However.
The DEI dean planned and led a mob that not only harassed a sitting federal judge, but necessitated his removal for his own safety. Being placed on leave is nowhere near enough, and every day that passes without firing and completely repudiating the DEI dean is a grave injustice.
> First, Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach is currently on leave. Generally speaking, the university does not comment publicly on pending personnel matters, and so I will not do so at this time.
then there is clearly no reason to think that is all that will happen.
> every day that passes without firing and completely repudiating the DEI dean is a grave injustice.
How would it be a grave injustice? I'm sure there are those with political motives that would like to see mob justice, but firing someone without dotting all the i's just means you'll pay massive legal expenses and they'll be given their job back, as it should be.
Historians hate the saying "history is written by the victors" but were seeing that play out live here.
PS: I have no dog in this fight, I am amused to no end by the family squabbles of the affluent, its popcorn worthy.
i don't think it's a political motive to want to see mob justice dispensed on the mob, it's quite human.
In those remarks, in addition to disagreeing in very strong terms with the speaker, she said:
> You are invited into this space. You are absolutely welcome in this space. In this space where people learn and, again, live. I really do, wholeheartedly welcome you. Because me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech. We believe that it is necessary. We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable. And that is a policy and a principle that I think is worthy of defending, even in this time.
I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. But you seem to be suggesting she actively did things I don't believe that she did.
She did not read her remarks during the Q&A. She read them before the speaker had a chance to even deliver his speech, which was never given. She gave her pre-written remarks after taking the podium under the guise of being the administrator who was going to calm the situation.
If she had asked him if she might take the podium in order to lecture him, I doubt he would have acquiesced.
Does the guest speaker have some special right to veto the remarks of a Dean at her own institution? Is there a law that was broken? Why does the guest speaker have a first amendment right to speak at a private educational institution, but not the dean of said institution?
At a session where she was not scheduled to speak, I would think yes. The judge was invited to speak by a student group, the Dean was not. If the Dean had waited until the Q&A period to make remarks or ask a protracted question, that would have been a different situation. Instead, she hijacked the event before the speaker had the opportunity to give his remarks (which were never given).
> Is there a law that was broken?
No, just the university's own policies, as laid out at length in Dean Martinez's letter.
Did she use a gun to hijack the event? Did she use a knife? Or did she walk up to the podium, with the speakers permission, and perhaps got a little carried away from the stated intent of her speech?
She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.
I just wish the remarks would have been different than what they were and focused on enforcement of the rules, rather than the failed attempt at de-escalation.
That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.
> When I say “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” that's what I'm asking. Is this worth it? And I hope so, and I'll stay for your remarks to see, because I do want to know your perspective. I am not, you know, in the business of wanting to either shut down speech, because I do know that if they come for this group today, they will come for the group that I am part of tomorrow.
Sounds like good-faith to me. That said, by nature I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I find most people say what they think.
"I’m also uncomfortable because it is my job to say:"
"We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable."
"They are here because they feel harmed not just by your speech."
"if you can listen through your partisan lens, your hyper-political lens and just look and see human beings"
"we ask that you come with good intentions and respect."
Then she goes and basically condones whatever the protesters were going to do:
"You all chose to be here today. Many people go before Judge Duncan who do not necessarily choose to be there. And they have to listen to everything he says. Literally thousands of people. You have a choice. You do not need to stay here if this is not where you want to be. You can stay if this is where you want to be right now. But make that choice."
There was zero good faith effort on her part.
Edit: Also, you cut off the point she was making in that last part. She was trying to say that hecklers don't have to listen if they don't want and they can leave but if they stay they should listen and "make space" for the speaker.
> I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers.
Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech?
Because I get the idea of absolute free speech, but that'd include shouting over someone to drown out their message. If you start imposing restrictions on some forms of speech, it's not absolute any more and I think you ought to weigh reasons for imposing restrictions on any speech -- since freedom of speech isn't absolute any more.
It implies that I favor schools having rules like what they have at Stanford Law School regarding heckling inside of events and think they should be enforced. Are you suggesting these rules are unconstitutional and/or a free speech problem? You'd be the first.
Why is that unreasonable? I'm asking, not to disagree, but to understand and arrive at a general rule on when to ban what types of speech.
For example, I think filibusters are an accepted part of free speech... but perhaps subject to restrictions? If so, what are reasonable restrictions?
If the protestors would have protested in a different place, or in a non-disruptive manner, they would have been in compliance with the policy.
Freedom of speech - the government will not prosecute for speech that's critical of the government, government personnel, or government actions. You may make this speech in public places on government-owned property.
Free speech has never meant you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. You can't spread lies about people (slander), you can't threaten to injure someone (assault), you can't incite a panic (yelling Fire! in a public area when there is no fire), you can't say lies in a court of law (perjury), and if it's a privately owned area then the property owner has the right to remove you from their premises. Online properties have the right to boot you off their forums.
I don't know where Americans have recently gotten this idea that they have a constitutional right to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's never been the case.
Now suppose he were already invited to her domicile, but she and Bill found him annoying so they told him to either stuff it or leave. Would that violate his first amendment right? Also no.
Now replace the Clintons and Shkreli with Stanford and the protesters, respectively.
Especially in a situation with a Q&A heckling is not a form of free speech but is just an attempt at restricting and impeding other's right to free speech.
A problem with any form of regulation of speech is that there can be speech that is abhorrent. I feel there is an underlying idea behind the strong stance on free speech, namely (to quote @elicash) "the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less". An obvious way to do that is to just blast noise over someone's speech. In a very absolutist's view on free speech, that works.
In a slightly more nuanced view, you would argue that heckling / making noise to drown out speech is not free speech but weaponising speech. And, you may continue to argue, weaponised speech does not deserve protection.
I would counter that in the last few years, I have seen US politicians and certain TV channels doing things with speech which -- in my view -- easily cross the bar of "weaponising speech". (Note: I am sure most of you can come up with instances of this from either side of the political divide, so I am not even going to hint at examples. Your examples work equally well as mine.)
To me, this raises the question of whether the government should step in and stop this sort of speech. That sounds terribly iffy.... major eeks! On the other hand, if not, why would we allow that while not allowing other weaponisations of speech? Are some weaponisations of speech worse than others? Feels exploitable.... Or is it because regular citizens deserve less rights than politicians? That also feels very iffy...
I'm not sure what a good answer is, nor that any country has found one. (That includes the USA.)
There's a ~10 minute video of it. He tries to give his speech, but the students continue to disrupt it. The school's policy allows protests, but not disruption. He asks for an administrator, and she starts her (obviously prepared) 6 minute speech. The crowd quiets so she can speak. He tries to talk, but she tells him to let her talk and puts her hand up in a "stop" signal (so that she can give a speech about how she's not going to stop him from talking).
Your quote comes from that speech, but doesn't convey the overall message. A key point is that she worded it, "it is my job to say you are welcome in this space", preceding that with how this was a reason she was uncomfortable. And then she follows it by saying, "and again I ask is the juice worth the squeeze?" She then talks about how she hopes he can listen to the protestors and learn from them. She finishes by saying she's glad this is going on here, to applause.