Stanford University Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach published an op-ed last week, doubling down on her defense of an indefensible debacle at Stanford University Law School (SLS). Stanford’s student chapter of the Federalist Society invited Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to give a speech on March 9.
A pedagogical disaster ensued.
Steinbach ironically conducted an immersive learning experience on how to be intolerant, inequitable, and elitist. As the university administrator – and the de facto teacher in the classroom – she led a mob of delayed American adolescent law students down an undemocratic path to chaos and the suppression of free speech.
Judge Duncan, appointed by former President Donald Trump in 2018 and considered an “ultra-conservative firebrand” by his critics, planned to engage in spirited but civil discussion with students. “I’ve spoken at law schools across the country, and I was glad to accept this invitation,” explained Duncan in an essay.
Over a hundred students, including protesters led by the law school student coalition Identity and Rights Affirmers for Trans Equality (IRATE) and an organization called Outlaw, met Duncan outside the classroom with intense chanting. One student welcomed the judge to Stanford by screaming “We hope your daughters get raped!”
Once in the classroom, students repeatedly heckled and mocked him. When Duncan asked for an administrator to restore order, Dean Steinbach joined protesters in their criticism and praised them for their behavior.
Stanford University President Tessier-Lavigne and Jenny Martinez, Stanford’s law school dean, apologized to Judge Duncan. In a 10-page public letter, Martinez addressed the students’ behavior, reaffirmed liberal democratic values, and announced that Steinbach is now on leave.
The event has become a cause célèbre.
The episode underscores the extraordinary role that teachers – or administrators serving as de-facto-teachers – play in guiding students, instilling values and beliefs, and encouraging behavior and the adoption of cultural norms and mores that can play a decisive role in determining whether a democracy thrives or dies.
Teachers can choose to lead students down paths that cultivate success and flourishing. And like the Pied Piper of Hamelin from the medieval children’s legend, teachers can also tragically mislead, taking students down destructive paths.
Dean Steinbach chose the latter.
She utterly failed as an educator. Her example provides important lessons.
1. Preparation
Judge Duncan’s critics may find his track record on the bench controversial, so one might expect a few student protesters. But Duncan confronted much more than that.
That’s likely due at least in part to an email Steinbach apparently sent spurring students to actively protest. “A coalition of SLS [Stanford Law School] students have expressed their upset and outrage over Judge Duncan’s invitation to speak at SLS. For some members of our community” wrote Steinbach, “[Duncan’s] presence on campus represents a significant hit to their sense of belonging.”
Multiple Stanford students claim “she helped engineer chaos with her email before the event,” essentially suggesting Steinbach issued a leftist dog whistle summoning a student mob.
An educator interested in prioritizing the welfare and learning of students rather than the promotion of her own socio-political interests and biases would have encouraged that “outraged” coalition to calm down and reflect on how to formulate reasoned arguments supporting their points of view. She would have recommended they familiarize themselves with some of the judge’s rulings. Many protesters, for example, should have studied U.S. v. Varner to understand relevant context and prepare informed questions before so adamantly defending an individual convicted of possessing child pornography.
She did no such thing.
2. Silent Endorsement
Steinbach also endorsed the students’ vulgar and disrespectful behavior and mistreatment of other human beings. One protester taunted Judge Duncan and pointed to a crayola-esque sign connecting Duncan with an inappropriate and lewd reference to female anatomy. As students continued to jeer, shout, and interrupt, Steinbach remained seated in her chair. Without saying a word, she tragically left students with the clear impression that Stanford as an institution endorsed their behavior.
Steinbach failed to act, allowing the heckling to drown out the guest’s voice. Martinez addressed this in her memo: “The First Amendment does not give protesters a ‘heckler’s veto.’ As First Amendment scholar Dean Erwin Chemerinsky asserts, ‘Freedom of speech does not protect a right to shout down others so they cannot be heard.’” That’s exactly what Steinbach’s inaction enabled.
3. The Disruptive 6-Minute Sermon
When Judge Duncan asked if an administrator could assist in restoring order, Steinbach replaced the judge at the podium and proceeded to deliver a 6-minute speech, periodically referring to prepared notes. To underscore the pedagogical destructiveness of her words, it’s worth taking a closer look at a few key moments in her speech.
Steinbach enthroned herself in the imaginary position of an authoritarian silencer granting mercy: “And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable.” She seemed to be implying she had the authority to censor the speaker, but chose not to “shut him down,” revealing the authoritarian essence of her approach.
Steinbach also grossly violated her responsibility to treat students equally. “I do know that if they come for this group today,” she said motioning to the Federalist Society students, “they will come for this group that I am part of tomorrow [emphasis added],” pointing to the protesters who had shouted down the judge.
Steinbach behaved like an abusive parent – favoring one child over another.
Sadly, members of the Federalist Society did not feel empowered to stand up and do their part to stop the bedlam.
“Is this worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes? Do you have something so incredible to say?” she asked. “Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is this worth it?”
What extraordinary questions for Steinbach to ask. She summoned, enabled, and then supported the student mob to target a speaker with whom she disagreed and to attack an academic event convened by a group of students she opposed and then suggested that chaos she helped facilitate was reason for Duncan to silence himself. Her question implies that the discomfort caused by disagreement with Judge Duncan trumps the value of learning, discussing, and seeking the truth.
She also demonstrated an exceptional lack of self-awareness. “If you can listen through your partisan lens, your hyper-political lens and just look and see human beings” said Steinbach. “And like all guests on our campus, we ask that you come with good intentions and respect.”
What about Steinbach herself? Hyper-political lens. Yes. Respect? Not so much.
Steinbach irresponsibly taught students how NOT to behave like intelligent, grateful, mature citizens in a diverse democratic republic. She abused her position of authority and taught intolerance, discrimination, and exclusivity.
To conclude her destructive comments, Steinbach declared, “I look out and I don’t ask, ‘What is going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here.’”
Many students applauded the dean’s final statement. Then, like the children of Hamlin lured by the Piper’s magic who filed out of the city, dozens of students accepted Steinbach’s invitation and filed out the door.
Until the next post,
Antonette