I want to set expectations clearly going forward: our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not going to take the form of having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political issues, make frequent institutional statements about current news events, or exclude or condemn speakers who hold views on social and political issues with whom some or even many in our community disagree. I believe that focus on these types of actions as the hallmark of an “inclusive” environment can lead to creating and enforcing an institutional orthodoxy that is not only at odds with our core commitment to academic freedom, but also that would create an echo chamber that ill prepares students to go out into and act as effective advocates in a society that disagrees about many important issues. Some students might feel that some points should not be up for argument and therefore that they should not bear the responsibility of arguing them (or even hearing arguments about them), but however appealing that position might be in some other context, it is incompatible with the training that must be delivered in a law school. Law students are entering a profession in which their job is to make arguments on behalf of clients whose very lives may depend on their professional skill. Just as doctors in training must learn to face suffering and death and respond in their professional role, lawyers in training must learn to confront injustice or views they don’t agree with and respond as attorneys.
Law is a mediating device for difference. It therefore reflects all the heat of controversy, all the pain and suffering, and all the deeply felt moral urgency of our differences in position, power, and cherished principles. Knowing all of this, I believe we cannot function as a law school from the premise that appears to have animated the disruption of Judge Duncan’s remarks — that speakers, texts, or ideas believed by some to be harmful inflict a new impermissible harm justifying a heckler’s veto simply because they are present on this campus, raised in legally protected speech, and made an object of inquiry. Naming perceived harm, exploring it, and debating solutions with people who disagree about the nature and fact of the harm or the correct solutions are the very essence of legal work. Lively, candid, civil, and evidence-based discourse in disagreement is not just positive for our community, constituted as it is in difference, it is a professional duty. Observance of this duty matters most, not least, when we are convinced that others haven’t.
Wow, I’m surprised to find that I completely agree with this letter. Props to Stanford for trying to make a stand against this lunacy. I’m not sure why people initially thought that giving into these bullies would work. When has placating an aggressor ever worked?
It's the Law School Dean who's taking a stand. There have been other Deans that have lost their jobs for taking similar positions, so it remains to be seen what Stanford will do.
Ugh, thought about this and you’re right. Would LOVE to see Stanford admin HQ back up the dean on this one, but between entrenched wokeness and potential impact on profits, probably not gonna happen.
The students are all free to give their own lectures disagreeing with the judge. They are not free to scream and yell like children so that nobody can hear his talk.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to read and the freedom to listen. Those students were acting as censors, not as protesters.
It's hard for me to take seriously complaints about mobs from the party/church of generations of anti-abortion or anti-LBGTQ or anti-integration mobs. I grew up in that world, these are their own tactics, I recognize them well. It's not about principles, those are just used as tactics, it's about power.
Seems like they're just pissy about the fact that the pro-LBGTQ mobs now are so much larger than their old Westboro baptist ones and such. Tragic, truly. But we want to allow those protests but think a Federal Judge needs special protection from being yelled at? He can grow some thick skin, it's just words.
I might be inclined to revisit this opinion once anyone on that side starts actually holding people like Donald Trump to any such standards of decorum. Hell, just Trump - let's just see it done with him, let's ignore all the other right-wing instigators and clowns.
Until that happens, let's not insist that one side fight with one arm behind their back when the same tactics are widely employed on the right.
Cause that's all this is: whining about decorum in the interest of gaining an edge. People trying to lay rules on top of "free speech" because they don't actually believe it's applicable universally everywhere. While simultaneously claiming it as a holy principle when convenient. "Free speech for me, not for thee." "Freedom to listen" or whatever is just editorializing; it ain't in the First Amendment. Hey, maybe we can trade - we'll add freedom to be listened to, but we'll also remove the right to bear arms outside of the military?
I really just want to see people drop the pretense.
So back when I was in a far-right school, they had a clever trick for making sure speakers with different views didn't get heckled: they didn't invite them in the first place. Why expose your flock to a literal agent of evil, after all.
It's clever! You avoid the ugly scene by removing even the ability for "free speech" you don't like!
So in a country where that level of indoctrination and control of information is common and uncontroversial - indeed, often lobbied for through looser restrictions around charter and private schools and opposition to public schools - why am I supposed to be upset with the students at Stanford disagreeing with others and with administrators over who needs help spreading their views? Let's paint the full picture, instead.
Currently in the US one side is ruthless and result-oriented and the other is prone to tripping over their own feet PR-wise in ways that the other party/church doesn't get called out on. The younger people on the left have seen that, and are bringing some of the same methods into their toolbox. And the right has the balls to call them out on it?
<< I really just want to see people drop the pretense.
I posit to you that pretense, and I am not really joking, is one the few things that is keeping this civilization going. I personally would like the pretense to go on.
Your thinking has been completely overtaken by tribalism. "We can be bad now because other people have been bad in the past."
Note that you excuse bad behavior from Stanford Law Students because of the Westboro Baptist Church. The former are some of the most powerful people in the world. The latter are hated by everyone and taken seriously by no one.
I'm not so convinced that shouting someone down is "bad." I'm not convinced that the right to speech includes the right to be listened to.
Are law students, even at Stanford, "some of the most powerful people in the world"? I don't think so. The administrators have a lot more power on paper inside of Stanford. The federal judge has more power in the country as a whole.
I also don't particularly care as much about whether or not it's "bad" compared to how much I care about the larger political battles. Tribalism? Or pragmatism? Meh.
