6 ms·

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 cl

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
        > Instead, she hijacked the event Did she use a gun to hijack the event? Did she use a knife? Or did she walk up to the podium, with the speakers permission, and perhaps got a little carried away from the stated intent of her speech?
        khazhoux 4y ago
        "Speaker's permission" is disingenuous. I don't think one reasonably expects, when politely handing over a mic before an invited presentation, that the recipient will use it to admonish you and encourage heckling.
        4y ago
  - muh_gradle 4y ago
    It was not in good faith. She delivered prepared remarks and basically hijacked the event to do so instead of doing her job. She was not doing her job in good faith.
  - meragrin_ 4y ago
    What good faith is there when someone continually makes the speaker out as a bad person with ill intent? "I’m also uncomfortable because it is my job to say:" "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." "They are here because they feel harmed not just by your speech." "if you can listen through your partisan lens, your hyper-political lens and just look and see human beings" "we ask that you come with good intentions and respect." Then she goes and basically condones whatever the protesters were going to do: "You all chose to be here today. Many people go before Judge Duncan who do not necessarily choose to be there. And they have to listen to everything he says. Literally thousands of people. You have a choice. You do not need to stay here if this is not where you want to be. You can stay if this is where you want to be right now. But make that choice." There was zero good faith effort on her part.
    - elicash 4y ago
      I think, ironically, you just like the hecklers fail to understand that you can find somebody highly objectionable but still defend their right to speech. She was trying to make that distinction. Edit: Also, you cut off the point she was making in that last part. She was trying to say that hecklers don't have to listen if they don't want and they can leave but if they stay they should listen and "make space" for the speaker.
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.

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
        > Instead, she hijacked the event Did she use a gun to hijack the event? Did she use a knife? Or did she walk up to the podium, with the speakers permission, and perhaps got a little carried away from the stated intent of her speech?
        khazhoux 4y ago
        "Speaker's permission" is disingenuous. I don't think one reasonably expects, when politely handing over a mic before an invited presentation, that the recipient will use it to admonish you and encourage heckling.
        4y ago
- muh_gradle 4y ago
  It was not in good faith. She delivered prepared remarks and basically hijacked the event to do so instead of doing her job. She was not doing her job in good faith.
- meragrin_ 4y ago
  What good faith is there when someone continually makes the speaker out as a bad person with ill intent? "I’m also uncomfortable because it is my job to say:" "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." "They are here because they feel harmed not just by your speech." "if you can listen through your partisan lens, your hyper-political lens and just look and see human beings" "we ask that you come with good intentions and respect." Then she goes and basically condones whatever the protesters were going to do: "You all chose to be here today. Many people go before Judge Duncan who do not necessarily choose to be there. And they have to listen to everything he says. Literally thousands of people. You have a choice. You do not need to stay here if this is not where you want to be. You can stay if this is where you want to be right now. But make that choice." There was zero good faith effort on her part.
  - elicash 4y ago
    I think, ironically, you just like the hecklers fail to understand that you can find somebody highly objectionable but still defend their right to speech. She was trying to make that distinction. Edit: Also, you cut off the point she was making in that last part. She was trying to say that hecklers don't have to listen if they don't want and they can leave but if they stay they should listen and "make space" for the speaker.

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.