|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A prominent public interest lawyer and the chairs of two U.S. House of Representatives committees are filing complaints with the State Bar of California and the American Bar Association against Stanford Law School as well as of its numerous students. The complaints come after students disrupted a March 9 lecture by a visiting conservative judge who has taken controversial stances against transgender people. Stanford refused to discipline the students, leading to accusations that the law school violated the Bar’s accreditation rules.
The two separate complaints, filed by George Washington University emeritus law professor John F. Banzhaf III and two Republican committee chairs, are highlighting concerns over the behaviors of students at the nation’s law schools. Students and some faculty have increasingly disrupted the free speech of lecturers with whom they disagree.
The student Federalist Society at the law school invited U.S. Court of Appeal Judge Kyle Duncan, a Fifth Circuit federal judge covering Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, to lecture in March on “Guns, COVID, and Twitter,” according to The Stanford Daily.
Duncan, who was appointed under former President Donald Trump, has come under fire for his defense of policies that discriminate against the rights of transgender persons, minorities and others. On the bench, in January 2020, he refused to use a transgender litigant’s preferred pronouns and wouldn’t grant her request to change her name on court documents, according to multiple news reports. Duncan was also the lead attorney in the 2021 case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which prevented transgender students from using their choice of restrooms at state institutions.
Ahead of Duncan’s talk, Stanford law school students put up flyers condemning the judge for what they said is the support of laws that would harm women, LGBTQ people and immigrants, the Daily noted.
On March 9, an estimated 100 students arrived with posters and heckled Duncan, who had entered the classroom recording the demonstrators with his cellphone camera, according to the Daily.
Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling.
Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.
“For many of us in this law school who work here and study here and live here, your advocacy, your opinions from the bench land as absolute disenfranchisement of their rights … I’m uncomfortable to say that for many people here your work has caused harm,” she said.
Duncan eventually stopped his lecture.
In a letter dated March 31, Republicans Virginia Foxx, chair of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Burgess Owens, chair Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, wrote to the American Bar Association (ABA) that the the law school might have violated various ABA standards and rules of procedure, which require a law school to have an established and announced policy regarding academic freedom and tenure. They further accused Stanford Law of violating accreditation rules.
The committee leaders’ letter said the law school didn’t protect Duncan’s right to free speech although it knew and had warned him that demonstrations were likely. The university in a March 22 letter to the law school community also acknowledged that staff at the event didn’t enforce the university’s policies and instead “intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”
Stanford Law has a handbook for its faculty that spells out its policy regarding freedom of speech and states that viewpoints should be free from internal and external coercion. But, the committee chairs argue, the law school is out of compliance with the ABA rule because it didn’t follow its policy and Duncan was denied carrying out the central function of teaching and scholarship, which he was invited to perform.
“In no sense can it be said that Stanford Law School, its administrators, or students promoted ‘an atmosphere in which freedom of inquiry, expression, publication and peaceable assembly … were given the fullest or any protection,'” the committee leaders wrote, quoting from the law school’s policy.
Stanford Law School didn’t respond to requests from this news organization for comment.
However, in a March 22 letter to the law school’s community, Jenny Martinez, the law school’s dean, wrote: “Some students might feel that some points should not be up for argument and therefore that they should not bear the responsibility of arguing them (or even hearing arguments about them), but however appealing that position might be in some other context, it is incompatible with the training that must be delivered in a law school.
“Law students are entering a profession in which their job is to make arguments on behalf of clients whose very lives may depend on their professional skill. Just as doctors in training must learn to face suffering and death and respond in their professional role, lawyers in training must learn to confront injustice or views they don’t agree with and respond as attorneys,” Martinez wrote.
Martinez said the school was adopting clearer protocols for managing disruptions and for educational programming on free speech and norms of the legal profession. Associate Dean Steinbach was placed on leave for her role during the protest. The law school is giving staff additional training regarding their roles in ensuring that university rules on disruption at events are followed, Martinez said.
Stanford will also institute a mandatory half-day session in the spring quarter for all students on freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession rather than referring specific students for disciplinary sanction.
Complaint: Law school’s response insufficient
But Banzhaf, the George Washington University emeritus professor and an ardent defender of the public interest, said Stanford Law didn’t go far enough in its response to the March 9 incident. He is filing a character and fitness complaint with the State Bar of California against the particular students involved in the Duncan incident because Stanford hadn’t taken steps to discipline the offending students.
