Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the MAGA victim Olympics. Provoke some dumb lefties to shout you down, and then write WSJ opinion pieces and make appearances on Tucker and Fox and Friends to complain about your horrible treatment. When are these dumb students going to figure out they’re just being played to get MAGA eyeballs and clicks?

Maybe if these entitled students hadn't put on a show, shouted down a speaker, then ceremoniously walked out, there would be no need for any complaining.
And, there wouldn't be a thread about this on this forum. You can thank the students for that.

[Anonymous]

Whatever happened to boycotts? Couldn't they have just boycotted the speech? I suspect they had support from the DEI person before the event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to boycotts? Couldn't they have just boycotted the speech? I suspect they had support from the DEI person before the event.

Boycotts aren't good enough, they need to stifle the speech of others because they presume that outside of their rarified air the rest of the world is too stupid and will fall prey to the hypnotism of the speech they wish to shout down. Tantrums are the only solution. Stanford students know better.

[Anonymous]

Note to self. Avoid hiring Stanford law students in addition to Yale law students.

[Anonymous]

Eh, just do your due diligence and deep dive their backgrounds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Note to self. Avoid hiring Stanford law students in addition to Yale law students.

What is so sad is that the law students who threw tantrums and disrupted the speaker have given a bad name to all the law students at Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Note to self. Avoid hiring Stanford law students in addition to Yale law students.

Sure, you do that. They will have 1,000 opportunities for six figure jobs, I doubt they will miss your ambulance chaser shop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to boycotts? Couldn't they have just boycotted the speech? I suspect they had support from the DEI person before the event.

Of course, they did. She had a prepared speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

The Constitution, including what is and what isn’t in it, is very much a hill I *could* die on as a woman of reproductive age thanks to Federalist Society clowns. Stanford isn’t the government, and there is no right in the Constitution or law to receive a peaceful and respectful reception of your speech from private actors. Sorry, snowflake. The marketplace of ideas has spoken, and yours are losers.

The students are invoking first amendment and constitutional rights in their protest posters, genius. That would be...constitutional law, last time I checked.

And they are exercising those rights. This thread is about how the right wing completely falls to pieces when their speech is met with anything other than respect and appreciation.

It does raise a thorny question when a federal judge appointed for life insults them in the media, though. Is it state action? Certainly a better case for that than anything Stanford did or didn’t do as a receiver of public funds.

The ones who fell to pieces are those who would not allow an invited speaker to speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note to self. Avoid hiring Stanford law students in addition to Yale law students.

Sure, you do that. They will have 1,000 opportunities for six figure jobs, I doubt they will miss your ambulance chaser shop.

Wealth and/or a high salary doesn't make someone a reputable, good person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to boycotts? Couldn't they have just boycotted the speech? I suspect they had support from the DEI person before the event.

Boycotts aren't good enough, they need to stifle the speech of others because they presume that outside of their rarified air the rest of the world is too stupid and will fall prey to the hypnotism of the speech they wish to shout down. Tantrums are the only solution. Stanford students know better.

Or maybe they are just hopping mad at the anti-democratic hot bed of judicial corruption that the FedSoc has become. The quiet money donors that finance it without oversight or even any shred of public transparency. The pretense of principled originalism that’s neither principled nor rooted in history and very conveniently serves its big money overlords every chance it gets.

The time for civil disagreement is long passed. If these kids manage to stay mad, they just might save our country. They’ve exposed that these judges are too enmeshed and don’t have the temperament for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to boycotts? Couldn't they have just boycotted the speech? I suspect they had support from the DEI person before the event.

Boycotts aren't good enough, they need to stifle the speech of others because they presume that outside of their rarified air the rest of the world is too stupid and will fall prey to the hypnotism of the speech they wish to shout down. Tantrums are the only solution. Stanford students know better.

Or maybe they are just hopping mad at the anti-democratic hot bed of judicial corruption that the FedSoc has become. The quiet money donors that finance it without oversight or even any shred of public transparency. The pretense of principled originalism that’s neither principled nor rooted in history and very conveniently serves its big money overlords every chance it gets.

The time for civil disagreement is long passed. If these kids manage to stay mad, they just might save our country. They’ve exposed that these judges are too enmeshed and don’t have the temperament for the job.

As opposed to principled...whatever it is that Sotomayor does?

Give me a break, you sound butthurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

DP. Stanford itself states as much, above: "And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring."

You are arguing just to argue. Even Stanford admits that these "law" students don't have a grasp on the legal profession they are supposedly learning about. That much is abundantly clear, for all to see. No one agrees with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

DP. Stanford itself states as much, above: "And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring."

You are arguing just to argue. Even Stanford admits that these "law" students don't have a grasp on the legal profession they are supposedly learning about. That much is abundantly clear, for all to see. No one agrees with you.

The norms of the legal profession is not constitutional law. The principle of free expression can exist in a Constitution, or in professional norms or in a school's rules of conduct.

It appears do not have a very firm grasp of any of this or, charitably, do have a grasp and are try to subvert that which they find displeasurable.

This is not hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

The Constitution, including what is and what isn’t in it, is very much a hill I *could* die on as a woman of reproductive age thanks to Federalist Society clowns. Stanford isn’t the government, and there is no right in the Constitution or law to receive a peaceful and respectful reception of your speech from private actors. Sorry, snowflake. The marketplace of ideas has spoken, and yours are losers.

DP. It's actually pretty amusing, this tantrum you're throwing because you want so desperately to be right. I have yet to hear from any reputable, unbiased source that the idiot dean and students were correct in their behavior. They can protest all they want. But Stanford admitted that they were way out of line with their free speech policies. They should never have been allowed in the room where the judge was going to speak. They had no intention of letting him speak at all. So apparently, only *their* voices were going to be heard - certainly not anyone with a dissenting viewpoint.

That you're calling others "snowflakes" shows how utterly clueless you are.