Clerking and Protests Forum

[Anonymous User]

Isn't like the whole theory/point of signing these types of letters to put your reputation on the line and show solidarity with the message. Why are ya'll even signing these letters than freaking out over potential consequences. This situation just feels like a bunch of people wanted the potential benefit and clout but as soon as there was some pushback it's instant regret.

I guess there was a lot of peer pressure maybe? Just having a hard time conceptualizing wtf is going on in Yale Law students' heads—clearly they're out of my league.

There was a lot of peer pressure/outright threats to sign this letter. The entire goal of signing is *not* to put your reputation on the line at Yale. Instead, go with the flow and not get called out by your peers as a racist, or homophobe, or whatever other serious allegations are bandied about/held against you going into selection time for YLJ or other leadership positions.

[lavarman84]

Isn't like the whole theory/point of signing these types of letters to put your reputation on the line and show solidarity with the message. Why are ya'll even signing these letters than freaking out over potential consequences. This situation just feels like a bunch of people wanted the potential benefit and clout but as soon as there was some pushback it's instant regret.

I guess there was a lot of peer pressure maybe? Just having a hard time conceptualizing wtf is going on in Yale Law students' heads—clearly they're out of my league.

There was a lot of peer pressure/outright threats to sign this letter. The entire goal of signing is *not* to put your reputation on the line at Yale. Instead, go with the flow and not get called out by your peers as a racist, or homophobe, or whatever other serious allegations are bandied about/held against you going into selection time for YLJ or other leadership positions.

It's hard for me to have sympathy. Y'all are adults. You were presented with a choice. If you agreed with the letter, great, sign it. If you didn't, don't. Have the courage to stand up for yourselves and your beliefs.

But the most significant question to me is, do you really want to clerk for a judge or justice who would hold signing that letter against you? My outlook is fuck each and every one of them. ADF IS a hate group.

[Anonymous User]

Wait what did Komitee say?

I dont know where I come out on this yet but agree this is a topic of tremendous social importance.

[Anonymous User]

Wait what did Komitee say?

He responded saying something like he needed more information but was open to the idea.

“I don’t know where I come out on this yet,” District Judge Eric Komitee of the Eastern District of New York wrote, “but agree this is a topic of tremendous societal importance.”

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/fed- ... -yale-law/

[Anonymous User]

Wait what did Komitee say?

He responded saying something like he needed more information but was open to the idea.

.

[Anonymous User]

Anecdotally, I think many judges did check the open letter before hiring liberal clerks from YLS, and I’m curious if it will happen again with SLS students given that there seems to be lots of footage of the Duncan event floating around and apparently an open letter that’ll likely get leaked.

Though David Lat’s reporting also makes Duncan look terrible—I would have low expectations for him but he fell below them. Nobody looks good here. And Duncan’s profane interview with Aaron Sibarium is unlike anything I can remember from a judge.

[Anonymous User]

Anecdotally, I think many judges did check the open letter before hiring liberal clerks from YLS, and I’m curious if it will happen again with SLS students given that there seems to be lots of footage of the Duncan event floating around and apparently an open letter that’ll likely get leaked.

Though David Lat’s reporting also makes Duncan look terrible—I would have low expectations for him but he fell below them. Nobody looks good here. And Duncan’s profane interview with Aaron Sibarium is unlike anything I can remember from a judge.

Anyone who knows of Duncan though wouldn't be surprised by his comments... this seems pretty par for the course. Anyways, from a conservative perspective of like conservative voices are getting canceled, etc... I'd be way more pissed at Stanford and the dean's involvement, so on that note I really do not understand how someone like Branch or Ho would boycott Yale and not Stanford if they're serious about whatever the thing they are doing is.

[Anonymous User]

How fitting that the same judge who thinks that a law student can be judged because he or she went to the same law school as someone who chose to act unlawfully at a campus event, is the very same judge who threw a hissyfit in favor of statues of people who enslaved human beings because they belong to a particular race.

Laurence Silberman is an old, old man. He was born in 1935. These people apparently intend to continue shrieking about the century they were born in until they run out of shrieking juice. They think they are taken much more seriously than they actually are.

