A tumultuous episode from Stanford Law School is bringing the issue of free speech into focus on campuses across the nation. An event featuring Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan seemed to quickly deteriorate from civil discourse to heated exchange.
It all began with a fairly commonplace phenomenon. Judge Duncan had been invited to speak at the law school, an episode that would oddly propel him into becoming a martyr of sorts, amidst recent discussions of campus free speech. Yet, the crux of the issue did not lie with typical “campus free speech” narratives, but rather with the absurdly chaotic ripple this event set off.
The subsequent disagreement between Judge Duncan and a group of students represents a hazardous blow to the concept of free speech. Despite this, it had been the law students, rather than the pertinent legal professionals, that were cast in the bad light by Stanford’s administrative decisions and actions.
The heart of this free speech crisis being blamed on students, however, is further compounded by its reflection on the skewed power dynamics fed by such assumptions. Overlooked in this flurry of blame aimed at the students was the fact that Judge Duncan consistently refused to answer questions from his audience. Instead, he snubbed civil questions, insulted student queries, and precipitated chaos, without taking any responsibility himself.
What this episode does succeed in, tragically, is setting a dangerous precedent for how the freedom of expression gets misconstrued. A worrying trend seems to be distorting this fundamental right as one defending the speaker from criticism. In reality, free speech should foster an environment conducive to productive exchanges on differences of opinions and viewpoints.
Moreover, this unfortunate incident brings to the fore a pressing question regarding the development of law students. What happens when their valid questions and concerns are dismissed? Does this not pose an actual threat to open discourse and free speech? And more importantly, does this not contradict the learning journey they have embarked on?
While the answer may not be apparent, it is clear that the problem lies deeper than simply branding students as “the issue”. For preserving open discourse and fostering robust legal minds, it is paramount that we acknowledge and respect each voice in discussions, be it a new law student or an experienced judge.