(10-12-2022 06:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 05:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 05:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 05:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ditto to this point - I couldn't imagine disqualifying someone because of the perceived social perspective of a university. I could potentially understand if it had to do with the quality of education, but even that discounts the high achievers at less academically reputable universities.

I think the virtue signaling by this judge (we should be honest with ourselves, that is exactly what it is), is out of line. It unfortunately elicited a response, but at least the response was clear that Yale has been addressing the issues around cancel culture prior to this public bout of virtue signaling.

Actually, the signal is that only NOW is Yale Law School addressing these issues.

In that sense, kudos to the group of judges for that prompt.

But that isn't actually true - the response from the dean made it clear that Yale had already been addressing the issue. This actually makes it seem like Yale is being reactive to this judge's virtue signaling.

Quote:Gerken outlined moves to "reaffirm our enduring commitment to the free and unfettered exchange of ideas" since March, when a group of students disrupted a campus discussion with an invited conservative speaker.

Outsiders were largely unaware of those efforts by the law school, she said, citing recent revisions to its disciplinary code, a new emphasis on free expression and respectful engagement during orientation, and the hiring of a new dean of students.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government...022-10-12/

edit:

Directly from the letter that was provided:

Quote:Over the last six months, we have taken a number of concrete steps to reaffirm our enduring commitment to the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. These actions are well known to our faculty, students, and staff, but I want to share some of them with you as well.

Unless this judge's comments were from six months ago, all he did, frankly, was make a comment without knowing the full picture of what was occurring at Yale and painting with a rather broad brush. And since Ho made the comments on Sept 29, I think that he may have been making some broad assumptions and not speaking with all of the facts in hand.

Having met Judge Ho I doubt very seriously that he did. But feel free and pull some more stuff out of your rear end if it makes you feel better.

I'm impressed with your statement of how terrible it seems that, to you, Judge Ho speaks without a good grounding -- then you go and pull the same exact stunt you decry. Brilliant..... (slow clap)

Per the article on his comments:

Quote: U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho in a speech delivered at a Federalist Society conference in Kentucky said Yale "not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it." And he urged other judges to likewise boycott the school.”

“I don't want to cancel Yale," Ho, a member of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said in prepared remarks reviewed by Reuters. "I want Yale to stop cancelling people like me."

Does that sound like he has kept up to date on the recent changes that Yale the school, which is what he is referring to, is doing in regards to free speech?

Sorry, but it’s pretty clear to an unbiased eye that Judge Ho was not aware of recent efforts Yale has made, and was speaking to specific incidents of specific students at Yale over multiple years.

Yep, I am sure that new, spanking student policy shut the issue down in its tracks....

Kind of like the new Portland law banning people with gasoline filled bottles shut that episode down in its tracks.

Think about what you are saying, lad. Yale puts out a policy that stops a rampant activity dead, dead, dead in its tracks. I see that you go full gung ho on the side that it does.

On the other hand, I am fully confident that Judge Ho employs Yale grads on fairly consistent basis. And even more so, I am even more certain that Judge Ho interviews them even more so. And I am quite certain that Judge Ho has some deep relationships with more than a handful of Yale faculty even in addition to his and his offices quite numerous interactions with Yale students.

So, between you jumping up and down and pointing at a 'policy put out by the school' (which may or may not have any substantive effect at all, let alone you have *zero* understanding even *if* Yale actually enforces the policies) and Judge Ho whom I suspect has a pretty constant and ongoing interaction with the actual denizens of Yale Law School, and (*horrors*) might even have some strong personal relationships with the faculty there (hint -- he does) ---

Sorry, I will come down in Judge Ho's side of the fence as opposed to your intrepid and dauntless skills of google fu that show a policy in place. A policy that you have zero idea if it effective, let alone if it is just written cotton candy that isnt even enforced. But you point to that like a combination of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Ark of the Covenant to proudly proclaim how out of touch Judge Ho is. Which, given the the interaction that even I know of between Jude Ho, his office, and Yale --- seems like a pretty stupid statement, to be blunt.

Quote:Edit: to be clear, I think there is a very valid criticism of Yale Law students who are reportedly doing more than protesting a speaker they disagree with. But based on what I have read, I think Ho went far past that, and didn’t do his homework on what Yale the school is doing or does around these issues. It’s an easy thing to do - criticize an organization for how its members act, without being fully informed of internal machinations.

Based on what I *know* about Judge Ho -- and his office -- (as opposed to and a step past your 'based on what [you] have read'), I think you are pulling an uninformed view out of your ass. Kind of like you castigate Judge Ho of doing -- funny that.

But please jump and down some more about how intrepidly correct you are.