Not in my courtroom...
-
You really hate to make an example of people, because you could literally ruin their lives, but something has to be done. The monkeys cannot run the zoo.
I think firing the DEI twat and censuring the students may be enough. Or not.
We have to make sure this behavior is not tolerated.
-
How we strike a balance between free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion is worthy of serious, thoughtful and civil discussion
tl;dr: “I don’t believe in free speech”
If you don't take it, it can only good happen.
-
How we strike a balance between free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion is worthy of serious, thoughtful and civil discussion
tl;dr: “I don’t believe in free speech”
-
How we strike a balance between free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion is worthy of serious, thoughtful and civil discussion
tl;dr: “I don’t believe in free speech”
@jon-nyc said in Not in my courtroom...:
How we strike a balance between free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion is worthy of serious, thoughtful and civil discussion
tl;dr: “I don’t believe in free speech”
"Define free speech" debate tactic from the left incoming in 3... 2... 1...
-
It can be a serious, thoughtful and civil discussion as long as it’s a quick one:
Free speech wins, DEI deals with it.
-
Glenn Loury spoke to two of the students responsible for inviting Duncan to Stanford.
Among the best points brought up, was that it would be career and social suicide for a cultural conservative student to protest in the same petulant manner, against an invited leftist judge. Meanwhile, it was socially and professionally advantageous for those leftist students to participate in that protest.
But the Popehats of the world will continue to both-sides-are-equalize, in the face of any such imbalance. He knows which side he needs to self-identify with, for his own personal success, just like the students know. Apes gonna ape.
Link to video -
Ho's comments:
Here’s the good news. This problem should be easy to solve. Most universities already have rules in place ensuring freedom of speech and prohibiting disruptions.
The problem is that these rules aren’t enforced. Students disrupt without consequence. Administrators tolerate or even encourage the chaos.
It’s not because most students or faculty support these tactics. When I visit law schools, I’m always told it’s just a small fraction of students who practice intolerance. But the majority tolerates it, because faculty members don’t want to be controversial. And students just want to graduate, get a job, and move on with their lives.
These three elements are plainly missing at Stanford Law School. Just look at the ten-page letter that was recently issued by the Dean. I know that letter has been praised by some people for standing up for free speech. I don’t share that view.Well, here’s the problem: The words in that letter are not accompanied by concrete actions. Because it imposes zero consequences on anyone. It doesn’t even say whether there will be consequences if there’s a disruption in the future.
These problems aren’t unique to one or two schools. But I think it’s obvious why so much attention has focused on one or two schools. It’s because they present themselves as the nation’s best institutions of legal education. Yet they’re the worst when it comes to legal cancellation. Moreover, what happens at these elite schools impacts the profession and the country.
It's an interesting talk. He addresses failed leadership at the schools, the lack of consequences for bad behavior and other things.
