Past Newsletters
February 9, 2026
Recent Reader Comments
We have added to our Reader Comments webpage some recent submissions regarding the high percent of Stanford students claiming disabilities in order get housing and other preferences (see also the new op-ed on this topic, directly below) as well as reader comments with differing viewpoints about diversity, equity and inclusion.
Nearly 40% of Stanford Undergraduates Claim They’re Disabled; I’m One of Them
Editor’s note: We included a link to a similar article several weeks ago but believe the following first-person account presents the issues even more dramatically. We further note that students, faculty and staff are typically put through hours of mandatory training each year about various topics (sexual harassment, security, etc.), so how is it that students so freely engage in abuses like this and the student services staff and senior administration haven't addressed the problem? Including removing the main cause of this widespread fraud by building more and better undergraduate housing before, of all things, further increasing the undergraduate enrollment by an additional 1,000 or more but without addressing this long-existing lack of adequate housing?
We also respectfully note that, per Stanford’s Founding Grant, it is among the specifically enumerated obligations of the Trustees to determine “the time when buildings are needed, and of the time and manner of their construction, and of the time and manner of making additions thereto” and that, per Mrs. Stanford’s subsequent directives to the Trustees, “it is desirable so far as may be [possible] that the faculty and students should reside on the University grounds.” It likewise is a primary obligation of all directors and trustees to protect the reputations of the entities which they oversee. All of these obligations appear to be at stake here.
Excerpts:
“In 2023, one month into my freshman year at Stanford University, an upperclassman was showing me her dorm room -- a prized single in one of the nicest buildings on campus. As she took me around her space, which included a private bathroom, a walk-in shower and a great view of Hoover Tower, she casually mentioned that she had lived in a single all four years she had attended Stanford.
“I was surprised. Most people don’t get the privilege of a single room until they reach their senior year.
“That’s when my friend gave me a tip: Stanford had granted her ‘a disability accommodation’. She, of course, didn’t have a disability. She knew it. I knew it. But she had figured out early what most Stanford students eventually learn: the Office of Accessible Education will give students a single room, extra time on tests and even exemptions from academic requirements if they qualify as ‘disabled’.
“Everyone was doing it. I could do it, too, if I just knew how to ask.... I know a guy who was granted a single room because he needs to wear contacts at night. I’ve heard of a girl who got a single because she was gluten intolerant....
“That’s why I decided to claim my legitimate illness -- endometriosis -- as a disability at Stanford. It is a painful condition in which cells from the uterus grow outside the womb. I’m often doubled over in agony from the problem, for which there is no known cure, so I decided to ask for a single room in a campus dorm where I could endure those moments in private.
“The application process was very easy. I registered my condition on the Stanford Office of Accessible Education website and made an appointment to meet an adviser later that week. The system is staffed largely by empathetic women who want to help students.
“As I explained my diagnosis and symptoms over Zoom to one woman, she listened, nodded sympathetically, related my problems to her own life and asked a few basic questions. Within 30 minutes, I was registered as a student with a disability, entitled to more accommodations than I asked for.
“In addition to a single housing assignment, I was granted extra absences from class, some late days on assignments and a 15-minute tardiness allowance for all of my classes. I was met with so little skepticism or questioning, I probably didn’t even need a doctor’s note to get these exemptions. Had I been pushier, I am sure I could have received almost any accommodation I asked for....
“Another student told me that special ‘accommodations are so prevalent that they effectively only punish the honest’. Academic accommodations, they added, help ‘students get ahead … which puts a huge proportion of the class on an unfair playing ground’.
“The gaming even extends to our meals. Stanford requires most undergraduates living on campus to purchase a meal plan, which costs $7,944 for the 2025-26 academic year. But students can get exempted if they claim a religious dietary restriction that the college kitchens cannot accommodate.
“And so, some students I know claim to be devout members of the Jain faith, which rejects any food that may cause harm to all living creatures -- including small insects and root vegetables. The students I know who claim to be Jain (but aren’t) spend their meal money at Whole Foods instead and enjoy freshly made salads and other yummy dishes, while the rest of us are stuck with college meals, like burgers made partly from 'mushroom mix'.”...
Full op-ed by Stanford undergraduate Elsa Johnson at The Times of London.
See also “Stanford Students Fake Jain Beliefs to Dodge Mandatory Meal Plan” at India Today; “Getting Better Dorm Rooms and Meals at Stanford” at College Fix; “Gaming the System,” a 9-minute video at The Hill; and a followup op-ed at The Times of London by Ms. Johnson about reactions to her initial article.
See also an expansive comment from an alum about these issues at our Reader Comments webpage, including:
“Stanford is teaching its students how to game the system for their own personal betterment rather than teaching ethical behavior and instilling in students how to live by an ethical code of conduct.” This reader comment also identifies one of the core reasons for this widespread cheating: the long-existing lack of adequate undergraduate housing.
The Next Campus Battle After Free Speech -- Viewpoint Diversity at America’s Elite Universities
Excerpts (most links in the original):
“The last two years have seen a dramatic increase in the scrutiny of free speech and academic freedom on university campuses, largely in response to the protests that followed the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. There has been important progress during this period that bolsters awareness of the importance of free speech and academic freedom principles. For example, in the last year, many university leaders, including the Presidents of Princeton, Stanford and Cornell, have given speeches and undertaken initiatives to promote open inquiry and academic freedom on their campuses. However, progress on these core values will mean little if there is not a major effort to address a pressing long-term and deeply embedded problem -- the almost total lack of viewpoint diversity among faculty at many universities.
“Our Princeton alumni group, Princetonians for Free Speech, has as its mission the promotion of three core values -- free speech, open discourse, and viewpoint diversity. This is a typical mission statement for the more than thirty alumni free speech groups [including Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking]. With all such groups, most of the focus has been on the first two values. Until recently, this has also been true for leading national groups active in this area, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), which have played critical roles in trying to reform our universities. An exception is Heterodox Academy (HxA), which is putting important focus on faculty viewpoint diversity.
“If universities are truly to live up to their purpose in society, the lack of viewpoint diversity among faculty must be addressed. (There is also a real problem with viewpoint diversity among university administrators, but this article will focus on faculty.) In a recent HxA article, President John Tomasi stated the situation succinctly: “In today’s changing campus climate, supporting free expression and respectful discussion have (thankfully) become fashionable, but viewpoint diversity remains a third rail of university life.”
“Indeed, without viewpoint diversity, the values of free speech and open discourse are of limited importance. If everybody on a campus believes pretty much the same thing, there is not much learning or advancement of knowledge through open inquiry and debate.” ...
[Followed by discussion of specific numbers, the role for universities in society, the growth of civics centers at some universities, reform from within the faculty, banning diversity statements, the need to recognize that there is a problem, the need for action by senior administrators, the need for support from trustees, how to measure progress, faculty should not be the sole gate keepers, alumni need to engage, and the importance of how prospective students and parents evaluate universities.]
Full op-ed by Princeton and Stanford alum Ed Yingling and Princeton alum Leslie Spencer at Princetonians for Free Speech.
See also paragraph 1.d. of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage:
“Viewpoint diversity is critical to the university’s academic mission in both teaching and research. Accordingly, all decisions regarding the hiring, retention and promotion of the faculty and other parts of the academic staff shall follow the principles of the Shils Report. In any recruitments and decisions to make offers, schools, departments and other academic units shall assure that the pools of candidates reflect viewpoint diversity. This does not mean partisan diversity but rather a diversity of thinking with respect to the substantive areas of the relevant academic unit. Among other things, academic units that consider societal issues shall make special efforts to recruit and retain faculty who may have different viewpoints than the majority of the faculty and have the academic skills to present their alternative viewpoints. The President, Provost and Advisory Board shall take these principles into account in their own decision-making with respect to the hiring, retention and promotion of members of the faculty and other parts of the academic staff.”
Universities Need a New Defense
“We should cringe when we hear anyone, including those on the inside, speak about the university as a business.”
Excerpts:
“The American university remains the standard for the world. Some of the most talented individuals from around the globe spend their lives as professors on American campuses working to discover new knowledge and introduce the next generation to accomplishments of the human mind.
“But this moment has brought severe and unprecedented challenges to its continued viability -- indeed, to its very existence. The most immediate threats come, of course, from our own federal government....
“We need nothing less than a new conception of the role of the university in a free society. The traditional arguments for why we should value universities -- that they advance civilization, that they are an engine of economic and social growth, that they are a competitive advantage for the nation in the world, and that they educate our young and prepare our citizens and attempt to equalize the opportunities available to them -- are valid....
“The simple fact is that leaders at every level, from faculty members to deans to presidents to trustees and alumni, must focus now on building this sense of mission. We must express it over and over again, taking every opportunity to explain and affirm it in as much detail as possible. This idea cannot be treated as something that everyone will grasp on their own or will naturally intuit. Like the modern meaning of the First Amendment, the idea of the freedom of the university is not self-evident, and the latter is certainly not part of the general knowledge of the faculty, students, and the public. We must never be shy about characterizing the university as one of the key means of realizing the human need to know, to understand, and to search for truth. It must be repeated endlessly and with all the infinite variations that will come over time.” ...
Full op-ed by former president of Michigan and then of Columbia Lee Bollinger at Chronicle of Higher Education.
See also “Harvard Prof. Randall Kennedy Is Afraid and He Thinks You Should Be Too” at Chronicle of Higher Education.
See also our Stanford Concerns and our Back to Basics at Stanford webpages.
When Speech No Longer Seems Sufficient
Excerpt:
“I walked into my politics classroom at Sarah Lawrence last week, ready to teach a lesson about civic protest. The prompt was Minneapolis, where ICE’s Operation Metro Surge has sparked mass protests, a general strike, and violent confrontations between demonstrators and federal agents.
"I planned to cover basics: citizens can record police activity, protests must remain nonviolent, participants should comply with lawful orders. My students had other ideas.
“‘What are we supposed to do?’ one asked. ‘Hold up signs and chant while people are being shot in the street?’
“Another jumped in: ‘You’re asking us to play by rules that only we follow.’
“They cited the Black Panthers. They invoked Stonewall. They argued that throughout American history, violence (or the credible threat of it) has driven social change. Several insisted that armed citizens confronting ICE would accomplish what peaceful protest could not.
“These weren’t fringe voices. This was classroom consensus.
“I study campus culture and have watched these attitudes develop for years in the data. But data is abstract. Percentages don’t argue back. What shook me was hearing my own students, students I know and have taught for months, articulate these views with moral certainty. The numbers had names now.” ...
[Followed by discussion of data, in defense of fiery words, the partisan surprise, if free speech only matters when convenient it isn’t free at all, the historical debate, and what this means now and in the longer term.]
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at FIRE.
Other Articles of Interest
What’s Missing on Campus? Men
Full op-ed at Real Clear Education as reproduced from Boston Globe. See also “The Missing Men of UNC” at James Martin Center.
Why Your University Has So Many Administrators
Full op-ed by Vanderbilt Chancellor Emeritus Nicholas S. Zeppos at Chronicle of Higher Education: “Great teaching is expensive, but back-office functions should be getting cheaper. Why aren’t they?” See also “Warning Signs in the Numbers” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
What Keeps Higher Ed Up at Night
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education: “A University of Wyoming professor says she used to walk into the classroom on the first day of the semester ‘and wonder, which one of these minds will I get to watch bloom?’ But after watching colleagues get pilloried for comments that were recorded in class and circulated online, ‘now my first thought is, which one of these students is going to get me fired?’”
Grading Is Hard, and Grade-Inflation Makes It Worthless
Full article at The Hill. See also “Professors Say Gen Z Students Can’t Read, Forcing Colleges to Lower Academic Standards” at Campus Reform.
The Activist Veto -- How Identity Politics Restricts Scientific Inquiry
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars: “Scientific inquiry has suffered another blow amidst the ongoing science crisis and loss of public trust. The New York Times revealed that genetic data from over 20,000 U.S. children, gathered over the last decade, has been ‘misused’ for ‘race science’....”
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.
Light-Based Platform Sets the Stage for Quantum Supercomputers
Aging Brains Pile Up Damaged Proteins
New Chip-Sized Optical Amplifier Can Intensify Light 100 Times
**********
“A university's freedom must be the freedom of its members, faculty and students to think and speak for themselves. A university must not have dominant ways of thinking.... No university can thrive unless each member is accepted as an autonomous individual and can speak and will be listened to without regard to labels and stereotypes." -- Former Stanford President Gerhard Casper
February 2, 2026
Is a Four-Year Degree Worth It?
Excerpts:
. . . .
“American higher education has a trust problem. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise, and it won’t solve itself. In 2026 I’d like to see colleges and universities across the country take steps to restore trust. As president of Dartmouth College, I’m committed to this goal, and how to restore public confidence in higher education animates conversations among my presidential peers.
“Assuming that most Americans value our mission is a recipe for irrelevance and decline. We must demonstrate to students and families -- and to the broader public -- that we’ve heard their criticisms and will address them. I see five areas where we can build back trust.
[Followed by discussion of these five points:
-
Make college affordable
-
The return on investment matters
-
Re-center higher education on learning rather than political posturing
-
Emphasize equal opportunity, not equal outcomes
-
Testing is important]
“Next month, I’ll join other university presidents at a summit in Washington hosted by the Association of American Universities to continue the conversation about how universities can take responsibility and be held accountable for our actions. I hope we’ll move beyond defensiveness and talk of federal compacts and instead take action.
“We should leave the table having made specific commitments. We won’t agree on everything. One size won’t fit all. But we must agree that the status quo is untenable. If we’re willing to reform ourselves -- to listen, change and recommit to our core mission -- we can again be a trusted engine of the American dream, scientific breakthroughs and the global economy. This work can’t wait. It starts now, with us.”
Full op-ed by Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock at WSJ.
See also our long-existing webpages “Stanford Concerns -- Warning Signs in the Numbers” and “Back to Basics at Stanford.”
