top of page
Home: About Us

“The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow." Former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy

FEATURED ITEMS

​

​The Death of Viewpoint Diversity by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samual J. Abrams

​

Guiding Principles (letter dated March 31, 2025 from Stanford's President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez)

​

President Levin’s Opening Remarks to the Faculty Senate (April 10, 2025)

​

The Labels That Divide Us” (video), Monica Harris, Executive Director of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

From Our Latest Newsletter​

​

"To Be True To The Best You Know" -- Jane Stanford

December 1, 2025

​​

Universities Need Better Communication with the Public That Funds Them

 

Excerpts (links in the original):

 

“The acrimony between red America and many universities will not be easily or quickly resolved. 

 

“I profoundly disagree with some of the demands made by the federal and state governments to control the operations of universities. But I also believe that university administrators and faculty have lost touch with the public on issues relating to university governance, academic freedom, scholarly research and classroom pedagogy....

 

“The universities can plausibly argue that their research work, particularly in the sciences, requires considerable expertise to assess its merit -- expertise beyond the common knowledge of the polity. And this research undeniably provides enormous economic, medical, environmental and military benefits to our nation. 

 

“But this powerful point only begins the discussion. Several rejoinders must be addressed. 

 

“Not all academic disciplines provide the kinds of tangible benefits associated with the hard sciences. What, then, justifies the independence, indeed the existence, of Humanities Departments? ...

  

“Scholars can justifiably assert the need for freedom to push the boundaries of their disciplines without being chilled by the oversight of government monitors. But do they deserve the special freedom that some universities provide to comment on a range of political, social and moral issues unrelated to their areas of expertise because they are academic appointees? ...

 

“A final issue relates to classroom pedagogy. To the taxpayer, universities are teaching institutions as well as research institutions. Yet some professors do little teaching and seem to resent their teaching assignments....

 

“...too often, we hear about classes in which debate and inquiry is stifled to pursue a professor’s ideological agenda. These accusations may be false or overstated. But faculty need to be willing to discuss, openly and with candor, what happens in their classrooms to respond to these challenges. 

 

“Put simply, whoever speaks for public universities has to engage in nuanced dialogue with the public if they want to reestablish the polity’s trust in the academy.” 

 

Full op-ed by UC Davis Prof. Emeritus Alan Brownstein at The Hill.  

 

The New Must-Have College Admissions Skill -- Tolerating Other Viewpoints

 

Excerpts (links in the original):

 

“For years, high-schoolers have boasted in college applications about learning Latin, leading the chess club or acing Advanced Placement Physics. 

 

“Now there is a new way to get a leg up: Show how well you can disagree with people.

 

“Elite schools like Harvard, Columbia, Emory and Wellesley have added essay questions in the last couple of years asking applicants to recount a dispute with someone whose beliefs differ from their own. Known as the “disagreement essay,” its rise comes as conservatives accuse top schools of being hotbeds of liberal groupthink where students can’t tolerate dissent....

 

“Besides the essays, colleges are using other ways to assess whether students can handle disagreements. A handful of schools -- including Columbia, the University of Chicago and Northwestern -- started accepting something called a ‘Dialogues’ report this fall from a peer-tutoring site. It pairs high-schoolers with opposing views to discuss subjects such as abortion, immigration and gun control over Zoom calls. They score each other on metrics like curiosity and listening skills, and can submit their results to colleges.” ...

 

Full op-ed at WSJ.

 

Harvard’s Workshops Won’t Fix a Campus Afraid to Speak

 

Excerpts (links in the original):

 

“Harvard wants the world to know it is taking open inquiry seriously again.

 

“Last week, the Harvard Gazette ran a glowing report announcing that the university is ‘building momentum on open inquiry.’ It showcased new workshops, training sessions for teaching fellows, dialogue exercises for first-year students, and online modules imported from the Constructive Dialogue Institute -- all designed to teach students how to listen better, argue respectfully, and understand those who disagree with them.

 

“As a Harvard graduate who cares deeply about the institution’s intellectual health, I wish I could say this represents a substantive shift.

 

“The initiatives Harvard is touting are not meaningless; they may even prove helpful. But they are largely cosmetic. Harvard is confusing the aesthetics of open inquiry with the structures that make open inquiry possible. And in doing so, it risks masking the deeper, far more dangerous realities of its current academic climate while permitting administrators to claim progress they have not earned.

 

“Harvard doesn’t have a crisis of conversational skills. It has a crisis of fear -- fear among students, faculty, and researchers that certain ideas carry real social and professional risk. And that fear is documented.

 

“Harvard’s own Report of the Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue Working Group (October 2024) makes the point plainly: 45 percent of students hesitate to share views on controversial issues in class; 51 percent of faculty and staff feel reluctant to teach such material; 41 percent are wary of pursuing research on politically or socially sensitive topics. These findings were reported not by critics but by Harvard Magazine and the Boston Globe, which noted widespread self-censorship across the political spectrum driven by peer judgment, social-media backlash, and career concerns.” ...

 

[Followed by: Why Faculty and Students Self-Censor and Why Training Won’t Fix It, What Harvard Is Offering, What Harvard Is Not Offering, What Students Actually Need, The Cost of This Approach, The False Narrative of Progress, What Real Reform Requires, The Challenge, and What’s at Stake.]

 

Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Minding the Campus.

 

Other Articles of Interest

 

How AI Is Changing Higher Education

Op-eds by 15 scholars at Chronicle of Higher Education. 

 

The Student Op-Ed That Texas A&M Refused to Publish

Full article at College Fix.

 

Schools of Civic Thought Are on the Rise, but Are Students Interested?

Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

Samples of Current Teaching, Research and Other Activities at Stanford 

 

Click on each article for direct access; selections are from Stanford Report and other Stanford websites.

 

What’s New This Season at Stanford Art Museums

 

Stanford’s Community Law Clinic Celebrates Its New Location in Redwood City

 

Top Chef Joins Stanford Bioengineers to Rethink Sustainable Food​

​

**********​​​​​

“The freedom to explore and present new, unconventional, and even unpopular ideas is essential to the academic mission of the university; therefore, Stanford shall promote the widest possible freedom of expression, consistent with the university’s legal and moral obligations to prevent harassment and discrimination.” – From the Statement on Freedom of Expression at Stanford​​​​

Comments and Questions from Our Readers

See more reader comments on our Reader Comments webpage.

Need Dialog, Not Prohibitions

​

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. 

Hoping for Balanced Speech at Stanford

​

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.

 

Teaching Young People and Others How to Disagree Civilly

​

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.

Question About Ties to the Alumni Association

​

Q.  I notice that the SAA website contains no links to the Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking website. Why is that?

 

A. 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.

About Us

Member, Alumni Free Speech Alliance

 

Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking is 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.

​

We believe innovation and positive change for the common good is achieved through free and active discourse from varying viewpoints, the freedom to question both popular and unpopular opinions, and the freedom to seek truth without fear of reprisal from those who disagree, within the confines of humanity and mutual respect.  

 

Our goal is to support students, faculty, administrators, and staff in efforts that assure the Stanford community is truly inclusive as to what can be said in and outside the classroom, the kinds of speakers that can be invited, and what should always be the core principles of a great university like Stanford.  We also advocate that Stanford incorporates the Chicago Trifecta, the gold standard for freedom of speech and expression at college and university campuses, and that Stanford abides by these principles in both its policies and its actions.  

​

bottom of page