Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Kyle Duncan]]>

Stanford Law Dean Defends Free Speech, Suspends ‘Woke’ DEI Administrator Who Led Disruption of Guest Speaker

by Leave a Comment

A Stanford dean has been placed on administrative leave after she participated in interrupting a prominent guest speaker and lectured him on progressive gender ideology in front of the audience that came to see him.

Recently at Stanford University Law School, Kyle Duncan, a Trump-appointed federal judge, was fulfilling an invitation from the school’s Federalist Society when a group of student protesters interrupted his speech, shouting over him and refusing to let him continue. They claimed Duncan was transphobic and homophobic, based on past decisions in which he refused to grant transgender status to convicted male sex offenders.

Duncan was appointed by Donald Trump. And Duncan isn’t bowing to the demands of the pronoun police. In one case, he refused to bend a knee to the transgender mob. Norman Varner is a sex offender and a thug. He was convicted in a child pornography case in 2012, which followed a long history of sex offender offenses. Varner was sentenced to 15 years. At some point in his incarceration, Varner claimed he was a woman and his name was “Kathy Jett”. Varner wanted his court records to reflect that he was now a woman. Varner demanded that all court documents be changed to refer to him as Kathy Jett, not his dead name. “Jett” also demanded that his pronouns be “she/her”.

Duncan wasn’t having it. In a majority opinion, Duncan said the record was clear and would remain unchanged with “Norman Varner” as the convicted sex offender.

Duncan tried to appeal to the dean on site, Tirien Steinbach, to quell the protesters and allow him to continue his speech. Instead of aiding him, the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion dean lectured him for nearly ten minutes, accusing him of transphobia and saying he “literally denies the humanity of people.”

Stanford administrators apologized to Duncan for the disruption, and on Wednesday, Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez announced Steinbach had been place on administrative leave. In a ten-page letter, Martinez explained the importance of free speech on a law campus and reiterated that she would not be rescinding the original apology to Duncan.

As we consider the role of respectful treatment of members of our community, I want to be clear that the hate mail and appalling invective that have been directed at some of our students and law school administrators in the wake of March 9 are of great concern to me. All actionable threats that come to our attention will be investigated and addressed as the law permits. In the message below, I respond below to many of the questions I continue to receive about why I apologized to Judge Duncan, why I stand by that apology, and why the protest violated the university’s policy on disruption. I articulate how I believe our commitment to diversity and inclusion means that we must protect the expression of all views. And, I outline some of the steps the school will be taking in the wake of this incident, including the adoption of clearer protocols for managing disruptions and educational programming on free speech and norms of the legal profession.

She went on to explain that law school students in particular need to understand the importance of making an argument versus shouting down undesirable opinions or guests, adding it isn’t the school’s job to take “institutional positions” on current events.

At the same time, I want to set expectations clearly going forward: our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not going to take the form of having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political issues, make frequent institutional statements about current news events, or exclude or condemn speakers who hold views on social and political issues with whom some or even many in our community disagree. I believe that focus on these types of actions as the hallmark of an “inclusive” environment can lead to creating and enforcing an institutional orthodoxy that is not only at odds with our core commitment to academic freedom, but also that would create an echo chamber that ill prepares students to go out into and act as effective advocates in a society that disagrees about many important issues. 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. Law students are entering a profession in which their job is to make arguments on behalf of clients whose very lives may depend on their professional skill. Just as doctors in training must learn to face suffering and death and respond in their professional role, lawyers in training must learn to confront injustice or views they don’t agree with and respond as attorneys. Law is a mediating device for difference.

Martinez says the school will commit to educating deans and administrative staff further on their free speech and protest policies.

It was a rare moment of sanity in an increasingly insane higher education environment. However, it may have been based on a little more than free speech, although Martinez’ letter was quite clear about the school’s commitment to open dialogue.

Stanford is a prestigious school. One way a school keeps their status is by placing students in coveted internships and jobs post-graduation. For law students in particular, finding placements as clerks in judicial offices is an important start to a thriving law career. There have been rumors that some judges are beginning to pass over candidates coming out of hyper-progressive (woke) law programs, and in corporate America recruiters are looking at small things like the announcement of pronouns as clues to how cooperative and open to learning a young employee may be.

