The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Protesters Disrupt Stanford Class
Stanford reports:
On Tuesday afternoon, Feb. 25, several individuals disrupted the Democracy and Disagreement course in Cemex Auditorium to protest a guest speaker, former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, who was there to debate with the economist Emmanuel Saez on the idea of a wealth tax.
The protestors were not Stanford students.
This behavior violates university policy and will not be tolerated. The Department of Public Safety collected information from the disruptors and is referring the information to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. We are taking steps to ban these individuals from our campus, which is private property. We extend the university's apologies both to the speakers and to the students who were in attendance.
The expression of divergent views is welcome and expected in our community, and our policies provide ample opportunities for protest. But the classroom is at the center of the university's educational mission. Disruption in the classroom setting is a fundamental disruption of the university's operations and of the enrolled students' opportunity to learn. Indeed, the Stanford students in the class on Tuesday afternoon vocally demanded that the demonstration stop so that the students could hear the speakers. The Democracy and Disagreement class has successfully hosted eighteen sessions of respectful debate on controversial topics in the last year, and we are encouraged by the fact that a few hundred audience members were present to actually hear the debate and promote the values of civil discourse.
For more on the Democracy and Disagreement course, which I think is generally excellent and admirably balanced, see here. Of course, no class should be disrupted, even if it isn't excellent or balanced, but it's particularly regrettable when a class such as this is targeted.
You can see more coverage of the disruption at the Stanford Review (Dylan Rem).
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
Professor Volokh, did you witness the events?
The hilarious aspect to this is that the class (a debate) was titled, 'Democracy and Disagreement'. Oh, the irony.
It's so idiotic, one wonders if it weren't a deliberate sarcastic setup.
I wasn't there; I heard about it afterwards.
No the hilarious part was the audience (class) chanting back at the protesters "Let him speak."
Just bar them? Oh, scary! I'm sure THAT will deter future offender. [/sarc]
I saw some conduct there that likely could have been leveraged to bring assault charges.
That is all Stanford can do. It said it was referring information to the DA as well. What more do you think they should or even can do given that they weren't students.
What else do you expect them to do, exactly?
Trespass the lot of them. Let them know that until further notice they aren't welcome on campus and that if they trespass again they will go to jail.
Its a bit of PITA paperwork right then and there for the cops, but its something that can be done.
That's exactly what Stanford is doing in what Brett described as "just bar them". Brett thinks that will be ineffective. Mse and Noscitur don't comment on effectiveness but not that there's nothing more that the university can legally do. Any criminal prosecution is the responsibility of the regular police. What exactly are you disagreeing with?
Have Stanford host it but someone else sponsor it who can bring big law against protestors. "THis lecture sponsored by the FBI and all unwrranted protestors will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law" WHY NOT?
The Stanford Review folks seem really optimistic that the DEI era is dying out, based on this incident.
Allow me to be a bit skeptical.
Stanford says it will punish the disruption of a speaker who advocates Clinton-style economics. A speaker who also used to be an Ivy-league president.
And - get this - students who elect to take a course which involves hearing different sides of debates...want to hear different sides of debates.
Yeah, it's truly an historic moment.
Let me know when they permit a prolife or "anti-trans" speaker.
...or a pro-Israel speaker, based on Bored Lawyer's example from another institution.
Letting you know:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/my-debate-with-a-pro-abortion-philosopher-at-stanford
And:
https://loveunleasheslife.com/blog/2016/3/3/a-comprehensive-case-against-abortion
I see that free speech on the subject of abortion seems to have existed at Stanford eight years ago.
Quite reassuring, but I wonder if there are more recent instances?
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country:
https://nypost.com/2025/02/26/us-news/dozens-of-pro-hamas-students-seize-control-of-historic-barnard-college-academic-building/
How about -- "anyone who does not vacate the building within 15 minutes will be arrested, identified and expelled?"
Guess not.
15 minutes my ass - arrest them all for trespass and assault, and also expel any who are students.
Let the judge sort it out.
People who have been following this story know the real absurdity: they've given up on any sort of actual substance of their protests, and their only demands are that protesters not be punished.
That's because it wasn't "protest" as such, let alone civil disobedience. They were just trying to shut up somebody they disagree with, and don't want to be punished for doing it.
This is civil disobedience.
Doesn't mean you don't get consequences.
Honestly our country is super quiet right now, all things considered.
I'd say civil disobedience is justified in extreme cases - e. g., if you're being unconstitutionally Jim Crowed and disenfranchised so that regular political channels are blocked for you.
But in general, the civil-rights LARPers we're seeing today aren't facing extreme circumstances, in the sense of having normal political channels choked off. They simply seem to see lawbreaking as something to which they're entitled. The most they're willing to admit is that they'll pay the legal penalty as a form of permit fee to allow them to break the law. And others are indignant that they're facing any kind of law-enforcement at all, no matter how constitutionally reasonable or even-handed.
"They simply seem to see lawbreaking as something to which they're entitled."
