Home: About Us

STANFORD ALUMNI
FOR FREE SPEECH AND
CRITICAL THINKING

“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

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)

From Our Latest Newsletters

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

May 26, 2025

Because of the Memorial Day holiday, we circulated our regular Newsletter on Friday instead of waiting for today. However, this weekend, in light of the ongoing discussions taking place among university and government leaders, we decided to ask ChatGPT the following question: What are the major challenges facing universities today? Presented below are the responses we received, using the same language and format as produced by ChatGPT.

We suggest that instead of spending more money on consultants and lawyers and losing more time with committees, what follows is a useful outline of the issues that university leaders need to address both quickly and effectively. And with university leaders getting ahead of the curve, the hope is that government and other critics would accept the idea that our universities, on their own, are taking the corrective actions that are needed.

What are the major challenges facing universities today?

1. Rising Costs & Student Debt

Tuition Inflation: The cost of college has grown far faster than inflation or income levels.
Student Debt Crisis: U.S. student loan debt exceeds $1.7 trillion, burdening millions and delaying life milestones like home ownership or family formation.
Spending Priorities: Universities are often criticized for spending heavily on amenities, administrative staff, or real estate while cutting academic resources.

"We are pricing the middle class and working class out of higher education." -- Dr. Sara Goldrick-Rab, higher education policy scholar

2. Mission Drift & Administrative Bloat

Expansion of Non-Academic Bureaucracy: There’s been a significant increase in administrative roles, sometimes diluting the core academic mission.
Branding over Learning: Institutions are sometimes accused of focusing on rankings, prestige projects, and athletics rather than teaching or research quality.

“Universities risk becoming businesses that happen to offer classes.” -- Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty

3. Free Speech, Political Polarization & Institutional Trust

Campus Speech Tensions: There’s growing debate over whether universities are upholding academic freedom and intellectual diversity.
External Pressures: Donors, politicians, and activists sometimes seek to influence curriculum and hiring, eroding public trust.

“Universities must remain places where difficult questions can be asked and ideas can be freely debated.” -- Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America

4. Return on Investment (ROI) & Relevance

Skills Gap: Many employers argue that graduates lack practical skills in communication, critical thinking, or digital literacy.
Value of the Degree: With rising tuition and stagnating wages, the ROI of some degrees -- particularly in liberal arts -- is being questioned.

“The question isn't just: 'Can you get in?' It's: 'Is it worth it?'” -- Anthony Carnevale, Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce

5. Mental Health & Student Well-being

Rising Anxiety & Burnout: Students are increasingly reporting high levels of stress, depression, and burnout.
Insufficient Services: Many universities are struggling to meet the mental health needs of their students.

************

Student Perspective: "Is this worth it?"

1. Cost vs. Value

Students are paying more than ever and questioning whether their degree will lead to a stable career or high ROI.
Many graduate with crippling debt and few job prospects tied directly to their field.

“I’m $80,000 in debt and working a job that didn’t require a degree.”

2. Mental Health Crisis

Anxiety, depression, and burnout are at record highs.
Campus counseling centers are often under-resourced or overwhelmed.

3. Career Relevance

Degrees can feel disconnected from real-world job markets.
Internships, networking, and soft skills are often more impactful than coursework alone.

4. Campus Climate & Free Speech

Many students report fear of speaking up -- on both the left and right -- due to political or social backlash.
Navigating identity politics and “cancel culture” can be stressful and confusing.

************

Faculty Perspective: "What happened to academic freedom and scholarship?"

1. Erosion of Tenure and Job Security

Increasing reliance on adjuncts (often low-paid, no benefits) undermines faculty morale and teaching continuity.
Pressure to publish and bring in grants often outweighs good teaching.

2. Administrative Overreach

Faculty feel sidelined in key academic decisions by non-academic administrators.
Strategic priorities often driven by branding, enrollment, or donor agendas.

“Faculty are no longer the soul of the university -- they’re consultants to a corporation.” -- Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty

3. Academic Freedom under Threat

Faculty increasingly report pressure to self-censor.
Controversial research or public commentary may attract backlash from outside groups or university leadership.

