Reader Comments
About Stanford's Internet Observatory and Its Election Integrity Partnership, Its Virality Project, and Its Other Affiliates
From a reader: If your leadership team has not looked into the Stanford Internet Observatory, and its link to the Election Integrity Partnership, funded through the Obama/Biden Department of Homeland Security, please take a look. This is a powerful online censorship weapon. The university has no business participating in the policing of election related free speech in our country.
[Editor’s note: A more complete discussion about the Stanford Internet Observatory and related matters is now available here.]
**********
From another reader: These people defining "ethics" is as credible as Joseph Goebbels or Dmitri Shepilov (Pravda) defining ethical publishing.
I am in an [internet engineering group], and when we talk about "governance," we are talking about who passes out addresses and who maps them to the names of entities that use those addresses, etc. There is absolutely no way the word "governance" is supposed to include reaching in and trying to manage CONTENT.
These people and entities have hijacked the word "governance" to include the CONTENT of traffic on the internet, which is something the First Amendment protects in the USA.
They have no right whatsoever to adjudicate what "truth" is, and they have even less right to try to develop systems that force their definition of "truth" on anyone else. They think they are doing good, but they are so smugly self-righteous they are oblivious of the damage they will cause to society.
Stanford and, indeed, all of Silicon Valley is out of control. Fortunately, the internet was designed to route around failed sections (its goal was for wartime use), and computer programmers may be wily enough to circumvent any such hi-tech censorship. Need to start moving technology and computer science out of California to other parts of the U.S. and the world.
About Stanford's War Against Its Own Students
I went to an international school in the UK. We had a very diverse group of 11th and 12th graders. Race was never an issue, never even thought about. Ilya Mouzykantskii went to my school. He founded “The Fountain Hopper” [at Stanford]. My daughters went, for many years, to the International Lycée in Los Angeles which was naturally very diverse both racially and economically.
Love thy neighbor as thyself - if that is the only mantra that pre-school, elementary, middle and high school kids had, they’d be making better progress without 10,000 administrators. The problems seem to arise once they get to Stanford, not on their way to Stanford.
**********
. . . college kids don’t just make mistakes. Some of them make fatal ones. And in some cases those are promoted by the conduct of other students — like hazing or a drinking culture that results in alcohol deaths.
What a new [Stanford] president will need to decide is (1) do the current activities of the Stanford administrative police actually reduce those cases in a meaningful way, (2) what is Stanford’s tolerance for those occasional tragedies, and (3) should the current practices be maintained, not because they are effective, but because they make it easier for Stanford to defend itself when those tragedies happen.
From Paul Brest, Former Dean of Stanford Law School: The Chicago Principles are Unnecessary and Inadequate for Stanford
[Editor’s note: Stanford's 1974 policy statement on academic freedom that Dean Brest refers to, below, is currently set forth at Section 4.2.1 of the Faculty Handbook. Compilations of the Chicago Principles and the Chicago Trifecta are posted here.]
Some Stanford faculty and an alumni group have urged the University to adopt the University of Chicago’s 2014 statement on academic freedom, the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, known as the “Chicago principles.”
Unfortunately, the petition fails to address the most serious problems that actually face academic discourse on the Stanford campus. As background, Stanford already has a Statement on Academic Freedom, which was forged in campus unrest during the Vietnam War and adopted and approved by the Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees in 1974: "Stanford University’s central functions of teaching, learning, research, and scholarship depend upon an atmosphere in which freedom of inquiry, thought, expression, publication and peaceable assembly are given the fullest protection. Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion." Stanford’s Statement on Academic Freedom, which antedates the Chicago principles by forty years, expresses the identical commitment more directly and succinctly. Both the Statement on Academic Freedom and the Chicago principles forbid the universities from restricting free expression, either directly or by establishing institutional orthodoxies. In addition, California’s Leonard Law grants First Amendment protection to our students. I won’t minimize several actual violations of the Statement on Academic Freedom, including the recent unpardonable disruption of a federal judge’s talk and an administrator’s misguided response. But such violations are rare. The far more pervasive threat on the Stanford campus lies in informal interactions in and outside of classrooms, in which students and faculty members with various identities and political persuasions feel excluded or engage in self-censorship out of the fear—often justified—of being censured by their peers. To put it in other words: While Stanford’s Statement on Academic Freedom and the Chicago principles rightly forbid the university from restricting expression by people who wish to speak, they are of no avail to members of the academic community who are inhibited from speaking because they fear that they will be personally attacked because of their identities or because they hold unpopular political positions. As a group of faculty (including me) recently wrote: “Inclusive participation—which flows from ensuring that diverse positions and perspectives are actively solicited and considered—is a prerequisite to sound deliberation and judgment. Deliberation and judgment are enhanced when an institution ensures that people of different backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints are both present and heard.” Yes, Stanford should absolutely enforce the Statement on Academic Freedom. But neither that Statement nor the Chicago principles is adequate for the university’s present needs. We must also develop strategies that encourage open and inclusive discourse. Unlike the Statement on Academic Freedom (and to some extent because of it), such strategies cannot be mandated. Rather, the faculty must exercise leadership in fostering critical inquiry and viewpoint diversity within the classroom, and in modeling respectful interactions with their colleagues. For further reading on this topic, see the Report of Stanford Law School Policy Lab Practicum on Polarization, Academic Freedom, and Inclusion. (http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Report-of-the-SLS-Law-Policy-Lab-Practicum-on-Polarization-Academic-Freedom-and-Inclusion-Autumn-2022-1.pdf ) Paul Brest, Former Dean and Professor Emeritus (active) of Law
About Judge Duncan's Appearance at Stanford Law School
The Crisis of Free Speech in America: Recent Events at Stanford Law School
Comments from a Stanford Law School graduate
What is going on? The events at Stanford Law School and a similar event at Yale Law School last year should be a warning of flashing red lights and sirens for all those who are concerned about the practice of democracy in the United States, and elsewhere. Where has this intolerance of free speech come from? What is causing many of the best and the brightest of our students at top elite institutions to turn away from one of the cornerstones of democracy? We had better find out and take corrective action soon before "the new Stalinists" take over the intellectual "superstructure," as Karl Marx would put it. Have these students read Marx, John Stuart Mill, and Friedrich Hayek? Have they read Thomas Paine, or Voltaire? Have they studied the Enlightenment in Europe and the philosophical underpinnings of democracy? Have they studied the history of socialism and communism since 1848? Or spent time in a country where there is no free speech? What are their views on free speech in Iran, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia? Something is fundamentally wrong. Those who believe in democracy and know a little history need to pay attention and to start taking corrective action. Stanford Law School has been the home of great constitutional law teachers and scholars. I had the privilege of studying Constitutional Law with Gerald Gunther, who grew up as a Jewish boy in Nazi Germany. I remember Gunther recounting at a small informal lunch his experience in his small town on Kristallnacht, November 9-10, 1938. Stanford also has hosted outstanding visiting professors, like Leon Lipson from Yale Law School, a preeminent expert on Soviet Law. I recall taking Lipson's seminar on Soviet Law, and studying the Soviet show trials of 1936-1938. Lipson knew all about free speech in the Constitution and practice of the Soviet Union. Mauro Cappelletti, another Stanford Law Professor (and concurrently professor of Comparative Law at the European University Institute in Florence) was the leading expert in Comparative Constitutional Law in the world. I recall taking his class in Comparative Law, and the critical role assigned to freedom of speech in modern civil law constitutions and legal systems. Stanford Law School has a proud tradition of supporting freedom of speech. Given the gravity of the situation represented by recent events at Stanford and Yale Law Schools, Stanford Law School should consider establishing an endowed chair for the teaching of Freedom of Speech Law and establish a Freedom of Speech Program which would bring together scholars who could also address the subject from comparative and historical perspectives. Such a program could serve as a focal point for the study and teaching of the subject throughout the university. See also Conor Friedersdorf, "What Stanford Law’s DEI Dean Got Wrong; Tirien Steinbach’s approach to a recent free-speech conflict on campus disempowered students." (https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/03/what-stanford-laws-dei-dean-got-wrong/673410/)
**********
. . . it seems to me that the real culprit here was the associate dean. Rather than attempt to quell the furies, she egged on the students. Her diatribe was personal and unprofessional. This is not the way lawyers should act and she set a terrible example. The test for the Stanford administration will be whether it acts to take appropriately stern action to deal with what it can directly control, namely its staff.
**********
Hello! Some Stanford Law alumni and I were talking about the event that happened on campus this week with Judge Duncan. Someone mentioned maybe authoring an open letter. But we don’t know how to reach other alumni who are committed to free speech. I know four or five people who would sign such a letter, or maybe your organization would prefer to author the letter on its own.
**********
I think this kind of atmosphere must have been present on campuses in Germany from 1918-1933. Illiberal liberalism merges seamlessly into its opposite.
**********
You can read a detailed account of the event at https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech. I don’t think we should be satisfied with [law school dean] Martinez’s statement. It evades responsibility and seems to signal that there will be no consequences for the students or administrators who knowingly violated Stanford’s policies. I wonder whether it would be possible to ask Dean Martinez to meet with representatives of this group to explain what will be done.
Some General Reader Comments
I suggest the university produce forums in which ultimate concerns about war and peace presently unfolding be formally debated, subject to the rules of decorum. This is what the university is for, not prohibitions on argument or advocacy. Silence renders learning impossible. (New)
*********
[Editor's note: We first saw this alumni letter when it was published in the September 2023 issue of Stanford Magazine; it is reprinted here with permission of the author]
In the July President’s Column [in Stanford Magazine], Marc Tessier-Lavigne explained university initiatives meant to strengthen the culture of academic freedom at Stanford. The column doesn’t mention that faculty tenure is supposed to protect controversial faculty. Why else would we take the extraordinary step of giving them a guaranteed position? Sadly, the cancel culture that has come to dominate Stanford and other elite universities came originally from faculty attempting to cancel their colleagues. And, of course, faculty will only support tenure for left-leaning academics, creating a monolithic point of view where diverse viewpoints are not welcome. The students have picked up the cancel culture from the faculty and now use it against faculty -- a delicious irony -- and other students. Our next president should take the lead in setting a rule that faculty who do not respect the views of other faculty or students or who seek to cancel them will lose their tenure. And tenure should only be granted to faculty who demonstrate that they teach without an ideological bias and do not seek to cancel viewpoints that are not consistent with a woke ideology. When we see that, we’ll know that Stanford is serious about freedom of inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints.
**********
Please read John Sailer's OpEd in the WSJ this morning: "Inside Ohio State's DEI Factory". He used public-records requests to get the recruitment reports for OSU's hiring under Kristina Johnson (a Stanford EE PhD, whom I've met and talked to). OSU now claims not to be using these DEI criteria, but who knows? Can someone get access to Stanford's faculty/staff selection documents and statistics, and write a similar report? It would be nice if they revealed that Stanford was still selecting based solely on scholarship and excellence, without trying to use DEI standards to pre-disqualify top scholars. Thanks!
**********
You are such a breath of fresh air for compiling and sharing these articles that are so hard to find otherwise. THANK YOU!
**********
To whoever is compiling these great emails and information, THANK YOU! Much appreciated.
**********
I am so in support of the opinions expressed here and hope Stanford will adopt a more balanced approach to free speech. I can only hope.
