Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

This whole situation has a silver lining - the many excellent pieces written about the perverse mentality of the Stanford protesters, assistant dean, and others just like them.

“The cy­cle of de­gen­er­at­ing dis­course won’t stop if we in­sist that peo­ple we dis­agree with must first be­have the way we want them to,” she said—words that should be read by every CEO and se­nior law firm part­ner.

Ms. Mar­tinez’s screed was a prin­ci­pled and hon­est stand. We can hope her au­thor­ity pre­vails. But the fight for ide­o­log­i­cal di­ver­sity and free speech is be­ing lost on most cam­puses, so here’s a bet­ter way to pro­tect wider so­ci­ety from this re­pres­sive wave: Em­ployers should stop em­ploy­ing these jack­als and make it clear that any­one who has been ac­tively in­volved in block­ing peo­ple from ex­press­ing a le­git­i­mate opin­ion won’t be hired. We are by now used to the way in which em­ploy­ers scour so­cial me­dia for in­dis­cre­tions that doom job ap­plications. Do the same for these cam­pus ex­trem­ists.

I am not urg­ing in­tol­er­ance of di­verse ideas in the work­place. On the con­trary, you are per­fectly en­ti­tled to be a rad­i­cal and to ex­press your­self openly. What you can’t do is bar view­points you don’t like.

It’s time em­ploy­ers started to re­sist, and be­gan to ed­u­cate their em­ploy­ees—the hard way if nec­es­sary—why free speech is so im­por­tant.

They’ll find this juice is definitely worth the squeeze.    

https://www.wsj.com/articles/employers-need-to-put-the-squeeze-on-woke-intolerance-stanford-law-school-duncan-steinbach-free-speech-13f4ed90

[Anonymous]

These are better consequences than anything Stanford could do to hold these students accountable.

[Anonymous]

I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

Why shouldn’t the judges get to say where they are hiring from? Obviously they don’t think the students are fungible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole situation has a silver lining - the many excellent pieces written about the perverse mentality of the Stanford protesters, assistant dean, and others just like them.

“The cy­cle of de­gen­er­at­ing dis­course won’t stop if we in­sist that peo­ple we dis­agree with must first be­have the way we want them to,” she said—words that should be read by every CEO and se­nior law firm part­ner.

Ms. Mar­tinez’s screed was a prin­ci­pled and hon­est stand. We can hope her au­thor­ity pre­vails. But the fight for ide­o­log­i­cal di­ver­sity and free speech is be­ing lost on most cam­puses, so here’s a bet­ter way to pro­tect wider so­ci­ety from this re­pres­sive wave: Em­ployers should stop em­ploy­ing these jack­als and make it clear that any­one who has been ac­tively in­volved in block­ing peo­ple from ex­press­ing a le­git­i­mate opin­ion won’t be hired. We are by now used to the way in which em­ploy­ers scour so­cial me­dia for in­dis­cre­tions that doom job ap­plications. Do the same for these cam­pus ex­trem­ists.

I am not urg­ing in­tol­er­ance of di­verse ideas in the work­place. On the con­trary, you are per­fectly en­ti­tled to be a rad­i­cal and to ex­press your­self openly. What you can’t do is bar view­points you don’t like.

It’s time em­ploy­ers started to re­sist, and be­gan to ed­u­cate their em­ploy­ees—the hard way if nec­es­sary—why free speech is so im­por­tant.

They’ll find this juice is definitely worth the squeeze.    

https://www.wsj.com/articles/employers-need-to-put-the-squeeze-on-woke-intolerance-stanford-law-school-duncan-steinbach-free-speech-13f4ed90

The nutjobs are already in the C suites. It's too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

I thought leftists were all about “it’s not cancel culture, it’s consequences.” Isn’t this just a natural consequence of bad behavior?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

I thought leftists were all about “it’s not cancel culture, it’s consequences.” Isn’t this just a natural consequence of bad behavior?

Exactly. They have demonstrated through their behavior that they do not have the demeanor to be effective lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Stanford Law grad here. The atmosphere was quite stifling when I was a student there (early 1990s), and I'm a moderate liberal. You had to be hard left to be comfortable. But there was a real emphasis on getting clerkships, which reflected well on the school. The boycott of Stanford law grads, even by just a few judges, is meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stanford Law grad here. The atmosphere was quite stifling when I was a student there (early 1990s), and I'm a moderate liberal. You had to be hard left to be comfortable. But there was a real emphasis on getting clerkships, which reflected well on the school. The boycott of Stanford law grads, even by just a few judges, is meaningful.

Thanks for chiming in. This is actually good to hear. Perhaps it will cause major changes. Not only at Stanford, but at other law schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

I thought leftists were all about “it’s not cancel culture, it’s consequences.” Isn’t this just a natural consequence of bad behavior?

Exactly. Aren't liberals all about long lists of who to boycott? Well, certain law schools can be boycotted too. There is no law stating that students from certain schools are entitled to jobs. Good for these judges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stanford Law grad here. The atmosphere was quite stifling when I was a student there (early 1990s), and I'm a moderate liberal. You had to be hard left to be comfortable. But there was a real emphasis on getting clerkships, which reflected well on the school. The boycott of Stanford law grads, even by just a few judges, is meaningful.

+100
I hope more judges do the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Many of these bellyaching judges have Federalist Society set asides- I’m sure they are looking for any excuse to expand those ranks further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford Law grad here. The atmosphere was quite stifling when I was a student there (early 1990s), and I'm a moderate liberal. You had to be hard left to be comfortable. But there was a real emphasis on getting clerkships, which reflected well on the school. The boycott of Stanford law grads, even by just a few judges, is meaningful.

+100
I hope more judges do the same thing.

I don’t know, sounds like discrimination to me. The majority of these students did nothing wrong. Punishing an entire school seems really unseemly from a judge with a lifetime appointment, but let’s be honest- the judges making the headlines here have proven beyond all doubt that they weren’t hired for their judicial temperaments.