If Stanford wants to hold on to their status as a prestigious school of law, they have to be able to place their students in prime jobs. If their student body becomes known for being disruptive, uncooperative and rude, they will see a decline in the availability of those prime jobs.

Martinez is right to stand up for speech, but it is an equally intelligent move to work to preserve the integrity of Stanford graduates for future placements.

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Trending on RedState Video

Sometimes, Stand and Fight

by Leave a Comment

Eric A. Sell is Associate Counsel and the Shillman Legal Fellow at the Center for American Liberty, a non-profit law firm dedicated to preserving free speech and civil liberties.

The recent debacle at Stanford Law School involving a federal judge and an angry crowd of students sparked a brushfire of debate and commentary throughout the legal community. Sadly, the reaction from many is more evidence that the state of free speech at American law schools is only getting worse.

For those unaware, dozens of sign-waving protesters heckled and shouted down Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan while he was speaking on campus to the local student chapter of the Federalist Society. Protesters accused him of heinous acts like beating his wife, killing people, and expressing a “hope that [his] daughters get raped.” Yet, despite the vile nature of the insults lobbed at the judge, many liberal legal luminaries were quick to paint him as the villain of the story.

Calling these opinions absurd is perhaps a bit too charitable. Videos of the event show a packed room of student protesters holding signs with crude messages on them, relentlessly hurling invectives at Duncan throughout his remarks. The protesters’ objections touched on things like preferred pronouns for transgender inmates and voting rights for minorities. The insults lacked both accuracy and nuance and many of the protesters didn’t seem to care what the judge had to say in his defense.

Throughout the tirade, several Stanford Law School administrators in the audience sat quietly by and allowed the crowd to air their grievances. This of course meant Duncan’s speech could not proceed as planned. The students were in plain violation of the university’s anti-disruption policy, yet these administrators did nothing.

Eventually, the associate dean for Diversity Equity and Inclusion, Tirien Steinbach, took the podium from Judge Duncan to address the crowd. During her minutes-long interlude into the event, Dean Steinbach unloaded her own personal enmity onto Judge Duncan (via a prepared speech), criticizing him for “harming” students by “denying [their] humanity.”

While Steinbach informed the protesters that disruption violated school policy and that Duncan had the right to speak, she also made clear that she welcomed the chaos that unfolded. She even questioned whether the “juice” of inviting Duncan to Stanford “was worth the squeeze” of students’ hurt feelings. This speech had a tone similar to an email Steinbach sent to the student body the night before the event, which read more like a call to arms than a request for proper decorum.

Yet, after all of this, some insist that Judge Duncan is the bad guy. The reason: He had the temerity to stand up to the mob. Duncan engaged with the protesters, pushing back on what he viewed as inaccurate or misleading characterizations of his work on the bench, using pointed language to defend himself.

The main argument from Duncan’s critics is that his reaction to the protest was not befitting of a federal judge. Basically, the words he used in describing the crowd’s conduct were too on the nose. Some even argue Duncan welcomed the protest for his own political gain. The whataboutism is striking.

Yes, Duncan’s reaction wasn’t what we usually hear from a federal judge. But it was human, nonetheless. He adopted a defensive posture in the face of a volatile crowd bent on insulting and demeaning him. To fault the judge for this is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

Judge Duncan could have sat in silence and let the crowd insult him and his family. Or he could have gotten up and left the event. But either would have been a victory for the mob, which Judge Duncan was right to deprive them of by staying and engaging.

And while it’s unfortunate that a federal judge had to endure the wrath of immature law students, the Stanford Federalist Society and its members are the real victims here. The students who wanted a productive and insightful conversation with a respected and influential member of their profession were deprived of this opportunity by an angry group of their peers who think using crude language and insults is a powerful form of persuasion. By standing up to a petulant crowd, Judge Duncan stood up for the students who invited him to speak. Staying silent or walking away would have been a disservice to them.

Robust and open debate on campus—particularly at a law school with a reputation like Stanford’s—is something any tolerant society should promote and preserve. Shouting down those we disagree with doesn’t advance this goal. Winning them over with persuasive arguments does. Perhaps not all of the protesters sought to silence the judge. But for many, this was clearly their only goal.

If Judge Duncan hadn’t stood up for himself, and for the Stanford Federalist Society, the censorship mob would have won. For the sake of free expression and open debate on campus, we should all be thankful he did.

The opinions expressed in guest op-eds are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Trending on RedState Video

Ted Cruz Takes Stanford Law to School Over Leftist Effort to Shut Down Speech

by Leave a Comment

We’re seeing in many colleges how much leftism is poisoning people’s minds against free speech. But you would think one of the places that would understand the value of free speech would be law schools, which are preparing future lawyers.

However, we saw at Stanford Law School, its students shouted down the speech of Judge Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, calling him a racist and offering up profanities. Not only didn’t the administrator on the scene — Associate Dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion Tirien Steinbach — try to get things under control, she made the situation worse, as my colleague Sister Toldjah explained.

But instead of trying to restore order, Steinbach proceeded to lecture Duncan about how “uncomfortable” he made her and the students in the room because some of his decisions allegedly “[deny] the humanity of people” including a convicted transgender sex offender with who Duncan refused to play pronoun games in 2020.

After all was said and done, Duncan reportedly had to be ushered out by federal marshals in the interest of keeping him safe.

While the school thereafter issued an apology to the judge, they also encouraged people to reach out to the school, including that very same dean, if they needed to “process” what had happened for their “mental health.”

As George Washington law school professor Jonathan Turley wryly noted, “You know what is emotionally therapeutic for those denied free speech?” Turley went on to say. “Free speech.” He also noted that it was concerning that the reaction from the school was to discourage free speech, telling the students not to engage on social media.

The problem is that leftist students know that they can shout people down with impunity in most arenas, shut down speech, and they will not be held to account. It’s become the norm for anyone that leftists don’t like speaking on campus.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is now calling on Stanford to hold the students who were involved accountable for their actions.

“It was deeply disturbing to watch the viral video that captured Stanford Law students harassing and insulting Judge Kyle Duncan, a sitting federal circuit judge, who had been invited by the school’s Federalist Society chapter to speak at a school-sanctioned event,” Cruz said in a letter to the administration of the law school.

This disgraceful behavior is antithetical to the principles of free speech and open discourse that are essential to the mission of any credible academic institution, let alone a top-tier law school. Such behavior also clearly violates Stanford Law School’s Campus Disruption Policy. As such, Stanford Law School is well within its rights to discipline these students for their behavior, and indeed, I strongly urge the school to do so. Indeed, failing to identify and discipline the students responsible for this reprehensible conduct will only encourage such behavior in the future.

He also called for action regarding the dean.

Cruz said the associate dean “thrust herself into the limelight during the allotted time of the event, stole the microphone for over six minutes, and proceeded to chastise and condescend to Judge Duncan with the aid of her own pre-prepared remarks.”

“Far from conducting herself in a manner that students should emulate, Assistant Dean Steinbach’s behavior validated the protestors’ disruptive conduct,” the senator wrote. “Given her demonstrated contempt for the federal bench, guests of the school, and your own institution’s policies, I recommend that she is promptly dismissed from her position.”

Cruz said protest is important, but the “heckler’s veto” shouldn’t be allowed to shut down the right of people to speak.

He noted how similar behavior by Yale Law School students has prompted some judges to say that they will no longer accept clerkship applications from Yale. As Cruz noted, this shows that such students will not be able to fairly engage in the process based on the law. Cruz said that now Stanford might face the same fate, if they don’t show that such behavior will result in consequences.

The student protestors only engaged in the behavior they did because they predicted that their actions would be consequence-free. If they are indeed correct, then such appalling behavior can be expected again in the future. The eyes of the American legal community are now upon Stanford Law to see whether the school will, in fact, defend the principles of free speech and free inquiry.

“The idea that at Stanford Law School that law students would think it’s appropriate to scream and yell and heckle, can you imagine how people would react if Sonia Sotomayor went to a law school, and a bunch of right-wing law students began screaming and yelling and cursing, people would lose their minds and quite rightly!” Cruz said on the “Verdict” podcast.

He also explained how the students on the board of The Federalist Society chapter at the school — the organization that invited the judge — were then targeted. Leftists put up flyers with their names and faces, with red letters dripping down on them, saying “You should be ashamed.”

Cruz called out these threats.

If it happened on the other foot, if a conservative put up a list with pictures and names of nine liberal students and said, “You should be ashamed” for advocating for whatever left wing cause you’re advocating, I guarantee you the law school would discipline, if not expel any students who did that. And to see this happening to a judge is astonishing!

Now, that’s truly schooling the school.

Will the school take the students to the task? I don’t hold out a lot of hope. But Cruz is pointing out what’s likely to happen if they continue down this road, and it isn’t good for the school, the profession, or society to continue this descent into craziness.

Stanford Students Rip Woke Dean Who Led Heckling of a Federal Judge, Demand Ouster

by Leave a Comment

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Stanford Law School students savagely criticized the school and one of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion deans in a piece in the school’s publication, “Stanford Review,” with this simple but powerful headline atop its front page: “Fire Tirien Steinbach.”

As RedState’s Jim Thompson reported, Steinbach, Stanford Law’s Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, joined students in heckling and screaming at Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judge Kyle Duncan who was attempting to deliver a speech. When the judge asked for an administrator to intervene, Steinbach instead piled on and launched into a six-minute tirade claiming Duncan was “literally denying the humanity of people.”

His crime? He refused to retroactively change court records to reflect that child porn enthusiast and repeated sex offender Norman Varner decided after his trial to identify as female and demanded to be referred to as “Kathy Jett.”

Although the university belatedly delivered a written apology to the jurist, many felt that it was a weak one at best, and there seem to have been very few consequences for Steinbach for her outrageous behavior. As SisterToldjah reported, the university then compounded its mistakes by issuing a letter to students who were upset about the interruptions to seek mental health help…from Tirien Steinbach.

After all was said and done, Duncan had to be escorted out by armed marshalls to ensure his protection. At a “top” university.

The Stanford Review bills itself as a student-run independent newspaper. The outlet’s article, credited to “multiple authors,” described their disgust with how the situation went down at a school that touts its commitment to free speech:

Perhaps the only thing uglier than the Stanford Law School building is the events that took place there on Thursday. The Stanford Federalist Society’s event with Kyle Duncan, a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was disrupted by a mob of unruly law students and a Stanford DEI Dean who prevented the judge from speaking entirely.

They point out that she was just as much to blame for the circus as the rowdy students:

… at the center of the debacle was not the group of unruly law students, but Stanford Law School’s own Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach.

These students believe Steinbach should pay a consequence for sullying their school’s reputation so badly, and that Stanford’s statements that it values free speech are pointless if administrators don’t do anything to you know, actually protect free speech:

The apology also said that Stanford would take steps to ensure this does not happen again. However, it is unclear what Stanford plans to do to prevent such disruption in the future. Firing Dean Steinbach is a good start. 

The university’s apology will be completely meaningless unless concrete actions are taken to rid the administration of anti-speech zealots.

. They also note that the associate dean clearly planned for this whole thing to go down:

Someone who is so eager, at the behest of an unruly mob, to shut down free speech, which Stanford itself considers “a bedrock principle for the law school, the university, and a democratic society,” has no place as a Stanford dean. She helped engineer chaos with her email before the event, delivered prepared remarks interrupting his speech, took the spotlight for herself, and has shown no remorse since.

The article is very good; it would appear that some Stanford Law students at least are getting an education—or, rather, haven’t allowed Stanford to make them less intelligent than they were upon arrival. They close with a powerful argument:

If these law students are to be trained for bench and bar, it certainly should be with a deep respect for the bedrock principle of free speech. Steinbach’s actions not only degrade the principles of free speech but degrade the prestige and reputation of Stanford Law School itself.

They’re right. One of my colleagues wondered if federal judges are going to get leery about hiring Stanford Law grads as clerks —probably too much trouble to deal with.

Stanford should get rid of this woke, abusive administrator, or at the very least hand out some actual discipline instead of just writing letters.

Related:

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Blasts Stanford University’s Shameful Attempts to Silence Him on COVID

Major University Rolls out ‘Harmful Information’ Guide, Drops a No-No on Calling U.S. Citizens ‘Americans’

Trending on RedState Video