The attention of lawyers was drawn to one sentence, uttered during the protest to silence Josh Blackman at CUNY law school. Perhaps it was the fear that they had tainted all law students at the school, given that they might someday care to work in the legal profession, or perhaps it was the fact that no lawyer or academic supported their worthy sacrifice for the cause, the CUNY law chapter of the National Lawyers Guild issued a letter explaining themselves.

What We Mean When We Say “Fuck the Law”

Before the explanation, my understanding was when the law was, in their view, “unjust,” then the law was wrong. It was a simplistic, but comprehensible, position. If there was a law that said a police officer may shoot a person at will if, in the officer’s view, the person deserved to be shot, I would scream “fuck the law” too. This was merely their version of it, and they are entitled to believe that some laws are unjust whether Josh, or I, agree.

But as it turns out, that was not quite right.

Before this “explanation,” the NLG indulged in some of the more common meta-complaints, that their dean failed to provide a “safe space” for “affected” students, and failed to issue a statement “admonishing” Josh’s “hate speech.” What child doesn’t blame the mother for not protecting them from the monsters hiding under the bed?

But these are law students, and one would expect that they have been taught a few things during their brief tenure at CUNY law school. One thing would be how to mount a cognizable argument. Another would be the capacity to parse the issues so as to identify the ones they are questioning. Lastly, one would expect the school, its administration and professors, to have instilled in these students some small degree of respect for the rights protected by law.

It’s not to argue that the law is wonderful in its many and varied forms. Some law is, and can be, a disaster, but it matters which law you’re talking about and why. When the contention is that “law was written to uphold white supremacy,” you’ve said nothing. Worse, you’ve revealed that you’re nothing but mindless ideologues unworthy of being taken seriously.

But even mindless ideologues have a protected right under the First Amendment to express themselves. Sure, it reveals that CUNY law school has failed them by either not teaching them the tools to express their views in a cogent and minimally persuasive way or handing them a dime, but that’s between them and their teachers.

The “explanation,” culminating in a flagrant violation of the first role of holes, is gibberish, a word-salad of the extreme left that accomplishes nothing. But as a matter of constitutional free speech, one of those “white supremacy” laws they abhor in general but will enjoy when it serves their purpose, they get to drop their speech-bomb on Josh Blackman’s head.

As for it being a “reasonable exercise of free speech,” as Dean Mary Lu Bilek rationalized so as not to be compelled to hold them accountable for their violation of  the student code of conduct, it was not. While protected by law, it undermined the norms of free speech. Josh Blackman was invited to speak. He had a prepared presentation that was never given because of the protest. He handled it well and made the best of the situation, but it was not the presentation he came to give. His speech was never heard. Their speech hijacked the presentation, even if it didn’t completely silence Josh.

As with nuclear bombs, speech is susceptible to mutually assured destruction. We can all shout out the speech with which we disagree or we can let the other guy speak and, without interfering, speak ourselves. The First Amendment does not require this. The reasonable exercise of free speech as a social norm, however, does.

No one invited the student members of the National Lawyers Guild chapter at CUNY to a debate. It’s unlikely they would be worthy of a debate. They don’t have much to say. That they are unwilling to debate reflects on their lack of faith in their position, that they cannot prevail based on the merit of their position. They will disagree, no doubt, contending that there is no debate about “the validity of someone’s existence,” a silly expression about which they feel too passionate to discuss.

That’s okay. If they can’t make their case, or they refuse to entertain any challenge to their fortune cookie wisdom, so be it. In America, people are allowed to believe whatever they want. It’s one of the things that make America great, even if it’s protected by white supremacist law. Heck, if they want to believe that fringes on the flag preclude a court’s jurisdiction, they won’t be alone. But they also won’t be right, and will be branded as nutjobs.

And therein lies the sur-reply to the students at CUNY law school. You stood up for your beliefs, which is, in itself, fine. Your expectation that mommy would do it for you by admonishing a speaker with views you deem hateful but the rest of the legal world deems thoughtful shows that you’re not yet mature, still seeking a grown-up’s protection.

But how you did it, what you did, demonstrates that you lack the intellectual capacity to handle the role of lawyer, whether in the public interest as you conveniently justify your ideology, or merely as advocate. You failed to persuade. You failed to mount an argument that was anything but laughable to others. You besmirched yourself and your school, and don’t think the other students at CUNY law aren’t pissed at you right about now.

But most of all, you conclusively proved that your law school failed you, and doubled down when Dean Bilek tried to slough it off. If you believe that your actions, your protest, serves a purpose for law students, for law, for the benefit of those for whom you feel the law has failed, then you should have employed tactics that would further your goals rather than disgrace you, your school, your cause.

Since your professors have already failed you by not teaching you better, it falls to others to do their job. Here’s a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer.