden theocracy over originalism sucks.

He is not really whose opinion I Iook to for what liberalism is dealing with.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He re-introduced the public to the classical legal tradition, which exists independently of him and about which he is perfectly capable of error.

In general, though, the postliberals’ critique of both the left-wing and right-wing versions of liberalism is a breath of fresh air after the tired Tweedledum-versus-Tweedledee debates featured on forums like this one. My metaphors may be mixed, but my point remains.

[y81]

Yes, Vermeule basically doesn't believe in classical liberalism, so his advice to those who do should not be taken too seriously. It's on a par with Democrats who advise Republicans on what "true conservatives" should do (usually, preserve some element of the status quo beloved by Democrats), or Republicans who similarly advise Democrats on how to be "true liberals" (usually, by adopting some laissez-faire measure that will disadvantage a Democratic constituency). In all these cases, the speakers do not really have the interest of their purported audience at heart.

[David Bernstein]

I suppose if you take John Stuart Mill to be the be all and end all of liberalism, this take *might* make sense. But probably not even then. We know that these students are infused with Critical Race Theory, postmodern gender ideology, and other far left ideologies that explicitly positioned themselves as opposed to liberalism and the liberal order. But just like to a hammer every problem resembles a nail, to Vermeule any bad thing in the world is "liberalism."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"We know that these students are infused with Critical Race Theory..."

Do 'we' know that? How, exactly?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“California is the only state that has a law extending the First Amendment to private universities. Written by Republican State Senator Bill Leonard and signed into law in 1992, the Leonard Law prohibits private colleges from subjecting a student to disciplinary action for speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment or the California Constitution’s free speech clause. ”

…but

“’The Leonard Law is only about disciplining students for exercising their free speech, not inviting speakers to campus,’ [lawprofessor Michael McConnell] told The [Stanford] Daily”

In her letter, Dean Martin[ez] mentions the Leonard Law, but this seems to be in the context of limiting punishment for the *disruptors.*

The University could avoid such a conflict, then, by simply not allowing outside speakers on their campus unless those speakers contribute to the university’s educational functions.

But this would run counter to liberal dogma, what Vermeule calls right-liberal (“conservative”) dogma going back to the widow Stanford and her battle with Professor Edward Ross.

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/watch-your-words-professor

[David Nieporent]

It's hard to see how inviting a federal judge to a law school to discuss current legal issues does not "contribute to the university's educational functions." But, yes, I suppose Stanford could avoid the problem by not allowing students to invite speakers.

[jdgalt1]

I've wondered for some time how it is that the Hoover Institution continues to be tolerated at Stanford.

[Commenter_XY]

Hoover was quite the progressive.....for his time. 🙂

[Brophy]

Herbert Hoover was the first Stanford student. He was unqualified for his place in the first class so he attended the summer before it officially opened so that he could try to catch up with his classmates.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigotry and bigots are not respectable. Bigots and bigotry are contemptible. People who support, defend, and appease bigots are contemptible.

Bigots have rights, too. But not the right to avoid being recognized and described as bigots, or to avoid being deplorable culture war casualties in modern, improving America.

Those who consistently find themselves aligned with bigots should engage in introspection and try to become better.

[Jerry B.]

You, talking about bigotry.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Social Justice is neither]

Wow, a sternly worded letter with no consequences attached, so stunning and brave. You may find empty rhetoric impressive but until it is backed by consequences it is nothing more than a pretty lie.

[JohnSteed]

The incident in question had nothing to do with any good faith discussion of the subject of the judge’s talk — and in fact he was not allowed to give it. The protest was entirely ad hominem and would have been equally vituperative if his subject had been three point shooting in the WNBA.
The point was to suppress his speech because of who he is, not what he would say.

[Rossami]

Not sure what you consider "many" but their ratio is a lot better than 60:1.

[Michael D]

When was the last time a speaker was shouted into silence at GMU Law?

[ThanksForTheFish]

But what about... what about...