Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Conservative does not equal legitimate. What stupid takes. This thread is mostly Breitbart trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

Or a federal judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

Well this is what conservatives want and promote- hive mind thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

Well if you get rid of meritocracy...

[Anonymous]

Some great letters to the editor in the WSJ regarding this issue. One is from a Stanford Law professor.

The disruption of Judge Kyle Duncan’s talk at Stanford Law School (“My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School,” op-ed, March 18) was a terrible event—terrible for the speaker, the students who wished to hear him and the law school’s environment as a place of civil discourse. But it was also a necessary wake-up call. Not only for Stanford, I hope, but for U.S. universities in general.

It is no longer possible to ignore the rise of ideological intolerance among a segment of the student body. Most students—left as well as center and right—want to engage in serious discussion of controversial issues, which is impossible when particular ideologies seize control of the conversation and shut down alternatives. That is why it is so important for groups like the Federalist Society to bring a diversity of voices, and for law schools to welcome and protect them.

Nor is it possible to ignore the damage that university diversity bureaucracies can do to the scholarly values of liberal education. Diversity and inclusion are of course good things, but neither value is advanced by partisanship and censorship.

The good news is that the institutions charged with defending liberal education have taken note. The Stanford administration is exploring ways to strengthen academic freedom and clarify the substance and enforcement of rules of student conduct. Faculty are discussing long-term ways to improve the climate of discourse at the law school. And I have heard that students on both sides of the divide are thinking of ways to draw back from the abyss. It is too soon to be sure, but on the rubble of this disaster some good things may grow.

Prof. Michael W. McConnell

Stanford Law School

[Anonymous]

Some more letters:

As a graduate of Stanford Law School, I am appalled by the treatment of Judge Duncan. In my day, SLS was hardly a level playing field for conservative views. But there was an atmosphere of collegiality, and I can’t imagine this humiliation (of the law school, not Judge Duncan) taking place then. If this kind of behavior is condoned or let slide at an institution like Stanford Law School, then God save us all, because the American legal system will no longer be equipped to do so.

Michael C. Doran
Menlo Park, Calif.

No school of civil engineering would be taken seriously if it designed and built buildings that fell down. Likewise, no law school can be taken seriously if it fails to follow its own rules. Allowing law students to learn bad law (that shouting down a speaker is “free speech”) is only the logical follow on.

Chuck Davis
Chesterbrook, PA

Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan’s op-ed “My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School” (March 18) seems to answer the question raised earlier on your pages: “Who Owns the University?” (op-ed by Richard Vedder, March 17). Apparently, the answer at Stanford Law is the 100 students who were encouraged by a diversity dean to abolish free expression and peaceful assembly. Where are the other owners: the board, the administrators, the faculty, the other students, the alumni, even the accrediting agencies?

Harry Ruffalo
Phoenix

Given that a new fiasco emerges from Stanford every week, I thought I could hardly be surprised by anything that might happen there. I was wrong. Judge Duncan’s account of events left me gasping. While there is no shortage of overentitled, infantile antics for review at our nation’s soon-to-be formerly great universities put on by students, I couldn’t believe that an employee of the university—in a leadership position, no less—joined in the absurdity, and thereafter kept her job.

Schools like Stanford sow the seeds of their eventual irrelevance when they allow such behavior. How many of these impostors can these universities employ before the world outside their bubbles stops taking them seriously? I hope not many.

James Oliveira
Oakdale, Calif.

Tirien Steinbach, the Stanford Law associate diversity dean, is Exhibit A in the case for eliminating the DEI blob in higher education (“The Tyranny of the DEI Bureaucracy,” Review & Outlook, March 18). Instead, use those funds to hire personnel who can contribute to an education. Her embarrassing and contradictory tirade—“Me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech”—also demonstrates the need for more English professors.

Susan Dench
Portland, Maine

There is a well-established legal maxim regarding criticisms by the media after Judge Duncan called the protesting Stanford Law students “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites”: Truth is an absolute defense to all libel charges.

