Education /

Author Refers To Stanford University Protestors As 'America's Red Guard'

'Our Nation's Snot-Nosed Cultural Revolutionaries Have Put 'Counter Speech' To Good Work In Our Terrifying New Age Of Intolerance'

Columnist and author David Marcus referred to recent Stanford University protestors as “America’s Red Guard” in an op-ed for Daily Mail.

Marcus further criticized student protestors’ terminology “counter-speech” to support their disruptive efforts to protest Fifth Circuit Appellate Judge Kyle Duncan who appeared on campus last Thursday.

“America’s Red Guard has a chilling new catch phrase: ’Counter speech,’” Marcus wrote. “It’s a dizzying manipulation of logic that would have made George Orwell kick himself and ask: ‘Why didn’t I think of that?'”

The author referred to the concept of “counter speech” as “essentially yelling that drowns out anyone that you disagree with.”

“Our nation’s snot-nosed cultural revolutionaries have put ‘counter speech’ to good work in our terrifying new age of intolerance,” Marcus continued. “The spoiled brats at Stanford University Law School are leading the charge.”

The author detailed the events of Duncan’s visit to campus, which involved the Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach who also participated in reprimanding the Fifth Circuit Appellate Judge.

“What was the sin that Duncan was being castigated for? What had he done to deserve all this?” Marcus wrote. “He had refused to use trans pronouns from the bench. That’s it. That’s really all it takes these days.”

Marcus noted the President of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Levine, and Dean of the Law School Jenny Martinez had written Duncan a formal letter over the weekend apologizing for their students’ and Steinbach’s behavior.

“No sooner had the ink dried than hundreds of students — nearly one third of the law school — engaged in an eerie and menacing protest against Dean Martinez herself,” Marcus wrote of Martinez’s student’s Monday protest in her classroom. “As any good cultural revolutionaries would – they turned on their teacher.”

On Monday, dean Martinez arrived to her classroom and found her whiteboards covered in fliers criticizing her and Duncan. Fifty of the 60 enrolled students attended class wearing all black and donning face masks reading, “counter-speech is free speech” while staring Martinez down. Students who chose not to participate in the protest also received a similar stare down.

“The signs – childishly taped across the room’s whiteboard and desk and computer – unironically appealed for their own ‘free speech rights’ even when they would deny those rights to others,” Marcus wrote, noting Stanford Law’s Federalist Society had initially extended their invitation to Duncan. “Why is it OK to deny them the chance to learn from a man with decades of judicial experience?”

Duncan detailed student protestors, comprising nearly one-third of the law school, had formed a human corridor from the dean’s classroom to the building’s exit.

“Imagine paying nearly $67,000 a year to attend Stanford Law and emerge with no understanding of the concept of free speech – or for that matter – common sense,” he wrote before directing criticism towards Steinbach for participating in the student protest. “It goes without saying that she should be fired, and her entire ridiculous department abolished. But she is an atrocious educator to boot.”

The most terrifying part of this whole harrowing incident is that these censorious, childish, caterwauling law students will soon become attorneys and even judges themselves. How will they do their jobs in the real world? How will they defend the wrongly accused or vigorously prosecute the guilty? Sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and shrieking profanities may not be convincing to a jury.

Duncan further suggested the future attorneys could “corrupt the American legal system” because “people [like this] in positions of power promises a darkly dystopian future.”

“Picture a country in which vengeful, weak weirdos mete out injustice to anyone who denies their current thing, be it pronouns or any other fashionable form of fascism,” he said. “In a few decades, we may find ourselves staring up at some mal-educated official in a furry costume condemning us to the re-education camps for the thought crimes du jour.”

The author concluded by referring to “counter-speech” as an “insidious concept” leading to the “destruction and desecration of speech.”
*For corrections please email [email protected]*