Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right. He misgendered a convicted pedophile. We know that. But given that the Wikipedia article doesn’t mention the pedophile convict, I’m skeptical about the rest of that rant.

+1
Exactly. And why did Stanford INVITE him to speak if they felt his views were so abhorrent? Because they wanted a good “gotcha” moment that would go viral so they could all pat themselves on the back (and idiotically snap their fingers in delight). What a bunch of virtue-signaling clowns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Sometimes I believe that people here think that readers will take their statements as proven fact and not check the validity of the statement.

David Lat did NOT write this. He was quoting a critic of Judge Duncan.

Here:

After the event, Stanford FedSoc members asked Dean Steinbach for her thoughts. She asserted that nothing the protestors had done violated the Stanford disruption policy and that the event had been “exactly what the freedom of speech was meant to look like—messy.” She said that if Judge Duncan had wanted to give his remarks, he should have just kept reading them, and she claimed that he was disrespectful to the attendees.

And is there a case for that? I have readers and sources on both sides of the aisle, I believe in presenting both sides of controversies, and I’ll now quote from a source who was critical of how Judge Duncan conducted himself:

While I think the administration should have handled it differently, my main takeaway is that I have never seen a grown man—let alone a federal judge—comport himself so poorly.

From the moment Judge Duncan arrived on campus, he seemed to be looking for a fight. He walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone, looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol, than a federal judge coming to speak.

Judge Duncan, whom I offered the opportunity to respond to these allegations, did not deny this claim: “Did I try to record video? Damn right I did. I wanted to make a record.”

Back to my source:

He was heckled pretty relentlessly, but I truly can't have imagined a worse reaction. He could have had a moral victory if he’d stayed on message, kept his cool, and delivered his prepared remarks. He even had a heads-up that the event was likely to be disrupted, so I would have thought that he would have had time to prepare himself to stay composed.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech

This is what Lat wrote in his piece describing the incident:

But here’s where things went off the rails. When the Stanford FedSoc president (an openly gay man) opened the proceedings, he was jeered between sentences. Judge Duncan then took the stage—and from the beginning of his speech, the protestors booed and heckled continually. For about ten minutes, the judge tried to give his planned remarks, but the protestors simply yelled over him, with exclamations like "You couldn't get into Stanford!" "You're not welcome here, we hate you!" "Why do you hate black people?!" "Leave and never come back!" "We hate FedSoc students, f**k them, they don't belong here either!" and "We do not respect you and you have no right to speak here! This is our jurisdiction!"

Throughout this heckling, Associate Dean Steinbach and the University's student-relations representative—who were in attendance throughout the event, along with a few other administrators (five in total, per Ed Whelan)—did nothing. FedSoc members had discussed possible disruption with the student-relations rep before the event, and he said he would issue warnings to those who yelled at the speaker, but only if the yelling disrupted the flow of the event. Despite the difficulty that Judge Duncan was having in giving his remarks, plus the fact that many students were struggling to hear him, no action was taken.

After around ten minutes of trying to give his remarks, Judge Duncan became angry, departed from his prepared remarks, and laced into the hecklers. He called the students “juvenile idiots” and said he couldn’t believe the “blatant disrespect” he was being shown after being invited to speak. He said that the “prisoners were now running the asylum,” which led to a loud round of boos. His pushback riled up the protesters even more.

I think the PP who keeps trying to misattribute David Lat is like one of the SLA students, angry that the world keeps receipts.

[Anonymous]

^^^ SLS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. He misgendered a convicted pedophile. We know that. But given that the Wikipedia article doesn’t mention the pedophile convict, I’m skeptical about the rest of that rant.

+1
Exactly. And why did Stanford INVITE him to speak if they felt his views were so abhorrent? Because they wanted a good “gotcha” moment that would go viral so they could all pat themselves on the back (and idiotically snap their fingers in delight). What a bunch of virtue-signaling clowns.

Except it’s not even virtue that they are signaling. “Virtue” is a lot of things, but for sure it’s not screaming in protest on behalf of a convicted pedophile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. He misgendered a convicted pedophile. We know that. But given that the Wikipedia article doesn’t mention the pedophile convict, I’m skeptical about the rest of that rant.

+1
Exactly. And why did Stanford INVITE him to speak if they felt his views were so abhorrent? Because they wanted a good “gotcha” moment that would go viral so they could all pat themselves on the back (and idiotically snap their fingers in delight). What a bunch of virtue-signaling clowns.

Except it’s not even virtue that they are signaling. “Virtue” is a lot of things, but for sure it’s not screaming in protest on behalf of a convicted pedophile.

So true and good point.
PP

[Anonymous]

Loved this op-ed by Judge Duncan, describing exactly what happened that day. His "Struggle Session," lol. Very accurate. The comments are spot-on, too.

"The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/struggle-session-at-stanford-law-school-federalist-society-kyle-duncan-circuit-court-judge-steinbach-4f8da19e

[Anonymous]

I didn't read the whole thread, but is Chicago basically the only legitimate law school left? Or university in general?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read the whole thread, but is Chicago basically the only legitimate law school left? Or university in general?

Could be. Also, Notre Dame and GMU.

[Anonymous]

I see that Chicago is currently third on US News ranking, behind Yale and Stanford. Seeing as how Stanford was just disgraced and Yale almost got itself blacklisted by federal judges last year, I guess it's UChicago for the win. At this point, Chicago and a few others are the only schools I would be willing to pay private tuition for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see that Chicago is currently third on US News ranking, behind Yale and Stanford. Seeing as how Stanford was just disgraced and Yale almost got itself blacklisted by federal judges last year, I guess it's UChicago for the win. At this point, Chicago and a few others are the only schools I would be willing to pay private tuition for.

+1
Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure U Chicago will jump quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loved this op-ed by Judge Duncan, describing exactly what happened that day. His "Struggle Session," lol. Very accurate. The comments are spot-on, too.

"The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/struggle-session-at-stanford-law-school-federalist-society-kyle-duncan-circuit-court-judge-steinbach-4f8da19e

What a whiny snowflake. Put on your big boy pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loved this op-ed by Judge Duncan, describing exactly what happened that day. His "Struggle Session," lol. Very accurate. The comments are spot-on, too.

"The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/struggle-session-at-stanford-law-school-federalist-society-kyle-duncan-circuit-court-judge-steinbach-4f8da19e

What a whiny snowflake. Put on your big boy pants.

Seriously. You know what else is vicious behavior? Making terrible judicial rulings that are far outside the bounds of popular opinion that affect the lives of other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loved this op-ed by Judge Duncan, describing exactly what happened that day. His "Struggle Session," lol. Very accurate. The comments are spot-on, too.

"The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/struggle-session-at-stanford-law-school-federalist-society-kyle-duncan-circuit-court-judge-steinbach-4f8da19e

What a whiny snowflake. Put on your big boy pants.

Seriously. You know what else is vicious behavior? Making terrible judicial rulings that are far outside the bounds of popular opinion that affect the lives of other people.

Think about what you're written. Consider judicial history and the judicial function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bring back the draft.

I wouldn't want any of these activists serving in our military. They are more suited for a stint at Starbucks as a barista. They couldn't handle the rigors of the military and would likely sabotage any efforts the military has to protect our country. These activists do not love their country.

Saying stuff like that is a good way to make people lose respect for the military. No being in the military does not make you a morally superior human. Plenty of service members are scumbags just like any other profession.