More Elite Law Student Foolishness, This Time at Columbia

Apparently jealous of all the attention that Yale and Stanford law students have gotten for acting like imperious children, Columbia law students, represented by BALSA, LALSA, NALSA, EWOC, OutLaws, QTPOC, IfWhenHow, APALSA, and SALSA (no, I'm not familiar with all of these acronyms), have been throwing a collective hissy fit. The act that stirred such emotion? Columbia's Instagram account noted that a group of law students affiliated with the Federalist Society met with Justice Brett Kavanaugh in DC. You can read the details at the Daily Wire.

The students' only tangible complaint, at least judging by the article, is that Kavanaugh was "credibly accused" of sexual assault. It's been over four-and-a-half years since the allegation of misbehavior over 30 years earlier surfaced. Since then, no one, including those who were present at the time, has corroborated the initial allegation, nor, despite the best efforts of ambitious journalists, has anyone been able to substantiate any similar behavior by Kavanaugh in the ensuing almost-forty-years. It's time to give up on the word "credibly" in this context. (And, fwiw, I'm pretty sure that the students would react differently to news of a meeting with a particular former president who is truly "credibly accused" of sexual coercion. Hint: his initials are WJC.)

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The outrage! These students reportedly are declining to recruit for Columbia.

That seems wrong. They should not blame Columbia for admitting some culture war casualties of the type likely to join the Federalist Society and pal around with Justice Kavanaugh. They have the right to refrain from recruiting, of course, but it seems to reflect poor judgment and strategy.

Instead, they should shun and mock the fledgling clingers and bigots of the Federalist Society and work to ensure that better Americans continue to defeat conservatives at the marketplace of ideas, in the courts, and in the culture war.

[Ed Grinberg]

So, which is it? Should they try "to defeat conservatives at the marketplace of ideas" or "shun and mock" them?
We're seeing plenty of the former, not much of the latter. Which stands to reason. It isn't easy "to defeat conservatives at the marketplace of ideas" -- after all, conservative ideas are right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get an education. Start with English.

[Frank Drackman]

Pedophilia (N) (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[4] According to DSM-5-TR, a person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilic disorder.

[Scooter]

NPC Alert

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Boomer

[Gandydancer]

“The outrage! These students reportedly are declining to recruit for Columbia.”

You are a ridiculous dumbfuck. There is of course not one word of complaint in the Daily Wire article about these fellow dumbfucks of yours not engaging in diversity recruiting, and given what dumbfucks they are and what dumbfucks they are likely to direct to the complaisant dumbfuck DEI recruitment drones Columbia Law is only likely to be improved if they stop.

Get an education. Start with reading comprehension.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is of course not one word of complaint in the Daily Wire article about these fellow dumbfucks of yours not engaging in diversity recruiting,

Not one word. Here are 24 words taken directly from the Daily Wire article to which Prof. Bernstein linked:

Virtually all of the school’s many race-based groups said they will refuse to help the school recruit diverse students because of the post.

Other than that, of course, great comment! Prof. Bernstein surely thanks you for your support.

I sometimes nearly feel sorry for the Conspirators with respect to the "help" they get from the conservative members of their target audience.

But not often.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

After observing the gymnastics in which gandydancer has engaged in an effort to defend your partisan foolishness, Prof. Bernstein, shouldn't you at least try to defend him a bit?

[Scooter]

NPC Alert

[Shamie Ervin iv]

"...shun and mock the fledgling clingers and bigots of the Federalist Society..."

Gosh, Artie, are you ever the karen, the drama queen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You and others are welcome to wallow in political correctness.

I call a bigot a bigot.

[garysixpack]

“We cannot condone complicity with a man who is credibly accused of sexual assault."
Does this mean none of the students in those organizations can work in/for any court or judge that does not publicly condemn Kavanaugh? That might limit their career prospects.

[Longtobefree]

Well, silly me; I thought their blatant stupidity for even pretending that accusation was credible would assure they never worked in the legal profession.

[Frank Drackman]

Believe the Women!!!! Unless they're Monica Lewisnky, Kathy Wiley, Paula Jones, or Mary Joe Kopeckney

[CJColucci]

Ms. Kopechne, sadly, never complained about anything.

[hoppy025]

These people are demonstrating why we should repeal the Civil Rights Act and allow companies to only hire white men for management positions. Everyone else is de facto unqualified based on their support of this crap.

[Frank Drackman]

No, No, No, No, No!
Thats the great thing about being a White Male, everyone knows (even if it isn't always true) you made it on skill (in my case good looks) alone

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And there I was, thinking it had more to do with JD.

[Randal]

Comparing this to the Stanford and Yale situations makes you look pretty desperate for clickbait, David. Take a page from Josh's book: inane drivel is totally sufficient for driving clicks, there's no need to lamely attach it to anything actual.

This is what Stanford and Yale are telling their students they should be doing.

[Gandydancer]

Stanford and Yale are telling their students they should be dumbasses?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

On a related note, Adrian Vermeule crows that he was right about the campus disruptors being well within the liberal tradition. A professor over in England is preparing “A Liberal Defence of No-Platforming” – the defense to be given at a (perhaps well-guarded) event at University College London.

https://postliberalorder.substack.com/p/a-liberal-defence-of-no-platforming

Vermeule: "I suspect this sort of account represents the future of liberalism. When future right-liberal ["conservative"] speakers are cancelled, they will at least have the comfort of knowing that they are being cancelled in the name of the very principles they hold dear."

[Gandydancer]

Vermeule is the "“legislate (Catholic) morality” guy, and no one should pay him the slightest heed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He adds an interesting perspective, not that I always agree with him…for instance, I disagree with him collaborating with Cass Sunstein to defend the administrative state.

“A highly original framework for restoring confidence in a government bureaucracy increasingly derided as ‘the deep state.'”

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674247536

[Gandydancer]

I listened to the interview and it was nothing but pablum. Did I miss something? Or do you have a better reason I should change my mind?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He's had several interviews.

[Gandydancer]

I listened to the one at your link.

Maybe you didn't notice that it was there?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

By Jove, I missed it, I didn't know publishers' Web sites came with speeches. Anyway, hope you enjoyed it. 🙂

[bernard11]

The Daily Wire?

Isn't that Ben Shapiro's site? Not the best cite.

Anyway, what exactly are these students doing that is so awful?

[hoppy025]

If you have to ask that last question, you're part of the problem.

[SimonP]

Engaging in a free and open debate, apparently.

[ragebot]

"Anyway, what exactly are these students doing that is so awful?"

Making up shit eating names for shit eating groups that have members that eat shit.

[bevis the lumberjack]

They’re showing themselves to be idiots by throwing a fit over something ridiculous, which is their right as Americans and is probably not worthy of a lot of discussion. At least they’re just taking advantage of their own rights and not denying others theirs.

As Mrs Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.

[CJColucci]

Now bevis, don't go spoiling everyone's fun.

[bernard11]

Even if all that is accurate, BFD.

And given that the description is from the Daily Wire it is wildly unlikely to be accurate.

Shapiro is just one more RW grifter, trying to cash in on spinning outrage. He's a disgrace, and I'm astonished Bernstein regards him as a credible source.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you weren't such a mouth-breathing window-licker you could have verified the assertions yourself quite easily, starting by clicking through some of the links the piece provided to things like the Instagram post by the BLSA and EWC groups, among others...including the school's Instagram post and the responses to it that are the subject of this piece...you moron.

[Kazinski]

What did the wire get wrong?

[Nige]

We know what it got right, which is how to push its reader’s buttons.

[bernard11]

Why do you think they got anything right?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why do you think they got anything right?

Probably because, unlike you, he can read and knows how to click the links provided to the source materials being talked about.

[Gandydancer]

"Not the best cite."

As opposed to the NYT(rash)?

"...what exactly are these students doing that is so awful?"

Did you read the article or stop when you choked on the logo?

[David Nieporent]

Anyway, what exactly are these students doing that is so awful?

Throwing a childish tantrum.

Randal above said, "This is what Stanford and Yale are telling their students they should be doing," but that misses the point. Yes, procedurally, this is the appropriate way to protest something one doesn't like: not by trying to shout it down, but by criticizing it. But the fact that one protests using appropriate techniques does not mean the position one is protesting in favor of isn't substantively terrible.

[Randal]

It might miss the point you're making, but it doesn't miss the one I was making, which is that it's silly to compare this insignificant "incident" to the truly problematic ones at Stanford and Yale.

I happen to agree with your point too. That said... I feel it's yet another ding against David that as a professor he feels it necessary to call out and denigrate students whenever he finds their position to be "substantively terrible."

[David Nieporent]

It might miss the point you’re making, but it doesn’t miss the one I was making, which is that it’s silly to compare this insignificant “incident” to the truly problematic ones at Stanford and Yale.

He called this "foolishness," which seems about right.

I feel it’s yet another ding against David that as a professor he feels it necessary to call out and denigrate students whenever he finds their position to be “substantively terrible.”

