Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

+100000000000000000

[Anonymous]

Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

You are mistaken. Try other news sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

You are mistaken. Try other news sources.

I’m sure it’s been reported on Breitbart and the NY Post as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

Sounds like you’re advocating for cancel culture, but I’m sure that’s wrong because conservatives are against cancel culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

You are mistaken. Try other news sources.

I’m sure it’s been reported on Breitbart and the NY Post as well.

You don't read the WSJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

Sounds like you’re advocating for cancel culture, but I’m sure that’s wrong because conservatives are against cancel culture.

I think conservatives are beginning to see how cancel culture works... I mean Stanford law students and their DEI dean are top of the cognitive ability tower... and they think it's the way to go...right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

Wrong.
This story has made it into quite a few sources. Take a gander.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stanford+law+students+Judge+Duncan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#ip=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

Wrong.
This story has made it into quite a few sources. Take a gander.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stanford+law+students+Judge+Duncan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#ip=1

It has, but it is not going to stop one single student from getting a big law job. Thank goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100
I can't wait to read the letters to the editor in response to this moronic op-ed. She's going to get roasted. Look how many times she repeats "diversity, equity and inclusion" - all in an attempt to gloss over her involvement in attacking and preventing Duncan from speaking. I hope Stanford wakes up and fires her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

Wrong.
This story has made it into quite a few sources. Take a gander.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stanford+law+students+Judge+Duncan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#ip=1

It has, but it is not going to stop one single student from getting a big law job. Thank goodness.

I'm sure not. That's why "big law" folks are so very much admired!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is quite the MAGA circle jerk.

I think people who wouldn't ever be considered a MAGA can appreciate the rudeness and obvious plan by Stanford law students and their DEI Dean (with her prepared speech) to bring attention to themselves and prevent a conservative judge from speaking. I guess their plan worked?

This. The PP is simply furious that anyone with half a brain is correctly calling out the dean and students. I honestly wonder - who on earth would *defend* their behavior? Must be some psycho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Just out of curiosity, are there future employment repercussions for the protestors that disrupted this event? Any outside observer would conclude that these students, no matter the righteousness of their cause, were rude, abrasive, obnoxious, immature etc. But this is Stanford Law School, one of the handful of schools where Big Law does its recruiting. Presumably any associate they might hire would be expected to work professionally not only with in-house staff but with opposing counsel. All these young people are now very publicly known and it's very clear that they don't play nicely with others. Is that it for these students? No hope for an offer from Skadden, Arps and the like? Or is Big Law pretty forgiving these days?

No one cares or even knows about this story outside the Fox News set.

Wrong.
This story has made it into quite a few sources. Take a gander.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stanford+law+students+Judge+Duncan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#ip=1

It has, but it is not going to stop one single student from getting a big law job. Thank goodness.

I would not be so sure about that.