9 Comments

Beyond the issue of the abrogation of free speech on college campuses, there is the question of how well we are preparing our students for life away from academe. I have to believe that most students do not engage in activities that restrict free speech. However, in today's higher education environment, too many students will never have the opportunity to express and defend an unpopular opinion. Progress depends on the constant questioning of accepted dogma even on college campuses.

Expand full comment

Well-stated!

Expand full comment

I approve of what FIRE does and wish you success, but you may be attacking this kind of thing from the wrong angle. Rather than emphasizing the benefits of speech, you could combat the idea that speech is "harmful". It's tough to interest people in letting someone speak when he's LITERALLY HURTING PEOPLE - as some of the students and the DEI dean would have it.

It should be pretty easy to make that case, because the evidence for speech-as-harm is skimpy-to-nonexistent (from what I've read) and because the idea doesn't really line up with our perceptions. If it did, the protestors should have been convinced that Judge Duncan would take his own life as soon as he got home, having suffered such a traumatic experience; if it did, people would pile on someone speaking hurtfully and put him in a choke-hold while waiting for the police, as they would were he beating someone with a tire iron.

Expand full comment

It's good to see the author join the chorus of critics of the Stanford students' Red Guard style behavior. Even the NY Times seems to have been disturbed by this incident. And if my fellow commenter Mr. Gopen is right about the whole event being a "setup," maybe that's not such a bad thing given the principle at stake here and the troubled state of free expression on campus.

But I'm still puzzled by one aspect of this fiasco. Why would the DIE dean have been the administrator who got up to respond to the hecklers, thereby risking the likelihood of fuel being added to the fire? Why was she even there in an official capacity ? Was this not a law school event? Where was the Law School dean?

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment