3 ms·

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-

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.