Can 'cryptocredits' replace Stanford? Bitcoin pioneer launches Network School



Unless you've been living under a rock on some distant planet, you’re probably aware of the ideological capture that's taken root in U.S. universities — and, more broadly, across the Western education system.

Once considered places where minds were expanded and intellectual growth was fostered, these institutions now resemble echo chambers where perspectives are narrowed and critical thinking is sacrificed at the altar of ideology. Graduates don’t just emerge with distorted mindsets; they impose their problematic perspectives on broader society.

The school’s mission is to unearth what Srinivasan calls 'dark talent' — no, not criminal masterminds capable of taking down a nation's power grid. Rather, these are individuals brimming with potential, many of whom are often overlooked by the conventional education system.

So what can be done? How do we reclaim education from this downward spiral? Enter Balaji S. Srinivasan, a man with a radical plan to shake things up.

A doer, not a dreamer

Srinivasan, a 44-year-old American entrepreneur and investor, is no stranger to innovation. He served as the chief technology officer of Coinbase and was a general partner at the renowned venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. With a résumé like that, it’s clear that Srinivasan isn’t just a dreamer — he’s a doer.

Raised on Long Island, Srinivasan is a Stanford graduate through and through, holding bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering, plus a master's in chemical engineering, all from the prestigious university. But despite his deep roots in traditional academia, he’s recognized the flaws in the current system.

He's also come to grips with the downfall of his alma mater. The very institution that gave Srinivasan his academic credentials is one of those universities that has fallen prey to the ideological capture he’s rallying against.

In response, he has launched a controversial new initiative: the Network School

'Dark talent' wanted

To say the Network School is unconventional is an understatement.

It's an online-first school designed to provide continuous learning, fitness, and community, especially for those who don’t have access to traditional elite pathways.

The school’s mission is to unearth what Srinivasan calls 'dark talent' — no, not criminal masterminds capable of taking down a nation's power grid. Rather, these are individuals brimming with potential, many of whom are often overlooked by the conventional education system.

The school, set to open its doors on September 23 with a physical campus in Singapore, blends structured and unstructured learning. Every day, according to its founder, students will tackle problem-solving tasks that earn them “cryptocredentials” — non-transferable NFTs that serve as proof of their skills. These credentials will form part of a larger “cryptoresume,” a portfolio that verifies expertise across both technology and the humanities.

It's certainly a fresh, digital twist on education, but is it more snake oil than substance?

Strange bedfellows?

Speaking of snake oil, one notable figure contributing to the school’s ambitious approach is Bryan Johnson, a man I have written about before. Best described as a mash-up between Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Michael Jackson, the 47-year-old Johnson is by far the best-known biohacker on the planet.

A tech entrepreneur who now wants to live forever, Johnson will bring his Blueprint fitness and nutrition program into the educational mix. In plain English, Blueprint consists of a carefully managed plant-based diet paired with a demanding exercise routine that covers strength training, cardio, and flexibility.

But I ask, why is Bryan Johnson involved? His role in the Network School seems more like a flashy add-on than a substantive contribution to education.

Cryptocred credulity

Graham Hillard of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, a nonprofit dedicated to enhancing higher education in the U.S., told Align that while "traditional academia needs to be challenged, we should remain cautious about institutions offering cryptocredentials." Hillard, who frequently writes on the troubling state of U.S. universities, is absolutely right.

While the traditional system certainly needs to be challenged and “dark talent” should be given the opportunity to flourish, we must carefully analyze the alternatives being offered.

Is the Network School really that different from Andrew Tate’s Hustlers University or Patrick Bet-David’s "university"? I ask this because the similarities are striking, particularly when it comes to the lack of accreditation.

Where will these graduates go once they emerge from the Network School?

Yes, they’ll have “cryptocredentials” and a shiny “cryptoresume,” but will these carry any weight in the real world? Absolutely not. Try landing a role at Costco, Chevron, Citibank, or the local construction site with a cryptoresume, and there's a good chance that security will either laugh you out of the place or show you the door.

This isn’t to dismiss the Network School’s potential or suggest that it is an outright scam; rather, it’s to highlight that while the school is designed to tackle a genuine problem, its proposed solution raises more questions than it answers.

Align contacted the Network School for comment but did not recieve a response.

Terrorists declare support for anti-Israel student protesters while the Associated Press gives them nominal cover



Anti-Israel radicals across America have taken over several college campuses where they have erected pro-Hamas encampments, attacked police, made foreign policy demands, and parroted genocidal rhetoric. Their efforts to signal solidarity with the Islamic terrorists who massacred thousands of Israelis and dozens of Americans in October — the same terror organization that has since plotted attacks on Western nations — have not gone unnoticed overseas.

Two Palestinian terrorist groups announced their support this week for the student protesters, even referring to them as their own.

Endorsed by terrorists

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Gaza-based terrorist group that combines Marxist-Leninist ideology with Arab nationalism, released a statement Tuesday condemning Israel and celebrating the students who have condemned the Jewish state's self-defense.

"At a time when all peace-lovers in the world stand by the Palestinian people in their just struggle to regain their usurped rights, the ugly face of Zionist racism is clearly visible," said the terror group, according to an online English translation tool. "While our students at American universities were looking forward to the support and solidarity of the administration of universities whose interests, profits and investments prevailed over noble human values."

The PFLP decried the "punitive measures" taken against students, alleging that professors and school administrators have threatened and blackmailed students "simply because they stand by the Palestinian people and support their just struggle for freedom and human dignity."

The PFLP extended the ACLU's November complaint against Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida education officials to other officials who have ordered the breakup of pro-terror student organizations.

According to the terrorists, those who have taken action against fellow travelers on campus operate "under the illusion that they are capable of suppressing the struggle of our students in universities in the United States."

"We ... affirm our unwavering support for the student struggle," said the terror group, singling out the George Soros-funded "Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) at Columbia, Rutgers, Yale, Stanford universities, and others."

Extra to championing the student groups and underscoring their value to the terrorist cause, the PFLP gave them marching orders: "We call for strengthening the unity of students and their struggle to withdraw the investments of American universities from the Zionist entity, and to sever all forms of relations with them," emphasizing the need for the "escalation of their struggle."

Izzat Al-Rishq, reportedly a Hamas Political Bureau official, issued a statement Wednesday similarly signaling support for the student radicals on American soil, reported the New York Sun.

"The American administration, led by President Biden, violates individual rights and the right to expression, and arrests university students and faculty members because of their rejection of the genocide that our Palestinian people are subjected to in the Gaza Strip at the hands of the neo-Nazi Zionists, without the slightest sense of shame about the legal value represented by the students and university professors," said the terrorist.

Perhaps recognizing the resonance of the anti-Israeli rhetoric with elements of the Democratic Party, Hamas added, "Today's students are the leaders of the future, and their suppression today means an expensive electoral bill that the Biden administration will pay sooner or later."

Pro-Hamas radicals by any other name

Palestinian terrorists clearly understand what the student radicals mean to accomplish, but the Associated Press appears keen to pretend students' intentions are alternatively benign.

The liberal media outfit has begun referring to the pro-Hamas protests as "antiwar protests" despite their participants' genocidal slogans — such as "long live intifada" or "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" — and the violent verve that animates them.

This rhetorical switch aligns the publication with Progressive Democrats, such as anti-Israel Rep. Cori Bush (Mo.), who similarly refer to the pro-Hamas students as "anti-war protesters."

Natalie Sanandaji, a New Yorker who survived the Nova music festival massacre, expressed disgust this week over the Associated Press' strategic wordplay, telling "Just the News, No Noise," "When people are chanting in their protests, 'intifada now,' simply look up the definition of 'intifada' — that is not anti war."

"To downplay it is to make these people feel like what they're doing is okay," continued Sanandaji. "We need to talk about how serious it is. Downplaying it is just putting more people at risk."

"Nobody is pro-war. To call this an anti-war protest is absurd," Dan Schneider, vice president of Media Research Center's Free Speech America told Just the News. "This is not about war. This is about the extermination of Jews and the elimination of Israel as a legal state."

Human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggested on X that it would even be deceitful to refer to the protesters as pro-Palestinian, noting, "They are not pro Palestinian. They are anti-Jewish and anti-American. They are flexing their Islamist muscles. Incompetent and weak university students who allowed this problem to get out of hand will not stop them."

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

Scientists deal another blow to gender ideology, confirming the obvious: Men's and women's brains work differently



Radical feminist theorists such as Judith Butler and various exponents of trangenderism have suggested that sex — or at the very least gender, assuming there is a difference — is socially constructed.

A group of Stanford Medicine researchers rained on the gender ideologues' parade this week with a new study indicating that no amount of social construction or cosmetic surgery can hide the fact of one's actual sex on a brain scan.

The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, identified "highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network."

Simply put: men's and women's brains not only are physically distinct, but they operate differently.

Differences between the sexes in behavior, performance, and physiology have been observed and understood since time immemorial. While various studies have substantiated this common sense in esteemed academic journals — highlighting in 2017, for instance, the volumetric and structural differences between male and female brains — the Stanford scientists suggested that previous scientific work demonstrating differences in brain organization between the sexes remained inconclusive.

Accordingly, they set out to "uncover latent functional brain dynamics that distinguish male and female brains."

Lead authors Srikanth Ryali and Yuan Zhang, along with senior author Vinod Menon, director of the Stanford Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Laboratory, fed a new artificial intelligence model various brain scans, telling it whether it was digesting images of male or female brains. Over time it began to "notice" subtle patterns that could help it differentiate between the two types.