1) These are adults, not high schoolers. And adults who are members of the elite, at that. And it seems kind of trying to have it both ways for them to say, "You should take our concerns seriously… but don't criticize us because we're just students."

2) Prof. Bernstein actually criticized student organizations, not individual students, which makes it even more removed from your concern, I think.

[Randal]

On #1, I'm not excusing the students based on being "just students." Criticizing the students is totally fair... except perhaps coming from someone like a professor, who has a particular role to play with respect to students which generally doesn't include denigrating them for their beliefs.

I agree with #2 I think... I might need to think about it a bit more. You guys sure do get your hackles up when administrators / professors criticize FedSoc.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Criticizing the students is totally fair… except perhaps coming from someone like a professor, who has a particular role to play with respect to students which generally doesn’t include denigrating them for their beliefs.

When legal adults are behaving like mentally-challenged, emotionally-stunted children I think professors who DON'T point that out to them are doing them and everyone else a disservice.

[Randal]

There's a difference between pointing it out to them and denigrating them in public.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They committed their stupidity in public. A public dressing down is called for.

[David Nieporent]

On #1, I’m not excusing the students based on being “just students.” Criticizing the students is totally fair… except perhaps coming from someone like a professor, who has a particular role to play with respect to students which generally doesn’t include denigrating them for their beliefs.

Even assuming I agreed with this in general, I don't see why a professor at GMU has any "particular role to play with respect to students" at Columbia.

[Randal]

David has made the same point himself. But I feel like the answer is obvious. If you're a gay student in a Prof. Bernstein class, and the lecture is all about "those fags over at Columbia," it's not helpful for David's disclaimer to be "don't worry, I don't feel that way about you guys."

Then there's David's clear preoccupation with actively seeking out students to ridicule. It's not like he's calling out anyone and everyone and students just sometimes find themselves among his targets. No. They're his extra-special favorite targets.

Just all in all pretty sad for a professor I feel like.

[bernard11]

Throwing a childish tantrum.

Students being childish is not headline news. And I ask you to look at the source.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Students being childish is not headline news. And I ask you to look at the source.

Again, the actual “source” is ultimately the comments made on Instagram by the school and the groups mentioned, and to which links were provided….which you would know if you had more than two brain cells to rub together.

[Absaroka]

"Students being childish is not headline news."

The students in question are mostly older than 22, I think?

There is a time to put away childish things, and I think 22 is well past that time. A 3L might well have a job doing something important, like being a public defender, in less that a year. Surely we expect adult behavior by then? If so, it's high time to be practicing behaving like an adult now.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It's pretty difficult to not view law students advocating guilt-by-unsubstantiated-accusation as a real problem.

[bernard11]

The students in question are mostly older than 22, I think?

There is a time to put away childish things, and I think 22 is well past that time.

None of which makes this headline news.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

None of which makes this headline news.

Well, this isn't a news outlet, so....

[Sarcastr0]

Students throwing a 'hissy fit' you don't agree with is manifestly insufficient for the high dudgeon of this post.

There may end up being worth the scorn, but I Googled a number of permutations, and found the only mentions so far to be the linked story, and this post.

[hoppy025]

Yeah because the liberal media covers for them. If a conservative group says that they are offended because liberal students met with Ginsburg (may her memory be a curse), the Times would have it on the front page.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’d probably have to get an Instagram account to confirm this story, and I don’t wish to take such an extreme step.

Being on this forum *and* joining Instagram would be not multitasking, but “multishirking” – to use a term employed by the-unperson-formerly-known-as-Scott-Adams.

[Gandydancer]

It's not "manifest" to me that gross stupidity by diversitarians and their promoters should go uncommented-upon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Virtually all of the school’s many race-based groups said they will refuse to help the school recruit diverse students because of the post."

But don't complain if Columbia's Class of 2026 is all White next fall...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The kids are all White

[Randal]

I chortled.

[Gandydancer]

“The kids are all White”

Um… From the article:

”…the Black Law Students Association wrote. ‘We thank LALSA, NALSA, EWOC, OutLaws, QTPOC, IfWhenHow, APALSA, SALSA, and others, for joining us in this advocacy and struggle.’”

[Michael P]

It's a pun on "The Kids Are Alright" (or "All Right", depending on how current and ironic the intention was) -- if all those identity groups are maximally effective in carrying out their threat to stop recruiting others with the same identities, the next class would have no minority members. Ergo "all white".

Like Randal, I chortled.

[Gandydancer]

I see.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The kids are all White

That one was good enough to be worthy of a soundtrack.

(Wait a minute for it . . . maybe even four minutes . . . but it will be there.)

And here is the real thing, Ox included.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which is worse?

Liberal students’ hissy fit, or conservative students’ habitual bringing of strident bigots to speak on campuses at which old-timey bigotry generally is not welcome?

[Gandydancer]

Neither is as bad as you smell.

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry Sandusky's crimes

[Scooter]

NPC Alert

[Frank Drackman]

NPC Alert

[Nige]

Neither is as bad as you smell.
Jerry Sandusky’s crimes
NPC Alert
The aristocrats!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Quite a collection of retorts from the Volokh Conspiracy's carefully cultivated collection of right-wing culture war debris.

[Super Scary]

"Which is worse?"

Probably the former. You know, the one that is actually happening.

[SimonP]

David - I don't necessarily condone the histrionics going on here, but one can't help but notice we've slyly shifted the debate from aggressively questioning and derailing a planned speech by a federal judge to an exchange of Instagram posts. This, in other words, is precisely what every critic of the Stanford hullabaloo would have preferred the Stanford students to have done, rather than trying to shout down Duncan. So, it is puzzling that we see the two conflated as indicative of the same phenomenon.

[David Bernstein]

On the one hand, they aren't doing anything as actively illiberal as shouting down a speaker. OTOH, actively protesting a speaker, albeit in a more mature way than happened at Yale or Stanford, is "normal." Getting hysterical because your law school mentioned that some students at your school met with a Supreme Court Justice 200 miles away is not.

[David Bernstein]

There is also the imperiousness. WE are deeply offended (or at least feel the need to act that way) by Justice Kavanaugh's presence on the Supreme Court, so EVERYONE must be offended, including our law school as an institution, which must treat JK as a non-person, even though, quite obviously, not everyone at the law school agrees. The law school must not give any indication that other students feel differently, and to the extent it does so anyway, must not do so in a neutral voice. Exactly on what basis to adult students believe they have standing to impose their perspective on everyone else?

[Sarcastr0]

Imperiousness? In law students? About politics?! Using speech?!!!!!

Zounds.

[David Bernstein]

True or false: "It is a mature, sensible reaction by Columbia Law students to condemn and in essence boycott their law school because the law school posted a photo on Instagram with a caption stating that some of their fellow students met with Justice Kavanaugh in DC?"

If you answer is "false," then we agree. If not, an explanation of why this is a mature and sensible reaction is welcome.

[Randal]

Wow, alert the media, there are some students behaving in a not entirely mature and sensible fashion.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is "behaving in a not entirely mature and sensible fashion" on nearly the same scale as Mao's Red Guard getting up to some mischief.

[Nige]

No it fucking isn't you absolute dramarama bugabooboy.

[Sarcastr0]

"The habit of some of the more and melodramatic on the right to see the specter of Mao everywhere is frankly really funny."

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a bit of a catch 22, in that we're not allowed to object to this stuff when it starts, because it hasn't gotten very far yet.

But if we wait until it has gotten very far, we again won't be allowed to object to it, because it's all about not allowing dissent.

I'm of the opinion that, when people tell you they're going to take away your right to disagree with them, you should take them seriously.

You're more, What's the big deal, it's just a hat.

[Nige]

Who's stopping you from objecting to this stuff? There's a whole right wing media/cultural/political eco-system constructed around cycles using stuff like this to generate outrage and drive right-wing hate aganst colleges, young people, trans people, liberals, etc, and all the while they complain about those they also complain they're not allowed to complain because that makes them the victim, even if it's a dumb lie.

You literally think your right to complain has been taken away from you becuase other people disagree with you. And that's it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nige, nobody has taken that right away yet, but Sarcastr0 is certainly complaining about anybody exercising it. It's anybody's guess what he'd do if he were in a position to do more than complain.

Certainly, when students shout people down, he seems to think it's just youthful highjinks.

The problem here is that these students genuinely think that they're entitled to dictate what other people can say, not just on campus, but anywhere. And they're not going to stay quarantined on campus! They're going to spread into influential positions in society, become future lawyers and even judges.

We're looking at how our future leaders think about this sort of thing, and it's genuinely frightening.

[Nige]

Like Marjorie Taylor Greene level of frighteing beliefs and positions of power? Because I'm going to be honest, hating on a Judge once accused of sexual assault and who makes far-reaching decisions you really don't like pales in comparison to the old Jewish space lasers, and everything else. How many Republican politicians are influenced by Qanon? How many can openly say that Trump lost the 2020 election without getting in trouble?

