Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I wouldn't be so sure. I know there are law groups working to make sure these students are well known to prospective employers. |
Anonymous
They’ll be politely interviewed in OCI. Nobody will say anything. But they will quietly not make it to callbacks. Firms are cutting classes. They don’t need a lot of reason not to go forward in OCI. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
You forgot the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Reuters, The Hill, Newsweek, and more. But do go on. DP |
Anonymous
DP. But wait - we've been told that "words/actions have consequences"! And that is so very true. The words and actions of the idiot students and dean will most definitely have consequences - for them. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Even the Washington Post editorial board slams these protesters and the dean.
Instead, student protesters disrupted his talk in a raucous exercise of the heckler’s veto, captured on viral video, that violated Stanford’s own policy on free speech at such events — and was worsened by the failure of administrators present to enforce that policy. To the contrary, one administrator appeared to take the protesters’ side, turning to Judge Duncan, telling him of the “harm” his work had caused and asking him to reconsider his talk in light of the disruption: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” This latest episode in the long-running controversy over free speech on campus has had a constructive ending, however, in the form of law school Dean Jenny Martinez’s measured but unequivocal defense of Judge Duncan’s right, and that of other controversial speakers, to be heard at the law school — and of Stanford students to hear them. Importantly, Ms. Martinez’s letter went beyond university policy and First Amendment law, to articulate values which underlie them: specifically, the relationship between reasoned discourse on the one hand and learning, civility and the “special role of lawyers in our system of justice” on the other. She argued forcefully that there is no contradiction between free expression and diversity, equity and inclusion. And she notified students that the school is planning a mandatory half-day training session to reinforce these concepts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/24/stanford-law-dean-free-speech/ |
Anonymous
|
My favorite so far:
After being introduced by the Federalist Society’s president, a gay man, Duncan tried to speak into a din of shouting: “You’re not welcome here, we hate you,” “You have no right to speak here,” etc. After about 10 minutes, Duncan responded angrily to the hecklers and asked for help from the Stanford administrators present, sitting like potted plants amid the chaos . Steinbach went to the lectern and read a statement obviously written in anticipation of this opportunity to pander to the inflamed progressives:
She was “pained” that Duncan was welcomed at the school because his previous work and words had caused “harm” to students, including the “absolute disenfranchisement of their rights.” She blamed him for inflaming the protesters by responding to them. She was “deeply, deeply uncomfortable” because the Federalist Society’s event was “tearing at the fabric of this community.” Continuing with her self-absorbed inventory of her feelings and fluent in DEI-speak, she told of her labors creating “a space of belonging” and “places of safety.” She said, with Duncan standing nearby, that even “abhorrent” speech that “literally denies the humanity of people” should not be censored “because me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech.” Larded with unstinting parental praise and garlanded with unearned laurels, these cosseted children arrive at college thinking highly of themselves and expecting others to ratify their complacent self-assessment. Surely it was as undergraduates that Stanford’s law school silencers became what they are: expensively credentialed but negligibly educated brats. In a joint letter, Stanford’s president and the law school’s dean say they are sorry about the unpleasantness. Not, however, so sorry, as of this writing, that they have fired Steinbach, even though they say she refused to do her job: “Staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” The depth of that commitment can be gauged by this tepid rebuke, in bureaucracy-speak, of Steinbach for being improperly “aligned.” Stanford has not expelled any of the censoring students who, too, seem imperfectly “aligned.” Administrators might start with the student whose idea of intellect in the service of social justice was to shout an incoherent jumble of sexual boasting and scabrous insult. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/15/stanford-law-school-protest-kyle-duncan-federalist/?itid=ap_georgef.will |
Anonymous
| That’s pretty funny. |
Anonymous
It’s pretty funny that you guys think biglaw is run by a bunch of MAGAs. |
Anonymous
We all "get" the kind of people in big law and big banks. |
Anonymous
The federalist society |
Anonymous
You don’t seem to have much experience with BigLaw? |
Anonymous
Everyone in biglaw is a servant to whomever has the money and power. They were definitely MAGA under Trump. |
Anonymous
| I love how certain posters - or maybe it’s still just the one - are trying to deflect here. Stay on topic. Spoiled, tantrum throwing Stanford law students and stupid, spotlight-seeking DEI assistant dean. |