Assuming this report is accurate, this seems almost worst than the initial protest. "Student Activists Target Stanford Law School Dean in Revolt Over Her Apology Jenny Martinez becomes the target of student ire for saying “I’m sorry” to besieged judge Kyle Duncan ... When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in b…
Assuming this report is accurate, this seems almost worst than the initial protest.
"Student Activists Target Stanford Law School Dean in Revolt Over Her Apology
Jenny Martinez becomes the target of student ire for saying “I’m sorry” to besieged judge Kyle Duncan
...
When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon.
The majority of Martinez’s class—approximately 50 students out of the 60 enrolled—participated in the protest themselves, two students in the class said. The few who didn’t join the protesters received the same stare down as their professor as they hurried through the makeshift walk of shame."
Again, I will defend their right to do this, but it seems pretty obvious to me that America will be worse if more people start exercising their free speech rights by finding professors who said things they disagree with, coordinating 100 people to stand outside their classrooms in masks, and force everyone leaving to walk through the gauntlet. Would the spread or wider embrace of that norm, as opposed to reflexive contempt for it, do more to empower liberals or authoritarians?
Conor, our role as commentators on free speech issues is in part to be accurate — to inform readers correctly about what the law is, etc. But I’m also an evangelist for the core First Amendment deal — we use more speech instead of government force to deal with speech that angers us. I feel like the constant critique of clearly protected methods is counter-productive in that respect. We get done saying “don’t shout people down because that violates the rights of the speaker and listeners, find one of the billion other ways to protest,” and they choose a clearly protected, evocative, effective way to convey how upset they are, and we’re here all “oh no not like that either that’s too mean.” How is that convincing them to take the deal? Doesn’t that convince them the deal is bullshit, and we’ll always find something wrong with their dissent? Also, isn’t this kind of thing the most evocative and effective expression people with less authority can do in response to people with more authority?
First, I get where you are coming from, and I am sympathetic. But when I write about speech on college campuses, I have more than one project that I am interested in advancing. As a baseline, I want the rights of all students protected. That's project one: free speech. But I also believe colleges play important societal roles as institutions where we seek truth and educate young people in civic acculturation. And in law schools, we introduce them to the norms of the legal system. In all those realms, I think that what Jonathan Rauch calls liberal science is hugely important and under-appreciated. And project two is defending liberal science. I think it is better than empty invective or appeals to emotion. That doesn't mean I'm going to police sketch comedy shows or whatever. But I am going to champion liberal science *within sensemaking organizations* like colleges and magazines.
I also think your *but will may make people take free speech concerns less seriously* critique cuts in both directions. That is to say, if Ron DeSantis supporters start copying the Stanford students' latest stunt, organizing a hundred people to stand outside the class of a professor, so everyone leaving has to walk through a gauntlet of creepily masked protesters, lots of people are going to read that as *intimidation tactic* and there's going to be a backlash that threatens free speech. I'll bite the bullet when it comes to defending expansive rights to protest like petulant bullies, but I think *that* strikes many as more, not less, credible when I also show I understand the downside costs of their approach and urge better even as I defend their rights.
To continue: they didn’t do this because this professor said something they didn’t like about the dormant commerce clause. THere was a dispute, the students expressed themselves (albeit partially in a way that violated other people’s rights and showed contempt for speech values), the dean condemned them, and they responded to the dean with a protest that (1) emphasized their (incorrect) belief that shouting down was protected, (2) used silence as a commentary on teh dean’s public assertion that how they made noise is wrong. How is that possibly not 100% on point?
It's a question of how broadly you want to define the illiberalism you're challenging: the impulse to silence disfavored speech, or the broader impulse to shame and shun those who are on the wrong side of values disputes. From a legal perspective, the first is easier to define and challenge. But it stems from the second.
<quote>After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said</quote>
You draw a pretty compelling distinction. And law school policy ought to uphold it.
In practice, the distinction can sometimes get blurry between shaming, harassment and intimidation. Making someone walk through a gauntlet of silent masked people sounds scary. What if they're all saying, "Shame, shame!" or shouting "Fascist!"
"liberal science". what a term. Friedersdorf is a technocrat. Who knew? "Governance Studies". Brilliant. And Platform regulation is the state's indirect means of controlling information.
