By Clara Geoghegan and Ashlyn Campbell
LAW WEEK COLORADO
The University of Denver Sturm College of Law faced criticism from multiple sides following its handling of a contentious speech last month.
On March 7, the University of Denver Sturm College of Law’s chapter of the Federalist Society hosted Ilya Shapiro, a former Georgetown Law lecturer who faced backlash and eventually stepped down from the teaching position following a series of Tweets that criticized the nomination and confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Shapiro, now a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the think tank the Manhattan Institute, presented his speech “Silencing Minorities: Free Speech in Academia” to law students, alumni and the public.
Aside from a handful of critical audience questions, the speech itself wasn’t met with much pushback but in the week leading up to it and the time after, students and local attorneys have criticized how the university’s administration responded.
Prior to the event taking place, the University of Denver Sturm College of Law’s chapter of the National Lawyers Guild via an open letter with student signatures demanded the school cancel the event.
Dean Bruce Smith acknowledged the letter but said in a March 3 email to the University of Denver Sturm College of Law community that the presence of the event didn’t constitute endorsement and that “the University of Denver views freedom of expression to be vital to its mission.”
Smith said in two different emails that access to the Ricketson Law Building and the event would be limited to those in the University of Denver community, and there would be two designated areas for peaceful protest: outside the Ricketson Law Building on the campus green and in a section of the law school forum. Smith also stipulated via email that signage like posters and signs wouldn’t be allowed in the event.
Several students who attended the event said no one participated in the designated protest areas. Joseph Rosales, a student and board member of Latinx Law Students Association, said LLSA told people to not use the designated protest areas because “they basically told us how we can protest and advocate for our students and our populations, but they never once asked just like ‘Hey, what can we do to make you all feel better about this?’”
Smith said in the emails, and prior to introducing Shapiro, that people who attempted to disrupt the event would be instructed to leave the building, and doing so would have consequences both under the university honor code and the law school’s honor code, as well as “potential referral to professional licensing authorities.”
Public letters from several affinity bar associations, as well as letters and objections from students, took issue with the threat of referral to licensing authorities. In an email to Law Week, Smith specified that the potential referral to licensing authorities would have applied to students who disrupted the event in violation of the college’s honor code which bars “[d]isrupting or interfering with the orderly conduct or operation of any University activity” not including “organized, peaceful and orderly protests.”
A representative of the Black Students’ Law Association said the threat of being reported for professional licensing also put Black students in a position to decide if they would stick up for themselves now at the event, potentially threatening their licensing, or later when they weren’t students.
Austin Michaels, the current treasurer of the NLG, said the professional licensing step was the university’s “biggest misstep” because marginalized students are already fighting an uphill battle and those threats weigh more seriously on them.
Rosales said many diverse students don’t go into the profession because they don’t think they can make it past licensing.
“It felt like … they know what’s important to us and what the biggest risk is,” Rosales said.
In March 2022, Shapiro was invited to speak by the Federalist Society chapter of the University of California College of the Law. At the time, numerous students voiced their opposition to him speaking and disruptive protestors and hecklers prevented much of the speech from going forward. He said compared to the UC Law SF event, his speech at the University of Denver went smoothly.
Shapiro said he didn’t see any protestors at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and his speech went off without any hiccups. He said he was escorted from his car to the room by members of security and on the way didn’t run into any students protesting.
“I thought [the dean] went a little overboard by not even allowing signs, as long as the signs didn’t obstruct people’s views,” Shapiro added.
Shapiro added that on the Sunday leading up to the event, members of the Federalist Society were asked to meet with administrators. The University of Denver Sturm College of Law’s Federalist Society co-presidents Mackenzie Budman and Lark Commanday declined an interview with Law Week or to provide comments.
When asked about the meeting, Smith said it included members of the Office of Student Affairs & Inclusive Excellence which works with student organizations “to discuss the chapter’s plans for the event.”
