quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
Perhaps disciplining the students is problematic. So let the students go unpunished but take the hatchet to the feckless dean of DIE. It's clear as day that she did not hold up her obligations to protect free speech.

The Federalist Society don't get to punish the students but they get to oust the nut job dean.

quote:

...
The debacle revealed four disturbing characteristics about the Stanford law students: One, they acted as if they were bullies and cowards. Videos of the mess showed how they turned mob-like in their chanting, flashing creepy placards, and, like Maoists, walking out on cue. Yet, when the judge fired back at their rudeness, like wounded fawns they took offense and pouted. And later, when there was mention that the names or photos of the protestors might be published, tit-for-tat, in the manner they themselves had put up posters of the Federalist Society members, they screamed that such exposure was unfair.

Two, they seem incompetent. To the degree there were any questions and answers, few knew how or even attempted to engage the judge on matters of the law and judicial theory. In other words, any grammar-school students could have matched their performance since it required no knowledge of the law, just an ability to chant and—in groupthink style—cry, scream, and mimic the majority.

Three, they were arrogant. One protestor blurted out that Justice Duncan probably could not have gotten into Stanford, as if their own puerile performance was proof of the school’s high standards of admission. That was obnoxious in addition to the fact that, as of recently, it may have become not so true. In July 2022, Stanford Law School announced that an uncharacteristic 14 percent of its graduates had flunked the California bar exam on their first attempt, a radical increase from past years. Four other California law schools—UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Irvine, and USC—had a higher bar pass rate.

After watching the sad performance, one wonders who taught such rude and unimpressive people.

Ethics complaints were lodged last year against Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber for tweeting a series of gross attacks on Camille Vasquez (“some Pick Me Girl lawyer”), the widely regarded attorney of Johnny Depp. Law professor Dauber also tweeted sick fantasies about Depp’s death—and imagined the actor’s corpse would “end up in a trash can eaten by rats.” Was she the sort of model that the law students had emulated?

Then there was Professor Pamela Karlan’s 2019 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the impeachment of President Trump. Off-topic and gratuitously, Karlan weirdly attacked the name of the president’s youngest son, Barron Trump: “While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.” Was that the sort of puerility that the law students sought to embrace?

In 2021, a graduating Stanford law student sent the law school student body a bogus call to violence as if it was authored by the school’s small conservative Federalist Society. The fake call to arms read in part: “The Stanford Federalist Society presents: The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection . . . Riot information will be emailed the morning of the event . . . ” Was that the sort of smear that the law students learned?

...

The Wall Street Journal recently ridiculed a Stanford university group’s publication of a taboo vocabulary list (“Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative”). “Harmful” words supposedly unwelcome at Stanford included inflammatory expressions such as “American” and “immigrant.”

The Journal also noted that perhaps the cause of such Orwellianism was too many idle administrators chasing too few students: “For 16,937 students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 administrative staff.”

More disturbing was the revelation of a “snitch list.” The harmful language initiative apparently is tangential to another new idea of rewarding Stanford snitches who feel offended by hurtful expression. Or, as the so-called “The Protected Identity Harm (PIH) Reporting” system put it, software will monitor campus speech and even offer “financial rewards for finding/reporting” any who supposedly violate approved language usage.

Was this the sort of campus experience that the parents of Stanford students pay for at about $90,000 per year?

Stanford was also plagued by a recent admissions scandal when a former head sailing coach accepted donations to his Stanford sailing program in exchange for trying to help two students’ admission applications.

Then there were campus attacks on a pair of eminent Stanford public health experts, Drs. Scott Atlas and Jay Bhattacharya. Both were pilloried mercilessly by some of the Stanford faculty and administration for daring to doubt the efficacy of what has proved to be disastrous government-enforced COVID quarantines and school shutdowns.

Yet the arguments of Atlas and Bhattacharya—the science does not support the mandatory use of masks to halt the pandemic, natural immunity was as efficacious as or superior to vaccine-induced immunity, the vaccinations would not offer lasting protection against either being infected or infecting someone else, and the quarantine lockdowns would cause more damage and death (familial abuse, suicides, substance abuse, mental depression, uneducated children, economic catastrophe, millions of missed surgeries, screenings, tests, and doctor’s appointments) than the virus itself—were all eventually substantiated.

Neither doctor received apologies from the administrators, faculty, or students who attacked them.