Westboro is just one small instance of the larger reactionary American right. They are a handy one for these purposes since their antics were somehow seen as "more acceptable" application of free speech to the right than this shouting down was. The abortion protest movement was longer, more sustained, and more violent; more recently, of course, the mob is most recognizable in screaming about election results or books in primary school libraries and such.
If that sort of mob behavior is seen as "bad" by all these "free speech" folks, why are they only making noise about it when it's against them?
And if they don't think it's bad, the morality certainly seems less settled than you say it is.
If you're looking for tribalism, consider some more how the complaints about "the woke mob" so common in today's conversation are so one-directional in terms of which mob they target.
> No, it's the principle of "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it."
I don't believe that's actually true of anyone in power in the Republican party or evangelical church. It's just a line they trot out for PR. Their actions demonstrate that they are perfectly willing to benefit from mobs, intimidation, threats, and violence for their own ends.
> The current trend is, instead: "Our voice has been silenced in the past, but now we will silence them!"
Yes - the people who were silencing those voices are now claiming to support "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it." - it's obviously bullshit since they were doing the silencing.
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment, or wasn't clear in mine..
I agree that there are many hypocrites out there who silence others every day but now clutch their pearls on this case.
But my point was: the Stanford hecklers were wrong to drown out the Judge's speech, regardless of how his rulings or viewpoints impact them. I see a trend of people who have been historically marginalized, now feel empowered to silence others.
> Some students might feel that some points should not be up for argument and therefore that they should not bear the responsibility of arguing them (or even hearing arguments about them), but however appealing that position might be in some other context, it is incompatible with the training that must be delivered in a law school. Law students are entering a profession in which their job is to make arguments on behalf of clients whose very lives may depend on their professional skill.
Also, isn't it also an area where professional and ethical obligations require you to be able to make the strongest possible arguments that you're capable of on behalf of your client... even if you personally find your client to be extremely distasteful. Lawyers literally need to be able to play devil's advocate, so I think it would be perfectly reasonable to not only require lawyers-in-training to be exposed to ideas opposing things they feel "should not be up for argument," but even argue against those things themselves as an exercise.
Students should be skilled in the meta-theory of law as well as legal critique to know the limits of legalism.
What the administration is attempting to do is monopolize the framing of the issue as a legal one. Frame monopolization is inherently an authoritarian practice and unbecoming of a prestigious higher institution.
> What the administration is attempting to do is monopolize the framing of the issue as a legal one. Frame monopolization is inherently an authoritarian practice and unbecoming of a prestigious higher institution.
What do you mean? It's a law school, so it seems perfectly reasonable and not authoritarian that these issues should be framed by the organization's primary purpose.
And frankly the quoted statement less "frame monopolization" than a rejection of an even more stringent kind of authoritarian ideological "frame monopolization."
It's not "monopolizing" the "frame" for a person to take a position and argue for it. And it's certainly not authoritarian.
In any debate, it is expected that each side will argue their own position and not the counter-position. If you disagree with the administration that the issue is a legal one, then that becomes a new point that one may debate.
So to be clear: your position is that there is no legal issue here, and that the SLS Dean is utilizing authoritarian tactics when he says it is a legal issue?
What I'm saying is that there is no reason to give a legal framing primacy. What I'm getting back in response is, "There is one true way to frame this and it is legal." It's great that people think that, but I'm simply not going to accept that without justification.
It's the difference between fighting a fair match in an arena and having a conversation about what arena or if an arena at all is even the right way to think about this. I simply won't accept without justification that a legal framing is legitimate without a case being made beyond, "well, it's the best we have, or if you have something better, say it." Those responses always display a failure of creative imagination.
According to the model rule, at least, the lawyer may withdraw from representation when faced with a disagreeable or repugnant client, one who doesn’t pay, one which presents the lawyer with an unreasonable financial burden, or where other good cause exists.
(And this is /withdrawal/, let alone the fact that if a non-client you don’t want comes into your office you have every right to ask him to leave.
I suppose some judge could try to cram a client (an indigent criminal suspect maybe?) down your throat under 1.16(c). But I would reckon that the general rule is that NLG members wouldn’t have to represent fedsoc members if they didn’t want to.
You might be thinkin of 6.2 cmt. 1 which suggests that like John Adams’ defense of British soldiers, lawyers might find it to be a valuable contribution to our adversarial system if they sometimes stake not an unsavory client. No requirement to do so, though.
Either the current predictions of wokeness hysteria calming down are correct and this kind message will be the new standard, or we could be seeing this dean making a public apology in a few days about how her words have caused indelible harm to systemically disadvantaged communities and how she will dedicate the rest of her life to listening and learning about those she harmed through her ignorance and bigotry.
My guess is the Dean's letter, which is well-researched and filled with citations to CA and federal law, will be referenced by administrators at other schools. I don't think it will become as well-known as the Chicago Principles, but it will be used to give legal heft to such principles.
Of course, some schools and administrators will completely ignore it. But I doubt the Dean will be walking this back. Stanford's President took the unusual move of signing his name to the original apology, and he has surely reviewed this letter. He's in her corner on this (at least as long as he remains president...).
I agree that the dean's letter is a fine document that should set a standard. Hopefully, many people here on HN will take the time to click through and read it.
I wasn't familiar with the events that led up to this, but found this Reuters article which says that the DEI Associate Dean, Tirien Steinbach seems to have acted improperly (according to Stanford).
Is this the first time that a DEI leader has been punished for that sort of action? Seems hard to believe after this last decade of them running unchecked.
"four legs good, two legs bad" from Animal Farm (1945) by George Orwell, comes to mind every time I read about 'activist' students' (& throw in a shepherd or two) disrupting episodes.
