>"Some students might feel that some points should not be up for argument and therefore that they should not bear the responsibility of arguing them (or even hearing arguments about them), but however appealing that position might be in some other context, it is incompatible with the training that must be delivered in a law school"
I appreciated that. We have responsibilities to defend our points of view, if those points of view are to be defended. (and if those points of view are defensible).
Reddit had a pretty great post of a screenshot from tumblr the other day:
The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance,
*not* as a moral standard, but as a social contract.
If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract,
then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of
the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer
covered by the contract, and their intolerance should *not* be tolerated.
But who makes and interprets the rules of the contract? If I feel my neighbor has violated the contract in my opinion, are their rights forfeit?
This quote simply reduces to "do as I say, or I will harm you"
As an experiment, you can imagine someone else's social contract, which you are likely violating.
Edit: I vouched for the flagged parent comment, not because I agree, but because I passionately disagree and would like it to be visibly refuted, rather than censored
While I was writing a longer post I saw the edit, I think you see the great irony that I also see.
I don't think my comment was said in bad faith. I honestly wasn't expecting it to be particularly inflammatory. Yet, some set of people felt my words attacked them and chose to respond in kind with violence (use of flagging to force invisibility).
The complete irony of flagging my comment is that it is implicit agreement with the idea that I was stating.
At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence?
There is an economy of speech and shutting down and not tolerating the abhorrent speech inhibits its replication. Speech that feels good replicates. Speech that feels bad dies. Speech can foment hate and that hate can feel good. Eventually those feelings manifest as actions that that the speakers feel righteous about.
At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force?
I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence.
My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination."
My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism.
In our game of prisoners dilemma, you are cooperating, and that is admirable. It is best when people cooperate. As long as people are cooperating, everyone should cooperate. Everyone speaking freely and respecting eachother speech is cooperation. At what point do you recognize defection? At what point does bad faith become defection? How do you respond when someone announces their intent to defect? What are the results when two entities get locked in a pattern of defection?
I generally believe this is a good faith discussion. I believe all good faith discussions should be protected. Once a discussion becomes bad faith, I think force/violence is the only way to move forward.
I guess the other core idea I have is that bad faith is a form of violence.
I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable?
Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine.
>At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence?
>At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force
Quite simply it, ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. Disagreeable opinions should be addressed at points, but the tools and responses should differ based on the point in time. Force is an appropriate response to immediate violence, but you should be aware that by refusing to talk or engage you are closing the door on compromise or changing minds, and matters will now be settled on the basis of superior force or power, opposed to collaboration.
>I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence.
I think that is fair. I think most people should be prepared to defend themselves violently if needed. I would not willingly be harmed or be incarcerated when I feel I have done no wrong, and don't think others should either.
>My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination."
This line of thought assumes that negative memes outcompete positive ones, and costs are required to control them.
The question becomes when can costs be imposed, and what are appropriate costs. There is a clear line between withdrawing your support, and interfering with others. That is to say, it is one thing to refuse to talk or support someone who says "gays are an abomination", but another to actively prevent them talking with a willing 3rd party. It is one thing to abandon a friend who says it, and another thing to punch your friend.
>My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism.
What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence.
>I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable?
Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine.
The short answer is that violence is acceptable when you are willing to fight and die over the dispute. By taking violent action, you are agreeing to be subject to violent rules of engagement. Maybe you are already subject to violence, and the other party has defected from pacifism so you don't care, but in other cases the decision may be more difficult.
If you have a verbal debate over if "gays are an abomination" and escalate to violence, the other party has a right to defend themselves no matter if you are right or wrong on the verbal topic. The central question when leaving the realm of dialog is if "the juice is worth the squeeze".
> ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs.
But what is violence to you?
Is something only violent when something is resisted? If I tell my taxi driver to give me their money or I will hurt them, and they don't resist me, was there violence? If they say no and I don't do anything to make them was there violence?
Before I invest in writing a longer more thought out response:
I believe Feb 28, 1933 is clearly violence despite it being manipulation of words and speech.
April 7, 1933 is even more clearly violent.
In your opinion, at what point would violent resistance have been justified? Nov 9th, 1938?
It is not violent only when there is resistance. The act of domination is violent regardless of it being resisted or not. When it is resisted it is obviously violent, but if it is not resisted because the cost is too high, domination is still an act of violence.
My perception is that your stance makes an assumption of good faith. In the game of prisoners dilemma, what happens when the other party defects?
> What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence.
Because violence (defection) is obviously bad, but letting defection (violence) be a winning strategy is worse. (beautiful game to demonstrate this property: https://ncase.me/trust/)
This gets directly back into the original quote about the paradox of tolerance.
The paradox of tolerance is that when you tolerate (cooperate) with those who choose intolerance (defection), you lose.
The social contract of tolerance is that when somebody chooses intolerance (defection) as a strategy, you make sure they lose by not tolerating them (also defecting).
The way the US supreme court interprets the 1st amendment is a good bar.
In the US, direct violent threats, and things that are likely to cause imminent lawless action can be illegal, and most everything else is allowed.
Almost all speech, in the US, is protected, and there are only a couple, pretty specific and rare situations where people get in trouble for speech.
That's a good metric, and solves all the stuff that you brought up in the rest of the post, where you pretend like this is a question that hasn't been discussed to death, and solved, in conversations surrounding the 1st amendment, already.
So whatever the 1st amendment protects right now, is a great metric for what should be allowed.
What I am saying is that on speech stuff specifically, the courts have done a great job, and that this speech stuff has been discussed for centuries, in the court system.
So, it is not because a judge says something, that makes it ok.
Instead, the causation is reversed.
People have been doing this 1st amendment thing for centuries, addressing all the crazy hypotheticals that you bring up.
And because of that, they've mostly gotten to a good place.
I like that formulation because it foregrounds the important thing: What is the agreement? What kinds of things are disallowed? Different communities are going to have different ideas about that, and, therefore, exclude different people; making it explicit that it is an agreement with allowed and disallowed behavior, as opposed to trying to pretend that "Be Good" is somehow a workable rule, gets us to the first stage of being able to discuss what behavior is allowed and disallowed, instead of pretending it's obvious, somehow, which only works if the actual goal is a dictatorship with arbitrary rules which disallows that discussion.
I suppose the corollary is that if you cannot agree on a set of ideals and rules to follow, if you are engaged with an entity that refuses to act in good faith, if you have views that are irreconcilable with your opposition, you are left in a situation where might makes right, and you damned well better be sure that it is your side that has might and that you can live with the consequences of war.
The Taliban in Afghanistan think women should not be educated. I am intolerant of their views and look disdainfully upon them. This does not make me an asshole. Some views are repugnant enough to merit intolerance.
Each person decides for themself whether or not a belief deserves to be met with intolerance. The Paradox of Tolerance can be used by assholes to justify their intolerance but it can also be used by people who are in the right. Perhaps in the present context at Stanford you should be tolerant of the intolerant lest you become one of the assholes.
I guess it is a little hard to apply. Eg I thought at first they were saying we should stop tolerating these woke kids cause they’re intolerant. But maybe they meant it’s ok for the kids to block the conservatives cause they were bad first. If we can’t say who was first then … not a great rule. Maybe better to stick with “any infringement bad”
> "Paradox of Tolerance" is basically just used by assholes to justify their intolerance of views they disagree with.
This is exactly it. The way the snippet defines things, whichever person calls the other (illicitly-)"intolerant" first gets to be (licitly-)intolerant of the other. It takes two to tango^W disagree.
In one of the widely-circulated video clips, Steinbach came across as inflaming the situation, taking sides, and failing to act as a neutral agent of the university who could've restored order.
As a reasonably well-educated conservative, I am willing to listen to ideas from those that see things differently that I do. However, these extremist neo-fascists that want to shout down, disrupt, censor speech they don’t like.. the whole “cancel culture” concept.. all of that makes be very disinclined to care about any of their viewpoints when I might otherwise be open minded to their arguments.
When the “debate” includes some form of how racist or transphobic, or hateful, or privileged I am, then anything after that is going to be ignored because I am neither racist, transphobic, or hateful, so when my ideas are attacked as such simply because I don’t agree with neo-Marxist ideas of government and society, then it’s clear there is no point in listening any further.
Why am I going to take lessons on racism, sexism, or any other -ism or -phobia from those who judge me entirely on my skin color and my gender? Why should I care about the ideas of those who hate me?
My point here is that these children and their supporters who think they’re going to “win” by smothering the other side are hastening their own irrelevance. You don’t win hearts and minds by punching people in the face (figuratively and literally.)
> When the “debate” includes some form of how racist or transphobic, or hateful, or privileged I am
Aren’t you privileged though ?
