Stanford law student who made fun of the federalist able to graduate after all
slate.com
slate.com
For example, the Rutgers law school student bar association had required all organizations under it to have sessions on CRT, but FIRE threatened to sue and they relented.
https://www.thefire.org/victory-facing-public-pressure-rutge...
That being said, the opposing institution that uses it's resources to shut down opportunities for discourse will probably end up being more powerful and successful in propagating it's ideology in the long-run.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
The best part of being a centrist is that everyone else naturally hates me, so it's easy to pick one side or the other in each individual situation, with no loyalties.
Sure, it's perfectly legal to exercise your free speech rights, but dragging someone through the mud dissuades many people from making criticisms.
What is the significant difference between a satirical flyer titled “Black Lives Matter — Mostly Peaceful Arson and Riot” and a satirical flyer titled “The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection”? I’ll grant the second is more original, and perhaps wittier in the context of a mostly progressive law school audience. But both of these are intended to mock one side and entertain the other. Both of these are crass, and both implicitly defame.
However only one of these would be met with a school-wide email from the university president apologizing for the offense and reaffirming commitments to support and promote diversity. I think this is what the original poster is asserting.
> But both of these are intended to mock one side and entertain the other. Both of these are crass, and both implicitly defame.
So what? That's not illegal. You're allowed to criticize others—that's a key purpose of the First Amendment.
Respectfully, I believe you’ve missed the point of my post, which is not to assert the validity or invalidity of either perspective (I agree both should be protected by the first amendment), but to question why the audience of this website downvoted the original post so readily, and to boost the opinion that there is a political bias in university administrations.
Additionally, the flyer about Black Lives Matter could equally well be a talk.
And if it were, it might hypothetically have been tolerated.
However, "Black lives matter mostly peaceful arson and riot" doesn't describe a talk, it describes an arson and riot. Claims that Stanford reacting differently to the two would merely be due to political bias is disingenuous projection.
Maybe GP intended to describe a satirical talk exactly like the one in the OP, but they didn't, and their language entirely undercut the premise of their attempted argument.
However I still assert that the talk titled as it is in my post would not be met well.
I think it’s fair to assume that there is a political bias in university administrations. Here’s an opinion piece where the author states that in their survey of political leanings in university administration the bias is significant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/opinion/liberal-college-a...
I could not find any documentation or review of this survey. It does agree with my own observation however.
I doubt anyone will read these articles because they are afraid of being called racist but for example here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
and then there was a very small "correction" which changes nothing:
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/9127
and then note the weasily "retraction" that don't really retract anything that happened right when BLM was taking off.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/18130
If you dont think BLM receives special treatment please contact me because I have a bridge in new york to sell you.
>https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/18130
Holy cow. One can almost see the gun pointed off-camera at the hostage assuring viewers that he is being well treated!
This entire episode is completely on-brand.
The Chapparal used to love taking the mickey out of the Stanford Daily by printing up fake papers and dropping them in the Daily’s newspaper racks around campus on one of their off days. Stories were told of the Daily staffers running madly around campus trying to remove them.
The student LGBT organization responded to an infamous two-page spread published by the Stanford Review about the evils of homosexuality with a none-too-polite two-page spread of their own.
The only thing that might have been improved in this case: a disclaimer at the bottom. I’m amused a law student didn’t think to include that.
EFF and FIRE seem more similar to the “old” ACLU although both have very limited missions.
In that as the set of political realignments that started with the New Deal, got new direction from the Civil Rights movement and the response to it, and completed around the mid-1990s wound up, the Republicans, who were not consistently so before the realignment, ended up firmly opposed to both core principles of the ACLU and, as a tribal identity marker, the ACLU itseld (heck, even in the 1980s, Republicans used a Democratic candidate being a “card carrying member of the ACLU” as an attack.)
The ACLU didn't really go anywhere, the national partisan alignment shifted so that the positions it always held were partisan.
Actually just saw another reported piece from the NYT pop up on this, but I’ve seen others in the same vein previously which informed my comment.
“Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis: An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
According to the article neither employee was fired: one was placed on paid leave for three months, another was transferred to a different dorm.
It's a typical HR tactic - instead of firing a troublesome employee you make life unbearable for them so they leave on their own accord.
This reminds of me of the case of 'Hustler Magazine v. Falwell', detailed in the film 'The People vs. Larry Flynt'.
The court affirmed, unanimously, that with regard to public figures and organizations, people_do_ have the right to try to cause harm and damage to their reputations. And why shouldn't we? In the case of satire, that's exactly the point.
And here in the US you need to engage in discussion with your betters about your right to political speech. It's disheartening, it really is.
In a way, it's defamation - a false statement (in its accreditation) that harms the organisation's reputation. For some people, this will be their first experience of that organisation, and those people have no reason to take it as satire.
Please join the Stanford Federalist Society as we welcome Senator Joshua Hawley and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to discuss violent insurrection. Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government. Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator Hawley will argue that the ends justify the means. Attorney General Paxton will explain that when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy.
Given that I know nothing about the characters here, I have no reason to believe that such people don't exist. A lot worse does exist in fringe politics.
"Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government."
"when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy."
"Limited government" appears to be an American phrase that I'm not familiar with.
According to my reading, the "free and fair election" quote could be sarcastic, from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe it was free or fair.
That's more a statement about your reading comprehension skills than about the flyer.
Whether you can identify it as satire is irrelevant because you are not the audience and you never would have seen it if not for the broader publicity.
You're clearly wrong on this, as Stanford Law School has agreed that it is protected speech in the form of satire, and they're obviously much more qualified than you to make that judgement on several levels.
Please explain how someone could react violently by not realizing the flier was satire.