************

Administrator Perspective: "How do we stay solvent and relevant?"

1. Financial Pressure

Tuition revenue is falling in some regions (especially with declining birthrates).
Inflation, deferred maintenance, and tech demands drive up costs.
Endowments often can’t be tapped freely, despite public perception.

2. Competing Stakeholders

Must balance demands from students, parents, faculty, donors, alumni, and policymakers.
Any misstep (speech controversy, Title IX issues, diversity complaints) risks public relations and funding fallout.

3. Innovation vs. Tradition

Push to modernize curriculum and expand online offerings, but tradition-bound departments may resist.
Risk of falling behind in rankings or tech integration.

************

See also charts and data regarding Stanford's costs and overhead at our Stanford Concerns webpage, proposals for actions at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage, and a set of principles regarding speech, institutional neutrality and criteria for the hiring and promotion of faculty set forth years ago by the University of Chicago faculty at our Chicago Trifecta webpage.

See also the ChatGPT questions and answers we previously posted at our May 5, 2025 Newsletter.

See also “Guiding Principles” by President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez (March 31, 2025) at our Stanford Speaks webpage.

May 23, 2025

From U.S. Department of Justice -- Campus Violations of Civil Rights Are Going to Be Expensive

Full text of press release:

“[On Monday, May 19,] the U.S. Department of Justice announced the establishment of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which will utilize the False Claims Act to investigate and, as appropriate, pursue claims against any recipient of federal funds that knowingly violates federal civil rights laws. Violations of the False Claims Act can result in treble damages and significant penalties.

“‘Institutions that take federal money only to allow anti-Semitism and promote divisive DEI policies are putting their access to federal funds at risk,’ said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. ‘This Department of Justice will not tolerate these violations of civil rights -- inaction is not an option.’

“‘America has watched a tidal wave of anti-Semitism sweep our universities and seen public institutions codify inherently divisive policies like DEI at an unprecedented rate,’ said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. ‘In advancing the initiative, the Department of Justice’s Civil Fraud Section and Civil Rights Division will work in concert -- alongside other Department components and government agencies -- to identify and root out instances in which recipients of federal funds fail to uphold their basic obligations under federal civil rights laws. The days of using federal funds to further discrimination are over.’

"The Department strongly encourages anyone with knowledge of discrimination by federal funding recipients to consider filing a qui tam action under the False Claims Act. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730. When a qui tam action is successful, the whistleblower typically receives a portion of the monetary recovery. The Department also encourages the public to report instances of such discrimination to the appropriate federal authorities.”

Full PDF copy of DOJ memo here.

See also “Justice Dept. to Use False Claims Act to Pursue Institutions Over Diversity Efforts” at NY Times and “U.S. Launches Unit to Target DEI Policies at Colleges with Civil Fraud Probes” at Reuters.

See also, at Wikipedia, the history of the 1863 False Claims Act and subsequent amendments and how the law has been applied ever since then and, separately, the definition and history of qui tam actions.

Editor’s note: Federal False Claims Act and similar state actions can be very expensive to defend, with the result that targeted institutions will often settle versus incurring the significant legal and reputational costs that are involved. As noted in the excerpts above, not only can the government be the plaintiff, but private parties also can bring these types of claims and share in any recoveries, thereby creating significant risks of internal whistle-blowers initiating these types of matters. All of this was intended when the statute was first adopted in the middle of the U.S. Civil War as a way to discourage fraud and abuse by suppliers and others. In recent decades, Stanford itself, rightly or wrongly, has been the target of a number of False Claims Act and similar lawsuits:

“Stanford’s Statement on the Resolution of Outstanding Disputes Between Stanford and the Government on Indirect Cost Issues” at Stanford website (October 18, 1994).

“Stanford Whistle-blower Lawsuit Dismissed” by federal district court at Palo Alto Online (September 4, 1996).

“U.S. Biddle v Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University” dismissed by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at Find Law (May 26, 1998).