[Anonymous User]

How fitting that the same judge who thinks that a law student can be judged because he or she went to the same law school as someone who chose to act unlawfully at a campus event, is the very same judge who threw a hissyfit in favor of statues of people who enslaved human beings because they belong to a particular race.

Laurence Silberman is an old, old man. He was born in 1935. These people apparently intend to continue shrieking about the century they were born in until they run out of shrieking juice. They think they are taken much more seriously than they actually are.

ummm... Laurence Silberman is physically incapable of making complaints about SLS at the moment I believe

[throwawayt14]

How fitting that the same judge who thinks that a law student can be judged because he or she went to the same law school as someone who chose to act unlawfully at a campus event, is the very same judge who threw a hissyfit in favor of statues of people who enslaved human beings because they belong to a particular race.

Laurence Silberman is an old, old man. He was born in 1935. These people apparently intend to continue shrieking about the century they were born in until they run out of shrieking juice. They think they are taken much more seriously than they actually are.

De-anon the poster so that we can ridicule them openly instead of anonymously /s

Just on the note about Judge Silberman, he was an absolute giant of the law. There is a reason the entire Supreme Court commented on his passing.

[nixy]

How fitting that the same judge who thinks that a law student can be judged because he or she went to the same law school as someone who chose to act unlawfully at a campus event, is the very same judge who threw a hissyfit in favor of statues of people who enslaved human beings because they belong to a particular race.

Laurence Silberman is an old, old man. He was born in 1935. These people apparently intend to continue shrieking about the century they were born in until they run out of shrieking juice. They think they are taken much more seriously than they actually are.

De-anon the poster so that we can ridicule them openly instead of anonymously /s

Just on the note about Judge Silberman, he was an absolute giant of the law. There is a reason the entire Supreme Court commented on his passing.

Pretty sure anon realizes that. I doubt they would care if we were talking about someone who didn’t have any influence.

[Anonymous User]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

[lavarman84]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

[nixy]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

Ah yes, the Washington Free Beacon, a scrupulously non-partisan publication.

[Anonymous User]

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

The students do not in fact have a first amendment right to scream and insult guest speakers in the middle of their speech. And Stanford is bound by the First Amendment to allow Duncan to speak sans interruptions from developmentally arrested adults.

Whether or not Duncan should have sunk to their level is another question entirely, although if you are going try and hijack his event with slurs and personal attacks, he can give as good as he gets IMO.

More importantly, there is at least some level of evidence that Yale's scandals impacted their student body's credibility for clerkships. Given that the level of hostility at Stanford appears greater, and more widespread, it would be interesting to see if they also take a commensurate hit.

[Anonymous User]

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

The students do not in fact have a first amendment right to scream and insult guest speakers in the middle of their speech. And Stanford is bound by the First Amendment to allow Duncan to speak sans interruptions from developmentally arrested adults.

Whether or not Duncan should have sunk to their level is another question entirely, although if you are going try and hijack his event with slurs and personal attacks, he can give as good as he gets IMO.

More importantly, there is at least some level of evidence that Yale's scandals impacted their student body's credibility for clerkships. Given that the level of hostility at Stanford appears greater, and more widespread, it would be interesting to see if they also take a commensurate hit.

wat

[Anonymous User]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

Ah yes, the Washington Free Beacon, a scrupulously non-partisan publication.

What is partisan about the article? It's factual.

[Anonymous User]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

They deserved to be thrown under the bus for being the petulant children they, and Dean Steinbach, proved themselves to be. While Duncan should not have responded in the manner he did and holds his fair share of the blame for how events unfolded, let’s not act like he was not provoked into the confrontation by people accusing him of beating his wife, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

The students do not in fact have a first amendment right to scream and insult guest speakers in the middle of their speech. And Stanford is bound by the First Amendment to allow Duncan to speak sans interruptions from developmentally arrested adults.

wat

The classroom at Stanford Law is clearly classified as a limited public forum, as it permits external speakers to participate. Consequently, Stanford is prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Although students are entitled to protest, Stanford is required to prevent such protests into escalating into suppressive conduct or "enforced silence," impeding the outside speaker's presentation. Volokh, among other authors, has discussed several recent cases related to this issue, as well as other problems associated with the heckler's veto.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of conservatives are insular enough to miss obvious signs that another person does not share their worldview. (Libs have the same problem, to a lesser degree).

