5 ms·

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 dea

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.
  - elicash 4y ago
    Why "under the guise" as opposed to a good faith and failed effort?
    - gnicholas 4y ago
      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.
      - qqqwerty 4y ago
        > 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?
        gnicholas 4y ago
        > 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.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        qqqwerty 4y ago
- Beldin 4y ago
  (I have not read the article) > 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.
  - elicash 4y ago
    > 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.
  - suby 4y ago
    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.
    - Beldin 4y ago
      > It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. 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?
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    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.
- matt1555 4y ago
  [dead]
- bitshiftfaced 4y ago
  > 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.
bachmeier 4y ago
If you are referring to this > 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.
- zer00eyz 4y ago
  Every day they dont act the narrative changes from "your actions have consequences" to "the reception of your actions have consequences" 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.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  > I'm sure there are those with political motives that would like to see mob justice i don't think it's a political motive to want to see mob justice dispensed on the mob, it's quite human.

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.
- elicash 4y ago
  Why "under the guise" as opposed to a good faith and failed effort?
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    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.
    - qqqwerty 4y ago
      > 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?
      - gnicholas 4y ago
        > 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.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        qqqwerty 4y ago
Beldin 4y ago
(I have not read the article) > 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.
- elicash 4y ago
  > 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.
- suby 4y ago
  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.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    > It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. 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?
- karaterobot 4y ago
  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.
matt1555 4y ago
[dead]
bitshiftfaced 4y ago
> 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.

bachmeier 4y ago

If you are referring to this > 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.

zer00eyz 4y ago
Every day they dont act the narrative changes from "your actions have consequences" to "the reception of your actions have consequences" 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.
fsckboy 4y ago
> I'm sure there are those with political motives that would like to see mob justice i don't think it's a political motive to want to see mob justice dispensed on the mob, it's quite human.