By the Daily Post staff
The federal appellate judge who was heckled and jeered by Stanford Law School students in an incident that has gone viral online has responded in an op-ed.
Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Baton Rouge, La., said the episode showed how legal education is deteriorating.
“The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker,” Duncan wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday.
Duncan, a Trump appointee, had been invited to Stanford by the conservative Federalist Society.
Duncan said that as he was being introduced the heckling began.
“Try delivering a speech while being jeered at every third word,” Duncan wrote. “This was an utter farce, a staged public shaming.”
When Duncan turned to ask an administrator to intercede, Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach stepped in and gave a six-minute speech addressing the question, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”
The students, many of whom had painted their faces, rhythmically snapped while Steinbach said the judge’s work “has caused harm,” “feels abhorrent” and “literally denies the humanity of people.”
When pressed to explain her question “Is the juice worth the squeeze,” Steinbach said it meant was Duncan’s talk “worth the pain that this causes and the division this causes?”
Steinbach’s talk was on Thursday, March 9. By Saturday, March 11, Law School Dean Jenny Martinez and Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavinge apologized in writing. Duncan said he accepted the apology.
On Monday, March 13, Martinez, who teaches constitutional law, arrived to find her whiteboard covered with fliers ridiculing Duncan and defending those who disrupted his speech. After she finished the class, she went into the hallway and was confronted by hundreds of student protesters wearing masks and all-black clothing who formed a “human corridor.” They were angry she had apologized.
Duncan concluded his op-ed by saying that he has been criticized in the media for calling the protesters “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” He said he wouldn’t apologize for saying that because they are.
Appreciate the continued coverage by the Palo Alto Daily Post of the outrageous and coordinated ambush of a federal judge. The heckling, the Associate DEI’s prepared speech and other antics were clearly the result of a staged collusion between the students and the administrators at Stanford Law School. Here is some more from Judge Duncan’s op-ed:
“The mob’s leader, a young woman, then addressed the crowd: ‘I want to ask that half the folks walk out in protest and the rest of us, let’s tone down the heckling slightly so that he can get to our questions.’ I didn’t see how I could continue, so after the partial walkout, I dispensed with my prepared remarks and opened the floor. That went poorly, and the plainly hostile questions were the least of it. Students hurled abuse, including vile sexual innuendo; some filed past me spitting insults (“You’re scum!”). Two U.S. Marshals decided it was time to escort me out.”
Several administrators were present at the event yet did not attempt to quell the vocal protesters. Were they in on it too? What about the Dean of the Law School, Jenny Martinez, was she aware of the planned disruption beforehand?
If I may critique one word used in the article above. The Federalist Society described as a “conservative” organization. True, the founders and most speakers are conservative or libertarian. But unlike any other law organization that I am aware of, Federalist Society conferences feature speakers from both side of the ideological spectrum. Typically, Federalist society conferences will include two “conservative” and two “liberal” speakers on every panel, with each side allotted equal time. Name one progressive or liberal law organization – from the American Constitution Society to the National Lawyer’s Guild – that would invite conservative lawyers or judges to speak at their events? You won’t find any, certainly not in today’s hostile and angry campus environment.
Duncan is correct that the level of legal education has deteriorated. When I attended law school during the 1970’s, we were told to “think like a lawyer”, meaning to analyze a situation dispassionately and without a regard to our own ideology, so that we might understand the perspectives of all the parties, including our opponents. This is necessary to be an effective advocate. Sadly, today’s law students see advocacy as just issuing a visceral howl of outrage, and flinging the cause jargon of the moment. And if they are in fact “harmed” by opposing opinions, they are far too pathologically fragile to ever survive the rough and tumble practice of law in the real world.
When I was in law school, we were advised to “think like a lawyer”, meaning to dispassionately analyze a situation without regard to our personal ideology, so we could understand the perspective of all the parties. This makes you a more effective advocate attorney than just issuing a howl of visceral outrage at the “wrongness” of your opponent, and flinging cause jargon. If these students really are so fragile that opposing views “harm” them, they will not survive the rough and tumble practice of law for long.
“Mob” is the correct word to describe these students. Stanford should expel all of them and send them back to mommy and daddy. When they grow up, they can consider law school, but not now while they’re in an infantile state like this!
The law school should be closed, students and faculty and administrators should be dispersed. It and they act contrary to basic values and common morality. This entire event was a planned and managed take down and cancel action.
At the least, an embarrassing moment at the university next door (and in the law school no less in front of a Federal Judge no less) and an embarrassment to alumni. Who knew things were so bad? Seems the trustees and school have chosen to hide until it blows over option after a sort of apology to the judge. $tanford really should clean up this mess with strong support for civility (fire the so called DEI assistant, expel the leaders (how did those people even qualify in the first place?). No question Stanford Law is damaged.
The conduct of protestors who prevented Judge Duncan from speaking was abhorrent. The conduct of Assistant Dean Steinbeck who excoriated Judge Duncan in prepared remarks was even more so. Her conduct calls to mind that of an Oberlin administrator whose encouragement of demonstrators resulted in a $36 million judgment against the school. One wonders whether Dean Steinbeck will be disciplined by Stanford. Well, not really. Of course, she won’t.
thank you for the article
How is it possible that these young thugs will be able to work as lawyers in a year or two? How will they conduct themselves in court? What advice will they offer clients? How will they deescalate conflicts to help their clients?
I wouldn’t hire from Stanford Law. There are other presumably better law schools. Move Stanford out of the top 10 or top 14 and replace with another school.
Dershowitz says oh no don’t do that, don’t blame the whole school for the outrageous behavior of a large percentage. Absolutely blame them, that’s how life works, and their loss will be the gain of other students, the legal profession, and our whole society.
Also, make sure the names of the perpetrators are well publicized. They “demand” privacy but they have no right to demand it and the demand should be ignored.
For the 2022 academic year, the average cost of one year’s tuition for an undergraduate student at Stanford University was $56,169. That money buys a lot of free speech, and those law students, no matter how some people would like to portray them, can say whatever they want, about whoever they want, whenever they want to say it. We used to call that American freedom of speech. Re-read the First Amendment to the Constitution once again for comprehension.
My free speech does not, and should not, come at the expense of your free speech. By shouting him down, the denied the judge his right to speak freely.
Stanford Law has been turning out activist attorneys for fifty years. No surprise there and anyone hiring knows what they’re buying.
After reading this morning’s story, you still feel that way?
Yes I think there is very little likelihood this individual will endure any permanent sanctions. Her profile has been raised, I’m told she gets high fived as she walks around campus and she’ll probably get labeled Anna Eshoo’s Woman of the Year.
Is it good to build a divisive future at Stanford? I’m sure it’s good guaranteed employment legal industry. Around August they all start saying, “I’ll see you at that settlement conference in Boca next month.”