The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"A Tale Of Two Protests: UVA v. Berkeley Law"
"What's the most effective way for law students to fight injustice?"
David Lat's latest item in his Original Jurisdiction newsletter; I thought it was very well done, as usual. The opening paragraphs:
Last week, when I went down to speak at UVA Law, I arrived in time to attend a speech about textualism by Justice Jay Mitchell of the Alabama Supreme Court. I got to know Justice Mitchell last fall, when we participated in a debate about whether the U.S. Supreme Court should adopt an ethics code—I argued in favor, he argued against—and even though we disagreed, I appreciated his thoughtful perspective. So I was eager to attend his UVA talk.
But Justice Mitchell is now a controversial figure, ever since he wrote the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C.—the big IVF case, in which the court held that the destruction of frozen embryos can give rise to a wrongful-death cause of action. Some UVA students decided to protest him.
As I approached the room where he would be speaking, I saw several protesters standing outside and holding signs. I wondered if they would yell at me or other people going into the talk, à la the Stanford law students who shouted "shame, shame" at attendees of Judge Kyle Duncan's March 2023 talk—and who screamed at Judge Duncan things like, "We hope your daughters get raped!"
But these were the most polite protesters I've ever seen.
They didn't heckle or harass Justice Mitchell, me, or anyone else who went into his talk. They stood outside the room, quietly holding signs. And once his talk got underway, they left to attend a counter-event—"a lunch to raise funds for SisterSong, a reproductive-justice coalition led by women of color." That counter-event was accompanied by a flyer that criticized Justice Mitchell's LePage opinion, replete with footnotes and case citations.
And that's how protest should work. Upon learning that Justice Mitchell was coming to campus, protesters prepared a written critique of his opinion, circulated it within the law school, and invited people to attend a competing event. They responded to reasoned argument with reasoned argument. They didn't prevent those of us who wanted to listen to Justice Mitchell from doing so. They didn't disrupt.
Contrast the respectful response to Justice Mitchell with the disruptive protest at UC Berkeley School of Law on Tuesday night. Here's a statement issued on Wednesday by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, whose private residence was the site of the protest: …
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“But in the year 2024 on a university campus, maybe protest isn’t about public persuasion, but performance.”
Maybe it’s about intimidation.
“[Chemerinsky] responded that they don’t yet know whether they will pursue discipline themselves—but if they do, it would by law be confidential within the university.”
It wouldn’t be confidential if they reported the trespass to the police.
“If folks like Jack Petocz and Malak Afaneh believe their actions are justified in order to bring public attention to the plight of Palestine, that’s all well and good. But they don’t get to escape otherwise applicable punishment because their cause is just. The willingness to accept punishment is a feature, not a bug, of civil disobedience.”
In the civil rights era, civil disobedience was committed largely by illegally-disenfranchised Black people. That was a situation justifying what I would call a quasi-rebellion – a partial revolt against the laws. If voting rights are restored (of if voting rights are denied for legitimate reasons like alienage), then an illegal revolt against the system seems to me much less justified, even if you’re willing to make a piece of political theater out of it by inviting arrest and punishment.
“And I’d also urge them to ask themselves: what’s the best way to bring about social change, at least for people with the talent and drive to make it to elite institutions like Berkeley Law? Is it to get expelled from law school or denied bar admission for breaking university rules or even criminal laws as part of a protest? Or is it to work hard, rise up through the system, and stand up against injustice once in a position of power?”
Yes, they shouldn’t want to incur punishment, but still more, they should avoid such behavior because it’s objectively wrong, even if the establishment lets them get away with it, or even if the establishment celebrates their wrongdoing.
"establishment lets them get away with it, or even if the establishment celebrates their wrongdoing"
You'd think the current establishment would have learned from the capitulations to radicals in the 60s but it looks like they did not except in Pomona and Vanderbilt.
All the disrupters should already be off campus but Chemerinsky thinks he can ride the tiger without being eaten.
