When Intellectuals Gather
To ruminate deeply on the issues of the day:
Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion Tirien Steinbach then intervened – not to admonish the students, but to spend several minutes berating the Judge for having the audacity to appear at Stanford Law School, which was traumatic to the students given his conservative judicial decisions.
Among the Judge’s supposedly harmful and traumatising views are his belief that dysmorphic men and autogynephile perverts should not venture into ladies’ toilets and changing rooms, and a refusal to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender sex offender, an enthusiast of pornography featuring children.
Other screamed objections to this “cis-het white man” included the outrage of his being brought “into the classroom building where our students have to go every day to be able to get this degree and participate in this community.” Apparently, mere proximity – even sought-out proximity – to a person with whom they disagree causes students of law, would-be intellectuals, to “feel unsafe.” Demurral, it seems, results in “tearing the fabric of this community.” This, from students and staff who accused the Judge of “wanting an echo chamber.”
Video of this performative, self-applauding wankery – by students and Ms Steinbach, a supposedly grown woman – can be found at the link above, with a longer version here. Of the four university administrators present at the event – acting dean of student affairs Jeanne Merino, associate director of student affairs Holly Parish, student affairs coordinator Megan Brown, and Ms Steinbach – none saw fit to ask that the invited guest be allowed to actually speak.
Stanford, since you ask, is ranked the second most prestigious law school in the United States, with annual tuition a mere $66,000.
Update, via the comments:
An interesting line from Ms Steinbach’s (conveniently prepared) impromptu comments:
Apparently, would-be lawyers, at a prestigious law school, are made of tissue paper and must not be exposed to lines of thought, and questions, with which they politically disagree. For instance, objections regarding gay couples adopting children. Or any hint that the prospect of mentally ill men using women’s changing rooms and other private spaces is seen by some – indeed, by many – as both farcical and improper.
It’s perhaps worth noting that it’s not at all clear whether Judge Duncan was planning to touch on any of the legal opinions deemed verboten by the protestors. The ostensible topic of the disrupted event being “Covid, Guns, and Twitter.” It’s entirely possible that the professionally offended simply feel that no-one who has ever displeased them, by holding a different view, on any subject, must ever be allowed to speak in their presence. Even if they have to go to wherever he is.
“You have no right to speak here,” they chanted. “This is our jurisdiction!”
While the students were, shall we say, reluctant to entertain new information, or even to let it be uttered and thus heard by anyone else, they were keen to impart wisdom of their own. And so, we learned that continual interruption, shrieked abuse, and loud feigned retching noises are, for intellectuals in the field of law, “a valid form of communication.”
Update 2:
Another academic, an Associate Professor of Law, weighs in:
You see, by daring to complain about his treatment, the invited speaker is apparently “punching down” at the self-satisfied protestors, and at Stanford’s equally downtrodden Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. A woman whose salary is between $100,000 and $200,000. You know, the one who thinks that law students shouldn’t have to behave like adults, or hear views they disagree with, lest they suffer some emotional collapse or shatter into atoms. A challenge they would surely never face in, say, a court of law.
The same Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion who ended her own self-indulgent sermon, and her pantomime of caring, by encouraging the recreationally indignant to continue their delinquent behaviour:
And yet: “The power asymmetry is obvious,” tweets our Associate Professor, entirely without irony. While referring to a scenario in which one man is being pre-emptively shrieked at and barracked by 100 or so Mao-lings, while his requests for civility are ignored by all present, including not one but four members of university staff.
Update 3:
Oh, and if it still isn’t clear what kind of people the protestors and their enablers are, a footnote of sorts. Because reciprocal behaviour is for the little people.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
They ‘felt unsafe’ but he was the one who had to be escorted out by security.
Well, quite. Another irony being when the Judge didn’t immediately recognise Ms Steinbach as a member of staff, rather than another disruptive, self-absorbed student, and was promptly, enthusiastically, accused of “racism.” There being no other conceivable explanation for his confusion.
An apology of sorts.
“An apology of sorts”
Insincere, inaccurate and completely ineffective in preventing further incidences of similar unacceptable behaviour.
Or to put it another way pretty much what we can expect to hear from Lineker in the next day or so.
The lawyers of tomorrow…
The courtroom should be fun then.
Heh. That.
Still, at least he wasn’t physically chased off campus.
May I also point out that California, a state whose bar exam was once considered one of the hardest in the United States with its three-day sitting, has dropped it now to two days. I no longer practice there but my best friend still does and she reports as a managing attorney she has to deal with new lawyers who clearly are not prepared at all for the job. Rules of evidence? Rules of civil procedure? They are shocked to learn that judges don’t care how they or their clients feel.
