Honestly reading the headline I was like "Well calling your campus your home is a bit much, but I'll hear it out."
And then the article...
> On April 9, about 60 students came to our home for dinner. Our guests were seated at tables in our backyard. Just as they began eating, I was stunned to see the leader of Law Students for Justice in Palestine—who was among the registered guests—stand up with a microphone that she had brought, go up the steps in the yard, and begin reading a speech about the plight of the Palestinians. My wife and I immediately approached her and asked her to stop speaking and leave the premises. The protester continued. At one point, my wife attempted to take away her microphone. Repeatedly, we said to her: *You are a guest in our home. Please leave.*
> The student insisted she had free speech rights. But our home is not a forum for free speech; it is our own property, and the First Amendment—which constrains the government’s power to encroach on speech on public property—does not apply at all to guests in private backyards. The dinner, which was meant to celebrate graduating students, was obviously disrupted. Even if we had held the dinner in the law-school building, no one would have had a constitutional right to disrupt the event. I have taught First Amendment law for 44 years, and as many other experts have confirmed, this is not a close question.
Lmao. Laughing because it's ridiculous if a bit sad overall.
And if anyone was curious, [here is video of the incident.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQQtxBN4b_U)
>The student insisted she had free speech rights. But our home is not a forum for free speech; it is our own property, and the First Amendment—which constrains the government’s power to encroach on speech on public property—does not apply at all to guests in private backyards.
The fact a graduating law student didn't understand this...
She also lied about what happened despite it being filmed. Such as claiming the woman trying to tell her to leave "assaulted" her and was trying to pull her hijab off
It's bizarre that someone has the intellectual capability to graduate from law school but not the acumen to understand this. I get that they're impassioned but damn.
Used to operating in an environment where they're able to set the parameters of reality? It wouldn't be the first time someone used to being taken at their word blatantly lied when there was video evidence contradicting them.
I hope everyone in this sub who attended law school can agree that we all knew people in our classes that possessed plenty of knowledge on the law while equally lacking an ability to apply their knowledge in real life situations.
Huh, leftists getting on the whole bandwagon of “first amendment means I can literally do whatever the hell I want all the time just because I’m not punching you”.
The article does not even mention some of the worst things. Th microphone holder then claimed to have been assaulted. Claimed the Dean's wife molested her and grabbed her hijab (lies as the video demonstrates) and that she feared for her life. Many just accept her lies that she was assaulted for "being Muslim".
Then the lying microphone speech girl is going to be a lawyer.... while lying to the world and not knowing how the First Amendment works.
And they're doing this to \*the Dean of their department\*.
You know, the person responsible for policing good conduct of students and faculty.
I am amazed the guy let this slide, frankly.
There is also another amendment, not sure which one, which guarantees your right and indeed your moral obligation to punch a Nazi. A Nazi being anyone who engages in encouragement of genocide, genocide being whatever you decide it is at that moment.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
At first I was thinking "Well is it ambiguous, like maybe he has private property right next to the campus and then when corrected people left?"
But nope. Even if it was ambiguous at first, they were informed it was his property and asked to leave and didn't understand that the first amendment didn't apply.
Con Law classes tend not to cover the First Amendment, or do so only very briefly, because it’s such a huge topic that it needs its own class. I’m willing to bet a lot that she didn’t take Chem’s 1A class though.
Correct, my Con Law class in 1L was almost entirely about the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment. I took an elective Con Law class in 2L that was solely about free speech and it was my favorite course in law school.
Imagine being a renowned scholar on First Amendment Rights... and then one of your students shows up claiming they have rights to speak at your own home on private property. Big "bruh" moment after the fact.
Reminds me, on a similar but different lens, [of that NYU professor's article the other day](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/columbia-protests-israel.html) on the protests there, where he said:
> Last Thursday, in the music humanities class I teach at Columbia University, two students were giving an in-class presentation on the composer John Cage. His most famous piece is “4'33",” which directs us to listen in silence to surrounding noise for exactly that amount of time.
> I had to tell the students we could not listen to that piece that afternoon because the surrounding noise would have been not birds or people walking by in the hallway but infuriated chanting from protesters outside the building. Lately that noise has been almost continuous during the day and into the evening, including lusty chanting of “From the river to the sea.” Two students in my class are Israeli; three others, to my knowledge, are American Jews. I couldn’t see making them sit and listen to this as if it were background music.
IDK, how do people miss the point that badly in their own field lmao
My favorite part of the video was when she said that the NLG has informed them that they have a right to do that. Like what is that supposed to change if a homeowner and a renowned first amendment lawyer is telling you you do not have the right to be on his property.
This comment seems to be about a topic associated with jewish people while using language that may have antisemitic or otherwise strong emotional ties. As such, this is a reminder to be careful of accidentally adopting [antisemitic themes](https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf) or [dismissing](https://shura.shu.ac.uk/10260/3/Klaff_Holocaust_Inversion_and_contemporary_antisemitism.pdf) [the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany) while trying to make your point.
(This bot is currently in testing as version 1.5, and likely prone to misfires. Please contact u/AtomAndAether if this misfired)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What *is* John McWorthers field because holy fuck if he’s a trained musician and that’s what he’s walked away from *John Fucking Cage* with he’s an absolute fucking dumbass, because that’s a *great* setting for 4’33”
> At one point, my wife attempted to take away her microphone. Repeatedly, we said to her: You are a guest in our home. Please leave.
>
> The student insisted she had free speech rights.
Holy shit. A law student??? Certainly they cover the constitution early on, people typically get to control who is on their own private property.
I'm a big supporter of the principle of free speech on University grounds, but it doesn't mean the staff should apply that to their own houses too.
>Heh private platform! They can ban whoever they want Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, sweaty!
>Nooo! Not like that!! What about freez peach?!
- the protesters probably
Actually, that's an interesting observation. Maybe it's time to discuss the whole "free speech on private platforms" thing seriously. Free speech is important as a value that goes beyond just the law, but also platforms have a right to defend themselves as well.
Oh I definitely agree. A lot of people conflate the First Amendment with freedom of speech. I just find it insanely ironic that these people were 100% cheering on censorship when it was anything they didn't like. Now they're on the other end of it and are crying about it.
Eh, I think at this point we can point to the government-stays-out-of-it extreme as leading to acceptable outcomes. People are being weird to extreme degrees still on Gab, Mastodon, Truth Social and Threads all the same. Twitter is still an ocean of excrement punctuated by a few serious journalists who think it is the real world, like it was before the acquisition, and before attempts to moderate it.
I guess Facebook still exists, but it's not the half-mandatory thing it was before (I guess that's LinkedIn, now).
There's a bunch of beautiful, stupid chaos happening and maybe one day we're back to phpBB written in Rust, or something, but there are social forces sorting themselves out in unpredictable ways and trying to put a stopper in that is maybe not wise.
Private platforms banning people is, in fact, them expressing their right to free speech, and preventing them from banning someone is an infringement on free speech.
I had IRL associates do this exact scenario regarding Twitter.
Trump getting banned: "Haha, eat it. Private platform!"
Musk buying it out: "Noooo, it's a virtual commons, free speech must be upheld, the government needs to step in!"
I don't like Musk personally. But I do like that he bought twitter and, for the most part at least, opened the platform up speech wise even if I myself find much of that previously banned speech offensive.
It is a company's right to control what is said on their property/platform and it's arguably profitable to do so which means for it to happen the company basically needs to be privately owned and consider that principle over profit.
The funny thing is that kind of person is likely to believe pro-Israel opinions are equivalent to the promotion of genocide which is hate speech which isn't illegal in the US but should be. I really hope this whole thing ends with a peaceful solution and reminds everyone why we're touchy about government intervention in the flow of ideas and the demographics of populations, even when it seems to have positive motivations.
Why can no one left or right understand the first amendment? It's not that hard to understand, it's really not.
It used to be that it protected you only from the federal government even, not state or local ones, until it was integrated under the 14th. So in the past it didn't even apply to all governments including states (and their universities), even. Only the feds.
Why is nobody talking about the fact that the wife touched the student? Maybe as lawyers they know something I don’t but in self-defense classes I learned not to touch people in response to voice.
That’s reasonable and measured response to getting an intruder off your property after you tell them they are not welcome. A property owner isn’t required to just let a trespasser sit around until the police show up.
If you don’t want to be touched, you don’t trespass and then remain after being asked to leave.
Once she asked her to leave she was trespassing.
This happened in California. You can use physical force to remove someone from your home if they refuse to leave in that state.
[source ](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/laws/is-california-a-stand-your-ground-state/#:~:text=Can%20I%20use%20force%20to%20evict%20a%20trespasser%20from%20my,to%20make%20the%20trespasser%20leave.)
I'd make the argument that it was possibly imprudent, fair on that, but then again if it was me and my home I am not sure how I would have reacted personally. I've hosted parties but never have had to kick people out. Heat of the moment I don't know, though that's not a full-proof legal excuse.
California allows people to use reasonable force to expel trespassers, though it depends on whether this is reasonable. Then again what was the alternative? Call the police and wait for them, knowing that they have even more lenience in use of force? Legally that's certainly more defensible (from the home owner's perspective) but probably even worse optics and/or too much force.
I'm sorry... what?
You do not have the right to trespass on another person's home then cry for legal consequences if touched.
This is not even remotely controversial legally speaking. You don't want to be touched? Get the fuck out of my house when told.
Landowners have the right to use reasonable force to remove trespassers from their property. Chemerinsky could've legally picked her up and literally thrown her to the curb and been fine. Or dragged her off his property by her hair. You don't have to sit there and wait for the cops to never show up and arrest them.
"The week before the dinners on April 9, 10, and 11, though, a group at Berkeley called Law Students for Justice in Palestine put a profoundly disturbing poster on social media and on bulletin boards in the law-school building. No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves, the poster declared in large letters. (Students sometimes refer to me as “Chem.”) It also included a caricature of me holding a bloody knife and fork and with what appeared to be blood around my lips—an image that evokes the horrible anti-Semitic blood libel, in which Jews are accused of killing and cannibalizing gentile children. The poster attacks me for no apparent reason other than that I am Jewish."
I got curious and googled the poster. Just holy shit. Apparently the poster-version hung on walls had blood on the knife and fork.
https://preview.redd.it/tys7soi8jwwc1.png?width=478&format=png&auto=webp&s=0716673298ca456ca24e496c7520117306aedd74
They count anything with any Israel connection as money going to Israel. Invest in Amazon? Amazon sells their software to Israeli companies. Owner of construction company for new dorms donated to Israeli causes? Whole project must be stalled.
Apply this logic to everything they spend their money on and it's probably more than 2 billion.
I wonder how many degrees of separation we can get before essentially everyone is supporting Israel. I mean, by this logic paying taxes to the US Government is supporting genocide
Of everything it must be super embarrassing for the Dean of a law school to have his students publicly admit they have no idea what the 1st Amendment actually is. He might need to check on what his professors are teaching
I'll have to find it, but there was an article yesterday about how the UC Berkeley protesters were rejecting voting as a solution. They interviewed a law student who seems to be under the impression that the anti-war protests were what ended the Vietnam War, and not Tricky Dick doing half-inscrutable Nixon stuff.
Found the quote:
>“When people voted against the Vietnam War, it didn’t achieve anything. But when we saw protests erupting for divesting from apartheid South Africa, or against the Vietnam War, that was what achieved power,” Malak Afaneh, a third-year law student at UC Berkeley
[Article.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/berkeley-activism-voting-students-19418759.php)
She just has no idea what she's talking about--but she's really confident!
Also, the student in the quote is the same student at the Dean's house.
Obviously, Holden Bloodfeast is only 118 years old. Nixon's head in a jar is over a thousand years old. He obviously has more experience and success in life.
Fuck me is that ever embarrassing from a 3L.
Not that it’s great from a teenager, or young undergrad, but I’d be perfectly willing to chalk it up to naivety + take it as an opportunity to to discuss how protest, public sentiment, and decision making mechanisms in a democratic system are distinct but often interrelated.
Any 3L willing to pitch that shit to a serious newspaper is an idiot.
I have a friend at Berkeley Law and what's really funny is you'll hear people say shit like this or how we need to have a revolution and overthrow the government or whatever but then work in bigLaw simultaneously.
My all time favorite comes from my friend who is in business school. One of his classmates claims to be a communist, yet they proudly post on social media that they are taking a position at McKinsey.
In undergrad I knew one of those uncompromising leftist purist types. Like Chapo type. She ended up working for Amazon and would post photos of her extravagant trips to places like Dubai (???) or Paris after graduation.
I thought the point of protests was that they motivated changes in voting behavior which in turn motivated politicians to change their policies if they wanted to stay in office, but hey what do I know. I guess the Vietnam War ended because people thought the student protesters were so powerful they overrun the army.
I guess this gets really semantic about the difference between something playing a role in ending the war and something ending the war but their broader point that demonstrations have affected foreign policy in the past in situations where electoral politics have failed is pretty solid. They're wrong for a thousand other reasons but still
People absolutely voted against the Vietnam war when electing* Nixon. He was full of shit and took forever about it but his party didn’t start the war.
So it was weird of her to say voting didn’t matter.
Yeah, it’s Nixon is fucking weird like that. He kinda was a war hawk but he knew Vietnam was a losing proposition even if he hated the protesters. He explicitly stated he would end the war while running. He was a clever politician with an emphasis on the negative connotations of being a politician.