After the disrupters, let's rid the campuses of the bigots -- religious gay-haters; old-timey misogynists; Christian dominionist immigrant-haters; Republican race-targeting vote suppressors; right-wing transphobes; Charlottesville-style chanting antisemites; backwater Islamophobes; conservative white supremacists; etc.
"religious gay-haters"
Which specific religions do you have in mind?
Religious gay-haters, but not atheistic ones?
Would it not have been sufficient to simply cite the gay-haters, misogynists, immigrant-haters, vote suppressors, transphobes, antisemites, Islamaphobes, and white supremacists?
You only feel the tease of your hate fetishes when the bigotry is of a specific sub-type?
Even bigotry gets mangled through your lens of resentment.
A third protest:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/apr/07/pomona-college-students-arrested-palestine-protests-vanderbilt-supsensions
"Eighteen students at Pomona College in Claremont, California, were arrested on Friday and charged with misdemeanor trespassing, and one student was arrested for obstruction of justice, according to the Claremont police department, during a protest in response to the removal of pro-Palestinian art on the college campus.
Students criticized the heavy police response to the protest, as law enforcement officers from Claremont, Pomona, Azusa and La Verne responded to the scene in riot gear.
demonstrators entered Alexander Hall on campus in protest of an “apartheid wall” of artwork from students supporting Palestine being removed after being up since 28 March."
The question is whether this will escalate things over the softer touch.
And here's another report from that neo-fascist alt-right organ the Los Angeles Times :
What began as a peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstration on Friday afternoon at Pomona College quickly devolved after protesters stormed and then occupied the college president’s office. By the end of the evening, 20 students had been arrested and booked by riot-gear-wearing local police forces.
Do you think I was posting that in disapproval?
You invited her to your house, she behaved in a way you didn’t like so you asked her to leave and she did?
What exactly is the problem again? You be snowflake?
She took her own sweet time in leaving, according to the video.
There are several minutes of the dean and his wife telling the trespasser she wasn’t welcome and should leave.
Imagine a lawyer who *eventually* files necessary papers even if he misses the deadline for doing so. What kind of snowflake are you if you object?
I've had to kick misbehaving guests out of my house before. It's never pretty but like... I never thought it was worth notifying the whole nation about. Hence: snowflake.
The dinner... was obviously disrupted and disturbed.
No, not obviously. Only if snowflake can't you get over such a common situation as that.
OK, sure, so if the KKK commandeered a microphone at a party at your home and started spouting off racist nonsense, you are a "snowflake" if that bothers you?
"I’ve had to kick misbehaving guests out of my house before."
You are routinely accused of genocide on posters, and the people who put of those posters then crash your parties in a planned disruption?
Nonresponsive.
Not a serious response.
Seriously? That’s the situation Chemerinsky faced. You don’t think it’s relevant to ask what you’d do in a similar situation, or how carefully (following your standards) you’d have to watch yourself so as not to be a snowflake?
I’ve had to kick people out for way worse shit than that. So: snowflake squared.
A mean poster omg allow me to swoon and contract the vapours.
Also, she didn't crash the party. She was an invited guest.
She was invited for a specific purpose, but she didn't come for that purpose. And she took her own sweet time leaving when told to do so, though if a property owner tells you to leave the property you need to do so promptly.
This certainly sums up the right-wing attacks on universities - an unpleasant domestic incident blown up to a fucking crime against humanity.
I didn’t know Erwin Chemerinsky was a right-wing foe of universities:
"I write this with profound sadness."
"I never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism" [as the poster]
"made clear that we would not be intimidated"
"I am enormously sad"
"we will have security present. Any student who disrupts will be reported to student conduct and a violation of the student conduct code is reported to the Bar."
Yup, nothing to complain about here, but I didn't know that Chemerinsky had joined the ranks of the right-wing deplorables.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/article/statement-from-dean-erwin-chemerinsky/
I write this with profound sadness.
snowflakeI never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism
strawmanmade clear that we would not be intimidated
snowflakeI am enormously sad
snowflakewe will have security present
snowflakeAny student who disrupts will be reported to student conduct and a violation of the student conduct code is reported to the Bar.
pathetic threat‘but I didn’t know that Chemerinsky had joined the ranks of the right-wing deplorables.’
They wouldn’t have him, but they’re happy to use him. It's an unpleasant domestic incident blown up to a fucking crime against humanity that he brought on himself because universities are full of evil lefties.
They asked her to leave, and she did. What exactly is the problem?
The problem is taking people like you seriously. I mean seriously, Randal...try playing an honest game. You don't add to your credibility by running around naked and asking people, "What's wrong with my clothes?"
You really think having to ask a guest to leave is worth all this handwringing and pearl-clutching? It happens a million times a day. The Dean is a pathetic whiner.
I understand why disruption is a problem — the heckler’s veto and all that, I am familiar with the logic here. I get why it’s important that counter-speech not completely drown out speech, and I get the desire to have counter-speech events instead of trying to shut down speech events. I get the juxtaposition to the dean dinner thing or storming an office. I get why protestors should allow speech to go on without using megaphones to drown it out.
I’m not sure I understand why tone and stridency is a problem. If the signs hurl invective at the person they’re protesting, who cares? You should be able to call people names that hurt their feelings. Isn’t this half the point of free speech? The goal of protest is not always to disagree with someone or convince them of the merit of your points, sometimes it’s just to make someone feel unwelcome.
It seems bizarre to me that there’s an asymmetry where an invited speaker might well be known for their stridency — consider controversies around Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulous, etc — but we would expect a particular tone from protestors against them. If the sign says “Ann Coulter is a stupid cunt and I hope she gets her brains blown out”, that’s not exactly convincing or polite, in fact it’s distasteful, but I don’t understand why it’s in some way not a valid form of protest.
It cuts both ways politically of course. Anti-abortion protestors should not need to tone down the gore just because it makes people feel uncomfortable. All the “Fuck Joe Biden” or “Lock Her Up” signs also seem completely fine to me if similarly distasteful.
It feels like the quoted text in the article is about building a society that centers productive engagement and mutual respect, and that’s a lovely sentiment that is easily defensible. You need only look at how absolutely rotten the comments section here is to realize how much better things would be if people chose to be polite. And we’re not talking about legislating politeness in this kind of post, merely to laud respectful speech and condemn invective.
But if you adopt this framework — which, again, I like a lot — then it should be recognized that a lot of the reason why you see people engaging in these kinds of protests are because they believe the people they are protesting are disrespectful. Like the left’s argument for cancelling Milo is that he says slurs about gay people etc etc. You can disagree about exactly what you find respectful and disrespectful but it’s clear “People ought adhere to my definition of respect” is not a good framework for governing speech effectively. Like the debate around cancellation occasionally involves the contours of law but at its root, it’s mostly about how much and what kind of social opprobrium should be heaped upon a person who makes statements or choices the cancellers view as disrespectful. It also makes me feel like there’s a prurient fixation on vulgar words being the thing that is disrespectful as opposed to broader ideas.
Chemerinsky didn’t like the posters and spoke out against them, but he affirmed the right of the poster-putter-uppers to their free expression.
But as a First Amendment expert, and a homeowner, he knows quite well that free speech doesn’t apply on private property.*
David Lat duly acknowledges the private property issues involved, but then he goes into a broader discussion of whether it’s *expedient* for protesters to do this stuff. He even suggests that protesters should emulate dissenters who have been unconstitutionally disenfranchised, and who resort to lawbreaking as a last resort to get their democratic rights. He suggests that if they want to pay the penalty, the students could break the law and be martyrs, instead of just assholes as would in fact be the case.
