March 21, 2023
Freedom of speech is still an “iffy” situation in the United States. We have previously heard where people invited to speak on a college campus were heckled and harassed by a group that disagreed with the speaker’s point of view.
That has occurred once more. A person was invited to speak at a campus event sponsored by an off-campus organization. When news of the upcoming event became public, more than 70 opponents of the speaker immediately emailed the college administration asking that the live event be cancelled, or changed to an online event. It was not cancelled or changed.
Students also posted flyers critical of the speaker and the organization that invited him. Prior to the event, members of the sponsoring organization met for lunch on campus, but were told they were not welcome at the location because it was to be a “safe space” for students offended by the speaker being there.
As the time for the event neared, roughly 100 protesters were outside booing those who entered, and inside the event site as many as 70 more protesters carried signs.
As the sponsor’s representative began the event, he was heckled. When the speaker went to the podium, he was met with shouting by the protesters. They continued to yell at him, while members of the administration took no action.
When he asked for administration action, an associate dean approached the stage, with prepared notes in hand, and she then began to also attack the speaker. She asked right off the bat, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Which, of course, meant was the message from the speaker worth so horribly upsetting the hypersensitive students?
The heckling kept coming as the speaker tried to continue his address. Ultimately, the administrator suggested that since the yelling had not stopped, that the speaker move on to questions, answers and comments, against the speaker’s desire to finish.
Who were the players in this disturbing display of censoring free speech?
The event sponsor was the Federalist Society. The speaker was U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan. The administrator was Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach. The college was Stanford Law School. The protesters were Stanford Law students.
A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge is invited to address law students at a respected law school, and many of the attendees don’t understand fundamental aspects of the U.S. Constitution, laws, civil behavior, or general good manners.
Because the judge had ruled on cases in ways that were averse to the students’ political or social positions, they breached all of the aforementioned standards. They further do not understand that a judge is sworn to apply the law, and not impose his or her personal feelings when on the bench or otherwise acting as a judge. Either that, or they do not have the intelligence or integrity to know how to behave in such situations.
Knowing that the speaker was someone they disagreed with, why did they even bother to attend the event?
Civil behavior and good manners should have been learned long before they got to law school. And the basics of the Constitution and our laws should be known and respected by anyone entering law school.
And what of Associate Dean Steinbach? When called upon by the guest speaker, rather than appropriately chastise the students and tell them to be respectful, she joined the party and attacked their guest. Later, after interrupting the speaker again, she did say “I do think we should give space to hear what Judge Duncan has to say …”
Duncan was later escorted out of the event site by federal marshals to ensure his safety.
This criticism of the students’ and associate dean’s behavior is not because they chose to protest something they were against, but regarding the specific situation of who the speaker is, and who they are.
But even protesting has a limit, after which it becomes something worse, and unacceptable. Peaceful protest is protected by the Constitution, as it is a form of free speech. But protected protest is peaceful protest. What Judge Duncan was faced with was not peaceful protest.
After the event, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Dean Jenny Martinez apologized for the chaos at their school saying that “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” Dean Martinez also clarified to alumni that “freedom of speech is a bedrock principle for our community at SLS, the university, and our democratic society.”
The proportion of Stanford’s student body that participated in this disgusting display has not been reported. But we may properly wonder what sort of lawyers and judges these protesters will turn out to be if they are able to satisfactorily finish their legal training.
Will they outgrow their adolescent sense of superiority; will they be able to actually do the job of lawyers and judges without allowing their personal feelings to control them?
This is yet another reflection of the degree to which our once stable and sensible culture is devolving into utter chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment