Law Students Against Free Speech
I suspect that a lot of kids have been raised in such hothouse ways, like fragile little flowers, that contributes to the woke-ie-ocracy on campus and students feeling too fragile to consider (or even allow) opposing views.
For the record, like Turley, I don't agree with this woman's views from 2012. (In fact, I've never heard of her before.)
However, I think we are enriched and our own views sharpened by hearing opposing views -- including views people find odious and troubling -- and having them debated.
Jonathan Turley writes:
"We are tired." Those three words sum up a great deal of the anti-free speech movement growing on our campuses.Students and faculty have grown tired of free speech. Opposing views are now treated as threats and intolerable for students.
A case in point is the effort by half of the law students at Duke to ban Helen Alvaré, a George Mason University law professor, from appearing on a virtual panel discussion about family law.
The letter is both well-written and chilling in its call for censorship on campus. It dismisses any notion of free speech protection in allowing dissenting views to be heard on campus. Indeed, it does not even consider such values worthy of discussion.
Instead, the students insist that the mere ability of an academic to speak on a panel is an endorsement of her views and a threat to current and future Duke law students.The panel is on "putting children first in family law", which is the focus of Alvaré's 2017 book.
She has been controversial due to her writings on same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights. Her 2012 friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. v. Windsor that argued for the state's "legitimate" interest in "singling out" opposite-sex marriage for protection and that the expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples "ignores children and society."
As someone who supported same-sex marriage for decades, I strongly disagree with those views. However, many hold such views as did most of our elected officials at one time from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.
These are questions that are tied to deeply-held religious, social, and legal views. Alvaré has written extensively on those issues and is widely cited in the debate over same-sex marriage. They are the type of issues that universities once valued as subjects for debate and discussion.
The letter from a sizable percentage of the Duke law student population demands that Dean Kerry Abrams "remove" Alvaré from the event or "cancel the event entirely."
...The students insist that even allowing dissenting ideas to be voiced on campus is an effective endorsement of those views.
...The controversy is ironic for Duke which was founded by religious groups and given the motto Eruditio et Religio (Knowledge and Faith). Many alumni and current faculty and students hold opposing moral and legal views on these views. A true celebration of intellectual diversity is to allow such views to be voiced and debated. The greatest danger to Duke is not hearing the views of Professor Alvaré but silencing such views. Being "tired" of free speech is no license to deny it.
How do they conduct debate classes? What will happen when they encounter an old-school lawyer who does not care how tender they are, the client is innocent and any argument to prove that is just fine?
Radwaste at October 24, 2020 4:15 AM
Something a young man said during the Nazi era:
"We Germans are so happy. We are free of freedom."
David Foster at October 24, 2020 10:02 AM
I walked away from any future I had as an activist.
I got a tweet from the Biden campaign, and apparently, the fact that I'm gay has gotten around, even though I don't discuss this on my phone, either through texts or conversation.
Twitter is another matter, and I do use Twitter on my phone. The data farmers are working overtime.
Anyhow, the text from the Biden campaign said to me.
"Hi Patrick! This is Mars w/Equality Florida Action Inc., you LGBTQ rights org! Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will fight to defend marriage equality from attacks and finally end gay and transgender discrimination. Our records show that you've requested a Vote-By-Mail ballot! Do you have a plan for how to submit your ballot?"
My reply: "Yes, I do. But I will not be voting for Biden. Thank you."
(For the record, I have no problem with transgendered people not being allowed to serve. Based on the horror stories I've read about how gender reassignment surgery goes wrong, especially male to female, I think it's best for everyone if they don't serve. And I consider gender dysphoria to be a mental illness.)
They replied: "The Trump/Pence Administration has tirelessly fought to roll back LGBTQ rights, from banning Transgender individuals from joining the military, to allowing health care providers to discriminate against LGBTQ patients. We must elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to ensure that the LGBTQ community is protected. Can we count on you to support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?"
I replied, "Sorry, no. Although I am a gay person, the left has become far too toxic. They are seeking to stop free speech, even through the use of violence and are complicit in the destruction of major cities, like Seattle and Portland. Honestly, it would be better to lose our rights as gay people than to allow our cities to burn and for lawless bad faith actors to loot and harm people, destroying their livelihoods."
I didn't say this but I think gay marriage is the only victory we needed, even though I will never get married. And that's one genie that will not go back in the bottle.
Patrick at October 24, 2020 1:36 PM
They are just building their resume for if the Democrats try packing the courts in the future.
Joe J at October 24, 2020 9:42 PM
I would hope that even a very religious person can see that a government recognizing a marriage is not the same as a religion endorsing it - i.e., some religions refuse to recognize an interfaith marriage or civil marriage, but the law considers them legal and binding.
Conan the Grammarian at October 25, 2020 9:35 AM
It must be nice and comfortable to live in year 0 where beliefs have never changed, where it makes sense to judge people from 200 yrs ago by standards just made up last week, to have no knowledge of the fact that people change their minds and that many social issues are a matter of broad agreement rather than having a "correct" answer. For example, we broadly agree that it is proper to wear clothes. There is no proof that this is "right" and some people object. We broadly agree that we should eat with utensils rather than our hands (except for pizza). Again, no proof that this is "right". These are called "customs".
The claim that the new standard of behavior is that some people feel unsafe is the utmost lie because it only applies to some people. If seeing the communist flag at a protest makes you feel unsafe, too bad. If abortion freaks you out, too bad.
cc at October 25, 2020 1:39 PM
My experience is that about half the young people in law school are well-written nincompoops with no real life experience. Law schools would be well-advised to quit accepting anyone until they reach the age of 30, and prohibit anyone from taking student loans (forcing the prospective students to earn the money they will need to attend.) And the entry requirements should have some component of actually respecting the Constitution and all of the Bill of Rights.
Joe Anon at October 27, 2020 6:36 AM
Leave a comment