Fixing DEI's Damage to Academic Science Could Take a Generation
Editor’s note: In our view, diversity, equality of opportunity and inclusion have always been important elements for teaching and research and, at least in recent decades, already widely existed at U.S. colleges and universities nationwide, including at Stanford. Frankly, it's hard to find places that are more diverse, supportive of equal opportunity and inclusive than any of our contemporary U.S. campuses. Rather, the concerns have been the huge and costly bureaucracies that were created in recent years (see the charts re Stanford and other major universities at our Stanford Concerns webpage) and which in turn fostered what have increasingly appeared to be anti-intellectual policies and activities on our campuses. We don’t necessarily support the solutions proposed in the following article, but we present these excerpts to help focus on the possible problems and urge readers to consider these and other possible solutions.
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“The National Association of Scholars (NAS) just spent several years examining how deeply embedded DEI ideology has become in undergraduate and graduate science education and research. As part of this effort, we conducted forensic case studies of the growth of DEI ideology in three of America’s top institutions of science and technology: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). These case studies show in detail how identity politics took over institutions that had built stellar reputations on competence, ingenuity, and intellectual merit. The message is clear: DEI has had a profoundly corrosive effect on academic science. Keep this in mind the next time someone tells you to ‘follow the science.’ ...
“Both for the long-term goal of reforming science, and for the short-term goal of stopping DEI’s corruption of American science, federal science funding should be reformed to remove taxpayer dollars as much as possible from university science, and universities as much as possible from scientific research. Possible solutions include:
-
Legislation (following up on existing executive orders) to limit research grants’ indirect costs to universities to 10% of the total.
-
Elimination of government policies that support the ‘total cost reimbursement’ model of supporting academic research.
-
The creation of legislative support for Independent Science Faculties, so that government monies can go to scientists independent of universities.
-
The redirection of federal grant money wherever possible to intramural research and to private industry research, so as to minimize the involvement of universities.
-
The broadening of the model of portable funding both for graduate students and for faculty research, so as to reduce the lock hold of universities on scientific research.
“These reforms would bring with them, as a corollary, the division of scientists into a dedicated research track and into an academic track focused on teaching students. The argument for giving students the possibility to undertake research with leading scientists is strong -- but the unfortunate consequence has been that a great many science professors have abandoned actual science education and left it to ill-trained graduate students. America would benefit from a reorientation of its university science education toward dedicated science teaching, with professors devoted to classroom instruction rather than to securing government grants.” ...
Full op-ed at Real Clear Science.
See also Stanford's renamed Office of Inclusion, Community and Integrative Learning with an estimated 70 or more total staff, including the Eight Centers for Equity and Community Leadership, plus still more people with similar full-time and part-time responsibilities in individual schools and departments.
The Age of Interdisciplinary Slop
Excerpts (link in the original):
. . . .
“Seven years ago, I argued in these pages that ‘interdisciplinarity,’ originally a way of forging connections between well-established modes of inquiry, had degraded into a slogan weaponized by administrations to run universities like corporations. What I was observing was a new language taken from business schools and Silicon Valley that emphasized innovation, efficiency, and relevance, whether to solve the world’s problems or create marketable skills. That language took aim at the expertise and special methods of individual disciplines, representing them as so many silos that should be broken down to facilitate the flow of information across a flexible workplace.
“I concluded by defending a pluralist university, one that values genuine interdisciplinary collaboration while preserving the disciplinary integrity from which it occurs. Academic disciplines are not arbitrary bureaucratic units, but historically developed forms of judgment tailored to distinct objects of study. Keeping them is not a retreat into tradition but a necessary condition for intellectual resistance in an era increasingly dominated by managerial logics....
“. . . In its heyday, the jargon of interdisciplinarity was not merely a managerial device but a utopian promise.... That confidence has evaporated, even as the vocabulary remains. Today the jargon lingers on in a kind of zombie state: animated, repetitive, and oddly untethered from belief. Administrators still speak of ‘flexibility,’ ‘dynamism,’ and ‘future orientation,’ but no longer with the conviction that these words name an educational transformation anyone actually expects to arrive....
“What remains, then, is interdisciplinarity as slop: a residue of once corrosively ambitious ideas, endlessly reheated to justify mergers, eliminations, and the hollowing out of intellectual life. No one seriously imagines that folding English into ‘Human Narratives and Creative Expressions’ will produce Davidson’s world of empowered learners and creative problem-solvers. The jargon persists not because it convinces but because it obscures, masking loss with abstraction and austerity with euphemism. The problem today is no longer that the jargon of interdisciplinarity promises too much, but that it promises nothing at all while continuing to do real damage to the disciplines that once gave the university its purpose and its authority.” ...
Full op-ed by Yale Prof. Jonathan Kramnick at Chronicle of Higher Education.
See also “How Politicized Philanthropy Is Corrupting Charity” in our January 19, 2026 Newsletter and where we questioned the elimination of school and department names that are based on well-established academic disciplines and the substitution instead of whatever is a currently desired political or social outcome. For example Stanford’s long-existing School of Earth Sciences is now the Doerr School of Sustainability -- an area of potential inquiry, but does that mean the faculty here are now professors of sustainability? And if not that, what are they professors of? As we also noted in our prior Newsletter, “once you establish a desired outcome in an entity’s name or its foundational documents, how do you then foster viewpoint diversity within the entity? And what happens when society's priorities change over time?”
Other Articles of Interest
An Ancient Answer to AI-Generated Writing -- Go Back to Speaking
Full op-ed by Brown U Prof. Stephen Kidd at Inside Higher Ed.
Embedding AI in the Curriculum
Full interview of UNC Vice Provost Jeffrey Bardzell at James Martin Center. See also “90% of College Faculty Believe AI Is Dumbing Down Students’ Critical Thinking Abilities” at NY Post.
COVID's Long Shadow Looms Over a New Generation of College Students
Full article at SF Gate.
Rutgers Athletics Has Lost $516.9 Million Since Joining the Big Ten in 2014-15
Full article at The Comeback. See also “College Athletics Is Breaking Universities” at Minding the Campus. Editor’s note: Stanford has proved for decades that there are college students who can simultaneously excel in both their academic work and their athletic specialties, including at Stanford. We are presenting these two articles not because we oppose college athletics (quite the contrary) but rather to remind readers of the serious issues now facing Stanford and other comparable schools.
How a Few Foundations Shape Academic Culture
Full op-ed at Future of the American University.
The Pace Is Relentless -- How College Leaders Are Adapting to an Increasingly Hectic Job
Full article at Higher Ed Dive.
Can Tenure Endure?
Full article at Minding the Campus. See also “Tenure Under Threat” at Inside Higher Ed.
Stanford Settles Lawsuit with Family of Katie Meyer
Full article at Stanford Daily.
Yale Will Go Tuition-Free for Families Making Up to $200,000
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
Thomas Sowell Discusses Modern Education (video)
Full interview of Hoover Senior Fellow Emeritus Thomas Sowell at YouTube (1 hour, 11 minutes, and with discussion of universities starting at the 33-minute mark).
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.
The Face Scars Less Than the Body, and a Stanford Medicine Study Unravels Why
New Atlas of Brain Proteins Could Help Researchers Studying Neurological Disease
Even Small Amounts of Online Math Practice Can Improve Skills
**********
"By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true.” – Albert Einstein
January 26, 2026
The Power of Saying ‘I Don't Know’
Excerpts (links in the original):
“One of the most important intellectual skills a student can learn is also one of the first we train them out of: the ability to say, plainly and without embarrassment, I don't know.
“In education today, ‘I don't know’ is often treated as a failure -- a sign of weakness, disengagement, or insufficient preparation.
“From a remarkably young age, students learn that uncertainty is penalized. We test four- and five-year-olds. We score confidence. We reward quick answers, fluent guesses, and verbal assertiveness. Hesitation is read as a deficiency. Silence is suspect. Studies of early assessment environments show that children quickly learn to associate speed and certainty with approval, even when accuracy suffers....
“This is backwards.
“Saying I don't know is not an intellectual weakness. It is intellectual honesty. And in many cases, it is a marker of higher-order thinking. Cognitive psychologists have long shown that recognizing the limits of one's knowledge -- what in academic terms is called metacognition -- is strongly associated with deeper learning, better problem-solving, and long-term academic success.
Students who can accurately judge what they do and do not understand consistently outperform peers who express high confidence but poor calibration.
“To recognize what you do not know requires judgment. It requires self-awareness. It reflects humility before complexity and an openness to learning rather than performance. In advanced fields -- from science and medicine to philosophy and engineering --
I don't know is often the beginning of real inquiry, not its end. Expertise, research shows, is defined less by constant certainty than by the ability to slow down, reassess, and revise in the face of incomplete information.” ...
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Real Clear Education.
American Studies Can’t Stand Its Subject
Excerpts:
. . . .
“On the one hand, America’s is a story of greatness: The U.S. is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. Its founders created what is now the world’s longest-lasting liberal democratic constitution. The Declaration of Independence put forth revolutionary ideas about human freedom and equality that ushered in a new era for the world. At the same time, the American experience is complicated. Our history includes the mistreatment of Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow, and high levels of economic inequality that persist to this day.
“Yet we found only one part of this narrative presented in most of almost 100 articles we examined from over a three-year period in American Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Studies Association. Published by Johns Hopkins University, it’s widely considered the country’s premier journal of American studies.
“The journal’s scholarship paints a one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait of the U.S. We found that 80% of articles published between 2022 and 2024 were critical of America, 20% were neutral, and none were positive. Of the 96 articles we examined, our research identified 77 as critical, focused on American racism, imperialism, classism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Some articles went to absurd lengths to identify sins. One essay posited that thermodynamics -- the science dealing with the relationship between energy, heat, work and temperature -- is ‘an abstract settler-capitalist theory that influenced the plunder of Indigenous lands and lives.’...
“Academics will point out that they’re not running for office. Their commitment is to writing what is true, not what is popular. But on that measure, American Quarterly is a failure. The cartoonish picture of America found in its pages constitutes educational malpractice.”
Full op-ed at WSJ.
Meantime, click here for a full listing of courses currently offered by Stanford’s history department and where these are the only course groupings (clusters) considered relevant by the department’s own search engine:
-
Activism, Public History, and Service
-
Economics/Political Economy
-
Environment, Science, Medicine, and Technology
-
Gender and Sexuality
-
Global Affairs/International Relations
-
Law and Public Policy
-
Race and Ethnicity
-
Religion and Intellectual History
And without even a passing mention of American History and/or the History of Western Civilization.
97.6% of the Money Yale Faculty Members Gave to Political Groups Last Year Went to Democrats
Editor’s note: The concern isn’t whether someone is a Democrat, Republican, independent or something else politically. It’s to what extent this obviously skewed percentage reflects other types of systemic biases as to who is recruited, hired and promoted on the faculties of major universities, and not just at Yale.
Excerpts:
“In 2025, Yale professors made 1,099 donations to federal political campaigns and partisan groups reflected in fundraising disclosures. Not one of the recipients was Republican.
“The [Yale Daily News] analyzed data from more than 7,000 Federal Election Commission filings from 2025 for which the employer was listed as Yale. Of 1,099 filings that included ‘professor’ in their occupation, 97.6 percent of the donations went to Democrats, while the remaining 2.4 percent went to independent candidates or groups.
“This data is consistent with conservative criticism that university professors are not representative of the country’s political spread -- one rationale used by the Trump administration for its threats to universities’ funding in the past year....
“Political science professor Steven Smith said in a phone interview that the overwhelming support for the Democratic Party among faculty is ‘characteristic’ of standard demographic trends.
“‘That’s old news,’ he said. ‘That’s no surprise. It’s true, generally across the culture, not just in universities, on the whole, in the country, educated people vote Democrat.’
“But Yale College Dean Pericles Lewis said in a Monday interview with the News that the vast majority of professors teach subjects, such as physics, in which political views are minimally relevant. Even in classes where politics is more relevant, he noted, professors want students to understand various perspectives of subject matter, and he doesn’t think the professors’ party affiliation affects that goal.” ...
Full article at Yale Daily News. This is a followup article to one from College Fix that was linked in our December 22, 2025 Newsletter and that provided statistics for specific departments at Yale. See also Buckley Institute reports on this same subject dated December 1, 2025 and September 23, 2024.
Lawmakers Zero In on the NCAA and the Economics of College Sports
Excerpts (links in the original):
“An effort to curb the big business of college sports is gaining steam on Capitol Hill, where a growing number of lawmakers in both parties are outraged at the NCAA and signaling intervention from Congress on athlete compensation and revenue sharing is inevitable.
“[Last week’s] college football national championship game served as a marquee symbol of the profitability of the current system for college football....
“’We have way too many gaps in the process. I’m all for the players making money, but there’s got to be some rules that play into it,’ said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), was a college football head coach for 21 years and won the 2004 national Coach of The Year award at Auburn before seeking public office.
“The NCAA should have been running it the right way [in prior years], giving money to players out of revenue sharing. So now we’re in a spot where there’s no rules and it’s pretty much out of control,’ he said." ...
Full article at The Hill.
Other Articles of Interest
Chinese Universities Surge in Global Rankings as U.S. Slips
Full article at NY Times: “Six prominent American schools that would have been in the top 10 in the first decade of the 2000’s -- the University of Michigan, the University of California, Los Angeles, Johns Hopkins, the University of Washington-Seattle, the University of Pennsylvania, and Stanford University -- are producing more research than they did two decades ago, according to the Leiden tallies. But production by the Chinese schools has risen far more.”
Up to 25% of U.S. Colleges May Close Soon, Brandeis President Warns
Full article at College Fix: "Levine is working on the Brandeis Plan to Reinvent the Liberal Arts, aiming to revamp the curriculum, enhance career readiness, and implement competency-based assessments."
Cuts to the Liberal Arts Will Backfire
Full article at American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA).
Women Far Outnumber Men in Law School, Med School, Vet School and Other Professional Programs
Full article at Hechinger Report.
Even MBAs From Top Business Schools Are Struggling to Get Hired
Full article at WSJ.
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.
ASSU Town Hall Solicits Input on Fun, Housing (Stanford Daily)
Empowering Users to Discern Fact from Fiction in the Age of AI
Study Reveals Promising Diet for Managing Crohn’s Disease
New Allergen-free Dining Supports Safer Meals for Stanford Students
**********
A generation which ignores history has no past, and no future." -- Robert Heinlein
January 19, 2026
Economic and Workforce Development Tops State Higher Education Priorities
for 2026
Excerpt (link in the original):
“State higher education leaders have identified economic and workforce development as their top policy priority for 2026, with nearly all respondents calling the issue critically important amid federal policy changes and budget pressures, according to a new survey released Tuesday.