“We are taught that we should believe in the rule of law. There are many things in the world, in society in the United States, in the law that I disagree with, but I don’t think that the way to deal with them is to physically attack people, blow up their home, send them threats, and do all the other things that (some) people are thinking,” Banzhaf said In an interview with this news organization.
“And as a number of people said, if they go out of law school with these ideas that this is OK and proper, it could be incredibly dangerous because the kids from Stanford and Yale are going to wind up in these top positions. Many of them will be members of Congress, senators and in the House of Representatives. Many will be state legislators. They will be governors. They will be judges. They will head large corporations. They will head universities,” he said.
“I think it’s very important that the (students) understand what the law is. If you don’t like a law, if you don’t like what a judge has written, then the answer is to fight back using the law — use your unique legal skills.”
Banzhaf has used those skills to win many precedent-setting cases. A longtime public interest attorney known for his successful battles against Big Tobacco, his legal work resulted in restricting cigarette advertising and creating nonsmoker’s rights, which became a ban on smoking in airplanes.
He also took on former presidents Richard M. Nixon and Donald Trump. In the 1970s, he filed a court motion for the federal government to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the White House’s role in Watergate. A judge denied the petition, but it set a precedent for future special prosecutors.
More recently, he filed a complaint with Georgia election officials that led to the investigation of Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find more than 11,000 votes to shift the 2020 presidential election in Trump’s favor.
So Banzhaf isn’t against law students’ activism; in fact, in the 1960’s he created the term “legal activism.” Traditional lawyering involves taking on cases for a client and addressing the client’s particular needs and solving the legal problem as best as one can, he said. But legal activism encompasses an additional purpose of the law: It uses the law “as a powerful, largely untried, untested, tool or weapon to change, to prove the public interest and to change the world,” he said.
Today, there are legal-action organizations representing all different perspectives, from liberal to libertarian and conservative.
“They use their talents to bring legal actions to do what they think will best benefit the public interest. And it’s something I’m all in favor of,” he said.
But what Banzhaf saw at Stanford, Yale and other law schools is “misdirected activism,” he said.
“In my judgment, what they should do if they don’t like (a decision), which was adopted by a judge, is to go out and use their unique legal skills to try to change it. Because as a practical matter, anybody can march in the streets. Anybody can yell and scream and shout down a speaker. Anybody can waive banners and so on and so forth. But only law students as a practical matter can go out and change the world,” he said.
The actions by the Stanford students were also lawless by violating First Amendment rights, he said. And by not disciplining the students involved, Stanford sent the message that rules aren’t going to be enforced.
“I strongly disagree, and many, many others disagree with their decision that there should be no punishment, no discipline at all, for the people who they know did it because they have videotape; some of the names are posted on the internet. Because that sends exactly the wrong message,” he said.
Banzhaf doesn’t think that Stanford Law School will lose its accreditation. But the impact of not disciplining the students “is going to hang like a cloud over the head of Stanford for some time,” he said.
Some federal judges have said they won’t hire clerks from Stanford Law School — a similar fate they meted out for Yale law students who also allegedly violated free-speech rights during protests. It’s not clear if the judges are following through on their threat, however.
Banzhaf said students might be a little concerned that attending one of these schools might bar them from a clerkship.
The threat of losing accreditation could also harm law schools’ abilities to attract students.
“If there’s an evidentiary hearing (for de-accreditation), a lot of what I think are embarrassing facts will come out,” he said. “I might think a little bit more carefully about going to either one of those schools.”
Fundamentally, Banzhaf said, he is concerned about the current trend of law students trying to drown out opposing views.
“Law can be used to make for a better society. It is a tool. In some ways, it’s the great equalizer. There’s no better example than as a 27-year-old graduate … I write a three-page letter to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and we get hundreds of millions of dollars of anti-smoking messages and drive cigarette commercials off the air,” he said.
“I can be as powerful with my little pen as somebody with a big voice and a lot of money and a lot of lobbying clout and everything else. It really bothers me when people think the way to deal with things is to rip down people’s signs, block them from coming into a door, shouting them down as they get in and physically attack them. I worry about the future of law schools,” he said.
