Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a good look.

Exactly. The person wanting the court to use different pronouns is a convicted sex offender.
Varner plead guilty in 2012 to attempted receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Varner earlier was convicted on a state charge of possession of child pornography and failure to register as a sex offender. So you can change your identity if you are a registered sex offender?

There are plenty of sympathetic cases like the transgender student who wanted to run cross country for her school team as a 6th grader. West Virginia v. B.P.J. asks the Supreme Court to address whether any government discrimination against transgender people is inherently suspect under the Constitution, and thus must be subject to “heightened scrutiny” by the courts. I think most people (at least I would hope) aren’t opposing to 6th graders running cross country on whatever team. But because if the outburst from the Stanford students, conservative Supreme Court judges might be influenced on this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a good look.

JFC. This about sums up these people and their completely unhinged mentalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+ 1 million

The video I watched concluded with him being able to speak. Why didn’t he speak?

Gosh, I don't know! Why on earth wasn't he able to speak?! Idiot gaslighter.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny to me that people are defending this student conduct.

Back in the 90’s when I was at university, this student conduct would have been unthinkable.

I did not grow up in America so I do not know what was acceptable in 90’s, but always thought Stanford accepted the smartest and brightest people in the country. Now seeing this video made me realize I could actually have a shot to be a Stanford student. I am a hot tempered, very opinionated, sometimes call people names just to win an argument and raise my voice often. My English sucks but I check all the right boxes the universities are looking for.

It's just the law schools not accepting the best and brightest. Almost all of legal academia teaches critical race theory in their classes so it shouldn't be shocking to see the students engaged in extreme behavior.

DP. Except that it IS shocking. These morons are going to be future lawyers and judges, god help us all. There is absolutely no excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny to me that people are defending this student conduct.

Back in the 90’s when I was at university, this student conduct would have been unthinkable.

I did not grow up in America so I do not know what was acceptable in 90’s, but always thought Stanford accepted the smartest and brightest people in the country. Now seeing this video made me realize I could actually have a shot to be a Stanford student. I am a hot tempered, very opinionated, sometimes call people names just to win an argument and raise my voice often. My English sucks but I check all the right boxes the universities are looking for.

It's just the law schools not accepting the best and brightest. Almost all of legal academia teaches critical race theory in their classes so it shouldn't be shocking to see the students engaged in extreme behavior.

Yikes! Conservatives are always the victims.

At least they aren’t the ones protesting for pedophiles. That’s a new low.

Minor-Attracted People*

Of all the insane things I’m asked to believe and accept these days, the attempted rebranding of pedophilia has got to be the worst.

They tried it in the 70s with NAMBLA and all that. There was pushback and they laid low for a long time. Now they are back.

Yes. It is vile. They are back and trying to re-brand themselves as just another sexual identity. 🤮🤮🤮

In any event, not a great look for Stanford Law students to be trashing their school and screaming at federal judges in defense of a pedophile’s pronouns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dean was an absolute embarrassment and a bigger snowflake than the students.

He behaved as anyone would, having been invited to give a speech and then harassed, shouted at, heckled, mocked, and lectured. I'm surprised he didn't just walk out, as most people would have. He stayed and tried to give the speech he had been INVITED to give, but the moronic students continued to shout over him. Anyone defending them is a huge embarrassment to the concept of free speech and basic common courtesy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now these privileged "law" students thought it was okay to trash the Dean's office. They should be expelled.

I do love that they turned on her. No one is safe with this group unless you do their bidding. That, my friends, is the very definition of tyranny.

+1
Reminds me of the BLM protesters who targeted the Seattle mayor's house - after she stupidly defended them. These people eat their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now these privileged "law" students thought it was okay to trash the Dean's office. They should be expelled.

They trashed her office? Where did you read that?

DP.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11861201/Stanford-law-school-students-line-halls-dressed-black-masks-Judge-Kyle-Duncan-row-rumbles-on.html

“Vandalism”
In this case, neatly typed papers, taped in an orderly fashion to the board.
Sure. Vandalism.

Would you be okay with that many students entering your office and putting all of that unwanted paper trash in your personal space and then forming a line and staring as you walked down the hall? I'm betting not. These students clearly don't recognize boundaries other than their own. They think only their own beliefs matter.

Exactly. I so wish these aholes would be expelled. I don't recall seeing this much arrogance on display, ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dean was an absolute embarrassment and a bigger snowflake than the students.

He behaved as anyone would, having been invited to give a speech and then harassed, shouted at, heckled, mocked, and lectured. I'm surprised he didn't just walk out, as most people would have. He stayed and tried to give the speech he had been INVITED to give, but the moronic students continued to shout over him. Anyone defending them is a huge embarrassment to the concept of free speech and basic common courtesy.

PP here - so sorry, I misread your post and thought you were saying the judge instead of the dean. My apologies. I agree with you completely, though I think the students were equal to the dean in the snowflake dept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny to me that people are defending this student conduct.

Back in the 90’s when I was at university, this student conduct would have been unthinkable.

I did not grow up in America so I do not know what was acceptable in 90’s, but always thought Stanford accepted the smartest and brightest people in the country. Now seeing this video made me realize I could actually have a shot to be a Stanford student. I am a hot tempered, very opinionated, sometimes call people names just to win an argument and raise my voice often. My English sucks but I check all the right boxes the universities are looking for.

It's just the law schools not accepting the best and brightest. Almost all of legal academia teaches critical race theory in their classes so it shouldn't be shocking to see the students engaged in extreme behavior.

Yikes! Conservatives are always the victims.

At least they aren’t the ones protesting for pedophiles. That’s a new low.

Minor-Attracted People*

Of all the insane things I’m asked to believe and accept these days, the attempted rebranding of pedophilia has got to be the worst.

They tried it in the 70s with NAMBLA and all that. There was pushback and they laid low for a long time. Now they are back.

Yes. It is vile. They are back and trying to re-brand themselves as just another sexual identity. 🤮🤮🤮

In any event, not a great look for Stanford Law students to be trashing their school and screaming at federal judges in defense of a pedophile’s pronouns.

+100
Recently, it seems Stanford has just been going off the deep-end with this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Why are all of the students at Stanford Law School so unattractive? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy moly that Dean is a complete narcissist.
The students don’t seem to have any intellectual curiosity or interest in knowing the different perspectives they’ll come across in their careers.

Beware of any “academic” woman with long curly gray hair and hippie jewelry.

[Anonymous]

How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

[Anonymous]

So embarrassed for Stanford Law... and Yale Law... and Berkeley... and Middlebury... Smith... MIT... etc etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.