“The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association's annual priorities report shows 97% of state higher education chief executives rated economic and workforce development as important or very important -- the highest ranking for any issue in the survey's history, with an average score of 4.77 on a five-point scale.” ...
Full article at the EDU Ledger, formerly Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
See also “How Oregon’s Top Higher Ed Board Wants to Solve University Deficits” at Higher Ed Dive: “Oregon’s Higher Education Coordinating Commission last week approved a suite of policy recommendations meant to increase efficiency at the state’s seven public universities. If enacted, institutions would see regular audits of academic programs and could face mergers.”
How Politicized Philanthropy Is Corrupting Charity (and our universities, too?)
Excerpts (link added):
. . . . .
“The shift toward politicized ‘charity’ surged in 2020 when the Black Lives Matter Foundation scooped up a gush of mogul, corporate, and foundation gifts. These were offered without any accountability, and multiple BLM officials soon misdirected millions, resulting in a flurry of fraud indictments....
“After wildfires burned several Los Angeles neighborhoods in early 2025, the FireAid charity raised more than $100 million to help victims. The Annenberg Foundation, an established national philanthropy, was enlisted to administer the funds. But foundation staff ended up giving almost none of the cash to actual fire victims. Instead, grants were showered on ‘social justice’ nonprofits like FreeForm, the Alliance for a Better Community, and the California Native Vote Project.
“So: The charitable impulse can be misused and manipulated, and it’s absolutely appropriate for regulators to react when this happens. Charities are given tax and legal protections on the grounds that they are truthful and earnest, that they build up citizens and bolster society. Their donations are not supposed to go to political activism, personal enrichment, or violence. If charitable gifts are being exploited in this way, there must be a law-enforcement response. In my new book Sweet Charity – Why Private Giving Is So Important to America I suggest some starting points:
-
The foreign philanthropy that has politicized American charities should be cut off immediately. (The five largest foreign donors recently funneled almost $2 billion into advocacy by U.S. nonprofits.)
-
Many 501(c)(3) charities have involved themselves in ‘voter registration’ efforts that quickly veer into politicking.
-
Likewise, 501(c)(3)'s should not promote ballot initiatives, as some currently do.
-
501(c)(3)’s shouldn’t be allowed to take donations and re-grant them to politically involved 501(c)(4).
-
The tax-law language which says that 501(c)(4)’s can get involved in politics so long as it is not their ‘primary activity’ should be tightened.
-
Congress should place time limits on foundations. The longer a foundation lingers as a bureaucracy, the likelier it is to be taken over by politicized staffers.
-
Foundations should be expected to distribute 10-12% of their endowment every year, instead of today’s 5%, so they don’t coast as forever-employers of social activists with no fealty to the founding donor.
“But here’s a caution light: While there’s no denying we’ve seen an uptick in politicized philanthropy in recent years, there is a crucial larger reality that legislators who address this issue must not lose sight of: Partisan givers and charities are only a tiny slice of American philanthropy. Fully 74% of the money donated in America is given by individuals, not foundations or corporations. And the bulk of that comes from ordinary citizens, at an annual rate of about $3,000 per household. That’s middle America in action, not culture corruption by politicized billionaires or corporations. This civic engagement by generous everyday people must be protected.
“Private giving -- at our current rate of around $600 billion every year -- is the goose that lays golden eggs for America. Personal donations allow our civil society to solve problems and strengthen the U.S. in millions of ways, mostly out of sight and behind the scenes, but with powerful results. Charitable action outside the control of government has been one of the deepest secrets of our nation’s success.
“Philanthropy is now being assailed by a mix of progressive projectors of a ‘billionaire boys’ club’ and Trumpers disturbed by flares of ideological charity. We can stanch partisan abuses and corral checkbook manipulators of our culture. But we must do so without crimping one of America’s quintessential superpowers.”
Full op-ed at Real Clear Politics.
[Editor’s note: If there are concerns about major charities having become politicized, don’t those same concerns apply to today’s colleges and universities? Including where at least some if not most of Stanford’s 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities have donor-specified advocacy and outcomes in their names and missions, as opposed to entities that are engaged primarily if not exclusively in truly independent research, teaching and scholarship? Including when an entire school is no longer named for academic disciplines that have long existed and are respected worldwide (“earth sciences”) but is renamed instead for a desired societal outcome, sustainability?
And once you establish a desired outcome in an entity’s name or its foundational documents, how do you then foster viewpoint diversity within the entity? And what happens when society's priorities change over time? To paraphrase Pogo, perhaps Stanford’s faculty leaders, administrators and current and former trustees who are trying to reestablish viewpoint diversity and a focus on independent scholarship should consider the possibility that “We have met the source of the problem, and it was us. Because if not us, then who?”]
To Combat Academic Fraud, Scholars Confront a Hallowed Tradition
Excerpts (links in the original):
“The driving ethos of academia, ‘publish or perish,’ is fighting for its life.
“The requirement that scholars constantly publish or face academic ruin has been considered the primary engine of scientific discovery for decades. But a growing movement of universities and researchers is trying to banish the practice to the archives, saying it has perverted the pursuit of knowledge and eroded the public’s trust in science.
“Reformers at top universities in Europe and the U.S., including Cambridge, Sorbonne, and UC Berkeley, say this traditional system of advancement has led to an explosion in the growth of low-quality research, with little meaningful impact on academic fields or society. It has also sparked the spread of fraudulent research, as ‘paper mills’ churn out fake articles for sale to academics seeking to pad their CVs.
“To weaken the ‘publish or perish’ stranglehold on universities, hundreds of research institutions are reforming the incentive system that shapes academic careers. It currently rewards scholars for frequently winning grants and publishing papers, with extra points for landing in the most esteemed, high-impact journals, even when the articles are not themselves influential....
“The Nature family is highly selective, attracting more than 50,000 scholarly submissions a year and publishing less than 10% of them. Nature’s tendency to report on major advances in many fields, famously illustrated by the Watson and Crick paper on DNA structure, has helped give the 157-year-old journal its magisterial reputation.
“But the fact that prestigious journals publish important articles doesn’t mean everything they run is noteworthy....[Journal Impact Factor] is also easy to manipulate: Authors are sometimes encouraged to include citations to articles in the same journal that they are publishing in to raise the JIF score....
“While the U.K. is a success story for reformers, they have yet to deeply penetrate the biggest research system of all -- the U.S. -- where only a handful of major research institutions have joined the movement. Unlike in Europe, U.S. universities don’t face federal funding pressure from above to transform how they reward scientists. Under the Trump administration, federal agencies are mainly focused on ending what they deem, sometimes wrongly, as DEI-related research, and reducing overhead fees that add up to 70% to the cost of research grants....
“Nonprofits like the Pew Charitable Trusts are also joining the movement. Pew is working with a group of philanthropic and public funders who want their grants to produce a bigger impact in healthcare, education, and other areas. To engage researchers in the effort, Pew has convened a group of 18 university leaders, including those at Brown, Duke, and UC Berkeley, who are redesigning their reward systems to encourage the public interest research that the funders seek....”
Full article at Real Clear Investigations.
Other Articles of Interest
Athletics Makes List of Biggest Risks for Colleges
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
Vanderbilt Is Opening a Campus in San Francisco in 2027
Full article at USA Today. See also SF Gate and WSJ.
Court Vindicates Professor Investigated for Parodying University’s Land Acknowledgment
Full article at FIRE.
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.
Stanford Researchers and Air Force Partner to Test AI Copilots
Stanford’s Farm Goes Fully Electric
**********
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, what are you doing for others?" — Martin Luther King, Jr.
January 12, 2026
Recent Reader Comments
[Slightly edited for language, specific names, redundancies, etc.]
Comment Number One
For a considerable amount of time, we have been reading articles about the administrative bloat affecting Stanford. Is there a plan to start trimming the excess? I should think the Board of Trustees would be actively working with President Levin to trim administrators and hire more professors. Perhaps this condition is much like an out-of-control fungus immune to corrective action?
Comment Number Two
My impression is that Stanford values the professional schools much more highly than the undergraduate schools. I do not believe they would dare impose these radical changes [increase in undergraduate enrollment] on the professional schools for fear of downgrading their reputations, rankings, etc. Same reason (in my humble opinion) the institution has permitted a serious housing shortage for undergrads for several decades. The undergraduate experience is not a high priority with Stanford’s leaders relative to other concerns. That has been my observation for many years, and expanding the undergrad population without any corresponding increases in faculty, housing, classes, etc. underlines that observation.
The Class of 2029 has at least 250 more students than classes just a few years ago. So they have already effectively “announced” a 1,000 person or greater increase (over four class years) of the undergraduate enrollment. It’s done. Those 1,000 extra students will be graduating long before any new housing is approved, designed and built (if ever).
I sadly think Stanford is severely mistaken and misguided on the student enrollment matter. It has the potential to blow up in the administration’s face.
Comment Number Three
17,000 staff members is shocking. With the one-to-one ratio between students and staff, every student has his/her own corresponding staff member. For an institution on the cutting edge of tech innovation and societal productivity, it is instead structured like an old-time, bureaucratic, outdated institution of the distant past: GE, GM, etc. Really in need of a serious re-structuring.
29 development staff just at Stanford Law School alone, and even though Stanford Law School has the smallest student body of all of the top law schools. In most cases (other than Yale), by far the smallest, a fraction of the size of Harvard, Georgetown, Michigan, Columbia, etc. The bureaucratic imperative has conquered Stanford.
Comment Number Four
Reading the most recent Newsletter, I thought “ok, now everyone knows the magnitude of the administrative bloat. How do you go forward from there?” I doubt just repeating the numbers will change much, if anything. You need to bring in an outsider with a proven reputation for cost cutting and streamlining. It’s hard to believe that the administrators themselves are going to get behind such an effort when it means they themselves might be the next ones to be offered early retirement.
**********
See also “Warning Signs in the Numbers” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
Other reader comments on various topics in recent years are available at our Reader Comments webpage.
Send us your own comments here.
Required Stanford Writing Courses Range from How 'ICE Raids Destabilize Communities,' to an All-Male Drag Ballet
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A series of spring 2026 required writing courses for students at Stanford University have students learn about topics ranging from ‘biracial and bicultural identity,’ to how ‘ICE raids destabilize communities.’
“Stanford’s Program in Writing and Rhetoric (PWR) currently offers courses to students to fulfill a ‘Writing and Rhetoric Requirement at Stanford.’
“In a description for the program, the university states that ‘PWR instructors in PWR 1 and PWR 2 courses carefully design their courses to offer in-depth intellectual experiences based on shared assignments, goals, and learning outcomes.’
“For each course that is offered to students, they are ‘rooted in analysis, research, and the presentation of research in various forms,’ while professors are given authority to ‘[build] on this shared core, designing class activities to support a dynamic, interactive classroom community.’ ...
“Amongst the listed course offerings includes one course on ‘Writing Mixed Race Identity,’ where students will ‘look at the ongoing rhetoric surrounding multiraciality.’ Students will also learn about how ‘mixed race people are always and already politicized,’ and are ‘represented as figures of shame,’ ‘exoticism,’ ‘tragedy,’ and as figures of ‘post-racial utopia.’ ...”
Full article at Campus Reform. Stanford's own description of the program is here, and a sample of the courses is here.
Editor's note: Is our understanding correct that these courses -- at four units each and required in both the freshman and sophomore years -- are taught solely by part-time lecturers and not members of the faculty? Also, how many hours are spent creating the photos, video interviews, etc. at these webpages on top of all of the other Stanford-wide non-essential and non-teaching activities in which hundreds (thousands?) of staff are engaged? Wouldn't it be better to reduce and even eliminate these peripheral activities and use the resources instead for the hiring of more tenure-line faculty? Likewise, shouldn't students who have met the extraordinarily high threshold of being admitted to Stanford be allowed to decide whether they want or need to take courses of this nature? And in the end, aren't there more appropriate ways to provide a general education including assuring that students have an understanding of U.S. and world history, civics and cultures versus what is taking place here?
Harvard President Admits Faculty Activism Is a Problem
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Political activism in the classroom has become a problem among faculty at Harvard University, its President Alan Garber said on a recent podcast.
“Garber, whose contract was extended in December, said higher education ‘went wrong’ when institutions began allowing faculty to engage in activism in the classroom and in their research, and he is working to steer Harvard back in the right direction, The Harvard Crimson reports.
“His remarks come on the heels of the high profile departure of longtime Harvard Professor James Hankins who criticized the institution for, among other things, its focus on identity politics.
“Last week, on an episode of the Shalom Hartman Institute’s ‘Identity/Crisis Podcast,’ Garber said it used to be that ‘one of the characteristics of excellent teaching’ was not allowing personal views to influence classroom discussions.
“Good professors would ‘present alternative points of view fairly,’ and they would not allow their personal opinions to color their research, he said.
“When Garber worked as a policy research leader at Stanford University, he said the faculty and staff ‘would never take a policy position, for a variety of reasons, one of them, and maybe most importantly, it would call into question the objectivity of our work.’” ...
Full article at College Fix. See also “The Problems of History at Harvard” at our January 5, 2026 Newsletter including discussion of the reasons Prof. Hankins decided to leave Harvard.
Free Expression in Higher Education -- Q&A with U Chicago’s Tom Ginsburg
Excerpt (link in the original):
“The ongoing debate about free expression in higher education has grown increasingly complex and contentious in recent years, shaped by a variety of societal and political factors that are continuously evolving. In a recent Q&A, Professor Tom Ginsburg, faculty director of the University of Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, offers valuable insights into why freedom of expression is vital for higher education -- and for society as a whole -- to thrive.”
Full Q&A at U Chicago website. See also our compilations of the three fundamental statements from the University of Chicago in past decades concerning freedom of expression, institutional neutrality and principles for the hiring and promotion of faculty at our Chicago Trifecta webpage.
Other Articles of Interest
How Many Vice Presidents Does a College Need?
Full op-ed by Amherst Prof. Austin Sarat at Inside Higher Ed.
At Harvard and Elsewhere, the New Campus Orthodoxy Is Even More Stifling
Full op-ed at NY Times.
Parody Is Protected in the Pacific Northwest
Full editorial at Washington Post. See also op-eds at WSJ and Minding the Campus.
It’s Time to Mandate Merit
Full op-ed at James Martin Center.
UCLA Athletics Facing Enormous Debt, per the School's Academic Senate
Full article at Pasadena Now.
See also “UC Regent Questions UCLA Athletics' Finances: How does this thing not sink?” at Yahoo Finance as reproduced from LA Times: “an athletic department deficit that has ballooned to $219.5 million after running in the red for six consecutive fiscal years, including a $51.8-million shortfall in the 2024 fiscal year.”
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.
Stanford AI Experts Predict What Will Happen in 2026
AI Predicts Disease from Sleep
To Advance Science, Blur the Boundaries Between the Disciplinesy
Synthetic Biologists Transform Waste CO2 Into Useful Chemicals
Explaining the Meteorological Phenomenon of Atmospheric Rivers
**********
“Education at its best makes people more whole, not more uniform.” – Stanford Prof. Emeritus Claude Steele
January 5, 2026
The National Movement to Trim Higher Ed Bloat
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Americans don't agree on much these days, but we all seem to agree that higher education in our country is broken. The good news is that we may now see the beginning of a nationwide movement to make higher education a better investment for students and help prepare them for life after school.
“Since the 1990s, we have seen an explosion in the cost of college driven by a growth in administrators and virtually endless government-backed debt. Continued increases in enrollments allowed even state schools to create classes and even entire majors for which there was absolutely no job market."...
Full op-ed at Real Clear Education, including a link to “Administrative Bloat at U.S. Colleges Is Skyrocketing” at Forbes (August 28, 2023):
“. . . Why have administrative positions exploded? There are several reasons, including greater student demand for services, the growing number of accreditors, government regulations, and the natural tendency for administrators to solve most problems with -- you guessed it -- more administrators.
“This massive increase in personnel never could have happened without the growing availability of federal aid and student loans (albeit any corresponding constraints on costs). But given the rapidly deteriorating fiscal condition of the federal government, and the recent decision by the Supreme Court on loan forgiveness, the likelihood of a major expansion in tuition assistance (or full-scale student loan bailout) seems unlikely in the near future.
“With no market or regulatory forces to contain the reckless spending behavior of colleges and universities, school presidents have focused on fundraising, not good management. But starting [now], they will need to learn quickly how to streamline administrative costs, or be replaced by a new generation of school leaders who do.”
See also, with respect to Stanford specifically, “Warning Signs in the Numbers” at our Stanford Concerns webpage and where, among other things, Stanford went from approximately 2,800 managerial and supervisory personnel in the year 2000 to nearly 13,000 such personnel by the year 2022 (an increase of approximatelly 10,000) while the faculty increased by only 400 during that same period of time (see the graph at the top of the Stanford Concerns webpage). As also shown at the Stanford Concerns webpage, Stanford currently has the highest number of business and finance staff of any U.S. university (even for schools with triple the enrollment) and the highest administrative costs per student of any U.S. university. And yet Stanford has among the worst student-faculty ratios and among the worst participation of alumni donors as compared to its top-ranked peers.
While it's true that Stanford's wealth and prestige may insulate it from competitive pressures, that wealth and prestige can also mask problems that both the administration and the trustees may need to finally address.
To quote management guru Peter Drucker, “Tomorrow is being made today, irrevocably in most cases.”
A Black Box of Overhead Spending and Academia’s Mission Creep
from Rigorous Science
Excerpts (footnotes deleted):
“American universities are falling short of their mission to push the limits of scientific discovery and prepare students for the workforce, often while raking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in federal research and development grants....
“Overhead funds are meant to go toward university and department infrastructure, but recent reports have suggested exorbitant overhead spending feeds into bloated university administrations that distract from academic inquiry....
“This report examines research and overhead funds granted to five universities over ten years, along with the growth of administration and, in particular, DEI-related positions. The impact of broader impact requirements embedded in grant proposals is also explored.
“The results will demonstrate that universities are undermining their former commitments to true scientific endeavor in research, in favor of building ever more new administrative functions and special projects.” ...
[Followed by a detailed analysis of Rutgers and the universities of Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia.]
Full report, including graphs and charts, can be downloaded at Open the Books.
See also “Warning Signs in the Numbers” at our Stanford Concerns webpage. See also Section 3 at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage where we suggest that Stanford's administrative bureaucracy needs to be reduced significantly in both size and cost and, at Section 4, we suggest that Stanford's 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities need to be engaged primarily in front-line research and teaching supervised by tenured members of the faculty or else should be moved off campus and cease using the Stanford name.
The Problems of History at Harvard
Excerpt:
“At Harvard University today, professors who teach Western history are history.
“James Hankins, a specialist in Renaissance thought, was one of the last holdouts.
“Now Hankins, who has just published a hefty book that teaches what Harvard doesn't -- The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition, Vol. 1 -- has decamped for the University of Florida's Hamilton School of Classical and Civic Education.
“It's not the warmer weather that's drawn him away from Cambridge, Massachusetts.
“It's the contrast in intellectual climates: frozen and dead, where Western history is concerned, at Harvard; full of green shoots at the University of Florida.
“‘We have not hired with tenure a historian in a Western field -- ancient, medieval, early modern, or modern -- in a decade,’ Hankins says about his Harvard department, which in that time ‘lost eight senior historians in Western fields -- all major figures -- through death, retirement or departure for other universities. I will be the ninth, and I am not expecting to be replaced.’
“The loss isn't just Harvard's: ‘the replacement of Western history by global history’ has done ‘serious harm ... to the socialization of young Americans,’ the historian warns in Compact magazine.” ...
Full article at Real Clear Politics.
Harvard President Alan Garber Has Met the Moment
Excerpts:
. . . .
“Harvard’s governing boards have been historically secretive, making it difficult to know whether such self-assessments occur and, if so, what they have revealed. But their decision to hand the presidential reins to Garber on an indefinite basis speaks as loudly as we can expect about their views on Harvard’s past and future directions.
“We should be grateful for that decision....
[Followed by discussion of Harvard’s working group on open inquiry and constructive dialogue, Harvard’s adoption of policies re institutional neutrality, ending the requirement for DEI statements in faculty hiring, and major reforms of Harvard’s student orientation programs.]
“Actions taken by schools to change programs (and program leadership) have been more controversial. When programs are judged to have strayed from the required level of scholarly rigor in favor of explicit activism, I see such decisions as within the purview of university leadership and proper governance -- and failure to prevent such straying, in the past, has often proved to be the real problem. To counter expected opposition, decisions such as these must reflect rigorous assessment, be accompanied by public explanation, and remain content-neutral, aspects that require greater clarity than exists at present....”
Full op-ed by Harvard professor and former medical school dean Jeffrey S. Flier at Harvard Crimson.
A Utah University Gave Guest Speakers a List of Banned Words
Editor’s note: We have long had posted at our Stanford Concerns webpage an article about Stanford’s now discredited list of words and phrases and including a PDF copy of the words and phrases we downloaded before they were removed from Stanford’s websites and subsequently repudiated by senior Stanford administrators. In the situation described below, a Utah state university was largely copying a state law that restricts words and phrases. In our view, any such restrictions -- whether for conservative or progressive purposes -- are inappropriate and especially in a campus environment.
Excerpts:
“After she agreed to give a book talk at Weber State University, Darcie Little Badger was sent a document titled ‘Speaker Information Request.’ It asked Little Badger for personal and logistical information, all fairly standard for a guest speaker, but at the bottom of the page there was something unusual: a list of banned words and phrases.
“The document cited HB 261, a bill targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts that passed the Utah State Senate in July 2024. The bill prohibits diversity training and statements in higher education, among other provisions. It includes several of the prohibited words Weber State passed along to Little Badger but does not apply them to speech on campus....
“The university has a page on its website dedicated to frequently asked questions about HB 261, and one question asks how the law will affect speakers. The university answers: ‘Under current university and Board of Higher Education policy, the university is charged to provide the opportunity for a plurality of speakers to engage an array of viewpoints. HB 261 affirms that directive and the university will be reviewing its processes for creating those forums for speakers on campus.’ ...
““The people who champion this type of censorship,” [Little Badger] said, ‘I think they’re afraid of difference.’”
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Other Articles of Interest
The Campus ‘Vibe Shift’ Is an Illusion
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Washington Examiner.
Push for Censorship on Campus Hit Record Levels in 2025
Full op-ed at Real Clear Education: “We need courage: from faculty, from students, and especially from administrators. It’s easy to defend speech when it’s popular. It’s harder when the ideas are offensive or inconvenient. But that’s when it matters most.”
American Graduates Need Not Apply
A senior partner at a large U.S. company admits corporations will skirt H-1B restrictions, leaving American graduates behind.
Full article at Minding the Campus.
College Rankings Are Flawed, but City Journal’s New Alternative System Only Compounds the Problems
Full op-ed at Real Clear Education. See also explanation of the rankings at City Journal, an interactive version of the actual rankings (Stanford ranks #18) here and with a more detailed discussion of Stanford's strengths and concerns here.
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.
Intriguing Innovations at Stanford in 2025
Stanford Medical School's Scientific Advancements in 2025
Stanford Law School’s End-of-Year Reading List
**********
“Students don’t need more administrative offices policing speech or mediating micro‑aggressions. They need mentors -- professors and deans who hold them to high standards while caring for their growth.” -- University of Dallas President Jonathan J. Sanford
December 22, 2025
The Importance, Scope and Bounds of Intellectual and Viewpoint Diversity
Excerpts:
“In recent decades, the ideological diversity of faculties in the United States has declined considerably, and this has arguably had implications for a number of other aspects of academic life. Efforts to promote intellectual and viewpoint diversity are, however, often met with skepticism, and also with reasonable concerns over threats to the autonomy and integrity of academic disciplines and institutions. Clarifying the role, scope, and bounds of intellectual and viewpoint diversity within academic life in ways that respect the scholarly standards of disciplines is thus of critical importance....
“[In this paper,] I put forward proposals for educational leaders, faculty, and students for engaging with or, when appropriate, cultivating intellectual and viewpoint diversity in a manner that respects the scholarly standards of disciplines. I discuss what is at stake with these matters in the present context concerning the nature of the university itself, and its purposes in the generation, preservation, and transmission of knowledge....
[Followed by discussion of the differences of intellectual, viewpoint, ideological and political diversity; causes of the decline in diversity and data that demonstrate the decline; the typical denial and dismissal of the problem by campus leaders; the role and importance of intellectual and viewpoint diversity; and possible remedies.]
“Underlying many of the criticisms of higher education is the concern that some universities have themselves effectively become partisan institutions, wherein the vast majority of the work is devoted to, or comes from the perspectives of those aligned with, a single political party. Universities may deny this, and reaffirm their ideals. But the statistics are nevertheless troubling....
“With greater ideological homogeneity, the defense of academic freedom can become more difficult still because progressive ideologies can sometimes be accompanied by notions of a subjective or relativistic understanding of truth; by an understanding of the university that emphasizes activism; by a priority of power over the pursuit of knowledge; and by a strategy of suppression or refusal to engage with certain ideas if they are contrary to a progressive agenda. Open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas can seem like secondary values.”...
[Followed by discussion of specific corrective actions that might be taken.]
Full article by Harvard Prof. Tyler J. VanderWeele at MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute).
See also our Back to Basics at Stanford and Stanford Concerns webpages where we discuss the need for Stanford's faculty, students, administrators and trustees to address these issues; the impact Stanford's bloated administrative bureaucracy is having on these issues; and the need to address what are primarily advocacy and other non-academic activities at many if not most of Stanford's 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities.
A Much-Needed Exposé of Academic Fraud
A new book reveals why academic-publishing incentives must change.
Excerpts (link in the original):
. . . .
“Professor Max Bazerman of Harvard Business School has done a great public service in writing Inside an Academic Scandal: A Story of Fraud and Betrayal. His book puts people on guard against believing an idea just because it comes in scholarly wrapping. It was inspired by Bazerman’s own experience as a co-author of a paper in which others had falsified data to make the conclusion look strong. Over a period of years, he came to suspect the data behind the paper and sought to have the other authors explain their conduct, which they never did. Besides telling his own lamentable tale, Bazerman recounts many other instances of scholarly fraud, but let’s begin with his story.
“. . . with the big higher-education push starting in 1965, ‘publish or perish’ became a mass phenomenon, and the huge numbers of aspiring academics overwhelmed the system....
“Moreover, colleges and universities created many new academic ‘disciplines’ where rigor took a backseat to publishing ideologically correct papers on topics like ‘implicit bias.’ Our institutions were employing an army of professors whose main job was not to teach a body of knowledge but, rather, to produce research in avant-garde fields such as Women’s Studies. The result was an outpouring of extremely dubious scholarship -- a prodigious waste of resources.
“Here’s an analogy. Suppose that a country, acting on the belief that art is a public good that should be given government support, set up a system to subsidize the production of art. After a time, the country found that it was paying for a huge outpouring of absurd artworks, which it would then spend more money to store in warehouses. (The Dutch actually did that, as we read in this article.) Similarly, suppose that a country, acting on the belief that higher education is a great public boon, decided to subsidize college degrees and academic research. The United States has done that, with predictable results: far more degrees and scholarship than previously but with steadily falling quality.” ...
Full op-ed at James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
90% of Undergrads Believe Words Can Be Violence
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“In 2017, when the conflation of words and violence was relatively new, Jonathan Haidt, a New York University psychology professor, worried that the false equivalence fed into the simmering mental health crisis among young people. He and FIRE President Greg Lukianoff wrote in The Atlantic that ‘growing numbers of college students have become less able to cope with the challenges of campus life, including offensive ideas, insensitive professors, and rude or even racist and sexist peers’ and that the rise in mental health issues ‘is better understood as a crisis of resilience.’
