3 ms·
Subtract the free speech argument and a law school still has a very particular need to train students in adversarial debate. It is inherent to the practice of l
by hirundo 4y ago
Subtract the free speech argument and a law school still has a very particular need to train students in adversarial debate. It is inherent to the practice of law and failing to teach it would fail to prepare the students. Lawyers need to convince and discuss and negotiate with people who have different values. Being able to have a civil discussion with a judge you disagree with is literally part of the job. There's no need to "reach" 1A.
- richwater 4y ago[flagged]
- firstlink 4y agoThis is the much more serious issue in this case. Here we have the next generation of lawyers and judges literally unable to hear something they don't agree with without having a public meltdown. I don't hope for a long life, because when these people gain power life will be worth much less. I intend to enjoy freedom while I can.
- ummonk 4y agoYeah this article doesn’t talk about it much but Martinez’ memo to Stanford Law students emphasized that point.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago[flagged]