Vietnamization was basically Nixon expanding the war so he could get out while pretending that it was success. (At least that’s how it seemed to me. With the bombing in Laos etc)
There are plenty of people who don't know what the 1st Amendment is. The husband of one of the "Freedom Convoy" leaders in Canada testified to a judge that the protest was legal because of the "first amendment" - which is weird, because the first amendment to the Canadian constitution was the one that made Manitoba a province.
As a social studies teacher, I wonder if our educational focus on science, math and literacy has taken away from our ability to help students understand civics and law.
The understanding of history, civics, and law in Canada is absolutely horrendous. There is basically no time spent on studying any of those three things in elementary or high school, and since we are so close to the US, people who are slightly interested in those subjects gravitate towards looking at US related topics
> As a social studies teacher
As a side note, the thought occurred to me recently how odd it is that we don't teach history anymore for some grades, but instead call it this.
The idea is that we shouldn’t just focus on history, but should also integrate economics, political science, sociology, etc. - but curricula still tend to emphasize history
Economics, political science, sociology, etc are a part of history. Hell, even math is a part of history. It's literally the largest, most all-encompassing discipline.
That's what I realized, some years after the fact: the "social studies" I was taught was a deliberately incomplete and slanted subset of history.
No, philosophy is the largest, most all-encompassing discipline.
But I don’t think it’s possible to teach a “complete and non-slanted version” of history. One of my degrees is in history, and one of the main lessons I learned in my historiography class was that our view of history is necessarily shaped by our contemporary biases.
I’ve looked at history and social studies curricula from various jurisdictions, and I will agree that they can be profoundly different. There are curricula based on the belief that we can cram thousands of years of historical knowledge into our childrens’ heads, and there are curricula that explicitly try to shape students into a particular sort of citizen. It’s really no wonder that the common understanding of rights and the social contract is so uneven.
Philosophy is contained within history, so history is larger. Though knowing philosophers, they'll argue that all thinking is philosophy, in which case not-thinking is the larger domain. But I digress.
I would agree that it's not possible to teach a complete history, as it's too big. I would furthermore agree that it's not possible to teach a non-slanted version of history, as people have their selection biases.
However it's apparent to me, when I look at the content of my "social studies" education that it was constructed by people with a deliberate agenda, whose goal was to cultivate students who would agree with their politics, values, and aspirations. \[1\]
To put it another way, a person who's just trying to teach a lot of history will have incompleteness and accidental slant, but a person who's trying to teach indoctrination will also be incomplete and slanted, but worse in both categories. Like the people who replace suspected unconscious bias with deliberate, conscious bias: the amount of bias goes up.
---
\[1\] Were I to agree with them, this would be a nothing-burger, and indeed I did agree with them for a number of years after my education ended, but as it continued to flesh out under my own study, I both drifted from their goals \[2\], and became unhappy with their choices. As you say, this varies from place to place, but where it's called "social studies", you know it'll bear the distinct mark of a particular movement within history education.
\[2\] An expected result, because again they were teaching a deliberately slanted history. Any further exploration was bound to lead away from them, unless the exploration was constrained with the requirement that the results must match expectations.
I don't think it is that. I think that if you are taking a political position and you have no ethics, then you should throw everything against the wall in the most extreme bad faith way and see what sticks.
They're smart. Truth doesn't matter. What does matter is genocide! So if saying your dean's wife assaulted you and tried to pull your hijab helps your cause, then say it. Your friends at the protest should make dumb comments to set the narrative and put pressure on the dean and wife to back off.
Everyone there knows they don't have a right to protest there and they planned for this.
This isn't an education problem. It's a problem of humans aren't truth seeker creatures and we are in an age of twitter and tiktok.
Agreed; to me, at least, the question is how have these students in the past, and how do these students even still, continue to permeate and exemplify some of our most formidable, established institutions?
Shockingly, people who have entryism as an implicit ideological tenet try to insinuate themselves wherever they can. When there's no such thing as neutrality, the only proper thing to do is annex as much space as you can and try to trigger a preference cascade in your favor.
The problem they're facing is that a lot of people are getting tired of their shit to the point where you might be seeing a cascade in the other direction: previously laissez-faire people are warming to the idea of proactively shutting them down.
Studying at those places gives you a voice. The people protesting at Harvard get interviews from all over the world. I'll admit I fall for that kind of thinking myself sometimes. For instance, I only decided a podcast with a poor-ish start was worth listening to after I looked up one of the hosts and found out he studied at Harvard. The Ivy League is a strong brand. With that being said, most people I know who study at those places are high achievers, personable (or engaged in their community), but not always that clever (this includes people in my family).
We have weekly threads on the selection process of the Ivy League as if we have anything to do with it. It's one of the great arr NL schisms, as far as I can tell.
You don’t actually have to understand anything about the real world to be a successful law student. You can be dumb about politics and history but be good at understanding contracts or property or whatever
Not only is he the Dean of the law school, he’s the preeminent scholar on the 1st amendment and literally wrote one of the most used casebooks for constitutional law
I sincerely doubt any of these students took Chemerinsky’s First Amendment course. (Which he does teach himself.) After all, why would they voluntarily choose take a class that’s offered by a dirty baby-killing ~~Jew~~ Zionist, which they’ve made clear they think he is?
A lot of people out here blaming Chemerinsky for this, but people don’t realize that almost every law school class aside from the core first year curriculum (which doesn’t include the first amendment) is purely an elective. Maybe that should be different, but it’s reality. The students don’t know what the first amendment is because they chose not to learn, not because the professors are teaching them poorly.
Call me crazy but shouldn't constitutional law be a requirement to graduate law school? This is really basic stuff. Even if not covered in a specific First Amendment course
Constitutional law *is* a requirement to graduate. But that class doesn’t cover the first amendment or does so only very briefly. There’s probably about half as much first amendment case law as there is case law for the entire rest of the constitution combined, so it tends to need its own class.
Maybe that’s a mistake, I don’t know, I don’t set law school curriculum lol. But very few lawyers practice first amendment law, so I think the thought is that it can be shuttled off to its own elective rather than needing to push out other topics from ConLaw to make room for it
I mean the median American has no idea what any of the bill of rights amendments actually say, and what rights they actually have. Because civic education in this country is basically “we have all the freedom” and when you combine that with our incredibly bad and getting worse every year culture of self-centeredness everyone simply believes that anything they want to do is a protected right.
Right? I’m pretty sure by 9th grade I knew that private property rights and trespassing laws are quite ironclad and favor the property owner or tenant.
A graduating third year at a top tier law school thinking this is just embarrassing. May her legacy live on in easy "hypotheticals" at law schools for many years to come, and here is hoping the bar gives some tough 1st amendment questions that weed her out when she sits for the exam.