I like the tone, and I'm glad that the law school is standing by free speech in the context of academic inquiry and the legal profession.
However.
The DEI dean planned and led a mob that not only harassed a sitting federal judge, but necessitated his removal for his own safety. Being placed on leave is nowhere near enough, and every day that passes without firing and completely repudiating the DEI dean is a grave injustice.
I think all she did was read remarks during the Q&A when it was her turn. Correction: after the heckling started for the purposes of calming things down, she claims.
In those remarks, in addition to disagreeing in very strong terms with the speaker, she said:
> You are invited into this space. You are absolutely welcome in this space. In this space where people learn and, again, live. I really do, wholeheartedly welcome you. Because me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech. We believe that it is necessary. We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable. And that is a policy and a principle that I think is worthy of defending, even in this time.
I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. But you seem to be suggesting she actively did things I don't believe that she did.
> I think all she did was read remarks during the Q&A when it was her turn.
She did not read her remarks during the Q&A. She read them before the speaker had a chance to even deliver his speech, which was never given. She gave her pre-written remarks after taking the podium under the guise of being the administrator who was going to calm the situation.
Because she claimed to be taking the podium for one purpose (to calm the room down), but then immediately pivoted to another purpose (lecturing the speaker with prepared remarks about how he is wrong about various things).
If she had asked him if she might take the podium in order to lecture him, I doubt he would have acquiesced.
> If she had asked him if she might take the podium in order to lecture him, I doubt he would have acquiesced.
Does the guest speaker have some special right to veto the remarks of a Dean at her own institution? Is there a law that was broken? Why does the guest speaker have a first amendment right to speak at a private educational institution, but not the dean of said institution?
> Does the guest speaker have some special right to veto the remarks of a Dean at her own institution?
At a session where she was not scheduled to speak, I would think yes. The judge was invited to speak by a student group, the Dean was not. If the Dean had waited until the Q&A period to make remarks or ask a protracted question, that would have been a different situation. Instead, she hijacked the event before the speaker had the opportunity to give his remarks (which were never given).
> Is there a law that was broken?
No, just the university's own policies, as laid out at length in Dean Martinez's letter.
Did she use a gun to hijack the event? Did she use a knife? Or did she walk up to the podium, with the speakers permission, and perhaps got a little carried away from the stated intent of her speech?
"Speaker's permission" is disingenuous. I don't think one reasonably expects, when politely handing over a mic before an invited presentation, that the recipient will use it to admonish you and encourage heckling.
This comment itself is in such bad faith that I don't even know where to begin. Imagine this. A progressive event was taking place in which a progressive speaker didn't get to do their planned talk. Instead an administrator gave their pre-written notes (literally printed) and went into a diatribe admonishing the intended speaker when their job was to help moderate the event. Are you seriously telling me that this was appropriate?
I'm not the person you're responding to, but you clearly are laying out a version of facts that is being contested. You're saying she "hijacked" the event rather than attempted to de-escalate an already out-of-control situation, and maybe even suggesting that doing so is out of the normal responsibility of deans.
She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.
I'm not sure I understand the problem with preparing remarks. Preparing remarks seems like a good thing. It was known that students were upset with the speaker in advance.
I just wish the remarks would have been different than what they were and focused on enforcement of the rules, rather than the failed attempt at de-escalation.
If Tirien Steinbach was acting on good faith to de-escalate, she wouldn't stop saying "is the juice worth the squeeze" to the speaker ad nauseum. I watched the 9 minute video of her speaking uninterrupted. In fact she loves asking "is the juice worth the squeeze" so much to the point that it becomes a subtitle in her Wall Street Journal article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-c...).
That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.
She said it twice, and then a third time only when the speaker asked her to explain what she meant by the phrase. Here's the full context of that second time:
> When I say “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” that's what I'm asking. Is this worth it? And I hope so, and I'll stay for your remarks to see, because I do want to know your perspective. I am not, you know, in the business of wanting to either shut down speech, because I do know that if they come for this group today, they will come for the group that I am part of tomorrow.
Sounds like good-faith to me. That said, by nature I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I find most people say what they think.
It was not in good faith. She delivered prepared remarks and basically hijacked the event to do so instead of doing her job. She was not doing her job in good faith.
What good faith is there when someone continually makes the speaker out as a bad person with ill intent?
"I’m also uncomfortable because it is my job to say:"
"We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable."
"They are here because they feel harmed not just by your speech."
"if you can listen through your partisan lens, your hyper-political lens and just look and see human beings"
"we ask that you come with good intentions and respect."
Then she goes and basically condones whatever the protesters were going to do:
"You all chose to be here today. Many people go before Judge Duncan who do not necessarily choose to be there. And they have to listen to everything he says. Literally thousands of people. You have a choice. You do not need to stay here if this is not where you want to be. You can stay if this is where you want to be right now. But make that choice."
I think, ironically, you just like the hecklers fail to understand that you can find somebody highly objectionable but still defend their right to speech. She was trying to make that distinction.
Edit: Also, you cut off the point she was making in that last part. She was trying to say that hecklers don't have to listen if they don't want and they can leave but if they stay they should listen and "make space" for the speaker.
> I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers.
Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech?
Because I get the idea of absolute free speech, but that'd include shouting over someone to drown out their message. If you start imposing restrictions on some forms of speech, it's not absolute any more and I think you ought to weigh reasons for imposing restrictions on any speech -- since freedom of speech isn't absolute any more.
> Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech?