And based on the reaction of these institutions, they seem to be correct. People seeking to study and learn at today's educational instructions need to ask themselves if the juice is worth the squeeze.
You know there’s thousands of colleges/universities in the US don’t you? This kind of thing happens at a small number of them.
re: "This kind of thing happens at a small number of them."
Sadly, the available evidence suggests the opposite. It just doesn't make the national news at more than a small number of them.
No your confirmation bias suggests the opposite.
Any effort in baselining or historical comparisons to the 60s and 70s and you will see it’s real quiet.
Have your undertaken any such effort, or is this just your bias talking?
Of course, I don't need to establish a counterthesis to point out the flaw in someone else's argument.
Though historical comparisons to the 60s and 70s is kind of a layup, no?
You said "Any effort in baselining or historical comparisons to the 60s and 70s and you will see it’s real quiet." That's your claim.
"Though historical comparisons to the 60s and 70s is kind of a layup, no?"
Could be. How should I know? It could just be my bias.
I quite comfortable taking as read that the student protests of the 60's and 70's were broader than today.
If you want to sealion that, go ahead.
Yet you criticize Rossami for "taking as read" the opposite. And you claim that any effort to baseline or make historical comparisons will support your view, but again you make no such effort.
What are you trying to assert?
They are begging for punishment. So punish them
I got no problem with that.
Margrave — That is not quite a pitch-perfect recapitulation of 60s-era objections to the civil rights movement, but it does supply a vivid reminder.
A problem you seem to share with those prior protest opponents is misbalance between highly-regarded legal abstractions, and near-disregard for not only the circumstances of folks you criticize, but also for the extent of agency those folks rightly possess. That points toward choices policy makers may be unwise to consider: either punish protest, or try systematically to strip protestors of agency. Neither choice looks promising. Maybe something else? Maybe more accommodation?
"Doesn't mean you don't get consequences."
In the past you've argued that the consequences should be favorable.
No, it's uncivil disobedience.
1. They weren't behaving civilly. (That's what the "civil" refers to.)
2. While they might be warped enough to think that people they disagree with being heard is unjust, they must have been aware that their sorry asses being hauled off to jail would have been met with a roar of approval, not a public demand that the heckler's veto be legally endorsed.
No, they were doing exactly what they seemed to be doing: Not high minded protest, just silencing somebody they disagreed with.
No that’s not what civil means in civil disobedience! Are you fucking joking?
Civil as in civic.
Civil disobedience isn’t supposed to be nice and ignorable and keep you comfy.
I’m not saying these people had great ends but your objections to the means are maybe the stupidest they could be.
It usually means both
"Indeed, any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one’s act” (Rawls 1999, 321)."
Uncivil or violent activity is often considered outside the scope of civil disobedience. Whether or not this counts as civil disobedience is questionable. But ultimately, it doesn't matter.
"Civil disobedience isn’t supposed to be nice and ignorable and keep you comfy."
Neither are riots. So what?
Civil disobedience is the interest of some cause. This was 2 ECONOMISTS !!!
Economists are perfectly capable of having causes. In this case, the 'cause' was keeping people they disagreed with from being heard.
"Uncivil or violent" Big difference in that scope.
un·civ·il
/ˌənˈsivəl/
adjective
discourteous; impolite.
Seems you're an authoritarian.
Seems you're cool with assault in the cause of censorship.
Yeah, I remember when I wrote or argued against that.
"Seems you're an authoritarian."
How so?
"Civil disobedience isn’t supposed to be nice and ignorable and keep you comfy."
No, it's not supposed to keep the person doing it comfy.
What it's supposed to do is generate sympathy for your cause by prompting the government/authorities to act against you under circumstances where the public will think it is the government in the wrong, not YOU.
To that end, you need to avoid doing anything that the public would think the government properly should act against you for. Which is why you need to act civilly! Why the discomfort needs to be YOURS, not imposed by you on others.
The left has appropriated the term "civil disobedience" to describe its diametrical opposite: Violating a just law, with the aim of imposing pain on others, in the hope that the government will give into your demands to get you to go away. It's a form of extortion, not "protest".
But this wasn't even that. All the dipshits wanted was to keep somebody they disagreed with from being heard, and they acted directly to accomplish that.
They were just common criminals, not 'protesters'.
Yeah, you can ding them for protesting for a bad thing, i.e. against a just law.
But you're making a fundamental error if you think that makes it not civil disobedience. There is no inherent nobility in it; it's just a method.
https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/comix1017_bors_img.jpg
Yes, but it's a method of gaining public sympathy, which requires you to act in a manner people will feel sympathy for.
I repeat: The left has seized the phrase to use to describe its diametrical opposite, because you've gotten fond of causes the public has no sympathy for, so real civil disobedience would be no use.
So you switched to extortion and called it "civil disobedience" to grab some unearned respect for what you were doing.
It's not just about garnering sympathy. It's about attention.
MLK was going for sympathy; that' s not the only style of civil disobedience in America.
Your pinched definition would make campus sit-ins not civil disobedience.
And burning draft cards.
And all the chaining yourself to trees or standing in front of bulldozers.
