(#7) “More disappointed than shocked”: Stanford student org pres on Woke college takeovers
Image by Wikimedia Commons
Continuing our annual tradition of listing our most popular stories of the year, here’s #7 (first posted 3.14): In March, Stanford students/a DEI admin aggressively heckled controversial guest speaker Judge Kyle Duncan, disrupting and cutting short his prepared talk. Tim Rosenberger, Jr., president of Stanford Law’s Federalist Society chapter, sat down with Opp Now for an exclusive breakdown of Stanford’s dangerously “comfort”-driven student/faculty culture—and his proposed steps to restore diverse thought to the revered university.
Opportunity Now: Several years ago, when angry students trashed UC Berkeley in anticipation of conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, many were—unfortunately—not surprised. Certain law schools like Yale’s are now commonly known as politically closed-minded.
But this recent incident at Stanford University shocked many, who expected more from this venerated institution and law school. Did it surprise you that something like this happened on your campus?
Tim Rosenberger, Jr.: Milo is a friend and, while he sometimes invites unthoughtful reactions from others, he is an incredibly smart and complicated thinker, particularly on issues of identity and faith. I hope that the nuance of his work comes to be more appreciated.
The law school is a particularly challenged place at Stanford. The entire campus is more committed to making students comfortable than to promoting the hard work of scholarly inquiry. As Benedict the XVI says, we are not called to comfort; we are called to greatness. I hope students and faculty will join me in the work of learning.
Sadly, I’m more disappointed than shocked. I worked very hard this year to build relationships with administrators and students with opposing viewpoints. None of those relationships mattered when it came time to take a stand for the Judge’s right to speak. It’s really disappointing and a reminder that there is a lot of work to be done.
ON: For First Amendment advocates, it was a welcome surprise to read Stanford president Tessier-Lavigne and law school dean Martinez’s formal apology to Judge Duncan this Monday. This was particularly surprising given how recent free speech controversies at law school student orgs have played out (looking at you, Yale).
Do you think the tide might be changing, in terms of public backlash to universities’ cancel culture responses?
TRJ: Law schools and the legal profession are realizing that they are creating an interlocking pipeline of incompetence run by, and creating, unserious people. The Dean’s letter was an important first step. I look forward to working with her to make this situation right. My sense is that America’s elite universities may be losing the public’s confidence.
ON: What changes do you hope to see at Stanford moving forward to ensure a safe and ideologically rigorous environment? In other words, is Stanford Law doomed to becoming just another progressive echo chamber, or do you see a way out?
TRJ: Stanford Law sees itself as different from all but a handful of other law schools. It doesn’t produce lawyers so much as judges, scholars, and policy makers. Consequently, it focuses less on teaching what the law is and how it can be used, and more on what the law “should” be. In this way, it operates somewhat like a godless progressive seminary, working to rally the faithful for lives of vocation. Stanford, like many failed wealthy seminaries, has the money to soldier on indefinitely.
Let’s hope for something better! Stanford needs to take three key changes to ensure its future. First, it needs to strongly commit to free speech. This means that people may have to accept discomfort and that stifling others, even unpopular others, results in consequences. Second, there needs to be real diversity of thought on the faculty. There are six originalists and three Trump appointees on the Supreme Court. There is one right of center legal scholar, and are no open Trump voters, on Stanford’s law faculty. Finally, admissions of students and hiring of faculty and administrators must be rigorous and based on quantified excellence, not activism.
ON: Federalist Society university chapters are no stranger to invited speakers being ambushed and aggressed via heckling. This incident wasn’t the first time and likely won’t be the last.
What keeps the Stanford FedSoc group going; what encourages you all amid an increasingly ideologically hostile culture?
TRJ: We have a great community—I have many lifelong friends from FedSoc, including folks who graduated three years ago. I am sustained by my faith. One assumes that being in the right is also invigorating!
Related:
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.