It implies that I favor schools having rules like what they have at Stanford Law School regarding heckling inside of events and think they should be enforced. Are you suggesting these rules are unconstitutional and/or a free speech problem? You'd be the first.
It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. These are organized mobs that filibuster points of view they disagree with from being expressed.
The linked statement mentions how Stanford's policy is that protest is acceptable at these events, but disruption isn't. This seems reasonable to me, and possible to enforce as well. I think the level of free speech absolutism you're talking about is not actually on the table for any of the parties involved.
Freedom of speech has never been absolute. As a general rule, "time, place, and manner" restrictions — such as not disrupting a public event — are perfectly allowable.
If the protestors would have protested in a different place, or in a non-disruptive manner, they would have been in compliance with the policy.
Freedom of speech - the government will not prosecute for speech that's critical of the government, government personnel, or government actions. You may make this speech in public places on government-owned property.
Free speech has never meant you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. You can't spread lies about people (slander), you can't threaten to injure someone (assault), you can't incite a panic (yelling Fire! in a public area when there is no fire), you can't say lies in a court of law (perjury), and if it's a privately owned area then the property owner has the right to remove you from their premises. Online properties have the right to boot you off their forums.
I don't know where Americans have recently gotten this idea that they have a constitutional right to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's never been the case.
Suppose Martin Shkreli wanted to go on a diatribe in Hillary Clinton's bedroom. Would her excluding him from her domicile be a violaton of his first amendment right? Obviously not.
Now suppose he were already invited to her domicile, but she and Bill found him annoying so they told him to either stuff it or leave. Would that violate his first amendment right? Also no.
Now replace the Clintons and Shkreli with Stanford and the protesters, respectively.
I think you may be misunderstanding me - I was saying that the comment I replied to was describing the limits of the 1st amendment, not freedom of speech. Free speech is a principle, not a right granted by the constitution.
People all too often conflate the two. What people commonly think of as "free speech" when referring to their 1st amendment right goes way beyond your actual legal rights to speech as delineated by that 1st amendment and centuries' worth of case law.
I suggest that you read the pdf linked in the article, which is a letter from the Dean of the Stanford Law School. He covers the topic of freedom of speech and the heckler's veto at length. It's a notable document.
Heckling that is designed to shutdown speech is not free speech but an attempt at weaponizing the concept of free speech into a tool to shut actual free speech down.
Especially in a situation with a Q&A heckling is not a form of free speech but is just an attempt at restricting and impeding other's right to free speech.
Thank you for that comment - it gets to the underlying feeling I didn't express.
A problem with any form of regulation of speech is that there can be speech that is abhorrent. I feel there is an underlying idea behind the strong stance on free speech, namely (to quote @elicash) "the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less".
An obvious way to do that is to just blast noise over someone's speech. In a very absolutist's view on free speech, that works.
In a slightly more nuanced view, you would argue that heckling / making noise to drown out speech is not free speech but weaponising speech. And, you may continue to argue, weaponised speech does not deserve protection.
I would counter that in the last few years, I have seen US politicians and certain TV channels doing things with speech which -- in my view -- easily cross the bar of "weaponising speech". (Note: I am sure most of you can come up with instances of this from either side of the political divide, so I am not even going to hint at examples. Your examples work equally well as mine.)
To me, this raises the question of whether the government should step in and stop this sort of speech. That sounds terribly iffy.... major eeks! On the other hand, if not, why would we allow that while not allowing other weaponisations of speech? Are some weaponisations of speech worse than others? Feels exploitable.... Or is it because regular citizens deserve less rights than politicians? That also feels very iffy...
I'm not sure what a good answer is, nor that any country has found one. (That includes the USA.)
"heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech" exactly, this is just the marketplace of ideas deciding that the speaker is either bringing nothing of value to the table or that his reputation for previous speech is too poor. The idea that a Federal Judge is somehow having his free speech rights violated by a bunch of college students is insane, the man has argued before the SCOTUS and has a lifetime appointment which allows him to affect the lives of millions of Americans. It's becoming increasingly clear that "Free Speech" is just the idea that the powerful speak and the commoners listen.
> I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. But you seem to be suggesting she actively did things I don't believe that she did.
There's a ~10 minute video of it. He tries to give his speech, but the students continue to disrupt it. The school's policy allows protests, but not disruption. He asks for an administrator, and she starts her (obviously prepared) 6 minute speech. The crowd quiets so she can speak. He tries to talk, but she tells him to let her talk and puts her hand up in a "stop" signal (so that she can give a speech about how she's not going to stop him from talking).
Your quote comes from that speech, but doesn't convey the overall message. A key point is that she worded it, "it is my job to say you are welcome in this space", preceding that with how this was a reason she was uncomfortable. And then she follows it by saying, "and again I ask is the juice worth the squeeze?" She then talks about how she hopes he can listen to the protestors and learn from them. She finishes by saying she's glad this is going on here, to applause.
> First, Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach is currently on leave. Generally speaking, the university does not comment publicly on pending personnel matters, and so I will not do so at this time.
then there is clearly no reason to think that is all that will happen.
> every day that passes without firing and completely repudiating the DEI dean is a grave injustice.
How would it be a grave injustice? I'm sure there are those with political motives that would like to see mob justice, but firing someone without dotting all the i's just means you'll pay massive legal expenses and they'll be given their job back, as it should be.
I find it surprising that she is doubling down on her "is the juice worth the squeeze" line. In my mind (as a former lawyer), the "juice" is not just the particular speech that was about to be given (which was unrelated to LGBTQ issues, FWIW), but rather free speech rights in general. Of course, the DEI Dean frames it as if the "juice" is much narrower, and therefore easier to outweigh.
