Alumna: Stanford Law Hasn’t Fixed Its Damaged Free Speech Reputation Yet

Public servants who don’t submit to demands from leftism have their backs. It’s enough to make you sick. To make things worse, some of the worst ideologues taking aim at them are students at our nation’s most influential law schools. 

Consider the bullying directed at Judge Kyle Duncan, Catholic father of five, and former religious liberty lawyer, last week during a speaking event at Stanford Law School. It was the same school where I spent two years as president of its student body. 

A belligerent group of students from Stanford’s law school hurled abuse at the Fifth Circuit court-of-appels judge. This was an event hosted on campus in collaboration with Stanford’s Federalist Society chapter. The event was called “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.” The protest did not have anything to do about these topics. It was all about Duncan’s defense for liberty and the rule law.  

Before his nomination to the bench by President Trump, Duncan served from 2012 to 2014 as general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious LibertyThe legal powerhouse for religious freedom, He was the lead counsel in Hobby Lobby’s successful challenge To the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive directive.    

Duncan courageously represented a Virginia high school that required students to use facilities compatible with their sexual activities. He also represented North Carolina Republican lawmakers in their defense of a bill directing schools and other facilities with single-sex washrooms to permit exclusive use to people with the appropriate biological sex on their birth certificates.  

As a federal judge on one of the nation’s most influential courts of appeals, Duncan reviewed a case brought by a sex offender whose lawsuit demanded his court records be changed to refer to him with his new legal female name and a motion on appeal to refer to him using female pronouns. Both requests were denied by the court.

Duncan refers to the second request. Explained That “no authority supports the proposition that we may require litigants, judges, court personnel, or anyone else to refer to gender-dysphoric litigants with pronouns matching their subjective gender identity.” 

In Palo Alto, about 100 protesters blocked the federal judge’s prepared remarks. They would shout insults at Duncan every time he spoke, and they would also heckle him. “Scumbag!” And “You’re a liar!” When he asked for an administrator to keep order, things went even more off the rails.  

Tirien Steinbach, the associate “diversity dean” She delivered a six-minute speech that she had prepared previously to address the law school. Steinbach worked as a program officer at the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that was founded to defend free speech, before assuming her position at Stanford. Yet Steinbach’s diatribe condemned Duncan’s life’s work.

“For many people at the law school who work here, who study here, and who live here, your advocacy — your opinions from the bench — land as absolute disenfranchisement of their rights.” She asked her: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Duncan attempted to respond, but students shouted at him: “Let her finish!”— a courtesy they refused to give him   

Two days after the event, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez issued a joint Let me know of apology to Judge Duncan for the students’ violations of university policies on speech. “We write to apologize for the disruption of your recent speech at Stanford Law School. As has already been communicated to our community, what happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus,” They wrote.  

What is this policy? Stanford and all of its schools, including the law school, Expect Any member of the faculty, staff or student body is prohibited from using this website. “prevent or disrupt the effective carrying out of a University function or approved activity, such as lectures, meetings, interviews, ceremonies, the conduct of University business in a University office, and public events.” 

This policy is a reflection of the university’s and law schools’ historic commitment to civil right and respect for viewpoint diversity. It was one that I understood when I attended law school.

My classmates protested my administration’s decision not to offer tenure to a highly-respected clinical professor during my graduation ceremony. They walked out in silence during the remarks by a member the tenure committee. The professor’s remarks were interrupted by protesting students who quietly returned to their seats.

Stanford Law faculty and students use guerrilla warfare today, in contrast to the respectful opposition of yesteryear. Some school administrators are open to joining the fray.   

Martinez and Tessier Lavigne acknowledged in their letter to Duncan, “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” They did not mention whether Steinbach would get disciplined or reprimanded.  

Responding to a request for comment by National Review’s Ed Whelan, Duncan graciously Accepted They accepted our apology. He said: “I hope a similar apology is tendered to the persons in the Stanford law school community most harmed by the mob action: the members of the Federalist Society who graciously invited me to campus. Such an apology would also be a useful step towards restoring the law school’s broader commitment to the many, many students at Stanford who, while not members of the Federalist Society, nonetheless welcome robust debate on campus.”  

The mob may have silenced Duncan during his recent visit to Stanford Law School, but I hope it’s not too late for those entrusted with forming the next generation of lawyers to have the last word. The hysterical protesters who rioted will one day be lawyers and have influence. Stanford Law and the other top law schools in the country must make the effort to educate students about free speech before they graduate.