“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
​
Universities Must Reject Creeping Politicization
​Guiding Principles - letter dated March 31, 2025 from Stanford's President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez​​​​
​​
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
From Our Latest Newsletter​
​
"To Be True To The Best You Know" -- Jane Stanford
March 23, 2026
Quantifying Curriculum Degradation -- University of Chicago as Initial Example
Excerpts (references deleted):
“American universities -- especially in the humanities and social sciences -- have undergone a decades-long shift away from the Western intellectual tradition and toward ideological and activist content. We present a keyword-based methodology for quantifying this process using course catalog data. Applying it to thirteen years of University of Chicago catalogs (2012–2025), we find that the progressive-signal share of the catalog more than doubled from 12.7% to 28.3%, while the Western-canon signal remained flat at ≈12%, causing the progressive-to-canon ratio to rise from 1.0× to 2.4×. These patterns are most pronounced in the humanities and social sciences, yet, perhaps unexpectedly, they also extend into STEM fields. We propose a collaborative, open index of curriculum content at the university-year level to help families, donors, and policymakers make informed decisions.
[Followed by a discussion of the methodologies used including charts with the words and concepts used in the analysis, a color-coded graph showing the significant changes from 2012 to 2024, and a chart that shows the trends by specific academic disciplines.]
“Quantifying curriculum content across institutions and over time could serve the same function as the FIRE Free Expression Rankings: providing transparent, comparable data that families, donors, legislators, and University administrators can use to make informed decisions.
“We envision a Curriculum Content Index (CCI) at the university-year level, constructed from publicly available course catalog data and syllabi. Ideally, one should also include student enrollment data to get a more accurate understanding of the content students are actually learning from universities. Perhaps understandably, universities are reluctant to share this information. But transparency is the best disinfectant here....
“A word of caution is in order. Keyword-based textual analysis of course descriptions is a blunt instrument. A course flagged by our progressive keyword list may turn out, on closer inspection, to be a rigorous scholarly treatment of the topic; conversely, a course that escapes detection may nonetheless promote an activist agenda in practice. The signals we measure should therefore be understood as a noisy first approximation -- useful for identifying broad trends and prompting further inquiry, but never a substitute for substantive evaluation of what is actually taught. Policymakers, in particular, should resist the temptation to use simple keyword counts as the basis for funding decisions or regulatory action. Our goal is to promote transparency and informed conversation, not to supply a scorecard that short-circuits careful judgment.”
Full article by Stanford Prof. Ivan Marinovic at Substack.
See also “Transparency Requires More Than Half a Syllabus” at James Martin Center.
Britain Tests a New Model for Campus Free Speech
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Key provisions of the United Kingdom’s Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 are now moving from statute to implementation, placing new legal duties on universities in England to protect lawful speech and academic freedom.
“The law, which received royal assent in May 2023, requires universities and student unions to take reasonable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law and to promote academic freedom for academic staff. It also strengthens the authority of the Office for Students, England’s higher education regulator, to investigate alleged violations and levy fines where institutions fail to comply.
“According to guidance published by the U.K. Department for Education, the act establishes a formal complaints route that allows students, staff, and speakers to seek redress if they believe their lawful speech has been restricted. Complainants may escalate cases to the Office for Students after exhausting internal university procedures, the guidance states.” ...
Full article at Minding the Campus.
From Undergraduates to PhDs, How AI Is Impacting Stanford’s Classroom Policies
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Due to rapidly evolving artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, professors now face the challenge of creating classroom policies and curricula that teach students how to walk the line between beneficial and unethical uses of AI to give students the tools to learn, but also prepare them for a world that AI is incorporated into.
“A recent survey from Copyleaks found that nearly 90% of university students across the world use AI to help with their education, with roughly a third using AI tools on a daily basis. This adoption doesn’t look to be slowing down either, with almost 75% noting their AI usage has increased since 2024....
“Instead of trying to improve AI detection technology, professors are changing policies and syllabi to promote hands-on learning. CS106B has begun introducing in-person assessments....
“To navigate this line, [Computer Science Prof. Chris Gregg] explained how professors are emphasizing the importance of limiting AI usage within introductory courses such as CS 106A and CS 106B, which they hope the in-person assessments help achieve. This allows students to overcome struggles on their own, which he notes is fundamental for learning coding essentials....