Currently Stanford’s long-serving president Marc Tessier-Lavigne—an accomplished neuroscientist—has been attacked serially by the Stanford Daily campus newspaper, which has called for his resignation. It alleges the president was culpable of scholarly misconduct concerning the publication of a joint research paper decades ago. The charges are not proven and remain under investigation. But they make it difficult for a president to weigh in on the above controversies when some faculty and the student newspaper are serially calling for him to step down for ethics violations.

....

The list of serial embarrassments reads like the suicides of Greek tragedy, where divine nemesis follows hubris. In this case, overweening intolerant ideology has sabotaged disinterested inquiry and meritocracy. Arrogance and sanctimoniousness lead Stanford to continue down this spiral—rather than pause, reflect, and redirect—and thereby only compound the public ridicule.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
A Wayne State English professor was suspended yesterday for stating on Twitter that it would have been better for the Stanford students to kill Judge Kyle Duncan.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...servative-judge.html

quote:

Steven Shaviro, a self-styled philosopher and teacher of English at the university

quote:

A Wayne State English professor was suspended yesterday for stating on Twitter that it would have been better for the Stanford students to kill Judge Kyle Duncan.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Yelling "Fire" if one believes there is a fire is conveying information. Doing so to incite panic is a malicious act with intent to harm.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
“WTF is Wrong with You”: Columbia Center and Law Students Protest Meeting With Justice Kavanaugh

https://jonathanturley.org/202...h-justice-kavanaugh/

Columbia University law students and alums are in an uproar over an Instagram post that showed students in the Federalist Society meeting with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Court. It would ordinarily be a singular experience for law students to spend time with one of the nine justices. That is not how it went over at Columbia where some are outraged by the meeting and Columbia’s posting the picture on its social media account. The Empowering Women of Color group announced it was “withdrawing our participation from Columbia Law School recruiting events.” Columbia’s own Center for Engaged Pedagogy, simply declared “WTF is wrong with you.”

More at link.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
The Empowering Women of Color group announced it was “withdrawing our participation from Columbia Law School recruiting events.”

quote:

The Empowering Women of Color group announced it was “withdrawing our participation from Columbia Law School recruiting events.”

quote:

Federal judges refuse to hire clerks from Stanford

“Two federal judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, both appointed by former President Donald Trump, have announced that they will no longer hire law clerks from Stanford Law School.

quote:

'What some law schools tolerate and even encourage today is not intellectual exploration—but intellectual terrorism,' Ho suggested.

'Students don’t try to engage and learn from one another. They engage in disruption, intimidation, and public shaming. They try to terrorize people into submission and self-censorship, in a deliberate campaign to eradicate certain viewpoints from the public discourse,' he added.

'Law schools like to say that they’re training the next generation of leaders. But schools aren’t even teaching students how to be good citizens—let alone good lawyers. We’re not teaching the basic terms of our democracy.'

Ho's announcement is the latest and most dramatic effort to hold Stanford accountable for its treatment of Duncan, and he hopes his colleagues will follow suit.

quote:

Controversy swirls in Silicon Valley: Elite and tech-heavy Stanford University has recently weathered numerous public scandals and lawsuits, ranging from free speech debates and allegations its president falsified research data to a student’s suicide.

Now, rumors are swirling about whether Stanford’s president, neuroscientist Marc Tessier-Lavigne, will step down. Tessier-Lavigne has headed the university for the last seven years, but is in hot water after a bombshell investigation alleged research misconduct in a handful of the president’s scientific publications.

As scandal after scandal strikes Stanford, some blame Tessier-Lavigne and his administration. Numerous Stanford faculty and community members told The Standard that they had either heard rumors of Tessier-Lavigne’s potential resignation, or would not be surprised if that were the outcome, given the university’s repeated woes.

“When he became president, the chairman at the time said, ‘Marc, we’re giving you an institution at the pinnacle of higher education, with high hopes for you,’” said Edwin Dorsey, a recent alum who runs They Must Resign, a blog that targets Stanford’s top admins.

“Seven years later, he’s done everything he can to shoot Stanford in the foot,” Dorsey said.

Rumors are to be taken with a pinch of salt—but the negative publicity and near-endless controversies are placing unprecedented pressure on Stanford’s top administrators. Some faculty suggested that previous provosts or administrators could step up to replace the beleaguered president.

But if Tessier-Lavigne resigns or, worse, faces dismissal, he could be the first in university history to leave on such a tarnished note.

....