I hate linking to Taibbi who thinks the old FBI was great and a to libertarian rag. but the "Virality Project" is ex Google lawyer Daphne Keller again. Because Stanford Law loves "speech moderation" and Big Gubmint luvs Big Bidness, and neither are interested in democracy.
This was threatening and it was supposed to be threatening. With the amount of violence going on in American cities that has spread fear among millions of women, I found it very scary. Does the Dean now have to have an escort to her car because that is how far some of those protesting and rioting have gone
It'd empower more Republicans. Currently such treatment is not uncommon for rape victims as they walk in and out of abortion clinics. I do not see what's holding up Republicans from doing this to educators.
This was threatening and it was supposed to be threatening. With the amount of violence going on in American cities that has spread fear among millions of women, I found it very scary. Does the Dean now have to have an escort to her car because that is how far some of those protesting and rioting have gone. That is not protest of speech that is bad behavior (which future lawyers should be cognizant of particularly if they defend women who have been abused and raped) for not getting what they want in an organized speech by a Judge. If they didn't want to be threatening then why didn't they go and do this to the actually people who wanted to apologize and not someone that was pretty much made to sign on but obviously wasn't really wanting too.. What about a student that disagrees and says as much on campus? Do they now have to expect this threatening tactic? The fact that Ken White thinks it is appropriate is scary. Do any of you have women, children in your life?
This was threatening and it was supposed to be threatening. With the amount of violence going on in American cities that has spread fear among millions of women, I found it very scary. Does the Dean now have to have an escort to her car because that is how far some of those protesting and rioting have gone. That is not protest of speech that is bad behavior (which future lawyers should be cognizant of particularly if they defend women who have been abused and raped) for not getting what they want in an organized speech by a Judge. If they didn't want to be threatening then why didn't they go and do this to the actually people who wanted to apologize and not someone that was pretty much made to sign on but obviously wasn't really wanting too.. What about a student that disagrees and says as much on campus? Do they now have to expect this threatening tactic? The fact that Ken White thinks it is appropriate is scary. Do any of you have women, children in your life?
Should I reply thrice to your three identical posts? I think I can say it once: no, the bald assertion you make here, without evidence or argument behind it, is false.
Assuming this report is accurate, this seems almost worst than the initial protest.
"Student Activists Target Stanford Law School Dean in Revolt Over Her Apology
Jenny Martinez becomes the target of student ire for saying “I’m sorry” to besieged judge Kyle Duncan
...
When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon.
The majority of Martinez’s class—approximately 50 students out of the 60 enrolled—participated in the protest themselves, two students in the class said. The few who didn’t join the protesters received the same stare down as their professor as they hurried through the makeshift walk of shame."
https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-activists-target-stanford-law-school-dean-in-revolt-over-her-apology/
Eh. Peaceful assembly and symbolic speech. I may not agree with them but this very in-bounds.
Again, I will defend their right to do this, but it seems pretty obvious to me that America will be worse if more people start exercising their free speech rights by finding professors who said things they disagree with, coordinating 100 people to stand outside their classrooms in masks, and force everyone leaving to walk through the gauntlet. Would the spread or wider embrace of that norm, as opposed to reflexive contempt for it, do more to empower liberals or authoritarians?
Conor, our role as commentators on free speech issues is in part to be accurate — to inform readers correctly about what the law is, etc. But I’m also an evangelist for the core First Amendment deal — we use more speech instead of government force to deal with speech that angers us. I feel like the constant critique of clearly protected methods is counter-productive in that respect. We get done saying “don’t shout people down because that violates the rights of the speaker and listeners, find one of the billion other ways to protest,” and they choose a clearly protected, evocative, effective way to convey how upset they are, and we’re here all “oh no not like that either that’s too mean.” How is that convincing them to take the deal? Doesn’t that convince them the deal is bullshit, and we’ll always find something wrong with their dissent? Also, isn’t this kind of thing the most evocative and effective expression people with less authority can do in response to people with more authority?
First, I get where you are coming from, and I am sympathetic. But when I write about speech on college campuses, I have more than one project that I am interested in advancing. As a baseline, I want the rights of all students protected. That's project one: free speech. But I also believe colleges play important societal roles as institutions where we seek truth and educate young people in civic acculturation. And in law schools, we introduce them to the norms of the legal system. In all those realms, I think that what Jonathan Rauch calls liberal science is hugely important and under-appreciated. And project two is defending liberal science. I think it is better than empty invective or appeals to emotion. That doesn't mean I'm going to police sketch comedy shows or whatever. But I am going to champion liberal science *within sensemaking organizations* like colleges and magazines.