“Telling young people who haven't been raised to be resilient and to deal with the certainty of encountering debate, disagreement, and rude or hateful expressions in an intellectually and ideologically diverse world plays into problems with anxiety and depression. It teaches that the world is more dangerous than it actually is rather than a place that requires a certain degree of toughness. Worse, if words are violence it implies that responding ‘in kind’ is justified....
“Americans worry that the country is becoming less friendly to free expression. But the insistence of too many people that words and violence are the same thing is a big part of the problem.”
Full op-ed at Reason. See also article and link to the full poll at FIRE.
Other Articles of Interest
They Graduated from Stanford; Due to AI, They Can’t Find a Job
Full article at LA Times: “‘There’s definitely a very dreary mood on campus,’ said a recent computer science graduate who asked not to be named so they could speak freely. ‘People [who are] job hunting are very stressed out, and it’s very hard for them to actually secure jobs.’ The shake-up is being felt across California colleges, including UC Berkeley, USC and others. The job search has been even tougher for those with less prestigious degrees.”
We Should Teach Our Students How to Think, Not What to Believe
Full op-ed at NY Times: “We’ve been heading toward this moment for some time. For at least the past decade, political expression has become more and more ubiquitous in public schools. Schools effectively allowed political advocacy to become part of the curriculum when it was easy to ignore.... Now it isn’t so easy. It’s time to resurrect the idea that education and activism are not just distinct, but incompatible.”
Zero Republican Professors Found Across 27 Academic Departments at Yale
Full article at College Fix.
The list: American Studies, Anthropology, Architecture, Astronomy, Black Studies, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Classics, Comparative literature, Earth and Planetary Sciences, East Asian Languages and Literature, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Electrical and Computer Engineering, English, Environment, French, Germanic Languages and Literature, Global Affairs, History of Art, Italian Studies, Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Music, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Neuroscience, Psychology, Slavic Languages and Literature, and Sociology. In addition, “Across the 18 humanities departments, Democrats outnumber Republicans at a ratio of 72 to 1.”
See also the first article in today’s Newsletter re the importance of intellectual and viewpoint diversity, and how campus leaders continue to deny there's a problem.
The Entry-Level Hiring Process Is Breaking Down
Full op-ed at The Atlantic. See also “America’s Schools Still Teach for Yesterday’s Jobs” at Minding the Campus.
**********
“When I look at my students, I see hope. They're idealistic and eager to make a difference. What they lack is a framework for translating learning into life: understanding that attention, empathy, and reason cultivated in college are necessities for citizenship, not luxuries.” -- Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams
December 15, 2025
How the Past Has Undermined Higher Ed’s Present
Excerpts (links in the original):
[Discussion of what led colleges and universities to build expensive buildings and increase the pipeline of students -- in-person and online -- who, in turn, have provided large amounts of money as a result of their student tuition, fees and debt.]
“The bottom line is that student loans were paying for the expansion and upkeep of many campuses long after the business model made sense. When one takes a hard look at what student-loan borrowing has wrought, the Trump administration’s turning off the spigot -- or at least drastically slowing the flow by capping Parent Plus loans and phasing out income-driven repayment options -- makes a certain sense....
“Every student is a pipeline to federal money. Enrolling more students gets the institution more money. And it worked for many years....
“The president who survives the coming shakeout will be the one who abandons the prestige theater [that Joshua Travis Brown documents in his book Capitalizing on College: How Higher Education Went From Mission Driven to Margin Obsessed] and focuses solely on delivering a human experience of smaller classes, deeper faculty relationships, more intensive advising, and the kind of high-touch education that used to occur on the picturesque campuses. This will be, of course, more expensive than chasing new students, and not every institution will be able to survive. It may be that the ones who don’t were simply delaying the inevitable.” ...
Full op-ed by U Utah Prof. Hollis Robbins at Real Clear Education as reprinted from Chronicle of Higher Education.
And from our November 24, 2025 Newsletter:
“At Stanford, this would mean implementing a more personalized education and possibly also copying Oxford, Cambridge and others by reducing the undergraduate degree to three years instead of four. It might also mean postponing the increases already underway in Stanford’s undergraduate enrollment (as one alum has noted, if you add 200 to 250 to each entering class, per the article following this one, that means an increase in the undergraduate population at the end of four years by 800 to a thousand or more but with no announced increases in student housing or tenure-line faculty).
“What might be done instead would be to significantly improve the quality of residential education while at the same time redirecting Stanford’s high administrative costs per student to resources devoted instead solely to undergraduate teaching. In this regard, see ‘Warning Signs in the Numbers’ at our Stanford Concerns webpage including Stanford's $48,231 annual administrative cost per student (and that's solely for central administrative services and not student or similar services), an unfavorable ratio of faculty to students as compared to peer institutions and a surprisingly low percentage of Stanford alumni who are donating as also compared to peer institutions.”
What Broke University Science?
Excerpts:
“I became a scientist because I was drawn to difficult questions. As a child, I searched for patterns and tried to uncover the deeper logic behind everyday phenomena. That instinct carried me into chemistry and physics, then into a PhD at MIT, where I worked at the intersection of biophysics, engineering, computation, and early AI....
“Over nearly 20 years I published over 200 papers, becoming one of the world’s most highly cited scholars, received teaching awards, collaborated across disciplines, contributed to biotechnology, and advised the National Institutes of Health.
“I also assumed -- naively -- that scientific accomplishment offered a degree of protection. If you did good work, if you advanced understanding, institutions would support you. There were early warning signs: jealousy from senior colleagues when my research outpaced theirs; the creeping politicization of academia; hiring and leadership decisions that elevated people for their symbolic value or personal relationships rather than their expertise. But I did what most scientists do: I focused on the work and ignored the noise.
“It took far too long to understand how misplaced that belief was. My awakening came through something ordinary: an authorship dispute between two members of my lab at Duke’s medical school, where I was a tenured professor. These disagreements happen in every lab and are typically resolved with a straightforward conversation. But this dispute unfolded when universities were reframing their missions around social-justice narratives about power imbalances, recasting accomplished scientists as oppressors and others as oppressed....
“The process quickly detached from reality. Administrators launched what they called a culture review, claiming they needed to assess whether I was aligned with Duke’s values. In practice, investigators interrogated people for hours, attempting to elicit any negative phrasing that could be stitched into a narrative....
“After a couple months of interviews, audits, and surveillance, the investigation concluded with no findings of misconduct. But the damage had already been done. Years of work were disrupted, the careers of my trainees derailed, and student protests about my treatment ignored -- even as other forms of activism were eagerly embraced. Eventually I was pressured to sign a compact containing conditions and monitoring requirements that would have made any serious research impossible....
[Followed by discussion of the rise of economic pressures at universities and their affiliated medical centers and including from NIH.]
“Roles that were once part-time service positions for accomplished scientists became full-time managerial jobs occupied by people with little or no scientific background. Decision-making moved away from faculty and into opaque administrative bodies insulated from accountability....
“The consequences extend far beyond the university. Journals and scientific societies, beholden to the same incentives, reflect the same distortions. Chronic disease rates continue to rise because the scientific areas most relevant to prevention have been neglected. Basic research in nutrition, metabolism, environmental exposures, and physiology is decades behind where it should be, hampering progress in aging and public health....
“If universities and their medical centers want to regain public trust, they must demonstrate that knowledge and learning -- not image management -- are once again the point of academic life. If they fail, new institutions will rise to take their place.
“Science will continue somewhere; curiosity will find a home. The only question is whether our universities will remain worthy of it.”
Full op-ed by former Duke Prof. Jason Locasale at Brownstone.
See also “What Happened to Me” by Jason Locasale at Substack: “Altogether, Duke had spent millions disrupting my research lab and I had lost years of work. These are administrators with mid to high 6 or 7 figure salaries paid to do this.”
See also at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage “Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's Opening Statement at His Senate Confirmation Hearing to Lead NIH -- Five Goals if Confirmed as Head of NIH” and “Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya: The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists, and We Fought Back.”
Why We Should Worry About Europe’s Speech Restrictions
Editor’s note: Several years ago, it was one of our readers who first brought to our attention the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) and related entities. Our initial reaction was that the concerns were overstated and not relevant for purposes of our Newsletters and website. Within weeks, we realized we were totally wrong and that somehow Stanford was taking the lead, through the SIO, in censoring emails, blogs, social media and even traditional news articles that government and private parties did not want published, especially regarding the 2020 election and then the causes of and responses to Covid. Among other things, see at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage “House Judiciary Committee Letter to Stanford Dated October 22, 2025 Regarding Alleged Censorship Activities” and “Stanford’s Prior Roles in Censoring the Web.”
SIO has now been dismantled although we understand Stanford is still spending money on lawyers defending SIO’s past actions, most likely because the employment contracts with previous SIO staff members require that Stanford pay their legal costs.
Since these prior censorship activities in the U.S. have been significantly reduced and even eliminated, the concern now is that U.S. nonprofits and others are coordinating with European governments and non-governmental agencies to restrict speech there and with the expectation that the prohibitions established in Europe can then be exported to the U.S., notwithstanding the protections otherwise provided by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
It is with that background that we present this mere sample of recent articles from third parties (links in the originals).
Civilizational Suicide Behind Europe’s Demand for Censorship
“[Two weeks ago,] the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s X €140 million for, it says, breaking laws requiring social media transparency. Specifically, said the Commission, which is the executive branch of the European Union, X broke the law by making its blue checkmarks available to anyone, failing to make its advertising repository transparent, and failing to provide researchers with special access to its data. ‘Today’s decision has nothing to do with content moderation,’ insisted the Commission’s spokesperson.
“In truth, the Commission’s fine has everything to do with ‘content moderation,’ which is censorship. The EU wants X to give its data to government-selected ‘researchers’ so they can identify which posts and advertisements should be censored. This is a censorship-by-proxy strategy [including discussion of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project, the latter two of which were largely run by the Stanford Internet Observatory]. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from 2020 to 2022, and Europe today, have authorized government-funded NGOs to demand censorship of social media platforms in an attempt to deceive the public.
“As such, the European Commission is spreading disinformation in order to demand censorship, and is openly engaged in a deception campaign aimed at confusing the people of Europe and the United States about what it is doing.” ...
Full op-ed by Michael Shellenberger at Substack.
Europe Fires a Speech Warning
“The Digital Services Act, the European Commission’s content control law developed across multiple stages dating to the mid-2010s, has finally become fully operational, in Star Wars parlance. Officials announced a long-threatened €120 million (about $140 million) fine of Elon Musk’s X platform, with the major offenses being the use of a ‘deceptive’ check mark program and failure to ‘provide researchers with access to the platform’s public data.’
“The fine comes at a strange time. A few weeks ago, the EC began a public campaign of walking back its biggest censorship initiatives, thanks to a growing belief that its stifling regulatory environment was costing Old-World companies a chance to compete for investment in AI technology.” ...
Full op-ed by Matt Taibbi at Substack.
Is Germany Previewing America's Speech Future?
“On November 26th, three armed police officers in Berlin showed up at the door of American playwright and author C.J. Hopkins brandishing a search warrant. Having already charged and issued a ‘punishment order’ to Hopkins two summers ago essentially over the satirical use of a swastika on the cover of his book The Rise of the New Normal Reich -- it’s in a white-on-white medical mask, mocking pandemic authorities -- officials returned with a new theory. After questioning him and his wife, they searched the place for evidence that Hopkins is indeed the publisher of his book and the operator of his Consent Factory blog, where the book is promoted.
“‘Basically, distributing and promoting my book is a crime in Germany, at least according to the District Prosecutor,’ Hopkins explains.” ...
Full op-ed by Matt Taibbi at Substack.
Free Speech Wobbles in the U.K.
“Britain has no equivalent to the First Amendment, but the common law tradition of England and Wales has long respected free speech as a so-called ‘negative right,’ a right that the government respects by not taking action for or against. In 1998, the U.K.’s adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which it remains subject despite Brexit, required legally defined free speech, which arrived in the U.K.’s Human Rights Act, passed the same year. The ECHR provides that all individuals have 'the right to freedom of expression,' including the 'freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference.'
“In recent years, however, Britain has mimicked the EU’s more proactive approach to ‘hate speech’ and other subjective content to police what people say and, increasingly, post online. In 2003, a new law, the Communications Act, broadly prohibited undefined ‘malicious communications’ and made it a criminal offense to ‘persistently make use of a public electronic communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’ -- all highly subjective categories. The act also authorized a new national regulatory agency, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), to monitor all forms of communication for illegal content. In other words, the law prohibited vague speech offenses and then empowered a government agency to police them.
“Over time, Britain’s speech authorities have become more powerful while the offenses have become more vague. According to Rowley, prohibited communications include ‘incitement, stirring up racial hatred, [and] numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material.’ In practice, this has led to thousands of arrests and prison sentences for social media posts, publicly displayed signs, shared memes, personal insults, and even prayers by pensioners.”...
Full article at Tablet.
Free Speech Under Attack in the U.K.
“British authorities are not slouching in enforcement. According to police records analyzed by the London Times, over 12,000 Britons per year are arrested for speech-related offenses -- an average of 30 per day and nearly a fourfold increase over the 2016 figure. Recent cases have reportedly included arrests for derogatory comments about migrants, displays of the national flag that others found offensive, and even silent prayer near abortion clinics. Since 2014, police can record comments merely perceived as offensive as so-called ‘non-crime hate incidents,’ which remain on the offending party’s record even if no charges are filed.
“Britain’s free speech laws have an international dimension, as Vice President J. D. Vance observed earlier this year, when he noted that they could affect U.S. companies and individuals. The Online Safety Act imposes a heavy burden on platforms of any nationality -- though most are, of course American -- to remove content that the U.K. considers criminal. Noncompliance can result in a fine of 10 percent of the offending company’s net global revenue, up to a maximum penalty of £18 million.” ...
Full op-ed at City Journal.
Other Articles of Interest
The Importance of a Liberal Education
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Real Clear Education: “The ivory tower is collapsing, and perhaps that's as it should be. What we're building isn't a tower but a bridge between contemplation and action, tradition and innovation, mind and world. Our students don't need refuge from reality. They need the intellectual courage to remake it.”
See also “Liberal Education as Civic Education” by U Tulsa Prof. Jennifer Frey at Jack Miller Center.
