Clerking and Protests Forum

[Anonymous User]

One of the things that’s confusing about this is that it seems to differ so drastically across schools. Are Chicago, CLS, and HLS really that different from NYU, SLS, and YLS? But I’ve either seen firsthand or gotten reliable reports from people I trust that abuse of students in Fed Soc is the norm at the latter three but not socially acceptable at the former three. Maybe part of it is selection, but before I applied to law school, as far as I remember CLS, HLS, and SLS did not have reputations on these issues one way or another (whereas Chicago was well-known for its zero-tolerance admin and NYU and YLS were well-known for intense student politics).

I’ve also heard Israel politics are very toxic at some schools, as we saw last year at NYU, whereas at my school they basically didn’t exist (on either side).

The differences are speech policy, public interest students, and faculty.

Chicago has a strong speech policy and a faculty that is supportive of the fedsoc chapter, which deters students from violating the policy.

HLS does a fair amount of outreach, has important faculty that are friendly to fedsoc, and Kagan, Minow, and John Manning all actively engaged with fedsoc. Students are pretty aware if they tried something like at Stanford, there would probably be repercussions.

NYU has a high number of public interest students who are not concerned about how law firms perceive their actions and many of these students receive full scholarships from the school. Might be stereotyping broadly from my time there, but a lot of them were raging anti-semites, which I suspect the fellowship office thinks is a benefit. Columbia recently began offering full scholarships to public interest students, which may result in an increase in such incidents on their campus, but their corporate culture may make it challenging to do so.

SLS and Yale are small schools with few FedSoc-friendly faculty members, with only McConnell and Amar being supportive of FedSoc at SLS and Yale, respectively. It's much easier to ostracize and intimidate opposing views of only 15-20 people. They too also have very public interest-oriented students and weak governance.

[Anonymous User]

One of the things that’s confusing about this is that it seems to differ so drastically across schools. Are Chicago, CLS, and HLS really that different from NYU, SLS, and YLS? But I’ve either seen firsthand or gotten reliable reports from people I trust that abuse of students in Fed Soc is the norm at the latter three but not socially acceptable at the former three. Maybe part of it is selection, but before I applied to law school, as far as I remember CLS, HLS, and SLS did not have reputations on these issues one way or another (whereas Chicago was well-known for its zero-tolerance admin and NYU and YLS were well-known for intense student politics).

I’ve also heard Israel politics are very toxic at some schools, as we saw last year at NYU, whereas at my school they basically didn’t exist (on either side).

The differences are speech policy, public interest students, and faculty.

Chicago has a strong speech policy and a faculty that is supportive of the fedsoc chapter, which deters students from violating the policy.

HLS does a fair amount of outreach, has important faculty that are friendly to fedsoc, and Kagan, Minow, and John Manning all actively engaged with fedsoc. Students are pretty aware if they tried something like at Stanford, there would probably be repercussions.

NYU has a high number of public interest students who are not concerned about how law firms perceive their actions and many of these students receive full scholarships from the school. Might be stereotyping broadly from my time there, but a lot of them were raging anti-semites, which I suspect the fellowship office thinks is a benefit. Columbia recently began offering full scholarships to public interest students, which may result in an increase in such incidents on their campus, but their corporate culture may make it challenging to do so.

SLS and Yale are small schools with few FedSoc-friendly faculty members, with only McConnell and Amar being supportive of FedSoc at SLS and Yale, respectively. It's much easier to ostracize and intimidate opposing views of only 15-20 people. They too also have very public interest-oriented students and weak governance.

As someone who goes to NYU all the campus antics and animus is like contained within a list serv and occasional weird people on twitter who shout into voids. As far as like face-to-face heckling and harassment there is basically nothing. In fact, I would say the integration of the relatively few fed soc students in like general campus social groups and the like is pretty good. My theory is that the super progressive public-interest people that got to NYU are actually like legit and real and really do want to make the world a better place and have better stuff to do then take time off from their immigration clinic to go yell sexual insults at a federal judge. In contrast, I imagine those who go to schools like Stanford are less interested in being a rural public defender and their activism is tinged with a hint of careerism and elitism, which makes them less organic and more into pointless culture wars.

[Anonymous User]

I posted earlier about my plebeian school, and think too that being at the top 2 law schools helps people feel comfortable behaving in ways they might not if they were more scared of not getting a job. YS students don’t really need the goodwill of conservative judges. There are pros and cons to this, and maybe over time the consequences of these schools’ cultures will damage their reputations to the point where students won’t feel this way, but judges’ complaints notwithstanding, I don’t think we’re there yet.

(Obviously students at HCCN don’t really need to worry about getting jobs either, but I agree that the different faculty makeups and settings that others have described contribute to different cultures.)

[Anonymous User]

I understand those who are a bit out of touch. I joined FedSoc in law school because I honestly thought it was a debating society. I was a public interest student and am a minority (I'm told that other minorities in FedSoc face disproportionately aggressive harassment now, and someone else in this thread mentioned pubkic interest being particularly unforgiving). I never had any problems and counted some of my most progressive classmates as friends. This was only a few years ago. What happened? When?

If anyone else feels out of touch, I suggest Greg Lukianoff (of FIRE) and Jonathan Haidt's book The Coddling of the American Mind. They explore the effect of modern pressures like social media on child development as the first cohorts raised entirely online enter the adult world. I think they focus a little too much on progressives. The "own the libs" style of modern conservatism is likely a symptom too. But it's a sympathetic approach and worth a read to understand what that generation has gone through. They peg the high school class of 2013 as the first waive. K-JD's from that Cohort started attending law schools in 2017. By now they are the majority. Hense the cultural shift and increased hostility on both sides.

Speaking of pulling both sidesisms. Ken White's post about how everyone is terrible in this saga is pretty good. https://popehat.substack.com/p/hating-e ... ere-all-at

The podcast If Books Could Kill (Michael Hobbes, Peter Shamshiri) just did a great episode on how terrible The Coddling of the American Mind is.

That said, though I haven’t read that post, Ken White is generally extremely fair and insightful. I think my take isn’t that the Stanford liberals are necessarily taking the right approach, but that conservatives aren’t quite the blameless victims they see themselves as.

(And it is interesting that it appears to be specific to a few schools, which doesn’t really support the “it’s this generation” argument.)

On Coddling, I'll check out the podcast. And thanks for the rec. They look new but likely to cover some more books I like. So, I appreciate the chance to hear some opposing arguments.

For Ken's post, he is surprisingly, the only one I've seen mentioning that Stanford took lumps just last year for going overboard punishing a student who criticized FedSoc.

Edit to also include your edit. I think the prevalence at different schools might be more due to the willingness of admins to take action.

So I've listened to about half the podcast, and I have to ask: Is this their usual approach to a book? Only one of the hosts actually read the book so the dynamic is that host explaining his impressions and critiques, but any nuanced criticism gets lost when the other host starts making jokes based on assumptions from "The Discourse" (their word, not mine). It's frustrating, because I want to hear more discussion of the criticisms.

[nixy]

Re: If Books Could Kill, yes, that’s their standard format. I think it’s a fairly typical podcast approach, but in any case, it’s what Michael Hobbes has done in You’re Wrong About and Maintenance Phase. I agree that this one doesn’t always get the balance right between criticism and snark, in part because I think in the other podcasts Hobbes has done, the two hosts are more matched in terms of insight to contribute. So while there’s a lot of snark in each (the premise of all three is debunking things people have got wrong for bad reasons), there may be a little more consistent substance behind it (not that I think either Hobbes or Shamshiri are stupid, just that in this series they succumb more to the temptation to snark based on politics than purely on flaws in the material). For instance Shamshiri is a lawyer (who got fired for running the 5-4 podcast) and there’s a section in either that episode or another recent one that was about a lawsuit and I thought his critique, while still snarky, was more substantive in that one.

So I may have overstated that it’s a “great” episode (I enjoyed it but TBF they’re preaching to the choir), but I do think some of its critiques are valuable.

[throwawayt14]

Speaking of pulling both sidesisms. Ken White's post about how everyone is terrible in this saga is pretty good. https://popehat.substack.com/p/hating-e ... ere-all-at

That said, while I haven’t read that post, Ken White is generally extremely fair and insightful so I appreciate that link. I think my take isn’t that the Stanford liberals are necessarily taking the right approach, but that conservatives aren’t quite the blameless victims they see themselves as.