Alvaro Garcia-Tunon
Pittsburgh, PA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some great letters to the editor in the WSJ regarding this issue. One is from a Stanford Law professor.

The disruption of Judge Kyle Duncan’s talk at Stanford Law School (“My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School,” op-ed, March 18) was a terrible event—terrible for the speaker, the students who wished to hear him and the law school’s environment as a place of civil discourse. But it was also a necessary wake-up call. Not only for Stanford, I hope, but for U.S. universities in general.

It is no longer possible to ignore the rise of ideological intolerance among a segment of the student body. Most students—left as well as center and right—want to engage in serious discussion of controversial issues, which is impossible when particular ideologies seize control of the conversation and shut down alternatives. That is why it is so important for groups like the Federalist Society to bring a diversity of voices, and for law schools to welcome and protect them.

Nor is it possible to ignore the damage that university diversity bureaucracies can do to the scholarly values of liberal education. Diversity and inclusion are of course good things, but neither value is advanced by partisanship and censorship.

The good news is that the institutions charged with defending liberal education have taken note. The Stanford administration is exploring ways to strengthen academic freedom and clarify the substance and enforcement of rules of student conduct. Faculty are discussing long-term ways to improve the climate of discourse at the law school. And I have heard that students on both sides of the divide are thinking of ways to draw back from the abyss. It is too soon to be sure, but on the rubble of this disaster some good things may grow.

Prof. Michael W. McConnell

Stanford Law School

Great letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some great letters to the editor in the WSJ regarding this issue. One is from a Stanford Law professor.

The disruption of Judge Kyle Duncan’s talk at Stanford Law School (“My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School,” op-ed, March 18) was a terrible event—terrible for the speaker, the students who wished to hear him and the law school’s environment as a place of civil discourse. But it was also a necessary wake-up call. Not only for Stanford, I hope, but for U.S. universities in general.

It is no longer possible to ignore the rise of ideological intolerance among a segment of the student body. Most students—left as well as center and right—want to engage in serious discussion of controversial issues, which is impossible when particular ideologies seize control of the conversation and shut down alternatives. That is why it is so important for groups like the Federalist Society to bring a diversity of voices, and for law schools to welcome and protect them.

Nor is it possible to ignore the damage that university diversity bureaucracies can do to the scholarly values of liberal education. Diversity and inclusion are of course good things, but neither value is advanced by partisanship and censorship.

The good news is that the institutions charged with defending liberal education have taken note. The Stanford administration is exploring ways to strengthen academic freedom and clarify the substance and enforcement of rules of student conduct. Faculty are discussing long-term ways to improve the climate of discourse at the law school. And I have heard that students on both sides of the divide are thinking of ways to draw back from the abyss. It is too soon to be sure, but on the rubble of this disaster some good things may grow.

Prof. Michael W. McConnell

Stanford Law School

Oh no. Not the Wall Street Journal! Whatever will we do now that all the mediocre white guys are clutching their bow ties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some great letters to the editor in the WSJ regarding this issue. One is from a Stanford Law professor.

The disruption of Judge Kyle Duncan’s talk at Stanford Law School (“My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School,” op-ed, March 18) was a terrible event—terrible for the speaker, the students who wished to hear him and the law school’s environment as a place of civil discourse. But it was also a necessary wake-up call. Not only for Stanford, I hope, but for U.S. universities in general.

It is no longer possible to ignore the rise of ideological intolerance among a segment of the student body. Most students—left as well as center and right—want to engage in serious discussion of controversial issues, which is impossible when particular ideologies seize control of the conversation and shut down alternatives. That is why it is so important for groups like the Federalist Society to bring a diversity of voices, and for law schools to welcome and protect them.

Nor is it possible to ignore the damage that university diversity bureaucracies can do to the scholarly values of liberal education. Diversity and inclusion are of course good things, but neither value is advanced by partisanship and censorship.