That phrase is sticking out to me also. The framing "is the juice worth the squeeze" fits perfectly into the DEI's fundamental idea of how speech should work: the speaker must justify the value of his/her speech in order to have it.
The flip-side is that there must be a justifiable reason to censor speech in order to silence it (with black-mask intimidation no less) regardless of its perceived value.
Burden of proof that the juice is not worth the squeeze on the speaker vs the burden of proof that the speech should be silenced on the dean.
I see lots of comments with emotional responses that seem to have the commenter identifying with the judge, and describing the protest as a mob.
It would be useful to look into what the man has actually said and done, the context of the protest, before coming to a decision.
Free speech is important, yes, but so are consequences and context. A justice system that fails to provide justice is worth protesting. Having power is not an excuse for abusing it.
As Angela Davis put it, freedom is a constant struggle, and sometimes that struggle means speaking truth to power.
the Dean is wrong in asserting that the students will need to encompass and address disagreement later in their careers to serve their clients
the students protesting will take up work at places like SPLC where donations from Silicon Valley elites will pay them $1 mln/year to witch hunt Americans
The notion that there are these well-paid (as you put it) 'witch' hunters out there, just lying in wait to "hunt Americans", is firstly, specious (where are these riches?) and secondly shows exactly who you think is deserving of protection, and from whom.
If Salary.com [1] is to be believed (I have no idea), then a summer intern at SPLC makes $95k (presumably on an annualized basis). Lawyer salaries appear to be higher, but still in the low six-figures. Working here would be much less remunerative than working at a firm, but it would have the benefit of qualifying for student loan forgiveness (either through a program that Stanford runs, or through the federal govt's program).
I'd love to see a short paper on the difference between hollering and heckling that you perceive.
The idea that it is some kind of "veto" is again to misattribute power to the powerless. This figurative and hyperbolic language ('veto', 'witch hunt', etc.) clouds judgment.
This isn't the UN security council. This is a lot of horrified young people attempting to find self-expression. Sometimes, it's messy.
I think the insistence on wishing to appeal to emotion (think of the horrified young people!) is what is causing the consternation you're commenting on. Serious people - especially lawyers - shouldn't do this, and the event has made me take SLS less seriously as a law school. The students can find their "self-expression" in a number of different venues and no one - not a single person anywhere - is preventing them from doing that. Throwing your hands up and saying "well shucks, it's messy" isn't a standard or a reliable norm, and, this whole thing being about lawyers, one would expect these people to be very interested in what the rules actually are.
FWIW I don't think there's much daylight between "hollering" and "heckling". "Protest is allowed but disruption is not allowed" is the (directly quoted) standard that the SLS Dean is attempting to enforce.
The context is that students invited him to speak about topics unrelated to his controversial rulings (which for the record I think are terrible). The students who wanted to hear him speak are the one's who faced consequences here. As are any students who may disagree with him, but will one day have to argue in court in front of Federalist judges and would be aided by better understanding those same judges. The Judge himself suffered no consequence other than inconvenience and perhaps frustration. It is unclear how the mao-maoing of the judge before he spoke imposes any consequence on him or accomplishes anything other than undermining free and open intellectual exchange.
EDIT for those down voting, I'm curious to hear your specific disagreements.
We’ve had four generations now raised on stories of the heroes of the civil rights era. Four generations of people trying to emulate them. Four generations of conspicuous failure to make any meaningful progress on any issue via protest and civil disobedience.
Maybe it’s because these kids aren’t MLK or maybe it’s because their cause isn’t dismantling Jim Crow.
Whatever the reason if they actually care about their issues and not just about getting high of public acts of self righteousness, it’s time to look at decades of failure and conclude that these tactics won’t work for them.
Maybe do the hard work of boosting under 30 voter turnout instead.
> ...why she believes that robust protection of freedom of expression of all viewpoints is actually essential to diversity and inclusion in the long run.
It's a little frustrating that this has to be explained to college students, let alone law school students, and that it is presented as a novel idea.
Whether the novel political upheaval of the day is anti-monarchist revolutionaries, anti-Communists, or LGBT/BLM/defund-the-police activists, it takes the silent majority of moderate reasonable people a little time to figure out what the fomentor's game is, and distinguish political change with real sustained staying power vs. the flash in the pan. Then, as people grow tired of the day's fad and having daily life disrupted by something that clearly isn't working, they develop the successful counterarguments and the public support to quiet those unreasonable agitators.
It takes time, but you eventually see what actually sticks as the change desired by the bulk of reasonable people.
102 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] threadI see mention of "free speech training"...the school should expect this to turn into a complete circus
countdown until students demand a resignation letter from the Dean also
the tide will turn one day, but the mob is going to go scorched earth first
Who cares if students are angry? They’re just students.
If they can’t behave themselves, kick them out.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to read and the freedom to listen. Those students were acting as censors, not as protesters.
Seems like they're just pissy about the fact that the pro-LBGTQ mobs now are so much larger than their old Westboro baptist ones and such. Tragic, truly. But we want to allow those protests but think a Federal Judge needs special protection from being yelled at? He can grow some thick skin, it's just words.
I might be inclined to revisit this opinion once anyone on that side starts actually holding people like Donald Trump to any such standards of decorum. Hell, just Trump - let's just see it done with him, let's ignore all the other right-wing instigators and clowns.
Until that happens, let's not insist that one side fight with one arm behind their back when the same tactics are widely employed on the right.
