NEW: Hundreds of Stanford students lined the halls yesterday to protest the law school’s dean, Jenny Martinez, for apologizing to Kyle Duncan, the judge shouted down last week.
Martinez arrived to the classroom where she teaches constitutional law to find a whiteboard covered in fliers attacking Duncan and defending those who disrupted him. The fliers parroted the argument, made by student activists, that the heckler’s veto is a form of free speech.
"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment.
When Martinez’s class adjourned, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited the room, according to five students who witnessed the episode.
The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school. And the majority of Martinez’s class—approximately 50 students out of the 60 enrolled—participated in the protest themselves.
The few who didn’t join the protesters received the same stare down as their professor as they hurried through the makeshift walk of shame.
"They gave us weird looks if we didn’t wear black" and join the crowd, said Luke Schumacher, a first-year law student in Martinez’s class.
"It didn’t feel like the inclusive, belonging atmosphere that the DEI office claims to be creating."
Another student in the class, who likewise declined to protest, said the spectacle was a surreal experience.
"It was eerie," the student said. "The protesters were silent, staring from behind their masks at everyone who chose not to protest, including the dean."
Ironically, the student added, "this form of protest would have been completely fine" at Duncan’s talk on Thursday.
This protest was even larger than the one that disrupted Duncan’s talk, and came on the heels of statements from at least three student groups rebuking Martinez’s apology.
The Stanford National Lawyers Guild said Saturday that Martinez had thrown "capable and compassionate administrators" under the bus. Stanford’s immigration law group issued a similar declaration Sunday, writing that Martinez’s apology to Duncan "only made this situation worse."
And Stanford Law School’s chapter of the American Constitution Society expressed outrage that Martinez and Tessier-Lavigne had framed Duncan "as a victim, when in fact he himself had made civil dialogue impossible."
The groups argued that the students who disrupted Duncan, in violation of Stanford’s free speech policies, were merely exercising their own free speech rights. That idea appears to be shared by Tirien Steinbach, the diversity dean who harangued Duncan.
In a conversation with students after the event, Steinbach claimed the hecklers hadn’t violated any law school policies, according to two people who witnessed the conversation.
She also alleged that Duncan hadn’t prepared a speech—a claim contradicted by video of the judge holding pages of pre-written remarks—and that he was a serial provocateur, belittling law students everywhere he's spoken in order to rile them up for the cameras.
Steinbach, who did not respond to a request for comment, laid the blame for the chaos entirely at Duncan’s feet, the people who witnessed the conversation said.
Martinez said at the start of her class that she had received a number of emails complaining about her apology to Duncan—which was co-signed by the president of Stanford—but told students they would not be litigating that dispute during Monday’s class.
After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: The Harvard Law Review axes 85% of pieces using a rubric that asks about "author diversity." It even axed a piece by an Asian scholar after editors complained that there were "not enough Black" authors.
We analyzed 500 new documents from HLR. What we found was shocking.🧵
The law review has insisted that it "does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece for publication."
But it screens out the vast majority of submissions using the following rubric:
40% of editors since 2024 have cited protected characteristics when lobbying for or against articles—at one point killing a piece by an Asian-American scholar, Alex Zhang, after an editor complained that "we have too many Yale JDs and not enough Black and Latino/Latina authors."
NEW: The Harvard Law Review retaliated against a student for allegedly leaking documents to yours truly—and demanded he request their destruction in the midst of three federal probes.
Now the journal is being accused of illegally interfering with a government investigation.🧵
The Justice Department told Harvard on May 13 it was investigating reports of race discrimination at the journal. A week later, the law review instructed a student who was cooperating with the DOJ investigation, Daniel Wasserman, to round up the documents he’d allegedly shared.
The journal told Wasserman to "[r]equest that any parties with whom you have shared Confidential Materials … delete or return them to The Review."
NEW: The Harvard Law Review put out a "factsheet" last week claiming the journal complies with Supreme Court precedent and does not select editors based on race.
We've obtained a trove of new evidence that casts doubt on both claims.🧵
The factsheet quotes from what it claims is the current policy for editor selection, which cites "Supreme Court guidance" and bars the consideration of race.
But when we showed this policy to three current and former editors at the journal, none of them were familiar with it.
The journal claimed the new policy had been adopted "this year." But as recently as May 4, HLR's online application packet said that the journal considers "all available information," including "racial or ethnic identity," to select editors from "a diverse set of backgrounds."
NEW: 44 of the nation’s largest law firms were hit with a discrimination complaint on Monday alleging that they use an outside staffing agency to hire interns based on race.
These are some of the same firms that pledged to end DEI hiring as part of their deals with Trump.🧵
The complaint, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, targets Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO), a nonprofit that places minority students at elite firms the summer before their first year of law school.
The paid internship often leads to a return offer the following summers, giving recipients an extraordinary leg up on their white peers.
EXCLUSIVE: The EEOC is investigating Harvard's faculty hiring practices after the school boasted online that it had increased the number of ‘women, non-binary, and/or people of color' on faculty—and decreased the number of white men.
The probe is based on Harvard's own data.🧵
The EEOC is sixth federal agency to launch a probe of Harvard. The investigation is based on materials from the school's website—many of them now deleted—in which Harvard bragged about increasing the number of "women, non-binary, and/or people of color" on faculty.
The largest increase was in the share of non-white tenure-track faculty, which rose by 37 percent between 2013 and 2023.
The majority of those new hires, Harvard noted in a 2023 report, had been made in the past year.
NEW: UCLA medical school was sued today for discriminating against whites and Asians in admissions.
The lawsuit is based on my reporting from last year. It was filed by Students for Fair Admissions—the same group that got affirmative action outlawed nationwide.🧵
SFFA scored a landmark victory against Harvard University in 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled that racial preferences were unconstitutional. Now the group’s president, Edward Blum, is framing the UCLA lawsuit as a sequel to the Harvard case.
"This lawsuit sends an important message to every institution of higher education: Any school and administrator that uses race and racial proxies in admissions in defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard will be sued," Blum said.