top of page
Past Newsletters

March 12, 2023


About Last Week’s Events at Stanford Law School

By now, most readers have heard about events last Thursday, March 9 whereby a student organization had invited federal Judge Stewart Kyle Duncan to talk about specific cases and how they relate to recent Supreme Court developments. Unfortunately, the judge was continually heckled by a group of protestors and then the law school’s Associate Dean for DEI read to attendees her previously prepared remarks largely attacking the judge. The judge eventually was escorted from the school by a security detail that intervened after there were mounting concerns. For those who haven’t kept up on the matter, here are some links:


video of what happened


letter to President Marc Tessier-Lavigne from FIRE about their concerns


letter of apology from Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and law school dean Jenny Martinez

David Lat commentary

We again call your attention to the increasingly bloated bureaucracy at Stanford (see our Stanford Concerns page to see the numbers). And in our view, students and faculty of course can raise issues, although within the bounds of acceptable behavior that doesn’t inappropriately interfere with an event. But what concerns a growing number of alumni and others is that one or more administrators would decide on their own what is and isn’t acceptable speech, who is and isn’t an acceptable speaker (even where students had invited that speaker), and signal that the law school has an official position opposing that speaker, what the speaker allegedly stands for and what the speaker might allegedly say. 


This is another example of why we think the Kalven Report, part of the Chicago Trifecta, should be adopted by Stanford (see our compilations on our Chicago Principles page), including these excerpts: 


“A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices, and institutions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. In brief, a good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting. 


“The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. 


“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.” 


Quote: “Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.” Sir Winston Churchill


March 7, 2023


ACTA Issues a Challenge to Stanford Regarding Academic Freedom

ACTA (the American Council of Trustees and Alumni) has issued a challenge to Stanford’s faculty, students and alumni on issues of free speech and academic freedom. Their press release can be found here, and an ACTA webpage that was just posted and is devoted to the Stanford challenge is here. We have posted the related video at our Stanford Concerns page here (the video is also available at YouTube here).

According to ACTA’s website, the group is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting academic excellence, academic freedom, and accountability at America’s colleges and universities. Their challenge to Stanford, as they have done with other major colleges and universities: commit to a culture of free expression, foster civil discourse, cultivate intellectual diversity, break down barriers to free expression, and advance leadership accountability. And with specific action items listed at their website for each of these five goals. ​ 


While our Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking group was not involved in creating this challenge, we think the issues it raises are very important ones for all of Stanford’s faculty, students and alumni, and we thus hope the issues will receive appropriate discussion and resolution. We also note that the challenge makes reference to the Chicago Trifecta, something we have long endorsed and is posted at our Chicago Principles page.


Further information about ACTA and the initiatives it sponsors can be found here, and if you have any thoughts about the challenge or the issues it raises, please feel free to submit them at our Contact Us page. 


Further information about ACTA and the initiatives it sponsors can be found here, and if you have any thoughts about the challenge or the issues it raises, please feel free to submit them at our Contact Us page.

Quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Prof. Margaret Mead (University of Rhode Island, 1901 - 1978)


March 5, 2023

Faculty Views on Campus Civil Liberties


A recent survey sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and administered by Social Science Research Services showed that when faculty members from close to 1,500 colleges and universities were asked about their views on civil liberties, most said they self-censor and were fearful of losing their jobs or reputations due to their speech. This is said to be more than what even was seen during the McCarthy era with 72% of today's conservative faculty, 56% of moderate faculty, and even 40% of liberal faculty afraid of losing their jobs or reputations due to their speech. See full article here:


In that same survey, 50% of university professors said the requirement that job applicants submit a statement describing their commitment and experience advancing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is an “ideological litmus test that violates academic freedom.” The other 50% said DEI statements “are a justifiable requirement for a university job.” See full article here:


Yale Faculty In Ongoing Discussions with Yale's President About the Status of Free Expression on Campus ​ 


Yale's University Council, the university's highest presidential advisory body, is in ongoing talks with University President Peter Salovey over the status of free expression on campus. See full article here:


Linfield University Professor, Fired After Speaking Out Against Antisemitism and Sexual Misconduct, Wins $1M Settlement 


In response to Linfield University President Miles Davis’ anti-Semitic comments including jokes about gas chambers and other insults against Jewish people, as well as concerns about alleged sexual misconduct by members of the school's board trustees, tenured Prof. Pollack-Pelzner filed a complaint against the university, over which Prof. Pollack-Pelzner was subsequently fired. 


FIRE commented that “Linfield has the dubious honor of having done something that is pretty remarkable, which was to fire a tenured faculty member with no due process whatsoever, and to do so because the institution’s leadership objected to his speech.” 


Prof. Pollack-Pelzer eventually won an approximate $1 million settlement against the university. FIRE analyst Aaron Corpora warned universities that “if [they’re] going to mess with the expressive or due process rights of students or faculty, [they] better be prepared to pay.” See full article here:


Quote: “Faculty members complain that they can’t speak freely, but they’re also turning on each other . . . They can’t have it both ways. If faculty members want to feel safe to speak, they have to stop supporting the censorship of others.” Sean Stevens (FIRE)


February 24, 2023

Stanford Faculty Raise Concerns About Anonymous and Even Secret Reports Being Made About Students


Articles earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Mail and National Review outlined concerns being raised by members of Stanford’s faculty regarding systems that allow anonymous complaints to be filed by fellow students about something other students might have said or done. These filings then result in a targeted student being called in for various types of counseling and remedial action. The issue first surfaced with the filings that were made in December, many apparently anonymously, via Stanford’s “Protected Identity Harm” program about a student who was seen reading Mein Kampf (see our posting about the issue here).


But that led to a realization that an entire electronic record-keeping system is in place, is generally never disclosed to students, but that tracks what students may have said and done and that then is used against the students in current and future actions by Stanford’s student services staff, lawyers and others. Stanford’s system is provided by a company known as Maxient and which provides similar services, including a wide range of forms that Stanford also seems to be using, to over 1300 other colleges and universities around the country. The Maxient system also allows schools to share some of the student information among them.


This most recent revelation -- on top of the “Elimination of Harmful Language” word list that came to light a few months ago (see our Stanford Concerns page) -- only furthers the concerns about a vast and expensive bureaucracy that continually meddles in student affairs when the proper educational answer should be direct discussions among the affected students themselves, one to another. At least in our view, Stanford has recruited some of the most capable young adults in the country. Surely they should be entrusted with managing their own lives.


For these purposes, we again call your attention to our Back to Basics web page, and the presentation to Stanford’s Faculty Senate a few weeks ago by Prof. Russell Berman (see our Stanford Speaks page). Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article: A group of Stanford University professors is pushing to end a system that allows students to anonymously report classmates for exhibiting discrimination or bias, saying it threatens free speech on campus (see


The backlash began last month, when a student reading “Mein Kampf,” the autobiographical manifesto of Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler, was reported through the school’s “Protected Identity Harm” system.


“I was stunned,” said Russell Berman, a professor of comparative literature who said he believes the reporting system could chill free speech on campus and is ripe for abuse. “It reminds me of McCarthyism.” . . . Stanford Business School professor Ivan Marinovic said the bias-reporting system reminded him of the way citizens were encouraged to inform on one another by governments in the Soviet Union, East Germany and China. “It ignores the whole history,” he said. “You’re basically going to be reporting people who you find offensive, right? According to your own ideology.” 


Quote: “Alumni have the ability and duty to demand that their schools maintain the reasons for which they were created. But to be effective, alumni need to organize.” Stuart Taylor Jr. and Edward Yingling


February 20, 2023

Stanford’s Faculty Senate Appoints an Ad Hoc Committee on Speech and Academic Freedom


See the Stanford Report's two articles about the ad hoc committee here and here.