When I first heard that Ken White had a good perspective on the situation, I was taken aback, as I forgot he was still writing after he blocked nearly 95% of accounts on Twitter before departing.

Previously, when he believed that Fedsoc students were correct, his approach was to insult Fedsoc for 90% of his commentary, baselessly attribute bad intentions, and then conclude by acknowledging the existence of free speech.

As expected, this take is quite similar. Baseless attribution of bad intentions and pointless insults.

[Anonymous User]

Re: If Books Could Kill,

In fairness, the second half had a lot more nuanced criticism once Shamshiri got into points from the book where Hobbes was familier with underlying literature rather than twitter discourse. Goes to show I should have waited until the end to criticize. Once you get into substance, I think the hosts under appreciate how much they agree with the book on social media and the decline of early childhood freedom. This is unfortunate as I think their strongest critique is how these issues are systemic and can't easily be solved without some other reforms. I also think they could benefit from a broader application of Critical Theory—i.e., that there can be unconscious ideas motivating how institutions/groups/people act, that no individual would flatly state, and that most would deny if asked directly.

I still appreciate the recommendation. I am always trying to find sources of opinion outside of my right-of-center media opinion bubble. I'm sure podcasts I regularly listen to like advisory opinions may have similar snark problems for listeners on the left. If they do other books I like, I'll give them another shot and ignore the snark.

[Anonymous User]

One of the things that’s confusing about this is that it seems to differ so drastically across schools. Are Chicago, CLS, and HLS really that different from NYU, SLS, and YLS? But I’ve either seen firsthand or gotten reliable reports from people I trust that abuse of students in Fed Soc is the norm at the latter three but not socially acceptable at the former three. Maybe part of it is selection, but before I applied to law school, as far as I remember CLS, HLS, and SLS did not have reputations on these issues one way or another (whereas Chicago was well-known for its zero-tolerance admin and NYU and YLS were well-known for intense student politics).

I’ve also heard Israel politics are very toxic at some schools, as we saw last year at NYU, whereas at my school they basically didn’t exist (on either side).

At HLS and agree really isn't a huge stigma around fedsoc/JLPP. It isn't super insular/culty and the fedsoc people generally have non-fedsoc friends. The school def tends liberal and people def make jokes about fedsoc but it's more dumb humor (like mocking the chant they do before events) and doesn't rise to the level of abuse.

I think some of that is that fedsoc here doesn't do super controversial things - their events are usually structured as debates between conservative/progressive guests and people across the political spectrum end up going.

I also think there are prob people who hate them but the school is big enough that those people are numerous enough to make it culturally defining.

[Anonymous User]

Re: If Books Could Kill, yes, that’s their standard format. I think it’s a fairly typical podcast approach, but in any case, it’s what Michael Hobbes has done in You’re Wrong About and Maintenance Phase. I agree that this one doesn’t always get the balance right between criticism and snark, in part because I think in the other podcasts Hobbes has done, the two hosts are more matched in terms of insight to contribute. So while there’s a lot of snark in each (the premise of all three is debunking things people have got wrong for bad reasons), there may be a little more consistent substance behind it (not that I think either Hobbes or Shamshiri are stupid, just that in this series they succumb more to the temptation to snark based on politics than purely on flaws in the material). For instance Shamshiri is a lawyer (who got fired for running the 5-4 podcast) and there’s a section in either that episode or another recent one that was about a lawsuit and I thought his critique, while still snarky, was more substantive in that one.

So I may have overstated that it’s a “great” episode (I enjoyed it but TBF they’re preaching to the choir), but I do think some of its critiques are valuable.

Never heard of him but it’s hilarious that someone who ran a dirtbag left podcast was an L&E defense lawyer in his day job

[lavarman84]

You are out of touch, which is not an indictment on you, but just a statement on how toxic the environment at law schools is nowadays. And of course, some of the behaviors that are tolerated in law school would result in immediate termination at a law firm or in the workforce, so they tend to disappear once students enter the workforce and have to meet billable hours requirements.

