Yale
Law
School
has
spent
the
last
few
years
patting
itself
on
the
back
for
inviting
hate
group
representatives
to
campus
and
folding
with
alacrity
whenever
grandstanding
politicians
play
the
school
for
chumps.
It’s
not
so
much
that
the
school
offers
a
ready
platform
for
bigotry
—
that’s
within
its
rights
—
but
that
the
institution
so
enthusiastically
squelches
the
rights
of
protesters
exercising
their
speech
rights
within
existing
time,
place,
and
manner
restrictions.
Free
speech,
as
a
concept,
exists
to
protect
the
speakers
who
don’t
have
a
university-supplied
stage.
Recasting
it
as
a
top-down
right
for
the
privileged
guest
to
speak
AT
an
audience
of
silent
receptacles
perverts
the
freedom
into
an
authoritarian
obligation
to
silence
marginalized
viewpoints.
Orwellian
is
an
overused
term,
but
“shut
up
and
listen
to
your
betters
exercise
their
freedom
to
speak
or
ELSE
there
will
be
discipline”
fits
that
bill.
Anyway,
the
next
opportunity
for
the
law
school’s
feckless
leadership
to
curry
favor
with
the
MAGA
movement
seems
right
around
the
corner…
Of
course.
The
University
of
Pennsylvania
mildly
sanctioned
law
professor
Amy
Wax
after
years
of
looking
the
other
way
as
she
wrote
opinion
columns
about
how
white
culture
is
superior,
publicly
claimed
Penn
Law’s
Black
students
weren’t
passing
in
the
top
half
of
the
law
school
class,
said
the
country
would
be
better
off
with
fewer
Asians,
and
inviting
white
supremacists
to
speak
to
her
class.
All
of
which
she
basically
admitted
during
the
inquiry,
though
she
fought
it
anyway
suggesting
that
“academic
freedom”
protected
her
doing
all
of
this
without
ever
exposing
it
to
a
hint
of
scholarly
rigor.
She
cites
Wikipedia
if
you
want
to
understand
how
much
“academic”
goes
into
her
brand
of
“academic
freedom.”
Is
there
much
of
anything
she
can
say
that
enriches
the
discourse?
No.
But
that’s
not
important.
Yale
Law
Republicans
are
bringing
her
to
chat
because,
for
right-wing
students
looking
to
get
ahead,
trolling
is
the
coin
of
the
realm.
The
“serious”
professionals
who
will
ultimately
set
these
students
on
a
path
to
success
aren’t
interested
in
a
sheepish
bookworm
with
conservative
leanings,
they
want
candidates
willing
to
throw
bombs
in
school.
All
that
can
be
swept
under
the
rug
at
a
future
confirmation
hearing
as
the
excesses
of
youth.
But
what
the
conservative
legal
movement
cannot
countenance
is
another
David
Souter
who
quietly
excelled
in
school
while
expressing
a
vague
preference
for
lower
taxes.
THAT
MAN
WAS
UNRELIABLE!
Someone
willing
to
wear
anti-Trans
shirts
on
Trans
Day
of
Visibility?
That’s
a
true
believer
right
there.
Plus,
the
older,
more
serious
conservatives
privately
find
all
the
baseless
cruelty
super
funny.
And
it
sets
up
another
situation
where
students
can
exert
their
dominance
over
the
administration.
Like
Donald
Trump
putting
up
Yale
Law
grad
J.D.
Vance
despite
Vance’s
never-Trump
past,
the
joy
is
in
the
submission.
The
fun
is
in
students
getting
the
law
school
to
bully
other
students
who
might
show
up
to
ask
pointed
questions
or
picket
the
building.
Which
the
school
has
shown
itself
happy
to
do
out
of
fear
that
they
might
not
appropriately
silence
their
students
to
the
liking
of
a
Fifth
Circuit
feeder
judge
out
there.
When
Yale
Law
infamously
had
an
event
with
recognized
hate
group
Alliance
Defending
Freedom,
the
rules
allowed
two
warnings
for
in-room
disruptions
before
penalty
—
to
ensure
the
protest
was
meaningful
and
heard
—
and
the
protesters
took
their
warnings
before
leaving
the
room
to
picket.
That’s
actually
a
pretty
good
policy!
And
it’s
a
policy
that
conservative
judges
and
the
right-wing
media
turned
into
a
public
grievance
as
“broken”
for
its
lack
of
enforced
servility.
People
routinely
(and
cynically)
screw
up
the
concept
of
the
Heckler’s
Veto.
It
doesn’t
mean
“speakers
should
be
protected
from
heckling”
but
rather
“authorities
can’t
use
a
hypothetical
protest
as
an
excuse
to
silence
a
speaker.”
To
that
end,
conservative
groups
have
trapped
schools
in
a
sort
of
reverse
Heckler’s
Veto,
platforming
controversial
speakers
for
the
express
purpose
of
making
the
school
silence
a
protest.
Which
will
keep
happening
until
schools
embrace
well-vetted
standards
allowing
controversial
speakers
while
simultaneously
respecting
the
right
to
protest
free
of
administration
threats
and
intimidation.
Ideally
by
affirmatively
protecting
the
right
to
protest
with
restrictions
that
allow
it
to
be
heard
without
being
disruptive.
But
that
might
be
a
bridge
to
far
for
their
clerkship
numbers.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
Chris
