Stanford Law dean won’t cave to woke mob, spells out the school’s ‘next steps’

Stanford Law School responded to the “disruption” caused on campus when progressive students shouted down a conservative judge invited to speak, saying that ” continuing outside attention” prompted a timely response.

In a 10-page letter dated Wednesday, the law school’s dean, Jenny Martinez, addressed the incident and “why I apologized to Judge Duncan, why I stand by that apology, and why the protest violated the university’s policy on disruption.” It was also reported that Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Tirien Steinbach who joined students in their protest, is evidently now on leave.

“This message is unusually lengthy; because we are a law school and these issues are core to our educational mission, I explain some of my reasoning in quite a bit more detail than I would for a general audience. I also recognize that what I share below will not please everyone,” Martinez wrote, stressing that “our commitment to diversity and inclusion means that we must protect the expression of all views.”

Martinez explained that while protests are allowed on the campus, per free speech rights, disruptions are not. She went on to address several other issues before offering “Next Steps.”

The leftist students attacked Trump-appointed US Circuit Court Judge Kyle Duncan and were joined by the law school dean who later apologized for doing so.

Martinez noted in her letter that Steinbach “is currently on leave. Generally speaking, the university does not comment publicly on pending personnel matters, and so I will not do so
at this time.”

Meanwhile, the Stanford law students who shouted down the judge and published the names of students in the Federalist Society online are now demanding that Washington Free Beacon journalist Aaron Sibarium remove their names from his reporting.

(Video Credit: Fox News)

Evidently, a board member of the Stanford National Lawyers Guild hypocritically proceeded to send an email to Sibarium demanding that he remove her name as well as those of other students from his reporting because it was somehow threatening and dangerous.

“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,” Sibarium tweeted.

“One of the board members, Lily Bou, demanding that we remove her name and those of her classmates. ‘Listing our names serves no purpose other than to invite abuse and harassment,’ she wrote in an email. I wonder what purpose the posters of the fedsoc board served,” he added.

The intrepid reporter was just getting warmed up.

“‘You do not have our permission to reference or quote any portion of this email in a future piece,’ she added. Needless to say, that’s not how the First Amendment works,” Sibarium wrote.

“We’ve gotten similar complaints about publishing images—pulled from social media—of Stanford Law School dean Jenny Martinez’s classroom, which protesters covered end to end in flyers after she issued an apology to Judge Duncan,” he continued.

The law student then got a lesson in her own vocation.

“We received a note from Mary Cate Hickman demanding that we ‘anonymize the face of the student in the red hoodie’ because ‘California is a two-party consent state, and you have no right to publish this student’s identity/likeness/face without consent,'” the Washington Free Beacon journalist recounted.

“As we explain in our editorial: ‘California is a two-party consent state for the recording of oral communications, not photographs, and even that only pertains to situations in which there is a presumption of privacy,'” he schooled her.

“From our editorial: ‘What’s eminently clear from the drama unfolding in Palo Alto is that while Stanford law students may be the vanguard of an anti-constitutional revolution, they don’t know much about the law,'” Sibarium noted.

“‘Where Stanford has failed to educate them in the limits of privacy and the rights of a free press, we will endeavor to fill the void with our continuing coverage of this ugly affair,'” he epically concluded.

The twisted take by the students at Stanford is that silencing the free speech of others is somehow free speech in itself.

The school’s chapter of the National Lawyers Guild papered the hallways prior to Judge Duncan’s arrival with the names and photographs of the Federalist Society’s board members, according to the Free Beacon. When they were named in reporting they claimed it violated their privacy.

In her letter Wednesday, Martinez said “a more detailed and explicit policy with clear protocols for dealing with disruptions would better protect the rights of speakers and also those who wish to exercise their right to protest within permissible bounds, and is something we will seek to adopt and educate students and staff on going forward.”

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles