One might think that in college programs which promote DEI, — diversity, equity and inclusion —”diversity” should include diversification of social and political viewpoints.
Unfortunately, as you already may know if you’ve been following campus news, some students and their faculty allies seem to think diversity is fine as long as it is limited to those who agree with them.
Or, as Bob Dylan sang, “It ain’t no use a-talking to me; It’s just the same as talking to you.”
That was back in the olden days known better as the 1960s, when I was a college student and marches, sit-ins, walkouts and other disruptive civil protests usually came from the political left.
Today I have been more likely to read about their coming from the right. That’s to be expected in what a campus is supposed to be, an arena for robust but — one hopes — civil debate. But, just as we saw in the ’60s, civility sometimes is no simple matter to maintain.
One conservative student group in particular, the Federalist Society, a prestigious conservative legal organization with campus chapters nationwide, has a reputation for inviting conservative speakers to campus, almost inviting hot heads on the left to be triggered — and too many too easily fall for it.
At least two such protests of conservative speakers made headlines at law schools last year at Yale Law School and the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, where speakers were shouted down by students chanting, clapping and banging on desks.
But that hardly matched the headlines and commentaries unleashed at Stanford Law School earlier this month. The school’s Federalist chapter invited 5th U.S. Cir-cuit Court of Ap-peals Judge Kyle Dun-can, a Trump-appointed conservative.
Known for his previous advocacy against LGBTQ+ rights and for his rulings, including a 2020 case in which he refused to call a transgender woman by the female pronoun, he was heckled and shouted down as soon as he entered the classroom, walking past dozens of students massed outside, some in face paint and waving signs.
“As I en-tered the class-room, one pro-tester reportedly screamed: “We hope your daugh-ters get raped!” Duncan recalled in a later Wall Street Journal op-ed about the event. “You are an appalling idiot,” was his reported response, which sounds injudicious to me, although also about right for the offense.
Another layer of controversy came after Duncan asked for help from Stanford administrators who were present on the sidelines. Tirien Steinbach, Stanford Law School’s associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion, stepped up and — apparently reading from prepared remarks — offered a suitable call for civility and free speech, but, alas, didn’t stop there.
“Is the juice worth the squeeze?” she asked oddly but memorably. “I mean, is it worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes?”
“Do you have something so incredibly important to say … that is worth this impact on the division of these people who have sat next to each other for years, who are going through what is the battle of law school together, so that they can go out into the world and be advocates …?” And this is the division it’s caused. When I say ‘Is the juice worth the squeeze?’ That’s what I’m asking. Is this worth it?”
Well, unlike Steinbach, I’m not a lawyer, but it seemed to me that Duncan obviously felt he had something important, “incredibly” or not, to say or he would not have been trying so hard to say it. Law schools are supposed to be places where controversial propositions are argued and, one hopes, resolved, but, at the very least, not shouted down.
I disagree with Duncan’s right-wing positions, but they’re valid and carry a lot of legal weight. The best way to push back against objectionable speech, as an old civil libertarian slogan goes, is with more speech — also known in legal circles as “counter-speech.”
If law students at Stanford think they only have to be well-versed in positions with which they agree, they’re asking for a hopelessly one-sided legal education.
As I learned in my high school debate team days, you can formulate much better arguments if you take the time to learn what you’re arguing against.
Stanford officials appear to agree. Steinbach has been placed on leave and Stanford’s president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and its law school dean, Jenny Martinez, have apologized to Duncan. Martinez also announced a mandatory half-day session on freedom of speech for all law students.
Be not dismayed, students. It’s not a punishment, as my parents would say. It’s for your own good.
More Top Picks Best Hiking Boots For Women
Twitter @cptime