#624 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday April 3)
Good morning,
I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the disruption of a Fifth Circuit Judge’s lecture at Stanford Law School. In the article, I noted that it was appalling that a judge, regardless of his or her political point of view, was not afforded the opportunity to speak in front of a class of law students.
I still stand by my position that the Judge should have been allowed to make his presentation to a Stanford Law School class, reprehensible as his speech may have been. Those who made it impossible for him to conclude his remarks have a warped view of what it means to allow freedom of speech. Speeches should be allowed to occur—particularly at a law school. The proper response to objectionable speech is peaceful protest, even vocal protest, and alternative speech.
THIS WAS MORE THAN JUST A SPEECH
All that being said, this seems to have been a case of staging an event for the purpose of eliciting a response. it seems that the good judge and the Federalist Society staged events and were prepared to disseminate selected bits on social media. But, at the core, they also do not seem to understand what it means to have freedom of speech and that even protected speech has its limits.
Apparently, the Federalist Society on campus knew that the Judge’s presentation would be controversial. Apparently, when he first was proposed as a speaker, the “Out Law” group at the law school (the cleverly named LBGT student organization) asked that he not be invited because of his openly anti-homosexual statements and a particularly problematic diatribe in an opinion, in which he refused to acknowledge gender choice of pronoun. In any case, the Judge came, knowing his visit would be controversial.
When confronted by protesting students, the Judge yelled back at them and engaged in the same sort of name-calling for which students later were admonished. As a good friend of mine said, there is an alternative narrative regarding these facts:
“…a powerful federal judge (who is supposed to maintain at least an appearance of being impartial/apolitical) showed up to a campus outside his jurisdiction looking for a fight (he was literally filming protestors on his cellphone, yelling at students, called them names, etc.). He was being brazenly political, and the public drama around the event and protests were rapidly publicized by a well-funded and coordinated right wing campaign to suppress dissent, which sadly in my view has been almost entirely successful. They were editing clips and sending them to their allies at all these right wing outlets, who then published story after story generating all this controversy, which percolated into mainstream media. it's not clear anything that bad actually happened. Students protested (maybe too loudly). An administrator stepped in to quiet things down (maybe she didn't say all the right things, but the protestors were quiet afterwards)…”
The point here is not to ascribe particular blame to the Judge’s appearance or to deny him the right to speak (as objectionable as his position might be to the students).
But this isn’t even the worst part. My friend, who has knowledge of the events on campus, continues: “Many law school students who expressed support for the protestors have had their names, pictures, and personal emails plastered all over right wing media outlets and received harassment as a result… [One person], who was not present at the protests or even involved in them!)... had a giant sign parked outside her parents' home in Washington DC calling her a fascist!”
While entrapment is a concept of law enforcement, in this case it seems like an apt descriptor. The Judge and his allies did their best to generate controversy and news clips. That was bad behavior. It was the first bad behavior. The second was not the protests themselves, but the disruption of the class in which he was speaking. The third was the well-orchestrated media campaign against the students.
For the life of me, there is nothing that justifies parking a truck with an electronic sign in front of someone’s home, creating a target for some with more nefarious motives (and guns), calling the person a fascist. That sort of speech should not be protected.
THE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES
Here is how Stanford handled matters and how the various participants have been treated:
All Stanford students will be taking mandatory training on free speech. I see nothing wrong with this. I’ve taken many trainings on sexual harassment and on diversity. It’s a low bar.
The Associate Dean who admonished the students and the Judge at the lecture was suspended. Let’s be clear that DEI officers in a setting such as this ought not be perceived as taking sides. Her behavior was wrong and warranted censure. Suspending her was, in my view, excessive—in the same way that people who use the wrong pronoun or make students uncomfortable because of their personal view ought not be suspended or fired.
None of the Judge, his Federalist Society hosts/supporters, nor the people who parked the trucks with offensive signs in front of people’s homes, suffered any consequence. It would seem to me reasonable to expect Federal judges to go through some form of training on appropriate decorum. It seems equally reasonable that drawing attention to someone’s home and labeling them a fascist, particularly in today’s overly-armed age, is speech that ought not be protected. Can’t we all agree that people’s homes, as well as publishing personal addresses and phone numbers, should be off-limits?
A DIFFERENT VIEW
For an alternative view of this matter:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/protesting-anti-trans-judge-kyle-duncan-is-american/
THE TRUMP INDICTMENT
I don’t object to it. I object to its timing. I wish the Manhattan DA had waited for indictments to come in in the far more consequential cases in Georgia and DC. This is hardly the worst of Mr. Trump’s criminal behaviors and it provides the Tucker Carlsons of the world fodder.
Have a great day,
Glenn