 In Other News


These are some articles and links about issues at other colleges and universities and that may be of interest:


Yet Another Campus Blasphemy Dispute in Minnesota:


The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reported that Macalester College covered up an Iranian-American feminist's art exhibit after student complaints. See article here.

Commentary, Keep the Classroom a Space for Weird Conversations:


The author states, "If teachers are unwilling to venture into alien territory and make the classroom safe for unfashionable thoughts despite the security they enjoy, we cannot expect students to take the risk." article here.


Commentary, Let’s Face It, Academic Freedom and Inclusion Aren’t Always Compatible:


In response to a faculty resolution at Hamline University, the article's authors assert, "In our view there will inevitably be tensions between these two values [academic freedom and inclusion]. And when those tensions arise, academic freedom must prevail — at least, if we want to ensure a college education worthy of its name."


Quote: “As a university, we deeply value free expression. The ability to express a broad diversity of ideas and viewpoints is fundamental to the university’s mission of seeking truth through research and education, and to preparing students for a world in which they will engage with diverse points of view every day.” Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne


February 1, 2023


We bring to your attention a number of developments that might be of interest.


First, here’s a link to a Stanford Daily article about recent discussions at Stanford’s Faculty Senate regarding faculty oversight of academic matters.


Second, here’s a link to a Stanford Review article with comments made by Prof. Russell Berman regarding these Faculty Senate discussions.


And finally, here are two links regarding the Stanford Civics Initiative (SCI) and the Initiative's courses now being taught in conjunction with Stanford’s political science department.


From SCI's "About" page: "We are united by our belief that U.S. universities have a responsibility to offer students an education that will promote their flourishing as human beings, their judgment as moral agents, and their participation in society as democratic citizens. . . .We believe that students’ own ethical judgment is improved and their deepest commitments are strengthened when they have the chance to make and to respond to reasoned arguments from all sides of morally challenging issues." Take a look:


Quote: "It is not the role of a university to protect students or anyone else from difficult ideas or words. On the contrary, we need the intellectual courage to confront them, and we faculty have to regain the assurance that the university supports us when we do so." Prof. Russell Berman

January 27, 2023

Controversy Regarding Mein Kampf


We bring to your attention an article from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) regarding Stanford’s recent handling of a screenshot posted on social media and showing a Stanford student reading Mein Kampf. See FIRE's article here.


Here's how the Stanford Daily initially covered the story ("Protected Identity Harm Report Filed as Screenshot of Student Reading 'Mein Kampf' Circulates"). And here's how the Stanford Review subsequently covered the story ("Nazis Banned Books. We Shouldn't"). And here’s a link to Stanford’s Protected Identity Harm Reporting website.


Note that our updated Back to Basics white paper has proposed the elimination of the Protected Identity Harm Reporting program (Item 2.i as well as the boldface paragraph at the bottom).


These latest developments raise numerous concerns. Among other things, is it appropriate that Stanford’s administrative staff decides, on their own, what might and might not be appropriate speech? Or worse, appropriate books for students to be seen reading? The issue becomes especially concerning since Stanford is prohibited from adopting speech codes pursuant to California’s Leonard Law and the Corry court decision (see former President Casper’s comments about the Corry case), and in many ways, this is worse with Stanford’s student services staff now imposing unwritten speech rules instead. Who authorized this?


When we read about the Protected Identity Harm Reporting program, we were also concerned about the pressures being placed on students to accept what the website describes as restorative justice, indigenous healing circles, mediation, etc. And shouldn’t matters like this be subject to the standards, procedures and protections that exist with the student disciplinary process? In many ways, this looks like an end run around those protections by the student services staff, and done solely on their own.


And finally, we believe there are serious concerns that these complaints can be filed anonymously and that, per the complaint form, they are then automatically entered into the Maxient student record-keeping system, often without even telling the targeted student that this is happening (again, see the boldface paragraph at the end of Back to Basics). 


Quote: "Undergraduates are now exposed to less viewpoint diversity than ever before . . . This has profound consequences for everything that happens at the university." Prof. Jonathan Haidt, New York University


Website Update - January 21, 2023

If you haven’t noticed already, we’ve made a few changes to our Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking website.