I also think your *but will may make people take free speech concerns less seriously* critique cuts in both directions. That is to say, if Ron DeSantis supporters start copying the Stanford students' latest stunt, organizing a hundred people to stand outside the class of a professor, so everyone leaving has to walk through a gauntlet of creepily masked protesters, lots of people are going to read that as *intimidation tactic* and there's going to be a backlash that threatens free speech. I'll bite the bullet when it comes to defending expansive rights to protest like petulant bullies, but I think *that* strikes many as more, not less, credible when I also show I understand the downside costs of their approach and urge better even as I defend their rights.
To continue: they didn’t do this because this professor said something they didn’t like about the dormant commerce clause. THere was a dispute, the students expressed themselves (albeit partially in a way that violated other people’s rights and showed contempt for speech values), the dean condemned them, and they responded to the dean with a protest that (1) emphasized their (incorrect) belief that shouting down was protected, (2) used silence as a commentary on teh dean’s public assertion that how they made noise is wrong. How is that possibly not 100% on point?
It's a question of how broadly you want to define the illiberalism you're challenging: the impulse to silence disfavored speech, or the broader impulse to shame and shun those who are on the wrong side of values disputes. From a legal perspective, the first is easier to define and challenge. But it stems from the second.
I define it as silencing violates rights and shaming and shunning are exercises of rights.
<quote>After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said</quote>
Thoughts?
You draw a pretty compelling distinction. And law school policy ought to uphold it.
In practice, the distinction can sometimes get blurry between shaming, harassment and intimidation. Making someone walk through a gauntlet of silent masked people sounds scary. What if they're all saying, "Shame, shame!" or shouting "Fascist!"
"liberal science". what a term. Friedersdorf is a technocrat. Who knew? "Governance Studies". Brilliant. And Platform regulation is the state's indirect means of controlling information.
I hate linking to Taibbi who thinks the old FBI was great and a to libertarian rag. but the "Virality Project" is ex Google lawyer Daphne Keller again. Because Stanford Law loves "speech moderation" and Big Gubmint luvs Big Bidness, and neither are interested in democracy.
https://reason.com/2023/03/17/researchers-pressured-twitter-to-treat-covid-19-facts-as-misinformation/
This was threatening and it was supposed to be threatening. With the amount of violence going on in American cities that has spread fear among millions of women, I found it very scary. Does the Dean now have to have an escort to her car because that is how far some of those protesting and rioting have gone
It'd empower more Republicans. Currently such treatment is not uncommon for rape victims as they walk in and out of abortion clinics. I do not see what's holding up Republicans from doing this to educators.
This was threatening and it was supposed to be threatening. With the amount of violence going on in American cities that has spread fear among millions of women, I found it very scary. Does the Dean now have to have an escort to her car because that is how far some of those protesting and rioting have gone. That is not protest of speech that is bad behavior (which future lawyers should be cognizant of particularly if they defend women who have been abused and raped) for not getting what they want in an organized speech by a Judge. If they didn't want to be threatening then why didn't they go and do this to the actually people who wanted to apologize and not someone that was pretty much made to sign on but obviously wasn't really wanting too.. What about a student that disagrees and says as much on campus? Do they now have to expect this threatening tactic? The fact that Ken White thinks it is appropriate is scary. Do any of you have women, children in your life?
This was threatening and it was supposed to be threatening. With the amount of violence going on in American cities that has spread fear among millions of women, I found it very scary. Does the Dean now have to have an escort to her car because that is how far some of those protesting and rioting have gone. That is not protest of speech that is bad behavior (which future lawyers should be cognizant of particularly if they defend women who have been abused and raped) for not getting what they want in an organized speech by a Judge. If they didn't want to be threatening then why didn't they go and do this to the actually people who wanted to apologize and not someone that was pretty much made to sign on but obviously wasn't really wanting too.. What about a student that disagrees and says as much on campus? Do they now have to expect this threatening tactic? The fact that Ken White thinks it is appropriate is scary. Do any of you have women, children in your life?
Should I reply thrice to your three identical posts? I think I can say it once: no, the bald assertion you make here, without evidence or argument behind it, is false.