You also hilariously cut out Thoreau.
you've gotten fond of causes the public has no sympathy for
You are not the public.
"It's not just about garnering sympathy. It's about attention."
Right, negative attention, which is why it's not civil disobedience. It's not about generating sympathy, it's about being so disruptive that the authorities will give you what you want in order to make you go away.
"MLK was going for sympathy; that' s not the only style of civil disobedience in America."
It's not the only thing that's called civil disobedience in America, because people practicing the exact opposite of civil disobedience persist in pretending that's what they're engaged in.
Look, language ceases to be useful if you take existing definitions of words, and expand them to cover concepts which are in key respects diametrically opposed to the original meaning.
"Civil disobedience" is a perfectly good phrase, but it simply doesn't cover most of what the left does in the way of protests!
And this is not shocking. Civil disobedience is useful for the low hanging fruit: For subjects where the law is out of synch with public opinion, and all you really need to do is draw the public's attention to that fact.
But in modern America the low hanging fruit have mostly been picked, and where they haven't been, it's not the fruit the LEFT wants to pick. So civil disobedience simply doesn't have much utility for the left anymore.
But it DOES have a deservedly good reputation, and as David Burge once said,
"1. Target a respected institution
2. Kill & clean it
3. Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect"
The left is wearing civil disobedience as a skin suit, and demanding respect.
You would read Thoreau out of civil disobedience.
That's stupid.
You don't get your own words.
You're going to have to show me where Thoreau advocated violating just laws in order to garner attention for a cause. You think he would have employed the heckler's veto, or blocked traffic, or thrown tomato soup on a famous painting just to get some attention? Maybe vandalized a monument or two if he had the time?
The point is that he wasn't in it for sympathy, which was your thesis.
And now here come the rolling goalposts.
"But you're making a fundamental error if you think that makes it not civil disobedience."
Oh ffs. Civil disobedience if a broad concept, defined differently by different sources. This would be civil disobedience under some definitions, not so much under others.
The questions is, what's your point? What difference does it make if it is or isn't civil disobedience?
Bellmore — No point pretending this is not a hard problem. The 60s taught that at the margins, there can be an ugly symmetry of silencing. What you persistently overlook is that the style of enforcement you demand is also . . . silencing people you disagree with.
Around the outset of the Vietnam War controversy, circa 1964, universities around the nation routinely opened speaking opportunities to outsiders who were also war promoters. At the best universities, the war-promoter speakers were often among the highest-ranking administration officials—people actually running the war. That way of managing the discourse was regarded by university administrators as wise, patriotic, and an outstanding learning opportunity for undergraduates.
On the other hand, would-be speakers who opposed the war were frequently barred access to campus venues. They of course were unpatriotic, unwise, and dangerously apt to mislead undergraduates.
What ensued became hard-fought, painful history. But war-opponent speakers did prevail, at least to the extent that in many places they were no longer barred from speaking.
The way anti-war speakers accomplished that had a lot to do with what you think of as hecklers' vetoes. The heckling got so intense, persistent, and sometimes violent, that war-promoters began to reassess the question whether university speaking was an opportunity, or a political mistake. The more forceful the attempts to shut down the protests, the more political the mistakes began to look.
Maybe that lesson has to be learned again from scratch. If so, the waste of previous experience will be a shame. But I expect it will come out about the same if the process is repeated.
More generally, a problem with attempting to bar protests against persistent evils is that motivation to protest persists as long as people aggrieved feel evil is being done to them. Their opponents seem often to suppose that grievances are transient, and suppression will keep the lid on until trouble blows over. Your advocacy reminds me of instances of that tendency from long ago.
Problem is, for that to work, the grievances have actually to be transient, and the judgment whether they are, or not, belongs to the aggrieved. That means the keep-the-lid-on tactic is a high stakes gamble. If use of it is misjudged, it only prolongs crisis. Prolonged crisis with building pressure under the lid points toward upheavals notably worse than before.
I will never forget the bewilderment with which baffled policy makers responded to mass arson in Washington, DC, following the King assassination. "They are crazy," said the policy makers, "they are burning down their own homes." The policy making problem was, at that point, that what was happening could neither be suppressed, nor tolerated, so, for the first time, it had to be responded to substantively.
It isn't in any sense civil disobedience. BLM leaders were paid off, bought very expensive houses, hired protesters. RICO time
More and more just delusional randos around here.
Just another Nieporentism.
Secret $6 million home has allies and critics skeptical of BLM foundation's finances
RICO, Brett. The guy thinks it's RICO time.
Don't defend crazy people just because they're coming in on your side.
Though I suppose you may even buy into the RICO thing.
Yeah, classic Nieporentism: Flatly deny something with easily available proof, and then when confronted with the proof, flatly deny it again.
The founders of BLM made out like bandits.
Your story does not support the much broader proposition I objected to.
You often have this issue - jumping from single example to vast conspiracy.
Do you think there's a RICO case here?
disrupted the Democracy and Disagreement course
Not the type of "disagreement" intended.