Suffering racism hurts more than being called racist - those are not the same
The slaves owned by Thomas Jefferson suffered more by his enslavement than Thomas Jefferson when his statues are torn down - and yet conservative people complain a lot more about the latter
> Suffering racism hurts more than being called racist - those are not the same
First -- no one said this. No one has made the argument that suffering racism isn't awful. You hold a mistaken and caricatured view of most conservatives.
Second -- it's not a particularly conservative value to want to hear what a federal judge has to say to a classroom of law students. If you absolutely can't stand what a judge has to say, try to a form a question that might confound the judge, and which might demonstrate why you think they are wrong. That's one remedy for a law student. You can also choose not to attend. You can attend, and hold up a sign that shows your discontent. You can do any number of things, but one of them is not what amounts to a heckler's veto of a federal judge.
Why? Because it's important liberal judges can speak to law students in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Mississippi without being shouted down. Because, although you may have already made up your mind about everything, persuasion, reasoned debate, and an open exchange of ideas matters to others of us. It's profoundly selfish to make the choice for me about what speech I should be able to listen to.
Judge Duncan is not my cup of tea, but this illiberal strain of "progressivism" is certainly not it either.
> He’s built a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights, including defending abortion restrictions on behalf of the state of Louisiana. He also defended highly controversial voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina and fought against gay marriage.
We already know what he is going to say. He’s been able to argue in front of the Supreme Court. He can’t be cancelled. His words are literal law. He gets to say whatever he wants from a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.
> So being called racist or hateful is enough to cancel their dialog, but those suffering under racism or hate must allow the dialog to continue
Again -- that's not what anyone said. Ignoring speech isn't canceling dialogue. Ignoring speech, here, is a much healthier response compared to a heckler's veto.
> They can, and they did
I was obviously saying that's not an avenue that's acceptable for law students. And this letter clearly and thankfully discourages that tact. I wish it went further.
> We already know what he is going to say.
I didn't and I don't? Please stop speaking about things you have no earthly clue about.
The point was -- as I explained in some detail -- it's selfish of you to try to determine what speech I do or don't get to listen to (more simply, stop being a baby when you don't get your way?). If you know what he's going to say, and you don't care for it, then don't attend, or ignore his speech, or if you are a law student, pick one of the dozens of avenues for your speech that don't outright prevent the speech of others.
And please, for the love of God, don't stop taking the bait and looking this ridiculous. These law students were caught shouting down their political enemies because they were angry and they had some power. But once exposed we can see this for what it was -- it was obviously silly. Why? Because -- once exposed -- it was obvious just how politically counterproductive for their cause this was. Most normal people hate academics acting this loony toons, and young people bullying their elders. So -- for one reason or another, please quit the self righteous act, and focus on winning the next round, not reminding us how you lost this one.
> He’s built a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights, including defending abortion restrictions on behalf of the state of Louisiana. He also defended highly controversial voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina and fought against gay marriage.
I wouldn’t let a guy with “a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights” speak at my house would you ?
And I’d question the intentions of anyone who invited him
Same thing at Stanford, who TF in 2023 wants to hear anything he has to say ?
I see the students protest in this same vein “not in our house”
>As a reasonably well-educated conservative ... Why am I going to take lessons ... from those who judge me entirely on my skin color and my gender?
It is so depressing to hear well-educated conservatives act as if the primary racism in this country is directed against conservatives.
Is some racism directed against self described well educated conservatives? Certainly. Is the amount of racism directed against well educated conservatives within even an order of magnitude of the racism directed at Black, Latino, and Asian individuals regardless of political leaning or educational level? Far greater self-reflection is needed on the part of those who believe it is.
The experiences you are having as a self described well-educated conservative who is encountering racism directed at you should give you empathy for those who experience racism at much higher rates than you do, because these experiences that are new for you are not new for them.
> It is so depressing to hear well-educated conservatives act as if the primary racism in this country is directed against conservatives.
Certainly not as conservative as the poster, but that's not what they said. They seemed to indicate that it's hypocritical to call someone a racist solely on the basis of their race, and I agree.
> The experiences you are having as a self described well-educated conservative who is encountering racism directed at you should give you empathy for those who experience racism at much higher rates than you do
Why are we to suppose the OP doesn't have empathy for those who experience racism at much higher rates? It sounds like you're not listening to them, in fact imagining they hold views it's not clear they hold.
They are saying it's hard to listen to anyone when they are calling you racist, sexist, homo/transphobic when you're not, or when someone chooses to talk about your race or other essential characteristic, rather than your ideas.
Consider for a moment the OP didn't come here to explain who has it worse. Perhaps they are trying to explain that they are more interested in ideas than struggle sessions. Again, I agree.
