Listen now (60 min) | Earlier this month, Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, a religious conservative appointed to the court by Donald Trump, went to Stanford Law School to deliver a speech at the invitation of the school’s student Federalist Society chapter. But when he actually attempted to speak, he was met by disruptions from student protestors who attempted shout him down and interrupt him. After he spoke (or attempted to speak), Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach stepped up to, in effect, endorse many of the objections of the protestors. When Stanford Law School President Jenny Martinez released a statement condemning the protestors’ methods and apologizing to Judge Duncan, she was met with another round of protests.
Why do these people let crap,like this,happen to them? They no it's going - yet they go anyway. Do they have some type of victim complex.
You guys pioneered the Sturmabteilung. You guys are the ones with AR type rifles. You guys are the ones who buddy-buddy up with the police. Come on man! Get it together!
Good for Judge Duncan for using the law to prevent the whims of a sexually deviant predator from being indulged. It’s hard to think that people who object to Judge Duncan because of that decision aren’t being influenced by demonic activity. Shame on Mr. Segal for propagating the lie that a man guilty of child sex crimes could ever be a woman and for signaling that we need to enable a predator’s narcissism.
Commenting again, after reading Dean Martinez's letter and viewing Asst. Dean Steinbach's remarks on the day, both of which are linked below the main video page. Thanks, Glenn, for linking to them.
It seems surprising there are so few comments here. (there are more on the excerpt page) Perhaps Glenn's interview and the two linked supplemental sources simply cover it all.
I'm struck by the sensible, measured and judicious letter by Dean Martinez. And also how inappropriate Dean Steinbach's behavior, including her remarks, were on the day of the event. Both speak for themselves.
What seems to merit further attention is what must be the context of Dean Steinbach's behavior. I've long believed most behavior happens between the lines, so to speak. There are outliers, including in behavior, but not many. Dean Steinbach doesn't seem to be an outlier personality. She didn't seem especially courageous. Her remarks seemed quite performative, even as they were sincere to her. So what's the context? Where's the rest of the iceberg?
The likeliest answer, if not the only answer, is her views and her willingness to step up with prepared remarks in front of the group came from a subculture of which she's a member and with which she identifies. She seems well under the bell curve for thoughts and behavior within her group. It was interesting to see the tortured logic of her remarks as she tried to speak of welcoming Judge Duncan and of her respect for free speech. It made me think of the hangman at the gallows, speaking on the job about how much he sincerely opposes the death penalty.
I mentioned Jonathan Haidt in another comment. Following his recommendation in a recent post, I listened to the podcast, The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling. It's excellent, as he said. What struck me the hardest was how a very strange but now influential echo chamber developed online (and out of view) which generated many "must follow at risk of your social standing" views which are, we might say, unrealistic over-rotations. When spoken out loud in a public forum in the light of day, they don't stand up well. Much like the circus in which Dean Steinbach's remarks were delivered.
Glenn, I'm so impressed with these young men. I'm always grateful when bright young people pursue the best education they can and somehow apply it, combined with their own values and good sense, for the betterment of society. Their emphasis on humility and seeing the jolt they felt at the hubris and elitism of some of the comments at the event left me hopeful there are many more like them, regardless of their political stripes.
It just seems we are in a season of contention, with the topics of debate set by many at the loud and senseless extremes. Those entering the law have always known they are headed for a professional life in an adversarial environment. Not all of legal life is like that but much is. (it actually helps hone the issues.) Some personalities thrive in it and it can be draining for others. Never fading idealism can refuel and sustain. I hope these young people keep truth to their ideals uppermost, well above the siren songs of wealth and notoriety. We all need young people like that.
If they might read any of these comments, I would hope to impress on them that law school tends to emphasize combining and applying two things, the facts and the law. True enough; these form the foundation. Without a thorough understanding of these, efforts crumble. A third indispensable but often unsung element is needed. It's an understanding of human nature. Without this, the three legged stool will fall over. A few years out, they will begin to hear, and sometimes say, "They never taught this in law school." It's frequently in discussing such things as jury selection. There are other examples. Fortunately, there are more outside resources today than ever. Many are in the fields of social science, evolutionary biology, marketing and leadership.