The researchers then tested their spatiotemporal deep neural network model on the brain scans of 1,500 young adults, ages 20 to 35. The AI model proved incredibly effective at determining whether the scans came from men or women, getting it right over 90% of the time.

"Our results demonstrate that sex differences in functional brain dynamics are not only highly replicable and generalizable but also behaviorally relevant, challenging the notion of a continuum in male-female brain organization," said the study.

"This is a very strong piece of evidence that sex is a robust determinant of human brain organization," Menon said in a release.

The researchers also created sex-specific models of cognitive abilities. According to Stanford Medicine, one AI model was able to predict cognitive performance in men but not in women. The other model was effective in predicting cognitive performance but with the sexes reversed.

"These models worked really well because we successfully separated brain patterns between sexes," Menon noted. "That tells me that overlooking sex differences in brain organization could lead us to miss key factors underlying neuropsychiatric disorders."

The "hot spots" that were most helpful in distinguishing between male and female brains were the so-called default mode network, the corpus striatum, and the limbic system.

The Telegraph noted that the "default mode network" is the area of the brain believed to be the neurological seat for the "self," critical for contemplative thought, daydreaming, and processing autobiographic memories.

The striatum is a cluster of neurons in the forebrain that plays a general role in skill learning, apparently optimizing behavior by "refining action selection and in shaping habits and skills as a modulator of motor repertoires."

The limbic system is a group of structures deep inside the brain that performs various functions — from governing emotions, motivation, smell, and behavior to playing a role in the formation of long-term memory and dealing with sexual stimulation. It's also reportedly important in habit forming and rewards.

"A key motivation for this study is that sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, in aging, and in the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders," continued Menon. "Identifying consistent and replicable sex differences in the healthy adult brain is a critical step toward a deeper understanding of sex-specific vulnerabilities in psychiatric and neurological disorders."

Gina Rippon, a leftist professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at the Aston Brain Center, scrambled to account for the study's conclusions, claiming that society is to blame for the physical neurological differences between men and women, reported the Telegraph.

"The really intriguing issue is that those areas of the brain which are most reliably distinguishing the sexes are key parts of the social brain," said Rippon. "The key issue is whether these differences are a product of sex-specific, biological influences or of brain-changing gendered experiences. Or both. Are we really looking at sex differences? Or gender differences?"

Rippon has spent many years downplaying the role of biology in creating sex differences in the brain, going so far as to pen a controversial book in 2019 called "Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience that Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain."

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

How And Why The Ivy League Will Die

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-17-at-5.36.30 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-17-at-5.36.30%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The responsibility for the destruction of the Ivy League lies not with wokeness nor diversity hires nor a naive donor class, but with the people who are supposed to be keeping the lights on.

Secret reports show Homeland Security worked with universities to 'censor Americans' online speech' before 2020 election



The Department of Homeland Security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the State Department all worked with American universities to stem what they viewed as disinformation ahead of the 2020 presidential election, a new report claims.

The Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, led by Republican Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), produced a document detailing a series of reports that claimed government entities worked in tandem with Stanford University and others to "censor Americans before the 2020 election, including true information, jokes, and opinions."

"The federal government, disinformation 'experts' at universities, Big Tech, and others worked together through the Election Integrity Partnership to monitor & censor Americans’ speech," Jordan wrote on his X account.

According to the House report, the Election Integrity Partnership was formed to "monitor and censor Americans’ online speech in advance of the 2020 presidential election." The group was reportedly created in the summer of 2020 "at the request" of CISA and allowed the federal government to bypass First Amendment restrictions by passing on oversight to the new "disinformation" experts.

"The federal government and universities pressured social media companies to censor true information, jokes, and political opinions," the report stated. The censorship was allegedly bipartisan, labeling social media posts by Republicans and conservatives as "misinformation."

According to writer Benjamin Weingarten, the evidence showed the "[Election Integrity Partnership] – sometimes alongside DHS sub-agency CISA – pressuring platforms to target speech that included statements by then-President Trump; opinions about election integrity rooted in government records and even think-tank white papers; and speculative tweets from statesmen and everyday citizens alike."

The evidence shows EIP – sometimes alongside DHS sub-agency CISA – pressuring platforms to target speech that included statements by then-President Trump; opinions about election integrity rooted in government records and even think-tank white papers; and speculative tweets from…
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) November 6, 2023

The report listed that the following politicians were censored: President Donald J. Trump, Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

In addition, pundits such as Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, and BlazeTV host Dave Rubin were also reportedly censored. Journalists James O'Keefe, Tom Fitton, and Sean Hannity were as well.

Rep. Jordan provided examples of censored posts, which included President Trump linking to a 2020 Breitbart article titled "Georgia Counties Using Same Software as Michigan Counties also Encounter 'Glitch.'"

