Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the students protesting, screaming at him, calling him a "racist" (WTF??), snapping their fingers, and generally acting like complete aholes, and wonder: what parents would pay a fortune to send their kids to a place like this? What law firms would hire idiots like these?

Exactly. Do these students not know they will work with and for people with a variety of viewpoints?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 5th Circuit is a highly partisan court and this is a highly partisan man. My take on this is that this event was planned and orchestrated to elicit exactly this reaction. This Judge was a member of the Federalist Society when he was nominated to the bench. He was confirmed because he will render the sort of opinions that the Federalist society wants, which are against what the majority of the country wants. It's minority rule over the majority and the majority is well-aware.

I graduated law school in '98 and if this had happened back then I would have been appalled. But 25 years later it's pretty clear what the score is. This is people telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard.

Then they should never have extended an invitation to him if the plan was not to let him speak.

Or stay home if you don’t want to hear him speak and let others listen who are serious about learning (even if it’s learning about “the enemy”). How hard is that?

[Anonymous]

Screaming them down isn’t going to get us where we need to be.
We need to listen and learn…
So we can crush them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain what in the actual hell is going on at these so-called "elite" law schools? After seeing the way students - and now administrators - shut down conservative speakers, I am completely revolted. Especially at institutions that supposedly pride themselves on being "bastions of free speech and open debate." What utter BS. I sincerely hope the attention-seeking, loudmouth dean, Tirien Steinbach, is fired - though I know she won't be. There is no free speech going on here.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/crybullies-at-stanford-law-school-threaten-free-speech/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-wants-stanford-apologize-disrupted-speech-2023-03-11/

Meh. The only guarantee you have is you won’t be imprisoned by the government for your speech. This notion that you are owed a platform or audience for reprehensible viewpoints (which much of what passes as “conservative” these days is) is wild — you aren’t. The world is equally free to reject your speech, ridicule you for it and hold you accountable for hateful things you say and do, which includes being canceled professionally. Natural consequences. It’s not like your speech is valid just because you are free to express it without fear of imprisonment.

Slow clap. Beautiful example of exactly the reprehensible behavior exhibited by Stanford law students - and deans. I have news for you. You don't INVITE someone to come and speak and then treat them like a pariah - without even letting them speak. Get over yourself. And exactly what "hateful" things has this judge said or done?

The people who yelled at him didn’t invite him. Do people with beliefs like these guys truly think that their beliefs aren’t wildly unpopular and unreasoned? The fact that you sucked up to Leonard Leo and got appointed by a reality TV star does not make your viewpoints above reproach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 5th Circuit is a highly partisan court and this is a highly partisan man. My take on this is that this event was planned and orchestrated to elicit exactly this reaction. This Judge was a member of the Federalist Society when he was nominated to the bench. He was confirmed because he will render the sort of opinions that the Federalist society wants, which are against what the majority of the country wants. It's minority rule over the majority and the majority is well-aware.

I graduated law school in '98 and if this had happened back then I would have been appalled. But 25 years later it's pretty clear what the score is. This is people telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard.

Then they should never have extended an invitation to him if the plan was not to let him speak.

Or stay home if you don’t want to hear him speak and let others listen who are serious about learning (even if it’s learning about “the enemy”). How hard is that?

+1
"Crybullies" is the perfect label for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain what in the actual hell is going on at these so-called "elite" law schools? After seeing the way students - and now administrators - shut down conservative speakers, I am completely revolted. Especially at institutions that supposedly pride themselves on being "bastions of free speech and open debate." What utter BS. I sincerely hope the attention-seeking, loudmouth dean, Tirien Steinbach, is fired - though I know she won't be. There is no free speech going on here.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/crybullies-at-stanford-law-school-threaten-free-speech/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-wants-stanford-apologize-disrupted-speech-2023-03-11/

Meh. The only guarantee you have is you won’t be imprisoned by the government for your speech. This notion that you are owed a platform or audience for reprehensible viewpoints (which much of what passes as “conservative” these days is) is wild — you aren’t. The world is equally free to reject your speech, ridicule you for it and hold you accountable for hateful things you say and do, which includes being canceled professionally. Natural consequences. It’s not like your speech is valid just because you are free to express it without fear of imprisonment.

Slow clap. Beautiful example of exactly the reprehensible behavior exhibited by Stanford law students - and deans. I have news for you. You don't INVITE someone to come and speak and then treat them like a pariah - without even letting them speak. Get over yourself. And exactly what "hateful" things has this judge said or done?

The people who yelled at him didn’t invite him. Do people with beliefs like these guys truly think that their beliefs aren’t wildly unpopular and unreasoned? The fact that you sucked up to Leonard Leo and got appointed by a reality TV star does not make your viewpoints above reproach

What on earth are you babbling about? The people who didn't want to hear him speak could have - wait for it - simply not shown up. But then they would have passed up the opportunity they LIVE for, which is emoting on a grand scale, filming it, and posting it online in search of validation and "likes". I'm actually glad it *was* posted online, so the rest of us can see what utter and complete imbeciles they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain what in the actual hell is going on at these so-called "elite" law schools? After seeing the way students - and now administrators - shut down conservative speakers, I am completely revolted. Especially at institutions that supposedly pride themselves on being "bastions of free speech and open debate." What utter BS. I sincerely hope the attention-seeking, loudmouth dean, Tirien Steinbach, is fired - though I know she won't be. There is no free speech going on here.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/crybullies-at-stanford-law-school-threaten-free-speech/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-wants-stanford-apologize-disrupted-speech-2023-03-11/

Meh. The only guarantee you have is you won’t be imprisoned by the government for your speech. This notion that you are owed a platform or audience for reprehensible viewpoints (which much of what passes as “conservative” these days is) is wild — you aren’t. The world is equally free to reject your speech, ridicule you for it and hold you accountable for hateful things you say and do, which includes being canceled professionally. Natural consequences. It’s not like your speech is valid just because you are free to express it without fear of imprisonment.

Slow clap. Beautiful example of exactly the reprehensible behavior exhibited by Stanford law students - and deans. I have news for you. You don't INVITE someone to come and speak and then treat them like a pariah - without even letting them speak. Get over yourself. And exactly what "hateful" things has this judge said or done?

The people who yelled at him didn’t invite him. Do people with beliefs like these guys truly think that their beliefs aren’t wildly unpopular and unreasoned? The fact that you sucked up to Leonard Leo and got appointed by a reality TV star does not make your viewpoints above reproach

What on earth are you babbling about? The people who didn't want to hear him speak could have - wait for it - simply not shown up. But then they would have passed up the opportunity they LIVE for, which is emoting on a grand scale, filming it, and posting it online in search of validation and "likes". I'm actually glad it *was* posted online, so the rest of us can see what utter and complete imbeciles they are.

The right to not show up exists for every protester outside an abortion clinic, and I never hear you civility people on about it.

The students protesting pay tuition. They are allowed to show their displeasure for someone invited to their university and no one has to pander to that judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain what in the actual hell is going on at these so-called "elite" law schools? After seeing the way students - and now administrators - shut down conservative speakers, I am completely revolted. Especially at institutions that supposedly pride themselves on being "bastions of free speech and open debate." What utter BS. I sincerely hope the attention-seeking, loudmouth dean, Tirien Steinbach, is fired - though I know she won't be. There is no free speech going on here.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/crybullies-at-stanford-law-school-threaten-free-speech/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-wants-stanford-apologize-disrupted-speech-2023-03-11/

Meh. The only guarantee you have is you won’t be imprisoned by the government for your speech. This notion that you are owed a platform or audience for reprehensible viewpoints (which much of what passes as “conservative” these days is) is wild — you aren’t. The world is equally free to reject your speech, ridicule you for it and hold you accountable for hateful things you say and do, which includes being canceled professionally. Natural consequences. It’s not like your speech is valid just because you are free to express it without fear of imprisonment.

Slow clap. Beautiful example of exactly the reprehensible behavior exhibited by Stanford law students - and deans. I have news for you. You don't INVITE someone to come and speak and then treat them like a pariah - without even letting them speak. Get over yourself. And exactly what "hateful" things has this judge said or done?

The people who yelled at him didn’t invite him. Do people with beliefs like these guys truly think that their beliefs aren’t wildly unpopular and unreasoned? The fact that you sucked up to Leonard Leo and got appointed by a reality TV star does not make your viewpoints above reproach

What on earth are you babbling about? The people who didn't want to hear him speak could have - wait for it - simply not shown up. But then they would have passed up the opportunity they LIVE for, which is emoting on a grand scale, filming it, and posting it online in search of validation and "likes". I'm actually glad it *was* posted online, so the rest of us can see what utter and complete imbeciles they are.

The right to not show up exists for every protester outside an abortion clinic, and I never hear you civility people on about it.

The students protesting pay tuition. They are allowed to show their displeasure for someone invited to their university and no one has to pander to that judge.

I'm imagining their outrage (and yours) had a liberal speaker shown up only to be shouted down by conservative protesters. You'd probably be calling for their arrests.

[Anonymous]

The judge is a fascist lunatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is a fascist lunatic.

The only fascist lunatics in this situation are the dean who insisted on barreling in and braying for ten minutes before "allowing" the judge to speak, and the students who wouldn't shut up and let him speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 5th Circuit is a highly partisan court and this is a highly partisan man. My take on this is that this event was planned and orchestrated to elicit exactly this reaction. This Judge was a member of the Federalist Society when he was nominated to the bench. He was confirmed because he will render the sort of opinions that the Federalist society wants, which are against what the majority of the country wants. It's minority rule over the majority and the majority is well-aware.

I graduated law school in '98 and if this had happened back then I would have been appalled. But 25 years later it's pretty clear what the score is. This is people telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard.

Then they should never have extended an invitation to him if the plan was not to let him speak.

You've misinterpreted my meaning - The Federalist Society put on this event and brought in a speaker that they knew would elicit the exact reaction it did in order to provide fodder for the right wing outrage machine and then say things like, "We just can't have a conversation." The intent was never to have a conversation. Granted, the folks yelling and protesting always take the bait, which is stupid. But the point of events like this is the cycle of protest and then feigned indignation at the protest.

[Anonymous]

Stanford apologized.

https://law.stanford.edu/documents/letter-of-apology-to-judge-duncan/

[Anonymous]

These students are completely stupid - but they're also misguided when it comes to confronting judges.

I frankly think that Law School FedSoc is a real gift in that they will host conservative judges who will show up on campus and sit through a question/answer period.

The SCOTUS judges (conservative or liberal) will never sit for any substantive interview and only like to show up for 'fireside chats' hosted by their fellow partisans.

Any time a judge will come to campus and answer questions, debate topics is a good thing .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 5th Circuit is a highly partisan court and this is a highly partisan man. My take on this is that this event was planned and orchestrated to elicit exactly this reaction. This Judge was a member of the Federalist Society when he was nominated to the bench. He was confirmed because he will render the sort of opinions that the Federalist society wants, which are against what the majority of the country wants. It's minority rule over the majority and the majority is well-aware.

I graduated law school in '98 and if this had happened back then I would have been appalled. But 25 years later it's pretty clear what the score is. This is people telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard.

Then they should never have extended an invitation to him if the plan was not to let him speak.

You've misinterpreted my meaning - The Federalist Society put on this event and brought in a speaker that they knew would elicit the exact reaction it did in order to provide fodder for the right wing outrage machine and then say things like, "We just can't have a conversation." The intent was never to have a conversation. Granted, the folks yelling and protesting always take the bait, which is stupid. But the point of events like this is the cycle of protest and then feigned indignation at the protest.

Law schools and Fed Soc have always had events like this with speakers like this though. That's not what's changed...