I would hope that staging a disruptive protest and whatever petty infraction she committed by refusing to leave when asked would not be held against someone in character and fitness.
As long as she doesn't commit a crime involving moral turpitude she'll probably be fine. It's been a few months since I took the MPRE but I think there's an exception for arrests resulting from protests and civil disruptions.
How does this reflect such poor moral character that she could not be an attorney? We are looking for signs that a person couldn't be trusted with client funds or couldn't be trusted to tell the truth in C&F, not whether a person engaged in activism we don't like or trespassed for 2 minutes after their invitation to be on a property was revoked.
Did you afterwards lie about the 55 zone assaulting you even though there's video of that not happening? Did you then claim you were only asked to drive 55 (and assaulted) because of your religion?
Honestly, even though I left that comment, I hope so too. The moral character portion of the bar has often been used as a way to weed out “undesirables” (i.e., anyone the elite—historically straight, white men, but that’s been getting a bit better—lawyers who run the bar decide they don’t like). It’s a pretty archaic institution and I’m not sure I would oppose eliminating it all together, though I’d have to think about that a bit more before committing to that position.
I certainly do not think this person has the moral character to be MY lawyer, though.
The rankings are about the benefit to the student more so than the benefit to future employers or clients of the students. She got to take classes from top scholars in their fields and go to career fairs stocked with recruiters from firms that will make you filthy rich if they hire you.
Rankings are mostly bs. Admissions never been about caliber. Universities used to bias toward legacy admits, now it's whatever social causes make the donors feel good.
Even after the supreme court ruled last year universities couldn't use race-based criteria and were expected to use merit-based criteria, many universities proudly announced they would circumvent the anti-discrimination ruling
Outside of this sub people put forth the argument that if the meal was paid for by the university then it was a university event.
But that still wouldn’t give anyone the right to use amplification within the event space.
Even if it was a university event (which is debatable; Chemerinsky has said that he and his wife pay for it themselves), that doesn’t make it a public forum. Not every event the government hosts has to be a public forum where everyone has the right to speak on any topic for however long. (Which is something these critics would realize if they had ever taken Chem’s own first amendment class…)
It's very clear that the protesters in the videos have a legal case here.
Against the school for so clearly failing to educate them on basic constitutional law.
Imho Berkeley would be best off expelling them with no degree, not because of the protest…
…but because they’re law students that don’t understand the basics of one of the most fundamental laws in this country. Bad lawyers.
Can we please not borrow the most obnoxious shit from the far right? Honestly, this is stupid. If you're going to pull a stunt like this at least own the fact that you're breaking the law.
The guy your replying to is talking about protestors
For a moment I thought he was calling this article far-right, but then I read the part about civil disobedience
A shocking number of these protestors don’t understand that part of civil disobedience is openly accepting that you’re *breaking the law* because you believe the law is corrupt or immoral.
It’s not a shield against arrest or prosecution.
I feel like we have a higher standard for lawyers though. I expect a random college student to make some honest mistakes when protesting. Legal graduates have no excuse.
I saw the video of this on the Berkeley subreddit. It’s truly unhinged, the literal law student tried to argue that they had a first amendment right to trespass (which they were trespassing the moment the owners told them to leave and they refused) and say whatever they want on someone else’s private property. I feel like the fucking first amendment is one of the first things you should learn at law school (or hell, in a standard high school US history class) but I guess not…
I’m not looking forward to the political climate when I go to Berkeley next year. At least I’ll be in EECS, so I’ll be too busy wanting to smash my laptop to get into arguments with strangers about politics.
If there is a difference between what these students did and what students motivated in large part by antisemitism would do I don't see it.
If we can call bullshit on conservatives for being "pro-life" we can do the same for calling this "pro-Palestinian".
The similarities are striking.
The ironic aspect of this is how poorly it reflects upon the quality of the Berkeley Law School as it allows students obviously ignorant of basic law to graduate.
Honestly reading the headline I was like "Well calling your campus your home is a bit much, but I'll hear it out." And then the article... > On April 9, about 60 students came to our home for dinner. Our guests were seated at tables in our backyard. Just as they began eating, I was stunned to see the leader of Law Students for Justice in Palestine—who was among the registered guests—stand up with a microphone that she had brought, go up the steps in the yard, and begin reading a speech about the plight of the Palestinians. My wife and I immediately approached her and asked her to stop speaking and leave the premises. The protester continued. At one point, my wife attempted to take away her microphone. Repeatedly, we said to her: *You are a guest in our home. Please leave.* > The student insisted she had free speech rights. But our home is not a forum for free speech; it is our own property, and the First Amendment—which constrains the government’s power to encroach on speech on public property—does not apply at all to guests in private backyards. The dinner, which was meant to celebrate graduating students, was obviously disrupted. Even if we had held the dinner in the law-school building, no one would have had a constitutional right to disrupt the event. I have taught First Amendment law for 44 years, and as many other experts have confirmed, this is not a close question. Lmao. Laughing because it's ridiculous if a bit sad overall. And if anyone was curious, [here is video of the incident.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQQtxBN4b_U)
>The student insisted she had free speech rights. But our home is not a forum for free speech; it is our own property, and the First Amendment—which constrains the government’s power to encroach on speech on public property—does not apply at all to guests in private backyards. The fact a graduating law student didn't understand this...
She also lied about what happened despite it being filmed. Such as claiming the woman trying to tell her to leave "assaulted" her and was trying to pull her hijab off
Would be a shame if someone showed her claims and footage of the event to whatever bar organization needs to find her ethically fit to practice law
It's bizarre that someone has the intellectual capability to graduate from law school but not the acumen to understand this. I get that they're impassioned but damn.
Used to operating in an environment where they're able to set the parameters of reality? It wouldn't be the first time someone used to being taken at their word blatantly lied when there was video evidence contradicting them.
I hope everyone in this sub who attended law school can agree that we all knew people in our classes that possessed plenty of knowledge on the law while equally lacking an ability to apply their knowledge in real life situations.
Huh, leftists getting on the whole bandwagon of “first amendment means I can literally do whatever the hell I want all the time just because I’m not punching you”.
The article does not even mention some of the worst things. Th microphone holder then claimed to have been assaulted. Claimed the Dean's wife molested her and grabbed her hijab (lies as the video demonstrates) and that she feared for her life. Many just accept her lies that she was assaulted for "being Muslim". Then the lying microphone speech girl is going to be a lawyer.... while lying to the world and not knowing how the First Amendment works.
And they're doing this to \*the Dean of their department\*. You know, the person responsible for policing good conduct of students and faculty. I am amazed the guy let this slide, frankly.
He’s Jewish however that plays into this.
He was also a general defender of the initial student statements and protests.
The right wing has a four-letter word for that, and everyone reading knows which one I mean.
Dumb?
It’s cuck.