This item is receiving much buzz in alternative communications (let’s just say, higher up than forums and twitter) and could have severe fallout for Stanford Law School. As they say, “it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.” As for the “Stanford sent the message that rules aren’t going to be enforced” piece, that’s SOP. This reminds me of the “Spy vs. Spy” comics of yore. BTW, the casebook is a free download on the wayback machine. https://archive.org/details/SpyVsSpyTheCompleteCasebook Not the Stanford casebook. The Spy vs Spy casebook.
It used to be that University was a place to discover your own opinions by hearing various different points of view and discussion and debate. Do we really want to go to a University to only hear things with which we agree, rather than expand our mind to well thought out alternative viewpoints? If this is the case, then why bother going to University at all, instead, do an online question and answer course and put no thought into your education whatsoever.
This event, plus the dreadful way in which swimmer Riley Gaines was treated at SFSU, means that our colleges are no longer safe spaces as a mob mentality seems to be in charge, rather than law and order.
@Bystander, at another venue there’s an article about a particular student who made many life sacrifices to strive to be accepted and attend Stanford University. It’s a badge of honor to attend. And to get a degree that a former student should wear the badge proudly. But the student policies and rules are unfairly enforced. So that one student, who was good friends with another student who committed suicide because she was threatened to be knocked off a well-earned pedestal due to the minorest of infractions, had a similar incident that is now threatening his future studies at Stanford. They have a way of choosing those who they, for whatever reason, seem to want to break their spirit. And now they’ve got this other larger situation where Stanford really needs to look at their policies and how they apply them.
Thank you Sue Dremann for this reporting. It’s good to read that someone is finally standing up for thoughtful discourse and due process. Perhaps in a few decades someone can chronicle this in a documentary entitled “Attack of the killer snowflakes” 🙂
Based on a recent Slate article, the judge refused to continue his speech after things finally calmed down. He instead went right into QnA to further instigate the angry students. He was looking for a fight and “anti-woke” publicity. He obviously got what he was looking for.
Here’s a link to the Slate article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html
@MyFeelz — you sure have a lot to say about almost every topic that’s posted on paloaltoonline. What do you do — sit at your desk all day long and write opinions about things you have nothing to do with? Ever tried to edit your thoughts or just keep them in your head? Not everyone needs to read everything you think. Your handle is @MyFeelz — why not keep those feelz to yourself more often? You lose credibility when you have something to say (dare I say criticize) about literally everything.
Just remember this: “society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance”
Punch all nazis!
This is an interesting one. In these days of acute polarization, this is a rare instance where – at least it seems from my read of the event from reports from both sides of the aisle – most agree that a) the judge has some highly controversial rulings but also b) Stanford Law and the students in question bungled this one badly. It’s refreshing to see people siding with the acceptance that there’s opinions out there that may be highly unpalatable, but those need to be combated with intellect.
Let’s remember that Peter Thiel of Palantir fame was the keynote speaker at that conference and that they intentionally brought in some of the most controversial speakers possible at a time when our democracy is so much at risk and when they’re banning books, closing libraries etc. WHILE complaining loudly about the “cancel culture” when others dare to object.
Maybe the media could take a balanced approach to the issue. Maybe they could address the book banning and forcing libraries to close?
I do love how Florence, Italy, invited the fired educator to Florence after getting fired for showing photos of The David during art education class, making that school a global laughing stock. Not that they care.
@Online Who exactly is “they”? Being so nonspecific just raises the temp without actually cooking anything.
Sorry. “They” refers to the folks who organized the conference Thiel keynoted and at which the “visiting conservative judge” was invited to speak.
How about asking questions during Q & A time after the judge’s speech?
We are lectured that Stanford students are bright, so compose bright questions. Shouting people down is childish and embarrassing. These protesters don’t come across to me as bright – or mature. Sheesh.
Did I read this right? TLDR: We are strongly in favor of unrestricted free speech. That’s why we’re investigating these students exercising their right to demonstrate.
“Free speech absolutism” (as a certain famous person called it) is not a philosophically coherent position. One exercise of expression inevitably crowds out another. If Stanford is providing a platform, they have some discretion in who they invite, and also have some discretion about the action they choose to take (or not) towards those who disrupt it.
It is absurd for a house committee to take a stand on which form of expression they would prefer to protect on Stanford’s campus, and it (should but doesn’t) amaze me that they can do so with a straight face.
Much like some comments here, the whole presentation was a big “alt-right” troll on the part of the complainants. It plugs into the strategy that “all speech is the same” when it comes to “protected speech,” dovetailing with “free speech equals you have to listen to me” confusion that fascist interests are leaning on, now, to dupe simple people, and people incapable of clear, detailed thinking.