So, an anodyne lib can easily fake their way through. I have seen it happen and yes, I am in a position to know. No, people do not comb through YLS or SLS protest letters, even though that'd be an excellent precaution.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of conservatives are insular enough to miss obvious signs that another person does not share their worldview. (Libs have the same problem, to a lesser degree).

So, an anodyne lib can easily fake their way through. I have seen it happen and yes, I am in a position to know. No, people do not comb through YLS or SLS protest letters, even though that'd be an excellent precaution.

There are at least 2 people here who disagree with you on the bottom portion, and at least a bit of statistical evidence backing it up. My judge hires liberals and checked the Yale list. I don't know anything about a Stanford list, but if 60% of the school is willing to line up to support students acting like deranged lunatics, they might just write off the school altogether. Or maybe not.

[Anonymous User]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

They deserved to be thrown under the bus for being the petulant children they, and Dean Steinbach, proved themselves to be. While Duncan should not have responded in the manner he did and holds his fair share of the blame for how events unfolded, let’s not act like he was not provoked into the confrontation by people accusing him of beating his wife, etc.

Ok so I'm actually somewhat on Duncan's side here, but like let's also keep it factual. From what I understand, no one acussed Duncan of beating his wife. Duncan said the questions being asked of him were leading and gave the example of a question that asked "how many times did you beat your wife." (see here https://www.thefire.org/news/stanford-l ... ost-mortem). David Lat said:

As the judge put it to me, while he’s usually happy to answer questions when he speaks at law schools, the questions he received at Stanford were not asked in good faith; in his words, they were of the “how many people have you killed” or “how many times did you beat your wife last week” variety.

Apparently someone did ask some weird sexual question though. But IMO that is way less hostile than accusing Duncan of domestic violence, which again, we have no reporting that anyone did.

[lavarman84]

The classroom at Stanford Law is clearly classified as a limited public forum, as it permits external speakers to participate. Consequently, Stanford is prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Although students are entitled to protest, Stanford is required to prevent such protests into escalating into suppressive conduct or "enforced silence," impeding the outside speaker's presentation. Volokh, among other authors, has discussed several recent cases related to this issue, as well as other problems associated with the heckler's veto.

Link or case cite, please. I practice First Amendment law, and I've never heard of any precedent that requires the government (as another poster pointed out, California law subjects Stanford to the First Amendment as if it was a government actor) to silence protesters so a speaker can give an uninterrupted presentation.

Granted, I've never handled a heckler's veto case, so maybe it's out there. But that's not my understanding of the concept. My understanding is that the First Amendment does not allow the government to ban Duncan from speaking because the crowd might react in a hostile manner.

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

They deserved to be thrown under the bus for being the petulant children they, and Dean Steinbach, proved themselves to be. While Duncan should not have responded in the manner he did and holds his fair share of the blame for how events unfolded, let’s not act like he was not provoked into the confrontation by people accusing him of beating his wife, etc.

If acting like a petulant child entitles a person to be thrown under the bus, Duncan has a spot under the bus right alongside the disruptive students. The dean was put in a crap situation because of outrageous behavior from a group of students and a hostile judge. She attempted to find a way to placate both sides and failed. But she did succeed in convincing the students to let Duncan speak. Duncan chose not to give his presentation. That was his right.

[Anonymous User]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

Ah yes, the Washington Free Beacon, a scrupulously non-partisan publication.

What is partisan about the article? It's factual.

And presentation of facts can never be in service of a political agenda?

(Sorry for anon, this is nixy)

[nixy]

A lot of conservatives are insular enough to miss obvious signs that another person does not share their worldview. (Libs have the same problem, to a lesser degree).

So, an anodyne lib can easily fake their way through. I have seen it happen and yes, I am in a position to know. No, people do not comb through YLS or SLS protest letters, even though that'd be an excellent precaution.

That sounds like a judge problem, not an applicant problem.