We’ve got an important custom of free speech on this nation, each in our regulation and our tradition. That after all extends to scholar protests. … However make no mistake. What went on in that classroom on March 9 had nothing to do with our proud American custom of free speech. It was a parody of it. I’m relieved that Dean Martínez’s letter forcefully acknowledges this. As she writes: “Freedom of speech doesn’t shield a proper to shout down others so that they can’t be heard.” It’s not free speech to silence others since you hate them. It’s not free speech to jeer and heckle a speaker who’s been invited to your faculty in order that he can’t ship a chat. It’s not free speech to kind a mob and hurl vile taunts and threats that aren’t worthy of being written on the wall of a public rest room. It’s not free speech to faux to be “harmed” by phrases or concepts you disagree with, after which to make use of that feigned “hurt” as a license to disclaim a speaker probably the most rudimentary types of civility. …

Let’s say the quiet half out loud: The mob got here to focus on me as a result of they hate my work and my concepts. They hate the purchasers I represented in courtroom. They hate the arguments I made. They evidently hate my judicial opinions, though the protesters have been evidently conversant in solely one of many a whole bunch I’ve written — an opinion the place I refused to enlist the federal judiciary within the undertaking of controlling what pronouns individuals use. So, the protesters didn’t come to answer my speak or interact in counter-speech. They simply needed to vent their rage in opposition to me. None of this spectacle — this clearly staged public shaming — had the slightest factor to do with “free speech.” It had the whole lot to do with intimidation. And to be clear, not intimidating me, however the protesters’ fellow college students. The message couldn’t have been clearer: Woe to you in the event you signify the form of purchasers that Decide Duncan represented, or take the identical views that he has.

So, subsequent, let’s discuss authorized training. We shouldn’t neglect that this incident didn’t happen in a campus bar at 12:45 a.m. after the USC sport. It occurred in a regulation faculty — certainly, one in all our nation’s elite regulation colleges. Dean Martínez’s letter eloquently defined why this makes the incident doubly shameful. … Dean Martínez is appropriate when she writes, “I imagine we can not operate as a regulation faculty from the premise that seems to have animated the disruption of Decide Duncan’s remarks.” And what was that premise? That “audio system, texts, or concepts believed by some to be dangerous inflict a brand new impermissible hurt justifying a heckler’s veto just because they’re current on this campus.” I’ve heard somebody remark not too long ago that to be a lawyer means, by definition, to must occupy the identical room with individuals you significantly disagree with — and but to have to have interaction in reasoned, certainly persuasive, argument with them. If that’s true — and it’s — then the primitive impulse to shout somebody down shouldn’t be a trait we should always wish to encourage in regulation colleges. Simply the alternative. It’s a trait we should always attempt to assist college students unlearn. …

Lastly, we should not overlook why we practice legal professionals: to make our civil society operate. As soon as once more, Dean Martínez says this properly: “Legislation is a mediating gadget for distinction.” The discourse of regulation, and of legal professionals, vastly impacts how we order our lives collectively in a liberal democracy. I’m no political thinker, and Professor Muñoz would have far more to say about this than I. However one factor strikes me on this matter: The essential premise of a free and self-governing society is that we, as residents, can motive collectively. This happens not solely in authorities however within the multitude of mediating establishments that represent civil society. To perform this requires sure civic virtues — self-control, humility, tolerance, persistence, moderation, braveness, to call just a few. What would occur if the forged of thoughts modeled in that classroom at Stanford turns into the norm in legislatures, in courts, in universities, in boardrooms, in companies, in church buildings? We should resist this in any respect prices, in any other case we are going to stop to have a rule of regulation. Legal professionals and the colleges that educate them have immense duties. So I’m cautiously inspired that Stanford has promised to implement some type of coaching for college kids within the virtues of civil discourse. I hope it’s only the start.

In closing, I want to do one thing that I haven’t had the possibility to do for the reason that March 9 occasion — and that’s publicly thank the Stanford Federalist Society for inviting me to talk. Although the speak didn’t go as deliberate, I owe every of you a debt of gratitude. As I used to be attempting to say that day, I do know that you’d by no means deal with your fellow college students as you have been handled — regardless of how a lot chances are you’ll disagree with them or with audio system they may invite to campus. I used to be inspired to learn this in Dean Martínez’s letter: “The Federalist Society has the identical rights of free affiliation that different scholar organizations on the regulation faculty have.” I encourage you to take the dean at her phrase. Contemplate additionally these phrases from her letter: “We assist variety, fairness, and inclusion after we encourage individuals in our neighborhood to rethink their very own assumptions and potential biases.” I submit that college students such as you, who might discover themselves out of the mainstream in sure quarters, have an vital function to play in difficult your fellow college students and professors to rethink their very own assumptions and potential biases on a complete vary of supposed orthodoxies. There’ll at all times be individuals who wish to let you know what to assume, what to say, even what phrases you’re allowed to make use of. However you’re free to problem the echo chamber with a agency “I respectfully disagree.” Don’t be afraid to try this.

Prior TaxProf Weblog protection:

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/03/judge-duncan-what-we-must-expect-of-our-law-schools.html