You're literally terrified that there are people out there who don't like particular Supreme Court Judges, and at some indeterminate time in the future they're going to put you in camps until you don't like them too. Brett, there's a Republican base that believes all Democrats are pedophiles. I'd be more worried about what they'll do if they ever get enough power, to be honest, because the worst thing you can do about a Supreme Court is expand it or introduce term limits.

[SimonP]

It’s a bit of a catch 22, in that we’re not allowed to object to this stuff when it starts, because it hasn’t gotten very far yet.

We're talking about law students, who lack any real power to do anything.

In contrast, we have situations in red states across the country where Republicans are competing to outlaw dissent and disagreement. Expanding libel laws in Florida and banning subjects from public education; restricting interstate travel in Idaho; attacking constitutionally-protected drag performances in a wide swath of states; setting up genuine Catch-22's for adult transgender people who just want to move and live in public as their genuine selves. And that's just what's been enacted, or has a good shot at enactment. There are countless proposals that your ilk has been trying to tell the rest of us we shouldn't take seriously, because it's just some singular legislator with no power or influence who's proposing to do it. A state legislator says, "Let's kill all the trans people!" and you tell us that it's nothing to worry about, no one takes him seriously.

Now - setting aside that you no doubt agree with all of those efforts - just try to imagine how it looks to the leftist. You are vociferously objecting to a bunch of law students who are complaining loudly over Columbia's decision to promote a meeting with Kavanaugh. Leftists are objecting to actual and actually-proposed laws that are filtering through state legislatures around the country - and finding a platform in Congress.

So who has a better basis for saying that now is the time to object, before objecting is no longer allowed?

[Brett Bellmore]

"We’re talking about law students, who lack any real power to do anything."

And my whole point here is that they're not going to stay law students forever! They'll graduate, and become lawyers, and judges, and corporate managers, and THEN they'll have real power do to things.

We TRIED "they're just students". And we got CRT in our schools, DIE offices all over the place, cross dressing secretaries of health and kleptomaniac pervs with offices in the NRC. "They're just students" is demonstrably stupid, because students don't STAY students!

You either combat insanity in the schools, or it spreads. It is almost inconceivably stupid to claim that you shouldn't bother to combat insane ideas in schools, because the whole POINT of schools is to propagate ideas into the larger society!

[Nige]

There goes free speech!

[SimonP]

We TRIED “they’re just students”. And we got CRT in our schools, DIE offices all over the place, cross dressing secretaries of health and kleptomaniac pervs with offices in the NRC. “They’re just students” is demonstrably stupid, because students don’t STAY students!

You're spiraling, Brett. It's really sad to see. Maybe a couple of years ago, you were still somewhat reasonable. Now you're even doing the ALL CAPS thing.

Setting aside that you've ignored my attempt to draw your concern to a very-much-more-far-along effort to restrict freedom in the U.S. than anything these students are attempting, your response here just helps to prove the point I was making. Because you view "CRT in our schools," "DIE [sic] offices all over the place," and a non-binary administration official as part of some slippery slope towards outlawing dissent - illustrating your own discomfort with contrary points of view.

Critical race theory is just a way of thinking about racism in modern society. DEI initiatives are just an attempt at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in workplaces, governments, schools, etc. And the NRC official you're talking about was just... someone who got a job based on their record and turned out to be a kleptomaniac.

Like - you want to ban a whole field of academic research and study. You want to ban efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. You want to preemptively ban non-binary people from government, for no apparent reason other than the fact that they're non-binary (on the assumption that they must prove to be corrupt in some way, just to be safe).

You are trying to warn us of the "first step" towards outlawing dissent. But you are doing so by talking about things that Republicans are trying to outlaw. How can you not see that you're the fascist, here?

[Randal]

Brett:

Nige, nobody has taken that right (to complain) away yet, but Sarcastr0 is certainly complaining about anybody exercising it. It’s anybody’s guess what he’d do if he were in a position to do more than complain.

Dude, you're commenting on the post of a right-winger, the whole point of which is to complain about some students complaining. That's all either side does anymore: complain about the other's complaints. It's a sign of something, but not of Maoism.

The only people engaging in anything approaching "dissent" in this story are the students, who are dissenting against a Supreme Court Justice.

You're just getting all worked up about not being liked. That not "dissent," that's just whining.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Critical race theory is just a way of thinking about racism in modern society. DEI initiatives are just an attempt at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in workplaces, governments, schools, etc. And the NRC official you’re talking about was just… someone who got a job based on their record and turned out to be a kleptomaniac. "

See the extent to which you've normalized this crap, on account of it not being treated seriously when it first surfaced?

Sure, CRT is "just a way of thinking about racism". A really nasty, dangerous way of thinking about racism, to be sure, but just a way.

And DIE is just an attempt at promoting 'diversity' by racial quotas, 'equity' by racial discrimination, and 'inclusion' by racial struggle sessions.

And you're even pretending Brinton's insanity had nothing to do with his being hired, in an administration that's actively going out of its way to hire mentally disturbed weirdos and put them in prominent positions.

[Nige]

So you're just looking for ways to suppress speech you don't like.

[bernard11]

It’s a bit of a catch 22, in that we’re not allowed to object to this stuff when it starts, because it hasn’t gotten very far yet.

Who is stopping you, or Bernstein, from objecting? Has George Soros sent his agents to take down Bernstein's post?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I more see Stalin and his purges.

[Nige]

Are they in the room with you right now?

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump: "Those crooks and thieves are trying to steal the election from you! You have to be strong and fight!"
Brett: "I don't see the big deal."

Law students: "Waaaaah! We're big babies who hate the fact that Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court! People should whine about it for the next 20 years and never socially acknowledge him as a Justice!!!"
Brett: "Oh, that's pretty much like mass murder."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Most of the German military leaders didn't take Hitler seriously until it was too late.

[Nige]

So, take people who go all out against marginalised folk like trans people as serious threats? Got it.

[bernard11]

on nearly the same scale as Mao’s Red Guard getting up to some mischief.

Fucking hilarious.

And from a guy who thinks the Jan. 6 insurrectionists were just tourists.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is a dumb overreaction by the students, and this post is a dumb overreaction by you.

[bernard11]

Pretty much sums it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Two things can be true:

1) these students can be acting silly, and
2) It is counterproductive and silly for you to publicly go after them for it.

[Michael P]

So far, #2 is long on assertions and short on support.

Struggle sessions were worth calling out as wrong even when they were entirely run by students.

[Sarcastr0]

Students being angry on the Internet is not a struggle session.

This is dog bites man. The habit of some of the more and melodramatic on the right to see the specter of Mao everywhere is frankly really funny.

[Michael P]

Two things can both be bad:

1) Maoist struggle sessions
2) Leftists trying to deplatform people yet again in an academic setting.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You made the comparison, chief. I guess you realize how silly it is now.

2. Facts as to this particular event remain scanty, but your general principle that ‘trying to deplatform’ in an academic setting is baseline bad? That is not going to jibe well with the right’s take on school libraries, or professors they don’t like, or CRT, or any number of things you support that go well beyond a hissy fit.

[Michael P]

You sure like comparing icebergs to apples -- and I'm not talking about lettuce. The right pushes back against leftist attempts to distort and subvert curricula for compulsory schooling. The left wants to eliminate uncritical mentions of certain people from universities and law schools. Your attempt to morally equate them is the only silly comparison being made here.

[damikesc]

"Why even mention preferred pronouns? That nonsense will never leave campuses"

"Why discuss weird 'gender identity' nonsense? Nobody outside of Tumblr believes it"

Weird how stuff tends to bleed into larger society.

[Nige]

What, you think people not liking Kavanaugh because of his decisions and the sexual assault allegation originated in campuses?

[damikesc]

Yes, exactly what I said here. Verbatim quote. Good job.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More like sewerage overflowing...

[Nige]

‘Yes, exactly what I said here’

So so so sorry for linking it to the OP, a thousand pardons.

Preferred pronouns and gender identity didn’t originate on campuses either.

[Sarcastr0]

Students have been agro about dumb things for centuries, my dude.

[Krayt]

Imperious as in emperor, as in The Emperor’s New Clothes, but with a dear colleagues letter that your family will have $10,000 a year yanked from you if you don’t praise the invisible clothing.

What was to deal with severe harrassment has evolved to self-described micro aggressions, and histrionics.

This also helps lawyers sue, since only severe damage gets large settlements, and thus one third of large settlements. So quivering masses lying fetal on the floor clearly are badly damaged.

Ah well, a century of femininsts worked to claim and prove and justify women would not actually collapse like an antebellum belle on hearing a blue joke.

We hardly knew ye

[Sarcastr0]

Severe harassment not in evidence.

a century of femininsts worked
Ah yes, the issue always comes down to *females*

[SimonP]

Are Jewish student organizations acting "imperiously" when they characterize BDS as inherently "antisemitic," and therefore demand that university administrators act more assertively in disavowing pro-BDS speakers and organizations?

Anyway, you're shifting the goalposts, predictably. It was never about "free speech" at Stanford. It was about the students adopting a position you disagree with and a rhetoric you find repulsive. That's why you detect a common thread here, despite the manner of protest being absolutely within the bounds you, Josh, et al., purported to lay out in re: Stanford.

So, to keep up the ruse, you're trying to find some other thing to be upset about. But there is nothing particularly "imperious" about calling on administrators to take a more forceful position on a given issue. That's just advocacy. What is getting your hackles up here is their bizarre over-reaction to meeting with Kavanaugh. Which is fine - you can disagree with them on that. I agree that they're being incredibly odd about an ordinary bit of law school self-promotion. But they're perfectly entitled to be odd about it on Instagram.

In other words, who cares?

[David Nieporent]

. It was never about “free speech” at Stanford. It was about the students adopting a position you disagree with and a rhetoric you find repulsive.

The position they adopted was that free speech was bad.

[Nige]

Is that true, though? Didn't they agree to quiet down while he delivered his prepared notes and he just started to berate them and the whole thing got out of control again? True the whole thing still degenerated, but agreeing to that is hardly the anti-free-speech position everyone claims.

[SimonP]

I don't think so. What I saw in the video was a bunch of students trying to "challenge" Duncan in various ways - some civil, others not so civil - leading to an escalation by Duncan and ultimately the infamous 10-minute monologue by the DEI assistant dean, whose cringe-worthy attempt to acknowledge/legitimate an "injury" to the students caused by Duncan's jurisprudence - while trying to re-establish order and enable the presentation to continue - has been really at the center of the outrage media attention.

To be sure, David, et al., have characterized the Stanford's performance and the administration's failure to prevent it as in some sense contrary to "free speech" values, and that is what they want the main takeaway to have been from Stanford. But as the OP makes clear, "free speech" is not really the primary concern. When students engage in free and open debate precisely as they demand, they're still somehow doing something wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Exactly on what basis to adult students believe they have standing to impose their perspective on everyone else?"

I expect on the basis that they've been getting away with it so far.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Brett, what does impose mean?

[Michael P]

Several perfectly good dictionaries are available. I suggest you use one to answer your own question.

Yet somehow, you never check the assumptions that underlie your world view.

[Sarcastr0]

In my definition, throwing a hissy fit does not impose views on anyone.
Do you believe differently, with your well-checked assumptions about the world and all?

[Michael P]

Besides all the other cases that have been mentioned lately? This is very much about censoring public discussion to unperson someone they don't like. Impose, v.: To establish or apply as compulsory; levy. They're trying to prevent any uncritical mention of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Getting their way would be imposing a perspective.

[Sarcastr0]

That was a quick resorting to hand-waiving.

No one is being compelled by a students being pissy online, except maybe you to get histrionic about it.

[Michael P]

In other words, you concede that Brett was precisely right, you just think this isn't worth talking about because these students have not YET succeeded in imposing their "sharpen[ed] politics" on the entire law school.

[Sarcastr0]

In what world did what I say concede Brett was right?

Complaining is not imposing.

You sound like the lefty 'speech is violence' people.

[Michael P]

You conceded that he was right by trying to shift the question from why do they "believe they have standing to impose their perspective on everyone else" to whether they've succeeded in doing so.

The student groups here not merely complaining -- they are demanding and threatening.

You sound like your usual equivocating, dishonest self.

[Sarcastr0]

“Exactly on what basis to adult students believe they have standing to impose their perspective on everyone else?”

I expect on the basis that they’ve been getting away with it so far.
That's Brett, arguing the perspective imposing is actually occurring.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's Brett answering a question, instead of pretending that the perspective imposition isn't happening.

I seriously wonder how bad this stuff has got to get before you find it objectionable. Or maybe you're prepared to follow it all the way to shipping people to reeducation camps?

[Nige]

REEDUCATION CAMPS
The closest thing we have to reeducation camps is conversion therapy. They even have camps for it!

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, your slippery slope is unsupported and proves way too much.

Yelling Maoism at every liberal youngster being pissy online is not you saving the US, it’s you being a clown.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yelling Maoism at every liberal youngster being pissy online is not you saving the US, it’s you being a clown."

That's what you'd have told us a decade or two ago, and now we're looking at DIE departments in almost every major institution. If history has taught us anything, it's "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown just a college campus." is painfully naive. I might even say suicidally so.

Look the problem here is that this crap doesn't stay on campus. We can't blow it off they way you want to, because these idiots aren't going to vanish, and they're not going to grow up and become sane. They're going to become lawyers, judges, managers, they're going to end up in highly influential positions.

And when they do, they're going to take this crap and apply it from those positions, just like previous generations of campus radicals we were told to blow off did, warping our larger society.

It's fight them here, or let them take the high ground in another decade!

[Sarcastr0]

Pointing at DEI and yelling Maoism is also you being a clown.

Kids gonna keep growing up and selling out just like the hippies did. Have some faith in capitalism.

[Nige]

Brett’s down with DeSantis and other Republicans and their program of suppressing ‘dangerous’ ideas.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Kids gonna keep growing up and selling out just like the hippies did."

Yeah, like I said: "It's just a hat."

[Nige]

Brett's a few more of these stories away from making the hat and putting it on and claiming the students are forcing him to wear it.

[Randal]

I'm surprised that hasn't already happened.

Can someone make a hat for Brett? He's eagerly anticipating it.

[David Nieporent]

Kids gonna keep growing up and selling out just like the hippies did. Have some faith in capitalism.

No; I think you're being a pollyanna here. Twenty years ago I was on board with the "Wait until these snowflakes¹ get into the real world and find out that it doesn't work like a college campus does." No more; they have exported their beliefs and behavior to the real world. I don't think they control the country like Brett does, but they're not confined to academia and they're not going away.

¹Okay, I don't think that word was en vogue then, but the sentiment was.

[Nige]

Y’know I’m still gonna go with immature and excitable kids who, however cringingly they express it, have genuine, recognisable, grounded grievances with the objects of their protests and disruptions rather than the ordinary Joe middle class voting age+ adults who think the Democrats are pedophile satanists, that Biden stole the election and that the correct reponse to Trump getting indicted would be a new civil war.

[Randal]

No more; they have exported their beliefs and behavior to the real world.

The hippies also exported their beliefs to the real world to a significant extent, much to the chagrin of the power structures of the time. What do you think drove the culture wars of the 80s? Reagan owes his presidency largely to Carter but also significantly to the hippies. Didn’t you watch Mrs. America?

So yes, just like the good Rev points out every hour on the hour, culture changes. Y’all old timey farts with your ancient ways are on the outs, and you’re getting replaced by a strange new generation. Things will be different, as ever. It is the way.

But Maoism? Ok boomer.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN - I think snowflake behavior in the workplace is pretty exaggerated, (outside of lefty nonprofits, where I do admit it is a nightmare)

I *do* think this is bad behavior. And I do hope that someone talks to them about it - as a teaching moment, maybe some shame.

But that's a local activity.

What this is not is a national story.

[Nige]

Wow those students sure did impose their views on everyone.

[Gandydancer]

You're missing the fact that they are trying to?

[Nige]

Everyone's trying to. Big deal. Republicans keep trying to impose the view that the election was stolen and transgender people are out to corrupt kids, you don't hear us complaining about it.

[Gandydancer]

Are you deaf? I hear your ilk complaining about it all the time.

And there's a big difference between trying to persuade everyone that the 2020 election process was illegitimate and demanding that the University make no mention of Kavanaugh without denouncing him.

[Nige]

‘I hear your ilk complaining about it all the time.’

Really? I’ll keep it up, so, thanks.

'there’s a big difference'

Yes, a HUGE VAST ENORMOUS ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT-CATEGORY difference, starting with the crucial one that a tiny bunch of student orgs have no power whatsoever to impose their demand.

[Gandydancer]

That "HUGE VAST ENORMOUS ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT-CATEGORY difference" is not in evidence, despite the all-caps. I'm not seeing that the complained-about (you've stopped denying this, I see) "election deniers" have exhibited any power to "impose their demands", either.

[Nige]

Maybe I'm old fashioned but an entire political party devoted to imposing blatant lies like the 2020 election fraud and the dangers of trans people, and a few student orgs posting on Instagram seem like a few orders of magnitude apart.

[Super Scary]

“An entire party”?

You are delusional, but that it to be expected from people cut from your cloth.

[Randal]

And there’s a big difference between trying to persuade everyone that the 2020 election process was illegitimate and demanding that the University make no mention of Kavanaugh without denouncing him.

Wait oh my god. And you think the latter is the problematic one?

Maybe MTG was right!

[damikesc]

"Republicans keep trying to impose the view that the election was stolen and transgender people are out to corrupt kids, you don’t hear us complaining about it."

When the hell are you not complaining about it?

Note: You're doing it here in your example.

[Nige]

I'm DELIGHTED to hear you're hearing my complaints! I shall continue to do so.

[damikesc]

So, do you ALWAYS lie?

