Protest at Stanford Law School: Were Protestors Justified?

Written By: Humza Mohsin

Edited By: Janakiram Rajaraman

San Francisco Chronicle

Is anger ever an appropriate response to vicious behavior? As civilized societies evolved, so did institutions to resolve anger-driven conflicts; conflict resolution implies precisely that—resolution. It's a form of agreement or some common ground.

Today, common grounds seem rare, and an event at Stanford Law School exemplified this scarcity. On March 9th, 2023, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan was scheduled to speak to Stanford's chapter of the Federalist Society. But before he could give his remarks, a group of students protested the speech. One student filmed the encounter for about 9 minutes, and the video has circulated on Twitter and several news organizations.

The video captures an angry crowd expressing their disgust towards Duncan in light of his argument that opposed same-sex marriage earlier in his career and others in which he was involved. After initial shouts and heckles, Judge Duncan can be seen asking for an administrator to control the room so he can speak. Per his request, an administrator stepped up to the podium. But, instead of asking students to show respect or leave the event, the administrator offered a written statement that reconciled the First Amendment right of the students to protest Duncan's former views. She added that Duncan also had a First Amendment right to share his views. She explained that just like the students were here to learn from the appellate judge, Judge Duncan could also take advantage of an opportunity to see through partisanship to learn from the student body before him. After the Dean's speech, Duncan attempted a question-and-answer session with the remaining students but shortly exited after protests persisted.

Ultimately, Judge Duncan found the protests inappropriate. According to an account by Duncan with the Wall Street Journal, student comments were vulgar and improper for respected newspapers. He added that one student shouted that they hoped Duncan's daughters would get raped, which is egregious, indecent, and unacceptable. What Duncan found most troublesome about this event was the professionalism, or lack thereof. The Federalist Society retains the right to hold events if they align with Stanford's code of conduct and administrative approval. Considering that Stanford permitted the event, it was confusing when they allowed the intense protests to persist, especially when the administrators admired students as they threw insults at the guest.

The remainder of Judge Duncan's Wall Street Journal log consisted of several arguments: Stanford should have brought order to the event instead of encouraging the profanities, the nature of the protests was indicative of poor legal education, etc. But the final sentence of his account was compelling. He wrote this closing paragraph:

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior.

The final sentence is most profound: "Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior." Here, Judge Duncan justifies his opinions regarding the students, which to his credit, are fair in the context of Stanford's poor hospitality. But some students have found irony in this last sentence. The protestors' vicious behavior justified Judge Duncan's anger. But protestors also felt the same way towards Duncan. To the enraged students, their anger was a just response to Judge Duncan's 'vicious behavior' related to his decisions that affected minority groups, particularly those identifying as LGBTQIA+.

To clarify, the events at Stanford were uncivilized. Legal education in the United States is about the free flow of ideas and forming and presenting rational arguments. This situation may not have been as jarring if the protesters were not law students. For a school to host a figure, insult them, and prevent them from speaking, is rude and discourteous. Frankly, if the Stanford Law School administration knew that Judge Duncan's presence would give rise to such anger and was not prepared to have him speak at Stanford, then Duncan's event could have been canceled. Or, Stanford could have allowed him to speak.

Despite Duncan's controversies, it's difficult to argue against his philosophy about legal education. To bring such distasteful behavior into a civil arena illustrates an irrational encounter that lacks meaningful, progressive dialogue. The protesters were not forced to attend the event. They had the free will to boycott the event. But instead, they chose to intrude and cause disruption with their words. So it begs the question as to why it was necessary to protest the event in the first place. Overall, the protest achieved no resolution, no agreement, and angered students more when the Dean of the law school apologized to Duncan the next day.

[The views expressed in this article are those of the author and the author alone; they do not necessarily represent the views of all members of the RULR Editorial Board and Rutgers University]