 All right, early in the week, maybe last week, I can't remember when. We talked about the Stanford event where a circuit court judge, a federal judge, came to speak at Stanford, leftists at their law school, put on by the Federalist Society, leftist students, wouldn't let him speak. Basically, what they called the hecklers veto. They heckled him so that he couldn't speak. As this happened, then the DI, I don't know, dean or whatever, got up and to supposedly try to calm things down, but in calming things down, she ended up attacking the federal court judge, and the whole thing was a massive fiasco. As a consequence of this, and this is what I think is interesting, so just to keep following up on this, this was not just accepted by the Stanford administration once it became public. The dean of the law school was very clear that this was unacceptable. This is from a statement that the dean of the law school, Martinez, made. The First Amendment does not give protesters a hecklers veto. I think that's about as clear as possible. Stanford, she vowed, will become an echo chamber that will prepare students to go out into an act as effective advocates in a society that disagrees about many important issues. So if they allow hecklers veto. She also wrote, quote, the cycle of degenerating discourse won't stop if we insist that people we disagree with must first behave the way we want them to. The cycle stops when we recognize our responsibility to treat each other with a dignity with which we expect to be met. It stops when we choose to replace condemnation with curiosity, invective with inquiry. So Stanford seems to be, for the first time in a long time, seems to be taking a strong stand against the hecklers. The dean that stood up and landed up condemning the judge instead of actually facilitating a conversation was immediately suspended. Stanford's president has apologized to the judge and again, reaffirmed Stanford's commitment to free speech. And indeed, even the dean, Terine Steinbach, that who was responsible for a lot of this mayhem, even she published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal explaining her position in which she said she was trying to de-escalate the situation. She didn't do a very good job at it. But she was de-escalating and she says, quote, while free speech isn't easy or comfortable, it's necessary for democracy. Now, I have to say that Stanford's response is reassuring. It's comforting. It suggests that maybe, again, this woke cancel culture don't allow speakers to speak. And by the way, this phenomena of a hecklers veto has been going on for over 20 years. It's gotten worse in the last few years and that security is not clearing people out like it used to in the beginning. But it looks like maybe we're returning to a little bit of sanity. Maybe at some universities that is a return. If you remember the Hamelin College, a Hamelin university where they fired a teacher for showing a 14th century painting of Muhammad because a student protested that they were insulted, they landed up being condemned by universities. By the art department, universities like the University of Minnesota, they landed up retracting their decision even though the professor was already gone. Other universities that had a similar occurrence, also Minnesota, did not take the same path at Hamelin. Maybe we're seeing the beginnings of a waking up among the people on the left who are not part of this new nihilistic left. Maybe we're seeing a waking up on people on the left and in the center in academia to the evils of what they've allowed to happen. And maybe we're seeing some pushback. And if that's the case, then that is a very good thing. It buys us a little bit more time across civilization. And it makes it possible for us to continue fighting the good fight. If you look at commentary on what happened, it was across the board condemning of Stanford. And what's interesting is the story I'm reading from that explains kind of what has happened. The story I'm reading from was published in The New York Times. So this is not some right wing website. It's published in The New York Times. The commentary is from, you know, that it was very anti what Stanford students had done. Came from David French, he's a conservative, but in The New York Times opinion page from Ellie Mistal of the Nation. I think that's pretty left wing. And she actually defended the students. So there's some on the new left who are still defending students, right? They're still defending the Hitler's veto. But Northwest University Law School was against the students and a number of others. So there was a huge backlash. Again, this is all good to see this kind of backlash. All right. And let's hope that this is the beginning of a trend. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, SubscribeStar, Locals, and just making an appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and, of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.