An example is the research on moral foundations by Jonathan Haidt, who publishes here on Substack and is currently engaged in very important work on understanding the recent spikes in youth depression and anxiety and what appears to be the context of their social media use.
We are in a human nature game. Just as it's important to know civil procedure inside and out if you're going to be a civil litigator, it's more important than ever to learn as much as possible about human nature to survive without blowing our circuits in today's world. For example, when people are expressing their "beliefs", are they? We're starting to understand and identify this thing called "virtue signaling". We can see that in many cases, this is what's going on, rather than an expression of considered belief. A telltale can be the language itself, which seems more from an imported prix fix menu than from the person speaking.
I think we would all agree we descended from ancestors who figured out how to survive. There are bubbles, especially on the internet, which seem much like a society and which seem more important to some individuals than they objectively are. Conformity to various orthodoxies is enforced by fear of falling out with the group. The age old shaming and ostracism. So we now see many expressions of "beliefs" are part virtue signaling but are increasingly cries of "Not it!!!" Some of these people are the ones who approached David and Spencer after the event and expressed some agreement or at least respect for points of view but who wouldn't stand up and say so in front of the mob.
If you're standing in a courtroom, doing voir dire in front of a panel of 120 souls, let's say, knowing how the herd works and how to shepherd them to justice will be greatly aided if you understand the species. Same with arguing a motion or appeal. It might also save you some personal wear and tear, which is important for you and your families. Read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind and then keep pursuing your study of human nature and decision making. -G
I subscribe to TGS because I am a very moderate though left of center person wanting to be better educated in moderate but right of center values, in a manner that seems balanced and welcoming. Prof. Loury, please bring more of this type of conversation to the show. Personally, I would welcome more in depth discussion of the values coming from the right, though I understand your general audience might not have the same need.
Eve - I am moderate and right of center and I too appreciated this discussion. I find that any time we can listen too clear, articulated positions, whether on the right or on the left, it helps us to understand each other and ourselves better. Its one of the reasons I subscribe and listen to the Glenn Show.
You're never going to achieve a perfect world through the right. They don't believe in human perfectibility whereas the left does. Are you willing to give up utopia for tax cuts and more jails?
Just to be clear, are you saying you believe in human perfectibility? Or are you just trolling? Human beings are by nature imperfect and that is OK. I know I am less perfect than most. But the last thing I want is a government that wants to perfect me or anyone else.
Humans are creatures of their environments. Change the environment, change the person. Your deterministic bent on this point is at odds with your other views.
The premise of “determinism” is as completely fraught as “perfectibility”, with opposing values, interpretations and perspectives. Conservatives could rightly argue that they too only care with perfecting people and society with their truths.
Both sides have valuable contributions and philosophies and hopefully moderate the extremes of each other. No one wants poverty but how to eradicate it is arguable.
You're simply wrong about conservatives. They believe in the tragic nature of man, that perfectibility is impossible (thus, only God is perfect). Conservatives are about weed-trimming, liberals aim to replant the garden.
Your argument about determinism and environment is with McChesney, not me. Have at it.
Agency is a trivial detail. Salience lies in whether, how, and to what extent a given environmental change affects the behavior of people regardless of how the change was instigated.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
-United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Even Nazis, racists, and -phobes of every stripe? I thought that's what all the fuss was about: determining who who belongs with us and who is beyond the Pale. Oh, and just who is "us" in the first place...
I believe the organization that put the muscle behind that right (and horrified the residents of Skokie) has changed their tune as of late. Not a snowball's chance in hell they'd advocate for that right in the same way again. Punching Nazis, not turning one's back on them, is the new order of the new order...
