This is a great idea—if you are in law school and shout down speakers in the name of free speech, you should be punished. This is brilliant. But I would add one more thing—the students need to be suspended for a year as well. They are a danger to the campus community—they need sensitivity training, not a class.
“And apparently at least one judge agrees that these students, allegedly the top law students in the country, have crossed a line. DC Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman sent an email to every federal judge in the country suggesting that students involved in last week’s Yale protest might not be suitable candidates for clerkships.
The latest events at Yale Law School, in which students attempted to shout down speakers participating in a panel discussion on free speech, prompt me to suggest that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted. All federal judges—and all federal judges are presumably committed to free speech—should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified from potential clerkships.
Silberman is a well known and respected jurist, nationally. His words could have consequences. But, why does Yale allow this and not suspend the students involved?
“
JOHN SEXTON, HotAir, 3/17/22
Earlier this month a group of student protesters shut down a scheduled speech at UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco by Ilya Shapiro. After about 30 minutes of rude interruptions, Shapiro gave up and the event was canceled. The school sent out a notice reminding students that shouting down speakers violated the school’s code of conduct but no one was ever punished for those violations. Last week there was a similar attempt to use the heckler’s veto during a panel at Yale Law School on the topic of free speech.
The March 10 panel, which was hosted by the Yale Federalist Society, featured Monica Miller of the progressive American Humanist Association and Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative nonprofit that promotes religious liberty. Both groups had taken the same side in a 2021 Supreme Court case involving legal remedies for First Amendment violations. The purpose of the panel, a member of the Federalist Society said, was to illustrate that a liberal atheist and a conservative Christian could find common ground on free speech issues…
When a professor at the law school, Kate Stith, began to introduce Waggoner, the protesters, who outnumbered the audience members, rose in unison, holding signs that attacked ADF. The nonprofit has argued—and won—several Supreme Court cases establishing religious exemptions from civil rights laws, most famously Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2018.
As they stood up, the protesters began to antagonize members of the Federalist Society, forcing Stith to pause her remarks. One protester told a member of the conservative group she would “literally fight you, bitch,” according to audio and video obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The Free Beacon published a 2 minute video (see below) showing the Yale law professor, Kate Stith, reminding the protesters of the school’s commitment to free speech and telling them to “grow up.” As you’ll see that brought a big reaction from the student protesters. But Stith didn’t back down, warning the protesters that if the disruption continued she would ask the students to leave or “help you leave.” Stith then told them they could wait quietly in the hallway or they could sit down and listen to the speakers.
The students did leave the room but once gathered in the hallway the Beacon reports they “began to stomp, shout, clap, sing, and pound the walls.” The noise created a disturbance for other students in the same building and once the event was over the participants had some difficulty leaving because the protesters were crowded into the only exit. A couple days after the panel ended, several hundred students signed a letter criticizing the school for allowing police to respond to the protest. Students complained one of the officers event touched someone.
The safety of a large contingent of YLS students—a group of largely LGBTQ and BIPOC students—was put at risk, possibly by our own administration. The risk was not just hypothetical: one of the officers called into SLB went as far as to try to move a trans student by physically pushing against them with his much larger body, despite the fact that the student was standing where OSA representatives had asked them to stand. Thankfully, an administrator asked the police officer to step away from the student, but this moment is one example of how inviting police onto campus could escalate beyond the administration’s control…
We urge YLS to change any policies or practices that invite police officers onto our campus in response to peaceful student protests. We also ask that the administration, in collaboration with students, work to build explicit policy that such a response is unwarranted, regardless of who summons police officers.
The mob does not want any authority called in to deal with their behavior no matter what they do. Kristen Waggoner, the ADF attorney told the Beacon, “We must change course and restore a culture of free speech and civil discourse at Yale and other law schools, or the future of the legal profession in America is in dire straits.” FIRE put out a tweet thread today agreeing the disruptions of the panel were not defensible.
As FIRE pointed out, shouting down a scheduled speaker is not free speech, though in this case the event appears to have been disrupted but not completely canceled like the Ilya Shapiro event mentioned above.
And apparently at least one judge agrees that these students, allegedly the top law students in the country, have crossed a line. DC Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman sent an email to every federal judge in the country suggesting that students involved in last week’s Yale protest might not be suitable candidates for clerkships.
The latest events at Yale Law School, in which students attempted to shout down speakers participating in a panel discussion on free speech, prompt me to suggest that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted. All federal judges—and all federal judges are presumably committed to free speech—should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified from potential clerkships.
This is certainly one way to get the attention of individual law students who may also be thinking about their future ambitions.
