Why Stanford Law Needs Conservatives
David Sacks and Spencer Segal are law students at Stanford, and they also happen to be conservatives. That puts them in the minority on campus. In this excerpt from my longer conversation with them, we talk about the recent controversy involving the conservative Federal Judge Kyle Duncan and why diversity of thought is important on university campuses.
This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
I loved this episode! Both David and Spencer are generous and thoughtful people. Thank you!
No place benefits from an ideological monopoly. Not Stanford, not the state it's in, not the state I'm in which is quite red. Life requires balance to prevent the excesses of a one-party rule. I doubt this happens at Stanford any time soon, or at the other institutions plagued by group think and forced conformity. Law firms and judges read news accounts, too. It's hard to imagine the ones who are not similarly captured wanting to introduce people like the ones who protested into their ranks.
The pendulum is eventually going to swing in the other direction and it has already begun doing so. The thing with pendulums is that the rebound never stops in the middle; it typically goes to about the same point on the other side, not that I think Stanford is in any danger of becoming a bastion of right-wing thought. Still, some course correction is inevitable, particularly if enrollment numbers start to drop. Already, the utility of college itself is coming into question. A host of fields in the skilled trades pay well, are always in demand, and offer career opportunities without crushing debt. Others are turning to the community colleges for basic-level courses and sparing themselves from some of the antics of indoctrination camps.