Pro-Hamas Students Aren't the Source of Campus Antisemitism
Full op-ed by UC Santa Cruz Prof. Emeritus John Ellis and former UC Santa Cruz Prof. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin at WSJ: “Administrators have to address the root cause -- faculty who have politicized their academic programs and departments.”
How Federal Red Tape Is Driving Up College Costs
Full article at Real Clear Education.
How Shall Academic Freedom Be Defined?
Full interview with UNC faculty assembly chair Wade Maki at James Martin Center.
National Association of Scholars Applauds House Bills to Combat Foreign Influence in Schools
Full op-ed at NAS website.
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.
AI Wearable Device Aims to Improve Mindfulness
New Course Builds Practical Skills for Emotional Resilience
Experts Cut Through the Noise to Clarify AI's Actual Economic Impact
(Video trailer, 3:26 minutes)
**********
"Institutions thrive when they cultivate disagreement, not when they suppress it.” -- Stanford School of Humanities & Sciences Dean Debra Satz
December 8, 2025
Now Is the Time to Fix the Office of Community Standards
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Stanford has a new leadership team, so now is the time to address a years’ long problem at the Office of Community Standards (OCS) that has been an affront to the core values of our University for at least 15 years. To her credit, Provost Jenny Martinez has already acted aggressively, recently appointing law professor Larry Marshall as Interim Director at OCS. Marshall has the requisite background, and skill sets to bring about needed changes. Members of both the undergraduate and graduate senate have also taken up the cause this school year.
“In 2011, two other alumni and I represented three students in a cheating case processed through what was then Stanford’s Judicial Affairs Office (JAO; now known as the OCS).
“All of our three clients were acquitted in November 2011. As their representatives, all of whom have substantial administrative law experience, we were appalled at the inability of JAO employees to follow the University’s Judicial Charter and provide any semblance of a fair hearing.
“Our group of alumni volunteered to work with the JAO to improve their systems. They referred the matter to the Office of the General Counsel headed, then and now, led by Debra Zumwalt. The attorney assigned to work with us said that General Counsel’s Office would be pleased to do so if we all started with the same predicate which she described as: ‘This is a discipline system designed to correct bad behavior.’
“The problem with her predicate is that it reflects a presumption of guilt of anyone that goes into the system. Our three students were all acquitted. Why were they in what the University referred to then, and even oftentimes now, as a ‘discipline system’?
“We were so troubled by the despicable treatment of the students, and this presumption of guilt that permeated the processing of these cases, that we prepared a 62-page, single spaced Case Study of that case identifying 99 distinct errors, mistakes or violation of student rights in the course of OCS’s handling of the matter.
“Only when it became clear that administrators and others had no interest in improving the system, did we provide the Case Study to The Stanford Daily, 18 months after we first started our efforts to make that process fair. The Daily highlighted the Case Study in a front-page story on May 13, 2013.
“We took the undisputed facts of that Case Study to every level of the University, including the Provost and the President, as well as select Trustees. With no interest from anyone, we issued our second report entitled: 2013 Internal Review of Stanford University’s Office of Judicial Affairs. Both reports are still online....
“In the 2021-22 school year, Stanford student Katie Meyer was involved in a seven-month OCS investigation. She took her own life in March 2022, the night she received a charge letter from that office. In the ESPN documentary that aired in May of this year ('Save: The Katie Meyer Story') her family shared that her laptop was opened to the letter from the OCS when she took her last breath....
“Students are transitory. Alumni are not. Our group is still here, and we have now spent 14 years trying to protect students. We ought to be able to resolve the myriad of issues at OCS without asking the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to initiate a full scale investigation.
“A wrongful conviction at OCS goes on a student’s permanent record. That wrongful conviction then has the potential to destroy your life dreams before you even have a chance to pursue them.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum Bob Ottilie at Stanford Daily.
See also “Control of Student Life Must Be Restored to Stanford's Students” at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage, especially paragraphs 2.e. through k. re our own proposed reforms to the student disciplinary process.
See also “Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior” at our Stanford Concerns webpage including PDF documents about the abuses of systems like this.
Stanford Loves Innovation, Its Bureaucracy Does Not
Excerpts (links in the original):
“I can still picture myself at 18: bright-eyed and bushy tailed, hunched over my Stanford supplemental essays and meticulously typing and deleting words as if my future depended on every sentence. I dreamed of an education built not just on classes but the un-manufacturable serendipity of being surrounded by the brightest young minds on the planet. Before I even stepped on campus, I believed, wholeheartedly, in the vision of an education shaped by community. And that belief carried me here.
“As I write this, I’m heading into my final week at Stanford, which feels surreal to put into words.... Founding Stanford Sustainable Investment Group (SSIG) -- now the university’s largest climate organization -- and helping organize Stanford Climate Week became my way of building the climate ecosystem I wish had existed when I first pictured Stanford.
“But in the process of trying to build that kind of vibrant, student climate community, I ran headfirst into the countless layers of institutional bureaucracy that quietly shape campus life. Again and again, I found myself fighting tooth and nail for things that were objectively positive for the student body. Things that should’ve been easy, obvious and even welcomed somehow became uphill battles.
“Take something as simple as booking a room. For Stanford Climate Week -- a series of educational panels and speaker events on topics like climate innovation, energy abundance, career pathways and nature-based solutions -- our student team had to fundraise and pay thousands of dollars just to reserve campus spaces. $5,650, to be exact, for events that aligned squarely with the University’s own academic mission and attracted over 1,300 individuals from across the Bay Area. And let’s not even mention the countless back and forth email chains with administrators and the outdated booking systems.
“Even more perplexing, we were required to hire a designated vendor to place chairs in those rooms -- a service that brought total costs past $7,000 -- because students are not permitted to set up the chairs themselves.....
“I’m writing this because these experiences reveal institutional flaws in how Stanford supports -- or fails to support -- student initiatives. If it takes thousands of dollars to book rooms, if student groups are unable to accept funding and if administrative infrastructure can’t keep pace with the urgency and ingenuity of students, something is off. Bureaucracy goes from a safeguard against risk to a bottleneck stifling creativity and bias to action.” ...
Full op-ed by Stanford recent graduate and current masters student Samir Chowdhury at Stanford Daily.
See also “Warning Signs in the Numbers” at our Stanford Concerns webpage including 15,340 non-teaching personnel (19,169 if you add clinical and SLAC staff) as compared to 2,345 total faculty (1,738 of whom are members of the Academic Council) and 17,469 total students; also, highest administrative costs per student of any U.S. university at $48,231 annually per student, and that is solely for central administration and does not cover staff for student services, housing and similar activities.
See also "From a Current Undergraduate Student: Stanford's Bureaucracy Undermines the University's Academic Mission" at our Stanford Concerns webpage as reprinted from Stanford Review, includiing this excerpt:
“Former Provost John Etchemendy, in an interview with the Review, has been candid in his assessment of the university’s bloat. ‘When I first came to Stanford, I just felt that if you had a good idea, you could do it at Stanford -- anything was possible,’ Etchemendy said. ‘And now people will say that Stanford is a no-can-do university.’ Faculty and students alike are drowning in a sea of red tape. Processes that should take minutes, such as the procurement of services for campus events, now drag on for weeks, weighed down by unnecessary layers of approvals and oversight.
“As one university insider put it, ‘Its [administrative size] has grown too much. And it's actually hampering the mission of the university.’ These layers of inefficiency don’t enhance the university -- they actively harm it.”
See also Section 3 of our Back to Basics webpage, “Stanford’s Administrative Bureaucracy Must Be Reduced Significantly and Immediately in Both Size and Costs.”
Ten Goals for Campus Leaders
[Editor’s note: Four years ago, a group of Princeton alumni created Princetonians for Free Speech in order to start a discussion about policies and procedures that were increasingly working against campus free speech and academic freedom. Princetonians for Free Speech is now approaching 20,000 members which is close to a third of Princeton's living undergraduate alumni. Their founders subsequently helped create a nationwide network of similar entities, the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, and of which Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking is a member entity. In their recent annual report, Princetonians for Free Speech highlighted ten goals for Princeton's leaders and which we commend to Stanford’s leaders as well.]
Excerpts, and where the word "university" is substituted at times for "Princeton":
-
Protect the reputation of the university and its commitment to diversity of viewpoints by adopting as a core principle an institutional policy such as the Kalven Report.... [See our own compilation of the Kalven Report here.]
-
Eliminate the use of DEI statements for faculty hiring, promotion and funding throughout the university. As compelled speech, such statements are ideological litmus tests that incentivize insincerity as they undermine freedom of expression.
-
Develop a comprehensive program to teach all students about the university's policies. These actions should include: A required freshman orientation program that explains the university's commitment to freedom of expression and its policies around respectful disagreement....
-
Develop a program led by faculty whereby all university faculty, particularly those in leadership roles, affirm and celebrate the university’s commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom....
-
Adopt principles for academic appointment similar to those embodied in the University of Chicago’s Shils Report, which prioritizes academic excellence in research and teaching.... [See our own compilation of the Shils Report here.]
-
Educate and train all administrators on the importance of free expression and viewpoint diversity. Administrators have an outsized and widely criticized influence on the student experience. They are likely to lack appreciation for freedom of thought and viewpoint diversity, and they often act to create restrictive boundaries on what they deem to be acceptable speech and expression....
-
Work with faculty to encourage academic and administrative departments to post statements in support of freedom of expression, academic freedom and viewpoint pluralism that resemble the departmental commitment to diversity and anti-racism. Faculty should be required to communicate that sharing private classroom discussion for the purpose of inviting external attention, ridicule or harassment is strictly forbidden. This rule should be made explicit in the honor code.
-
The university should establish a free-standing ombuds office specifically dedicated to examining claims of breaches of free speech protections....
-
Reform the university's anonymous reporting system to ensure transparency, prompt notification, a right of rebuttal, and swift rejection of all complaints against First Amendment protected speech.... [These concerns very much exist at Stanford; see, for example, paragraphs 2.i, j. and k. at our Back to Basics webpage and “Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.]
-
Admissions reform: In marketing, recruitment and evaluation, the university should reform admissions to expand viewpoint diversity and reward open inquiry. Add recruitment efforts to encourage intellectual pluralism.” ...
Full text at Princetonians for Free Speech website.
Free Speech Requires a Pious Commitment
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Too many Americans who say they believe in free speech mean only their speech. Adopting progressive dogma, the Biden administration claimed that free speech had limits, and broadly suppressed dissenting views. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order to restore traditional (and constitutionally mandated) protections, but his administration’s adherence to that order has been situational....
“The Supreme Court explained that with few exceptions, the ‘First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content’ (Ashcroft v. ACLU), or because it is false (United States v. Alvarez), or because it is hateful (Matal v. Tam). The remedy is more speech that corrects the record (Whitney v. California)....
“The Trump administration’s efforts to regulate or defund universities that permit antisemitic speech or favor anti-Israel speakers is unconstitutional, though defunding universities that tolerate the intimidation of Jewish students is laudable. We don’t have to issue student visas to foreigners who oppose American principles, but once students arrive, unless they lied on their applications or commit crimes, deporting them for their distasteful views, as the administration apparently has sought to do, is inconsistent with American values....
“In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is ‘directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action’ and is ‘likely’ to do so....
“A majority of Americans believe government is the biggest threat to free speech. In 1783, George Washington warned that if ‘the Freedom of Speech may be taken away,’ then 'dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.' ..."
Full op-ed at Real Clear Politics.
A Solution to Campus Extremism
Excerpts:
“The ideological partisanship, dogmatism and bigotry on display in our society today are to some degree the fruit of our educational system. Too many college classrooms have become indoctrination camps....
“So what should we do? The answer isn’t complicated, but acting on it will take determination and courage. Colleges and universities must return to offering a rigorous liberal arts education that refuses to engage in indoctrination and challenges groupthink. College courses must actively cultivate the virtues of curiosity, open-mindedness, intellectual humility, analytical rigor and, above all, dedication to the pursuit of truth....
“...Twenty-five years ago, Princeton University authorized me to establish and direct a program in civic education dedicated to helping young men and women become determined truth seekers, courageous truth speakers, lifelong learners and responsible citizens.
“The James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions provides undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral scholars with the intellectual community, opportunities and resources to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of truth. We insist, as does the university, on intellectual honesty and integrity. But the program welcomes students of all points of view. There are no political, religious or secularist orthodoxies or litmus tests. We treat no perspectives as out of bounds, nor do we exempt any idea from being challenged. In short, everything is on the table. Ideas stand or fall on their merits.” ...
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Robert P. George at WSJ. See also the Stanford Civics Initiative.
Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Ideological Teaching in Higher Ed
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Most Americans say colleges should prioritize critical thinking and citizenship over political activism and ideological teaching, according to a new poll from Vanderbilt University.
“The survey of 1,033 U.S. adults, conducted Nov. 7-10, found that 90 percent believe developing the ‘ability to think more logically’ is very or most important for a college education.
“Fewer Americans support colleges getting involved in politics. Just 28 percent said universities should engage in broader political debates.
“Additionally, 85 percent said colleges should help students ‘get along with and understand people,’ and 80 percent supported strengthening students’ ability to be a ‘more useful citizen.’...”
Full article at Campus Reform.
Other Articles of Interest
College and University Leaders Discuss How Campuses Are Preparing for the Future
NY Times Deal Book panel consists of Stanford President Jon Levin along with Sian Leah Beilock (Dartmouth), Daniel Diermeier (Vanderbilt), Carmen Twillie Ambar (Oberlin), Ron Daniels (Johns Hopkins), James Harris (U San Diego) and SUNY (John B. King).
Full video at YouTube (1 hour 19 minutes).
Recent NBC Poll Shows Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Say College Degree Isn’t Worth the Cost
Full article at College Fix. See also “Overton Insights Poll Finds Just 14% of Voters Think Bachelor’s Degree Is Worth the Cost" at College Fix and “Most Americans Don’t See Value of Four-year College Degrees” at The Hill.
Meet the Millionaire Masters of Early Decision at Colleges
Full article at NY Times.
AI May Be Scoring Your College Essay; Welcome to the New Era of Admissions
Full article at AP. See also “Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Warns AI Could Think for Itself in Four Years” at Harvard Crimson.