[Nige]

No, no, I honestly thought you all had me blocked or my comments were going in one eye and out the other, I'm gratified that you're listening!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yeah!

It's not like these students were asked to get a vaccination, fill a prescription, bake a cake, engage in a bit less virus-flouting stupidity, provide decent health insurance to employees, or anything else that causes clingers to take a stand for spiritual righteousness, ignorance, superstition, bigotry, and belligerence!

Still wondering why you guys are no longer competitive in the culture war?

[Gandydancer]

No one has "shifted the debate". That one egregious example is worse than another related one is no reason to ignore the latter or the fact that they are related examples of shitheadedness.

[Nige]

And that neither is actually particularly bad means a LOT of screaming and roaring and posturing to cover it up.

[Gandydancer]

No one ever imagined that you, of all people, are any authority on what is "particularly bad". That shit smells likes roses to you is no surprise.

[Nige]

I can see how that perspective would be unhelpful when you're trying to get up a head of rage over fuck-all.

[Gandydancer]

Now you're babbling.

[Nige]

I could dumb it down for you, but I won't.

[Gandydancer]

You can't actually dumb down a statement that is already at the IQ=0 level.

[Nige]

And yet you still can't parse it. Would it help if it was pushed into the negatives?

[SimonP]

This comment might have come off as more serious if it hadn't been pre-empted by David's own dissimulating attempts to characterize the Columbia Instagram posts as in the same category of the Stanford meltdown. He understands what he's doing, even if you'd prefer to pretend he's not doing it.

You could learn something from him, perhaps, when it comes to effective trolling.

Anyway - to your point. The whole debate around Stanford was about the appropriate means of protesting a speaker with whom one disagrees. All of the civility police, including Josh, David, and pundits in the outrage media, would have said, a couple of weeks ago, that it is perfectly fine to say your nonsense outside the room, to hold non-disruptive protests in the room, to write extensively about your issues with Duncan online, etc.

That's all fair enough - law students shouldn't mistake shouting down a judge as engaging in meaningful debate. So here we have an example, at Columbia, where a bunch of law student organizations are attempting to engage in a civil but heated exchange of views. Yet David still finds reason to complain! The exact issue, according to David, is unclear, but it ultimately looks like his problem with the Columbia protest is that the student organizations in question expect Columbia's administration to "pick a side" in the culture/quasi-judicial war over abortion and civil rights.

That's probably not a reasonable ask, and I think they're over-reacting. But that's a completely separate kind of critique, and is in no way "egregious" - certainly not in the sense that we might abhor the Stanford students' reception of Duncan.

What's really going on here - the thread of commonality between these two student protests - is that David, et al., are serving up red meat for an easily-led-by-the-nose audience (yourself included). These are both examples where law students are proving extraordinarily sensitive and emotional over ideological disputes. And your ilk loves that kind of shit - this is Tucker-style infotainment for you. You don't particularly care whether there's a coherent argument for or against what they're saying, you're not sensitive to the broader social issues or the erosion of the rule of law under your feet, you're just a bunch of chucklefucks receiving your instructions loud and clear while some of us are over here watching you get spoonfed slop in astonishment.

What I find upsetting about these protests is not how they're conducted, but how ill-informed they so often prove to be. These are law students who can easily dive deep on the issues, formulate effective strategies, and pursue genuine advocacy. Yet so much of what I see them actually doing is little more than rehashing talking points they've skimmed on Twitter or Reddit. There is absolutely no reason why your best riposte to Duncan has to be "Can you find the clit?" or why your complaints about Kavanaugh have to reduce to some unproven claims about some long-ago sexual assault and some nebulous and unproven role in the outcome in Dobbs. Duncan is a fascist and Kavanaugh is a clown. Make the case.

[David Nieporent]

That’s probably not a reasonable ask, and I think they’re over-reacting. But that’s a completely separate kind of critique, and is in no way “egregious” – certainly not in the sense that we might abhor the Stanford students’ reception of Duncan.

Both the Stanford protests and these Columbia ones, though very different in methodology, stem from the same illiberal mindset that only one's own side is legitimate. (I don't mean "correct"! Everyone thinks that his or her own side is correct and the other side is wrong; if one didn't, one would switch sides! I mean legitimate.) People who hold differing views are so illegitimate that they should not be platformed, listened to, or even acknowledged.

[SimonP]

I don’t think a “liberal mindset” requires acknowledging the legitimacy of every possible disagreement. Certainly, the mere fact that you and I might disagree on some point wouldn’t, within a liberal mindset, merit the belief that one or the other might have an “illegitimate” point of view that shouldn’t even be countenanced. But there are lots of claims that can be made that are properly dismissed, even within a “liberal mindset,” as not legitimate: claims made in bad faith; wildly conspiratorial claims; claims to expertise that are transparently ill-founded; among others.

While I don’t often appreciate your attempts to criticize things I’ve said, I can, at least, appreciate that they are “legitimate” attempts to do so, and worthy (if I can be bothered) of an engaged response. Contrast that with 99% of what Brett says. Brett believes that transgenderism is an illusory construct, without any genuine basis in reality, to such an extent that he would sooner believe, without evidence, that a teacher had “groomed” his son to prefer living as a girl/woman than his son coming to that conclusion of his own volition. How can anyone therefore believe that any position Brett takes on transgender issues is worthy of being treated as “legitimate”?

I can agree that transgenderism is a puzzling phenomenon, our understanding of which is evolving; that it is predicated upon notions of gender performance and gender identity that are in some ways contradictory or incoherent; and that, to a certain extent, my own “trans-inclusive” attitude is based more in a “live and let live,” “benefit of the doubt” approach than an enthusiastic embrace of “woke” ideology on the question. I also think there are a range of “legitimate” perspectives to take on whether and when gender-affirming care might be appropriate for minors, considering the range of treatment options and (even) the ideological commitments of the therapists and doctors who provide such services. So I think there is legitimate room for debate there.

But – with someone who categorically refuses to acknowledge the reality of transgendered individuals? Who can be expected to support efforts to ban gender-affirming care for minors, and restricting public education so that none of this is ever discussed in schools? Who is likely filling up their ears with the current talking points about how transgenderism is the enemy of Christianity and trans students are all ticking time bombs?

There is a line to draw, David. It may not be where the Columbia students are drawing it – in fact, I am pretty sure it’s not there – but there is nothing inherently “illiberal” in acknowledging that there are some ideas so stupid, so bad, so evil, so pointless to engage, that they are “illegitimate.” Open minded inquiry is not uncritical.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Brett believes that transgenderism is an illusory construct, without any genuine basis in reality,”

That’s certainly a massive over-simplification.

I think that a limited number of people genuinely are delusional about their sex, just as some people are delusional about their weight, or how many limbs they have. Dysphoria is a real thing, the brain is as subject to malfunction as any other organ, but it’s a real delusion, and humoring delusions is a mistake.

We shouldn’t be offering people who are delusional about their sex mutilating surgery any more than we should be stapling the stomachs of anorexics, or cutting off the limbs of healthy people. Saying that is hardly denying that anorexics are real.

I’d further note that it is well established that most pre-pubescent cases of gender dysphoria, unsurprisingly, resolve during puberty. So puberty blocking drugs, far from being an appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, are a way of locking it in, making sure it doesn’t resolve.

And, finally, I’d note that the reported frequency of gender dysphoria has absolutely exploded in a very short time frame. Either it is a fad, or we have a very serious problem with some new sex hormone mimetic in the environment.

Finally, as a libertarian, I'd say that once somebody is an adult, and if they want to pay for it themselves, sure, let them chop off their junk, or split their tongue, or have fake horns screwed into their skull, or whatever. As long as they're not hurting somebody else, why not let them? But that's different from insisting that other people treat them as though they weren't nutcases.

[Nige]

'But it’s a real delusion,'

They don't class it as a delusion any more, though, do they? You should update yourself when you're going to join in the supression of a minority.

'and humoring delusions is a mistake.''

Even as an approach to mental health, this is an appalling attitude. They don't beat people and subject them to high pressure cold water sprays to get the 'delusions' out of them any more, Brett.

'We shouldn’t be offering people who are delusional about their sex mutilating surgery any more than we should be stapling the stomachs of anorexics, or cutting off the limbs of healthy people.'

But you are not qualified to dictate what treatment is appropriate for different conditions.

'Either it is a fad,'

Oh I can think of at least one other far more compelling option which you seem to enjoy oignoring.

'I’d say that once somebody is an adult,'

Despite your contempt for the sufferers, you admit dysphoria is real - what is it about this medically recognised condition that causes you to place these arbitrary limitations on access to treatment?

[Brett Bellmore]

"They don’t class it as a delusion any more, though, do they? "

Psychiatry has long been the most politicized branch of medicine, nothing surprising about that.

"They don’t beat people and subject them to high pressure cold water sprays to get the ‘delusions’ out of them any more, Brett."

But neither do they assure anorexics that they're genuinely obese, and point them in the direction of a medical weight loss program. Though check back, in a few years they might well be doing so, if the left sees political value in doing so.

