Do your research, reach reasonable conclusions, engage in debate and discussion, and earn respect.


Make incorrect assumptions, assign positions and interpret statements arbitrarily, hear only your own echo chamber, and make a fool of yourself.

Expand full comment

I'm both of the left and not American and I found this fascinating and concerning as an event.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

This episode is an example of why the Glenn Show is one of the BEST podcasts out there!

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

“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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Mar 27·edited Mar 27

Nazis NEED punched—what's the problem? Surely people are entitled to do ANYTHING to prevent Hitler, no?

Expand full comment