**********
Wow! 17K Stanford administrators [and staff] is absurd. Does a master organizational chart exist to show the density of administrators in all specific areas of responsibility? Would love to see it, if it exists. Unfortunately, all the "accountability" being requested will be insufficient to fix such a bloated bureaucracy because most of the responsibilities and accountabilities must be to other components of the bureaucracy, not to Stanford's core missions. Since administrators will protect themselves and their own, only a mandate from the Board of Trustees to a new President and senior leadership team can tame this beast.
**********
The editorial in this week’s Carmel Pine Cone reminds us how wokeism at Stanford educates students in a way that can be disastrous for the outer world. Look how the children of California, the gifted ones and the not-so-gifted, will suffer in the future. The editorial is on page 22A http://pineconearchive.fileburstcdn.com/230825PC.pdf/ (New)
**********
While I believe that supporting free speech is very important in and of itself, I also believe that there is a related component that is often ignored. That component is teaching people, especially young people, how to disagree civilly/how to constructively respond to free speech they might not agree with.
**********
Lately I've been concerned about the direction of the university after its jab mandates, the publication of language guidance, heavy-handed administrative actions/enforcements, and other incidents/policies. I thought of founding an organization myself but figured one might already exist. A quick search landed me on your page . . . As of now I would not allow a child of mine to attend the university, which is disheartening when I consider the experience I had as a member of both the student body and staff. Please send me any information you have on serving a more active role in your organization. It would be greatly appreciated.
**********
I notice that the SAA Website contains no links to the Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking website. Why is that? [Our answer: Our website is not linked at the SAA website since we intentionally did not seek to become an affiliate of SAA. Among other things, we wanted to maintain independence, including since SAA became a subsidiary of the university in the mid-1990’s. That said, there are a number of current and former Stanford administrators and trustees who receive our newsletters and read the materials that are posted at the website.]
**********
Thank you! I would love for there be enough change at Stanford for me to be able to support the university again.
I was so happy to see the reference to Jay Bhattacharya. I was worried that this forum was only going to be about "woke-speech" and not get into COVID. People like Dr Bhattacharya and Scott Atlas deserve our respect and support for their bravery in telling the truth as they see it. I am so saddened about what Stanford has become. I have unsubscribed from all email from the university... although I am a lifetime alumni member. I got my MS and PhD at Stanford in Computer Science in the 80s and my son went to Stanford too. I used to be so proud to be a Stanford grad. Now I am ashamed. The trajectory of the university has become so disgusting in many ways -- especially its focus on tech control of our lives and biotech control of our bodies. My husband and I recently moved away from the Bay Area after 38 years . . . . I couldn't stand it anymore, Stanford has become the grand cathedral preaching a future for humanity that is truly alarming. Everyone should reread 1984 and Brave New World.
**********
Thank you for initiating this project. Please let me know if there is an opportunity to financially support the endeavor via a modest contribution. Also, it would be tremendous if there was also was a public, online or similar petition to be able to sign to help encourage action by the President, Provost, faculty and board or trustees to formally adopt the [Chicago] principles. [Our answer: The website and related activities are run solely by volunteers. Our total costs to date are under $500 and which we have paid out of pocket.]
**********
I am very supportive of your important goals. Thank you for your efforts.
**********
Thank you for creating and sending this. How about the idea of creating a Facebook/social media page for Stanford Republicans/conservatives/free speech advocates?
**********
Hope this is really about real First Amendment rights and their FREE exercise and not woke BS and cancel culture etc., in disguise.
**********
Is Peter Thiel who founded the Stanford Review, a founder of your organization? [Our answer: No, and as is stated on the home page, we are “an independent, diverse, and nonpartisan group of Stanford alumni committed to promoting and safeguarding freedom of thought and expression, intellectual diversity and inclusion, and academic freedom at Stanford.” And to reinforce this statement, we really are graduates from a wide range of years, majors and specialties and come from across the political spectrum.]
**********
Thank you for taking up this mantle! We need to fight all of these battles, large and small. Please let me know how I can help or if my group can help.