UPDATE: Amid censorship scandal, embattled Stanford Law DEI dean says she was merely trying to 'balance' dialogue
'My role was to de-escalate.'
She did not think that upstaging a federal judge’s speech at a prominent law school would go viral, but it did, and now she claims she was trying to maintain “balance” and “de-escalate.”
Tirien Steinbach, the Stanford Law School’s associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion, who earlier last month overtook the stage of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan’s speech on “Guns, Covid and Twitter” at Stanford Law School, recently told the New York Times she was merely trying to “balance” both sides: Duncan’s speech and the students’ who heckled him.
The speech was hosted by the university’s Federalist Society.
Video reveals, however, that her approach was unbalanced:
In the video, Steinbach is heard saying she believes in free speech and wanted to give Duncan his time back, but her speech, riddled with criticism of the Trump-appointed judge, lasted more than six minutes.
During that time, she asked Duncan “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” lamenting that his presence upset the student body.
She added, “Your work has caused harm.”
Duncan’s work, as previously reported, has included anti-abortion rulings and support for voter ID laws, causing him to be viewed as a right-wing figure by leftist opponents.
[RELATED: Stanford admins hijack US judge’s speech, tell students to keep quiet about it]
Further proof of her partisanship came when she encouraged students to leave and also to place their protest signs at the front of the room, where they would be visible to the judge.
Two signs, one placed resting against the whiteboard and another held upside down by a student, both read “TRANS RIGHTS MATTER.”
Steinbach told the New York Times, however, that she hoped to “give the judge space to speak his prepared remarks,” adding, “My role was to de-escalate.”
She also told the Times she did not “realize that her words would be blasted out to the world.”
Before speaking with the Times, Steinbach made similar claims of nonpartisanship in an op-ed she wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
There were calls from the student body to cancel Duncan’s speech or to have it moved online, she wrote, but “as Stanford Law School’s associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion, I supported the administration’s decision not to cancel the event or move it to video, as it would censor or limit the free speech of Judge Duncan and the students who invited him.”
She further claimed:
I stepped up to the podium to deploy the de-escalation techniques in which I have been trained, which include getting the parties to look past conflict and see each other as people. My intention wasn’t to confront Judge Duncan or the protesters but to give voice to the students so that they could stop shouting and engage in respectful dialogue. I wanted Judge Duncan to understand why some students were protesting his presence on campus and for the students to understand why it was important that the judge be not only allowed but welcomed to speak.
But in addition to the video of the incident contradicting the claim of attempting to be balanced, her record reveals a career of leftist partisanship.
Documents obtained by Campus Reform also reveal her leftist partisan leanings.
As previously reported, documents obtained by Campus Reform show “a career of fighting to ‘dismantle’ and disrupt the legal system, disdain for law enforcement, and of pushing progressive policies.”
Her work has included helping sex offenders deregister and helping illegal migrants “secure DACA status and Medicaid benefits.”
Campus Reform contacted Stanford Law School, Steinbach, and the Federalist Society for comment.
Follow Jared Gould on Twitter
