Stanford Law’s DEI Dean Didn’t Think Judge Duncan the juice was worth it. I ask a related question: Are all Stanford graduates worth it? Undoubtedly, these students have excellent academic credentials and have performed very well in various forms of testing. But at least some of them exercised terrible judgment. They decided it was appropriate to yell and heckle a sitting federal judge. They shouted vulgar insults at parts of the human anatomy. Now, to be fair, these students were instilled in DEIdeology. Dean Steinbach and others have taught them that this type of behavior is not only appropriate, but a necessary response to a harmful presence on campus. So maybe the students shouldn’t take all the blame here. Stanford is at least partly responsible; as well as their undergraduate institutions; and their K-12 teachers (current 1Ls were born circa 2000); don’t forget the coaches who handed out the participation prize trophies; And so on.
Fortunately, Stanford can help fix this mess. To paraphrase Dean Steinbach, Stanford can separate the juice from the pulp. But how? The first step would be to identify students who have violated the code of conduct. The joint statement from the president and dean seems to suggest that at least some students have crossed the line. The event was recorded from multiple camera angles. It wouldn’t require Zapruder-level scrutiny to determine who was at fault. Now Stanford may not really want to identify the attackers. We never knew who put black tape over photos of Harvard Law School professors.
I find it telling that the demonstrators stood in front of Dean Martinez’s class while wearing custom printed masks. These non-N-95 masks didn’t offer much protection against COVID, but were very effective at concealing identities. I heard from a colleague that masks would allow more students to participate who feared potential repercussions.
Once the affected students are identified, Stanford would have several options. I will list them in ascending order of severity. First, the college could simply issue a warning to those who violated the code of conduct. There would be an acknowledgment that they transgressed, but no consequences yet. However, if they broke the code again, there would be separate consequences. A one-bite rule, so to speak, would perversely entice every student to have one, and only one, moment in the sun. I imagine that students who are unlucky enough to receive a simple warning would let all other students engage in future risky driving.
Second, Stanford could impose a form of extracurricular punishment. For example, students cannot participate in organizations such as moot trials or law reviews, or serve as research assistants for professors. These consequences would deprive elite students of what they hold most dear – references for their resumes and recommenders for internships. And, in a way, these penalties would signal to potential employers that something was wrong. A student was in law review in 2L, but not in 3L? Yet there would be no official misconduct imprimatur.
Third, Stanford could issue such an imprimatur. The college could convey a message to the character and fitness review board of the relevant state. Now, in California, questioning Judge Duncan on female anatomy may warrant some sort of special recommendation from the state bar’s Health Law Section. 51 imperfect solutions, and all. But for other, more sensible jurisdictions, this kind of behavior should have repercussions. Yet these communications to the bar are not (as far as I know) made public.
Fourth, Stanford could go public. He could issue a press release naming and disgracing all students who violated the code of conduct. Presumably, any law firm or judge who has hired or is considering hiring an SLS graduate would check this list and could proceed accordingly. Justices Ho and Branch make a similar recommendation in National exam.
And if schools aren’t willing to impose consequences themselves, they should at a minimum identify disruptors so future employers know who they’re hiring.
Schools issue graduation grades and honors to help employers separate the wheat from the chaff. Likewise, schools should notify employers if they are injecting potentially disruptive forces into their organizations.
This decision would send a signal to all of Palo Alto, and indeed the entire country: there are real consequences to such behavior. Again, some companies may want to hire these students. Good for them! Hopefully they don’t engage in such behavior at the John Minor Wisdom Courthouse. Some judges may also consider such conduct to be admirable. Professor Rory Little has written that horseplay is a new form of “principled civil disobedience“! Good for them! If the judges accept this view of the world, we will be in big trouble.
Fifth, there is the possibility of expulsion. These students can forget about internships or summer associate concerts. They won’t even be allowed to sit down for the bar. Still, I think that option would be drastic, especially for a first offense.
Stanford has options. Let’s see if he does something about this situation, or just issues a naked apology.
