Stanford University law students back in early March invited US Fifth Circuit Court Judge Kyle Duncan to speak at the University. As Jim H...
Stanford University law students back in early March invited US Fifth Circuit Court Judge Kyle Duncan to speak at the University.
As Jim Hoft reported, the whole thing was a setup. Once Duncan arrived, the Marxist students shut down his speech and threatened his children while school officials watched.
The students were furious that Duncan refused to allow a transgender pedophile named Norman Keith Varner to change his name to Kathrine Nicole Jett.
The harassment and danger to Duncan became so pronounced that Federal Marshals stepped in and removed Duncan from the building.
Judge Duncan later told The Free Beacon, “If enough of these kids get into the legal profession, the rule of law will descend into barbarism.”
Now two of his fellow judges have decided to take steps to ensure these spoiled brats do not have this opportunity.
The Free Beacon exclusively reported Saturday that U.S. Circuit Court Judges James Ho and Elizabeth Branch have decided they will no longer hire students from the woke law school.
Ho made the epic announcement in a Saturday evening speech to the Texas Review of Law and Politics.
We will not hire any student who chooses to attend Stanford Law School in the future.
The Free Beacon has more:
Ho’s announcement is the latest and most dramatic effort to hold Stanford accountable for its treatment of Fifth Circuit appellate judge Kyle Duncan, who was shouted down by hundreds of students—and berated by Stanford diversity dean Tirien Steinbach—when he spoke at the law school last month. The students called Duncan “scum,” asked why he couldn’t “find the cl*t,” and screamed, “We hope your daughters get raped.”
Though Steinbach is on leave, Stanford has ruled out disciplining the hecklers, who by Stanford’s own admission violated the school’s free speech policy.
“Rules aren’t rules without consequences,” Ho said. “And students who practice intolerance don’t belong in the legal profession.”
Calling the disruption an act of “intellectual terrorism,” Ho argued that Duncan’s treatment reflects “rampant” viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.
“How do we know everyone’s views will be protected,” he asked, “if everyone’s views aren’t represented?”
No comments