However, I'm telling the truth when I say that the harassment of not only members of the Federalist Society, but also of affinity groups who attend their events or are perceived as too friendly to them, is on another level at some schools. This hostility isn't limited to students - even the head of public service initiatives refused to assist any student who was involved with the Federalist Society. And unsurprisingly perhaps, almost everyone involved in DEI tends to be intensely antagonistic.

My law school wasn't particularly known for public service or "SJW-ness," yet members of affinity groups sent so much hate mail and targeted posts that one minority student openly cried in front of me. There is even stalking-like behavior where people examine every social media post, including those from years ago, in order to find something offensive and report it. It's deeply unpleasant and disturbing.

Law school can feel like high school, with a strong emphasis on cliques, and the social dynamics can be incredibly harsh. While the typical officer in fedsoc may not be affected by this, since they are often older, have families, served in the military, or spend less time on campus, the experience can be particularly grueling for those who are straight out of undergrad. For those who don't care about fedsoc, but are otherwise open to clerking - yeah the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

I may well be. That's all somewhat shocking to me and not behavior I'd support. I did know that FedSoc members could have it rough, as one of my best friends was FedSoc President at his law school and got spat at/on by a student protester at one of their events. That's very messed up, but I didn't know that sort of behavior was spreading to such an extent.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a liberal. Without getting into too much of the discussion above, I will say I abhor what some of my fellow liberal classmates/peers have been doing. I have no sympathy for conservative ideologues, but I won’t go out of my way to make a known conservative feel like crap. Perhaps this is just reflective of the culture wars of today, but I hate how even expressing a simple conservative opinion will get someone labeled as garbage by many of their peers. That’s not dialogue; it’s toxicity.

[Anonymous User]

Re: If Books Could Kill, yes, that’s their standard format. I think it’s a fairly typical podcast approach, but in any case, it’s what Michael Hobbes has done in You’re Wrong About and Maintenance Phase. I agree that this one doesn’t always get the balance right between criticism and snark, in part because I think in the other podcasts Hobbes has done, the two hosts are more matched in terms of insight to contribute. So while there’s a lot of snark in each (the premise of all three is debunking things people have got wrong for bad reasons), there may be a little more consistent substance behind it (not that I think either Hobbes or Shamshiri are stupid, just that in this series they succumb more to the temptation to snark based on politics than purely on flaws in the material). For instance Shamshiri is a lawyer (who got fired for running the 5-4 podcast) and there’s a section in either that episode or another recent one that was about a lawsuit and I thought his critique, while still snarky, was more substantive in that one.

So I may have overstated that it’s a “great” episode (I enjoyed it but TBF they’re preaching to the choir), but I do think some of its critiques are valuable.

Never heard of him but it’s hilarious that someone who ran a dirtbag left podcast was an L&E defense lawyer in his day job

He’s currently calling for the Stanford Fedsoc president to be expelled on twitter, I don’t know why anyone takes this blithering idiot particularly seriously.

[Anonymous User]

I am glad to hear that right wing law students—and clerks and judges— are facing social disapproval for their beliefs. Put your big boy pants on and suffer the social consequences for supporting and enabling proto fascism. Give me a break with all the bullying talk.

Was waiting for the "it's good that it's happening" clowns to show up. Maybe get with the "it's not happening" people and fight it out?

[Anonymous User]

Re: If Books Could Kill, yes, that’s their standard format. I think it’s a fairly typical podcast approach, but in any case, it’s what Michael Hobbes has done in You’re Wrong About and Maintenance Phase. I agree that this one doesn’t always get the balance right between criticism and snark, in part because I think in the other podcasts Hobbes has done, the two hosts are more matched in terms of insight to contribute. So while there’s a lot of snark in each (the premise of all three is debunking things people have got wrong for bad reasons), there may be a little more consistent substance behind it (not that I think either Hobbes or Shamshiri are stupid, just that in this series they succumb more to the temptation to snark based on politics than purely on flaws in the material). For instance Shamshiri is a lawyer (who got fired for running the 5-4 podcast) and there’s a section in either that episode or another recent one that was about a lawsuit and I thought his critique, while still snarky, was more substantive in that one.

So I may have overstated that it’s a “great” episode (I enjoyed it but TBF they’re preaching to the choir), but I do think some of its critiques are valuable.

Never heard of him but it’s hilarious that someone who ran a dirtbag left podcast was an L&E defense lawyer in his day job

He’s currently calling for the Stanford Fedsoc president to be expelled on twitter, I don’t know why anyone takes this blithering idiot particularly seriously.

He's calling out the Fedsoc president for lying about what happened. Doesn't make him a blithering idiot.

[Anonymous User]

He's calling out the Fedsoc president for lying about what happened. Doesn't make him a blithering idiot.

His evidence that the president is lying is what exactly? The president stated that protestors told Duncan they wished his daughters would be raped in his first interview with Megyn Kelly 3 days ago. And nothing the protestors did after indicates they are above such disgusting comments

[Anonymous User]

He's calling out the Fedsoc president for lying about what happened. Doesn't make him a blithering idiot.

His evidence that the president is lying is what exactly? The president stated that protestors told Duncan they wished his daughters would be raped in his first interview with Megyn Kelly 3 days ago. And nothing the protestors did after indicates they are above such disgusting comments

actually, I need to retract my comment above. I mean, I don't think he thinks the protestors said that, but I don't think he's genuinely saying the FedSoc president should be expelled as much as he's mocking those who are clutching their pearls about the protestors' fitness for passing the bar/practicing law and calling for their expulsion. (If you think the protestors should be expelled for saying bad things about Duncan, then by that logic the FedSoc president should be expelled for saying bad things about the protestors.)

Not claiming it's the world's best gotcha, but then, nothing's going to convince you he's not a blithering idiot because of his/your politics, so kind of dumb of me to engage.

[Anonymous User]

He's calling out the Fedsoc president for lying about what happened. Doesn't make him a blithering idiot.

His evidence that the president is lying is what exactly? The president stated that protestors told Duncan they wished his daughters would be raped in his first interview with Megyn Kelly 3 days ago. And nothing the protestors did after indicates they are above such disgusting comments

actually, I need to retract my comment above. I mean, I don't think he thinks the protestors said that, but I don't think he's genuinely saying the FedSoc president should be expelled as much as he's mocking those who are clutching their pearls about the protestors' fitness for passing the bar/practicing law and calling for their expulsion. (If you think the protestors should be expelled for saying bad things about Duncan, then by that logic the FedSoc president should be expelled for saying bad things about the protestors.)

Not claiming it's the world's best gotcha, but then, nothing's going to convince you he's not a blithering idiot because of his/your politics, so kind of dumb of me to engage.

The fedsoc president (there and at any other school) should and probably would be expelled if he ever stated he wished his ideological opponents or their young children be raped.

However, unlike the protestors, he didn’t say anything like that - he merely reported the disgusting comments his classmates made because they don’t fear any punishment or sanction.

[jamestaylorrecordsas]

He's calling out the Fedsoc president for lying about what happened. Doesn't make him a blithering idiot.

His evidence that the president is lying is what exactly? The president stated that protestors told Duncan they wished his daughters would be raped in his first interview with Megyn Kelly 3 days ago. And nothing the protestors did after indicates they are above such disgusting comments

actually, I need to retract my comment above. I mean, I don't think he thinks the protestors said that, but I don't think he's genuinely saying the FedSoc president should be expelled as much as he's mocking those who are clutching their pearls about the protestors' fitness for passing the bar/practicing law and calling for their expulsion. (If you think the protestors should be expelled for saying bad things about Duncan, then by that logic the FedSoc president should be expelled for saying bad things about the protestors.)

Not claiming it's the world's best gotcha, but then, nothing's going to convince you he's not a blithering idiot because of his/your politics, so kind of dumb of me to engage.

The fedsoc president (there and at any other school) should and probably would be expelled if he ever stated he wished his ideological opponents or their young children be raped.

However, unlike the protestors, he didn’t say anything like that - he merely reported the disgusting comments his classmates made because they don’t fear any punishment or sanction.

"However, unlike the protestors, he didn’t say anything like that - he merely reported the disgusting comments his classmates made because they don’t fear any punishment or sanction."

Exactly what Dershowitz said in his recent podcast.

[Anonymous User]

Sadly, not everyone finds the FedSoc president who set this all in motion by inviting Duncan to start with a credible source. The audio recording doesn’t appear to include anything like this.

[Anonymous User]

Sadly, not everyone finds the FedSoc president who set this all in motion by inviting Duncan to start with a credible source. The audio recording doesn’t appear to include anything like this.

The phrase "victim blaming" is overused. But come on. This is basically an endorsement of the heckler's veto. And that should worry progressives, because the far right has used and will use the hecklers veto more often and more effectively.

[lavarman84]

Sadly, not everyone finds the FedSoc president who set this all in motion by inviting Duncan to start with a credible source. The audio recording doesn’t appear to include anything like this.

The phrase "victim blaming" is overused. But come on. This is basically an endorsement of the heckler's veto. And that should worry progressives, because the far right has used and will use the hecklers veto more often and more effectively.

Ridiculous response. And the far right has already been using the heckler's veto for some time now.

[Anonymous User]

If you're in FedSoc at HYS, you're simply going to have to develop a thick skin. If you can't, you're too weak to survive in this field

[Anonymous User]

Sadly, not everyone finds the FedSoc president who set this all in motion by inviting Duncan to start with a credible source. The audio recording doesn’t appear to include anything like this.

The phrase "victim blaming" is overused. But come on. This is basically an endorsement of the heckler's veto. And that should worry progressives, because the far right has used and will use the hecklers veto more often and more effectively.

Ridiculous response. And the far right has already been using the heckler's veto for some time now.

Examples would be helpful

[lavarman84]

Sadly, not everyone finds the FedSoc president who set this all in motion by inviting Duncan to start with a credible source. The audio recording doesn’t appear to include anything like this.

The phrase "victim blaming" is overused. But come on. This is basically an endorsement of the heckler's veto. And that should worry progressives, because the far right has used and will use the hecklers veto more often and more effectively.

Ridiculous response. And the far right has already been using the heckler's veto for some time now.

Examples would be helpful

Two easy and recent examples off the top of my head: right-wing groups threatening violence against businesses that hold drag events and right-wing protesters trying to drown out Democratic politicians while campaigning before the 2022 election (something I saw firsthand).

Hell, wasn't shouting down politicians a tactic the Tea Party used at town halls after the passage of Obamacare? And I distinctly recall some Republicans in Texas trying to run a bus with Biden surrogates, who were campaigning in the state, off the road.

Shit, that's not even getting into some of the crazy stuff that Republicans have done in the name of preventing abortion, including murdering people and bombing medical centers. The idea that progressives should be very worried about Republicans using the heckler's veto because some left-wing students at Stanford did it is beyond out of touch. Republicans didn't need the excuse.

Republicans using state governments to try and outlaw "woke" speech is far more concerning to me. And that didn't start because some Stanford Law students acted like clowns.

[Anonymous User]

Sadly, not everyone finds the FedSoc president who set this all in motion by inviting Duncan to start with a credible source. The audio recording doesn’t appear to include anything like this.

The phrase "victim blaming" is overused. But come on. This is basically an endorsement of the heckler's veto. And that should worry progressives, because the far right has used and will use the hecklers veto more often and more effectively.

Ridiculous response. And the far right has already been using the heckler's veto for some time now.

Examples would be helpful

Two easy and recent examples off the top of my head: right-wing groups threatening violence against businesses that hold drag events and right-wing protesters trying to drown out Democratic politicians while campaigning before the 2022 election (something I saw firsthand).

Hell, wasn't shouting down politicians a tactic the Tea Party used at town halls after the passage of Obamacare? And I distinctly recall some Republicans in Texas trying to run a bus with Biden surrogates, who were campaigning in the state, off the road.

Shit, that's not even getting into some of the crazy stuff that Republicans have done in the name of preventing abortion, including murdering people and bombing medical centers. The idea that progressives should be very worried about Republicans using the heckler's veto because some left-wing students at Stanford did it is beyond out of touch. Republicans didn't need the excuse.

Republicans using state governments to try and outlaw "woke" speech is far more concerning to me. And that didn't start because some Stanford Law students acted like clowns.

Assuming all of that is true and valid - none of those are actions by Fedsoc chapters. Or even students in general.

A defense of liberal protestors behaving like deranged hyenas in response to a federal judge giving a presentation that has to rely on Eric Rudolph bombing abortion clinics 30 years ago is a pretty terrible defense.