This is the Stanford Law School Edition of that series. Is The DEI Juice Worth The Squeeze?
If you're not familiar with what happened you can click thru for the details. A bunch of law-school students shouted down a judge because he was conservative. The school did nothing to prevent it, and staff actually participated.
When a university empowers DEI to deem speech "harmful," DEI will deem speech "harmful." When a university empowers DEI to designate spaces as "safe," DEI will deem spaces as "safe." When a university allows DEI to treat some people as "oppressors," DEI will treat those people as "oppressors." When a university teaches students that "harmful" speech has no place on a campus, the students will take steps to prevent "harmful" speech on their campus. This protest was a direct byproduct of what students have learned for years.
Every word in Steinbach's speech reinforces these core planks of DEI. And her speech was obviously prepared in advance. She was so confident in her beliefs that she delivered those remarks, knowing she would be recorded. Steinbach no doubt thought she was on the right side of the university. Did Dean Martinez approve this conduct in advance? Or did Steinbach thinks she did not need to run her tirade by the Dean first? In either case, we have witnessed the endgame of DEI. These officials are empowered to extend their tendrils into every facet of an academic institution, with or without the backing of the Dean. Their mission is not to promote learning or academic inquiry, but instead to advance a specific ideology.
It is a sad day when Americans embrace censorship and turn their backs on free speech and freedom generally. It is chilling when law students don't respect free speech.
A LAW school,, yeah, America is fukkt.
ReplyDelete