Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

This is why we need to stop appointing radical right wing federalist judges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge said nothing that wasn't true.

These students were not interested in listening, learning, or having a constructive dialogue.
They were there to attack, defame, and disrupt. Shameful.

The students said nothing that wasn’t true and the judge attacked them. He should not be a judge.

The students were out of control and the university staff who were present did nothing to stop them from screaming, even while what they were doing was against university policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge said nothing that wasn't true.

These students were not interested in listening, learning, or having a constructive dialogue.
They were there to attack, defame, and disrupt. Shameful.

The students said nothing that wasn’t true and the judge attacked them. He should not be a judge.

The students were out of control and the university staff who were present did nothing to stop them from screaming, even while what they were doing was against university policy.

Did you watch the videos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we need to stop appointing radical right wing federalist judges.

Yes. Let's only appoint activist left-wing judges who are more concerned with current culture and base their decisions on current trends in social justice instead of actual law.
It is actually time to start rejecting these snowflake law students as clerks. They have neither the temperament nor the skills to practice law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge said nothing that wasn't true.

These students were not interested in listening, learning, or having a constructive dialogue.
They were there to attack, defame, and disrupt. Shameful.

The students said nothing that wasn’t true and the judge attacked them. He should not be a judge.

The students were out of control and the university staff who were present did nothing to stop them from screaming, even while what they were doing was against university policy.

Did you watch the videos?

Absolutely. And, the behavior of the students - future lawyers and judges (God forbid) - was atrocious.
They are not going to be able to shout down their opposition in the court room. They are not going to be able to protest their way into a favorable verdict.
They need to learn how to listen, debate, and use their skills to convince others.
This wasn't that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge said nothing that wasn't true.

These students were not interested in listening, learning, or having a constructive dialogue.
They were there to attack, defame, and disrupt. Shameful.

The students said nothing that wasn’t true and the judge attacked them. He should not be a judge.

The students were out of control and the university staff who were present did nothing to stop them from screaming, even while what they were doing was against university policy.

Did you watch the videos?

NP. Yes. They were appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, listening to Steinbach's tirade and reading the interview with the newly fired DEI director at New College of Florida, I think that the DEI community is anything but "inclusive."

+100
Amazing that he was an *invited* speaker and she bulldozed right in there and monopolized the lectern so she could bray about absolutely nonsensical garbage. Interesting that another dean was brave enough to state that behaving that way goes against Stanford's free speech policies. I sincerely hope Steinbach is thrown to the curb.

Funny that you’re cool with Trump.

Did you just use the word “bray” with a woman? Yikes. Says a lot about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

If that is the case, then debate over their ruling should be exactly the antidote. Not screaming and yelling and preventing someone from speaking. Not everything relates to Trump. Just a hint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, BigLaw hires these people but that could be changing. Dh is the hiring partner for his firm. He had to fight management to be allowed to interview students from several “less prestigious” schools. They only wanted HYPCSGeorgetown.

Yep - my firm in NY would only hire from Georgetown if they were in the top three percent of the class and were a Law Review Editor. Otherwise it was HYS. Firm paid well, and I was trained well too. No diversity of thought in terms of politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, BigLaw hires these people but that could be changing. Dh is the hiring partner for his firm. He had to fight management to be allowed to interview students from several “less prestigious” schools. They only wanted HYPCSGeorgetown.

Yep - my firm in NY would only hire from Georgetown if they were in the top three percent of the class and were a Law Review Editor. Otherwise it was HYS. Firm paid well, and I was trained well too. No diversity of thought in terms of politics.

Do they have California offices? A bit of a tangent but that rigidity is very unusual in west cost offices, even for top firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we need to stop appointing radical right wing federalist judges.

Yes. Let's only appoint activist left-wing judges who are more concerned with current culture and base their decisions on current trends in social justice instead of actual law.
It is actually time to start rejecting these snowflake law students as clerks. They have neither the temperament nor the skills to practice law.

Well these radical right wing judges call for not hiring any law students who disagree with them. I guess they keep a list and rule against any firm that hire these students? Talk about not having the temperament?

It’s too bad there are no left wing judges to balance these absurd excuse for “judges”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we need to stop appointing radical right wing federalist judges.

Yes. Let's only appoint activist left-wing judges who are more concerned with current culture and base their decisions on current trends in social justice instead of actual law.
It is actually time to start rejecting these snowflake law students as clerks. They have neither the temperament nor the skills to practice law.

Well these radical right wing judges call for not hiring any law students who disagree with them. I guess they keep a list and rule against any firm that hire these students? Talk about not having the temperament?

It’s too bad there are no left wing judges to balance these absurd excuse for “judges”.

No, they have expressed great concern over hiring law students who behave like the ones in the video.
Because, being a lawyer means having the ability and demeanor to listen to your opposition and forming a coherent argument.
These students are activists and should seek a job in that line of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, BigLaw hires these people but that could be changing. Dh is the hiring partner for his firm. He had to fight management to be allowed to interview students from several “less prestigious” schools. They only wanted HYPCSGeorgetown.

Yep - my firm in NY would only hire from Georgetown if they were in the top three percent of the class and were a Law Review Editor. Otherwise it was HYS. Firm paid well, and I was trained well too. No diversity of thought in terms of politics.

Which practice area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we need to stop appointing radical right wing federalist judges.

Yes. Let's only appoint activist left-wing judges who are more concerned with current culture and base their decisions on current trends in social justice instead of actual law.
It is actually time to start rejecting these snowflake law students as clerks. They have neither the temperament nor the skills to practice law.

Well these radical right wing judges call for not hiring any law students who disagree with them. I guess they keep a list and rule against any firm that hire these students? Talk about not having the temperament?

It’s too bad there are no left wing judges to balance these absurd excuse for “judges”.

No, they have expressed great concern over hiring law students who behave like the ones in the video.
Because, being a lawyer means having the ability and demeanor to listen to your opposition and forming a coherent argument.
These students are activists and should seek a job in that line of work.

They only hire FedSoc members anyway.

[Anonymous]

Stanford apologized. So it feels something was wrong.