It is one of the big reunion years for my law school class, and I just returned from a very nice luncheon featuring members of my class and older. The new Dean spoke, and during a question and answer period, a strident woman, an alumna, stood up and asked the dean what the school and its alumni association were planning to do to “stand up for the rule of law” and “democratic principles” during the current “crisis.” As usual, the “current crisis” is an elected President who does not approve of or want to continue policies near and dear to leftist hearts.
The Dean, to his credit, urged those in the room so concerned to use “their own platforms” to make their case, but the woman would hear none of it. It was vital, she said, for the Georgetown Law Center to strongly stand for the “right principles” and to actively oppose those who would drag us and the nation to “dark places,” even “darker than where ‘they’ have dragged us already.”
I told the lawyer sitting next to me that I had heard enough of such arrogance, and prepared to explain, as I should not have had to, that neither the school nor the alumni association should be taking official positions on matters about which substantial numbers of Georgetown- educated lawyers do not agree. He restrained me, saying that it would do no good and only serve to steer the event into roiling political waters it should not have to navigate. Reluctantly, I relented.
But what arrogance! And what smug bubble-dwelling—this woman, like so many others I encounter in my weekly adventures, just assumes that all the “good” people, all the elite professionals, naturally hold beliefs and opinions consistent with her own, prime among them being that the Trump Presidency and the long-overdue righting of the culture as a crucial part of opposing the aspiring totalitarianism of the Left are evil developments that can be accurately categorized as sparking an existential crisis.
I still think I should have laid her out. She deserved it, and I’m just the man to do it (You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry...)….or was my companion correct that undermining the good feeling in the room beyond what she had already inflicted on it would have been irresponsible?
Ethics Alarms 
The duty to confront was apparent here. All that would have been needed is to say that this is neither the time nor place for political grandstanding and you did not pay good money to hear diatribes against a figure supported by so many Americans. There is a time and place for her opinions but this was not it.
Your companion, by preventing your ability to confront effectively provided cover for this speaker.
Wrong time and wrong place. I know it’s tempting but let her be the one who disrupted a pleasant time instead of it being an argument between you and her.
In my opinion; her wrong place wrong time political virtue signaling and grandstanding shouldn’t be used to justify a wrong place wrong time for someone else in the room to virtue signal and grandstand in opposition. That room wasn’t the time or place for her to virtue signal or grandstand about Georgetown Law Center policy regarding the toxic political environment the United States is in currently.
If the Dean didn’t properly shut her down someone in attendance could have blurted out from a seated position, “this isn’t the time or place for this kind of discussion”.
My thought is based on a couple of factors:
Those are the types of things I consider before confronting someone like this. While I agree that this issue implicates the duty to confront, confronting someone directly in a professional conference is fraught with problems. If the Dean simply redirected the conversation, then confrontation would not serve any real purposes. Kind of a discretion is the better part of valor. If, however, the situation festered, then there is justification for pouncing on the arrogant individual with full guns blazing.
jvb
The Dean properly deflected the question but the woman persisted.
I despise the hijacking of events by people for their own personal agendas.
As one who is boycotting his 40th law school reunion (that will show them!) because of the school’s nauseating monolithic left-wing ethos, I sympathize with the dilemma posed by this situation. I am generally in favor of non-engagement as a moral principle, and I don’t think you had an ethical duty to respond to that mugwump. On the other hand, if you had a good response handy I don’t think it would have been inappropriate to make it. But ultimately the balance of the universal morality scale would not have shifted either way.
Given the point of the gathering (an opportunity for people with shared experiences in graduate school to reconnect) I think you chose wisely, as did the Dean. I get that it’s personally frustrating that you didn’t get to engage in one-on-one intellectual combat with this woman AND I doubt it would have been as satisfying in person as it is in your imagination — not because you wouldn’t have made good points but because it’s very unlikely she would recognize them as such. It would have just prolonged the interruption. She was clearly itching to engage — and you would have given her EXACTLY what she most wanted. So I commend you (and the Dean) for following the principle of not taking the bait.
This is how the ubiquitous left has smothered reasonable people, who, unlike lefties, tend to be nice.
Cue McClintock.
This comment is a standalone rationalization of epic proportions.
Given the point of the gathering (an opportunity for people with shared experiences in graduate school to reconnect) Behave, Jack. Lefties get to do whatever they want whenever they want, but you don’t. I think you chose wisely, as did the Dean. Of course, the arrogant lefty got to drop her turd into the punchbowl while everyone bit their tongues and acted nice. I get that it’s personally frustrating that you didn’t get to engage in one-on-one intellectual combat with this woman You almost acted foolishly by indulging your toxic masculinity. Reacting to her would have been bad AND I doubt it would have been as satisfying in person as it is in your imagination You silly boy. — not because you wouldn’t have made good points Rationality is over-valued. but because it’s very unlikely she would recognize them as such. Got that? If someone’s delusional and stuck in their way, just let them hold the field and defer to them. That way, the progressive project will continue its march. It would have just prolonged the interruption. Can’t have that. Keep walking on eggshells, that way, you’ll stay out of these people’s way. She was clearly itching to engage — and you would have given her EXACTLY what she most wanted. So what? Would that be wrong? No. So I commend you (and the Dean) for following the principle of not taking the bait. Because the lefty carried the day and all the normal people just sat there and didn’t object to her and she’s winning! Yay!
OB wrote: “reasonable people, who, unlike lefties, tend to be nice.” There you go again, OB, smothering me with your reasonable niceness! No one has ever been nicer! Or more measured and reasonable in their comments! It’s a beautiful thing!
Thank you for brightening my day 🙂