Parents Push Back On The Rainbow Mafia’s Unmistakable Intolerance

Every time activists and educrats assure parents that the LGBT movement is about 'tolerance,' we find evidence of intolerance.

Stanford law dean apologized to Fifth Circuit judge shouted down by radicals on campus. The woke mob won't let such civility go unpunished.



Good manners and free speech are evidently no longer given any quarter on Stanford University campus.

The dean of Stanford's law school has been targeted for abuse by leftists on campus in response to her decision to apologize to a conservative judge whom censorious students tried to shut up.

What is the background?

An esteemed Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judge was invited to speak to the Federalist Society at Stanford university last week about the dialogue between the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit concerning authoritarian COVID-19 restrictions and gun laws.
TheBlaze previously reported that rather than risk exposure to Judge Kyle Duncan's real-world insights, a mob of students shouted him down.

"You've invited me here and I'm being heckled nonstop," says the Trump-appointed judge in a video captured during the event.

Although there was at least one other adult in the room, Tirien Steinbach — a diversity, equity, and inclusion associate dean — she did little to help the situation.
Similarly allergic to differing worldviews, Steinbach launched into an unhinged six-minute rant denouncing Duncan, regurgitating remarks she had circulated to students prior to the event.

"In my view, this was a setup, [Tirien Steinbach] was working with students on this," Duncan later told Reuters.

Duncan later demanded an apology, noting that the anti-free-speech protesters had treated their peers like "dogs**t."

He later told the Washington Free Beacon, "If enough of these kids get into the legal profession, the rule of law will descend into barbarism."

None
— (@)

Mea culpa

Following the incident, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez penned an apology to Duncan, noting, "What happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus."

"We are very clear with our students that, given our commitment to free expression, if there are speakers they disagree with, they are welcome to exercise their right to protest but not to disrupt the proceedings," said the letter. "Staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university's commitment to free speech."

The president and dean claimed they were "taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again."

Duncan said in a statement obtained by National Review that he appreciated the apology and was "pleased to accept it."

"I particularly appreciate the apology’s important acknowledgment that 'staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech,'" wrote Duncan. "Particularly given the depth of the invective directed towards me by the protestors, the administrators’ behavior was completely at odds with the law school’s mission of training future members of the bench and bar."

Extra to suggesting that the members of Stanford's Federalist Society were most deserving of an apology, Duncan wrote, "Given the disturbing nature of what happened, clearly concrete and comprehensive steps are necessary. I look forward to learning what measures Stanford plans to take to restore a culture of intellectual freedom."

Anti-free-speech activists strike again

The apology enraged leftists on campus.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that hundreds of anti-free-speech activists crowded the hallways of the university Monday, protesting Martinez and her apology.

Martinez found that activists had plastered the whiteboard inside the classroom where she teaches constitutional law with placards denouncing Duncan along with copies of her apology.

One flier said, "We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights."

Another flier, which was mass-produced, advanced the Orwellian claim that "'COUNTER-SPEECH' IS FREE SPEECH."

This claim — that censorship constitutes free speech — was reportedly scrawled across the masks of the anti-speech extremists haunting Martinez's classroom, dressed all in black.

Martinez's faceless critics were joined by the majority of her pupils. Nearly 50 out of the 60 students enrolled in the first-year class got involved in the anti-free-speech protest, reported the Free Beacon.

Those who refused to participate were stigmatized.

"They gave us weird looks if we didn’t wear black," first-year law student Luke Schumacher told the Free Beacon. "It didn’t feel like the inclusive, belonging atmosphere that the DEI office claims to be creating."

Students writing on behalf of the Stanford chapter of the American Constitution Society condemned the apology, telling Marinez that Duncan was not a victim, but had "himself made civil dialogue impossible."

The juvenile chapter of the ACS further implored the administration to "clarify that Judge Duncan's behavior does not meet the standards this university expects of invited speakers," suggesting that he had "walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone, looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol, than a federal judge coming to speak."

None
— (@)

According to Schumacher, when Martinez left the building, the anti-free-speech activists began to cheer and weep.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

US Circuit judge denounces 'cancel culture,' vows not to hire Yale law clerks: 'Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it'



A federal appeals judge has decided to take action against so-called "cancel culture" by denying clerkships to those educated by a place he considers to be a major cancel culture supply line: Yale Law School.

Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, recently spoke to the Kentucky Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society and openly castigated the intolerant practices promulgated by Yale Law and its graduates.

"Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it," he said.

To illustrate his point, Ho cited several recent examples that have affected the legal community. Back in late January, a would-be Georgetown Law senior lecturer, Ilya Shapiro, was placed on administrative leave after he tweeted criticism of President Joe Biden for selecting a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court based on the immutable characteristics of race and sex. Ketanji Brown Jackson, a black woman, was sworn in to the Court last week, but Shapiro ultimately resigned his position at Georgetown back in June because he said that he could not abide a "place that excludes dissenting voices." Shapiro did not work one official day on the job.