“Stanford Children's Hospital Hit with Multi-Million Dollar Healthcare Billing Fraud Lawsuit” at KTLA website (October 11, 2022).

“Stanford Agrees to Pay $1.9 Million to Resolve Allegations That It Failed to Disclose Foreign Research Support in Federal Grant Proposals” at DOJ website (October 2, 2023).

“Stanford Professors Raise Questions Over $1.9 Million Stanford-DOJ Settlement” at Stanford Daily (October 27, 2023).

The point is, Stanford and other college and university trustees and administrators will be faced with the questions, even if the school conceivably could win on the merits, for how long will the battle take place, what will be the costs, and as fiduciaries, is this the best use of the school’s resources, especially since it will be the students and faculty who will be the most affected by the costs of the litigation and, while the litigation is pending and maybe permanently, the loss of significant government funding. Given these factors, the ultimate question they will have to ask is, isn’t getting back to basics the more appropriate response? And since liability can be reduced or even eliminated by prior public disclosure, don’t schools need to make their own public disclosures as quickly as possible?

In this regard, note also how schools like MIT (scroll down to the text in addition to the videos) are already focusing on the concept of back to basics.

Show, Don’t Tell, Why University Research Matters

An Arizona grant program offers a model for how to support academic research that puts the public interest first.

Excerpts:

“Chief among the many challenges facing America’s research universities is public skepticism of the value of higher education. How can academe respond to such intense criticism of its very purpose? How do we prove our worth -- particularly at a time when public funding of university research is being loudly and vigorously debated in the political arena? ...

“We asked a broad array of public partners: ‘If you had a think tank at your disposal, what problem would you ask it to solve?’ We heard from city, county, law-enforcement, and other community leaders. Most important, we put the question to then-Gov. Doug Ducey, who assembled a task force to solicit ideas from agencies across state government....

“We pulled aside $10 million a year for the program. And because of the unique public interest being served, these grants have received as much mainstream media attention -- more than 100 stories in the past three years -- as the full $2.2-billion worth of research done by our three universities in the same time span....”

Full op-ed at Chronicle of Higher Education. See also video (3 minutes) recently posted by MIT showing the importance of university research.

From Princetonians for Free Speech and College Pulse -- Students Have Increased Awareness of Free Speech Principles but Little Understanding of What Free Speech Looks Like in Practice

Excerpt (link in the original):

“The Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) third annual survey of Princeton students is now available. Comparative data over three years provides valuable information and insight into changes in student views and progress in student knowledge of and attitudes toward free speech, academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The 2025 report shows some progress on questions such as awareness of campus free speech rules. Other results, for instance on the question of shutting down controversial campus events, are worse as compared to the last two years. The number of students who support the use of violence is up. Overall, Princeton still has much work to do to create a robust culture of free speech, academic freedom and respect for widely divergent viewpoints.

“A theme emerges in this PFS survey that unites many of the questions and that deserves special note: First, some questions reveal a greater awareness of free speech, indicating that the university is putting more effort into planting that awareness. However -- and this is notable: awareness among students does not seem to translate into a greater understanding of free speech and academic freedom, nor does a greater awareness impact student views of free speech in practice. For example, an increase in awareness of free speech rules has done little to change willingness to speak up or to find it unacceptable to disrupt or shut down campus speakers and events that are considered controversial or offensive.

“If you look behind some responses, it becomes apparent that a significant percentage of Princeton students do not really understand what free speech means -- i.e., how free speech works in practice, how it promotes tolerance across differences, how it deepens understanding; how a consideration of conflicting viewpoints widens understanding and deepens knowledge; how free speech enhances communication between students, professors, and employers. In short, large numbers of students do not understand how and why free speech in practice is vital to Princeton’s core mission....”

Full article with links to related materials at Princetonians for Free Speech website.

Veritas Betrayed -- Harvard Has Lost the Primary Truth-Seeking Purpose of a University

Excerpts (link in the original):

. . . .

“What is the telos, the purpose, of a secular university?

“It is supposed to be a non-sectarian place with a primary purpose of the pursuit of truth, come what may. Any idea or theory -- no matter how sacred or taboo or orthodox -- should be up for intellectual scrutiny. It should employ freedom of inquiry on any academic question, and use meritocratic and rational -- and not ad hominem -- standards for the assessment of ideas. Universities are supposed to be places where everyone is judged as an individual based on their actual contributions to truth-seeking, not their group membership, or whether the results of their research are socially and ideologically acceptable. In a university, a diversity of viewpoints and ideas should be sought out primarily so that one may better pursue the truth and eliminate falsehoods and errors, regardless of which bodies and brains those ideas originate from. Period.

“In contrast, a partisan think tank is explicitly factional and partial in its aims. There are many think-tanks in America that have explicitly partisan aims and practices, such as the Center for American Progress (liberal), Claremont Institute (conservative), Cato Institute (libertarian), Guttmacher Institute (pro-abortion). Though intellectually oriented and often producing robust scholarship, these are not universities. Consistent with their ideologies, these institutes tend to only ask a small range of all possible intellectual questions, and their answers are more predictable than not. The Guttmacher Institute, for instance, rarely does a study on post-traumatic stress disorder and moral injury after abortions, and the Cato Institute rarely writes reports documenting the needs of the most vulnerable in society and how social safety nets could help.

“Harvard, by these standards, is much more like a left-wing progressive Institute, than it is a university. In its most passionate moral exhortations, Harvard resembles a secular ideological church. There are some quantitative pockets of flourishing, non-partisan academic life, but in general, Harvard does not live up to the values of a university, and is more like a think tank....

“Most observers agree that the problems of pious insularity, and born-again cult-like thinking and behavior, are more pervasive and severe in the humanities and social sciences, which research consistently shows are the most radicalized....

[Followed by examples of cancellations of faculty and others, etc.]

“Diversity at Harvard is superficial and merely skin and gonads deep, as everyone tends to look different, but think alike....

[Followed by detailed charts and data.]

“That means that among faculty, there are approximately 5540% more liberal than conservative faculty....

“According to FIRE, 'just over a quarter of Harvard students reported they are comfortable publicly disagreeing with their professor on a controversial political topic; only roughly a third think it is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ clear the administration protects free speech on campus; and an alarming 30% think using violence to stop a campus speech is at least ‘rarely’ acceptable.'

“Except for the hard sciences and cousin disciplines, Harvard tends to not employ meritocratic standards of assessing ideas and knowledge or practice....

“With a few exceptions, whole departments and fields of inquiry in research and teaching have tended to become distorted and disordered by the tiny slice of questions that are allowed to be asked in the first place. What gets funded and published is an even smaller misinformed fraction...."

[Followed by a detailed discussion of admissions practices, the few on the faculty who have been dissenting, and eight suggested reforms.]

Full op-ed at Substack. See also the Shils Report on the hiring and promotion of faculty and comprising the third part of the Chicago Trifecta.

Over Half of Hiring Managers Say Recent Grads Are Unprepared for the Workforce

Excerpts (link in the original):

“Most hiring managers feel skeptical about the capabilities and professionalism of young workers joining the workforce, with 1 in 6 saying they’re reluctant to hire the cohort, according to a May 6 report from Resume.org....

“Among the companies where recent graduates didn’t work out, nearly half of hiring managers said the top issue was a lack of motivation or initiative. In addition, they noted a lack of professionalism (39%), excessive phone use (39%), poor time management (38%) and an attitude of indifference (37%). Others also pointed to poor communication skills, difficulty handling feedback and an inability to adapt to company culture....”

Full article at Higher Ed Dive. See also “New Grads Struggle to Land Job, Keep It” at Hechinger Report.

STANFORD ALUMNI FOR FREE SPEECH AND CRITICAL THINKING

Veritas Betrayed -- Harvard Has Lost the Primary Truth-Seeking Purpose of a University

STANFORD ALUMNI
FOR FREE SPEECH AND
CRITICAL THINKING