Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[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.

This is what disturbs me. The students need to know how to work with people who don't share their opinions.

[Anonymous]

Must read-

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

[Anonymous]

Stanford invited a speaker. Someone called the speaker out on his questionable actions. I don’t understand the controversy? He should just address it and move on.


Why are Americans so fragile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is what disturbs me. The students need to know how to work with people who don't share their opinions.

Yes, he should demonstrate the behavior!

[Anonymous]

So he wasn’t actually stopped from speaking. Nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

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:

Yeah. He was as bad a the protesters. A thin skinned baby

[Anonymous]

The dean didn’t “attack” him she defused the situation setting him up to actually be able to speak. She specifically asked the audience to let him speak. These right wingers are blatant liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dean didn’t “attack” him she defused the situation setting him up to actually be able to speak. She specifically asked the audience to let him speak. These right wingers are blatant liars.

When Stanford in their letter said that faculty acted inappropriately I am assuming they were including their DEI Dean in that group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You mean like the students at Liberty University?

[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?

Now you are making an argument about etiquette, not about free speech.

[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.

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...

I agree. The judges weren't belligerent partisan hacks like they are now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stanford invited a speaker. Someone called the speaker out on his questionable actions. I don’t understand the controversy? He should just address it and move on.


Why are Americans so fragile?

The snowflake students were disrespectful and wouldn't let him speak at the beginning. They held vulgar signs, yelled ridiculous accusations, and wouldn't listen to him.
These are future LAW students - and perhaps, future JUDGES (although I hope not). And, you don't understand the controversy of these people not giving an invited speaker the opportunity to speak?

This is not how you deal with ideas that you don't agree with. If you take issue with something he says, your best reaction is to debate him with facts and ideas. Not shouting him down, throwing insults, and calling him names.

These students do not have a promising future in the field of law if they are unable to debate and refute something with which they disagree.
Perhaps they should seek a degree in something more suitable..... like gender studies or social activism.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Seems to me that CavsKermit needs to learn the difference between judges enforcing the law and social activism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yale backed off a bit recently after a judge threatened their precious clerkships.

You mean enforced their political and religious views on others through the power of their government office.