Much has been written about this Stanford incident, and that was clearly the intention and expectation of Judge Duncan when he accepted the invitation. It was a setup, pure and simple, and the author of this piece must surely be aware of that, even though he is a willing participant in this "debate." Were the students boorish and bullyin…
Much has been written about this Stanford incident, and that was clearly the intention and expectation of Judge Duncan when he accepted the invitation. It was a setup, pure and simple, and the author of this piece must surely be aware of that, even though he is a willing participant in this "debate." Were the students boorish and bullying? Certainly, and there is no excusing that. But Duncan knew what he was walking into, since it was the trap that he had set. If you're interested in reading further here is one article that presents an opposing view to Mr. Morey's. You can decide which is most credible: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html
It was a set-up but the wonderful thing that came out of it is the ten page memo by the Dean. This is an important line-in-the-sand moment for Stanford, and I truly appreciate the Dean pushing back in a big way. We need every administrator to do this.
I've seen the video, heard David Lat and read a number of accounts. All of it fits the FIRE description, not that of Slate. Slate, by the way, does a lot of reporting on what's going on in people's minds, stating it in much the same tone as it uses for observed phenomena.
So you believe that Duncan walked into this expecting a warm reception and was caught by surprise? Yes, Slate has a left slant, but it takes more imagination to surmise that Duncan was purely innocent than intentionally provocative. He was looking for trouble and controversy, knowing the students would look like sophomoric bullies, and that's exactly what he got.
I believe that he and FedSoc were told by the administration that it would enforce the no-shoutdown policy. That's what they claim publicly and the administration hasn't denied it. On what basis would I assume that they're lying and that the administration isn't correcting them?
The DEI dean, on the other hand, read from prepared remarks, which indicates -- without having to read her mind -- that she was expecting what happened.
Much has been written about this Stanford incident, and that was clearly the intention and expectation of Judge Duncan when he accepted the invitation. It was a setup, pure and simple, and the author of this piece must surely be aware of that, even though he is a willing participant in this "debate." Were the students boorish and bullying? Certainly, and there is no excusing that. But Duncan knew what he was walking into, since it was the trap that he had set. If you're interested in reading further here is one article that presents an opposing view to Mr. Morey's. You can decide which is most credible: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html
It was a set-up but the wonderful thing that came out of it is the ten page memo by the Dean. This is an important line-in-the-sand moment for Stanford, and I truly appreciate the Dean pushing back in a big way. We need every administrator to do this.
I've seen the video, heard David Lat and read a number of accounts. All of it fits the FIRE description, not that of Slate. Slate, by the way, does a lot of reporting on what's going on in people's minds, stating it in much the same tone as it uses for observed phenomena.
So you believe that Duncan walked into this expecting a warm reception and was caught by surprise? Yes, Slate has a left slant, but it takes more imagination to surmise that Duncan was purely innocent than intentionally provocative. He was looking for trouble and controversy, knowing the students would look like sophomoric bullies, and that's exactly what he got.
I believe that he and FedSoc were told by the administration that it would enforce the no-shoutdown policy. That's what they claim publicly and the administration hasn't denied it. On what basis would I assume that they're lying and that the administration isn't correcting them?
The DEI dean, on the other hand, read from prepared remarks, which indicates -- without having to read her mind -- that she was expecting what happened.