Wokeism is Doomed

[grarpamp]

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness
https://twitter.com/LibsOfTikTok

Stanford in the news for censorship and fuckery again...


Stanford Students Demand Journalist Remove Their Names From Stories...
After Targeting Other Students By Name

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is an interesting development in the controversy at Stanford Law
School where U.S. Circuit Court Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down by
law students and condemned by a law school dean for discussing his
conservative judicial views.

Student protesters reportedly published the names of students in the
Federalist Society online as part of their cancel campaign.

However, Aaron Sibarium, a journalist for the Washington Free Beacon
has said that a board member of the Stanford National Lawyers Guild,
sent an email demanding the Free Beacon remove her name and those of
other students from their reporting because it is threatening and
dangerous.

Sibarium tweeted that “On Sunday, I identified board members of the
Stanford National Lawyers Guild–one of the groups responsible for the
posters–who in a public statement described the protest as ‘Stanford
Law School at its best.’ A few hours later, the board demanded I
redact their names.”

It was a highly ironic moment to be sure. However, I am more
interested in another aspect of the controversy. I wrote earlier about
the joint apology letter of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne
and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez. Neither Tessier-Lavigne nor
Martinez promise to hold these students accountable or to sanction
Steinbach. They merely express regret that “staff members who should
have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead
intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the
university’s commitment to free speech.”

This latest controversy highlights the fact that the identity of some
of these students (including those on videotape) who disrupted a
speaker at the law school are known to the school.

In this case, it was a federal appellate judge but we have seen this
type of “deplatforming” at other schools.

These students — and many faculty — voice a twisted view that
silencing the free speech of others is a form of free speech.

A chilling poll was released by 2021 College Free Speech Rankings
after questioning a huge body of 37,000 students at 159 top-ranked
U.S. colleges and universities. It found that sixty-six percent of
college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from
speaking is a legitimate form of free speech.  Another 23 percent
believe violence can be used to cancel a speech. That is roughly one
out of four supporting violence.

They are getting these values from faculty members. Many schools have
largely purged their ranks of conservative and libertarian faculty.
This trend is supported by anti-free speech websites like Above the
Law where Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal
faculties” and argued that hiring a conservative professor is akin to
allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach. He also mocked surveys
showing that conservative students are fearful of speaking freely in
class, dismissing these students as “just… conservatives being sad
that everyone else makes fun of them.”

What is notable is that Martinez did not even pledge to hold students
accountable for stopping the speech by Judge Duncan. Yet, that is
still more than other law deans. When Professor Josh Blackman was
stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech” at CUNY
law school, CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting the
speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself
after using a controversial term in a meeting and resigned).

At the University of California, Santa Barbara, professors actually
rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates
and tore down their display.

These students have been raised from elementary schools to law school
in a speech phobic environment where free speech is treated as
harmful. That was evident in the disgraceful Stanford event.

Now, however, they want to be able to target others while objecting to
being named themselves. Much like the Yale law students who cancelled
an event and then objected to campus police being present, this
objection from Stanford law students illustrates the sense of
privilege and exceptionalism by many in the anti-free speech movement.

The focus, however, should not be on the hypocrisy of these students
but the passivity of the faculty. Unless students are held accountable
for preventing free speech on campus, the apologies from the President
and Dean are meaningless.