Fascist interests are not the same as egalitarian interests, even when they use fake egalitarian rhetoric and bogus positions to forward their “me and people like me, only” agendas. “Free speech” protects both the right of the speaker and the right of objectors to speak any position without fear of being imprisoned or prosecuted for political opinions. It doesn’t mean anybody has to listen to or agree with you, or that opposing views are equal other than legally, before law enforcement (other than under issues like “obscenity,” incitement to riot, etc.).
It was the obligation of the students to object, because the law ensures the trolling judge’s right to speak. That isn’t even legally assured, because the university is a private institution, not a “public square,” formally speaking. That’s the kind of crucial formal distinction dupes are not understanding, lately, popularly.
The whole thing was and is a big troll, aimed at making stupid people even more stupid, so that their simplemindedness can be better exploited by malevolent interests.
Long overdue in colleges and universities across the country. The only way to end this discrimination and wake them up is to file law suits against all that violate the First Amendment right to free speech, which they will surely win.
As I see it, the thing about free speech is that people should be allowed to present their point of view but that doesn’t mean others should shout them down, or shout louder to drown them out. As someone above said, asking questions or perhaps having alternate view speakers is a better way to do it.
In my school we had debating societies in which we often had to speak giving the opposing view to our own position. It was a thoroughly good exercise in seeing the pros and cons in any argument. Speaking for the motion, or against the motion, meant that at times we could see that most topics are not obviously one thing or the other. There are always points that can make sense on both sides of the argument and a good speaker will cover those before summing up the evidence weighted on the side the speaker is promoting.
In this world, very little is black and white, there are always many shades of gray and hearing all points of view can be thought provoking. That is called being educated as opposed to indoctrinated. Being taught how to think rather than what to think is what society needs.
@d. erp.
Calling people with views different from your own “stupid”, “dupes” and “fascists” is of course allowed, but empirically not effective and not “clear, detailed thinking.” Perhaps that’s why the “shout them down” students aren’t receiving much support?
Members of my family on both sides have been involved with Stanford in aome capacity – from teaching to management and fund raising. They would be shocked that somehow the U has allowed such rotten group activity in of all places a law school event.
SU’s capacity to raise funds is now at risk. Make no assunptions that everyone that ever went to SU lives in Palo ALto or Northern CA and cowtows to the progressive far left of the of party. People not only vote with their feet but they also donate with their sense of family with their schools. That has been broken now.
The man was INVITED to speak to law students at Stanford. He was not just walking down the street and decided to go into a building to speak.
The failure of the most senior leadership at Stanford to take a strong stand against the unruly mob like behavior places both the students involved and the University administration in the same league as those that invaded our capitol on January 6th. We all have the freedom in our country to free expression. When some extend this freedom to preventing others to exercise that opportunity of free expression they have violated that most sacred of the rights we believe in. The students involved can almost be excused perhaps on the basis of being too young and naive to as yet understand how to carry on a meaningful dialogue. However, one would reasonably expect better from those that have already received an undergraduate degree. As for the members of the Stanford Administration, the tacit acceptance of the students’ behaviors with little or no corrective action clearly demonstrates their desire to use the university as a platform in support of only those opinions that conform to their own views. This is a very sad state of affairs because it demotes the university to simply one more source of closed-minded monologue in direct contrast to what a university should be. As a member of the Stanford class behavior of ’65 I recall that misbehaviors were punished with “Con Home” hours, which when used, persuaded those that stepped too far beyond the limits of acceptable social behavior to give more thought to what it meant to be given the gift of learning at a once great university.
When was the last time a liberal/leftist/progressive speaker was shouted down at Stanford or any other university/college, public or private? I can’t recall anything like this in recent memory or if ever. One only needs to visit YouTube and look at conservative speakers being disrespected, yelled and screamed at or worse.
What’s even more interesting is that when these spoiled and privileged youth are asked specific questions about their positions on the topics being presented, read from prepared notes while looking down at their phones held in hand trying to sound intelligent, unable to articulate an original thought. It’s sadly laughable.
This is what our future looks like as more and more of these self important 20 somethings eventually find a place in the work force or worse yet politics. When and until a crackdown on free speech violation in public and private universities occurs and administrations are held accountable for this type of despicable behavior will we see some civility restored to events like these.
