Photo sourced from Wikimedia Commons

Disclaimer:

The UBC Pre-Law Association’s Legal Journal News Section is committed to providing objective and unbiased reporting. The views, opinions, and statements expressed by Judge Elizabeth Branch and other individuals in this article are their own and do not reflect the positions or endorsements of the UBC Pre-Law Association. This article is intended solely for informational purposes and aims to present the events and discussions in a neutral and balanced manner.

On Tuesday, January 21st, the Allard School of Law’s Runnymede Society Chapter hosted Judge Elizabeth Branch of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to discuss the state of campus speech in the US. Appointed by President Trump in 2018, Judge Branch oversees cases in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. 

Event Security and Protocol: 

Due to the contentious nature of the discussion, heightened security measures were in place throughout the event. A security officer stood to the left of Branch during the entirety of the scheduled discussion, with several other officers scattered throughout the law school building to ensure safety. Tim Haggstrom, National Director of the Runnymede Society outlined the event’s code of conduct, stating that there would be no audience participation when Judge Branch presents her speech. Instead, a structured question period would follow her lecture to gauge the audience’s insights.

Position on Free Speech:

      Branch is one of thirteen federal judges who are boycotting the hiring of law clerks from Columbia University in response to its handling of pro-Palestinian student demonstrations on its campus. During her address, Judge Branch said students had been allowed to “shut down speakers” and “prevented contrary views from being aired,” leading to disruptions that hindered free speech on campus. Branch further clarified, saying that students “took over campus areas” and “prevented Jewish students from walking around campus”. She said the [Columbia Law School] administration “refused to take action against the fending students”, which motivated her to place the ban on Columbia: “We can no longer ensure that the students coming through these institutions are being trained properly”.

      Expanding her critique, Branch also reaffirmed her decision to boycott hiring law clerks from Yale and Stanford University’s Law Schools. She cited Yale and Stanford as institutions that additionally failed to “enforce the speech codes they tout”, allowing students to suppress free speech.

Student Reactions and Disruptions:

      As mentioned earlier, Branch’s presence on campus, as reflected by the security measures taken, was contentious amongst the UBC student population. When Branch described Hamas’ October 7th land, sea, and air assault on Israel from the Gaza Strip, one of the audience members interrupted her, shouting “What about the genocide?!”. This interruption led to further dispute, with another audience member demanding the first to “shut up!” and “get out!”. This was followed by an additional audience member shouting, “I would like to hear her” [referencing Judge Branch] to the first audience member who initially interrupted Judge Branch. “This is pathetic!” the first audience member shouted, “Shame on you, and free Palestine!”. 

      As a result of disrupting the event, and subsequent inability to wait until the question period to respond, the audience member who initially disrupted Branch was asked to leave the room, to which she did so accordingly. In response to the disruption, Judge Branch said, “This is the first time I have faced a protester in the middle of a speech. Campus speech should matter, even to those as we have witnessed today who try to disrupt it”.

Evolution of Protest Models and Institutional Responses

Judge Branch also discussed how protest models in the United States have changed throughout the past few decades. “Students used to not show up to speaker events” to portray dissent, she said, “Now students try to disrupt the speech”.

Question Period

      During the question period, the blanket boycott against law schools was a central theme among the audience.  One audience member questioned the fairness of a sweeping boycott on students “because they attended a certain school” as opposed to their understanding and respect for the speech codes of their school, asking if alternative options had been explored.

      “I tried,” Branch said. She cited the reason for the blanket ban as an inability to distinguish good-faith actors in the schools from bad-faith actors. Branch said the universities declined to give her the names of student protestors who had violated their speech codes and refused to punish those students. “I can’t tell who’s who,” she said. In response to the fairness question, Branch said, “We did not prohibit students from clerking who were there while the protests happened. We gave notice to students who were applying that we would not be clerking from there [those schools] in the future”. Ultimately, the discussion ended civilly, with some students approaching Branch and thanking her for attending and speaking.