The Fiasco At Stanford Law

An interview with Judge Duncan.

An apology isn’t sufficient. Both the students and the dean should be punished, and in the latter case, the punishment should be firing.

[Update a few minutes later]

OK, apparently the inmates are still running the asylum there.

[Update a while later]

The Stanford Review: Fire Tieren Steinbach.

Yes, though the students should be sanctioned somehow also.

[Thursday-morning update]

Thoughts on mob censorship.


[Update a while later]

Separating the juice from the pulp at Stanford Law.

[Update late morning]

There are no heroes here.

6 thoughts on “The Fiasco At Stanford Law”

  1. Were by happenstance Judge Duncan to have learned something during that bizarre “exchange of views” from an accredited Dean would he be liable for Stanford tuition?

    1. I don’t know which is worse: a dean of a law school belittling a federal judge, or using a quote from a movie about a h0rny teenager living next door to a pr0n star to do it.

      (Versions of the quote “Was the juice worth the squeeze?” featured prominently in the movie ‘The Girl Next Door’, a 2004 coming of age flick that was definitely representative of its time in pop culture; see also: American Pie, Road Trip, Old School, etc.)

      1. I have to admit, the line did remind me of a lyric from The Lemon Song by Led Zep. But then again I’m an antique…

  2. Oberlin got into legal trouble because the administration helped the Democrat protesters. Looks like the administration at Stanford did as well. Maybe the judge can find a legal route to punish them.

    1. I think there was also substantial defamation in the case of Oberlin. Here, the judge probably isn’t going to be significantly setback by what was said against him at Stanford. He’s not losing business or having to deal with harm to his reputation.

      He traveled to Stanford and was treated rudely by a bunch of idiots, backed by administrators who were just as intelligent. There’s not much actionable in that.

Comments are closed.