From his understanding, Shapiro said the Federalist Society students felt caught off guard by the backlash and additional meetings with administrators leading up to the event. “The students just said that they felt a little overwhelmed by all of the process that they needed to go through to determine all this stuff,” said Shapiro.
Since the event, the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, the Sam Cary Bar Association and Colorado LGBT Bar Association have published letters condemning the school’s response and decision to host Shapiro.
Amber Gonzales, president of CHBA, said the bar association published its response after student affiliates approached them after the event.
“Our role as community members and leaders in the legal community includes advocating for students, who often are disproportionately less powerful in their own learning institutions, than alumni and other people in the community who are outside of their institutions,” said Gonzales.
Scott Rosenbach, the president-elect of the Colorado LGBT Bar Association, said after learning about the event, the Colorado Bar Association’s President’s Diversity Council, where the CBA president hosts a monthly meeting with the leaders of various diversity and affinity bar associations, discussed the event and the response.
“The conclusion from the discussion was that our student members are an important and material part of the membership of all of our bar associations,” Rosenbach said. “And if they are being put in situations that compromise them professionally and physically and frankly emotionally, that we as bar associations feel that we are in a position to condemn such behavior.”
Rosenbach said it was a unanimous decision that the bar associations would make statements condemning the actions of the university and law school, and would demand certain policy changes and a conversation with Smith.
Gonzales said CHBA understands the role universities play as a forum for the free exchange of ideas, but didn’t believe Shapiro’s speech contributed to that. Shapiro, the co-author of Abolish DEI Bureaucracies and Restore Colorblind Equality in Public Universities, has often criticized schools for their consideration of race in admissions.
Gonzales said one of the major harms of hosting the event stemmed from the content of Shapiro’s speech. “That created really genuine and justifiable feelings among students from underrepresented groups, because it was very much an attack on them being there and earning their spot on merit,” said Gonzales.
The representative of the BLSA who attended the event said the speech was “infuriating” because diverse students are “constantly questioned about whether we’re qualified.”
The other major harm was the administration’s response, Gonzales said, which CHBA felt had a silencing effect on students’ speech and ability to protest. Gonzales said the threat of reporting students to licensing agencies for disruption seemed disproportionate.
Rosenbach said the threats from Smith of reporting students to professional licensing authorities were damaging to LGBT students because licensing processes are often more difficult for them. Rosenbach said LGBT students often have to fill out additional paperwork or use their government names, which can be difficult for transgender and nonbinary students.
“Many of our students while they’re undergoing character and fitness are having parts of their identity examined that are frankly inappropriate and also make them feel less of a sense of belonging in the legal community,” Rosenbach said. “The fact that a student could be further compromised in their application for engaging in peaceful protests is patently inappropriate.”
After the letter, CHBA received a response from Smith that noted he would be open to a meeting to discuss their concerns further. But the response missed the mark, according to Gonzales. “It didn’t really feel like it addressed any of our concerns,” she said.
Rosenbach said the LGBT Bar Association received a written response from Smith and other University of Denver administrators. Rosenbach said their response didn’t include any recognition of wrongdoing and didn’t include an apology.
CHBA and the other affinity bar associations would like to speak with Smith further, Gonzales added. “We would like to be able to sit down and have a genuine conversation with [the] administration about what happened here and what they can do better.”
The BLSA representative said BLSA and other groups met with Smith to explain their perspective. The representative said the group asked for a needs assessment to be conducted to assess the basic needs of students and what they need to learn effectively, then that the assessment be used to make recommendations.
“Our goal is ultimately to have some kind of policy change in place, but we really want those to be responsive to whatever the needs assessment finds,” the BLSA representative said.
The students Law Week spoke to said they also wanted a public recognition and apology after the administration’s response.
Smith, in a letter to Law Week, said the University and Sturm College of Law “communicated extensively and forthrightly about our approach to the March 7 event and remain committed to doing so.” Smith also said, “in a manner that admittedly reflects important work in progress – we have sought to reassure students who experienced pain, disillusionment, and dispiritedness,” from the event, and that he met with the BLSA leaders to develop an action plan.