What speech was targeted for censorship?

-True information
-Jokes
-Political opinions

Here are a few examples: pic.twitter.com/j5l6pf5kMF
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) November 6, 2023

Another allegedly censored post, from Speaker Gingrich, included text stating, "Pennsylvania democrats are methodically changing the rules so they can steal the election."

The shocking report also included information from Stanford University that revealed the Election Integrity Partnership and staff made "explicit recommendations to social media platforms for specific enforcement measures" at least 75 times in a four-month period leading up to and during the 2020 election.

Examples of the requests included the following:

  • “Hello Google. ... We recommend this ad be removed.”
  • “Recommended actions: Ban sharing links to the following sites.”
  • “This has circulated in pro-Trump conservative groups and sub-communities. ... We recommend that you all flag as false, or remove the posts below.”
  • “This video narration claims to show evidence of voter fraud in Maryland, but the video itself (footage of an election worker) does not show anything that we interpret as voter fraud. We recommend that this video be removed or labeled.”
  • “Hi Twitter team – there are a number of high-profile individuals, including the President, making accusations of voter fraud. ... Given the large audiences and Pennsylvania’s swing state status, we’d recommend this content be actioned.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

NIH Is Due For An Overhaul After Covid Exposed Lies, Power Abuses, And Conflicts Of Interest

With the recent appointment of new NIH and NIAID directors, the time is now for Congress to enact structural reforms.

Stanford Mob Shows How Speech Restrictions Reinforce Social Isolation

Few people seem to understand that constraints on political speech have the cruel effect of atomizing people.
‘The View’ hosts defend students’ atrocious heckling of Trump-appointed judge even after Stanford’s president apologizes

‘The View’ hosts defend students’ atrocious heckling of Trump-appointed judge even after Stanford’s president apologizes



On Monday, hosts of "The View" defended Stanford students who heckled and shouted down a visiting judge who was delivering an invited lecture.

"Maybe all the snowflakes in the world need to get over the fact that people are going to disagree with them. ... It's your right to stand up and say, 'Hey, I don't agree,'" said host Whoopi Goldberg.

Goldberg and her fellow panelists were discussing an incident at Stanford that took place during an invited address on March 9. Students heckled and shouted down Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan to such an extent that he could not continue, as TheBlaze reported.

The heckling students allegedly worked with Tirien Steinbach, the university's diversity, equity, and inclusion associate dean. When the judge requested intervention of an administrator, Steinbach delivered a prepared speech of her own in which she verbally attacked the judge in a six-minute rant.

In the heavily edited footage aired by "The View," the dean is seen encouraging students to allow the judge to speak after she completed her diatribe. Predictably, the students read between the lines and did no such thing.

"When civility dies, learning stops and only agendas and approved narratives remain," Brett Tolman, former United States attorney for the District of Utah told TheBlaze.

Duncan requested and received an apology from Stanford's president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and Stanford Law School dean Jenny Martinez, as TheBlaze reported. The administrators acknowledged the students and DEI dean's behavior was "inconsistent with our policies on free speech."

The apology apparently failed to convince hosts of "The View" that heckling visiting lecturers and engaging in a true exchange of ideas are quite different.

Ana Navarro mentioned that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had sent a letter to the Texas Bar Association asking them to investigate any of the students who were part of the "protest."

Navarro suggested instead that the Texas Bar Association should investigate Cruz, whom she says spread a "conspiracy theory" that lead to the January 6 Capitol riots.

"It you don't want to get challenged, if you don't want to get heckled, go to a Republican convention, don't go to a college," Navarro also said.

"What's so offensive is that one of the first classes you take in law school ... teaches you about the freedom of speech," said host Sunny Hostin, who is an attorney. "College and law school is a wonderful place to have this exchange of ideas. It gets heated sometimes."

"I like the Q and A," Hostin said. "Come at me. Let's have those discussions ... that's what the free exchange of ideas is about."

Host Alyssa Farah Griffin, who served as White House Director of Strategic Communications during the Trump administration and also lectures at Georgetown, offered a slightly more measured perspective.

"Academia is the place to be challenged by ideas, not to be shut down," Griffin said.

"We've stopped having productive disagreements where you win on ideas. The rest of it's just noise, and you feed the other side's narrative of 'they don't let me talk,'" said host Sara Haines.

Watch ABC's "The View" hosts addressing Stanford students' heckling of Judge Duncan below.


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

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!

Judge Duncan Calls On Stanford To Fire DEI Dean That Participated In Student Uproar

Federal Judge Kyle Duncan has called on Stanford University to fire the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Dean who participated in a student-led revolt against his appearance at the law school. Judge Duncan appeared at Stanford Law to speak at an event hosted by the Federalist Society chapter on campus. The event quickly turned sour after […]