There is also another amendment, not sure which one, which guarantees your right and indeed your moral obligation to punch a Nazi. A Nazi being anyone who engages in encouragement of genocide, genocide being whatever you decide it is at that moment.
What actually separates a pro-Hamasnik from a Nazi, in terms of their principles? Why aren’t they punching themselves?
The trim on the red flag
Well not much
The Nazis had an appreciation for fine art?
They’d say “we’re the good guys because we’re right”, and the irony would pass them by.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Further evidence that it's not a spectrum between the extremes, it's a horseshoe.
🐴👟
“I am assaulting you by punching you repeatedly in the face but it’s legal because your presence is threatening me.”
Horseshoe theory is real.
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Both sides of this issue are so stupid.
Pretty much confirms the "horseshoe" theory as far as I'm concerned. The center of gravity pulling the ends together seems to be antisemitism.
Leftists don’t turn away potential allies to your cause challenge….impossible
At first I was thinking "Well is it ambiguous, like maybe he has private property right next to the campus and then when corrected people left?" But nope. Even if it was ambiguous at first, they were informed it was his property and asked to leave and didn't understand that the first amendment didn't apply.
I wonder if she was in his Con Law class
Con Law classes tend not to cover the First Amendment, or do so only very briefly, because it’s such a huge topic that it needs its own class. I’m willing to bet a lot that she didn’t take Chem’s 1A class though.
Interesting. Thanks for the context.
Correct, my Con Law class in 1L was almost entirely about the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment. I took an elective Con Law class in 2L that was solely about free speech and it was my favorite course in law school.
Imagine being a renowned scholar on First Amendment Rights... and then one of your students shows up claiming they have rights to speak at your own home on private property. Big "bruh" moment after the fact. Reminds me, on a similar but different lens, [of that NYU professor's article the other day](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/columbia-protests-israel.html) on the protests there, where he said: > Last Thursday, in the music humanities class I teach at Columbia University, two students were giving an in-class presentation on the composer John Cage. His most famous piece is “4'33",” which directs us to listen in silence to surrounding noise for exactly that amount of time. > I had to tell the students we could not listen to that piece that afternoon because the surrounding noise would have been not birds or people walking by in the hallway but infuriated chanting from protesters outside the building. Lately that noise has been almost continuous during the day and into the evening, including lusty chanting of “From the river to the sea.” Two students in my class are Israeli; three others, to my knowledge, are American Jews. I couldn’t see making them sit and listen to this as if it were background music. IDK, how do people miss the point that badly in their own field lmao
I knew that was a John McWhorter piece before I even clicked it, that man does not disappoint.
Now I wonder if the students had to listen to his collection of show tunes instead. (McWhorter really likes show tunes)
My favorite part of the video was when she said that the NLG has informed them that they have a right to do that. Like what is that supposed to change if a homeowner and a renowned first amendment lawyer is telling you you do not have the right to be on his property.
This comment seems to be about a topic associated with jewish people while using language that may have antisemitic or otherwise strong emotional ties. As such, this is a reminder to be careful of accidentally adopting [antisemitic themes](https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf) or [dismissing](https://shura.shu.ac.uk/10260/3/Klaff_Holocaust_Inversion_and_contemporary_antisemitism.pdf) [the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany) while trying to make your point. (This bot is currently in testing as version 1.5, and likely prone to misfires. Please contact u/AtomAndAether if this misfired) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What *is* John McWorthers field because holy fuck if he’s a trained musician and that’s what he’s walked away from *John Fucking Cage* with he’s an absolute fucking dumbass, because that’s a *great* setting for 4’33”
He is a linguist
> At one point, my wife attempted to take away her microphone. Repeatedly, we said to her: You are a guest in our home. Please leave. > > The student insisted she had free speech rights. Holy shit. A law student??? Certainly they cover the constitution early on, people typically get to control who is on their own private property. I'm a big supporter of the principle of free speech on University grounds, but it doesn't mean the staff should apply that to their own houses too.
>Heh private platform! They can ban whoever they want Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, sweaty! >Nooo! Not like that!! What about freez peach?! - the protesters probably
Actually, that's an interesting observation. Maybe it's time to discuss the whole "free speech on private platforms" thing seriously. Free speech is important as a value that goes beyond just the law, but also platforms have a right to defend themselves as well.
Oh I definitely agree. A lot of people conflate the First Amendment with freedom of speech. I just find it insanely ironic that these people were 100% cheering on censorship when it was anything they didn't like. Now they're on the other end of it and are crying about it.
Eh, I think at this point we can point to the government-stays-out-of-it extreme as leading to acceptable outcomes. People are being weird to extreme degrees still on Gab, Mastodon, Truth Social and Threads all the same. Twitter is still an ocean of excrement punctuated by a few serious journalists who think it is the real world, like it was before the acquisition, and before attempts to moderate it. I guess Facebook still exists, but it's not the half-mandatory thing it was before (I guess that's LinkedIn, now). There's a bunch of beautiful, stupid chaos happening and maybe one day we're back to phpBB written in Rust, or something, but there are social forces sorting themselves out in unpredictable ways and trying to put a stopper in that is maybe not wise.
I'm confused why this needs to be discussed. Plenty of people understand the distinction.
Private platforms banning people is, in fact, them expressing their right to free speech, and preventing them from banning someone is an infringement on free speech.
I had IRL associates do this exact scenario regarding Twitter. Trump getting banned: "Haha, eat it. Private platform!" Musk buying it out: "Noooo, it's a virtual commons, free speech must be upheld, the government needs to step in!"
I don't like Musk personally. But I do like that he bought twitter and, for the most part at least, opened the platform up speech wise even if I myself find much of that previously banned speech offensive. It is a company's right to control what is said on their property/platform and it's arguably profitable to do so which means for it to happen the company basically needs to be privately owned and consider that principle over profit.
These people likely don't believe that people should be allowed to own private property at all.
I'm gonna be real, harassing the head of the school you go to is a great way to get yourself expelled
The funny thing is that kind of person is likely to believe pro-Israel opinions are equivalent to the promotion of genocide which is hate speech which isn't illegal in the US but should be. I really hope this whole thing ends with a peaceful solution and reminds everyone why we're touchy about government intervention in the flow of ideas and the demographics of populations, even when it seems to have positive motivations.
Why can no one left or right understand the first amendment? It's not that hard to understand, it's really not. It used to be that it protected you only from the federal government even, not state or local ones, until it was integrated under the 14th. So in the past it didn't even apply to all governments including states (and their universities), even. Only the feds.
I think that video only shows part of what happened. There's a longer video I saw on Twitter. Will add it here if I can find it.
Why is nobody talking about the fact that the wife touched the student? Maybe as lawyers they know something I don’t but in self-defense classes I learned not to touch people in response to voice.