"Despite your contempt for the sufferers, you admit dysphoria is real"

On the contrary, I don't have contempt for sufferers of dysphoria. It must be awful having your brain telling you a lie. I have nothing but pity for people in that position, and I don't blame them for it, any more than I blame diabetics for not producing insulin. It's a medical condition, not a moral fault.

"what is it about this medically recognised condition that causes you to place these arbitrary limitations on access to treatment?"

Mutilating surgery doesn't treat dysphoria, any more than diet treats anorexia. It's not at all arbitrary to say that adults are free to make stupid, self destructive choices, but that we don't let minors destroy their lives.

[Nige]

'Psychiatry has long been the most politicized branch of medicine, nothing surprising about that.'

Yes, treating certain groups of people humanely is seen as political by people like you.

'But neither do they assure anorexics that they’re genuinely obese,'

You demand different conditions be treated the same way? Because of your own unqualified certainties about those conditions?

'It’s a medical condition, not a moral fault.'

If that were the case your irrational opposition to other people's health care wouldn't be so trenchant. Dismissing people's conditions as merely 'delusional' is a sign of centempt. Of course you 'pity' them, you look down on them and find them disgusting.

'Mutilating surgery doesn’t treat dysphoria'

On the contrary, surgery absolutely treats gender dysphoria where applicable, is proven to do so, and has a 99% satisfaction rating.

'but that we don’t let minors destroy their lives.'

Yeah, I think you demanding that a condition shouldn't be treated until a person reaches adulthood shows contempt for people with that treatment. You wouldn't insist an anorexic's treatment be deferred til their majority to satisfy your completely irrelevant feelings on the matter. Your irrational prejudices and squeamishness about biology and gender have absolutely no place whatsoever in young trans people's access to health care, no more than your entirely unqualified opinion would be sought in treating an anorexic kid. And yet it's the trans kid's treatment that you, arbitrarily, have decided your opinion is relevant paramount and MUST be heard.

[bernard11]

Psychiatry has long been the most politicized branch of medicine, nothing surprising about that.

Chalk one more area of expertise for Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say that's commonly understood.

[SimonP]

That’s certainly a massive over-simplification.

No, I don't think that it is. You've demonstrated very well why it would be pointless to try to address you like a rational person, on the subject of transgenderism. You claim that it is always and everywhere a delusion, cherry-pick one debunked study, and infer a non sequitur from another. Moreover, you didn't even bother to deny the position I attributed to you, meaning either that you actually agree with it, or are incapable of reading carefully.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Both the Stanford protests and these Columbia ones, though very different in methodology, stem from the same illiberal mindset that only one’s own side is legitimate. (I don’t mean “correct”! Everyone thinks that his or her own side is correct and the other side is wrong; if one didn’t, one would switch sides! I mean legitimate.) People who hold differing views are so illegitimate that they should not be platformed, listened to, or even acknowledged.

How much respect should bigots receive from the modern American mainstream?

In particular . . . the superstitious gay-bashers? By all means, illuminate that point.

The unreconstructed (slur-hurling) racists, white supremacists, white nationalists? Tell us precisely how much respect and appeasement they deserve.

The immigrant-hating xenophobes? Ready to defend them?

The old-timey misogynists?

The antisemites and Islamophobes?

By all means, let us know how much deference, respect, and support decent Americans should provide to our society's vestigial bigots.

[David Nieporent]

Let's not forget anti-semites like yourself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I understand the tendency of culture war losers to stick together as the liberal-libertarian mainstream relegates the losers to increasingly irrelevance in modern America, but your efforts to defend the Conspirators by labeling me an antisemite are pathetic. Drackman labels me Jerry Sandusky, you label me antisemitic, Prof. Volokh censors me.

I must be bugging you guys.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You could learn something from him, perhaps, when it comes to effective trolling.

How effective are the Conspirators? They are clustered at the disaffected fringe of modern legal academia and American society. Their deans and colleagues wish they would leave immediately. Most strong, legitimate law schools would not take them if they tried to leave their current postings. They operate a blog that caters to sputtering bigots, inconsequential incels, and antisocial misfits. They know they are destined to lose the culture war and watch America continue to progress against their wishes and their efforts. They share a blog with Josh Blackman.

Theirs is a sad, ineffective, nearly hopeless lot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This all actually makes sense -- Kavanaugh is a "non person", just like in the Soviet Union in Stalin's day, and Columbia needs to be punished for the thoughtcrime of not remembering that.

And the very same groups that will burn Columbia flat for not having enough persons of the correct racial groups *know* they hold Columbia hostage or they would never threaten to not help meeting those quota. Oh for a dean with the guts to call their bluff and say something like "go for it, I always wanted to have an all-White incoming class."

Not that he does, but just to call these bullies on it.

I can only hope that there are now THREE law schools that Judges aren't hiring clerks from....

[Nige]

You have completely lost the plot, if you ever had it in the first place. The wilder your accusations and suppositions, the more trivial the inciting incidents appear, and they were moderately to fairily trivial to start with.

[y81]

Look, it's obvious that sexual assault is not the issue: the issue is abortion. If Kavanaugh were pro-choice, like certain former presidents, or like the many Democratic senators who have been credibly accused of various sexual shenanigans, all would be forgiven. Abortion is the only issue most liberals really care about.
OTOH, I see a lot more posts from the Conspirators about abortion than about any economic regulation, so I suspect that their professed libertarianism is also primarily about abortion.

[ragebot]

As someone who lives on a 42 foot catamaran it is common knowledge that the two topics that create the most disagreement are which anchors are best and should you have guns on a boat.

So when I read this:"

"Abortion is the only issue most liberals really care about" I have to wonder if liberals care more about abortion or gun control?

[Davy C]

Well, if you go by political ads in my area, it's abortion. The liberals - including the liberal state supreme court candidate, who is extremely likely to rule on the state's abortion law if she's elected (gee, what a totally fair hearing she'll give to the other side) - are all running ads saying how they support abortion rights. Only some of them are running ads saying how they're anti-gun.

[Frank Drackman]

When babies are killed, DemoKKKrats will be the ones killing them

[Sarcastr0]

Ads are driven by the perceived position of the voters, and only constrained by party platform.

[Brett Bellmore]

Abortion and gun control are obviously the big two, but I'd say they do care more about abortion, in that they go a LOT more nuts about it when they don't get their way.

[AtR]

It's a race to the bottom, and everyone is a winner!

[Mitch]

You don't need to go to a FORMER president. Unlike the accusation against Kavanaugh of inchoate sexual conduct, by a teenager, which was not contemporaneously reported, there was a contemporaneously reported account of completed penetration, by a fourth-term U.S. Senator. Will these law students protest any contact with our current president?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, have you checked up on Tara Reid lately?

[Michael P]

Tara Reid sure jumped the Sharknado, didn't she? Her upcoming movie looks like a real dud, in spite of all the rapper cameos.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't usually like misspelling jokes, but that was a very good one, well delivered.

[Michael P]

That's okay, we don't expect you to spell any better than you fact.

[Michael Ejercito]

Real victims do not wait thirty years.

Ask Elizabeth Smart.

[Nige]

The recurrence of historical abuse scandals in assorted institutions would suggest that your arbitrary metric for determining whether someone is a victim or not is queasily self-serving.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is not completely arbitrary.

I can understand children not coming forward the day after.

Waiting thirty years is indefensible. The youngest victims woukld be thirty years old- well into adulthood.

If you were abused as a child and have not yet told someone for thirty years, only tell it to a therapist or a counselor (religious or secular).

Nobosdy else should care.

[Nige]

'Nobosdy else should care.'

Yeah, this is more about inconvenience than justice, isn't it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if you want to call unfalsifiable allegations about what supposedly happened decades earlier just "inconvenient", sure.

[Nige]

Pretty inconvenient for the victims, anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree. It IS very inconvenient to be the victim of a smear campaign designed to be unfalsifiable.

[Nige]

See? Any victim who comes forward will have this sort of thing to deal with. Takes courage.

[Brett Bellmore]

It damned well ought to take cast iron gall to come forward and accuse somebody of having done something odious thirty years earlier, when you've got no evidence.

You want to accuse somebody of something, do it at the time. That at least looks a lot less like making crap up to smear somebody you don't like politically.

Somebody comes along and says, "I saw Nige stick a knife in somebody and dump their body in the river, back in 1990. Where? Somewhere in the Midwest, I don't recall exactly. I'm pretty sure it was in 1990, though, give or take a year. But I am absolutely certain it was Nige!"

Should we take them seriously, and treat you as a likely murder? No, of course not! We shouldn't give them the time of day until they produce some evidence.

[Nige]

If you saw me commit a crime thirty years ago, I sure do hope you'd come forward at some point, I'd hate to get away with murder.

[Brett Bellmore]

If I saw you commit murder, you can be quite certain that I wouldn't wait 30 years to report it. Not 30 days, either. Possibly 30 minutes. Because, you know, i'd have seen you commit murder, and responsible people don't wait three decades to mention things like that.

