Petition Demands Immigration Debate Be Cancelled at Seattle U. Law School
“might make some of those students unsafe or unwelcome”
The left does not want to debate the issues. They believe they are right and don’t want anyone questioning them.
Bloomberg’s Big Law Business Blog reports:
Seattle Law School Latest Flashpoint Over Campus Speech (Updated)
An immigration debate at Seattle University School of Law is the latest front for the hot-button issue of campus speech rights…
At Seattle University’s law school, a Change.org petition purportedly signed by over 200 individuals is asking the school to cancel the Oct. 16 debate, which is being hosted by the school’s Federalist Society chapter.
The event, “an immigration debate primarily focused on” the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, was to be co-hosted by the school’s Access to Justice Institute as part of its “Social Justice Monday” series, Thomas Reinhard—who is the Federalist Society chapter president and a student at the law school—told Bloomberg BNA by phone Oct. 5.
DACA is an Obama administration program, recently rescinded by the Trump administration, that deferred deportation for some 800,000 immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally when they were children.
“Our school does a lot of work in its recruitment and its programming trying to support students in marginalized communities,” Destinee Evers, a second-year law student who signed the petition, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 6.
It “really concerned me that we would be potentially supporting an event that would create dialogue that might make some of those students unsafe or unwelcome,” she said.
Reinhard said he’s “1000%” certain the petition caused ATJI’s withdrawal. ATJI describes itself as a “home for pro bono, public interest, and social justice activities” and is affiliated with the law school.
[The headline was changed after publication to clarify the debate was not cancelled, but the ATJI’s sponsorship withdrawn]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hard to think of anything more useless than a lawyer who would feel “unsafe or unwelcome” merely hearing different points of view.
Good luck in the courtroom, snowflakes!
Pete Seeger once sang sang that “Mrs. Jay’s little son Alby” had “beans in his ears, ” but in this context beans might be thought racist.
So, put earplugs in your ears (they work better than beans anyway).
Of course, the problem isn’t that someone might be hurt from hearing this speech (earplugs work fine to prevent that), but that some just can’t tolerate the very thought that someone, somewhere might be saying something they disapprove of. Or that they might disapprove of, if they were to hear it.
And since you can’t stop disturbing thoughts with earplugs, it becomes necessary to police everyone speech, everywhere, all the time.