It is depressing to think one of the most elite law schools in the country could have not only students who don't understand the importance of free speech, but also employ a DEI Dean that doesn't think the juice of ideological diversity is worth the squeeze. But here is an argument for why the protesters were doing not only themselves a disservice, but their future clients and causes as well. Conservative lawyers and law students generally understand the Left's arguments far better than liberal and progressives understand conservatives. There are exceptions of course. But because higher education at most schools is ideologically to the left, conservatives have no choice but to be exposed to those arguments. But if you are a progressive law student so confident in your own rectitude and moral superiority that you can't even be bothered to listen to a federal appellate judge you disagree with, what happens if/when you find yourself having to argue a case in front of judges you disagree with ideologically?
A mediocre lawyer representing a liberal cause may look at an appellate panel with 2 Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee as hopeless. Better luck next time, maybe we can get the case reheard en banc. But a good lawyer will try to craft an argument that will appeal to at least one of those Republican appointees. But to do that you need to understand that ideology. Despite the way the Left likes to throw around words like racists and white supremacists, most conservatives are neither. More importantly, they don't think of themselves as racists. You need to understand what really motivates judicial conservatives if you want any chance of their ruling in favor of your client. It can be done. Just look at Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) in which Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts joined the Court's liberal justices to hold that the 1964 Civil Rights Act banned employment discrimination against gay and transgender employees. I didn't listen to the argument myself, but I am all but certain the lawyer for Bostock didn't convince Gorsuch and Roberts to rule their way by calling them homophobic bigots.
Mr. McChesney you wrote, ”It is depressing to think one of the most elite law schools in the country could have not only students who don't understand the importance of free speech, but also employ a DEI Dean that doesn't think the juice of ideological diversity is worth the squeeze”.
Well said. And I am once again so grateful to Professor Lowery for bringing this issue here to his platform so that those of us who otherwise might not be aware of what happened are now informed. The kind of bullying intolerance that happened at Stanford needs to be called out - whether coming from the left, right or center.
Together with professor Loury, the two law students were a pleasure to listen to as they discussed what occurred and made point after salient point.
You don't seem to get what's going on—this isn't a debate topic in AP history. This is the central political battle for the continued existence of Enlightenment values and (classical) liberal democracy ("The End of History") in the USA and other Western countries.
Those Stanford Law students, their professors and the entire DEI apparatus understand PERFECTLY well the importance of free speech—it MUST be stamped out. Your argument recommending good lawyers play on the biases of the very judges sworn to rule free of any biases speaks for itself. Finally, your naming recent conservative SCOTUS justices is the ultimate irony: the left has demonstrated at Stanford and everywhere else just what they have in mind for the American judicial system: dilution, takeover, and eventual 100% ideological conformity of rulers and rulings by any means necessary (BAMN).
I didn't intend my comment to be a definitive argument in favor of free speech. Many others, including Glenn, have made those arguments. Fortunately, Dean Martinez seems to understand both the importance of free speech and the purpose of a university. Law schools exist to train advocates. I thought I would add something that many people might not consider and which those immature ill-mannered disrespectful “students” have certainly not considered. I disagree that trying to make an argument that will appeal to a judge's judicial philosophy is “playing on their biases.” At least not unless making a textual argument to a textualist Justice is playing on that Justice's bias. Granted every human being has biases, but if one of Justice Gorsuch's biases is that he believes in following the law as written, I can live with that, even if I disagreed with the holding in Bostock.
Law students are adults who should be expected to treat students, staff, and visitors to their university with respect. I agree with the Fed Soc students (not surprisingly since I am a past president of the W&L chapter) that it would be wrong to punish the protesting students, but only because they seem to have been egged on by their DEI Dean. But any future disruption like that, especially making sexually graphic comments to a visiting federal judge should lead to expulsion.
Clueless.
Do your research, reach reasonable conclusions, engage in debate and discussion, and earn respect.
Or...
Make incorrect assumptions, assign positions and interpret statements arbitrarily, hear only your own echo chamber, and make a fool of yourself.
I'm both of the left and not American and I found this fascinating and concerning as an event.
Why do these people let crap,like this,happen to them? They no it's going - yet they go anyway. Do they have some type of victim complex.