Not listening when someone wrongly labels you and calls you names seems like a healthy response? At least compared to losing your mind in front of a federal judge?
> Some states in the US want to tell adults how to dress based on the characteristics of their private parts.
Yeah, that's not good. But I'd imagine law students losing their cool over a judge whose rulings never touch that particular trans issue make it less likely Americans give these draconian and illiberal laws a second thought.
So -- nice job, goofball. You've stepped on our collective dicks and proven how ridiculous progressives can be once again. Love nothing more than you proving how impotent and self important we can be.
Whether the novel political upheaval of the day is anti-monarchist revolutionaries, anti-Communists, or LGBT/BLM/defund-the-police activists, it takes the silent majority of moderate reasonable people a little time to figure out what the fomentor's game is, and distinguish political change with real sustained staying power vs. the flash in the pan. Then, as people grow tired of the day's fad and having daily life disrupted by something that clearly isn't working, they develop the successful counterarguments and the public support to quiet those unreasonable agitators.
It takes time, but you eventually see what actually sticks as the change desired by the bulk of reasonable people.
Those people know what non-violence is but they also know that language can be used as a weapon to silence opponents. By simply changing the definition of non-violence to mean supporting our cause they can justify this abuse of the term and claim whole-heartedly they are non-violent. This is the same type of language weaponisation which has led to words causing physical harm, thereby completing the circle - words cause harm, physical violence is non-violent - and leading to absurdities like news reporters standing in front of a burning city block speaking about fiery but mostly peaceful protests.
“Unless we recognize that student members of the Federalist Society and other conservatives have the same right to express their views free of coercion we cannot live up to this commitment nor can we claim that we are fostering an inclusive environment for all students.”
This gets to the point. Question is whether society / the school/ these students want that.
It doesn't matter whether society wants it or not to the extent that it is a Constitutionally enshrined right - that's the entire point of this letter.
The fact you're still saying this indicates you didn't read the letter or that you did and still don't understand that.
The First Amendment is not something that depends for its legitimacy or efficacy on what students of a school or indeed society in general wants at any time. If it's true that society 'wants that', then society can go through the process of Constitutional amendment. Short of that, it is not at all a question of what society wants.
Well unfortunately for you (but very fortunately for me and I daresay the vast majority of others) we live in a society that at least in theory has respect for the rule of law. Best of luck with that attitude in your life, sir.
The obvious complication is that your opposition also feels that they are right. This begs the question of what are the appropriate Rules of Engagement for conflict.
What do you think those rules should be and how do you treat the opposition?
Different societies have come up various thoughts on this question. It is not hyperbolic to say that some societies have decided such questions by Force, assassinating and Exterminating people with opposing views. There is a wide spectrum between that and polite debate, and the Salient question is where the line should be drawn
Obviously some folks wanted the judge there to speak. Why are you so scared of differing opinions? Why must the only option be to silence those that disagree with you?
Let me preface by saying I'm completely pro choice. But you say "policies... literally murdering mothers by denying them critical healthcare." But wouldn't reciprocal policies allow for the murdering of unborn babies? Once again, I'm pro choice. But I can at least understand and consider the argument from the other side.
This polarized political environment where we demonize the other and can't bear the thought of civil discourse is played out. These childish ways are not welcome in America.
No one is asking you to be silent. They are asking you to not silence others.
Not sure why I'm even bothering to reply to you, but in the event there is some aspect of good faith open mindedness on your part, 'largely white male sexists and racists' (to the extent that this is the class of people being discussed here, which you assume but isn't at all obvious) have just as much a right to give speeches and to have their views discussed and criticised as Muslims or blacks or anybody else - that is entirely the point of the First Amendment and indeed it is the idea of free speech in general. Nobody cares that you find it disgusting, and that you find it disgusting has no bearing on Constitutional Law.
My advice to you would be: If you have problems with what is being said, try criticising it in terms of how you think it's wrong, not on the ad hominem basis of who said it.
To be frank, my main issue is that the First Amendment regulates the governmental control of free speech, and should not be confused with the cultural value of tolerating disagreeable ideas.
I very much agree with the ideal of Defending the right of someone to speak a disagreeable idea, but that is not enshrined in the First Amendment.
Obnoxious students shouting down I guess speaker is not a First Amendment violation. A First Amendment violation would be if the state or FBI walked into the room and silenced them.
The link I provided talks about three different categories of free speech, and how they relate to law and cultural values.
