DUMB AND DUMB: Stanford Law students assailed as "woke!"


Kevin Drum calls the roll: Given the whimsies of the gods, you knew it had to happen.

In fact, it had already happened! We refer to the Stanford Law School free-for-all of Thursday last, March 9!

You knew it had to happen! Last Friday night, a Gang of Five staged a gong-show pseudo-discussion on our own blue tribe "cable news." During their pseudo-discussion, they seemed to say that they didn't know what terms like Woke and Wokeness even mean!

(For background, see Monday's report.)

Assuming even minimal smarts, they were playing it very dumb. In truth, the pleasing pseudo-discussion they staged was about as dumb as it gets.

Given the whimsies of the gods, their clownishness would be addressed. And sure enough! As of last night, Fox hosts were opening their primetime programs with videotape from the Stanford Law School brouhaha.

What had happened at Stanford? It was a classic example of the type of conduct which may get derided as Woke.

A conservative group at the elite school had invited a Trump-appointed judge to give an address. The judge in question was heckled so much that he stopped and asked for an administrator to step in.

Sure enough! The associate dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion delivered an address in which she pretty much sided with the hecklers. And sure enough! When the Dean of the Law School formally apologized to the heckled conservative speaker, Stanford's fiery law school students began to torment her!

For the record, Stanford's president also signed the letter of apology. For a news report from The Stanford Daily, you can just click here

For a report by The ABA Journal, you can just click this.

Full disclosure! It remains a matter of judgment as to whether the students were justified, perhaps even right, in the various things they did.

When Moses descended from the mountain, he brought no tablets telling us how such actions should be assessed. But this is the kind of conduct which routinely gets referred to as "Woke" by people who are inclined to think that the conduct by the students was ill-advised, or morally wrong, or possibly even dumb.

No one is required to agree with any such assessment! But in calendar year 2023, this is one of the types of conduct which may get referred to as "Woke." 

The initial hecklefest to which we refer occurred on Thursday, March 9. The Gang of Five went on the air one night later, seeming to say they had no idea what Wokeness or Woke even means!

We're inclined to think the students were wrong; we know the Gang of Five was. That said, such clownshows are largely the norm in these latter days, even on the "cable news" channel devoted to our flawless tribe.

What the heck is Wokeness or Woke? The Gang of Five was baffled. Yesterday, Kevin Drum decided to call the roll of some of the types of behavior which tend to get cited as "Woke."

More precisely, Drum offered a list of eight types of behavior a conservative writer had cited as examples of Woke. Before he did, he offered this overview:

DRUM (3/15/23): What conservatives—and many other people—mean by woke is an obsessive commitment to the most extreme and trivial versions of the original definition. "On the political right," says Chris Drew, "it is a pejorative term used to criticize people for seeing injustice where it doesn’t exist." 

Quite correctly, Drum noted that many people who aren't conservative have criticized conduct as "Woke." 

Meanwhile, when Drum refers to "the original definition [of Woke]," he's alluding to the spectacularly stupid way our own blue tribe often responds to such claims—by saying that the way the term is used today isn't the way Leadbelly used it.

In all honesty, you really can't get dumber than that. As proof, we'll note the fact that the Gung of Five employed a version of that silly canard in their own stage show last Friday.

Blue tribe denizens, please! In any language, the way some particular term is used may change right before speakers' eyes. Unless we're just extremely dumb, it isn't a defense against charges of Woke to say that the term had a different vibe back in 1930.

You have to be very dumb to adopt some such stance. From the corporate Gang of Five on down, our tribe is up to the challenge.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our own blue tribe is enormously rich with unearned self-regard. We simply can't see how dumb we are—and we've been this way for decades.

Below, you see four of the eight behaviors Drum listed by way of the conservative writer. In these latter days, these are some of the types of behavior which may get referred to as "Woke:"

Race-Based Silencing—Telling a white person they don’t have the right to speak because they’re an oppressor.

Cancel Culture—Canceling a college speaker because they have controversial views on power and race.

Critical Race Theory—A school’s history curriculum teaches a ‘white oppressor’ narrative in their classrooms, which makes young white children feel like they’ve done something wrong.

Gender Pluralism—People saying there are over 70 genders and that if you disagree, you’re a horrible person.

Some of the language there is spicy, possibly even parodic. But this is part of the world of Woke as seen through conservative eyes.

According to Drum, those are four types of "Woke" behavior, according to a conservative writer. As is his not infrequent wont, Drum appended some words of wisdom:

"It is, obviously, a matter of opinion whether any particular thing qualifies as 'going too far.' " 

So Drum correctly said.

In short, no one has to agree when some behavior is criticized as "Woke!" But those are some of the types of behavior which critics may have in mind, and it's very, very, very dumb to act like we don't understand what is being alleged.

For ourselves, we're inclined to think that the fiery Stanford Law School students did in fact "go too far." We'd also assume that a wide swath of the American public would tend to agree with that view.

Here's the one thing we surely know: 

A tribe which tolerates that Gang of Five is destined for further defeats. We earn our way into history's dungeon by accepting behavior like theirs.

Tomorrow: Maher, McWhorter and Packer—and a whole different visit to Stanford


  1. tl;dr
    "Full disclosure! It remains a matter of judgment as to whether the students were justified, perhaps even right, in the various things they did."

    Eh -- what? Are you serious, dear Bob?

    ...hmm. ...okay, fair enough... ...we suppose... ...why not?..

    ...and now please excuse us, as we need to re-examine performance of the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution...

  2. The associate Dean was very passive aggressive and even kind of a bully.


  3. ...also this: "DUMB AND DUMB: Stanford Law students assailed as "woke!""

    Students get assailed -- that's your take, dear Bob?
    Seriously?? Dumb and dumb indeed.

    Tsk, okay, thanks for the laughs, dear. Dembots sure are entertaining...

  4. The current Mao is less stupid than the previous one.

  5. The Judge was there to perform for Leonard Leo to get on the short list of Democracy hating USSC justices. Screw these woman hating mean Jesus loving Federalist Society pukes.

  6. Republicans should say what they mean, without Drum helping them out.

  7. Why can’t these students hear speakers out and later challenge them during the Q&A?

    1. And they can also invite other speakers, or even give speeches of their own. But those who shout speakers down make themselves look bad.

    2. There is no reason why public funded universities should pay money that comes from taxes and student fees to speakers who are white supremacists and bigots. Some people do not deserve a podium because they are not expressing controversial ideas but engaging in hate speech. It is the right of students to protest this misuse of their fees.

    3. Anonymouse 8:18pm, they pay fees because that is a requirement of the school that they chose to attend.

      The school allowed this judge to come and speak at the invitation of a campus club/society that the school allows on the campus.

      It’s not the right of other students to prevent him from speaking.

      They can protest his presence outside the building.

    4. I assume the group that invites a speaker pays his honorarium.

    5. Cecelia, did you happen to catch the arrogant prick answer their questions?

    6. Anonymouse6:59am, how could that happen over the yelling at him?

    7. Fascism is a set of actions to be opposed, not a set of ideas to be debated.

    8. At 11:21, you assume wrong when it comes to college speakers.

    9. 8:35,

      I guess your answer is no, you only saw the cherry picked parts that Tucker showed you. I understand. You can play the victim and feel aggrieved that a Federal Judge groomed from puberty by the Federalist Society to exercise his tyrannical control over millions of Americans was heckled by law students. And just like that, voila, you're the victim again, even though your fascist party now controls the supreme court for generations even though you lose the popular vote for president in 7 out of 8 last elections. So sorry for how you are always suffering abuse. Here, do you want a hanky?

  8. This is beyond ridiculous.

    So, heckling someone is now an example of “woke” behavior? Do conservatives not do that too?

    What do you call the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

  9. Regardless of what you think of the behavior of the students, (young people being typically boisterous and unruly), does this one instance represent what all liberals do? If so, then I’m going to just assume that all conservatives act like the January 6 rioters.

    1. Oh, yeah, mh, that’s what everyone is saying. They’re saying that this is the behavior of every liberal in the world. That this represents what “all liberals do”.

      Of course, I’m being absurd in order to mock your absurd thinking, but you've come by it naturally. Anonymices and their fellow travelers are so used to denouncing their political contrarians en masse that they assume that’s what’s happening to them.

    2. @Cecelia "I’m being absurd in order..."

      It's not absurd; it's perfectly accurate.

      There is no way for liberals to defend their grotesquely absurd dogmas (y'know, wimmin trapped inside men's bodies, open borders, their irrational racist hatred, etc.).
      Consequently, the only way for modern liberalism to exist is by preventing Others from speaking.

      ...yes, it's that simple...

    3. Fascism is a set of actions to be opposed, not a set of ideas to be debated.

    4. You oppose what you feel is fascism by countering it intellectually. You explain why someone’s arguments are wrong. Otherwise, you’re acting like the thing you hate.

    5. And after explaining to them that their arguments are wrong, they never make that wrong argument again?

    6. Anonymous9:36am, there will always be people who argue things that you don’t believe in. You argue back to persuade the people considering positions.

    7. And they ignore them, and come right back with their bad arguments.
      That's why you don't debate fascism, you oppose it.

  10. Oh no. The people who support gerrymandering minorities out of democratic representation are being silenced by students on the students campus.
    The Right are the bigots we always thought they were.

    1. Who in particular are you speaking of as being silenced on campuses?

    2. The speaker who was criticized (cancel cultured) by the students.

    3. Anonymouse 10:16pm, he wasn’t “criticized” , he was shouted down in order to keep him from being heard.

      They yelled over him because they didn’t want him to express his ideas.

      Who’s the fascist in this?

    4. He was not allowed to give his presentation. He tried several times, but was shouted down.

      He asked for help from a Dean and she voiced her opinion against the judge, but did manage to say that he should be allowed to speak, but the shouting didn’t stop.

    5. Cecelia, you're a liar. He gave his talk and then took questions.

      Let me give you one example of what an arrogant jackass he was when a woman student tried to ask him a question. Very politely she asked if he as a judge took eithics or fairness into consideration in his rulings.
      The guy mocked her question at first and played dumb pretending that she was asking him about rules of judicial conduct, which had not a goddamn thing to do with her question. Finally, he mocked even the notion that a judge would take fairness into consideration when writing their rulings.

      Just a few weeks ago, listening to the SC hearing on the republican nasty fuckwits challenge to the $10k student loan forgiveness program, one entire line of questions to the government from Roberts was precisely his concern was the "fairness" of the program.

    6. Here’s the Stanford Daily description of the event.


      You must be an anonymouse if you actually believe that shouting comments at a speaker while he is giving a speech is an appropriate exchange of ideas.

    7. "They yelled over him because they didn’t want him to express his ideas."

      You think they should have called him "woke" instead?

    8. Cecelia, he gave his talk. Sorry if the poor snowflake was interrupted, kind of like the recent SOTU speech by President Biden, don't you think?