#BOOKWORM ROOM FREE#

#BOOKWORM ROOM FREE#

That is how progressives view speech, as something wholly untethered from constitutional law, guided by a balancing test of free speech against “academic freedom and work to advance diversity, equity and inclusion.” Nothing of the sort exists under our Constitution. Free speech, academic freedom and work to advance diversity, equity and inclusion must coexist in a diverse, democratic society…. Whenever and wherever we can, we must de-escalate the divisive discourse to have thoughtful conversations and find common ground. I believe that we would be better served by leaders who ask themselves, “Is the juice (what we are doing) worth the squeeze (the intended and unintended consequences and costs)?” I will certainly continue to ask this question myself.

According to Steinbach, there must be freedom of speech, but only so long as she approves of the thoughts being expressed:Īt one point during the event, I asked Judge Duncan, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” I was referring to the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech: to consider not only the benefit of our words but also the consequences. First, Dean Steinbach wrote an editorial (excerpted here) in the WSJ justifying her actions and those of the individuals who refused to allow Judge Duncan to speak. Two things of note have occurred since the incident. The Guild praised “every single person” who participated in the disruption, and called it “Stanford Law School at its best,” suggesting it would confront “judicial architects of systems of oppression” with “social consequences for their actions.” Although not all the participants were associated with the NLG, the main organizers were. The disruption was organized by the local chapter of National Lawyers Guild as part of a nationwide effort to suppress conservative speech. It was a well-planned and carefully orchestrated effort to prevent other Stanford students from hearing the judge’s conservative views. The plan to disrupt Judge Duncan’s speech was not a localized event that a few students planned and executed.

Many called him a racist while others hurled insults like one yelling “We hope your daughters get raped.”ĭuncan was unable to continue and asked for an administrator to assist him.ĭean Steinbach then took the stage and criticized the judge for seeking to be heard despite such objections.Īlan Dershowitz gave some very important context to the incident. In this event, Duncan was planning to speak on the topic: “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.” A video shows that the students prevented Duncan from speaking from the very beginning. However, liberal students, including members from the National Lawyer’s Guild, decided that allowing a conservative judge to speak on campus is intolerable and set about to “deplatform” him by shouting him down. The Stanford Federalist Society invited Judge Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to speak on campus. Weakness invites more aggression steadfast resistance ends it.Ī horrendous but all too common incident of progressives unlawfully shutting down conservative speech recently occurred at Stanford Law School. Meanwhile, the pearl-clutching reaction from some conservatives to Trump’s warning that arresting him on ludicrous, political charges may well lead to violence is itself counter-productive. What happened and (at the administrative level) continues to happen at Stanford Law School is a perfect example of this intolerable reality. Progressives believe themselves above the law and conservatives below it.

As Stanford Law School shows, the Rule of Law is almost dead in America, and it must be resuscitated if our nation is to survive.

Bookworm room