We recently went to Yale Law School, and what we have experienced should scare not only lawyers, but anyone who is interested in America’s future.
We are constitutional litigators with over three decades of combined experience.
We have argued before the US Supreme Court and in lower federal and state courts.
We are also lawyers on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, and yet one of us has joined the other in a successful effort to secure a major civil rights victory for all Americans.
Monica is suing for the American Humanist Association, which fought for LGBTQ equality and separation of church and state, while Kristen is a member of the Freedom Defense Alliance, which fought for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
In our presentation to Yale Law School students, we planned to focus on Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, a U.S. Supreme Court case that Kristen claimed resulted in an 8-1 decision favored by both left and right.
This case, had it not been heard, would have given the government the power to violate civil rights with impunity, including the rights of LGBTQ people, minorities and religious students across the country.
We recently went to Yale Law School, and what we have experienced should scare not only lawyers, but anyone who is interested in America’s future. (Left) Kristen Wagoner of the Christian Conservative Liberty Alliance (right) Monica Miller of the American Humanist Association, a liberal atheist
We came to the event at Yale University to demonstrate that religious and political opponents can do great things when they respectfully work to find common ground.
But instead of students who wanted to question us about the case, we were faced with a crowd of activists who, in bewilderment, tried to silence us.
Of the 150 students there, about 120 were chanting, banging on the walls, and shouting obscenities that interfered with nearby classes, exams, and meetings.
There were reports of harassment and physical threats. The police had to escort us out of the building to a patrol car for our safety.
Some students freely threw insults, including the word “b**a”, which especially annoyed us female litigators.
We acknowledge that we have benefited from the long and hard battles fought by the women who came before us. But we have also worked hard ourselves to become excellent advocates.
All three women on the podium – the two of us plus the moderator – deserved to be treated with courtesy.
Of the 150 students there, about 120 were chanting, banging on the walls, and shouting obscenities that interfered with nearby classes, exams, and meetings. (Top) Yale Law School protest footage
Some students freely threw insults, including the word “b**a”, which especially annoyed us female litigators.
Although the event ended on time, it was significantly disrupted.
We strongly advocate for students’ First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, and even peacefully protest when appropriate.
But we also understand, as litigators—and law students should understand this—that you can’t effectively argue your case if they refuse to hear the other side of the argument.
It’s rare in today’s culture that a liberal atheist and a Christian conservative can find common ground on just about anything. Perhaps because neither side is willing to listen.
Refusing to communicate with someone who holds a different point of view is an intellectual disease that has apparently infected the public debate, but it is shocking that this disease has also gripped aspiring lawyers.
The disruptive behavior we have encountered paradoxically pushes the two sides apart.
Ironically, we came to Yale to show that two supporters who disagree on many things can agree on some fundamental beliefs.
Chief among them is that freedom of speech is critical to the future of the judiciary and our nation.
Strict procedures and decorum are observed in the courtroom so that each side can present the facts and the law to reveal the truth and bring justice.
As the American Bar Association itself has acknowledged, comity is “the foundation of democracy and the rule of law,” and lawyers must “set high standards of civil discourse to serve as an example to others in resolving disagreements constructively and without demeaning others.” ‘
Critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, persuasive defense and civility are the hallmarks of outstanding lawyers and leaders. Respectful reasoning is the essence of what lawyers and judges are called to do.
These ideas are at the heart of the US adversarial legal system, which requires vigorous arguments. The whole system collapses when one of the parties decides to rhetorically burn everything to the ground, as these students did.
Perhaps most disturbingly, a room full of America’s future lawyers showed a complete lack of understanding of free speech.
The First Amendment will not be implemented if everyone, regardless of our point of view, cannot participate in free expression.
In an attempt to silence us, Yale law students abandoned reasoned, civilized discourse. And for what purpose?
If tomorrow’s leaders don’t learn to respectfully discuss today’s most controversial issues while on campus, they will be ill-prepared to do so when they graduate.
As for us, we are more determined than ever to seek the truth, to respect the freedom of others to do the same, and to listen to our opponents.
The way forward for America amid our deep divisions is to talk more and listen more.
Through this balance, we will find common ground to sow the seeds of change.