Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

Currently, “the rules of engagement” are very much set by the left, so I’m not sure what your point is? On college campuses and in the workplace, if you don’t march in lockstep with these fools, you are shouted down or cancelled - usually both. So what’s your solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

+1
Amazing that this has to be explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting. And does this sound like discrimination to you too? (from the link above)

"Yale knows how to discipline students, too—at least students who hold the wrong views. If you’re a member of the Federalist Society, and you send an email that another student says is offensive, Yale administrators may threaten a negative report on your character and fitness report to state bar officials. That’s what they did to the student who wrote the infamous "traphouse" email.

By contrast, a few months later, Yale refused to impose any consequences when students yelled and screamed during a Federalist Society event featuring Kristen Waggoner."

And to your point about the "majority of the students doing nothing wrong" - they certainly haven't spoken out against the disgusting behavior of their peers, now have they? Judge Ho addresses this point:

"Second, at a minimum, law schools should identify disruptive students, so that future employers will know who they’re hiring.

Schools issue grades and graduation honors to help employers separate wheat from chaff. Likewise, schools should inform employers if they’re at risk of injecting potentially disruptive forces into their organizations.

Without that information, employers won’t know if the person they’re hiring is in one category or another. Now, some employers may be okay with that. But others may not be. No one is required to hire students who aren’t taught to live under the rule of law."

Let’s just ignore the fact that the “trap house” comment was disgustingly racist and was in writing, with no doubt as to the author (stupid baby lawyer, stupid, stupid). Our esteemed federal judges see no issue with that? See no problem with hiring someone who makes casual racist and privileged jokes to make law and decide cases of people who may have gotten caught up the system for having a few grams in a trap house?

FedSoc people are so unaware it blows the mind. The reason that few law schools have center-right professors is because they are lower ranked talent and like to surround themselves with people who won’t figure out how impractical and short-sighted they are. ACB is the prime example. Never left her Notre Dame bubble until Trump gave her a spot to appeal to the fundies. She is hardly the “genius legal mind” she was claimed to be, which becomes very clear once you put her next to people who are.

^^ Here we have a classic example of major sour grapes doubling down on absurd whataboutism that has zero to do with the topic of this thread. Still can’t get over ACB, apparently. Deal with it. And stick to the topic, which is immature, activist law school students who don’t know the meaning of free speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

DP. I’m copying this again since you’re conveniently ignoring it. Ho specifically states that the disruptive students should be identified so law firms can avoid hiring THEM. And he’s absolutely correct. No doubt if these law students were conservatives behaving like this, you’d be calling for their heads. They get exactly what they deserve, which is to be blacklisted from reputable law firms.

“Second, at a minimum, law schools should identify disruptive students, so that future employers will know who they’re hiring.

Schools issue grades and graduation honors to help employers separate wheat from chaff. Likewise, schools should inform employers if they’re at risk of injecting potentially disruptive forces into their organizations.

Without that information, employers won’t know if the person they’re hiring is in one category or another. Now, some employers may be okay with that. But others may not be. No one is required to hire students who aren’t taught to live under the rule of law."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

Too funny. You’d be proclaiming how you would never in a million years hire these students, if they behaved the same way but happened to be conservative. Looks like that idiotic behavior (shouting down anyone you disagree with) that you’ve been championing for so long has finally backfired. And it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving group of people.
DP

[Anonymous]

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

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

+1,000
I’m quite enjoying the sulky reactions from our resident LWNJs. They know they’re wrong but they refuse to admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

It’s punishing students who had nothing to do with any of that. Guilt by association. Not very judicial at all.

Then, these schools should get their acts together and make sure their students are informed about free speech and how to behave when presented with information that they don't agree with.
The behavior of these students is reflecting poorly on the school as a whole and unfortunately, impacting all students who attend.

You realize those same pretexts have been used to justify all manner of foolishness?

I'm sure the judge also hates "judicial activism", but here he is trying to tell private law schools how to administer themselves.

Well done, Judge Ho.

Yes, well done, indeed. Nice to see a voice of reason speaking out. Stanford can do whatever they want. But no one is required to hire their idiot students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

Speaking of jealous - your bitter tantrums are doing you no favors. You just look so ridiculous, defending the behavior of these activist law students. And you seem confused, to boot. Judge Ho is throwing his support behind Judge Duncan. So telling that you would try to spin this otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

Speaking of jealous - your bitter tantrums are doing you no favors. You just look so ridiculous, defending the behavior of these activist law students. And you seem confused, to boot. Judge Ho is throwing his support behind Judge Duncan. So telling that you would try to spin this otherwise.

No one is defending their behavior. We’re just pointing out the ridiculous attention seeking by these judges. So telling that you defend them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

DP. I’m copying this again since you’re conveniently ignoring it. Ho specifically states that the disruptive students should be identified so law firms can avoid hiring THEM. And he’s absolutely correct. No doubt if these law students were conservatives behaving like this, you’d be calling for their heads. They get exactly what they deserve, which is to be blacklisted from reputable law firms.

“Second, at a minimum, law schools should identify disruptive students, so that future employers will know who they’re hiring.

Schools issue grades and graduation honors to help employers separate wheat from chaff. Likewise, schools should inform employers if they’re at risk of injecting potentially disruptive forces into their organizations.

Without that information, employers won’t know if the person they’re hiring is in one category or another. Now, some employers may be okay with that. But others may not be. No one is required to hire students who aren’t taught to live under the rule of law."

Yeah, it wasn't very convincing the first time. No need to post again.

We are talking about the actions he himself is taking to punish an entire school, not some throwaway proposal he's spoken about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

It’s punishing students who had nothing to do with any of that. Guilt by association. Not very judicial at all.

Then, these schools should get their acts together and make sure their students are informed about free speech and how to behave when presented with information that they don't agree with.
The behavior of these students is reflecting poorly on the school as a whole and unfortunately, impacting all students who attend.

You realize those same pretexts have been used to justify all manner of foolishness?

I'm sure the judge also hates "judicial activism", but here he is trying to tell private law schools how to administer themselves.

Well done, Judge Ho.

Yes, well done, indeed. Nice to see a voice of reason speaking out. Stanford can do whatever they want. But no one is required to hire their idiot students.

You should stop whining about cancel culture then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

It’s punishing students who had nothing to do with any of that. Guilt by association. Not very judicial at all.

Then, these schools should get their acts together and make sure their students are informed about free speech and how to behave when presented with information that they don't agree with.
The behavior of these students is reflecting poorly on the school as a whole and unfortunately, impacting all students who attend.

You realize those same pretexts have been used to justify all manner of foolishness?

I'm sure the judge also hates "judicial activism", but here he is trying to tell private law schools how to administer themselves.

Well done, Judge Ho.

Yes, well done, indeed. Nice to see a voice of reason speaking out. Stanford can do whatever they want. But no one is required to hire their idiot students.

You should stop whining about cancel culture then.

Who cares? None of these students would want to clerk for these judges anyway. Unless you want a career as a right wing activist, clerking for them is a black mark on your resume.

[Anonymous]

Lol, are you an attorney in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

Speaking of jealous - your bitter tantrums are doing you no favors. You just look so ridiculous, defending the behavior of these activist law students. And you seem confused, to boot. Judge Ho is throwing his support behind Judge Duncan. So telling that you would try to spin this otherwise.

No one is defending their behavior. We’re just pointing out the ridiculous attention seeking by these judges. So telling that you defend them.

You bet I defend them - as does anyone who actually values free speech. So that rules you out.