Readers can find tissues at the bar.
Hmm. Coincidence?
Four early middle-aged white females occupying position of considerable authority and responsibility (not to mention high remuneration) behaving like arsey self-righteous teenagers.
Not a coincidence.
There are now a lot of law professors who cannot muster any outrage at these mob attacks on people with non-left-wing opinions. Note, for instance, retired law professor and blogger Ann Althouse.
Ms Steinbach is heroically brown, hence the gratuitous accusation of racism, howled repeatedly and at some volume.
A couple of hours spent on my balcony in southern England and I’m a damned sight browner than that.
An interesting line from Ms Steinbach’s (conveniently prepared) impromptu comments:
Apparently, would-be lawyers, at a prestigious law school, are made of tissue paper and must not be exposed to the idea that not everyone is entirely enthused by gay marriage and gay couples adopting children. And likewise, these infinitely delicate creatures must be spared any hint that the idea of mentally ill men using women’s changing rooms is seen by some as both farcical and obnoxious.
I wonder if they think in a courtroom they can heckle or shout down a witness or judge…would love to see them try. Can’t expect this bunch to uphold the rights of those with whom they disagree. This “it is unsafe if I even know of someone speaking” schtick is really dangerous. If they want to hold signs and march around outside the venue, fine. Little censorship weasels.
As a lawyer, one is unlikely to be so fortunate as to have only clients whose opinions you totally endorse. You may have to write a brief defending a corporation or a crazy person or (gasp) a conservative. You may have to respond to an opposing motion with something other than screaming. Or, you know, only accept the 5% of clients who perfectly align with you. A sure-fire business model. Oh, law is a business? Who knew?
I have seen some send-ups of terrible legal briefs, and they are priceless. Judges will slam you for a crappy motion or incoherent legal arguments. These students will really suffer. Good.
I think the law professors
hopeintend that eventually the judges will be of the same Maoist ilk.And thus the lawyers and defendants who have the law on their side will be made to suffer.
University enrolment has quadrupled since mental hospitals were closed. Coincidence?
And university administrative staff have grown ten-fold.
I was thinking about The Eye of the Beholder episode of the Twilight Zone last night. If you swap out the concepts of beauty/ugly with intelligence/stupidity, it works even better as a metaphor for our educational system.
I am really sick and tired of the sexually confused whiners. Most of it is an act of defiance by juveniles, but it has far reaching effects on others. It is tiring living along side so much mental illness and plain old stupidity.
It wasn’t that many years ago that I head people, conservatives…”conservatives”, say things to the effect of “I’d love to see them try pushing this woke stuff in the STEM fields, or at serious universities like MIT or Georgia Tech or…Stanford”
Another academic weighs in.
You see, by daring to complain about his treatment, the invited speaker is apparently “punching down” at the self-satisfied protestors and at Stanford’s poor, downtrodden Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. You know, the one who thinks that law students shouldn’t have to behave like adults, or hear views they disagree with, lest they suffer some emotional collapse or shatter into atoms.
The same Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion who ended her own improper and unprofessional sermon, and her pantomime of caring, by encouraging the Mao-lings to continue their delinquent behaviour: “I look out and I don’t ask ‘what is going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here…’”
“The power asymmetry is obvious,” says Mr Walters, entirely without irony. While referring to a scenario in which one man is being shrieked at and barracked by 100 or so Mao-lings, while his requests for civility are ignored by all present, including not one but four members of staff.
He’s made his living off of this for over 30+ years. You’d think he would have noticed. It didn’t happen overnight.
I think the law professors
hopeintend that eventually the judges will be of the same Maoist ilk.They already are. You only have to look at the lawfare that was deployed against the Trump administration. “Hawaiian judge” is practically a standalone punchline in political discourse.
Hmm. Coincidence?
Sooner or later…
And in other educational news.
In case it isn’t obvious, Stanford Law is one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. And some of the law students, not just undergrad activists, seem to have been involved in the attempt to shut down a federal appeals court judge from talking on campus. They’d be the only students visiting the law school building every day.
I attended a shiny, high-repute law school myself, though an east coast Ivy League one. It wasn’t as bad then as it is, now. But there were warning signs.
The practice of law, in case it isn’t obvious, is all about managing disagreement with other people. Whether that’s in litigating a dispute, or negotiating a contract, or near anything else. And here we have law students taking the position that disagreement itself should be prohibited, on any matter they think important to them.
Maybe the Law School Dean is embarrassed by what happened. But the Dean’s admissions department is probably intentionally favoring admission of exactly the law students who think it appropriate to shout down federal judges.