So why are we supposed to be taking seriously somebody who claims someone tried to rape them 30 years ago, and the just hadn't seen fit to report it until now? And can't identify the date or location? And name supposed witnesses, none of whom recall anything of the sort?

Just because they're doing it to somebody you don't like? Would you treat that sort of thing seriously if it were directed against somebody you DO like?

[Nige]

It's precisely becuase of historical abuse allegations that emerge years after the abuse took place that I tend to take all such accusations seriously and want the authorities to do the same. That's not the same as *believing* them obviously.

[damikesc]

Somebody accuses you of a crime THIRTY YEARS AGO.

Provides zero evidence you did it. Provides zero corroboration of the claim.

Defend yourself.

Go ahead. I can wait for a while.

[Nige]

*drinks beer*
*gets appointed to the Supreme Court*

[Magister]

You forgot to sneer and promise payback. No Supreme Court appointment for you.

[Michael Ejercito]

This answer explains why statutes of limitation exist.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-the-statute-of-limitations-should-be-abolished-in-all-cases-Why-should-legal-justice-for-any-crime-have-an-expiration-date/answer/Todd-Allen-9

[Nige]

Not to shut people up who finally come forward, surely?

[damikesc]

Again, feel free to explain how you'd defend you did not do something 30 years ago.

[Nige]

I'd have every Republican in government, plus the president, all right-wing media, centrist media, a lot of so-called liberal media and a mob of people willing to send rape and death threats do it for me.

[Randal]

Apparently jealous of all the attention that South Texas and UCLA law professors have gotten for acting like imperious children, a George Mason law professor, representing as DB, has been throwing a convulsive hissy fit. The act that stirred such emotion? Columbia student groups' Instagram accounts noted with dissatisfaction that the University had celebrated a meeting between a group of law students affiliated with the Federalist Society and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in DC. You can read the diatribe at Reason.

The professor's only tangible complaint, at least judging by the piece, is that the students claimed Kavanaugh had been "credibly accused" of sexual assault. It's been four-and-a-half years since the allegation of his misbehavior as a young man surfaced. Since then, multiple eyewitnesses to his other, contemporaneous sexual assaults have come forward, adding to the weight of the evidence against Kavanaugh, and, despite the best efforts of conservative special interests and sycophantic law professors, steadily eroding his credibility and support. Indeed, it's time to give up on the word "credibility" in this context. (And, fwiw, I'm pretty sure that the professor would react differently to news of student outrage over a meeting with a particular former president who was never even accused of sexual assault, "credibly" or otherwise. Hint: his initials are WJC.)

[Gandydancer]

"...a particular former president who was never even accused of sexual assault, 'credibly' or otherwise."

Your ignorance would be stunning if it weren't merely typical of your ilk.

Hint: Who are Juanita Broaddrick, Leslie Millwee, Kathleen Willey, ...

[Frank Drackman]

William Juffuhson did not have sex with those women

[Gandydancer]

Maybe depends on what the meaning of “have sex” is.

Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress got its keepsake value without “having sex”, according to WJC, I understand.

Maybe rape doesn’t count either.

[Nige]

I guess you guys really do only stick to the one position, out of fear of God's wrath or something.

[Gandydancer]

You guess all sorts of stupid things, but I'm an atheist.

And maybe you are as ignorant as Randal, but one of Clinton's more famous declarations is, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." One of his defenses against the charge that he lied was that getting head wasn't "having sex".

You're welcome.

[Nige]

Yes, I know. And you still aren't over it. Mind still boggled by it. Haunted by it. Enraged by it.

Good luck.

[Gandydancer]

Actually it was funny at the time and still is. Hence my joke about it.

You, on the other hand, just keep confusing the echoes in the empty space between your ears with the real world.

[Nige]

I hear the right has acquired a new joke since, maybe you've heard it?

[Gandydancer]

You’re just a joke, not a new joke.

And having you stuck to the bottom of my shoe is not the same as "acquiring" you.

[Nige]

Do you often talk to things stuck on the bottom of your shoe?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’m an atheist

What attracts you to the bigotry and backwardness of the Republican Party and movement conservatism? If not for the old-timey, silly superstition, what would incline someone to choose the wrong side of history, the losing side of the culture war, and the bigoted side of the argument?

[Randal]

You're right of course, I was really just making fun of David for switching from sexual assault to "sexual coercion" in his original. Is that even a thing? I'm sure you'll tell me.

I'm certainly not here to defend Clinton, nor do I keep up with his legal troubles. But since you brought her up... I do remember Kathleen. Her presidental domination fantasies were so thoroughly debunked that they ended up helping Clinton look like the victim of a coordinated smear campaign. Maybe not the best example to lean on. Even Monica was defending him on that one!

[Michael P]

How do you distinguish "sexual assault" from "sexual coercion"? Wikipedia defines the latter as a special case of the former:

Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.

(Emphasis added.)

[David Bernstein]

It seems undisputed that as governor Clinton would have state troopers pick women out of a crowd, say Clinton wanted to meet them, bring them to his hotel room, expose himself, and ask them to provide him with oral sex. Would a woman in that position, with no witnesses, and state troopers clearly complicit, reasonably believe themselves to be coerced? I think that would be reasonable.

[Magister]

Actually, these claims are disputed.

[David Bernstein]

Clinton settled one of them (Paula Jones) for a lot of money...

[Sarcastr0]

You’re a better lawyer than to make that assumption about a settlement, Prof. Bernstein.

I mean, I think the whole state troopers pick women out of a crowd probably did happen, but undisputed is rather much.

The rest of it? That's Rush Limbaugh blowharding territory, and definitely not something to take as given.

[Magister]

Better lawyer or not, Bernstein has shown in his posts and comments that he will abuse logic and cherry pick data to advance his political preferences.

[Gandydancer]

"“…a particular former president who was never even accused of sexual assault, ‘credibly’ or otherwise.” is a falsehood (an intentional one, apparently, if you remember Kathleen Willey), and cannot be excused as "making fun of David for switching from sexual assault to 'sexual coercion'”.

Nor do I remember ever thinking that "Clinton look[ed] like the victim of a coordinated smear campaign". Your circle may have denied what he looked like, but what he looked like was a sleazeball.

[Randal]

Well, the point of the post was not for the truth of the matter asserted. I actually like Eugene, for instance, and don't think he's particularly imperious.

The purpose was to hold David's original up to a partisan mirror so all you rubes could see that you're complaining about yourselves. Mission clearly accomplished. I mean, here you all are bitching about Clinton's sexual misadventures. It's pretty pathetically hysterical.

[David Nieporent]

Well, Juanita Broaddrick is a woman who swore under oath that Clinton didn't do anything to her.

[hoppy025]

You have a very different definition of "credible" than I do. And I don't even like Kavanagh, because he's your typical Catholic from the Northeast who is a FUDD with respect to guns.

[damikesc]

"Since then, multiple eyewitnesses to his other, contemporaneous sexual assaults have come forward, adding to the weight of the evidence against Kavanaugh, and, despite the best efforts of conservative special interests and sycophantic law professors, steadily eroding his credibility and support."

I note your citation of this is, uh, missing. Odd.

[Randal]

Yes, I was trying to be faithful to the original. But since you asked, and it even happens to be true, here you go. This is the non-paywalled version of an early example.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-new-york-times.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Slate, as people noted at the time, confused further accusations with evidence.

[bernard11]

And Grassley, as people noted at the time, did a good job of suppressing evidence.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

noted with dissatisfaction

Are you really that stupid, or just that much of a lying asshole? Or some combination of the two?

[Randal]

Not much of a sense of humor on this site, is there!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That you think your stupidity/intentional bullshit is funny doesn't mean you have a well-developed sense of humor.

[Nige]

At this point I have to wonder of the whole point of this carry-on is to play havoc with right-wing/libertarian blood pressure levels. Or maybe they have shares in 'old man yells at cloud' meme NFTs. Remember when Trump would do or say something and the media woud report it and people would get angry and there would be shouting and yelling while his supporters would boast that he was living rent free in their heads, controlling the news cycle, pwning the libs? Hmm.

[Gandydancer]

Whereas out in the real world we're deriding these overgrown babies who are threatening not to recruit their fellows to come pollute the university.

[Nige]

Brett went and made himself a hat, Gandydancer. A HAT.

[apedad]

I even offered to send him a tin foil hat!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You guys deride the overgrown babies at Columbia.

I'll continue to spotlight the bigots and bigotry at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Should be fun!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Just imagine our world when these vile and evil diverses take their meritless positions at some Federal Institution with power and authority over Normal White Americans.

It's going to be another Holodomere. Like we saw with that Troon, they will start slaughtering us.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't imagine the normal black Americans will fare any better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It must be horrible to think that your nation is a flaming hellscape that will only get worse.

No wonder right-wing dumbasses are so cranky, and so easily lathered by the Conspirators.

[Frank Drackman]

What do you mean "Start" Honky??