The good news is that the institutions charged with defending liberal education have taken note. The Stanford administration is exploring ways to strengthen academic freedom and clarify the substance and enforcement of rules of student conduct. Faculty are discussing long-term ways to improve the climate of discourse at the law school. And I have heard that students on both sides of the divide are thinking of ways to draw back from the abyss. It is too soon to be sure, but on the rubble of this disaster some good things may grow.

Prof. Michael W. McConnell

Stanford Law School

Oh no. Not the Wall Street Journal! Whatever will we do now that all the mediocre white guys are clutching their bow ties?

It's not possible to be both mediocre and white yet get a tenured faculty job at Stanford. You have to be at the top of a lot of things to get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some great letters to the editor in the WSJ regarding this issue. One is from a Stanford Law professor.

The disruption of Judge Kyle Duncan’s talk at Stanford Law School (“My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School,” op-ed, March 18) was a terrible event—terrible for the speaker, the students who wished to hear him and the law school’s environment as a place of civil discourse. But it was also a necessary wake-up call. Not only for Stanford, I hope, but for U.S. universities in general.

It is no longer possible to ignore the rise of ideological intolerance among a segment of the student body. Most students—left as well as center and right—want to engage in serious discussion of controversial issues, which is impossible when particular ideologies seize control of the conversation and shut down alternatives. That is why it is so important for groups like the Federalist Society to bring a diversity of voices, and for law schools to welcome and protect them.

Nor is it possible to ignore the damage that university diversity bureaucracies can do to the scholarly values of liberal education. Diversity and inclusion are of course good things, but neither value is advanced by partisanship and censorship.

The good news is that the institutions charged with defending liberal education have taken note. The Stanford administration is exploring ways to strengthen academic freedom and clarify the substance and enforcement of rules of student conduct. Faculty are discussing long-term ways to improve the climate of discourse at the law school. And I have heard that students on both sides of the divide are thinking of ways to draw back from the abyss. It is too soon to be sure, but on the rubble of this disaster some good things may grow.

Prof. Michael W. McConnell

Stanford Law School

Oh no. Not the Wall Street Journal! Whatever will we do now that all the mediocre white guys are clutching their bow ties?

Oh hi, Tirien. I hear you're now "on leave" from Stanford. All the best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some great letters to the editor in the WSJ regarding this issue. One is from a Stanford Law professor.

The disruption of Judge Kyle Duncan’s talk at Stanford Law School (“My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School,” op-ed, March 18) was a terrible event—terrible for the speaker, the students who wished to hear him and the law school’s environment as a place of civil discourse. But it was also a necessary wake-up call. Not only for Stanford, I hope, but for U.S. universities in general.

It is no longer possible to ignore the rise of ideological intolerance among a segment of the student body. Most students—left as well as center and right—want to engage in serious discussion of controversial issues, which is impossible when particular ideologies seize control of the conversation and shut down alternatives. That is why it is so important for groups like the Federalist Society to bring a diversity of voices, and for law schools to welcome and protect them.

Nor is it possible to ignore the damage that university diversity bureaucracies can do to the scholarly values of liberal education. Diversity and inclusion are of course good things, but neither value is advanced by partisanship and censorship.

The good news is that the institutions charged with defending liberal education have taken note. The Stanford administration is exploring ways to strengthen academic freedom and clarify the substance and enforcement of rules of student conduct. Faculty are discussing long-term ways to improve the climate of discourse at the law school. And I have heard that students on both sides of the divide are thinking of ways to draw back from the abyss. It is too soon to be sure, but on the rubble of this disaster some good things may grow.

Prof. Michael W. McConnell

Stanford Law School

Oh no. Not the Wall Street Journal! Whatever will we do now that all the mediocre white guys are clutching their bow ties?

It's not possible to be both mediocre and white yet get a tenured faculty job at Stanford. You have to be at the top of a lot of things to get there.

Yeah, just reading some of LinkedIns of the current white male FedSoc SLS students made my eyes bug out in disbelief. They sound superhuman.