First, we’ve created a new webpage, Back to Basics, where we outline some key reforms we believe Stanford’s faculty, administrators, students and trustees should consider for the protection of speech, critical thinking and academic freedom at Stanford.


Second, we’ve posted at the Stanford Concerns page a recent article by longtime Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya who had come under ongoing and brutal attacks for his pursuing issues related to Covid. Among other things, Prof. Bhattacharya notes, “Top universities, like Stanford, where I have been both student and professor since 1986, are supposed to protect against such orthodoxies, creating a safe space for scientists to think and to test their ideas. Sadly, Stanford has failed in this crucial aspect of its mission, as I can attest from personal experience.”


And finally, we’ve posted PDF copies of each of the three compilations of the Chicago Trifecta as well as a copy of our Back to Basics proposal for anyone who would like to download and use copies of these documents (see Chicago Principles and Back to Basics pages).

January 16, 2023


The Chicago Trifecta

We, along with faculty and alumni from around the country, have been advocating that colleges and universities adopt what are known as the Chicago Principles for Free Speech. At present, something like 95 U.S. colleges and universities have endorsed or adopted them.


More recently, we and others have realized that an even more effective set of actions would be for schools to adopt all three parts of what is known as the Chicago Trifecta. As noted at our website, during earlier times of considerable campus turmoil, the University of Chicago’s faculty issued three reports dealing with (1) freedom of expression, (2) a university’s involvement in political and social matters, and (3) academic appointments. Together, these three documents have become known as the Chicago Trifecta.


All three documents are remarkable in their clarity of language and thinking, and they were produced by the faculty of one of the nation’s most prestigious and academically rigorous universities. We have therefore compiled the core principles of each of these three reports, using language taken directly from each report; and we urge Stanford’s faculty, administration and trustees to adopt all three parts of the Chicago Trifecta as a way to guarantee the type of free speech and critical thinking we believe is essential for a leading university like Stanford.


All three compilations are now posted at our website (see Chicago Principles under More heading).

January 11, 2022

Stanford's IT Community Website, "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative"


Stanford's IT community created the website, "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative," which was reported on by the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets. The controversial website was subsequently made unavailable to those who didn't have a Stanford log-in account.


Examples of harmful words and phrases listed at the website included American, basket case, black box, blind review, brown bag, chief (even though the CIO’s official title is still Chief Information Officer), freshman, gentlemen, grandfathered, he, immigrant, ladies, master list, prisoner, prostitute, sanity check, she, submit, survivor, tone deaf, trigger warning, walk-in, webmaster. . . and nearly 100 more. A copy of the list is now posted at our website at our Stanford Concerns page.


In a letter to the Stanford community dated January 4, 2023, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne wrote, "many have expressed concern that the work of this group could be used to censor or cancel speech at Stanford. I want to assure you this is not the case." Tessier-Lavigne continued, "At no point did the website represent university policy." Read our full article at our Stanford Concerns page, and to avoid problems like this going forward, we again urge that Stanford adopt the Chicago Trifecta (click on More and then on Chicago Principles).


Cornell Alumni Urge Emphasis on Free Speech and Critical Thinking

During New Student Orientation


An alumni group at Cornell similar to ours has written two letters (one last May, one this week) to Cornell’s president, urging that a free speech instruction unit be included in new student orientation. The more recent letter states in part, “This is not a partisan issue and should not be treated as such. Every side of a debate must be open to intellectual challenge if we, as a society, and the university, as an engine of open inquiry, are to have any chance of surviving. . . . We propose training to assist students in recognizing the difference between speech and violence . . . [and that] through listening to reasoned challenge they may become wiser and more thoughtful adults.” See the most recent letter at our Commentary page.


MIT Faculty Adopts Free Expression Statement 


In December 2022, the MIT faculty senate approved a Free Expression Statement that affirms, “Learning from a diversity of viewpoints, and from the deliberation, debate, and dissent that accompany them, are essential ingredients of academic excellence." The statement points out, “We cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious.”  (Kabbany, The College Fix.) (See our Commentary page.)