*The Supreme Court allowed protests in “company towns,” and for a few years at shopping malls, but never in homes.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a good way to describe Lat's brand of completely unoriginal, unnecessary, bland, yet smugly-delivered commentary.
"These are the most polite protesters I've ever seen! Why, I could ignore them completely if I'd wanted!" It might be instructive if we had some background on whether UVA was more strict with its students and more likely to punish them for disruptive protests that might intentionally or unintentionally cross the line.
It's a bit like walking into a Russian grocery store and remarking on how clean it is and how low the prices are. While I'm no fan of caterwauling in law school classrooms, I can't say that I am enthusiastic if law students have merely internalized the lesson that the administrators of their institutions will see to it that they suffer permanent consequences if they step out of line in their protests. Over (remember) a multistate judicial and political campaign to broaden state control over women's bodies (again, left unremarked upon by Lat, the servile little shit).
"smugly-delivered commentary"
You are the expert.
I set 'em up, Bobbie knocks 'em down. Good job, brah.
“smugly-delivered commentary”
You are the expert.
"servile little shit"
I think someone commented the other day about how the right-wing commenters have coarsened and generally lowered the tone of this blog.
"I mean, sure, David Lat doesn't say anything interesting here, the underlying topic of the protest and social/political trends is troubling, but you used a naughty word, mister."
Anyway, your complaint falls into the same category as Lat's. I wrote a perfectly civil complaint about the quality of Lat's work, punctuated at the end with a tossed-off epithet. The only response you offer is to focus on a single word. Is there a reason I owe you, or Lat, civility, when you engage in such outrageously asinine remarks?
I’m just noting that another commenter has claimed that it’s the non-progressives who are the ones with problems regarding civility.
But I can give as good as I get.
You are a dillweed.
The conservatives at this blog regularly publish vile racial slurs (and plenty of homophobic, misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, etc. slurs) . . . and the proprietor joins in that fun.
The conservatives at this blog call for liberals to be gassed; exterminated; shot in the face; placed face-down in landfills; sent to Zyklon showers; lined up and shot; raped; pushed through woodchippers; etc. The proprietor doesn't object.
If a liberal calls a conservative a "sl_ck-j_w" or a "p_ssy," (let alone a "c_p succ_r"), however, this blog censors that liberal for saying mean words about conservatives.
Who has coarsened this blog?
I'm at a disadvantage in discussing these matters because I've muted the type of commenters who are likely to say such things. Obviously I don't mute *everyone* who could use muting; some of them I keep viewing because I'm interested in the kinds of creative insults they're able to come up with. Although the term "creative" doesn't seem to apply when most of the time you simply replay your greatest hits.
Why should we pretend that your dumbass MAGA bullshit deserves a polite, reasoned response? That would serve only to legitimize the dumbassery of your bullshits.
I suppose you mean my MAGA posts where I said the Supreme Court should decide the merits of the Section 3 arguments about Trump, rather than ducking the issue and categorically ruling in his favor as they did.
You have the right to you own opinion but not your own facts.
Or perhaps you’re thinking about the recent post where I said that Presidents and ex-Presidents can be prosecuted for alleged crimes which purportedly occurred during their term of office.
You don’t get to confuse your delirious fantasies with the real world.
And since we’re abandoning civility, you’re nothing but the male offspring of a female domestic canine.
You’re a Nazi! (And you love Hitler!)
Soooo, being MAGA is equivalent to being a Nazi?
Leftists don't see the abuse they hurl as abuse but "truth" and in their minds their victims deserve it so it isn't a bad thing at all, a public service to their way of thinking.
Tone policing from the side with Machine Gun Ed and WhitePride.
Fuck off.
That wasn't very civil.
I agree that Lat's standard here is pretty bullshit if you know thing one about protests' purpose.
https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/comix1017_bors_img.jpg
From Lat's article:
>> "Why the focus on Dean Chemerinsky? According to his statement, a statement by UC President Michael Drake, and a statement by UC Board of Regents Chair Rich Leib, it appears the protesters attacked the dean for no apparent reason other than his Jewish identity."