You guys pioneered the Sturmabteilung. You guys are the ones with AR type rifles. You guys are the ones who buddy-buddy up with the police. Come on man! Get it together!
Good for Judge Duncan for using the law to prevent the whims of a sexually deviant predator from being indulged. It’s hard to think that people who object to Judge Duncan because of that decision aren’t being influenced by demonic activity. Shame on Mr. Segal for propagating the lie that a man guilty of child sex crimes could ever be a woman and for signaling that we need to enable a predator’s narcissism.
Commenting again, after reading Dean Martinez's letter and viewing Asst. Dean Steinbach's remarks on the day, both of which are linked below the main video page. Thanks, Glenn, for linking to them.
It seems surprising there are so few comments here. (there are more on the excerpt page) Perhaps Glenn's interview and the two linked supplemental sources simply cover it all.
I'm struck by the sensible, measured and judicious letter by Dean Martinez. And also how inappropriate Dean Steinbach's behavior, including her remarks, were on the day of the event. Both speak for themselves.
What seems to merit further attention is what must be the context of Dean Steinbach's behavior. I've long believed most behavior happens between the lines, so to speak. There are outliers, including in behavior, but not many. Dean Steinbach doesn't seem to be an outlier personality. She didn't seem especially courageous. Her remarks seemed quite performative, even as they were sincere to her. So what's the context? Where's the rest of the iceberg?
The likeliest answer, if not the only answer, is her views and her willingness to step up with prepared remarks in front of the group came from a subculture of which she's a member and with which she identifies. She seems well under the bell curve for thoughts and behavior within her group. It was interesting to see the tortured logic of her remarks as she tried to speak of welcoming Judge Duncan and of her respect for free speech. It made me think of the hangman at the gallows, speaking on the job about how much he sincerely opposes the death penalty.
I mentioned Jonathan Haidt in another comment. Following his recommendation in a recent post, I listened to the podcast, The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling. It's excellent, as he said. What struck me the hardest was how a very strange but now influential echo chamber developed online (and out of view) which generated many "must follow at risk of your social standing" views which are, we might say, unrealistic over-rotations. When spoken out loud in a public forum in the light of day, they don't stand up well. Much like the circus in which Dean Steinbach's remarks were delivered.
This episode is an example of why the Glenn Show is one of the BEST podcasts out there!
Glenn, I'm so impressed with these young men. I'm always grateful when bright young people pursue the best education they can and somehow apply it, combined with their own values and good sense, for the betterment of society. Their emphasis on humility and seeing the jolt they felt at the hubris and elitism of some of the comments at the event left me hopeful there are many more like them, regardless of their political stripes.
It just seems we are in a season of contention, with the topics of debate set by many at the loud and senseless extremes. Those entering the law have always known they are headed for a professional life in an adversarial environment. Not all of legal life is like that but much is. (it actually helps hone the issues.) Some personalities thrive in it and it can be draining for others. Never fading idealism can refuel and sustain. I hope these young people keep truth to their ideals uppermost, well above the siren songs of wealth and notoriety. We all need young people like that.
If they might read any of these comments, I would hope to impress on them that law school tends to emphasize combining and applying two things, the facts and the law. True enough; these form the foundation. Without a thorough understanding of these, efforts crumble. A third indispensable but often unsung element is needed. It's an understanding of human nature. Without this, the three legged stool will fall over. A few years out, they will begin to hear, and sometimes say, "They never taught this in law school." It's frequently in discussing such things as jury selection. There are other examples. Fortunately, there are more outside resources today than ever. Many are in the fields of social science, evolutionary biology, marketing and leadership.
An example is the research on moral foundations by Jonathan Haidt, who publishes here on Substack and is currently engaged in very important work on understanding the recent spikes in youth depression and anxiety and what appears to be the context of their social media use.
We are in a human nature game. Just as it's important to know civil procedure inside and out if you're going to be a civil litigator, it's more important than ever to learn as much as possible about human nature to survive without blowing our circuits in today's world. For example, when people are expressing their "beliefs", are they? We're starting to understand and identify this thing called "virtue signaling". We can see that in many cases, this is what's going on, rather than an expression of considered belief. A telltale can be the language itself, which seems more from an imported prix fix menu than from the person speaking.
I think we would all agree we descended from ancestors who figured out how to survive. There are bubbles, especially on the internet, which seem much like a society and which seem more important to some individuals than they objectively are. Conformity to various orthodoxies is enforced by fear of falling out with the group. The age old shaming and ostracism. So we now see many expressions of "beliefs" are part virtue signaling but are increasingly cries of "Not it!!!" Some of these people are the ones who approached David and Spencer after the event and expressed some agreement or at least respect for points of view but who wouldn't stand up and say so in front of the mob.
If you're standing in a courtroom, doing voir dire in front of a panel of 120 souls, let's say, knowing how the herd works and how to shepherd them to justice will be greatly aided if you understand the species. Same with arguing a motion or appeal. It might also save you some personal wear and tear, which is important for you and your families. Read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind and then keep pursuing your study of human nature and decision making. -G
I subscribe to TGS because I am a very moderate though left of center person wanting to be better educated in moderate but right of center values, in a manner that seems balanced and welcoming. Prof. Loury, please bring more of this type of conversation to the show. Personally, I would welcome more in depth discussion of the values coming from the right, though I understand your general audience might not have the same need.
Eve - I am moderate and right of center and I too appreciated this discussion. I find that any time we can listen too clear, articulated positions, whether on the right or on the left, it helps us to understand each other and ourselves better. Its one of the reasons I subscribe and listen to the Glenn Show.
You're never going to achieve a perfect world through the right. They don't believe in human perfectibility whereas the left does. Are you willing to give up utopia for tax cuts and more jails?
Just to be clear, are you saying you believe in human perfectibility? Or are you just trolling? Human beings are by nature imperfect and that is OK. I know I am less perfect than most. But the last thing I want is a government that wants to perfect me or anyone else.
Humans are creatures of their environments. Change the environment, change the person. Your deterministic bent on this point is at odds with your other views.
So, the environment is deterministic?
The premise of “determinism” is as completely fraught as “perfectibility”, with opposing values, interpretations and perspectives. Conservatives could rightly argue that they too only care with perfecting people and society with their truths.
Both sides have valuable contributions and philosophies and hopefully moderate the extremes of each other. No one wants poverty but how to eradicate it is arguable.
You're simply wrong about conservatives. They believe in the tragic nature of man, that perfectibility is impossible (thus, only God is perfect). Conservatives are about weed-trimming, liberals aim to replant the garden.
Your argument about determinism and environment is with McChesney, not me. Have at it.
If nothing else, you are aptly named, and that’s rich.
Humans are also creatures endowed with agency. When a person decides to change, they then change their environment.
Agency is a trivial detail. Salience lies in whether, how, and to what extent a given environmental change affects the behavior of people regardless of how the change was instigated.
Chicken or the egg. Or, maybe egg or the chicken;).
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
-United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Even Nazis, racists, and -phobes of every stripe? I thought that's what all the fuss was about: determining who who belongs with us and who is beyond the Pale. Oh, and just who is "us" in the first place...
Even Nazis, racists, and -phobes of every stripe. They have the right to their opinions. They even have the right to march through Skokie.
I believe the organization that put the muscle behind that right (and horrified the residents of Skokie) has changed their tune as of late. Not a snowball's chance in hell they'd advocate for that right in the same way again. Punching Nazis, not turning one's back on them, is the new order of the new order...
If you mean the ACLU, who I no longer support, they’ve lost their credibility, focus and soul to knee jerk kowtowing to wokeness.
It is depressing to think one of the most elite law schools in the country could have not only students who don't understand the importance of free speech, but also employ a DEI Dean that doesn't think the juice of ideological diversity is worth the squeeze. But here is an argument for why the protesters were doing not only themselves a disservice, but their future clients and causes as well. Conservative lawyers and law students generally understand the Left's arguments far better than liberal and progressives understand conservatives. There are exceptions of course. But because higher education at most schools is ideologically to the left, conservatives have no choice but to be exposed to those arguments. But if you are a progressive law student so confident in your own rectitude and moral superiority that you can't even be bothered to listen to a federal appellate judge you disagree with, what happens if/when you find yourself having to argue a case in front of judges you disagree with ideologically?
A mediocre lawyer representing a liberal cause may look at an appellate panel with 2 Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee as hopeless. Better luck next time, maybe we can get the case reheard en banc. But a good lawyer will try to craft an argument that will appeal to at least one of those Republican appointees. But to do that you need to understand that ideology. Despite the way the Left likes to throw around words like racists and white supremacists, most conservatives are neither. More importantly, they don't think of themselves as racists. You need to understand what really motivates judicial conservatives if you want any chance of their ruling in favor of your client. It can be done. Just look at Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) in which Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts joined the Court's liberal justices to hold that the 1964 Civil Rights Act banned employment discrimination against gay and transgender employees. I didn't listen to the argument myself, but I am all but certain the lawyer for Bostock didn't convince Gorsuch and Roberts to rule their way by calling them homophobic bigots.
Mr. McChesney you wrote, ”It is depressing to think one of the most elite law schools in the country could have not only students who don't understand the importance of free speech, but also employ a DEI Dean that doesn't think the juice of ideological diversity is worth the squeeze”.
Well said. And I am once again so grateful to Professor Lowery for bringing this issue here to his platform so that those of us who otherwise might not be aware of what happened are now informed. The kind of bullying intolerance that happened at Stanford needs to be called out - whether coming from the left, right or center.
Together with professor Loury, the two law students were a pleasure to listen to as they discussed what occurred and made point after salient point.
You don't seem to get what's going on—this isn't a debate topic in AP history. This is the central political battle for the continued existence of Enlightenment values and (classical) liberal democracy ("The End of History") in the USA and other Western countries.
Those Stanford Law students, their professors and the entire DEI apparatus understand PERFECTLY well the importance of free speech—it MUST be stamped out. Your argument recommending good lawyers play on the biases of the very judges sworn to rule free of any biases speaks for itself. Finally, your naming recent conservative SCOTUS justices is the ultimate irony: the left has demonstrated at Stanford and everywhere else just what they have in mind for the American judicial system: dilution, takeover, and eventual 100% ideological conformity of rulers and rulings by any means necessary (BAMN).
I didn't intend my comment to be a definitive argument in favor of free speech. Many others, including Glenn, have made those arguments. Fortunately, Dean Martinez seems to understand both the importance of free speech and the purpose of a university. Law schools exist to train advocates. I thought I would add something that many people might not consider and which those immature ill-mannered disrespectful “students” have certainly not considered. I disagree that trying to make an argument that will appeal to a judge's judicial philosophy is “playing on their biases.” At least not unless making a textual argument to a textualist Justice is playing on that Justice's bias. Granted every human being has biases, but if one of Justice Gorsuch's biases is that he believes in following the law as written, I can live with that, even if I disagreed with the holding in Bostock.
Law students are adults who should be expected to treat students, staff, and visitors to their university with respect. I agree with the Fed Soc students (not surprisingly since I am a past president of the W&L chapter) that it would be wrong to punish the protesting students, but only because they seem to have been egged on by their DEI Dean. But any future disruption like that, especially making sexually graphic comments to a visiting federal judge should lead to expulsion.
Well said. Would we want AI judges and lawyers arguing and deciding on pure legal language and statute if they could be unbiasedly programmed?
I think we need to think carefully before proffering an answer.
Nazis NEED punched—what's the problem? Surely people are entitled to do ANYTHING to prevent Hitler, no?
Vote! If your fellow Americans want Hitler or a Trump, that’s how the democratic cookie crumbles. Democracy 101.
One man, one vote, one time. Think about it.