4 ms·

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.
        elicash 4y ago
        She actively discouraged heckling.
  - muh_gradle 4y ago
    This comment itself is in such bad faith that I don't even know where to begin. Imagine this. A progressive event was taking place in which a progressive speaker didn't get to do their planned talk. Instead an administrator gave their pre-written notes (literally printed) and went into a diatribe admonishing the intended speaker when their job was to help moderate the event. Are you seriously telling me that this was appropriate?
    - elicash 4y ago
      I'm not the person you're responding to, but you clearly are laying out a version of facts that is being contested. You're saying she "hijacked" the event rather than attempted to de-escalate an already out-of-control situation, and maybe even suggesting that doing so is out of the normal responsibility of deans. She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.
      - dekhn 4y ago
        She had prepared remarks. Obviously what she did was not in good faith (from the perspective of the invited speaker).
        elicash 4y ago
        I'm not sure I understand the problem with preparing remarks. Preparing remarks seems like a good thing. It was known that students were upset with the speaker in advance. I just wish the remarks would have been different than what they were and focused on enforcement of the rules, rather than the failed attempt at de-escalation.
      - muh_gradle 4y ago
        If Tirien Steinbach was acting on good faith to de-escalate, she wouldn't stop saying "is the juice worth the squeeze" to the speaker ad nauseum. I watched the 9 minute video of her speaking uninterrupted. In fact she loves asking "is the juice worth the squeeze" so much to the point that it becomes a subtitle in her Wall Street Journal article (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...). That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.
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.

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.
      - elicash 4y ago
        She actively discouraged heckling.
- muh_gradle 4y ago
  This comment itself is in such bad faith that I don't even know where to begin. Imagine this. A progressive event was taking place in which a progressive speaker didn't get to do their planned talk. Instead an administrator gave their pre-written notes (literally printed) and went into a diatribe admonishing the intended speaker when their job was to help moderate the event. Are you seriously telling me that this was appropriate?
  - elicash 4y ago
    I'm not the person you're responding to, but you clearly are laying out a version of facts that is being contested. You're saying she "hijacked" the event rather than attempted to de-escalate an already out-of-control situation, and maybe even suggesting that doing so is out of the normal responsibility of deans. She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      She had prepared remarks. Obviously what she did was not in good faith (from the perspective of the invited speaker).
      - elicash 4y ago
        I'm not sure I understand the problem with preparing remarks. Preparing remarks seems like a good thing. It was known that students were upset with the speaker in advance. I just wish the remarks would have been different than what they were and focused on enforcement of the rules, rather than the failed attempt at de-escalation.
    - muh_gradle 4y ago
      If Tirien Steinbach was acting on good faith to de-escalate, she wouldn't stop saying "is the juice worth the squeeze" to the speaker ad nauseum. I watched the 9 minute video of her speaking uninterrupted. In fact she loves asking "is the juice worth the squeeze" so much to the point that it becomes a subtitle in her Wall Street Journal article (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...). That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.

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.