6 ms·

Law school dean discusses recent protest, outlines next steps

71 points by gnicholas 4y ago

blueridge 4y ago
From the letter: 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.
- gedy 4y ago
  Really encouraging to hear someone in power stand up to this versus cowering to the mob mentality like many administration and HR types do.
- uejfiweun 4y ago
  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?
  - nickff 4y ago
    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.
    - uejfiweun 4y ago
      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.
      - gnicholas 4y ago
        Stanford's president co-signed the original apology to the judge.
- imwithstoopid 4y ago
  I doubt the DEI mob will stand down, this will just embolden them and escalate future confrontations I 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
gnicholas 4y ago
Full message from the Dean is here: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Steps-on-Protests-and-Free-Speech.pdf https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Ste... 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).
- nickff 4y ago
  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). https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes-after-law-students-disrupt-judges-speech-2023-03-13/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes...
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
    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.
eruci 4y ago
"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.
torstenvl 4y ago
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.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I am glad the tide is finally turning. Frankly, it is about time.
- elicash 4y ago
  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.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    > 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.
korroziya 4y ago
Did the Dean get help from chatGPT?
gnicholas 4y ago
The DEI Dean has just published an op-ed in the WSJ: Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-coexist-at-stanford-steinbach-duncan-law-school-protest-dei-27103829 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.
- ed25519FUUU 4y ago
  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.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    >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 speaker must justify the value of his/her speech based on their identity and position within the oppression hierarchy in order to have it.
1attice 4y ago
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. Sometimes you have to holler.
- imwithstoopid 4y ago
  this doubles as a job interview 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
  - 1attice 4y ago
    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. You are telling on yourself.
    - gnicholas 4y ago
      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). https://www.salary.com/research/company/southern-poverty-law-center-salary https://www.salary.com/research/company/southern-poverty-law...
karaterobot 4y ago
> ...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.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
Stanford Law School, home of the Bankman-Frieds.
kepler1 4y ago
There is a pattern emerging in my mind. 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.

71 points by gnicholas 4y ago

From the letter: 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.

gedy 4y ago
Really encouraging to hear someone in power stand up to this versus cowering to the mob mentality like many administration and HR types do.
uejfiweun 4y ago
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?
- nickff 4y ago
  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.
  - uejfiweun 4y ago
    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.
    - gnicholas 4y ago
      Stanford's president co-signed the original apology to the judge.
imwithstoopid 4y ago
I doubt the DEI mob will stand down, this will just embolden them and escalate future confrontations I 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

gnicholas 4y ago

Full message from the Dean is here: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Steps-on-Protests-and-Free-Speech.pdf https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Ste... 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).

nickff 4y ago
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). https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes-after-law-students-disrupt-judges-speech-2023-03-13/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes...
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  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.

eruci 4y ago

"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.

torstenvl 4y ago

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.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I am glad the tide is finally turning. Frankly, it is about time.
elicash 4y ago
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.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  > 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.

korroziya 4y ago

Did the Dean get help from chatGPT?

gnicholas 4y ago

The DEI Dean has just published an op-ed in the WSJ: Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-coexist-at-stanford-steinbach-duncan-law-school-protest-dei-27103829 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.

ed25519FUUU 4y ago
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.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >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 speaker must justify the value of his/her speech based on their identity and position within the oppression hierarchy in order to have it.

1attice 4y ago

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. Sometimes you have to holler.

imwithstoopid 4y ago
this doubles as a job interview 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
- 1attice 4y ago
  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. You are telling on yourself.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    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). https://www.salary.com/research/company/southern-poverty-law-center-salary https://www.salary.com/research/company/southern-poverty-law...

karaterobot 4y ago

> ...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.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

Stanford Law School, home of the Bankman-Frieds.

kepler1 4y ago

There is a pattern emerging in my mind. 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.