The American Higher Education Restoration Act
Full text as PDF download at James Martin Center.
Peer Review Gone Wild
Full text as PDF download at James Martin Center.
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.
Why We Can’t Stop Clicking on Rage Bait
“Rage bait is the negative, vengeful cousin of clickbait. Where clickbait titillates your imagination with an alluring headline (‘You’ll never believe what happened next!’) that nudges you to click, rage bait engages negative emotions, often provoking you to make harsh comments.”
A Trustworthy AI Assistant for Investigative Journalists
Cancer-promoting DNA Circles Hitchhike on Chromosomes to Spread to Daughter Cells
Teen Video Game Addiction -- Five Things to Know
"What matters now isn’t AI prompt hacks but years of domain knowledge that let professors ask the right questions and teach students to do the same. As creation gets cheap, the premium shifts to human judgment, framing and ethical use that keep powerful tools productive rather than misleading.” -- Cal State Chico Professors Zach Justus and Nik Janos
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
November 24, 2025
Dear Readers: Thank you for being part of our community. We wish you a Thanksgiving filled with peace and gratitude.
***********
Is the Solution to AI a Return to Original Concepts of an Undergraduate Education?
Editor’s note: Prior Newsletters have included articles expressing concerns about how AI may be undermining current teaching methods. A number of the articles likewise have suggested that instead of looking for ways to detect and block student use of AI, AI should be seen as a partner in teaching combined with more direct interactions between faculty and students to assure students are mastering the material no matter how the students are learning that material. Which might mean more widespread use of tutorials and seminars as has been the case at Oxford and Cambridge which ironically were the models for our initial U.S. colleges.
At Stanford, this would mean implementing a more personalized education and possibly also copying Oxford, Cambridge and others by reducing the undergraduate degree to three years instead of four. It might also mean postponing the increases already underway in Stanford’s undergraduate enrollment (as one alum has noted, it you add 200 to 250 to each entering class, per the article following this one, that means an increase in the undergraduate population at the end of four years by 800 to a thousand or more but with no announced increases in student housing or tenure-line faculty).
What might be done instead would be to significantly improve the quality of residential education while at the same time redirecting Stanford’s high administrative costs per student to resources devoted instead solely to undergraduate teaching. In this regard, see "Warning Signs in the Numbers" at our Stanford Concerns webpage including Stanford's $48,231 annual administrative cost per student (and that's solely for central administrative services and not student or similar services), an unfavorable ratio of faculty to students as compared to peer institutions and a surprisingly low percentage of Stanford alumni who are donating as also compared to peer institutions.
As a start, Stanford might test the concept by offering an alternative curricular option for incoming as well as existing students.
With all of this in mind, we asked Google AI to describe a current Oxford undergraduate education and are reproducing below the response in its entirety:
* * * * * * * * * *
“An undergraduate education at Oxford is characterized by a strong emphasis on independent study, world-class experts, and a personalized tutorial system that involves weekly meetings with a tutor, often one-on-one, to discuss submitted work. Students supplement these tutorials with lectures, seminars, practical sessions, and extensive independent research, which can include lab work, fieldwork, and research opportunities, averaging around 40 hours of study per week.
“Key components of Oxford's undergraduate education:
-
Tutorial System: This is the core of the academic experience. Students meet with their tutor, an expert in the subject, to discuss written work, engage in in-depth discussion, and receive personalized feedback.
-
Lectures and Seminars: Students attend lectures that cover core topics and participate in seminars and practical sessions for specific skill development or in-depth topic exploration.
-
Independent Study: A significant portion of the learning is self-directed. Students are expected to conduct their own research, read widely, and develop their own knowledge and understanding of the subject.
-
World-Class Faculty and Resources: Students learn from academic experts, many of whom are world-leading researchers. They also have access to resources like laboratories and opportunities for fieldwork and research.
-
Course Structure: The majority of Bachelor of Arts degrees are three years long, though some, like language degrees with a year abroad, may be four years. Teaching takes place within central Oxford, in college or departmental buildings, though some courses may involve activities outside of Oxford.
6. Academic Divisions: The university is organized into four divisions: Humanities; Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences;
Medical Sciences; and Social Sciences.”
* * * * * * * * * *
We then asked ChatGPT to describe concerns facing the modern university and have posted at our Ask AI webpage a more complete response, including this ChatGPT-produced summary:
“The modern university’s drift can be summarized as:
-
From formation of the mind → To credentialing and job training
-
From truth-seeking → To knowledge production and research emphasis
-
From unified intellectual tradition → To hyper-specialization
-
From debate and disputation → To avoidance of intellectual risk
-
From small-scale collegial community → To large bureaucratic administration
-
From moral and intellectual formation → To therapeutic and consumer-oriented models
-
From great texts → To ephemeral trends and ideological agendas
-
From coherent mission → To multipurpose, multi-agenda institutions
-
From tutor-led thoughtfulness → To online modules and mass instruction
-
From intellectual humility → To institutional self-certainty
“What was once a community of scholars dedicated to cultivating free and rational minds has become a complex, bureaucratic, multi-purpose enterprise whose incentives often run counter to the original ideals of education.”
See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
Stanford Expands Access with Larger First-Year and Transfer Classes
Excerpts:
“This fall, Stanford University enrolled 1,866 first-year undergraduate students, representing a larger class than in recent years as the university takes steps to expand access to a Stanford education.
“In addition, Stanford enrolled the largest class of transfer students in recent memory, with 90 students coming from 76 colleges and universities, including 36 community colleges.
“In all, Stanford enrolled 196 more first-year and transfer students compared to last year, in an intentional effort to increase the class size to give a greater number of talented, exceptionally well-qualified students the opportunity to earn a Stanford degree. University leaders are studying possibilities to further expand future undergraduate classes in a significant way, while also preserving the experience of being a Stanford student....
“Families of undergraduates with annual incomes below $100,000 pay no tuition, room, or board, and those with incomes below $150,000 pay no tuition. Families with higher incomes also may receive aid based on their financial circumstances.
“The students composing the Class of 2029 took varied paths to arrive on campus: Two-thirds of domestic first-year students graduated from public high schools, and 20% of all new undergraduates are the first in their families to attend college. They speak 81 languages at home, and they represent all 50 states and 65 countries.” ...
Full article at Stanford Report.
See also Stanford Daily with data re racial composition, etc. See also “StanfordNext Project Devises Long-Term Campus Growth Initiative” at Stanford Daily.
An Online Loophole That Promotes Violence
Excerpts:
. . . .
“Outrage keeps us online. Fear generates clicks. Division sells. None of this is accidental; it is a system carefully designed. Social-media companies build products that thrive on our worst impulses and then hide behind the claim that they are neutral conduits for speech. But neutrality and manipulation can’t coexist....
“Legislation I am introducing with Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly will bring our legal code into the 21st century. The idea behind the Algorithm Accountability Act is simple: If companies use algorithms to influence the reach of content, they should bear responsibility when those algorithms negligently cause harm. We hold automakers accountable when a design flaw causes an accident. We hold pharmaceutical companies accountable when their products cause injury. There is no reason Big Tech should be treated differently.
“Some will raise the alarm that this threatens the First Amendment. It doesn’t. Free speech means you can say what you want in the digital town square. Social-media companies host that town square, but algorithms rearrange it. These algorithms decide who stands next to you, who shouts the loudest, and how often you hear the same angry echo until it drowns out everything else.” ...
Full op-ed by Utah Sen. John Curtis at WSJ.
Other Articles of Interest
From FIRE -- Three-Quarters of Americans Say Free Speech Is Headed in the Wrong Direction
Full article including graphs and charts at Substack: “From July of this year, Democrats who think things are heading in the right direction [regarding freedom of speech] fell from 17% to 11%, Independents fell from 31% to 19%, and Republicans fell from 69% to 55%.”
The Heckler’s Veto Is Killing Universities’ Credibility
Full op-ed by Cal State Long Beach Prof. Kevin Wallsten at Real Clear Education.
At This College, the English Dept. Is Out; ‘Human Narratives’ Is In
Full article at NY Times: “The departments of English, classics, philosophy, world languages and Spanish and Latino studies, for example, will be grouped into the tentatively titled School of Human Narratives and Creative Expressions. The psychology, linguistics, social work and religion departments will make up the School of Human Behavior and Well-Being.”
It’s the Wild West of College Sports
Full op-ed at WSJ by Cody Campbell, chair of the Texas Tech board of regents and former college football player: “We’re heading toward a place where college sports are going to become very, very small and very limited, and we’re going to lose something.”
Strengthening America's Education System to Secure Our Future
Full op-ed by Hoover director and Stanford Prof. Condoleezza Rice at Freedom Frequency: “Education is undoubtedly important for any country, but it is particularly important for the United States of America because we are not united by ethnicity, nationality, or religion. We are united by a creed -- a belief that it doesn’t matter where you came from, it matters where you are going.”
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.
GSB Deepens Its Commitment to AI
Reimagining the Future of Food
Light Causes Atomic Layers to Do the Twist
Lupus Is a Nearly Universal Virus with Selective Effects
Use of Machine Learning in Transplants
Type 1 Diabetes Cured in Mice with Gentle Blood Stem Cell and Pancreatic Islet Transplant
How Medications Change Our Gut Microbiome
**********
"Use your time to be curious, to explore, and to be grateful for the opportunities that are in front of you.” -- Stanford President Jon Levin
November 17, 2025
The Education of Service
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“My former student had just attended Condoleezza Rice’s Ogden Lecture at Brown. His words captured something I’ve seen again and again as an educator: when young people meet real public servants instead of their social-media caricatures, cynicism gives way to curiosity.
“Like Cheney, Rice has long been flattened into a symbol, admired by some, despised by others, but rarely understood as a person shaped by conviction and duty. In today’s political echo chamber, such figures are treated as relics or villains. Yet when students actually hear them speak, they encounter something missing from modern public life: moral seriousness.
“At Brown, Rice traced her improbable journey from segregated Birmingham to the State Department, describing how mentors, discipline, and faith shaped her path. ‘We have a conceit,’ she told students, ‘that your mentors and your role models have to look like you… Sometimes you’ll be the first.’
“In a climate obsessed with identity, that line felt almost revolutionary; a reminder that leadership is measured by responsibility, not racial representation....
“My student described how classmates who had planned to boycott the lecture left inspired. ‘Ms. Rice surprised many with her charisma, her knowledge, and her care for the country,’ he wrote. ‘Some of us walked out wanting to be Secretary of State -- or at least to study international politics.'
“He added that a classmate summed it up simply: ‘I didn’t agree with every point she made, but it was an important experience to hear her talk.’
“Those are not partisan reactions; they are civic ones. They show what happens when universities foster engagement instead of insulation.” ...
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Real Clear Education.
See also "Levin and Rice Discuss Challenges for Universities in Era of Misinformation" at Stanford Daily.
Stanford’s Unsustainable Charade re Student Use of AI
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Somewhere between the launch of ChatGPT and the latest 'no-AI' syllabus clause, we’ve arrived at an absurd impasse: students hide their AI use, professors pretend not to notice, and universities collect six-figure tuition to sustain the fiction. With sources reporting as high as 90% of students now cheating using AI tools, we all clearly can't continue pretending that such uses are 'strictly prohibited,' as if policy statements could stop a technological tsunami. Everyone knows the truth, yet here we are, pretending the emperor is fully clothed when he's standing naked in the quad.
Thus far, the response to AI use has been dominated by largely ineffective attempts to police cheating, rather than acclimating to the new reality. Research keeps showing that AI detectors are 'neither accurate nor reliable,' since light paraphrasing of AI-generated text breaks most systems. Vanderbilt publicly disabled Turnitin's AI detector after months of testing, and the University of Pittsburgh's teaching center followed suit, warning that current detectors create unacceptable false positives. Inside Higher Ed reports that Montclair State, UT Austin, and Northwestern told faculty not to rely on detectors. As University of Adelaide professors concluded: ‘We should assume students will be able to break any AI-detection tools, regardless of their sophistication.’ The only result of policing was forcing students to reword LLM-generated text or nudge code style.
“Perhaps the greatest irony in all this is that developing the ability to work more efficiently with AI is actually a highly in-demand skill.... The only rational way forward is to stop fighting AI and assimilate it into education.” ...
Full op-ed at Stanford Review.
See also “Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on Campus” at Inside Higher Ed: “Survey data shows a majority of college students are aware of appropriate AI use cases in the classroom because their instructors -- not administrators -- set the expectations.”
See also “Teaching Responsible Use of GenAI in Graduate Studies” at Times Higher Education.
The Decline of the Great American Research University
Excerpts (links in the original):
“American universities are heading downwards in a spiral of self-delusion. They still talk about their commitment to excellence, their great achievements, their leadership of the world of science, but they lament the damage that President Trump has inflicted, is inflicting, or is about to inflict on them....
“The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s response to ‘government activity’ put it similarly:
‘MIT continues to press forward with its vital research and education mission, including on topics such as human health, energy innovation, quantum computing, advanced manufacturing, and other areas important to national security, economic competitiveness, and quality of life for all Americans.’
“The cold reality, however, is that American university research, particularly in the sciences, began to decline decades ago, and Trump had nothing to do with it. The decline was largely self-inflicted....
“Americans generally focus on the domestic rankings published by U.S. News and World Report, and maybe some business-school rankings, the Princeton Review, or even the alternative Washington Monthly rankings. When they look at global rankings, they usually see only the 'big four': the Shanghai Rankings (aka the Academic Ranking of World Universities); the U.S. News Best Global Universities; the QS; and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, the latter two of which are published in the United Kingdom....
“But this is a deceptive story. Those four rankings are not the entirety of the global-ranking scene. There are a dozen others, generally published by universities or research centers, that rely on publicly available sources rather than surveys or data submitted by institution....
[Followed by discussion of methodologies used in ranking universities worldwide.]
“At the same time, the recruitment and promotion of faculty has been seriously compromised. At University of California campuses and other institutions, prospective faculty were until recently subject to political loyalty oaths in the form of diversity statements. In the social sciences and in pharmacology and medical research, there are signs of a widespread crisis of replicability.
