Earlier this month, a cross-ideological, pro-free speech panel at Yale Law School, hosted by the conservative Federalist Society, descended into chaos when left-wing students disrupted the event and shouted down its participants. What has followed over subsequent days is a maelstrom of bickering over whether conservatives have exaggerated what happened – and whether the disruptors violated the university's free speech rules. The Washington Free Beacon laid out the basics last week:
More than 100 students at Yale Law School attempted to shout down a bipartisan panel on civil liberties, intimidating attendees and causing so much chaos that police were eventually called to escort panelists out of the building. 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...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.
In case you were concerned, for the purposes of "safety" and "Science," all members of the mob were dutifully masked as they derailed a civil liberties and free expression event. What a relief. Things then proceeded to careen off the rails:
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. With the fracas intensifying, Stith reminded the students of Yale's free speech policies, which bar any protest that "interferes with speakers' ability to be heard and of community members to listen." When the protesters heckled her in response—several with their middle fingers raised—she told them to "grow up," according to video of the event obtained by the Free Beacon. The comment elicited jeers from the protesters, who began shouting at the panelists and insisting that the disturbance was "free speech." Eventually, Stith told them that if the noise continued, "I'm going to have to ask you to leave, or help you leave.">The protesters proceeded to exit the event—one of them yelled "F*ck you, FedSoc" on his way out—but congregated in the hall just outside.
Then they began to stomp, shout, clap, sing, and pound the walls, making it difficult to hear the panel. Chants of "protect trans kids" and "shame, shame" reverberated throughout the law school. The din was so loud that it disrupted nearby classes, exams, and faculty meetings, according to students and a professor who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Ellen Cosgrove, the associate dean of the law school, was present at the panel the entire time. Though the cacophony clearly violated Yale's free speech policies, she did not confront any of the protesters. At times, things seemed in danger of getting physical. The protesters were blocking the only exit from the event, and two members of the Federalist Society said they were grabbed and jostled as they attempted to leave.
An account from Yale's student newspaper downplayed the events, leading to claims from progressives that the Free Beacon's reporting was overly dramatic and inaccurate. But others have confirmed the WFB's explanation, including an attorney who's publicly covered the incident, and a Yale Law School student who was in attendance. Via John Sexton's useful and comprehensive write up:
2/ It wasn't just the event that was disrupted.
— David Lat (@DavidLat) March 18, 2022
Classes were disrupted too, including Federal Courts (Judith Resnik) and Advanced Legal Writing (Rob Harrison).
The latter was in Room 121—the room farthest away from Room 127, where the event took place.
No bias here. The exchange with Prof Stith happened. Protestors left to chant in the hallway. Then re-entered en masse. Asked about 5-6 questions interrupting the speaker several times. Left en masse chanting. Chanted in the hallway til it ended. I could not hear due to the noise
— Jimmy Byrn (@JimmyByrn) March 18, 2022
"Students in Federal Courts [class], across the hall from the event, reported that 'the floor was shaking' and Professor Resnik asked on-call students to 'yell' so they could be heard over the din," Lat also reported. Here is an example of how loud the screaming and pounding was during the discussion, as the conversation was drowned out by shrieking elite law students standing just outside the room (language warning):
One prominent federal judge was so disgusted by the episode that he suggested appeals court judges should consider declining to grant coveted clerkships to any student who is documented as participating in an anti-speech tantrum: "The latest events at Yale Law School in which students attempted to shout down speakers participating in a panel discussion on free speech prompts 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 for potential clerkships," he wrote in a missive to colleagues. "That should get some attention at Yale and other law schools. The woke young men and women might not care about the First Amendment, but they care about their careers," the Wall Street Journal editorial board agreed. The issue here is less the granular details of this particular confrontation, but rather the blinkered, bullying culture that now dominates at one of the nation's most (traditionally) prestigious law schools – and elsewhere, increasingly, within this realm.
On this point, Bari Weiss published a lengthy report by a journalist who details the hardcore left's aggressive project of "institutional capture" within American Law. Weiss writes the following, introducing the report: "We have covered the ongoing saga of how America’s most important institutions have been transformed by an illiberal ideology—and have come to betray their own missions. Medicine. Hollywood. Education. The reason we exist is because of the takeover of newspapers like The New York Times." The Times, incidentally, has been roiled by even more drama in recent days, facing withering and ridiculous criticism for printing a few opinion pieces critical of cancel culture, outrage mobs, and environments that breed censorship. That illiberal mentality is bleeding over into, and starting to consume, American law schools. Aaron Sibarium, writing at Weiss' Common Sense, reports:
Professors say it is harder to lecture about cases in which accused rapists are acquitted, or a police officer is found not guilty of abusing his authority. One criminal law professor at a top law school told me he’s even stopped teaching theories of punishment because of how negatively students react to retributivism—the view that punishment is justified because criminals deserve to suffer. “I got into this job because I liked to play devil’s advocate,” said the tenured professor, who identifies as a liberal. “I can’t do that anymore. I have a family.” Other law professors—several of whom asked me not to identify their institution, their area of expertise, or even their state of residence—were similarly terrified. Nadine Strossen, the first woman to head the American Civil Liberties Union and a professor at New York Law School, told me: “I massively self-censor. I assume that every single thing that is said, every facial gesture, is going to be recorded and potentially disseminated to the entire world. I feel as if I am operating in a panopticon.” This has all come as a shock to many law professors, who had long assumed that law schools wouldn’t cave to the new orthodoxy. At a Heterodox Academy panel discussion in December 2020, Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy said that, until recently, he’d thought that fears of law schools becoming illiberal—shutting down unpopular views or voices—had been overblown. “I’ve changed my mind,” said Kennedy...“I think that there really is a big problem.”
This Great Wokening is not limited to the academy. It's infecting major law firms...:
The idea that lawyers can’t be neutral, that confronting injustice must supersede all else, has eroded the norm that legal representation—like the ability to obtain medical care or buy a train ticket—is something every American deserves. “Partners are being blindsided by associates who they think are liberals in their own image,” an attorney in Washington, D.C., told me. “But they’re not. The associates want to burn the place down.” Lawyers at top law firms in New York, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles said they fret constantly about saying the wrong thing—or taking on the wrong client. “It’s much worse than McCarthyism,” Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law, told me. “McCarthyism was a reflection of dying, old views. They were not the future. But the people today who are imposing litmus tests for who they represent—they are the future.”
...And could impact the survival of core fundamentals of our legal system itself:
In 2019, for example, the American Bar Association nearly passed a motion urging state legislatures and courts to adopt a new definition of “consent” in cases of sexual misconduct that would flip the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused—despite fierce criticism of the standard from legal scholars, and despite some evidence that it has unfairly hurt black, male students on college campuses. The motion was expected to pass but failed at the last minute, after key attorneys withdrew their support. Even so, nearly 40 percent of ABA delegates voted for it. This sort of progressive carceralism isn’t confined to sexual assault. After the Rittenhouse verdict, in November, some left-wing legal scholars zeroed in on the definition of “self-defense.”
This is why merely chuckling and rolling eyes at woke excesses does not meet the danger of the moment. A relatively small number of fanatics are trying to uproot our culture and transform our institutions in their own deeply illiberal image. They must be opposed – actively, persistently and repeatedly. I'll leave you with this point – that those who deny the clear and growing problem are almost always safely ensconced within the 'right-thinking' tribe, or fear their retribution:
Also, if you’re unfailingly comfortable voicing most of your opinions, awesome! But consider whether that might be bc most of them hew very closely to everyone’s around you, not bc there’s no problem. There’s usually a cost to being ideological weirdo in the room, & it is rising. https://t.co/Pnv7P3pqq1
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) March 19, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member