Exploitation At Stanford Law School

The purpose of the announcement is to force Stanford Law School to capitulate to the demands of its Black Law Students Association. Or else what?

Stanford University’s Black Law Students Association will no longer help the university recruit black students after the law school’s dean, Jenny Martinez, apologized in early March to Fifth Circuit appellate judge Kyle Duncan.

It’s understandable that the BLSA has taken the position that Judge Duncan is evil and should be deplatformed no matter what. Such concerns as “free speech” and “academic freedom” count for little for those suffering the mindset of “only outcome matters,” and principles are for kids. But refusing to help Stanford, a law school that would almost certainly serve to raise the prospects of its black law students, who could then use their status to help others to overcome the legacy of racism, seems like an ill-conceived plan.

“The apology was intimately aligned with White supremacist practices,” the group’s board wrote in a letter to the administration, which was posted on Instagram earlier this month. “We cannot, in good faith, participate in recruiting Black students into a community more concerned with palliating wealthy, White conservative donors than the ‘student-focused and community-inspired’ legal education [Stanford Law School] promotes.”

As such, the group said it would “boycott official admit events” for the class of 2026 and encourage prospective students to go elsewhere.

Why apologizing to an invited speaker for the planned disruption with the planned support of an assistant dean, even if one bearing no connection too academic purpose, that was “intimately aligned with White supremacist practices” is unclear. Indeed, to the untrained eye, it just seems to be words strung together to convey the impression of mean when it bears none. But to ask why this is so is to mark oneself as a racist and lose the game of Calvinball.

“Stanford’s administration has actively marginalized its Black community, most recently by scapegoating Dean Tirien Steinbach,” the Black Students Association wrote. “Dean Martinez and President Tessier-Lavigne’s statements continuously minimize Duncan’s behavior and the impact of his work.”

From the perspective of providing unconditional support to members of the tribe, since they’re the good people and anyone who doesn’t demonstrate fealty to the tribe is evil and must be destroyed, the BLSA’s support for Steinbach is understandable. After all, she is the DEI dean and DEI is good, so therefore she must be good. And that Dean Martinez laid all blame at Steinbach’s feet when she was merely doing the job Stanford hired her to do is, sadly, correct. Why have a DEI dean if you aren’t going to elevate DEI above all else, free speech in particular. After all, if you believe speech causes harm, then Duncan’s speaking was mass murder in their mind.

The riptide from both groups has put Stanford in a tough spot. Dissatisfied with the soft-gloved treatment of the hecklers, law professors, politicians, and state bar associations have all joined Ho and Branch’s pile-on, using the powers at their disposal to make life difficult for the elite law school.

But bowing to that pressure could come at a cost. Like undergraduate admissions offices, law schools go to great lengths to boost minority representation. If Stanford’s own students begin undermining its admissions efforts—especially those aimed at African Americans—the school may decide that a clerkship boycott is a price worth paying to maintain its diversity.

Indeed, Stanford law school finds itself in a tough spot, caught between two conflicting positions that would inevitably clash. The BLSA students are banking on the school’s valuing diversity more highly than free speech, and so will bring the school crashing down to its knees and begging the BLSA to once again participate in efforts to bring more of the top black law school applicants to Stanford rather than Harvard or Yale. After all, where are they going to go otherwise, Cooley?

But what benefit would be gained if they refuse to help, refuse to participate in admissions  and recruitment activities?

Black students have “historically contributed an extensive amount of free labor to assist the University” in recruitment, the letter said. “But we are continually overlooked by the administration when it makes significant decisions—as evidenced by the institution’s condoning of Judge Duncan’s behavior.”

Free labor? What does “free” have to do with anything, as it would seem in their interest of expanding inclusion and diversity to do whatever they can to bring more top quality black law applicants to Stanford. Or is there another consideration? Or a few others, as long as there is a cause to grieve?

The letter also aired a number of grievances that it said predated the Duncan incident. Stanford, the Black Law Students Association argued, had hobbled the group’s ability “to create a safe space for its members,” and—despite black students’ “free labor”—the school’s admissions policies “reproduce and reify White supremacy, classism, and colorism.”

The group also slammed Stanford for allowing “internet harassment” and the “doxxing of fellow students”—apparently a reference to the Washington Free Beacon‘s reporting, which included the names of several students, such as Denni Arnold, who organized the protest.

If Stanford law school is now a hotbed of white supremacy for putting free speech ahead of silencing Duncan, is it in the BLSA’s interest to tell black students to go elsewhere, avoid Stanford, or to bring more black students into the fold so that Stanford’s diversity and incusion will achieve the level of parity desired? Or can this be resolved by paying cash for services rendered at recruitment events, much like the students at NYU law school’s law review want cash for their hard work running a journal?