Stanford's Free Speech Crisis: Authoritarian Model Protects the Powerful, Silences Minority Students
A witness described Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan's visit to Stanford Law School as resembling a YouTuber storming the Capitol. He continued to film protestors, refused to answer questions, and insulted students. Yet, students jeered his every provocation, which created video clips casting him as the latest martyr of the "campus free speech crisis." Despite video evidence showing the context of the event, the Stanford administration apologized to Judge Duncan. It forced students into free speech re-education camps, where they were taught that "free speech" means quiet tut-tutting, preferably within the confines of their dorm rooms. The media praised Stanford's actions as a "stand for free speech," with headlines from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.
Misunderstanding "Heckler's Veto" and Scapegoating of Associate Dean Amplify Stanford's Free Speech Crisis
The model of "free speech" promoted in these stories is authoritarian, protecting the powerful from criticism, leaving minority students and their supporters as the losers. The goalpost is continuously shifting, making it impossible for their voices to be heard without being shut down. Yale students protesting against a representative of a hate group were criticized for not being respectful and asking thoughtful questions, while Stanford students who did just that were accused of "shouting down" a speaker. There seems to be no avenue for their voices to be heard without being silenced. Furthermore, the author points out that the term "heckler's veto" is often misused and misunderstood and that the school's associate dean of diversity, equity, and inclusion, Tirien Steinbach, was unfairly scapegoated for trying to deescalate the situation and promote good-faith discussion.
In these situations, minority students and their allies often lose out because the "free speech" model being promoted is an authoritarian, top-down approach that aims to protect the powerful from criticism. Examples include Yale students being scolded for protesting against a hate group representative and Stanford students being accused of "shouting down" a speaker when they asked thoughtful questions. There seems to be no way for their voices to be heard without being shut down.
In addition, the concept of the "heckler's veto" has been misconstrued by some, including those with law degrees like Martinez. As a legal concept, it refers to a law enforcement practice, particularly in the Jim Crow South, that would shut down civil rights protests with vague assertions that the rally might provoke a violent response. It's not about shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking.
Furthermore, the administration's response has led to real-world consequences for students and allies, including online abuse, physical threats, and even trucks displaying LED billboards with their faces on them. Fringe media has also been targeting them, encouraged by the administration's response.
As a result, Stanford's OutLaw and BLSA chapters have taken direct action, with the latter boycotting the school's recruiting efforts. They cannot, in good faith, participate in recruiting Black students into a community more concerned with appeasing wealthy, White conservative donors than promoting a student-focused, community-inspired legal education.
The situation at Stanford involves Judge Duncan being allowed to share his views but not wanting to avoid facing criticism from students. However, it was the administration that deemed questioning Judge Duncan's stance on misgendering to be unacceptable content and sought to suppress speech by introducing mandatory classes to deter protest. In doing so, the administration directed its power to suppress speech toward marginalized groups.