For more evidence of the intolerance propagated at Yale Law, Ho also pointed to an event held at Yale itself. Back in March, more than 100 Yale Law students loudly disrupted a free speech presentation headlined by Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Monica Miller of the American Humanist Association. The activist students caused such a disturbance that nearby classes complained, and police had to escort the speakers safely out of the building and into a police vehicle after it was over.

Ellen Cosgrove, an associate dean at Yale Law, attended the entire event, Ho noted, but "did nothing" to punish the petulant protestors for their behavior.

"It turns out that, when elite law schools like Yale teach their students that there are no consequences to their intolerance and illiberalism," Ho said, "the message sticks with them."

However, in addition to referencing numerous examples of intolerant bullying perpetrated by Yale Law students, Ho also suggested that judges have in their control one possible solution to the problem: Refuse to hire these same students as law clerks.

"We’re not just citizens," Ho reminded his audience. "We’re also customers. Customers can boycott entities that practice cancel culture. ... I wonder how a law school would feel, if my fellow federal judges and I stopped being its customers."

He added that his intention is not to participate in cancel culture per se, but to give cancel culture participants a taste of their own medicine.

"I don't want to cancel Yale," Ho insisted. "I want Yale to stop canceling people like me."

Even a Mother Jones writer agreed with the premise of Ho's new policy, if not with Ho's reasons. "The highest levels of the federal judiciary have for too long been dominated by graduates of the same handful of select law schools," wrote senior reporter Tim Murphy, "and it’d be a mistake to say we’re better for it."

Former President Donald Trump nominated Ho, who graduated from the University of Chicago School of Law, to the federal bench in 2018. According to Reuters, Yale declined to comment on this story.

Star of movie Sam Elliott ripped for 'allusions of homosexuality' says Elliott's take was 'very odd,' speaks of 'toxic masculinity' in defending film



After actor Sam Elliott made headlines last week by blasting "allusions of homosexuality" in "piece of s**t" movie "The Power of the Dog," Benedict Cumberbatch — the star of the movie in question — called Elliott's take "very odd" and spoke of "toxic masculinity" and "intolerance" in defending the Oscar-nominated film.

What's the background?

Elliott — known for his Western roles in "Tombstone" and his present project "1883" — let loose with pointed, profane criticisms of "The Power of the Dog" during an interview on Marc Maron’s "WTF" podcast.

Consequence Film characterized director Jane Campion's effort as a "deconstructed Western" and Cumberbatch's character, Phil Burbank, as a "self-styled macho man whose insistence on presenting himself in the most manly way possible hides deep insecurities about his sexual identity."

After Maron asked Elliott his opinion of "The Power of the Dog," he replied, “You wanna talk about that piece of s**t?”

The 77-year-old brought up a Los Angeles Times ad for the movie containing a blurb that “talked about ‘the evisceration of the American myth.’ And I thought, What the f***? What the f***?"

Elliott then said the "f***ing cowboys" in the movie looked like Chippendales dancers: "They’re all running around in chaps and no shirts. There’s all these allusions of homosexuality throughout the f***ing movie.”

What did Cumberbatch have to say?

During BAFTA's Film Sessions on Friday, Cumberbatch discussed his repressed gay character in "The Power of the Dog" — and also addressed Elliott's statements, Digital Spy said.

"I'm trying very hard not to say anything about a very odd reaction that happened the other day on a radio podcast over here," he said, according to the outlet. "Without meaning to stir over the ashes of that ... someone really took offense to — I haven't heard it, so it's unfair for me to comment in detail on it — to the West being portrayed in this way."

Cumberbatch continued: "These people ... still exist in our world. Whether it's on our doorstep, or whether it's down the road, or whether it's someone we meet in a bar or pub or ... on the sports field, there is aggression and anger and frustration and an inability to control or know who you are in that moment that causes damage to that person and, as we know ... damage to others around them."

He also said "there's no harm in looking at a character to get to the root causes of that. This is a very specific case of repression, but also due to an intolerance for that true identity that Phil is that he can't fully be. The more we look under the hood of toxic masculinity and try to discover the root causes of it, the bigger chances we have of dealing with it when it arises with our children," Digital Spy added.

Here are some of Elliott's words and Cumberbatch's reaction. Content warning: Language:

Benedict Cumberbatch Responds To Sam Elliott's Critique Of 'The Power Of The Dog'youtu.be

Anything else?

Leftists ripped into Elliott for his comments about "The Power of the Dog," with some remarking that similar themes were explored in the 2005 film "Brokeback Mountain" and how Elliott could not know that.

Except he did. In fact, Elliott said in regard to gay themes in "Brokeback Mountain" that the "whole homosexual thing was interesting — they stepped over the line — but [my wife] Katharine and I both looked at it and thought, ‘What’s the big deal?’”