This seems almost disingenuous in view of the Dean's involvement in prior protests and Palestine/Israel issues at Berkeley, one of which was directly about Israel and Zionism, and one of which involved him being directly critical of this pro-Palestine student group. Lat's article suggests that Chemerinsky is a stranger to the controversy so the only reason for his involvement must be "his Jewish identity," when, in fact, he's been knee deep in it for some time with this exact group of students.
Yes to that.
I also feel like, given that both Israel's and the ADL's positions are that all Jews bear responsibility for Israel's actions, it's not unreasonable to target anti-Israel protests at Jews... at least Jews who haven't disclaimed their connection to Israel and haven't taken a stand on the war. It's fair to assume someone supports the institutions they associate with.
But I could be wrong. Is there any high-profile, respectable Jewish organization making the case that Israel is inherently separate from Judaism? Israel itself is obviously conflicted out, and I'm completely willing to discredit the ADL if there are Jewish authorities saying something different.
"it’s not unreasonable to target anti-Israel protests at Jews…at least Jews who haven’t disclaimed their connection to Israel and haven’t taken a stand on the war"
What do you Jewish friends say about your attitude?
What do you Jewish friends say about your attitude?
They've all disclaimed their connection to Israel, taken a stand on the war, or both. None of them are doing what the Dean is attempting here, of maintaining an allegiance to Israel while simultaneously claiming to be mystified about why anyone might think he supported Israel.
"maintaining an allegiance to Israel"
Could you cure my shameful ignorance by showing the evidence of the Dean's allegiance to Israel?
Here's one where he believes
it is essential to have a Jewish state.
https://www.thedailynewsonline.com/opinion/commentary-nothing-has-prepared-me-for-the-antisemitism-i-see-on-college-campuses-now/article_996ee614-79bb-11ee-b30a-7b101c2b67f8.htmlI'm sure there are others -- he's not coy about his feelings for Israel.
For context, another quote from the same article:
“I strongly oppose the policies of the Netanyahu government, favor full rights for Palestinians, and believe that there must be a two-state solution.”
That’s “allegiance”? By that logic he would also owe allegiance to the Palestinian state whose existence he supports.
Do your Jewish friends disagree with Chemerinsky’s quote? Do they want a Palestinian state from the river to the sea?
Being critical of your government doesn’t contradict your allegiance. You can pledge allegiance to the United States but still be critical of the policies of the Biden government, which would be identical to what he’s saying there.
Allegiance may be too a strong term in that I don’t mean to suggest any sort of conflict of patriotic interest. Just using it as a synonym for the “connection” or “inherent relationship” that you often hear about between Jews and Israel.
Do your Jewish friends disagree with Chemerinsky’s quote? Do they want a Palestinian state from the river to the sea?
Yes, they agree with Chemerinsky’s quote. No, they don’t want a Palestinian state from the river to the sea… maybe one does, but mainly no. But there’s a lot of space between those two positions. Specifically, Chemerinsky doesn’t say anything in particular about Israel’s execution of the war or treatment of Palestinians. It’s a notable omission given that that’s where all the controversy rests.
I asked what your Jewish friends thought of this: "target anti-Israel protests at...Jews who haven’t disclaimed their connection to Israel and haven’t taken a stand on the war"
It hasn't come up, but given their own difficult journeys over the last few months in choosing between disavowing, criticizing, or embracing Israel, I doubt they have a lot of sympathy for anyone who's trying to avoid saying anything at all about Israel's role in the war by sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting
Antisemite! Antisemite!
That's not the question.
Would they agree with this:
“it’s not unreasonable to target anti-Israel protests at Jews…at least Jews who haven’t disclaimed their connection to Israel and haven’t taken a stand on the war”
Like I said, it hasn't come up, but I think they would agree for the above reasons.