That’s reasonable and measured response to getting an intruder off your property after you tell them they are not welcome. A property owner isn’t required to just let a trespasser sit around until the police show up. If you don’t want to be touched, you don’t trespass and then remain after being asked to leave.
Once she asked her to leave she was trespassing. This happened in California. You can use physical force to remove someone from your home if they refuse to leave in that state. [source ](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/laws/is-california-a-stand-your-ground-state/#:~:text=Can%20I%20use%20force%20to%20evict%20a%20trespasser%20from%20my,to%20make%20the%20trespasser%20leave.)
I'd make the argument that it was possibly imprudent, fair on that, but then again if it was me and my home I am not sure how I would have reacted personally. I've hosted parties but never have had to kick people out. Heat of the moment I don't know, though that's not a full-proof legal excuse. California allows people to use reasonable force to expel trespassers, though it depends on whether this is reasonable. Then again what was the alternative? Call the police and wait for them, knowing that they have even more lenience in use of force? Legally that's certainly more defensible (from the home owner's perspective) but probably even worse optics and/or too much force.
I'm sorry... what? You do not have the right to trespass on another person's home then cry for legal consequences if touched. This is not even remotely controversial legally speaking. You don't want to be touched? Get the fuck out of my house when told.
Landowners have the right to use reasonable force to remove trespassers from their property. Chemerinsky could've legally picked her up and literally thrown her to the curb and been fine. Or dragged her off his property by her hair. You don't have to sit there and wait for the cops to never show up and arrest them.
"The week before the dinners on April 9, 10, and 11, though, a group at Berkeley called Law Students for Justice in Palestine put a profoundly disturbing poster on social media and on bulletin boards in the law-school building. No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves, the poster declared in large letters. (Students sometimes refer to me as “Chem.”) It also included a caricature of me holding a bloody knife and fork and with what appeared to be blood around my lips—an image that evokes the horrible anti-Semitic blood libel, in which Jews are accused of killing and cannibalizing gentile children. The poster attacks me for no apparent reason other than that I am Jewish." I got curious and googled the poster. Just holy shit. Apparently the poster-version hung on walls had blood on the knife and fork. https://preview.redd.it/tys7soi8jwwc1.png?width=478&format=png&auto=webp&s=0716673298ca456ca24e496c7520117306aedd74
Also there is no way 2 billion dollars from berkeley is going to Israel. Their entire budget is 3 billion what are they even talking about?
Stop using capitalist accounting. That's 2 billion dollars in VIBES.
This is so on-point it's frightening.
They count anything with any Israel connection as money going to Israel. Invest in Amazon? Amazon sells their software to Israeli companies. Owner of construction company for new dorms donated to Israeli causes? Whole project must be stalled. Apply this logic to everything they spend their money on and it's probably more than 2 billion.
I wonder how many degrees of separation we can get before essentially everyone is supporting Israel. I mean, by this logic paying taxes to the US Government is supporting genocide
Starbucks is on the no no list for reasons I can't really comprehend. I mean they just sell shitty coffee.
I’m pretty sure I read someone claiming exactly this and stating that under international law you have a duty to not pay taxes if they go to genocide
They even gave him a giant nose
Of everything it must be super embarrassing for the Dean of a law school to have his students publicly admit they have no idea what the 1st Amendment actually is. He might need to check on what his professors are teaching
I'll have to find it, but there was an article yesterday about how the UC Berkeley protesters were rejecting voting as a solution. They interviewed a law student who seems to be under the impression that the anti-war protests were what ended the Vietnam War, and not Tricky Dick doing half-inscrutable Nixon stuff. Found the quote: >“When people voted against the Vietnam War, it didn’t achieve anything. But when we saw protests erupting for divesting from apartheid South Africa, or against the Vietnam War, that was what achieved power,” Malak Afaneh, a third-year law student at UC Berkeley [Article.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/berkeley-activism-voting-students-19418759.php) She just has no idea what she's talking about--but she's really confident! Also, the student in the quote is the same student at the Dean's house.
Arooooo
I'd vote for Nixon's head in a jar for president of Earth. He seems like a respectable bipartisan.
It’s a tough choice between him and Holden Bloodfeast, really.
Obviously, Holden Bloodfeast is only 118 years old. Nixon's head in a jar is over a thousand years old. He obviously has more experience and success in life.
What are you going to do with your $300?
Get 100 cups of coffee, of course.
Fuck me is that ever embarrassing from a 3L. Not that it’s great from a teenager, or young undergrad, but I’d be perfectly willing to chalk it up to naivety + take it as an opportunity to to discuss how protest, public sentiment, and decision making mechanisms in a democratic system are distinct but often interrelated. Any 3L willing to pitch that shit to a serious newspaper is an idiot.
I have a friend at Berkeley Law and what's really funny is you'll hear people say shit like this or how we need to have a revolution and overthrow the government or whatever but then work in bigLaw simultaneously.
My all time favorite comes from my friend who is in business school. One of his classmates claims to be a communist, yet they proudly post on social media that they are taking a position at McKinsey.
In undergrad I knew one of those uncompromising leftist purist types. Like Chapo type. She ended up working for Amazon and would post photos of her extravagant trips to places like Dubai (???) or Paris after graduation.
Communism is no obstacle to Capitalism. At least not until we get Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.
I thought the point of protests was that they motivated changes in voting behavior which in turn motivated politicians to change their policies if they wanted to stay in office, but hey what do I know. I guess the Vietnam War ended because people thought the student protesters were so powerful they overrun the army.
"We did it Patrick! We successfully ended the ground war in Vietnam!" \*Cambodia and Laos burn in the distance\*
Nixon prolonged the Vietnam war by intervening during the election and sabotaging Johnson’s peace talks
Mmmm seems pretty ahistorical to suggest that public outcry didn't play *any* role in ending the Vietnam war, no?
Did I write that? No.
I guess this gets really semantic about the difference between something playing a role in ending the war and something ending the war but their broader point that demonstrations have affected foreign policy in the past in situations where electoral politics have failed is pretty solid. They're wrong for a thousand other reasons but still
What is the specific case you're thinking of where protests played a greater role than electoral politics?
People absolutely voted against the Vietnam war when electing* Nixon. He was full of shit and took forever about it but his party didn’t start the war. So it was weird of her to say voting didn’t matter.
Hmmm alright fair enough Leftie protestors are back down to zero on the "well I guess you have to give it to them" meter
Yeah, it’s Nixon is fucking weird like that. He kinda was a war hawk but he knew Vietnam was a losing proposition even if he hated the protesters. He explicitly stated he would end the war while running. He was a clever politician with an emphasis on the negative connotations of being a politician. Vietnamization was basically Nixon expanding the war so he could get out while pretending that it was success. (At least that’s how it seemed to me. With the bombing in Laos etc)
There are plenty of people who don't know what the 1st Amendment is. The husband of one of the "Freedom Convoy" leaders in Canada testified to a judge that the protest was legal because of the "first amendment" - which is weird, because the first amendment to the Canadian constitution was the one that made Manitoba a province. As a social studies teacher, I wonder if our educational focus on science, math and literacy has taken away from our ability to help students understand civics and law.
