I am writing to thank the community for having made Justice Scalia's visit to the Law School on April 12 a success. At the same time, I want to express my deep disappointment about two inappropriate incidents that took place during this visit.

As you know, the students on the NYU Annual Survey of American Law chose to dedicate their volume to Justice Scalia and invited him to their formal dedication ceremony, to which they also invited several leading figures in the legal profession to present tributes to the Justice. After Justice Scalia accepted the Annual Survey's invitation, I asked him to interact with as large a cross-section of our community as possible during his time at the Law School. He graciously agreed to co-teach a Constitutional Law class; meet with the faculty; and have a question-and-answer session with the students, which approximately 1000 students sought to attend.

Justice Scalia's presence at the Law School gave a large proportion of our students and faculty the opportunity to gain a personal sense of the Justice and to explore with him his judicial philosophy. In the days leading to his visit, our students also engaged in robust discussion among each other and with the faculty concerning the merits of his approach to constitutional adjudication and its effects on different areas of law. These discussions enriched our community greatly. Vigorous debate among individuals with vastly different outlooks on important matters is the hallmark of great academic institutions such as ours. We are a stronger and more vibrant intellectual community as a result of Justice Scalia's visit last Tuesday.

Two regrettable incidents occurred, however. First, during the student question-and-answer session, one student posed an extraordinarily rude, immature, and inappropriate question. Such a show of incivility to any individual invited to be a guest of the Law School, let alone to a Supreme Court Justice, has no place in our intellectual community. It is insulting not only to our guest but also to the law school community as a whole, and impedes the robust debate that events such as these are designed to promote. Questions can be asked--and should be asked--that are challenging, critical, and demanding. But part of becoming a professional and an adult is learning to ask these questions, even of those we disagree with strongly on certain issues, in a serious and mature way that does not involve offensive and insulting language.

Second, during the formal dedication of the Annual Survey volume, a small group of demonstrators, which included some of our students, yelled their chants into the windows of Greenberg Lounge, where the dedication was taking place. This protest was designed to interfere with the ability of the audience at the dedication, primarily Annual Survey students, to hear the tributes. Law School administrators asked the demonstrators to move back to the courtyard and the front of the Law School, where they could continue to express their views without interfering with the Annual Survey proceedings. The demonstrators refused, even those who had made an earlier agreement with Vice Dean Gillette that they would not disturb the event. This form of hecklers' veto has no place at our Law School, which is committed to vigorous debate of fundamental questions. No group of students has the right to attempt to disrupt an event or talk being hosted by other students and the Law School. Ironically, Nadine Strossen, President of the American Civil Liberties Union and one of the Nation's staunchest defenders of the First Amendment, made exactly this point to the hundreds of guests assembled for the Annual Survey dedication. She expressed in no uncertain terms that the freedom to speak does not extend to the attempt to silence others.

I am gratified by the communications I have received from the many students, including strong opponents of Justice Scalia's judicial approach, who have expressed consternation at these actions. We are fortunate to be a law school so renowned for its commitment to open and civil debate that we are able to host figures from all sides of the ideological spectrum. That openness will sometimes bring speakers whose views may deeply hurt some members of our community. But even then--especially then--we must adhere to the standards of professional conduct and personal integrity necessary to foster vigorous and engaged debate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2565843)

Is this for real? If it is, it's too funny.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2565891)

Right! for 400.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2566042)

If only this were true, the world would rock.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2565912)

edit: by position i mean it isn't a STRONG one for or against the 'free speech' demonstrated on 4/12

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2565933)

Speculative question: instead of Scalia it's Barney Frank. A Federalist Society member gets the mike and, with his voice dripping with contempt, asks Frank about sodomizing his lover. Would the Dean have reacted the same way? No discipline? No speech code violation?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2565967)

It's not about *who* was victimized by the question, but rather the *title* that disrespected in the whole spectacle.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2565995)

Plus, Rowan is gross.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2565983)

Reality check: Remember who's the virgin? Who's the butt of the board? Who's NOT attending HLS and working in NYC big law?

HTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2566001)

I did not attend HLS. I did not work that hard to get in there. I had a 2.8 college GPA, a 167 LSAT, went to an outside of tier 1 school in California, and am working at Latham after graduation.

Poor me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2566010)

There are several law schools in this country that would be highly honored to host a symposium with a Supreme Court justice. I'm at one of these schools, as a matter of fact. These snotty-nosed, disrespectful hippies make me sick. Maybe NYU should consider more closely the character of students it admits. Not one person at my school would have asked such an inappropriate and destructive question. Conduct like that is not enlightened or charged with some type of exercise of free expression, conduct like that is, as the Dean said, immature. This entire inicdent is just more proof of the false promise of LSAT scores and "prestigious" schools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=166170&forum_id=2#2569781)