[DaveM]

Unreasonable people, by definition, do not respond to arguments based on reason. It is therefore entirely pointless to try and reason with them about Justice Kavanaugh. You are shouting into a void.

Those of us who have had direct, personal experiences with truly unreasonable people know that the only useful response to an unreasonable demand is a quiet, but immovable, “No”. Not a “no, and here’s why”, or even “no, not this time, but maybe later”, but just a firm, categorical, flat-out refusal.

Unreasonable people actually need you to say no to their unreasonable requests. Being unreasonable is a terrifying experience. The world seems uncontrollable and unstable, it feels like the bottom could drop out at any moment. At those times, a person who stands firm is like a port in a storm.

So the correct response to these Columbia Law student organizations is just a simple “No”. It is unreasonable to treat the act of visiting a sitting Supreme Court Justice as an offense. One doesn’t need to defend that position, one just enforces it.

Nope. No. Next.

[DaveM]

I forgot to add that the parallel to this in the legal system is the concept of prima facie, which, as I understand it, requires that claims must be rebuttable in order to be adjudicated. For example, if one brings a tort of trespass, then the prima facie case must establish an intent to trespass, that trespass did in fact take place, and that there was no consent. Unless all of these components could possibly be rebutted, then there is nothing to judge.

Similarly, unreasonable requests are outside any normal resolution, because there is nothing to resolve, they are just acts or demands made by one party on another, without consent or even consultation.

[Sarcastr0]

People who seize the position of reasonable arbiter, and appeal to their own authority as being so reasonable are some of the least reason-based people out there.

[DaveM]

I am not referring to deciding what is reasonable or not, but to whether reason can be used at all. I believe I can tell from your response that you may not have had direct experience with truly unreasonable demands. It's not that you disagree with them, it's that discussion and argument itself becomes out of bounds. In that case, there is nothing to be done except insist on the baseline.

[Randal]

You obviously haven’t read the student groups’ statements. They’re eminently reasonable. You may be the unreasonable one here if you find yourself unable to engage with their arguments.

[Gandydancer]

Self-awareness is obviously not within your grasp.

[Sarcastr0]

I never claimed to be reasonable.

[ReaderY]

They may be foolish to be making demands and protesting over this. But they are acting within their rights, and others’.

[Gandydancer]

Did I miss the demand in the article that all these student-fee sucking orgs be disbanded?

[DaveM]

.

[David Nieporent]

(And, fwiw, I'm pretty sure that the students would react differently to news of a meeting with a particular former president who is truly "credibly accused" of sexual coercion. Hint: his initials are WJC.)

I'm fairly sure that Prof. Bernstein is wrong on this point. That would be true of students of his/my generation, but Gen Zers and later millennials have no emotional attachment to Clinton and would be happy to throw him under the bus.

[Gandydancer]

That is not relevant to the claim you purport to debunk.

The scandalous Instagram post read: " On February 23, members of the Columbia Federalist Society (@clsfedsoc) visited the Supreme Court of the United States to engage in conversation with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. During the visit, they learned about the human side of being a justice, the Court’s deliberation process, and how to be an effective advocate. Justice Kavanaugh also answered questions about a few of his most famous"

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what claim you think I purport to debunk. That doesn't seem responsive to anything I said.

[NoVaNick]

Wonder if these were the same kids who weren’t potty trained until they were 5 and their moms breast fed them until then too. Would be an interesting study to do: does prolonged infantilization result in extreme progressive political beliefs and intolerance for free speech.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/03/29/update-on-the-anthony-broadwater-saga/

Any difference between what the Sebold bitch did and what the Blasey Ford bitch did?

[John Rohan]

Meanwhile, we are seeing similar nonsense at George Mason University, where students are protesting because the state governor is scheduled to be the commencement speaker. Of course, they are only protesting because the governor is a Republican.

GMU is a public university. So the governor should be banned from one of the campuses he ultimately has oversight of?

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/george-mason-university-students-to-protest-gov-youngkin-selection-as-2023-commencement-speaker

[NoVaNick]

Yep, Youngkn is the new scary monster under the bed for NoVa proggies

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt it is that he's a Republican.

More likely, it's his longstanding gay-bashing bigotry.

Or his proposals to dismantle public schools.

Or his virus-flouting, antisocial right-wingery.

Or his prudish, old-timey authoritarianism with respect to marijuana.

Or his Bannon-infused Trumpery.

Or his "stolen election" bullshit.

Or his antisocial gun nuttery.

[hoppy025]

Your idea of "gay bashing" is not giving a ticker tape parade to a man who shoots off (breeds, as they call it) in a random dude at a truck stop.

[Nige]

Like you saw in that

horrible horrible film

you forced yourself to watch

five times

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I get confused by this commenting system.

Was that aimed at a commenter, or at the Volokh Conspirators?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gov. Youngkin left his church because it was treating gays like decent people and he just could not stand that. He founded a new church that would not treat gays like decent people. He also has used anti-gay and anti-transgender bigotry for political gain in the party of despicable bigots.

Gov. Youngkin is a reprehensible bigot. But no problem that replacement won't solve. Guys like Youngkin are doomed in modern America.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When you think about your perfect Democrat America future, what do you see? Is there any existing community or region that I’d similar to your ideal?

Then could you close the loop and show how the illegals who are streaming across our borders to replace us gets America to your ideal future?

I guess I'm curious how you reason about where we are and what's currently happening to where you keep insisting we are going.

I'm just not seeing it.

[Randal]

You just have to use your mind to think. There was a time not so long ago when The Simpsons was the focal point of the culture war. The Simpsons! It was much too risqué for the right-wingers of the 90s. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/596283/bart-simpson-t-shirt-school-ban-1990

At the same time, the left was going through one of its most severe politically correct episodes, this time mostly about disabilities. You had to say bullshit like "differently abled" (now itself disfavored). This was the era of "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher." Yes, he's been critical of the far left since the very beginning, nothing new about that. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/27/style/IHT-in-us-of-90s-home-is-where-the-conscience-is-politically-correct.html

This is Roger Ebert (sort of summarized -- I'll give the link to the real thing in a follow-up):

When you said the word ‘political correctness’ it made me think of college students working for the student papers or writing papers that are going to be read out loud in class…political correctness is the fascism of the ’90s. This feeling that you have to keep your ideas and your way of looking at things within very narrow boundaries or you’ll offend someone. Certainly one of the purposes of journalism is to challenge that kind of thinking. And one of the purposes of criticism is to break boundaries. But what politically correct students are training themselves to do today is to lie…to lie.

Sound familiar?

The culture war proceeds as it always has. The left tries to control language, with little impact but lots of backlash. Language can't really be controlled.

The right tries to stand in the way of progress, gets steamrolled, and eventually comes around to the new normal.

It is the way.

[Randal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__L9DzZIkwI&t=10s

[Nige]

'This feeling that you have to keep your ideas and your way of looking at things within very narrow boundaries or you’ll offend someone.'

This, of course, is the sudden dawning of awareness that a lot of the casual shit you say is actually kind of rude and offensive. You can keep saying it, but other people can call you out on it. The idea that this is fascism is asinine, especially in the context of the revolting homophobia of the right - now THAT was a type of fascism.

'The left tries to control language, with little impact but lots of backlash'

Influence, anyway, and since it's no longer socially acceptable to say a bunch of words that are slurs and insults, I'd say they didn't do too badly.

[NoVaNick]

The perfect democrat America is the Handmaids Tale only with 300 lb bipoc non-binary lesbians in charge.

[bernard11]

So? They are not allowed to protest now?

My the rules change quickly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, are you stupid. Yes, they're allowed to "protest"...and everyone else (who has an above-room-temperature IQ) is also free to tell them and anyone else who will listen just how idiotic their "protest" is.

[Bob from Ohio]

If we take away Columbia's endowment, we don't have to worry about anything these students say. We don't worry about what law students at South Texas College of Law Houston think. Because those students are not part of the future "elite" like those at Columbia.

No money, Columbia won't be "elite" anymore.

[Randal]

Where's Brett? He wants to invoke Mao at you. Or at least he would if he were at all consistent in his paranoia.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, right: Mao settled for defunding schools he didn't like. Everybody knows that.

[Randal]

You're worried about students complaining on the Internet, but not about the government "defunding" (here, seizing the private endowment of) a school it doesn't like?

This is what makes you laughable, Brett.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If we take away Columbia’s endowment,

Jesus Christ, Bob from Ohio, you haven't been able to get out of Can't Keep Up, Ohio, for decades. and you claim to have a law degree. How the fuck do you and the other culture war debris plan to take a nickel from Columbia?

[ScottK]

David from Fairfax also has a law degree, which he uses to train bigots how to whine about their alleged mistreatment by the woke mob. Matthew from Amarillo has a law degree and a job for life, and come to think of it, might be a fine choice for a speaker at ASSLaw. LFG, fan those flames.

[Drewski]

Not a good post, in a moral sense. Very easy to read it as, "These students insulted my club. Dear readers, please give them the 'attention' they're seeking."