Are you referring to the "super tortured manufactured grievances" or the "armchair psychobabnle mxed with sociology" or both? It looks like Hamline is trying to walk back it's initial reaction. They probably should have consulted their lawyers, if not before they went to their DEI and their HR people, at least on the same day.
You make the meetings sound like a lot of fun, instead of moments where you contemplate sticking pins in your eyes to see if you're still awake or not.
It is the "comment rather than a question" person in my department who make me want to drive nails through my fingers
In case anyone missed it here’s a defense of freedom of speech https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Steps-on-Protests-and-Free-Speech.pdf
JURISPRUDENCE A Trump Judge’s Tantrum at Stanford Law Was Part of a Bigger Plan BY MARK JOSEPH STERN MARCH 13, 2023 4:53 PM
this, I’m not sure what to call it, is suggesting that the Judge was looking for an argument? as in he’s a Trumpy Right Winger on a Lefty campus… what did he expect? as in, look how she’s dressed, what did she expect?
If the rather slight Slate article is right, then the Stanford students were even bigger idiots than they appear, since that means they allowed themselves to be trolled in order to allow Judge Duncan to accomplish his mission.
Wow, you love your right wing talking points, don't you? Note, this is NOT a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not apply to Stanford. So, the students were exercising their free speech? Awesome. Racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist jagoff gets shouted down for being a Racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist jagoff. What's the story here? The Dean of the law school apologized. Good for her to try to bring some decorum and attempting to uphold the schools rules and ethics. So what? This is a complete non-issue. Sure, the students were unruly and, sure, the students should have just walked out of the meeting and, sure, the probably violated Stanford's code of conduct. They chose to act inappropriately. Big deal! Frankly, here is the story! As Stanford Law students, instead of heckling, they should have been prepared to tear him to shred, point by point, dissecting each and every decision he ever had. Come on, kids, use that $70,000 per year law school education and tear this jerk a new one, but do it properly, as lawyers (to be). They should grilled him about his advocacy in the ridiculous, horrible, disgusting Hobby Lobby case. They should have grilled him on his homophobia in opposing Obergefell. They should have demanded that he defend his position as counsel for the generally awful Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (which promotes the right of religiousy people to discriminate). They should have eviscerated him for his transphobia in refusing to address trans defendants by their chosen identity. They missed their chance, as they chose to act like spoiled millennial/Gen Z brats. An opportunity lost for the students. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html This.
feel better now that you had an airing of your Left Wing talking points? did you even read the Dean’s letter? Second, while the First Amendment is designed to protect speech from government restriction, and therefore is not directly applicable to Stanford as a private institution, California’s Leonard Law, Cal. Educ. Code § 94367, prohibits private colleges from making or enforcing rules subjecting students to discipline on the basis of speech that would be protected by the First Amendment or California Constitution if regulated by a public university. Some students have argued that the disruptive protest of the event was itself constitutionally protected speech. Of course, protests are in some instances protected by the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not give protestors a “heckler’s veto.” As First Amendment scholar Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has written, “Freedom of speech does not protect a right to shout down others so they cannot be heard.” Erwin Chemerinsky & Howard Gillman, Free speech doesn’t mean hecklers get to shut down campus debate, WASH. POST (Mar. 24, 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/24/free- speech-doesnt-mean-hecklers-get-shut-down-campus-debate/
Yes, I read the letter, as I stated. As for shouting down being allowed/not allowd, that was specifically addressed in the Dean's letter. Yes, it is true the colleges are subject to rules, both internal and relevant law. What they did may be a violation of the school rules, as I stated. The bigger issue is that the students did not use their education to properly address Judge Duncan. As far as the article you mention, I am not sure if I agree "Freedom of speech does not protect a right to shout down others so they cannot be heard," but it probably does apply in the educational context. I appreciate that you are trying to make an effort with these talking points.
shouldn’t we all be worried that, as you say, law students at one of our most prestigious universities did not engage the speaker in the way you suggested? that they think that if they disagree with someone, anything goes? where would they get that idea? who of their elders and educators is telling them that is an acceptable way to behave/challenge opposing points of view? these will be the lawyers and judges of our near future… do you think our freedoms will stand a chance against them?
What are you talking about? They totally engaged the speaker when they shouted that he couldn't even get into Stanford! I would hope there is broad enough bipartisan agreement on this point that I don't need a sarcasm emoji for my respinse to Marek.
Sometimes I get the feeling most of the cancel culture bed wetters have never been to university, or if they did, only the sterile pay your huge money and get your meal ticket corporate safe space type. The view that college is not a place for radical activism is quite ahistorical. So yes - there are some interesting issues around free speech culture, but the idea everyone always sat around politely applauding extremists, members of the establishment etc has never been true
A fascinating takeaway from Longwell's focus groups is cancel culture on the right has come to mean people were mean to me, and didn't give deference to my views. This of course happens a lot where people have fashy/bigoted trumpy views. Obviously I agree that their are smart and not so smart ways to deal with this. But I also don't agree that young people, who are broadly more activist, have to sit around while the reactionary establishment talks more nonsense. Where that line gets drawn, and how we promote a free speech culture gets messy obviously. I agree with you - but obviously specific rules apply on campus. Personally I don't agree the students have to or should obey all the rules - especially when the reactionaries tell us down is up.
It's also worth noting that conservative Christian universities are not in the practice of inviting "raging liberals" into their classrooms to lecture to students. As with so many other things, that street is a one way. Students at mainstream universities are exposed to a variety of ideas, while those at conservative Christian universities are not. I recall 15 years ago or so one of our student clubs hosted a far right "family values" speaker on campus. Our students respectfully let him speak but they came very prepared with critical questions that flustered him. He ended up cutting his the Q&A part of his racist/homophobic talk short because he did not find a receptive audience. I do appreciate that today's students are much less likely to tolerate racist/homophobic bullshit.
Right - it's always bad faith. We should rigorously enforce table stakes. For instance if you are losing your shit about the woke elite discourse, but have nothing to say about all right wing elite discourse in America being exposed as a criminal fraud, by the people who perpetrated it, you probably don't deserve to be taken seriously. Murdoch: "Trump insisting on the election being stollen and convincing 25% of Americans was a huge disservice to the country. Pretty much a crime." Stunning admission. Yet the network continued to aid and abet that crime. Knowing all the time that it was a crime. https://t.co/LKGWl5HZo2— Richard Stengel (@stengel) March 30, 2023
One of my main beefs on this topic is the colleges are supposed to be places of higher education. If you bring in a Jordan Peterson to a school, let alone a college, a conspiracy theorist and climate change denier whose own colleagues mock his complete lack of scientific credibility - why would anyone, let should students, let alone any one else, give respect of deference? 95% of the time, there is no worthwhile policy or discussion underlying this stuff. It's just trolling.
My only beef is that Stanford law kids missed a golden opportunity to do something almost none of us get to do, debate a completely repellent federal judge. They are some of the actual "best and brightest" and they (and some of their professors) should have had a prepared, unified, well-researched debate ready to go. Instead, they acted like brats. Again, that is their choice, but it was an opportunity lost. Same goes for asshats like Peterson. Have him go to Northwestern or Berkeley and have the students shred his books, lectures, philosophies, etc. These are opportunities to expose those jagoffs. The students should use these opportunities. This judge was looking for a shouting match (to "troll" the kids), of course, and as @Dr. Wankler stated, they walked right into it. The other option is sarcasm. Don't scream and shout, ridicule. Harder to do with this judge, but useful for others.