This stanford debacle is the logical endpoint of victim culture. If you valorize weakness and whining, you get more. When I was that age (in the South) guys were proud of their toughness, strength, and independence.
It is not unexpected that teens believe that whatever they think is the absolute truth, and that no sane, moral person could disagree, but adults are supposed to know better. 1000 things that “everyone” believed at one time have been disproven or are out of style. But now suddenly these 20 yr olds have been given the “true” truth? Puhleeeze.
10 yrs ago I gave a talk at a regional college on climate change. A student asked a question about Greenland ice. I said, well, it may melt (slowly), but the ice is within a mountain range ring and cannot “slide into the ocean”. A prof of geology got up and started screaming at me. I was not wrong. My host was very unhappy with him. The students in this case were not the problem. When everything (climate change, covid, race, trans, feminism, taxes, etc) is a life-or-death matter that can only be solved by complete unanimity, then shouting results.
And here we have law students taking the position that disagreement itself should be prohibited, on any matter they think important to them.
Another alarming thing is that I’m convinced these same students will quickly join the ranks of attorneys who will not only refuse to take on clients with WrongThink, but will join in on the lawfare mob movement to punish OTHER lawyers who take on such clients. e.g. John Eastman
There’s good reason why my stepson avoided all ‘social media’ during undergraduate and law school years. Though, going forward I fear Woke Loyalty Oaths may end up the gate through which no student who even fleetingly looked to join the Federalist Society would be allowed to pass.
Post updated.
recreationally indignant
Phrase of the day.
“tearing the fabric of this community.”
“Community.” There’s another perfectly good word made indecipherable by the woke left.
10 yrs ago I gave a talk at a regional college on climate change.
[ light bulb goes on over head ]
ccscientist stands for climate change scientist. Excuse me, but I’m a little slow on the uptake sometimes.
I thought it might be like c.c. ryder. Now I’m disappointed. c.c. ryder is wayyy cooler. ;-p
Steve: Excuse me, but I’m a little slow on the uptake sometimes.
No worries, it took me months to figure what Richard Cranium stood for.
I still maintain that software is making (most of) us dumber and lazier.
It’s perhaps worth noting that it’s not clear whether Judge Duncan was planning to touch on any of the legal views deemed verboten by the protestors. The ostensible topic being “Covid, Guns and Twitter.” It’s entirely possible that the Mao-lings feel that no-one who has ever displeased them, by holding a different view, on any subject, must ever be allowed to speak in their presence. Even if they have to go to wherever he is.
“You have no right to speak here,” they chanted. “This is our jurisdiction!”
It’s possibly also worth noting that the Stanford FedSoc president, who is himself gay, was repeatedly jeered and abused during his introduction of Judge Duncan. Presumably, he’s regarded as the wrong kind of gay man.
I still maintain that software is making (most of) us dumber and lazier.
If my last four employers are any indication, the making of software certainly is.
Post updated again.
It is, I think, appropriate.
Re: Mr. Cranium,
I think I caught on after seeing the name maybe twenty times. Now, I feel a bit smug.
Recently I bumped into a Richard Cranium on reddit, but when I (not wishing to blow his cover) cagily asked if he was acquainted with a certain publican, he denied it. There must be a few of them, I suppose.
Well, this is an exclusive, upscale establishment. We only admit quality.
[ Disappears into stockroom, muffled laughter. ]
The world, sadly, is full of us.
[ Rummages under bar in lost property box, passes Mr Cranium a tie. And a shirt. ]
Robbery and murder at age 14 sent him to prison. Now he is a “motivational speaker” and “influencer” who says that he hates all Asians and that Asian women and babies should be brutally raped and killed.
it took me months to figure what Richard Cranium stood for.
Oh, Dick Head, I got right off. Why I couldn’t get Climate Change Scientist I don’t know. Tells you how my cranium is wired.
There do seem to be a lot Richard combination names out there. I think my favourite, so far, is the rather salty Richard Fromage I saw in a comments section somewhere.
ccscientist I did not get either but I did puzzle over it possibly being computer science something. But the Richard Cranium thing…that was a name that back in college we attached to one of our professors. After all these years I am not positive which one but I’m pretty sure it was the Calculus III teacher who would waste our time by doing the whole problem, including the simple multiplication of the interval/integral values (I forget the bloody terminology for much of this stuff anymore). As if we couldn’t do that part. And he would do so in his head and facing the board all the while we could see the calculator in his hip pocket. It probably saved him the trouble of getting around to answering a question or two every class.
A new superhero: Wokeman.