“‘We, in the Program in Writing and Rhetoric (PWR), aim to demonstrate to students that their distinctive abilities as language-users, including as readers, writers, and revisers, cannot be replaced by technology, and that turning to AI as a kind of ghost reader, writer, and researcher severely limits students’ growth and development in those areas,’ Marvin Diogenes, Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Director of PWR, wrote in an email to The Daily....
“The expansion of AI has opened doors for new learning opportunities, but educators are still exploring the unknowns to better understand how all industries are responding to AI. [Vice Provost for Graduate Education and former Chair and Vice Chair for Mechanical Engineering Prof. Kenneth Goodson] emphasized how this shift is leading to more research and education, but is also creating more questions of how to use AI correctly.” ...
Full article at Stanford Daily.
See also “Writing Faculty Push for the Right to Refuse AI” at Inside Higher Ed.
​
AI Comments on the Problems with Stanford’s Undergraduate Housing
Our Past Newsletters dated February 9, 2026 and March 9, 2026 had some robust comments and links about concerns with respect to Stanford’s undergraduate housing. We recently received from an alum a summary of the issues that was produced by AI and we have thus added that AI-produced discussion to our Ask AI webpage.
By More Than 2-to-1, Voters Say Today’s College Education Is Not Worth It
Editor’s note: Stanford and its peers obviously won’t suffer from a loss of applicants. The concern is that the voter attitudes discussed in the following article will inevitably influence the priorities and decision-making of federal and state governments, foundations and others and in ways that will impact all colleges and universities.
Excerpts (link in the original):
“It wasn't long ago that millions and millions of American kids heard their parents' best advice: ‘The only way to get ahead is with a college education.’ And millions took their advice. Today's parents and the kids themselves are skeptical college is worth the cost, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.
“The national online poll, taken Feb. 24 to Feb. 27, asked 1,456 adults: ‘Do you believe a four-year college degree is worth the cost for most Americans today, or not?’
“The answer indicates serious erosion in how Americans view the value of higher education. Overall, of those responding, 59% selected ‘Not worth the cost,’ while just 24% picked ‘Worth the cost.’ Another 16% weren't sure.
“(By comparison, as recently as 2013, a Gallup Poll found that 70% of Americans believed college was worth the price.) ...
“All the major racial groupings -- whites (61% not worth it, 22% worth it), and blacks and Hispanics (55% not worth it, 30% worth it) -- agree a college education doesn't give enough value to make it worthwhile.
“Perhaps most damning of all, parents (56% not worth it, 39% worth it) now believe higher ed is a bad deal.” ...
[Followed by discussion and graphs broken down by age, levels of education, comparative skills, the current and future impact of AI, and the impacts of student debt,]
Full article with detailed charts and graphs at TIPP Insights.
Other Articles of Interest
Safeguarding Academia from Foreign Mischief
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars. See also “Education Department to End Anonymity for Universities’ Foreign Donors” at College Fix.
Colleges and Universities Are Failing Students in Today’s Post-Literate Era
Full op-ed at The Hill: “Americans seem to have given up on reading books. Surveys show that almost 40 percent read no books at all over the course of a year.... If they are to survive America’s post-literate era and serve society in the future, colleges need to invest in programs that answer the question, ‘Why read?’ They must also design courses where the techniques of close reading are taught.”
A Neurologist’s Journey from the Hippocratic Oath to the American Classroom
Full op-ed at Fair for All (FAIR): “The turning point in my transformation from medical advocate to education defender occurred during a webinar I hosted for FAIR titled ‘Health Professionals in the Nazi Era.’ Preparing for that presentation was a chilling experience. I saw with terrifying clarity how the most ‘educated’ professionals of the 1930s, doctors and teachers, were the first to succumb to ideological capture. They didn’t wake up one day as monsters; they were slowly conditioned to prioritize activism over their professional oaths.”
Why We Care -- 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.
Watching a Lifetime in Motion Reveals the Architecture of Aging
What Your Phone Knows Could Help Scientists Understand Your Health
How to Prepare as AI Reshapes the Workforce
​
**********
“Defending academic freedom of speech is not particularly difficult in times of peace and prosperity. It is in times of national crisis that our true commitment to freedom of speech and thought is tested.” – Former Princeton President Shirley M. Tilghman
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.
​