Cause that's all this is: whining about decorum in the interest of gaining an edge. People trying to lay rules on top of "free speech" because they don't actually believe it's applicable universally everywhere. While simultaneously claiming it as a holy principle when convenient. "Free speech for me, not for thee." "Freedom to listen" or whatever is just editorializing; it ain't in the First Amendment. Hey, maybe we can trade - we'll add freedom to be listened to, but we'll also remove the right to bear arms outside of the military?
What are you proposing here exactly? Drop all the rules until everyone behaves?
So back when I was in a far-right school, they had a clever trick for making sure speakers with different views didn't get heckled: they didn't invite them in the first place. Why expose your flock to a literal agent of evil, after all.
It's clever! You avoid the ugly scene by removing even the ability for "free speech" you don't like!
So in a country where that level of indoctrination and control of information is common and uncontroversial - indeed, often lobbied for through looser restrictions around charter and private schools and opposition to public schools - why am I supposed to be upset with the students at Stanford disagreeing with others and with administrators over who needs help spreading their views? Let's paint the full picture, instead.
Currently in the US one side is ruthless and result-oriented and the other is prone to tripping over their own feet PR-wise in ways that the other party/church doesn't get called out on. The younger people on the left have seen that, and are bringing some of the same methods into their toolbox. And the right has the balls to call them out on it?
I posit to you that pretense, and I am not really joking, is one the few things that is keeping this civilization going. I personally would like the pretense to go on.
Note that you excuse bad behavior from Stanford Law Students because of the Westboro Baptist Church. The former are some of the most powerful people in the world. The latter are hated by everyone and taken seriously by no one.
Are law students, even at Stanford, "some of the most powerful people in the world"? I don't think so. The administrators have a lot more power on paper inside of Stanford. The federal judge has more power in the country as a whole.
I also don't particularly care as much about whether or not it's "bad" compared to how much I care about the larger political battles. Tribalism? Or pragmatism? Meh.
Westboro is just one small instance of the larger reactionary American right. They are a handy one for these purposes since their antics were somehow seen as "more acceptable" application of free speech to the right than this shouting down was. The abortion protest movement was longer, more sustained, and more violent; more recently, of course, the mob is most recognizable in screaming about election results or books in primary school libraries and such.
If that sort of mob behavior is seen as "bad" by all these "free speech" folks, why are they only making noise about it when it's against them?
And if they don't think it's bad, the morality certainly seems less settled than you say it is.
If you're looking for tribalism, consider some more how the complaints about "the woke mob" so common in today's conversation are so one-directional in terms of which mob they target.
Is it good?
No, it's the principle of "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it."
The current trend is, instead: "Our voice has been silenced in the past, but now we will silence them!"
I don't believe that's actually true of anyone in power in the Republican party or evangelical church. It's just a line they trot out for PR. Their actions demonstrate that they are perfectly willing to benefit from mobs, intimidation, threats, and violence for their own ends.
> The current trend is, instead: "Our voice has been silenced in the past, but now we will silence them!"
Yes - the people who were silencing those voices are now claiming to support "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it." - it's obviously bullshit since they were doing the silencing.
I agree that there are many hypocrites out there who silence others every day but now clutch their pearls on this case.
But my point was: the Stanford hecklers were wrong to drown out the Judge's speech, regardless of how his rulings or viewpoints impact them. I see a trend of people who have been historically marginalized, now feel empowered to silence others.
Also, isn't it also an area where professional and ethical obligations require you to be able to make the strongest possible arguments that you're capable of on behalf of your client... even if you personally find your client to be extremely distasteful. Lawyers literally need to be able to play devil's advocate, so I think it would be perfectly reasonable to not only require lawyers-in-training to be exposed to ideas opposing things they feel "should not be up for argument," but even argue against those things themselves as an exercise.
What the administration is attempting to do is monopolize the framing of the issue as a legal one. Frame monopolization is inherently an authoritarian practice and unbecoming of a prestigious higher institution.
What do you mean? It's a law school, so it seems perfectly reasonable and not authoritarian that these issues should be framed by the organization's primary purpose.
And frankly the quoted statement less "frame monopolization" than a rejection of an even more stringent kind of authoritarian ideological "frame monopolization."
In any debate, it is expected that each side will argue their own position and not the counter-position. If you disagree with the administration that the issue is a legal one, then that becomes a new point that one may debate.
It's the difference between fighting a fair match in an arena and having a conversation about what arena or if an arena at all is even the right way to think about this. I simply won't accept without justification that a legal framing is legitimate without a case being made beyond, "well, it's the best we have, or if you have something better, say it." Those responses always display a failure of creative imagination.
What I took offense at was calling a point of debate an "authoritarian" tactic.
According to the model rule, at least, the lawyer may withdraw from representation when faced with a disagreeable or repugnant client, one who doesn’t pay, one which presents the lawyer with an unreasonable financial burden, or where other good cause exists.
(And this is /withdrawal/, let alone the fact that if a non-client you don’t want comes into your office you have every right to ask him to leave.
I suppose some judge could try to cram a client (an indigent criminal suspect maybe?) down your throat under 1.16(c). But I would reckon that the general rule is that NLG members wouldn’t have to represent fedsoc members if they didn’t want to.
You might be thinkin of 6.2 cmt. 1 which suggests that like John Adams’ defense of British soldiers, lawyers might find it to be a valuable contribution to our adversarial system if they sometimes stake not an unsavory client. No requirement to do so, though.
Either the current predictions of wokeness hysteria calming down are correct and this kind message will be the new standard, or we could be seeing this dean making a public apology in a few days about how her words have caused indelible harm to systemically disadvantaged communities and how she will dedicate the rest of her life to listening and learning about those she harmed through her ignorance and bigotry.