I agree with you, except your points about universities. Colleges are funded by government funds - both State and Federal, and hence to that extent SHOULD be held to the same standards of free speech as government agencies. Now if Stanford doesn't receive any public monies, then you'd be correct (in that case it's just a private institution and wouldn't be bound by normal First Amendment issues).
I confess though that I'm trained in Australian law, not US law, and so I'll look into this more.
Stanford is not federally or state funded. It is a independent institution and private school. Students may receive governmental subsidies for tuition, but that is common for private institutions which meet minimum requirements.
The educators are not government employees, any more than a private grocery which accepts food vouchers is a governmental entity.
So then yes, even though "It is a independent institution and private school" it still is required to respect certain student free speech rights, because it is in California?
> California may have laws governing speech
So yes, you agree with me that they have to respect student free speech rights, as according to California law.
> In other words: DEI is just performative at Stanford. They say the care just to get people off their backs.
> Stanford is happy to lend their voice to racists, classists, anything, in the name of free speech. It doesn't matter that the policies of the people speaking have literally ruined lives, lead to suicides, and are now literally murdering mothers by denying them critical healthcare.
> We had all better damned be silent and respectful so that the powerful largely white largely male sexists and racists get their platform.
> Quite disgusting.
I genuinely can't tell if this is satire. "racist", "classist", "sexist", "white male", "literally murdering" all in one short post. The apoplectic hurling of slurs at the concept that someone might disagree with your views, and dare support the right for others to do so, is unhealthy. We can not have a society if this is how people react to disagreement.
> We can not have a society if this is how people react to disagreement.
Plain disagreement ends when people start to die.
Mothers in states that have banned abortion are now dying because they can't get care. People who are trans are dying at alarming rates because they can't get care. Guns are the leading cause of children.
> Plain disagreement ends when people start to die.
Yes, if you inject enough hyperbole you can justify any sort of behavior. Luckily no one is actually "literally murdering" anyone, and these arguments are nothing but emotive nonsense.
> Mothers in states that have banned abortion are now dying because they can't get care. People who are trans are dying at alarming rates because they can't get care. Guns are the leading cause of children.
Please feel free scream at whomever you wish outside of a classroom or courtroom. FWIW judges and lawyers are required by their professional to engage in reasoned debate, and to explain their reasoning to the court/s and each other.
It was disappointing enough this incident happened in an academic environment. But attorneys represent their profession, as well as their clients and themselves. They have codes which govern their professional responsibility, and these actions speak to the character and fitness of these future applicants to the bar.
This was plainly unacceptable. I'm frankly surprised the college didn't go further in sanctioning the students.
Well it quite literally is free speech. And in california, private college actually do have to follow free speech principles, that you might otherwise incorrectly believe only apply to the government.
Yes, it is literally the law that private universities have to respect the free speech of students, in California.
Please share a link to the criminal indictment for one of those murderers. Or even a link to a news story on the investigation into that murder. What municipality did this murder occur? What was the name of the victim?
I can share many stories of literal murders that have resulted from extremist left wing judges that gave low-or-no bond to multiple-time violent felons. Here’s one:
> Moreover, students are encouraged to hold alternative events where they can share their own views without disrupting the invited speaker.
What a fundamentally tone deaf response. It demonstrates a profound empathic disconnect between the administration and the student body. I wouldn't be surprised if it had the unintended consequence of making things worse.
The Dean is encouraging students to hold counter-sessions of their own where, presumably, nobody will disrupt them, either. Seems fair to me. Basically, anyone can organize and present a lecture... all we all is that folks behave civilly. We aren't asking for agreement. We're just asking for the chance to be heard. What more do you want?
If people don’t like what me being said, why do they continue to listen? Calls to ban or censor speech because of a disagreement with the ideas is consistent with fascism. Are opponents so insecure in their own arguments that instead of defending their position, they feel obliged to silence the opposition?
If you don’t like what’s being sold in the marketplace of ideas, that doesn’t give you the right to burn the shops.
Again, speculating that this comes from some sort of insecurity on the part of students does nothing but drive a deeper wedge. I really encourage more empathy than this.
I'm troubled that this is posed as a choice between empathizing with one at the expense of the other. I sincerely don't believe that you see this as a zero sum game.
Ridiculing opponents shuts down the possibility of a meeting of minds. I don't believe this is how you solve conflict in your own life and it isn't how this conflict will be solved either.
I appreciated that. We have responsibilities to defend our points of view, if those points of view are to be defended. (and if those points of view are defensible).