The Future Lawyers of America?

Lawyers are trained to be able to argue both sides of an issue.  But today's law students cannot tolerate hearing a viewpoint that is contrary to their own.  Having gone from college to law school, it appears that they still need their safe spaces.

On March 10, at Yale University Law School, there was a debate, almost, over civil liberties.  On the conservative side was someone from the Alliance Defending Freedom, and on the liberal side was someone from the American Humanist Association.  However, a mob of about 100 students not only refused to listen, they also did not want anyone interested to be able to listen.  One protester allegedly said to the conservative speaker that she would "literally fight you, bitch."  Ultimately, both speakers had to be escorted out by the police for safety reasons.

Lawyers are sworn to defend the Constitution.  The last time I looked, the First Amendment right to speech is still in there.  Judge Laurence Silberman, of the D.C. Court of Appeals, suggested that all federal judges should take note of who those protesters were and then consider if they should be disqualified for a clerkship.  

One letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal asked:  "Who is teaching these students, and what are they teaching them?"  But the best letter was as follows:  "As a second-generation alumnus of the Berkeley free-speech movement (after my sister, who was present when Mario Savio gave his famous extemporaneous speech), I never thought I'd be to the right of a Journal editorial....The disruptive students should be expelled."  I dare say little chance of that, with the weak and woke administrators at so many colleges and universities.  

On the opposite end of the country was a March 1 scheduled event at the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco.  Lawyer and author Ilya Shapiro was scheduled to speak about his recent book, "Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court."  Before his scheduled talk, Mr. Shapiro had Tweeted in opposition to President Biden's approach to replacing Justice Breyer - it has to be a black woman.  (Which, as an aside, look how well that approach has worked with our VP.)  

In any event, Mr. Shapiro opined that Judge Sri Srinivasan would be the best candidate, with the best qualifications.  Judge Srinivasan sits on the D.C. Court of Appeals.  Shapiro did not think Biden should limit his choices to "black women."  Judge Srinivasan is male, and was born in India.  Shapiro Tweeted that Biden should not pick a "lesser black woman."  Could Shapiro have expressed himself better?  Sure.  And he deleted his Tweet and apologized for his "inartful choice of words."  But he stands by his opinion as to who the best nominee would be.  

But it was too late.  Of course.  Dozens of students at the school "canceled" his speech.  Shapiro:  "They screamed obscenities and physically confronted me, several times getting in my face or blocking my access to the lectern, and they shouted down a dean."  Mr. Shapiro was due to start a new position at Georgetown Law School's Center for the Constitution.  Not surprisingly, Georgetown placed him on a paid leave pending an "investigation."  

There was a letter to the editor by a professor who said he was the only professor in the room where Mr. Shapiro was scheduled to speak.  He described Shapiro's Tweet as "plainly racist in effect, regardless of intent."  Not at all, if by "lesser" Shapiro meant less qualified.  And, of course, he referenced "black woman" because Biden did!  Sounds to me like the professor is saying there was no reason to allow Shapiro an opportunity to explain himself.  And this professor made multiple excuses for the disruptive behavior of some of the students.  "The message of the protesters has finally been heard."  Finally?  Were they prevented from speaking beforehand?

And:  "I support my students, from all perspectives in engaged student activism."  Really?  I bet he would not support students shouting him down in each of his classes.  Would he walk out?  Fail everyone if he was unable to teach?  Then this professor adds this incredibly insulting and ridiculous comment:  "Constitutional law is murky, inconsistent, and unsettled as to what messages and techniques of expression have priority when two conflict."  It's a law school!  Do you want students to learn, or scream at one another and at speakers with whom they disagree?  Just incredibly stupid.

But in case you are wondering how these law school students at Yale and UC Hastings got the idea that it is okay to shout down viewpoints that upset them, pay attention to this professor, and the woke/weak administrators at Georgetown.