Of course, some schools and administrators will completely ignore it. But I doubt the Dean will be walking this back. Stanford's President took the unusual move of signing his name to the original apology, and he has surely reviewed this letter. He's in her corner on this (at least as long as he remains president...).
I hope you are right regarding the outcome.
Key bits: SLS students will have mandatory training on free speech this spring, and the DEI Dean is on leave (not clear whether paid or unpaid).
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes...
However.
The DEI dean planned and led a mob that not only harassed a sitting federal judge, but necessitated his removal for his own safety. Being placed on leave is nowhere near enough, and every day that passes without firing and completely repudiating the DEI dean is a grave injustice.
In those remarks, in addition to disagreeing in very strong terms with the speaker, she said:
> You are invited into this space. You are absolutely welcome in this space. In this space where people learn and, again, live. I really do, wholeheartedly welcome you. Because me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech. We believe that it is necessary. We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable. And that is a policy and a principle that I think is worthy of defending, even in this time.
I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. But you seem to be suggesting she actively did things I don't believe that she did.
She did not read her remarks during the Q&A. She read them before the speaker had a chance to even deliver his speech, which was never given. She gave her pre-written remarks after taking the podium under the guise of being the administrator who was going to calm the situation.
If she had asked him if she might take the podium in order to lecture him, I doubt he would have acquiesced.
Does the guest speaker have some special right to veto the remarks of a Dean at her own institution? Is there a law that was broken? Why does the guest speaker have a first amendment right to speak at a private educational institution, but not the dean of said institution?
At a session where she was not scheduled to speak, I would think yes. The judge was invited to speak by a student group, the Dean was not. If the Dean had waited until the Q&A period to make remarks or ask a protracted question, that would have been a different situation. Instead, she hijacked the event before the speaker had the opportunity to give his remarks (which were never given).
> Is there a law that was broken?
No, just the university's own policies, as laid out at length in Dean Martinez's letter.
Did she use a gun to hijack the event? Did she use a knife? Or did she walk up to the podium, with the speakers permission, and perhaps got a little carried away from the stated intent of her speech?
She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.
I just wish the remarks would have been different than what they were and focused on enforcement of the rules, rather than the failed attempt at de-escalation.
That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.
> When I say “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” that's what I'm asking. Is this worth it? And I hope so, and I'll stay for your remarks to see, because I do want to know your perspective. I am not, you know, in the business of wanting to either shut down speech, because I do know that if they come for this group today, they will come for the group that I am part of tomorrow.
Sounds like good-faith to me. That said, by nature I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I find most people say what they think.
"I’m also uncomfortable because it is my job to say:"
"We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable."
"They are here because they feel harmed not just by your speech."
"if you can listen through your partisan lens, your hyper-political lens and just look and see human beings"
"we ask that you come with good intentions and respect."
Then she goes and basically condones whatever the protesters were going to do:
"You all chose to be here today. Many people go before Judge Duncan who do not necessarily choose to be there. And they have to listen to everything he says. Literally thousands of people. You have a choice. You do not need to stay here if this is not where you want to be. You can stay if this is where you want to be right now. But make that choice."
There was zero good faith effort on her part.
Edit: Also, you cut off the point she was making in that last part. She was trying to say that hecklers don't have to listen if they don't want and they can leave but if they stay they should listen and "make space" for the speaker.
> I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers.
Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech?
Because I get the idea of absolute free speech, but that'd include shouting over someone to drown out their message. If you start imposing restrictions on some forms of speech, it's not absolute any more and I think you ought to weigh reasons for imposing restrictions on any speech -- since freedom of speech isn't absolute any more.
It implies that I favor schools having rules like what they have at Stanford Law School regarding heckling inside of events and think they should be enforced. Are you suggesting these rules are unconstitutional and/or a free speech problem? You'd be the first.
Why is that unreasonable? I'm asking, not to disagree, but to understand and arrive at a general rule on when to ban what types of speech.
For example, I think filibusters are an accepted part of free speech... but perhaps subject to restrictions? If so, what are reasonable restrictions?
If the protestors would have protested in a different place, or in a non-disruptive manner, they would have been in compliance with the policy.
Freedom of speech - the government will not prosecute for speech that's critical of the government, government personnel, or government actions. You may make this speech in public places on government-owned property.
Free speech has never meant you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. You can't spread lies about people (slander), you can't threaten to injure someone (assault), you can't incite a panic (yelling Fire! in a public area when there is no fire), you can't say lies in a court of law (perjury), and if it's a privately owned area then the property owner has the right to remove you from their premises. Online properties have the right to boot you off their forums.
I don't know where Americans have recently gotten this idea that they have a constitutional right to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's never been the case.
Now suppose he were already invited to her domicile, but she and Bill found him annoying so they told him to either stuff it or leave. Would that violate his first amendment right? Also no.
Now replace the Clintons and Shkreli with Stanford and the protesters, respectively.
Especially in a situation with a Q&A heckling is not a form of free speech but is just an attempt at restricting and impeding other's right to free speech.
A problem with any form of regulation of speech is that there can be speech that is abhorrent. I feel there is an underlying idea behind the strong stance on free speech, namely (to quote @elicash) "the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less". An obvious way to do that is to just blast noise over someone's speech. In a very absolutist's view on free speech, that works.
In a slightly more nuanced view, you would argue that heckling / making noise to drown out speech is not free speech but weaponising speech. And, you may continue to argue, weaponised speech does not deserve protection.
I would counter that in the last few years, I have seen US politicians and certain TV channels doing things with speech which -- in my view -- easily cross the bar of "weaponising speech". (Note: I am sure most of you can come up with instances of this from either side of the political divide, so I am not even going to hint at examples. Your examples work equally well as mine.)
To me, this raises the question of whether the government should step in and stop this sort of speech. That sounds terribly iffy.... major eeks! On the other hand, if not, why would we allow that while not allowing other weaponisations of speech? Are some weaponisations of speech worse than others? Feels exploitable.... Or is it because regular citizens deserve less rights than politicians? That also feels very iffy...
I'm not sure what a good answer is, nor that any country has found one. (That includes the USA.)
There's a ~10 minute video of it. He tries to give his speech, but the students continue to disrupt it. The school's policy allows protests, but not disruption. He asks for an administrator, and she starts her (obviously prepared) 6 minute speech. The crowd quiets so she can speak. He tries to talk, but she tells him to let her talk and puts her hand up in a "stop" signal (so that she can give a speech about how she's not going to stop him from talking).
Your quote comes from that speech, but doesn't convey the overall message. A key point is that she worded it, "it is my job to say you are welcome in this space", preceding that with how this was a reason she was uncomfortable. And then she follows it by saying, "and again I ask is the juice worth the squeeze?" She then talks about how she hopes he can listen to the protestors and learn from them. She finishes by saying she's glad this is going on here, to applause.
> First, Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach is currently on leave. Generally speaking, the university does not comment publicly on pending personnel matters, and so I will not do so at this time.
then there is clearly no reason to think that is all that will happen.
> every day that passes without firing and completely repudiating the DEI dean is a grave injustice.
How would it be a grave injustice? I'm sure there are those with political motives that would like to see mob justice, but firing someone without dotting all the i's just means you'll pay massive legal expenses and they'll be given their job back, as it should be.
Historians hate the saying "history is written by the victors" but were seeing that play out live here.
PS: I have no dog in this fight, I am amused to no end by the family squabbles of the affluent, its popcorn worthy.
i don't think it's a political motive to want to see mob justice dispensed on the mob, it's quite human.
Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford
https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-c...
I find it surprising that she is doubling down on her "is the juice worth the squeeze" line. In my mind (as a former lawyer), the "juice" is not just the particular speech that was about to be given (which was unrelated to LGBTQ issues, FWIW), but rather free speech rights in general. Of course, the DEI Dean frames it as if the "juice" is much narrower, and therefore easier to outweigh.
The flip-side is that there must be a justifiable reason to censor speech in order to silence it (with black-mask intimidation no less) regardless of its perceived value.
Burden of proof that the juice is not worth the squeeze on the speaker vs the burden of proof that the speech should be silenced on the dean.
The speaker must justify the value of his/her speech based on their identity and position within the oppression hierarchy in order to have it.
It would be useful to look into what the man has actually said and done, the context of the protest, before coming to a decision.
Free speech is important, yes, but so are consequences and context. A justice system that fails to provide justice is worth protesting. Having power is not an excuse for abusing it.
As Angela Davis put it, freedom is a constant struggle, and sometimes that struggle means speaking truth to power.
Sometimes you have to holler.
the Dean is wrong in asserting that the students will need to encompass and address disagreement later in their careers to serve their clients
the students protesting will take up work at places like SPLC where donations from Silicon Valley elites will pay them $1 mln/year to witch hunt Americans
the protest is just job prep
You are telling on yourself.
https://www.salary.com/research/company/southern-poverty-law...
The idea that it is some kind of "veto" is again to misattribute power to the powerless. This figurative and hyperbolic language ('veto', 'witch hunt', etc.) clouds judgment.
This isn't the UN security council. This is a lot of horrified young people attempting to find self-expression. Sometimes, it's messy.
FWIW I don't think there's much daylight between "hollering" and "heckling". "Protest is allowed but disruption is not allowed" is the (directly quoted) standard that the SLS Dean is attempting to enforce.
The context is that students invited him to speak about topics unrelated to his controversial rulings (which for the record I think are terrible). The students who wanted to hear him speak are the one's who faced consequences here. As are any students who may disagree with him, but will one day have to argue in court in front of Federalist judges and would be aided by better understanding those same judges. The Judge himself suffered no consequence other than inconvenience and perhaps frustration. It is unclear how the mao-maoing of the judge before he spoke imposes any consequence on him or accomplishes anything other than undermining free and open intellectual exchange.
EDIT for those down voting, I'm curious to hear your specific disagreements.
Maybe it’s because these kids aren’t MLK or maybe it’s because their cause isn’t dismantling Jim Crow.
Whatever the reason if they actually care about their issues and not just about getting high of public acts of self righteousness, it’s time to look at decades of failure and conclude that these tactics won’t work for them.
Maybe do the hard work of boosting under 30 voter turnout instead.
It's a little frustrating that this has to be explained to college students, let alone law school students, and that it is presented as a novel idea.
Whether the novel political upheaval of the day is anti-monarchist revolutionaries, anti-Communists, or LGBT/BLM/defund-the-police activists, it takes the silent majority of moderate reasonable people a little time to figure out what the fomentor's game is, and distinguish political change with real sustained staying power vs. the flash in the pan. Then, as people grow tired of the day's fad and having daily life disrupted by something that clearly isn't working, they develop the successful counterarguments and the public support to quiet those unreasonable agitators.
It takes time, but you eventually see what actually sticks as the change desired by the bulk of reasonable people.