Quote: “Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for critical thinking.” Leo Tolstoy  

December 15, 2022

Ballooning Administrative Costs at Colleges/Universities


In a recent conference call among alumni groups around the country, a link was posted to a website that compares the administrative costs per undergraduate student at over 1500 U.S. colleges and universities. That website – How Colleges Spend Money -- has very detailed data and interactive charts for the years 2012 through 2020 (see the website here).


In response, we have posted at our website a chart that shows the costs at Stanford as compared with a select group of other colleges and universities. Among other things, Stanford’s administrative costs per undergraduate student in 2020 were slightly below $40,000 compared with approximately $8,000 at Berkeley, $14,000 at Northwestern, $22,000 at Yale and $26,000 at Princeton. Note also that most schools had little change during these nine years, and one or two even reduced their costs, whereas Stanford, Caltech, MIT and Harvard had very significant increases during that same period.  See our sample chart here


Stanford Daily Op-Ed on Polarization


The Stanford Daily has published in recent months two op-eds by a Stanford undergraduate from New Zealand, YuQing Jiang, regarding what he calls “perceived polarization” at Stanford along with his thoughts about what causes it and its impact on campus life. You can find the two op-eds here and here.


Excerpts from the articles:


October: I do believe in the notion that universities are microcosms of society; thus, I think if left unattended, affective polarization will wreak greater havoc on the already precarious social and political spheres of American life in the coming years. This is why I want to draw attention to the precise nature of the problem confronting us. If we fall deeper into our ideological silos and the animosity between political groups grows, then our vision of a truly inclusive future will come under threat.


December: The ultimate takeaway here is to keep an open mind. We should view people we encounter as individuals with nuanced views and unique lived experiences, rather than avatars of their group identities. We should also examine whether the beliefs we hold about certain groups really apply to all of its members; there often exists greater differences within groups than between groups. But above all, we should seek to talk to people with identities different to our own: I believe we will find more in common than we think.  


Quote: "At its best, freedom of speech is transformative, elevating our caliber of discourse, giving voice to the marginalized, and inviting connection across difference." Stanford's Office of Community Standards

November 30, 2022
Katie Meyer Lawsuit
We alumni are obviously concerned about the allegations made in the complaint filed last week by the Meyer family against Stanford regarding the tragic suicide earlier this year by their daughter Katie Meyer. See the complaint at our Stanford Concerns page.  
Back to Basics
Coincidentally, a proposal has been circulated in recent weeks about the need for major colleges and universities to get back to basics. In light of the Meyer lawsuit, we have decided to go ahead and post the draft, revised slightly to be specific to Stanford, since many of the concerns raised by the complaint overlap with many of the same concerns that alumni, students, faculty, parents and others have had in recent years. The “Back to Basics” discussion draft can be found at the  Back to Basics page at our website
Let Others Know About Our Website
Please feel free to forward this newsletter to others who might be interested. Names and email addresses can be added to our mailing list by writing to or by using the Subscribe function at this website.
Quote: "A constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg November 21, 2022 ​

November 21, 2022

See our special edition newsletter posting here that contains links to videos and other information from the Academic Freedom Conference hosted in early November by Stanford's Graduate School of Business.


November 16, 2022


On The Need for Contrarian Thinking


Stanford Review’s editor-in-chief Mimi St. Johns, who is a junior studying Computer Science and German, wrote in a recent op-ed The Contrarian Ethos that “freedom of speech is more restricted than possibly any other time in the history of Stanford -- and more broadly America” and suggested there is currently a need for intellectual engagement that includes contrarian thinking. You can read Ms. St. Johns’ op-ed at the Stanford Concerns page of our website.


