Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ha. Good. Stanford is rapidly becoming a joke, along with several of the other "elite" schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dean didn’t “attack” him she defused the situation setting him up to actually be able to speak. She specifically asked the audience to let him speak. These right wingers are blatant liars.

Oh, BS. Of course she attacked him. She called his opinions "hateful," among other things. She very much attacked him and then after pontificating for ten minutes, *finally* deigned to let him speak. Your projection is off the charts - especially calling others liars when you're the one lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dean didn’t “attack” him she defused the situation setting him up to actually be able to speak. She specifically asked the audience to let him speak. These right wingers are blatant liars.

When Stanford in their letter said that faculty acted inappropriately I am assuming they were including their DEI Dean in that group.

+1
Of course they were referring to DEI Dean. She was completely out of line. If she had actually been trying to "defuse" the situation, she would have done just that - told the protesters to behave like adults and either sit down and shut up, or leave. She did neither of those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain what in the actual hell is going on at these so-called "elite" law schools? After seeing the way students - and now administrators - shut down conservative speakers, I am completely revolted. Especially at institutions that supposedly pride themselves on being "bastions of free speech and open debate." What utter BS. I sincerely hope the attention-seeking, loudmouth dean, Tirien Steinbach, is fired - though I know she won't be. There is no free speech going on here.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/crybullies-at-stanford-law-school-threaten-free-speech/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-wants-stanford-apologize-disrupted-speech-2023-03-11/

Meh. The only guarantee you have is you won’t be imprisoned by the government for your speech. This notion that you are owed a platform or audience for reprehensible viewpoints (which much of what passes as “conservative” these days is) is wild — you aren’t. The world is equally free to reject your speech, ridicule you for it and hold you accountable for hateful things you say and do, which includes being canceled professionally. Natural consequences. It’s not like your speech is valid just because you are free to express it without fear of imprisonment.

Slow clap. Beautiful example of exactly the reprehensible behavior exhibited by Stanford law students - and deans. I have news for you. You don't INVITE someone to come and speak and then treat them like a pariah - without even letting them speak. Get over yourself. And exactly what "hateful" things has this judge said or done?

Now you are making an argument about etiquette, not about free speech.

In what way is usurping the judge's speaking time for herself, promoting his free speech? The dean had neither respect for free speech nor proper etiquette. She is a boor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford invited a speaker. Someone called the speaker out on his questionable actions. I don’t understand the controversy? He should just address it and move on.


Why are Americans so fragile?

The snowflake students were disrespectful and wouldn't let him speak at the beginning. They held vulgar signs, yelled ridiculous accusations, and wouldn't listen to him.
These are future LAW students - and perhaps, future JUDGES (although I hope not). And, you don't understand the controversy of these people not giving an invited speaker the opportunity to speak?

This is not how you deal with ideas that you don't agree with. If you take issue with something he says, your best reaction is to debate him with facts and ideas. Not shouting him down, throwing insults, and calling him names.

These students do not have a promising future in the field of law if they are unable to debate and refute something with which they disagree.
Perhaps they should seek a degree in something more suitable..... like gender studies or social activism.

+100

[Anonymous]

Tough to see how Stanford could have handled this better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain what in the actual hell is going on at these so-called "elite" law schools? After seeing the way students - and now administrators - shut down conservative speakers, I am completely revolted. Especially at institutions that supposedly pride themselves on being "bastions of free speech and open debate." What utter BS. I sincerely hope the attention-seeking, loudmouth dean, Tirien Steinbach, is fired - though I know she won't be. There is no free speech going on here.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/crybullies-at-stanford-law-school-threaten-free-speech/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-wants-stanford-apologize-disrupted-speech-2023-03-11/

Conservatives views and hate speech is not widely accepted outside of Fox bubble. It must be hard on you.

Hi, troll. I don't watch Fox News. I do, however, think for myself and I think the idiot dean and protesters at Stanford - as well as you - are wildly out of touch with basic decency and manners. It must be hard on you thinking people can behave like this with no repercussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a portion of an interview with this judge following this incident.
Read the whole thing. Food for thought.


Did you ever get to deliver your remarks?

No. You might read comments somewhere that I was, at some point, given “permission” to deliver my remarks by the DEI Assistant Dean, Steinbach. Nonsense. For a good 20-30 minutes (I’m estimating), I was ruthlessly mocked and shouted down by a mob after every third word. And then Steinbach launched into her bizarre prepared speech where she simultaneously “welcomed” me to campus and told me how horrible and hurtful I was to the community. Then she said I should be free to deliver my remarks. Try delivering a lecture under those circumstances. Basically, they wanted me to make a hostage video. No thanks. The whole thing was a staged public shaming, and after I realized that I refused to play along.


You have called for the firing of the DEI dean and the disciplining of law students involved in the protest. Why?

Naturally, I realize that it’s up to Stanford what to do about the jeering mob of students and the DEI dean, Steinbach. But I said what I did because what went on in that classroom was an utter disgrace. Start with the students screeching vulgarities and interrupting me every other word. This is a law school, for crying out loud. It’s supposed to be training students to enter a profession where respectful disagreement, even about supremely important things, is the most basic tool of the trade. You can’t be a lawyer unless you understand that the role of a lawyer is to explain—zealously, yes, but also with care, precision, and respect for your opponent—why your client should prevail.

Ask yourself: how is anything that went on in that classroom remotely compatible with that mission? Answer: it is the opposite of what it means to be a lawyer. Unless those students undergo a radical change in their whole approach to argument and disagreement, they are unfit to be members of any bar.

But if that isn’t bad enough, now consider the DEI dean. Now, I don’t know this woman. I have nothing personal against her. I’m only reacting to how she played her role as an administrator of one of the most prestigious law schools in America, and during a very tense situation where students are spiraling out of control.

She did exactly the opposite of what a law school administrator was supposed to do. Instead of explaining to the students that they should respect an invited guest at the law school (yes, a federal judge, but really this applies to any guest), even one they might disagree with passionately, she launched into a bizarre (and already printed out) monologue where she accused me of causing “hurt” and “division” in the law school community by my mere presence on campus. So, this had the effect of validating the mob.

Then, at the same time, she pretended to “welcome” me to campus so that I could express my views. All of this was delivered, as anyone can see from the video, in the voice and idiom of a therapist. I found it profoundly creepy. It was the language of “compassion” and “feelings,” but it came across as deeply controlling and aggressive.

Many people are talking about the weird metaphor she used: “Was the juice worth the squeeze?” I had no idea what she was talking about, but at some point I realized that she meant, “Yes, you were invited to campus, and we ‘welcome’ you. But your presence here is causing such hurt and division. So, was what you were going to talk about really worth all this pain you’re causing by coming here?” In other words, it’s just a folksy way of giving these students a heckler’s veto. If they hate you enough, then surely it wasn’t worth your coming to campus. Apply that twisted idea to the civil rights movement, and see where you end up. It isn’t on the side of the people marching across the Selma bridge.

In other words, what the dean was preaching is the exact opposite of the law of free speech. We protect the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. And here was a dean of one of the best law schools in the world using the exact opposite of that basic principle to silence a sitting federal judge. I just read back through what I wrote, and I find it hard to believe what I’m describing. And yet it happened. You can watch the video.

https://roddreher.substack.com/p/exclusive-us-judge-kyle-duncan-interview

I absolutely, unequivocally agree with every word he said. He was set up from the beginning and that dean should be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Sorry, Jay Willis - whoever you are. There is no way anyone would have been able to politely give a speech - to a hostile crowd, no less - after being shamed and bullied by way of introduction. It's beyond shameful that this person is posting clips of an obviously angry - and rightfully so - judge, who is clearly disgusted with the aholes in the audience, and isn't about to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So funny to me that people are defending this student conduct.

Back in the 90’s when I was at university, this student conduct would have been unthinkable.

Absolutely. Those students would have been escorted out by security, at the very least. This happened at Yale Law School too (and Middlebury, and Berkeley, etc). Why on earth are protesters allowed IN to the room where the speaker is? Others actually want to hear what the speaker has to say, and they are being prevented from doing so. Protesters should be made to stay outside the building. They don't get to dictate what other students and faculty get to experience.

Why do administrators at these schools have zero backbone? The inmates are running the asylum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s clear from his reaction he is a partisan judge

You can’t condemn the students without condemning him as well.

Sorry, no. He's acting like that BECAUSE of how the students and dean treated him first. He didn't plan on being ambushed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:President and Dean apologized to the judge.

Did they fire the dean? Did they expel the students who participated?

Oh, how I would love to see the day they do that.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yep. I'm glad he didn't back down or try to appease them. I hope more people stand up for themselves when faced with idiot mobs.

[Anonymous]

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

This is why we need to stop allowing unhinged protesters to prevent others from hearing invited speakers. They can go sulk and stomp their feet outside.

[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?

DP. I watched the videos. The PP is absolutely correct. Everyone affiliated with Stanford who was in that room should be reprimanded.