"At 26:53, one of the student demonstrators says, 'Ok, let's just let him finish his rant in complete silence so he can get that out and it can go into the newspaper or whatever. Just pointed silence until the Q&A.' Then the room fell completely silent. At this point, Judge Duncan abandoned his prepared remarks and jumped straight into the Q&A. This is important context because the tone of the conversation nationwide is that the student demonstrators never gave Duncan an opportunity to speak, which is not true. This is clear evidence of that, and the conversation is misleading without it. At the very least, it's worth mentioning in your timestamps because I think the narrative is incomplete without it."
The only way that universities are going to eliminate the heckler veto is to swiftly deal with those that disrupt these events. With out consequences the disruptions will continue and escalate. It is my understanding that the dean of the law school received somewhat similar treatment when attempting to teach her class. Simply for apologizing to the judge
If these students were suspended for the balance of the semester and the administrator was also suspended that would send a message that the behavior won’t be tolerated.
I started my career working as a counselor on an adolescent unit. If you don’t set and enforce limits you get bad behavior
David, I would like to thank you -- in all seriousness -- for your summary of this event. I would much rather read your detailed summary, which takes 3 minutes, than listen to this 41-minute horror show.
I understand Lat is getting it from all sides on this, though I think his summary understates the extent of the disruption. Just listen to the first 15 minutes. The judge starts in with very basic points, and someone is shouting out and interrupting the judge every few seconds, with the crowd loudly laughing or booing. I have no problem hearing what he is saying in the occasional moments when he is speaking without interruption. It’s just that the students shouted over him almost the whole time, even though there was nothing particularly offensive or controversial in the few remarks he made.
I do agree with Lat that the judge lost his judicial temperament after a while and decided to fight fire with fire, but honestly, I’m not sure I would have had the patience to continue speaking at all under similar circumstances. And he does try to respond by saying non-controversial things like, “You should treat people the way you want them to be treated,” and the students respond by cackling wildly and then double down with interruptions unrelated to what he’s saying - then shouting “answer the question” when he tries to continue with his remarks.
Then the dean like bizarrely eggs on the students and supports their actions. It’s so bizarre. She’s supposed to be the adult in the room, and she just joins in on this nonsense.
I have no idea whether this judge has issued offensive or unfair rulings, but this is just not an effective protest. The law students are behaving like toddlers.
I would write something, but Ken White did it better than I ever could. You already linked to his article. I am linking again here, for the reader's convenience.
Bottom line: Judge Duncan demonstrated that he was just as sophomoric as he contended the protesters were. Two things can be true at the same time. He was treated rudely and he acted abysmally in response. Only one person in that room was a federal judge.
I am very confused at your reference to the piece written by Ken White (Popehat) as "lefty bothsidesism". I've known Ken since 1991. I am quite confident he is a curmudgeon, not a "lefty".
I would be quite upset if someone said that my daughter should be raped. I also would want to live in a country where she had bodily autonomy. I know that she joins me in both of those concerns. I am also quite certain that I would not take out my anger on the person who made such an awful statement on other people who asked intellectually challenging questions, even if it had a long preamble. And I am not a federal judge.
Please enlighten me. What is the basis of your contention "Ken is a liberal"? I mean, I've only known him for 30 years and had deep philosophical discussions with him, so I may be missing something that you know. Please tell me what makes Ken White a "liberal" in your eyes.
So just to be clear, you made an assertion that Ken White is a liberal. I challenged you and you doubled down, writing "yes, Ken is a liberal" without citing any basis for that second assertion. I challenged you again, and you finally admitted that you were without any knowledge and were just spouting off.
You know as much about me as you do about Ken White. I certainly do not think that "literally anything is justified to win the culture wars." I think that taking down loudmouths with unsupported and ill-considered views is certainly justified.
Hard to imagine Judge Duncan deciding to sit by designation in a District Court. This performance indicates to me that he is trying to become the MAGA-darling of the Federalist group, so that he will get elevated to SCOTUS when there is next a GOP in the White House.
From a reader:
"At 26:53, one of the student demonstrators says, 'Ok, let's just let him finish his rant in complete silence so he can get that out and it can go into the newspaper or whatever. Just pointed silence until the Q&A.' Then the room fell completely silent. At this point, Judge Duncan abandoned his prepared remarks and jumped straight into the Q&A. This is important context because the tone of the conversation nationwide is that the student demonstrators never gave Duncan an opportunity to speak, which is not true. This is clear evidence of that, and the conversation is misleading without it. At the very least, it's worth mentioning in your timestamps because I think the narrative is incomplete without it."
The only way that universities are going to eliminate the heckler veto is to swiftly deal with those that disrupt these events. With out consequences the disruptions will continue and escalate. It is my understanding that the dean of the law school received somewhat similar treatment when attempting to teach her class. Simply for apologizing to the judge
If these students were suspended for the balance of the semester and the administrator was also suspended that would send a message that the behavior won’t be tolerated.
I started my career working as a counselor on an adolescent unit. If you don’t set and enforce limits you get bad behavior
David, I would like to thank you -- in all seriousness -- for your summary of this event. I would much rather read your detailed summary, which takes 3 minutes, than listen to this 41-minute horror show.
I understand Lat is getting it from all sides on this, though I think his summary understates the extent of the disruption. Just listen to the first 15 minutes. The judge starts in with very basic points, and someone is shouting out and interrupting the judge every few seconds, with the crowd loudly laughing or booing. I have no problem hearing what he is saying in the occasional moments when he is speaking without interruption. It’s just that the students shouted over him almost the whole time, even though there was nothing particularly offensive or controversial in the few remarks he made.
I do agree with Lat that the judge lost his judicial temperament after a while and decided to fight fire with fire, but honestly, I’m not sure I would have had the patience to continue speaking at all under similar circumstances. And he does try to respond by saying non-controversial things like, “You should treat people the way you want them to be treated,” and the students respond by cackling wildly and then double down with interruptions unrelated to what he’s saying - then shouting “answer the question” when he tries to continue with his remarks.
Then the dean like bizarrely eggs on the students and supports their actions. It’s so bizarre. She’s supposed to be the adult in the room, and she just joins in on this nonsense.
I have no idea whether this judge has issued offensive or unfair rulings, but this is just not an effective protest. The law students are behaving like toddlers.
I would write something, but Ken White did it better than I ever could. You already linked to his article. I am linking again here, for the reader's convenience.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/hating-everyone-everywhere-all-at
Bottom line: Judge Duncan demonstrated that he was just as sophomoric as he contended the protesters were. Two things can be true at the same time. He was treated rudely and he acted abysmally in response. Only one person in that room was a federal judge.
I am very confused at your reference to the piece written by Ken White (Popehat) as "lefty bothsidesism". I've known Ken since 1991. I am quite confident he is a curmudgeon, not a "lefty".
I would be quite upset if someone said that my daughter should be raped. I also would want to live in a country where she had bodily autonomy. I know that she joins me in both of those concerns. I am also quite certain that I would not take out my anger on the person who made such an awful statement on other people who asked intellectually challenging questions, even if it had a long preamble. And I am not a federal judge.
Please enlighten me. What is the basis of your contention "Ken is a liberal"? I mean, I've only known him for 30 years and had deep philosophical discussions with him, so I may be missing something that you know. Please tell me what makes Ken White a "liberal" in your eyes.
So just to be clear, you made an assertion that Ken White is a liberal. I challenged you and you doubled down, writing "yes, Ken is a liberal" without citing any basis for that second assertion. I challenged you again, and you finally admitted that you were without any knowledge and were just spouting off.
You know as much about me as you do about Ken White. I certainly do not think that "literally anything is justified to win the culture wars." I think that taking down loudmouths with unsupported and ill-considered views is certainly justified.
Hard to imagine Judge Duncan deciding to sit by designation in a District Court. This performance indicates to me that he is trying to become the MAGA-darling of the Federalist group, so that he will get elevated to SCOTUS when there is next a GOP in the White House.