Stanford’s President Marc Tessier-Lavigne on the Campus Climate for Discussing Divergent Views


In light of Ms. St. Johns’ op-ed, we thought it useful to again bring to readers’ attention the remarks made a year ago by Stanford’s President Marc Tessier-Lavigne about his take regarding the campus climate for discussing divergent views. You can read President Tessier-Lavigne’s comments at the Stanford Speaks page of our website.


How I Liberated My College Classroom


At a two-day conference regarding academic freedom that was hosted earlier this month by Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, one of the panelists, Duke faculty member John Rose, spoke about techniques he uses at Duke to create a climate where students feel free to express divergent even if potentially unpopular viewpoints. We have reprinted an op-ed Prof. Rose wrote a year ago describing the approaches he uses. You can read his op-ed at the Commentary page of our website.

Quote: "Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically." Dr. Martin Luther King


November 3, 2022


Faculty Statement Regarding Academic Freedom


We have posted at our website a copy of a statement regarding academic freedom that was drafted by faculty members in various schools and departments at Stanford. The draft letter was then circulated to colleges and universities around the country and has already garnered over 600 signatures nationwide. Take a look.


Student Social Life . . . and Ongoing Evidence of an Overly Intrusive Bureaucracy


The Stanford Daily published a very well-researched and well-written article in late October about student unhappiness with current social life at Stanford. After reading the article, a number of us were struck with a secondary theme in the article about what comes across as an overly intrusive bureaucracy at Stanford. A copy of the Daily article is posted here: "Inside Stanford's 'War on Fun': Tensions Mount Over University's Handling of Social Life."


As if to prove the point, Stanford has suspended Stanford’s tree mascot for having displayed a “Stanford Hates Fun” banner at a home football game several weeks ago. Surely the irony of this action can’t be lost on third-party observers: "Stanford Student Suspended From Serving as Tree Mascot."

Quote: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison, 1788 speech


October 21, 2022


As we indicated in prior mailings, in addition to updating the website Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking from time to time, we will periodically circulate links to articles from other colleges and universities. Here is a sampling of what we have recently received:


Yale Law School Dean, Heather K. Gerken, defends the law school after federal judges announce boycott: "Yale Law Dean Defends School After Federal Judges Announce Boycott."


According to a new YouGov survey, the majority of Americans oppose laws that restrict faculty speech: "Most Americans Oppose Laws That Restrict Faculty Speech, Poll Finds."


New survey finds that while 98% of college students believe in free speech, around two-thirds want to censor the other side's political views on campus: "Despite Strong Belief in Free Speech, College Students Want Political Views Censored on Campus."


Metropolitan State University of Denver President Janine Davidson has committed the school to respecting all student speech: "This University President is Taking a Stand for Free Speech."


The University of California at Berkeley is facing criticism after a music teacher at the school was not fired for a ten-year sardonic post: "UC Berkeley Bucks Mob Demands to Fire Music Teacher."


Jewish Berkeley Law Students discuss in a Daily Beast article how they feel excluded: “We’re Jewish Berkeley Law Students, Excluded in Many Areas on Campus.”


Thank you for your interest in our website and newsletter. If you know of other alumni, faculty, students, parents or others who might be interested in these issues, please forward this newsletter to them and suggest that they go to our website and subscribe.


Quote: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Benjamin Franklin, 1722

October 11, 2022

Janice Traflet, a business professor at Bucknell University, recently wrote about speaking fearlessly despite the threats of cancel culture: "Learning to Speak in the Midst of Cancel Culture."

Jillian Horton, a former associate dean and associate department chair of internal medicine at the University of Toronto, expressed concerns about the commodification of university education and whether it has become more important that faculty make students happy rather than challenge them: "Op-Ed: Listen Up, College Students. You don't 'Get' a Grade. You Have to Earn It."


Charles Lipson, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, wrote a recent commentary about restoring free speech at colleges and universities: "Restoring Free Speech at Our Universities."


Lauren Noble, a 2011 Yale graduate and currently head of the Buckley Program at Yale, wrote about the history of free speech at Yale, including its ground-breaking Woodward Report in 1974: "Yale is Abandoning Its Own Free Speech Codes."

bottom of page