Clerking and Protests Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anon for obvious reasons but our chambers had a Stanford student renege for this term for the reason that Ed Whelan gave.

[Anonymous User]

Anon for obvious reasons but our chambers had a Stanford student renege for this term for the reason that Ed Whelan gave.

I wonder if the anon is because you're fibbing. Did that student call chambers and say "sorry Judge, the bullying is getting a bit much, good luck!"

[lavarman84]

I'm chuckling at a Stanford kid dropping a clerkship they wanted because other students might be mean to them. I won't say it didn't happen, but it's kind of hilarious if it did.

[nixy]

Anon for obvious reasons but our chambers had a Stanford student renege for this term for the reason that Ed Whelan gave.

I wonder if the anon is because you're fibbing. Did that student call chambers and say "sorry Judge, the bullying is getting a bit much, good luck!"

They literally said they were being bullied by their classmates and that was why they were reneging? Do you know if they accepted a clerkship with another judge?

[Anonymous User]

I'm chuckling at a Stanford kid dropping a clerkship they wanted because other students might be mean to them. I won't say it didn't happen, but it's kind of hilarious if it did.

Would not surprise me honestly. My judge recently had a clerk from a T3, not Stanford, renege his acceptance for a future term because he said he was harassed by his classmates following my judge’s controversial opinion in a case. Frankly, if someone is going to drop out over being bullied they probably shouldn’t have gotten the clerkship in the first place.

[butonawednesday]

I'm chuckling at a Stanford kid dropping a clerkship they wanted because other students might be mean to them. I won't say it didn't happen, but it's kind of hilarious if it did.

Would not surprise me honestly. My judge recently had a clerk from a T3, not Stanford, renege his acceptance for a future term because he said he was harassed by his classmates following my judge’s controversial opinion in a case. Frankly, if someone is going to drop out over being bullied they probably shouldn’t have gotten the clerkship in the first place.

They will drop out over being bullied.
They did get the clerkship in the first place.
Socially, they are 14 years old.
Even with their 177 LSAT.
Yes, when I was 14, acceptance by my peer group was the most important thing in my life...

[Anonymous User]

Anon for obvious reasons but our chambers had a Stanford student renege for this term for the reason that Ed Whelan gave.

I wonder if the anon is because you're fibbing. Did that student call chambers and say "sorry Judge, the bullying is getting a bit much, good luck!"

No, the student interviewed and accepted as a 1L, then called chambers as a 3L to renege (so almost two years later).

Judge: Wow, thanks for letting me know, is there any particular reason you're withdrawing?
Student: This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.
Judge: Well is there some other opportunity I could help you land?
Student: This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.
Judge: (other friendly questions)?
Student: (robotically) This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.

The judge was concerned/curious and called one of the student's recommenders to make sure everything was ok. Recommender reported that student withdrew due to pressure from classmates. Further context here is that this was almost immediately post-Dobbs. The judge is a Trump-appointee, but nowhere near Ho/VanDyke/Duncan.

I understand the reaction that this sounds implausible. But Whelan is correct that it has happened.

From schools like H/Y/S, it isn't too hard to imagine someone showing up as a 1L and pursuing a clerkship just because that is what you are supposed to do. But they don't know all the judges or circuit reputations yet. So they accept as a 1L. But then they have two more years to learn specifics. And, cynically, two more years of critical theory. By the time 3L comes around, they have reservations. And they've learned that, being at H/Y/S, a clerkship is nice but not really necessary for their professional goals. Not a hard thing to imagine, despite the skepticism here.

[Anonymous User]

Anon for obvious reasons but our chambers had a Stanford student renege for this term for the reason that Ed Whelan gave.

I wonder if the anon is because you're fibbing. Did that student call chambers and say "sorry Judge, the bullying is getting a bit much, good luck!"

No, the student interviewed and accepted as a 1L, then called chambers as a 3L to renege (so almost two years later).

Judge: Wow, thanks for letting me know, is there any particular reason you're withdrawing?
Student: This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.
Judge: Well is there some other opportunity I could help you land?
Student: This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.
Judge: (other friendly questions)?
Student: (robotically) This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.

The judge was concerned/curious and called one of the student's recommenders to make sure everything was ok. Recommender reported that student withdrew due to pressure from classmates. Further context here is that this was almost immediately post-Dobbs. The judge is a Trump-appointee, but nowhere near Ho/VanDyke/Duncan.

I understand the reaction that this sounds implausible. But Whelan is correct that it has happened.

From schools like H/Y/S, it isn't too hard to imagine someone showing up as a 1L and pursuing a clerkship just because that is what you are supposed to do. But they don't know all the judges or circuit reputations yet. So they accept as a 1L. But then they have two more years to learn specifics. And, cynically, two more years of critical theory. By the time 3L comes around, they have reservations. And they've learned that, being at H/Y/S, a clerkship is nice but not really necessary for their professional goals. Not a hard thing to imagine, despite the skepticism here.

Thanks for adding more details. Yes, it does make more sense described that way. I definitely get someone changing their mind after almost two years and having reservations. Do you think the student was being honest with the recommender, or was the recommender reading anything into their explanation? I could see someone changing their mind after two years, and explaining it to the recommender as something like "after talking to a lot of my classmates I decided it wasn't the right clerkship for me," and the recommender reading that as the student being pressured. (Of course if by "pressured" you mean "has spent 2 years in a setting where a lot of people excoriate conservative judges," fair, but that's not really what I think of as being pressured to back out of a clerkship.) But if the recommender had more specific details, then fair enough.

As for the robotic answers, I'd imagine it's REALLY uncomfortable to call up a judge nearly 2 years later to back out of the offer, when your reason might be "I no longer respect your political positions enough to be comfortable clerking for you," which you obviously can't say. So I wouldn't read that as being pressured, either.

I guess it's a question of what "pressured" really means in this context. (It was nice of the judge to reach out to check, anyway.)

[lavarman84]

Anon for obvious reasons but our chambers had a Stanford student renege for this term for the reason that Ed Whelan gave.

I wonder if the anon is because you're fibbing. Did that student call chambers and say "sorry Judge, the bullying is getting a bit much, good luck!"

No, the student interviewed and accepted as a 1L, then called chambers as a 3L to renege (so almost two years later).

Judge: Wow, thanks for letting me know, is there any particular reason you're withdrawing?
Student: This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.
Judge: Well is there some other opportunity I could help you land?
Student: This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.
Judge: (other friendly questions)?
Student: (robotically) This clerkship is not consistent with my professional goals.

The judge was concerned/curious and called one of the student's recommenders to make sure everything was ok. Recommender reported that student withdrew due to pressure from classmates. Further context here is that this was almost immediately post-Dobbs. The judge is a Trump-appointee, but nowhere near Ho/VanDyke/Duncan.

I understand the reaction that this sounds implausible. But Whelan is correct that it has happened.

From schools like H/Y/S, it isn't too hard to imagine someone showing up as a 1L and pursuing a clerkship just because that is what you are supposed to do. But they don't know all the judges or circuit reputations yet. So they accept as a 1L. But then they have two more years to learn specifics. And, cynically, two more years of critical theory. By the time 3L comes around, they have reservations. And they've learned that, being at H/Y/S, a clerkship is nice but not really necessary for their professional goals. Not a hard thing to imagine, despite the skepticism here.

It sounds likely to me that during law school, they learned that a judge's politics often matters, and in the wake of Dobbs, they weren't interested in clerking for a Republican appointee. Personally, I think that's their loss. But it's understandable. Whelan whining because some people change their mind on clerking for Republicans is dumb.

[Anonymous User]

It sounds likely to me that during law school, they learned that a judge's politics often matters, and in the wake of Dobbs, they weren't interested in clerking for a Republican appointee. Personally, I think that's their loss. But it's understandable. Whelan whining because some people change their mind on clerking for Republicans is dumb.

Well, sure, but when it happens with a number of students from the same school at around the same time, judges aren't wrong to take note. If it is true that the Stanford student groups have decided that clerking for a Republican appointee is inconsistent with the #resistance or with the liberal norms that prevail in most of the legal world, then that view is likely to take hold at other schools. Also, the students who protested Duncan aren't likely to say things like "it is fine to clerk for a Republican appointee if you are interested in it." That's just not the rhetoric they use. Instead they talk a lot about being complicit in evil power structures, etc.

[Anonymous User]

It sounds likely to me that during law school, they learned that a judge's politics often matters, and in the wake of Dobbs, they weren't interested in clerking for a Republican appointee. Personally, I think that's their loss. But it's understandable. Whelan whining because some people change their mind on clerking for Republicans is dumb.

Well, sure, but when it happens with a number of students from the same school at around the same time, judges aren't wrong to take note.

Is there any evidence this is the case?

If it is true that the Stanford student groups have decided that clerking for a Republican appointee is inconsistent with the #resistance or with the liberal norms that prevail in most of the legal world, then that view is likely to take hold at other schools.

Why?

Also, the students who protested Duncan aren't likely to say things like "it is fine to clerk for a Republican appointee if you are interested in it." That's just not the rhetoric they use. Instead they talk a lot about being complicit in evil power structures, etc.

Which is a belief they're entitled to, and not some kind of improper pressure. Like if a lot of students at Stanford believe that clerking for conservative judges is being complicit with particular politics, they're entitled to say that. That's not remotely like threatening someone into giving up a clerkship with a conservative judge.

The fact that (apparently) some students decide after 2 more years at Stanford that they don't want to clerk for a conservative judge after all doesn't mean they were bullied into giving a clerkship up.

[lavarman84]

It sounds likely to me that during law school, they learned that a judge's politics often matters, and in the wake of Dobbs, they weren't interested in clerking for a Republican appointee. Personally, I think that's their loss. But it's understandable. Whelan whining because some people change their mind on clerking for Republicans is dumb.

Well, sure, but when it happens with a number of students from the same school at around the same time, judges aren't wrong to take note. If it is true that the Stanford student groups have decided that clerking for a Republican appointee is inconsistent with the #resistance or with the liberal norms that prevail in most of the legal world, then that view is likely to take hold at other schools. Also, the students who protested Duncan aren't likely to say things like "it is fine to clerk for a Republican appointee if you are interested in it." That's just not the rhetoric they use. Instead they talk a lot about being complicit in evil power structures, etc.

Those people exist at just about every law school. The sort of people who are okay with clerking for conservative judges generally ignore them. Peer pressure of that kind wouldn't have swayed me. The only thing that could have possibly swayed me would have been my judge engaging in the sort of antics that people like Ho, VanDyke, and now Duncan have. Although, frankly, I'd still have probably done the clerkship. It's one year.

[Anonymous User]

It sounds likely to me that during law school, they learned that a judge's politics often matters, and in the wake of Dobbs, they weren't interested in clerking for a Republican appointee. Personally, I think that's their loss. But it's understandable. Whelan whining because some people change their mind on clerking for Republicans is dumb.

Well, sure, but when it happens with a number of students from the same school at around the same time, judges aren't wrong to take note. If it is true that the Stanford student groups have decided that clerking for a Republican appointee is inconsistent with the #resistance or with the liberal norms that prevail in most of the legal world, then that view is likely to take hold at other schools. Also, the students who protested Duncan aren't likely to say things like "it is fine to clerk for a Republican appointee if you are interested in it." That's just not the rhetoric they use. Instead they talk a lot about being complicit in evil power structures, etc.

Those people exist at just about every law school. The sort of people who are okay with clerking for conservative judges generally ignore them. Peer pressure of that kind wouldn't have swayed me. The only thing that could have possibly swayed me would have been my judge engaging in the sort of antics that people like Ho, VanDyke, and now Duncan have. Although, frankly, I'd still have probably done the clerkship. It's one year.

Not the point, but has Ho turned it down a bit, or is it just me? I feel like I've seen opinions with nutty rhetoric from him much less often over the past year or two compared with e.g. Oldham

[Anonymous User]

I don't think the glib "it isn't happening" people understand what level of bullying we are talking about. It's not 14 year olds wanting acceptance. The new antisocial behavior is severe harassment. Can you face a mob of 50 ppl jeering at you in person? An open letter denouncing you by name? Being reported to the office of equity? Several hundred students emailing on a listserv that you're a horrible person (side note - this last example is what took down the dean of NU. A dean of a law school, tenured professor. Not a student or a 14 year old).

Not everyone wants to be a headline or fight a war. For a lot of kids, the path of least resistance is to skip the clerkship and cry all the way to the bank on biglaw salary.

[lavarman84]

I don't think the glib "it isn't happening" people understand what level of bullying we are talking about. It's not 14 year olds wanting acceptance. The new antisocial behavior is severe harassment. Can you face a mob of 50 ppl jeering at you in person? An open letter denouncing you by name? Being reported to the office of equity? Several hundred students emailing on a listserv that you're a horrible person (side note - this last example is what took down the dean of NU. A dean of a law school, tenured professor. Not a student or a 14 year old).

Not everyone wants to be a headline or fight a war. For a lot of kids, the path of least resistance is to skip the clerkship and cry all the way to the bank on biglaw salary.

If I'm being blunt, I don't believe it's anywhere near that severe for normal people. (I can believe a very outspoken FedSoc member might have it bad.) Maybe I'm out of touch, as I graduated law school around the time Trump became President. But I work for a progressive organization, and nobody gives me shit for having clerked for a conservative judge. I also have colleagues who clerked for conservatives. Nobody gives them a hard time either.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think the glib "it isn't happening" people understand what level of bullying we are talking about. It's not 14 year olds wanting acceptance. The new antisocial behavior is severe harassment. Can you face a mob of 50 ppl jeering at you in person? An open letter denouncing you by name? Being reported to the office of equity? Several hundred students emailing on a listserv that you're a horrible person (side note - this last example is what took down the dean of NU. A dean of a law school, tenured professor. Not a student or a 14 year old).

Not everyone wants to be a headline or fight a war. For a lot of kids, the path of least resistance is to skip the clerkship and cry all the way to the bank on biglaw salary.

If you are an open conservative at some schools you are basically just considered scum by a relatively significant portion of the student body. I personally never cared because I had a full social and family life outside of law school. I treated law school like a job not like high school. So did tons of other people. But I was in NYC.

It’s the KJD conservatives who go to elite schools in isolated areas like New Haven that struggle the most with this pressure. Many of them are just not comfortable yet with accepting that some people are always going to dislike you and they are worried about fitting into some law school friend group because they are stuck in a bubble for three years with nothing else to do.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think the glib "it isn't happening" people understand what level of bullying we are talking about. It's not 14 year olds wanting acceptance. The new antisocial behavior is severe harassment. Can you face a mob of 50 ppl jeering at you in person? An open letter denouncing you by name? Being reported to the office of equity? Several hundred students emailing on a listserv that you're a horrible person (side note - this last example is what took down the dean of NU. A dean of a law school, tenured professor. Not a student or a 14 year old).

Not everyone wants to be a headline or fight a war. For a lot of kids, the path of least resistance is to skip the clerkship and cry all the way to the bank on biglaw salary.

If I'm being blunt, I don't believe it's anywhere near that severe for normal people. (I can believe a very outspoken FedSoc member might have it bad.) Maybe I'm out of touch, as I graduated law school around the time Trump became President. But I work for a progressive organization, and nobody gives me shit for having clerked for a conservative judge. I also have colleagues who clerked for conservatives. Nobody gives them a hard time either.

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.

[Anonymous User]

I partly find this all baffling b/c I went to a plebeian school where so few people got federal clerkships to begin with, and they were therefore so valuable, that no one was going to screw up their career by backing out of one, nor would anyone hold it against someone that they didn't.

And I get the descriptions of the toxic atmosphere, but I think the question I still have is this - does this kind of toxic atmosphere sort of chill students' interest in clerking for conservatives (for lack of a better way to describe it), or are people who have actually accepted clerkships being directly targeted/bullied to withdraw? I can see concerns about the former, but it's still fairly different from the latter (which is what the original accusation was).

[Anonymous User]

An important factor is that conservative students expect the backlash, we know we're the minority and still put ourselves forward for fedsoc board positions (and even pro life orgs if we're feeling really brave).

But for a normie who is maybe a member of the ACLU and voted for Biden, applies to clerkships and is happy to clerk for a mainstream judge who happens to be a republican appointee, that kid is completely unprepared to be treated as the Enemy by the kids he was in a study group with yesterday.

[butonawednesday]

Dershowitz gave another priceless take on the Stanford Law Shoutdown in his podcast The Dershow, March 15, 2023. Giving us all the back story on the National Lawyers Guild. If you want a complete understanding about what happened, this is essential. The title of this thread does not mention Stanford so sadly some people who have an interest are not seeing this.

[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

[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).

[nixy]

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. Admittedly, some of it is heavily colored by political disagreements, but I think it also offers a pretty good analysis of the data in which it’s (not) based.

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.

(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.)

[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.

[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.