Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These students behaved very badly. The judge also behaved very badly. He went there to get this exact response so that he could go on the right wing victim tour. Yelling insults at a bunch of students is completely unbecoming of a federal judge. There are no good guys in this story.

Nope. Sorry, you're completely wrong. He was invited to speak there and he went in good faith. He was met from the get-go by screaming, obnoxious, immature protesters. He reacted exactly as anyone would have in his situation - better, in fact. I would probably have just left, but he stuck it out, thinking he would actually get to give his speech. But no, the moron hecklers weren't about to let that happen. Very telling that you're trying to turn around their disgusting behavior and pin it on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These students behaved very badly. The judge also behaved very badly. He went there to get this exact response so that he could go on the right wing victim tour. Yelling insults at a bunch of students is completely unbecoming of a federal judge. There are no good guys in this story.

What do you suggest? Remaining quietly obsequious while a virulent mob continues to overrun institutions?

+1
That's exactly what the liberal mob expects. They want a walk of shame from their targets, an admission of guilt of some sort. I loved Judge Duncan's op-ed, in which he refers satirically to the whole embarrassment as a "struggle session."

[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?

Lol 300 followers?

Um... that's 27,000 followers. I guess you can't read?
DP

[Anonymous]

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?

Lol 300 followers?

Wow, you are desperate. Follower count?

+1
Grossly incorrect follower count, no less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These students behaved very badly. The judge also behaved very badly. He went there to get this exact response so that he could go on the right wing victim tour. Yelling insults at a bunch of students is completely unbecoming of a federal judge. There are no good guys in this story.

What do you suggest? Remaining quietly obsequious while a virulent mob continues to overrun institutions?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

Looks like he is winning this exchange and sounding the alarm on this ridiculousness that has been metastasizing within academic spaces and even more broadly.

Meanwhile these virtuous activist students are suddenly demanding anonymity. What beacons of courage and conviction!

+100
Too funny.

[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?

I'm so sorry - I know how embarrassed you must be to share a political ideology with these stupid LWNJ students/dean. I'd be embarrassed too!

[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.

Yep. Of course they could have boycotted it. But that wouldn't have gotten them all the attention they desperately crave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes - but too bad all those other students haven't spoken out against the idiotic antics of this group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And the PP is living in a dream world if s/he actually thinks these particular students will be eagerly snapped up by law firms. Maybe by pro bono non-profits that align with their politics, paying a pittance. Big law isn't interested in these immature, daft nitwits.

[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.

I can't even... the bolded beautifully describes these students, who all hope one day to become lawyers and judges. And THEY clearly do not have the temperament for the job. I hope their names are published for all to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These students behaved very badly. The judge also behaved very badly. He went there to get this exact response so that he could go on the right wing victim tour. Yelling insults at a bunch of students is completely unbecoming of a federal judge. There are no good guys in this story.

What do you suggest? Remaining quietly obsequious while a virulent mob continues to overrun institutions?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

Looks like he is winning this exchange and sounding the alarm on this ridiculousness that has been metastasizing within academic spaces and even more broadly.

Meanwhile these virtuous activist students are suddenly demanding anonymity. What beacons of courage and conviction!

+100
Too funny.

+1 Oops! "We didn't know our names would become public knowledge. It's not fair!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And the PP is living in a dream world if s/he actually thinks these particular students will be eagerly snapped up by law firms. Maybe by pro bono non-profits that align with their politics, paying a pittance. Big law isn't interested in these immature, daft nitwits.

Oh sure it will be. Credentials are the coin of the realm in Big Law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And the PP is living in a dream world if s/he actually thinks these particular students will be eagerly snapped up by law firms. Maybe by pro bono non-profits that align with their politics, paying a pittance. Big law isn't interested in these immature, daft nitwits.

Oh sure it will be. Credentials are the coin of the realm in Big Law.

"Credentials" and no character. Got it.

[Anonymous]

The idiot DEI dean is doubling down on her tantrum in the WSJ, making all sorts of false claims (“I welcomed Judge Duncan to speak while supporting the right of students to protest within the bounds of university policy.”). Uh, no - you did not. Which is why Stanford apologized to Duncan and reprimanded you.

She puts forth a poorly written, repetitive rant about DEI, only making herself look even more absurd than she already did. What absolute BS.

“When­ever and wher­ever we can, we must de-es­ca­late the di­vi­sive dis­course to have thought­ful con­ver­sa­tions and find com­mon ground. Free speech, aca­d­e­mic free­dom and work to ad­vance di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion must co­ex­ist in a di­verse, de­mo­c­ra­tic so­ci­ety.

Di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion plans must have clear goals that lead to greater in­clu­sion and be­long­ing for all com­mu­nity mem­bers. How we strike a bal­ance be­tween free speech and di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion is wor­thy of se­ri­ous, thought­ful and civil dis­cus­sion. Free speech and di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion are means to an end, and one that I think many peo­ple can ac­tu­ally agree on: to live in a coun­try with lib­erty and jus­tice for all its peo­ple.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-coexist-at-stanford-steinbach-duncan-law-school-protest-dei-27103829

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idiot DEI dean is doubling down on her tantrum in the WSJ, making all sorts of false claims (“I welcomed Judge Duncan to speak while supporting the right of students to protest within the bounds of university policy.”). Uh, no - you did not. Which is why Stanford apologized to Duncan and reprimanded you.

She puts forth a poorly written, repetitive rant about DEI, only making herself look even more absurd than she already did. What absolute BS.

“When­ever and wher­ever we can, we must de-es­ca­late the di­vi­sive dis­course to have thought­ful con­ver­sa­tions and find com­mon ground. Free speech, aca­d­e­mic free­dom and work to ad­vance di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion must co­ex­ist in a di­verse, de­mo­c­ra­tic so­ci­ety.

Di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion plans must have clear goals that lead to greater in­clu­sion and be­long­ing for all com­mu­nity mem­bers. How we strike a bal­ance be­tween free speech and di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion is wor­thy of se­ri­ous, thought­ful and civil dis­cus­sion. Free speech and di­ver­sity, eq­uity and in­clu­sion are means to an end, and one that I think many peo­ple can ac­tu­ally agree on: to live in a coun­try with lib­erty and jus­tice for all its peo­ple.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-coexist-at-stanford-steinbach-duncan-law-school-protest-dei-27103829

What a BS response. She sat in that room for a while and only "intervened" when Judge Duncan asked for an administrator. Then, she read her prepared remarks.
DEI needs to be abandoned so common sense can prevail.