Stanford President and Law- School Dean Apologize to Judge Duncan

I ’m pleased to break the news that Stanford chairman Marc Tessier- Lavigne and Stanford law academy doyen Jenny Martinez have issued a common letter of reason to Judge Kyle Duncan for the violations of university programs on speech that disintegrated his talk on Thursday

We write to apologize for the dislocation of your recent speech at Stanford Law School. As has formerly been communicated to our community, what happed was inconsistent with our programs on free speech, and we're veritably sorry about the experience you had while visiting our lot.

In an egregious reference to DEI doyen Tirien Steinbach’s crazy six- nanosecond scolding of Duncan, their letter observes that “staff members who should have executed university programs failed to do so, and rather interposed in unhappy ways that aren't aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech. ”

I asked Judge Duncan for comment and have entered this response from him

I appreciate entering Stanford President Marc Tessier- Lavigne’s and Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez’s written reason for the dislocation of my speech at the law academy. I'm pleased to accept their reason. I particularly appreciate the reason’s important acknowledgment that “staff members who should have executed university programs failed to do so, and rather interposed in unhappy ways that aren't aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” Particularly given the depth of the vituperation directed towards me by the protestors, the directors’ geste was fully at odds with the law academy’s charge of training future members of the bench and bar.

He added, I hope an analogous reason is proffered to the persons in the Stanford law academy community most harmed by the mob action the members of the Federalist Society who courteously invited me to lot. Such an reason would also be a useful step towards restoring the law academy’s broader commitment to the numerous, numerous scholars at Stanford who, while not members of the Federalist Society, nevertheless welcome robust debate on lot.

Eventually, the reason promises to take way to make sure this kind of dislocation doesn't do again. Given the disturbing nature of what happed, easily concrete and comprehensive way are necessary. I look forward to learning what measures Stanford plans to take to restore a culture of intellectual freedom.

1. Late history autumn, Martinez transferred a statement to Stanford law scholars.( I copy her statement in two corridor from a post by David Lat.) As I noted in a tweet thread history evening, there was a lot that was missing from Martinez’s statement. Why did Stanford president Tessier- Lavigne subscribe the reason to Duncan, rather than just leave it to Martinez to do so? One egregious possibility is that he was dissatisfied with her reason- mongering for Steinbach and didn’t trust her to issue a proper reason.
2. The letter of reason is veritably tepid in its assertion that Stanford is “taking way to insure that commodity like this doesn't be again.” We shall see what steps Stanford actually takes. Firing Steinbach would be a good first step.

Steinbach constantly said she was" uncomfortable" by the wrathfulness caused by Duncan's presence, though she sided with the scholars, telling Duncan while she" wholeheartedly" ate him because she believes in free speech, his speech was" contemptuous" and" dangerous" and" literally denies the humanity of people."

She went on to question whether the University's pronounced commitment to free speech was worth" the pain that this causes and the division that this causes."

“You have commodity so incredibly important to say about Twitter and ordnance and COVID, also that's worth this impact and the division.... When I say is the juice worth the squeeze that is what I am asking. Is this worth it?" she challenged Duncan.