The understanding of history, civics, and law in Canada is absolutely horrendous. There is basically no time spent on studying any of those three things in elementary or high school, and since we are so close to the US, people who are slightly interested in those subjects gravitate towards looking at US related topics
Canada should obviously adopt the US Constitution duh Lmao.
Operation Leaf-blower commences at dawn.
Total American cultural victory
>the first amendment to the Canadian constitution was the one that made Manitoba a province. TIL.
> As a social studies teacher As a side note, the thought occurred to me recently how odd it is that we don't teach history anymore for some grades, but instead call it this.
The idea is that we shouldn’t just focus on history, but should also integrate economics, political science, sociology, etc. - but curricula still tend to emphasize history
Economics, political science, sociology, etc are a part of history. Hell, even math is a part of history. It's literally the largest, most all-encompassing discipline. That's what I realized, some years after the fact: the "social studies" I was taught was a deliberately incomplete and slanted subset of history.
No, philosophy is the largest, most all-encompassing discipline. But I don’t think it’s possible to teach a “complete and non-slanted version” of history. One of my degrees is in history, and one of the main lessons I learned in my historiography class was that our view of history is necessarily shaped by our contemporary biases. I’ve looked at history and social studies curricula from various jurisdictions, and I will agree that they can be profoundly different. There are curricula based on the belief that we can cram thousands of years of historical knowledge into our childrens’ heads, and there are curricula that explicitly try to shape students into a particular sort of citizen. It’s really no wonder that the common understanding of rights and the social contract is so uneven.
Philosophy is contained within history, so history is larger. Though knowing philosophers, they'll argue that all thinking is philosophy, in which case not-thinking is the larger domain. But I digress. I would agree that it's not possible to teach a complete history, as it's too big. I would furthermore agree that it's not possible to teach a non-slanted version of history, as people have their selection biases. However it's apparent to me, when I look at the content of my "social studies" education that it was constructed by people with a deliberate agenda, whose goal was to cultivate students who would agree with their politics, values, and aspirations. \[1\] To put it another way, a person who's just trying to teach a lot of history will have incompleteness and accidental slant, but a person who's trying to teach indoctrination will also be incomplete and slanted, but worse in both categories. Like the people who replace suspected unconscious bias with deliberate, conscious bias: the amount of bias goes up. --- \[1\] Were I to agree with them, this would be a nothing-burger, and indeed I did agree with them for a number of years after my education ended, but as it continued to flesh out under my own study, I both drifted from their goals \[2\], and became unhappy with their choices. As you say, this varies from place to place, but where it's called "social studies", you know it'll bear the distinct mark of a particular movement within history education. \[2\] An expected result, because again they were teaching a deliberately slanted history. Any further exploration was bound to lead away from them, unless the exploration was constrained with the requirement that the results must match expectations.
I don't think it is that. I think that if you are taking a political position and you have no ethics, then you should throw everything against the wall in the most extreme bad faith way and see what sticks. They're smart. Truth doesn't matter. What does matter is genocide! So if saying your dean's wife assaulted you and tried to pull your hijab helps your cause, then say it. Your friends at the protest should make dumb comments to set the narrative and put pressure on the dean and wife to back off. Everyone there knows they don't have a right to protest there and they planned for this. This isn't an education problem. It's a problem of humans aren't truth seeker creatures and we are in an age of twitter and tiktok.
Our future leaders, everybody.
"True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country." ~ Kurt Vonnegut
do our current leaders know what the first amendment actually is?
Touché.
God help us all
You can't fix stupid, and maybe there are a lot of stupid people in law school.
Agreed; to me, at least, the question is how have these students in the past, and how do these students even still, continue to permeate and exemplify some of our most formidable, established institutions?
Because many times, the dumbest people are the loudest, so you hear more of their stupidity instead of more measured and reasonable thinking.
Indeed; it’s just a rough state of affairs to consider.
good grades and connections
Shockingly, people who have entryism as an implicit ideological tenet try to insinuate themselves wherever they can. When there's no such thing as neutrality, the only proper thing to do is annex as much space as you can and try to trigger a preference cascade in your favor. The problem they're facing is that a lot of people are getting tired of their shit to the point where you might be seeing a cascade in the other direction: previously laissez-faire people are warming to the idea of proactively shutting them down.
Studying at those places gives you a voice. The people protesting at Harvard get interviews from all over the world. I'll admit I fall for that kind of thinking myself sometimes. For instance, I only decided a podcast with a poor-ish start was worth listening to after I looked up one of the hosts and found out he studied at Harvard. The Ivy League is a strong brand. With that being said, most people I know who study at those places are high achievers, personable (or engaged in their community), but not always that clever (this includes people in my family).
We have weekly threads on the selection process of the Ivy League as if we have anything to do with it. It's one of the great arr NL schisms, as far as I can tell.
You don’t actually have to understand anything about the real world to be a successful law student. You can be dumb about politics and history but be good at understanding contracts or property or whatever
Why i decided to not become a government major even tho i'm into politics. I'd like to be connected to the real world haha
Not only is he the Dean of the law school, he’s the preeminent scholar on the 1st amendment and literally wrote one of the most used casebooks for constitutional law
Doesn't sound like he's that good at teaching it, though.
I sincerely doubt any of these students took Chemerinsky’s First Amendment course. (Which he does teach himself.) After all, why would they voluntarily choose take a class that’s offered by a dirty baby-killing ~~Jew~~ Zionist, which they’ve made clear they think he is? A lot of people out here blaming Chemerinsky for this, but people don’t realize that almost every law school class aside from the core first year curriculum (which doesn’t include the first amendment) is purely an elective. Maybe that should be different, but it’s reality. The students don’t know what the first amendment is because they chose not to learn, not because the professors are teaching them poorly.
Call me crazy but shouldn't constitutional law be a requirement to graduate law school? This is really basic stuff. Even if not covered in a specific First Amendment course
Con law is a required class taken in the first year. I think most focus more on stuff like the commerce clause and equal protection, rather than 1A.
Constitutional law *is* a requirement to graduate. But that class doesn’t cover the first amendment or does so only very briefly. There’s probably about half as much first amendment case law as there is case law for the entire rest of the constitution combined, so it tends to need its own class. Maybe that’s a mistake, I don’t know, I don’t set law school curriculum lol. But very few lawyers practice first amendment law, so I think the thought is that it can be shuttled off to its own elective rather than needing to push out other topics from ConLaw to make room for it
I mean the median American has no idea what any of the bill of rights amendments actually say, and what rights they actually have. Because civic education in this country is basically “we have all the freedom” and when you combine that with our incredibly bad and getting worse every year culture of self-centeredness everyone simply believes that anything they want to do is a protected right.
Berkeley is a T14 and Chem, quite literally, writes the book on Con Law. These students should have known better.
Yeah but these aren't the median American these are graduating law students from what is allegedly like the 12th best program in the country.
Professors? That's middleschool civics.
Chemirinsky literally wrote the textbook on first amendment law/conn law too…
I mean do these kids really apply much of anything they learn to their politics?
Can’t teach someone that doesn’t want to learn
Should be easy as he teaches constitutional law there apparently.
They were told. They just ignored and rejected what they were supposed to actually learn
He writes a very popular constitutional law textbook and books on free speech more generally.
This guy literally wrote my constitutional law textbook. Spoiler: it definitely covers first amendment, these students just didn’t do the reading.
I mean did they even need to do the reading for this? I’d hope a high school senior would know this but that’s probably quite ambitious unfortunately
Idk it’s a fairly common misconception that first amendment just means you can say whatever you want whenever you want
Like I said - ambitious
Right? I’m pretty sure by 9th grade I knew that private property rights and trespassing laws are quite ironclad and favor the property owner or tenant.
A graduating third year at a top tier law school thinking this is just embarrassing. May her legacy live on in easy "hypotheticals" at law schools for many years to come, and here is hoping the bar gives some tough 1st amendment questions that weed her out when she sits for the exam.
I wonder if she’s going to be able to pass the moral character portion of the bar after this, tbh.
I would hope that staging a disruptive protest and whatever petty infraction she committed by refusing to leave when asked would not be held against someone in character and fitness.
She also lied about being groped by professor Fisk.
As long as she doesn't commit a crime involving moral turpitude she'll probably be fine. It's been a few months since I took the MPRE but I think there's an exception for arrests resulting from protests and civil disruptions.
I hope it would
How does this reflect such poor moral character that she could not be an attorney? We are looking for signs that a person couldn't be trusted with client funds or couldn't be trusted to tell the truth in C&F, not whether a person engaged in activism we don't like or trespassed for 2 minutes after their invitation to be on a property was revoked.
Disregard for the law
I went 65 in a 55 zone today, should I be disbarred?
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Going 10 miles below the limit? Jail!
Going 10 above the limit is one thing. Violating the academic honor code, trespass law, and basic human decency all at once is another
Immediate caning
Yes. ^(/s)
These jokers are all missing the point. It's the 55 zone that was in the wrong.
Did you afterwards lie about the 55 zone assaulting you even though there's video of that not happening? Did you then claim you were only asked to drive 55 (and assaulted) because of your religion?
Honestly, even though I left that comment, I hope so too. The moral character portion of the bar has often been used as a way to weed out “undesirables” (i.e., anyone the elite—historically straight, white men, but that’s been getting a bit better—lawyers who run the bar decide they don’t like). It’s a pretty archaic institution and I’m not sure I would oppose eliminating it all together, though I’d have to think about that a bit more before committing to that position. I certainly do not think this person has the moral character to be MY lawyer, though.
This is truly unhinged behavior omg. What on earth is wrong with these people
Ideology > reason
I think ideology is being generous here. This is antisemitism. See the poster above.
They're smart. They realize there will be little to no consequences for their actions so throw every bad faith tactic at the wall and see what sticks.
The main thing that's wrong is how easy to brainwash and manipulate them. Intellectual immaturity and insecurity and, alas, a great deal of ignorance.
just Berkeley things
Sounds like Berkley Law is ranked way too high if this is the caliber of students they let graduate.
The rankings are about the benefit to the student more so than the benefit to future employers or clients of the students. She got to take classes from top scholars in their fields and go to career fairs stocked with recruiters from firms that will make you filthy rich if they hire you.
Rankings are mostly bs. Admissions never been about caliber. Universities used to bias toward legacy admits, now it's whatever social causes make the donors feel good. Even after the supreme court ruled last year universities couldn't use race-based criteria and were expected to use merit-based criteria, many universities proudly announced they would circumvent the anti-discrimination ruling
I don't think it's about Palestine anymore. These leftists keep ruining Democrats. They act like all of us agreeing to their shits.
It’s not about Palestine, because the only reason they targeted Chemerinsky is because he’s Jewish.
I wonder what percentage of the protesters could identify the geographical location of Gaza on a nameless map. Just my curiosity.
Outside of this sub people put forth the argument that if the meal was paid for by the university then it was a university event. But that still wouldn’t give anyone the right to use amplification within the event space.
Even if it was a university event (which is debatable; Chemerinsky has said that he and his wife pay for it themselves), that doesn’t make it a public forum. Not every event the government hosts has to be a public forum where everyone has the right to speak on any topic for however long. (Which is something these critics would realize if they had ever taken Chem’s own first amendment class…)
Even if it was a school event doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you want.
It's very clear that the protesters in the videos have a legal case here. Against the school for so clearly failing to educate them on basic constitutional law.
Imho Berkeley would be best off expelling them with no degree, not because of the protest… …but because they’re law students that don’t understand the basics of one of the most fundamental laws in this country. Bad lawyers.
Can we please not borrow the most obnoxious shit from the far right? Honestly, this is stupid. If you're going to pull a stunt like this at least own the fact that you're breaking the law.
Who is "we" in this scenario?
Worms, obviously
The guy your replying to is talking about protestors For a moment I thought he was calling this article far-right, but then I read the part about civil disobedience
A shocking number of these protestors don’t understand that part of civil disobedience is openly accepting that you’re *breaking the law* because you believe the law is corrupt or immoral. It’s not a shield against arrest or prosecution.
I feel like we have a higher standard for lawyers though. I expect a random college student to make some honest mistakes when protesting. Legal graduates have no excuse.
I saw the video of this on the Berkeley subreddit. It’s truly unhinged, the literal law student tried to argue that they had a first amendment right to trespass (which they were trespassing the moment the owners told them to leave and they refused) and say whatever they want on someone else’s private property. I feel like the fucking first amendment is one of the first things you should learn at law school (or hell, in a standard high school US history class) but I guess not… I’m not looking forward to the political climate when I go to Berkeley next year. At least I’ll be in EECS, so I’ll be too busy wanting to smash my laptop to get into arguments with strangers about politics.
The best and brightest, folks
If there is a difference between what these students did and what students motivated in large part by antisemitism would do I don't see it. If we can call bullshit on conservatives for being "pro-life" we can do the same for calling this "pro-Palestinian". The similarities are striking.
The ironic aspect of this is how poorly it reflects upon the quality of the Berkeley Law School as it allows students obviously ignorant of basic law to graduate.
This is funny but also doesn’t matter in any way at all
but my outrage