Also laughable is how some of the commenters above seem to think that conservative speech doesn’t meet the standards of free speech and somehow is fascist or a threat to democracy. Wow. Just wow.
@WhatWillTheyDoNext … re: “The only way to end this discrimination and wake them up is to file law suits against all that violate the First Amendment right to free speech, which they will surely win.” Any good lawyer (and I guess that would pertain to aspiring lawyers) learns to do battle by citation. For every precedent a Plaintiff can cite, there is an opposing precedent by which the Defendant can argue to turn the Plaintiff’s case upside down and inside out. It takes years to sort it out whether by bench or jury and then here come the appeals. Years more, attempts at reversing a decision. Sometimes I think (no, I’m pretty sure) Judges and juries get bored to the teeth with a case and play rock, scissors, paper in the Judge’s chamber or jury room when deciding who is less wrong. Justice is not swift, and often decided by 12 hungry tired people who just want their lives back. But what do I know…. nothing, according to the prevailing sentiment. I’m not a lawyer. And glad of it. This country is spanking brand new, and thought we built a better mousetrap. Here’s proof, it didn’t happen that way. What’s UC Berkeley got that Stanford ain’t got? Organized student activism. Why isn’t Congress going after THEM? Hmmm.
@ MyFeelz … I’m not a lawyer either but the article does say that “two separate complaints, filed by George Washington University emeritus law professor John F. Banzhaf III and two Republican committee chairs, are highlighting concerns over the behaviors of students at the nation’s law schools.” I don’t believe Stanford is being singled out.
@mondoman No, you’re wrong. The reason you feel vindicated by comments is that for the most part reactionary types – especially here, in this region – are motivated to overcomment and try to dominate online spaces via volume (the appearance of majority). You’re not in the majority. You’re in the liminal space of unreasonable people who need to misrepresent in order to vindicate themselves, because your views are anathema to sane people. You like to see gaslighting (the judge episode was gaslighting, i.e. the aggressors, the group bringing the judge forward trying to position themselves as victims, knowing what would happen) because that is normal for reactionary types these days.
@d.erp. IMO, what you refer to as “reactionary types,” are motivated to comment on forums like this is to have a voice due to a lack of representation in the media locally and nationally, not vindication. Hence, more comments on this specific topic are favorable toward civility and respect to others whose views are different from theirs rather than supportive of despicable behavior and incivility toward speakers whose ideas you disagree with which apparently you are. Referring to this group as unreasonable, and implying they lack sanity (and dupes, stupid and fascist in you previous comment) is typical of the liberal /progressive, anti-conservative name calling narrative. I think you’re wrong … but I don’t believe you can see yourself as anything other than right. BTW, when was the last time you saw a group of conservative students shout down an invited guest speaker who had a liberal point of view? And when was the last time you saw an administrator get involved in the fracas?
Vile right wing exploitation of the first amendment, just like right wing exploitation of the second amendment, is a fascist tactic. Fascists — like the Heritage Foundation– work to lay waste to democratic institutions and hard-fought freedoms in order to take power. Fascists should not be sponsored in institutions, and the students who stand against fascism should be applauded for their clarity. I want to thank d. erp. for being clear, so I’m reposting in full.
From d. erp. : Much like some comments here, the whole presentation was a big “alt-right” troll on the part of the complainants. It plugs into the strategy that “all speech is the same” when it comes to “protected speech,” dovetailing with “free speech equals you have to listen to me” confusion that fascist interests are leaning on, now, to dupe simple people, and people incapable of clear, detailed thinking.
Fascist interests are not the same as egalitarian interests, even when they use fake egalitarian rhetoric and bogus positions to forward their “me and people like me, only” agendas. “Free speech” protects both the right of the speaker and the right of objectors to speak any position without fear of being imprisoned or prosecuted for political opinions. It doesn’t mean anybody has to listen to or agree with you, or that opposing views are equal other than legally, before law enforcement (other than under issues like “obscenity,” incitement to riot, etc.).
It was the obligation of the students to object, because the law ensures the trolling judge’s right to speak. That isn’t even legally assured, because the university is a private institution, not a “public square,” formally speaking. That’s the kind of crucial formal distinction dupes are not understanding, lately, popularly.
The whole thing was and is a big troll, aimed at making stupid people even more stupid, so that their simplemindedness can be better exploited by malevolent interests.
@Cheryl
Did you perhaps mean the Federalist Society (student affiliate of which sponsored the talk) rather than the Heritage Foundation? It can be tricky to tell those fascists apart 🙂
I would have thought that shouting down an invited speaker to prevent others from hearing them was a fascistic tactic, intended “… to lay waste to democratic institutions and hard-fought freedoms in order to take power,” but perhaps I am missing something.
A recent opinion piece by Joe Matthews – SFC and BAN reported on the growing influnce and populatity of the UC San Diego and San Diego State Schools. In that opinion piece he pointed out that the UC Berkley school is ungovernable, as is Berkley. UCLA has pulled out of the regular sports franchises. SU is overpriced for what you get. That was a hit piece by a paid Opinion writer for the CA State in total. Have to agree.
Check your schools out for the degree of “out of control” contention in the overall systems. Include in that evaluation how much living space is available for the students. Above all check out the overall city that the students will live in. San Diego has a trolly system that takes the kids around the school and into the downtown city.
I am laughing at the comments by Cheryl – sounds like a cartoon with someone pulling their hair out. She must send all of her hours on MSNBC. So threatened by the progressive agenda being challenged.
The level of total incomprehension of some of the right wing phony victimization posts here underlines exactly the level of insult that the event itself, and fake victim postures following, visit on us all.
Stanford law students all know that “the issue of free speech” as far as protected rights has nothing to do with anything that happened to the judge. “Free Speech” rights protect the right to speak politically without being legally persecuted by the state. They do not mean that anybody has to listen to you, or that others lack the right to speak back to you (or over you). The special interest group that scheduled the right winger judge was giving him, literally, a bullhorn (an amplification system) in a controlled space, mediated to his benefit. That was their goal. His right to speak without being prosecuted is protected. His right to a platform isn’t. His right to not be interrupted or to convince anybody isn’t. And the students’ right to speak and protest is protected as well.
Stanford law students are specifically at the university to avoid being legally and rationally incompetent, as they would be if they did not understand all that. The presentation of the judge is an insult to their legal and philosophical fluency, as is the majority of irrational right wing fake reaction and phony victimhood.
They would be incompetent students if they didn’t know better than many of the posters devoted to airing out their imaginary victimhood, here.
@WWTDN, the biggest interview-ee in the article says, “If there’s an evidentiary hearing (for de-accreditation), a lot of what I think are embarrassing facts will come out,” he said. “I might think a little bit more carefully about going to either one of those schools.” Seems to me, “either one of those schools” does in fact single at least one school out. “Either one” generally means choose one or the other. The action that is playing out, which seems to single out at least Stanford and Yale, doesn’t refer to all of the law schools in the country. I’d like to know what kind of first hand embarrassing facts the accuser is keeping from the public he claims to serve. But, meh.
As for the quote, “There are many things in the world, in society in the United States, in the law that I disagree with, but I don’t think that the way to deal with them is to physically attack people, blow up their home, send them threats, and do all the other things that (some) people are thinking,” — that’s a whole lotta accusations that, if proven against Stanford, would be damning. But if it’s not, it’s slander when he said it, and libel when it was printed.
Let’s see if we can find anything that suggests he means all law schools nationwide or Stanford and Yale. How about this? “And as a number of people said, if they go out of law school with these ideas that this is OK and proper, it could be incredibly dangerous because the kids from Stanford and Yale are going to wind up in these top positions. “
Yup, he did.
“Fascist interests”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
So many of us in Palo Alto have degrees and career connections to the University and many, like myself have remained in touch over decades. The disgraceful reception of a Federal Judge at a law school hurt everyone. It will hurt for a long time and will keep us all wondering what has happened to the school. More importantly, what has happened to the students and to the adults in the room who allowed it to happen. Now, after time enough, we are left to wonder why the Law school, the University officials and the board did not act more decisively. The diversity Dean should have been fired and the offending students disciplined.
A great lawyer would be able to argue a point with civility and clever eloquence. Hmm.
Debating conflicting points of view is part of democratic process. It requires us to listen to each other and to discuss/argue with civility and FACTS.
Shouting people down is lazy and not helpful toward persuading anyone toward a point of view. It just moves them toward a stubborn, angry offense and makes the shouter look bad. A better approach would have been to frame civil questions and arguments. A first-class law school should insist on that. Maybe this should be a discussion at law school? The art of civil conversation really should have been taught at the dinner table, but who eats together any more?