(10-12-2022 02:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 01:59 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 01:56 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 01:51 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 01:47 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  When I do it, it’s a good old fashioned boycott - when they do it, it’s cancel culture! And this applies to both sides.

"They" in this case shout down and intimidate speakers and attendees at scheduled speaking events, and behave disruptively enough to bring the event to a halt, all because they disagree with the speaker's POV.

Please tell me you understand the difference between that and a boycott.

Ehh I was speaking broadly. Also I’d say it’s probably worse to lose out on a job than to have a speaking engagement disrupted.

If you're a law student who's so dim on the concept of free speech that you'd disrupt a speaking engagement, you damn well ought to lose out on a job working for a federal court.

I don't disagree with this (probably not many on this forum do). But to say "I'm not hiring any graduates of this school" goes way farther than not hiring a specific person known to participate in that protest.

I guess one could say that if you're a federal judge that paints guilty and innocent people with the same broad brush than you damn well ought not to be a federal judge.

I don't disagree with this, but given how this is playing out it's looking like the federal judges in on this - some of whom are Yale alums - were out to prove a point to Yale Law, and message has been received. Again, I think that reflexively disqualifying all grads of a particular school is bad business.