Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lilly

Worrisome Event At Law School

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Lilly

I'm very surprised to see this type of thing taking place at a United States Law School.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/12/organized-heckling-at-cuny-school-of-law

The site, reason.com does lean right (it's Libertarian) but gets high marks for accuracy. This took place at the end of March but this is the first I've head of this event.

Just to clarify, this amazes me because even at the level of The Supreme Court justices are allowed to speak their dissenting opinions. How can a Law School student not grasp the need for dissenting opinions when studying the law.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
Quote

The good news: Both the left and the right have reached consensus that free speech is important.

The bad news: “Free speech” has apparently been redefined to mean “speech with which I agree.” 

Over the past few years, there have been many high-profile cases of left-wing college students or their cowed administrators chilling the public discourse (by disinviting speakers, censoring artwork, disciplining transgressors of arbitrarily imposed cultural appropriation rules, threatening to defund school newspapers, etc.). Such actions have often been accompanied by dutiful statements about the campus’s commitment to free and open dialogue. Silencing some people’s speech was supposedly necessary to make other speakers feel “safe.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-shuts-down-free-speech-too/2016/12/15/745fa352-c30d-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55edad19b6ef

I agree that left-wing censorship on campus is a problem, but it'd be nice if the right-wingers who whine about it all the time would at least be principled in opposing right-wing censorship as well.

As it stands, it appears most right-wingers only care about free speech when it's one of their own. Just more pathetic partisan hackery unfortunately.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vlad the Mighty

It doesn't really surprise me, Law schools, which you might think or hope would make a big thing of the importance of allowing all sides of a story to be heard and not allowing bias to cloud one's judgement, seem to be at the forefonrt of trying to close down opinions their political stance doesn't agree with.This is a very good portent for the future, isn't it. :unsure: :no: 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

I'd be very interested in seeing some video where the opposite dynamic takes place. Because I most certainly would not support shouting down any guest professor that was invited to speak at a school. I don't care where the person falls politically (right. left, center). IMO an invited speaker should be treated with courtesy, period. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
27 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I'm very surprised to see this type of thing taking place at a United States Law School.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/12/organized-heckling-at-cuny-school-of-law

The site, reason.com does lean right (it's Libertarian) but gets high marks for accuracy. This took place at the end of March but this is the first I've head of this event.

Just to clarify, this amazes me because even at the level of The Supreme Court justices are allowed to speak their dissenting opinions. How can a Law School student not grasp the need for dissenting opinions when studying the law.

 

 

Do you know what the subject of the speech was? Beyond generically on free speech? 

When I hear about a speech on free speech I immediately think code for "giving a bigot a microphone" and I think the majority does as well. Which gives the impression that the entire reason for this speech was to incite the result it got. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

IMO everyone needs to be able to learn to listen to others...even those that we don't agree with. This is all part of learning, being able to calmly listen to another person and then in a polite and reasonable manner tell them (without shouting) exactly why we disagree. And even perhaps, we should be willing to look for middle ground where there can be constructive discussion. I think all Law School students should be encouraged to do exactly this. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vlad the Mighty
4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Do you know what the subject of the speech was? Beyond generically on free speech? 

When I hear about a speech on free speech I immediately think code for "giving a bigot a microphone" and I think the majority does as well. Which gives the impression that the entire reason for this speech was to incite the result it got. 

Well, there's a link to his blog where he says, In October, the CUNY School of Law Federalist Society invited me to speak on a panel discussion about theories of constitutional interpretation. I had planned to speak about originalism. Alas, the students were not able to find any other professors who were willing to participate in the event. After several rounds of emails, I suggested an event about free speech on campus. It is a talk I had given before, without any problems, at Southern Illinois, Texas Southern University, the University of Massachusetts, Barry University, the University of Oregon, and my home institution, the South Texas College of Law Houston. The Federalist Society chapter agreed that this would be a good topic for CUNY. Alas, once again, the Chapter was unable to find any other professor who would participate in the event. (This is fairly common.)

whatever originalism might be. I know being a Professor at South Texas College of Law doesn't necessarily guarantee that one isn't a bigot, but I presume South Texas College of Law must be an actual reputable establishment, and notjust one of those mail-order places where you can buy a degree to frame and hang on your wall. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Vlad the Mighty said:

After several rounds of emails, I suggested an event about free speech on campus

Thanks for the info. Yeah I cant help but feel like this is exactly the outcome the prof had hoped for. 

1 minute ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

whatever originalism might be. I know being a Professor at South Texas College of Law doesn't necessarily guarantee that one isn't a bigot, but I presume South Texas College of Law must be an actual reputable establishment, and notjust one of those mail-order places where you can buy a degree to frame and hang on your wall. 

Agreed. I just feel like giving a speech on free speech today is along the same lines as holding a flag burning event. Sure you are legally allowed to do it but you know what it is you're doing. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

This is what I found regarding Professor Josh Blackman: http://www.stcl.edu/about-us/faculty/josh-blackman/

If this gentleman is indeed a verified bigot then this is something else entirely. But... why would CUNY School of Law invite a bigot to speak in the first place? It just doesn't seem likely that this is the case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

This has been going on for a while. And it IS mostly associated with left-wing students. Indeed, some commentators regarded as "right wing" have noted the apparent collaboration of faculty staff in 'sabotaging' guest speaker debates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

It seems to be only an American thing, I have been searching for the last thirty minutes for events like this and haven't found any outside of what we call Leaders Questions here in Ireland. This were the Taoiseach, leader of the governing party, answers questions from the opposition. What happens here, much like in England, while responses are given the heckling starts to take place, on both sides.

It is a disturbing trend, as it does stifle free speech.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

This has been going on for a while. And it IS mostly associated with left-wing students. Indeed, some commentators regarded as "right wing" have noted the apparent collaboration of faculty staff in 'sabotaging' guest speaker debates.

If this is the case then it's even more disturbing IMO. 

Anyway, I have to go for now. Please let's all set a good example here, listen to others and simply agree to disagree. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

From the link above:

Quote

Josh is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston

I'm very proud to call him a neighbor!

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

If this gentleman is indeed a verified bigot then this is something else entirely. But... why would CUNY School of Law invite a bigot to speak in the first place? It just doesn't seem likely that this is the case. 

Oh I wasn't making the case that hes a bigot. What I'm saying is bigots (kkk skinhead etc) have been using "free speech" rallies and protests as their excuses to spread their filth for decades and that the right has figured out how to use that to their advantage. 

The right wing clearly saw they scored political points with the bashing of those opposing "free speech" and have found political gold in making the left look like rabid dogs by baiting them. 

That doesn't excuse those acting like rabid dogs but it does add a little perspective. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
11 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

From the link above:

I'm very proud to call him a neighbor!

 

I'm trying to get out the door here, but since you live near Professor Blackman is he notorious or bigoted to your knowledge? Just curious because often local folks know more about others than can be found online. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vlad the Mighty

Unless the South Texas College of Law is a KKK front (and it doesn't seem to be, South Texas College of Law – Houston, is a private American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law school and is a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). Located in Downtown Houston, Texas, United States it was founded in 1923—the oldest law school in Houston and the third-oldest in Texas. South Texas College of Law - Wikipedia ) I very much doubt that anyone with extreme rightwing views would be allowed to remain in position for very long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, Michelle said:

Everything you said after but negates the first part of your post. You are still propagating the us vs them mentality which you claim to abhor.

No, I was pointing out a double standard. My point was entirely clear whether you understood it or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I'd be very interested in seeing some video where the opposite dynamic takes place. Because I most certainly would not support shouting down any guest professor that was invited to speak at a school. I don't care where the person falls politically (right. left, center). IMO an invited speaker should be treated with courtesy, period. 

I just linked an article in the first post that listed numerous cases of that very thing. Maybe you should start there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

IMO an invited speaker should be treated with courtesy, period.

IMO an invited speaker should be allowed to speak, but to be treated with 'courtesy' is a rather strong word for it at times.

I certainly wouldn't treat a white nationalist spouting hateful propaganda with 'courtesy'. I'd let them speak, but then afterwards openly demolish their arguments in my own speech that exposes them for the racist disgusting slimeball of a human being that they are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

The right wing clearly saw they scored political points with the bashing of those opposing "free speech" and have found political gold in making the left look like rabid dogs by baiting them.

This is exactly why I can't stand the people who do genuinely try to deplatform these right-wing speakers. It gives conservatives a reason to play the victim, all while most of the time the right-wingers being deplatformed are extremist white nationalists that are advocating for the victimization of other minorities. They oppress minorities, then when they get deplatformed they play the victim themselves and call liberals the oppressors.

Deplatforming bigots doesn't help, it hurts. Let them speak, then make your own speech right afterwards to counter their absurdity. That's the best way to do it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

(and just for the record, I'm not saying this specific law professor in the article in the OP is a bigot or a white nationalist, merely stating that the majority of right wing speakers that get silenced typically are)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

No, I was pointing out a double standard. My point was entirely clear whether you understood it or not.

Oh, I understood your deflection perfectly. It's the same when Obama or Hillary's atrocities are brought up in Trump threads. Those people are told to get over it because they aren't the president now.

You defend despicable actions by showing "people on the other side" have committed similar actions or worse. It's not a double standard to point out bad behavior. Especially when they haven't defended similar actions "from their own kind".

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
Just now, Michelle said:

Oh, I understood your deflection perfectly. It's the same when Obama or Hillary's atrocities are brought up in Trump threads. Those people are told to get over it because they aren't the president now.

You defend despicable actions by showing "people on the other side" have committed similar actions or worse. It's not a double standard to point out bad behavior. Especially when they haven't defended similar actions "from their own kind".

You want me to point out some of the atrocities (I can think of off the top of my head) under democratic leaders? Fine.

  • Hillary Clinton voted for the Patriot Act, which violates the Constitution in several ways. It: Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy. It violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. It violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised.  Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
  • Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war, which killed a minimum of 200,000 innocent civillians, we waged war against a country that didn't attack us, violated the Geneva Conventions by committing torture in Guantanamo Bay, and an upwards of 4,000 US soldiers died there as well.
  • Bill Clinton created NAFTA, which shipped hundreds of thousands of US jobs overseas.
  • Barack Obama wanted to prosecute the whistleblower hero Edward Snowden who exposed the rampant unconstitutional NSA spying that's been going on mostly under his administration.
  • Barack Obama used more drone strikes then any other president, and 90% of the time they killed the wrong people as revealed by leaked internal drone memos.
  • All three of the people above have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from millionaires and billionaires and big corporations which then on numerous recorded cases pushed for legislation that favors these donors and screws over the little guy.

These ^ are just the things I can think of off the top of my head here.

As you can see, I'm not defending one side or deflecting to the other. I'm more than willing to point out the widespread corruption and disgusting policy positions of people from all sides, and have done so regularly on here. Me pointing out a double standard that people often deploy on here is not me being partisan, in fact it's the exact opposite of that. I'm simply asking that people be principled in opposing ALL people who seek to violate other's free speech rights, no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. That's about as non-partisan of a position as one could take.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
5 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

That's about as non-partisan of a position as one could take.

Every post you make belies these claims you keep making about being non-partisan. I don't think I'm the only person who sees that. You've already shown your true character.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.