"In contrast, the leading Chinese universities have maintained rigorously meritocratic policies....
“So, the relentless process continues. Every year American researchers produce relatively fewer papers, and their quality declines while Chinese universities produce relatively more papers and more high-quality papers in science and engineering. The process is especially apparent in fields like physics, robotics, and artificial intelligence. And so the scientific world is about to face a dramatic shift in its center of gravity.”
Full op-ed at Chronicle of Higher Education.
But see also “America’s Universities Are National Security Assets” at Inside Higher Ed: “The vast majority of our 4,000-odd colleges and universities (including the elite ones) are hardly the ivory towers so associated with so-called woke movements and high-profile culture wars. Many, in fact, are the R&D labs of our national security infrastructure.”
See also our compilation of the Shils Report regarding the recruitment and promotion of faculty and as long posted at our Chicago Trifecta webpage.
Harvard Has an Ethics Problem
Excerpts:
“‘Should I let go of my Zionist friends?’ asks an anonymous Harvard student. A Harvard Crimson editor responds: yes, the student is entitled to end those friendships.
“What sounds like a thoughtful meditation on friendship and conviction instead reads like a dispatch from a campus that no longer knows what truth is -- or what friendship requires. The anonymous student, Jewish and anti-Zionist, worries that his or her friends’ politics taint his or her certainty of their decency.
“It’s quintessentially Harvard: polished and cerebral, yet utterly vacuous. There is no effort to test the moral assumptions beneath the question. Is Zionism truly a moral stain? Can friendship survive deep disagreement? What do we owe to truth when feelings conflict with facts? None of this is considered.
“The result is bloodless relativism, where ethics are reduced to personal comfort and truth becomes optional. In miniature, it captures the intellectual and moral decay of elite higher education -- where moral reasoning has become branding, and virtue is measured by separation, not encounter....
[Followed by these topics: the death of viewpoint diversity, selective moral outrage, moral education without moral seriousness, why students are so fragile, from Harvard Yard to everywhere, the civic consequences, and recovering courage and truth.]
“Universities were once custodians of civilization -- places where intellect met humility, and freedom and truth were inseparable. If Harvard has forgotten this, others must remember: the smaller colleges, classical schools, and local communities that still believe argument is not division but the lifeblood of a free people. Because a nation that forgets how to argue will soon forget how to live together.
“The tragedy of the Crimson’s column is not that one student wonders about her friends. It’s that an entire institution has forgotten how to wonder rightly. Until Harvard rediscovers the meaning of Veritas (truth pursued through reasoned debate and friendship across difference) it will continue to mistake therapy for thought and virtue for vanity.
“And the rest of us will pay the price for its failure.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Minding the Campus.
Other Articles of Interest
On the Spectrum Between Free Speech and Cancel Culture, Where Are Today’s Colleges?
Full article at The Hill: “As political polarization intensifies, America’s colleges and universities face threats to free speech from both the left and right. Campus conservatives risk ostracization, shaming or social media mobbing for expressing unpopular views on hot-button identity and social justice issues. Complaints about progressive faculty periodically go viral, triggering torrents of online abuse. Students protesting Israel’s conduct in Gaza risk suspension, expulsion, arrest, doxxing and retraction of offers of employment.”
The College Kids Who Can’t Do Basic Math
Full article by Rhodes College undergraduate Tanner Nau at Free Press: "A report released last week by the University of California San Diego, which has about 45,000 students and is one of America’s highest-ranked public universities, said that the number of entering first-year students whose math skills fall below middle-school level ‘increased nearly thirtyfold’ from 2020 to 2025 -- to roughly one out of every eight new students.” Also covered at Newsweek.
How Yale Escaped the Crackdown on Higher Education
Full article at WSJ.
Higher Education Needs Receivership, Not Reforms
Full op-ed by UC Santa Cruz Prof. Emeritus John Ellis at WSJ.
The Perverse Impact of Grade Inflation
Full op-ed at WSJ.
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.
Why AI Still Struggles to Tell Fact from Belief
Be Careful What You Tell Your AI Chatbot
New Ultrasound Technique Could Help Aging and Injured Brains
**********
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.” -- George Orwell
November 10, 2025
The Global Free Speech Recession
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“The administration’s most alarming actions blur the distinction between protected and unprotected speech as well as words and violence. Right after the Kirk tragedy, Attorney General Pam Bondi said: ‘We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.’ Bondi later walked this statement back, saying that ‘Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.’ But since then, the administration has only continued to conflate protected speech with violence....
“There’s little subtlety here. The White House has flagged Americans it considers anti-American, anti-capitalist, or anti-Christian -- none of which the memo defines -- as potential national security threats. The president’s memo asserts a vast left-wing conspiracy to incite political violence and then directs the National Joint Terrorism Task Force and its local offices to ‘investigate all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies.’
“This guilt-by-association tactic is absolutely chilling in a free society....
“Two years ago, The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank at Vanderbilt University, released a report, ‘The Free Speech Recession Hits Home.’ The report analyzed free speech developments in 22 democracies between 2015 and 2022. It found something alarming: ‘Over 75 percent of the developments discussed are speech restrictive.’ ..."
[Followed by specific examples around the world.]
Full op-ed by FIRE Vice President Matthew Harwood at Substack and as originally published at Dispatch. For convenience, we also have posted a PDF copy of the Vanderbilt report referenced above, “Mapping Laws and Regulations Affecting Free Speech in 22 Open Democracies” at our Commentary from Others webpage.
Responding to Skepticism in Higher Education
Excerpt (link in the original):
“For months, the biggest headlines from American campuses have centered on legal battles with the Trump administration. These arise, in part, from growing public skepticism (especially, but not exclusively among conservatives) about U.S. campuses.
“Removed from these combative headlines -- and receiving far less attention -- are proactive steps being taken by many universities to get at the heart of concerns felt by many Americans.
“Presidents and senior leaders from nine of America’s private universities gathered on Oct. 7–8 in Washington, D.C., for discussions about what more could be done to ‘model healthy civic life and intellectual exchange’ on U.S. campuses.
“Convened by Jonathan Haidt’s Constructive Dialogue Institute, these universities included Brown University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University, Tufts University, Vanderbilt University and Yale University.
“Participants in the two-day summit worked to ‘develop innovative models for strengthening constructive dialogue, open inquiry and free expression in higher education.' ..."
[Followed by examples of actions being taken at various campuses.]
Full article at Deseret News. See also “Refining Trump’s Higher-Education Reform” by Hoover Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz at Real Clear Politics.
Universities Have a Logic Problem
Excerpts (link in the original):
“There is nothing like political ideology to create difficulties with thinking, and the situation worsens when it is channeled through institutions. Among the most pronounced sources of such difficulties, ironically, is the university....
“While our higher education tradition in America has brought us many successes, it is also creating problems, notably in how we think.
“That may be counterintuitive: On our college campuses, we tend to address what we think are serious problems seriously. In reality, they often become points of disagreement, stemming from differences in perception....
“One of the most reliable places in the university system to locate the logical problem of induction is in our law schools. Law, as practiced in academia, is especially vulnerable to such error because, among other problems, it systematically mixes law and politics as teaching content, thereby portraying law as an instrument of politics—and, by extension, of ideology—and ideology as an instrument of justice." ...
[Followed by specific examples of different faculty approaches.]
Full op-ed at Minding the Campus. See also “Academia Has a Freedom of Speech Problem That Starts with Professors” by Kansas State Prof. Emeritus Dennis Weisman at The Hill.
Faculty Face Widespread Punishment for Speech While Administrators and Unions Stay Silent
Excerpts (link in the original):
“The ideal of academic freedom has always rested on a simple promise: scholars must be free to pursue truth, wherever it leads. But new data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) show how far higher education has drifted from that ideal.
“In FIRE’s latest survey, an astonishing 94 percent of faculty reported suffering some negative consequence for their speech. These range from lost professional relationships (47 percent) and workplace shunning (40 percent) to seeking psychological counseling to cope with the fallout (27 percent) or even losing their jobs (20 percent).
“These are not isolated anecdotes. They describe a profession under siege....
“FIRE’s Sean Stevens put it plainly, stating, ‘Support for academic freedom should never depend on the views being expressed, but our survey shows that’s exactly what’s happening.’ His colleague Nathan Honeycutt added, ‘Cancellation campaigns are often wrapped in the language of preventing emotional harm. But it’s the mobs themselves that inflict lasting mental anguish on academics.’
“That’s the paradox of the modern campus. Speech is punished in the name of compassion. Administrators invoke ‘well-being’ as a justification for silencing, yet it’s dissenters -- not mobs -- who bear the real psychological cost. The result is a culture of timidity that corrodes the mission of higher education."...
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Minding the Campus.
Other Articles of Interest
Why FIRE Is Now Judging Bias-Reporting Systems More Harshly
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff at Substack. See also “Stanford’s Program re Bias” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
A European Threat to the First Amendment
Full op-ed at Law & Liberty.
The Free World Is Losing the Information War; Here’s How It Can Win
Full op-ed at West Point Modern War Institute: “A third of Americans do not believe the media should be able to report news without state censorship.... Nearly one in five believe the NATO alliance is no longer necessary.... At the core of each of these beliefs and many others are disinformation campaigns that overstate the dangers of free speech....”
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.
Interview of President Emeritus John Hennessy
Debunking Common Free Speech Myths
Academic Integrity Working Group Addresses Generative AI and Exam Policies
Five Things to Know About the Dangers of High Blood Pressure
Is There a Limit to Indoor Nature’s Benefits?
**********
“If the rising generation of students is taught, either implicitly or explicitly, to censor themselves or to despise those with different viewpoints, they will act accordingly in the public square after they graduate. But if they’re taught to debate vigorously -- with an exchange of arguments and evidence -- in pursuit of truth instead of victory at all costs, they’ll take that spirit of free speech and mutual respect into the public square.” -- UNC Prof. Jed W. Atkins
November 3, 2025
Is Stanford Getting Involved in Censorship Again?
Editor's note: We don’t know the answer to this question although the question has become relevant with the issuance of a letter dated October 22, 2025 to Stanford from the House Judiciary Committee. For reader convenience, we have posted a copy of this letter at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage along with a copy of the agenda for a conference held at Stanford on September 25 and 26 on the topic, although there also was an invitation-only event held the day before the public conference, that is, on September 24 and that is specifically referenced in the House letter and subsequent commentaries.
With issues like this resurfacing, we have long suggested, specifically in Section 4 of our Back to Basics webpage, that the proper role of a university is to engage in front-line, independent and scholar-based research and teaching. Hosting panels and conferences to discuss relevant issues can further that research and teaching, although one would expect strong viewpoint diversity to be expressed at any such panels and conferences. The concerns arise when a unit at Stanford -- including its 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities -- starts to engage in advocacy and implementation activities and with the Stanford name being used to give credibility to whatever is then being advocated and implemented. We leave it to readers to decide if that has happened here.
From the House Judiciary Committee letter:
“Foreign censorship laws, regulations, enforcement actions, and judicial orders may have the effect of limiting Americans’ ability to access constitutionally protected speech in the United States. In fact, this seems to be the intended effect of many foreign censorship efforts.... The Committee is concerned that Stanford, and specifically its Cyber Policy Center, may be one of the third parties engaged in assisting foreign governments attempting to suppress American speech.... This collaboration with foreign censorship officials is even more alarming in light of Stanford’s past efforts to facilitate domestic government censorship of lawful speech” [through its now-defunct Stanford Internet Observatory and related entities].
* * * * * * * * *
A week after issuance of this letter from the House Judiciary Committee, commentator Michael Shellenberger posted his own analysis of the potential concerns.
Excerpts:
“In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy address at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act....
“At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with ‘narratives’ expressing concern about the Covid vaccine....
“And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.
“On September 24 [2025], the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his ‘Project Liberty Institute,’ (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to ‘strengthen democracy’ and ‘foster responsible technology.’ ...
“A spokesperson for the Australian government said, ‘Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ ...
“Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (‘regulation’) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies....
“Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision?”
Full op-ed by Michael Shellenberger at X (October 28, 2025).
See also these related articles:
-
Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center Coordinates International Internet Censorship” at Stanford Review (October 29, 2025): “We urge Stanford to cease the promotion of censorship at home and abroad. Stanford should not be the ‘Lead Academic Partner’ advising foreign institutions on censoring their citizens. Free societies require free speech to flourish; universities must defend the conditions of open inquiry, not erode them. When universities abandon that duty, they imperil both academic freedom and the democratic values they claim to serve.”
-
"House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan Demands Stanford Turn Over Documents Relating to Foreign Censorship Scheme" at Substack (October 29, 2025).
-
“Great Britain Averages 12,000 Arrests Per Year for Online Speech” at All Sides (October 2, 2025).
-
"Civil Liberties Groups Say That the Authorities Are Over-policing the Internet" with detailed statistics and charts re number of arrests in the UK, cities with highest number of arrests, sentencing, etc. at Times of London (April 4, 2025).
-
“Digital Services Act -- Does Internet Regulation Threaten Freedom of Expression?” at Max Planck Institute (July 21, 2025).
-
“German-Style Internet Censorship Catches On Around the World” at Reason (October 12, 2020).
-
“Freedom on the Net” with detailed analysis and statistics of benefits versus restrictions at Freedom House (2024).
-
“Google Admits to Prior Censorship; Promises to End Bans of YouTube Accounts of Thousands of Americans Censored for Political Speech" at House Judiciary Committee website and including a link to letter from Google (September 23, 2025).
-
“Mark Zuckerberg Says Biden Officials Would 'Scream' and 'Curse' When Seeking Removal of Facebook Content” at NBC News (January 10, 2025).
-
“Zuckerberg Says He Regrets Caving to White House Pressure on Content” at Politico (August 26, 2024).
Sanctioned Scholars -- The Price of Speaking Freely in Today’s Academy
Excerpts (footnotes deleted):
. . . .
“In the classic model of a university, a professor does not simply transmit knowledge, but also is a guardian for and advocate of inquiry -- someone who models intellectual bravery. That ideal is under strain. Today, many faculty and scholars operate in a climate where speaking honestly may feel risky, and defending unpopular views dangerous. In such a climate, courage becomes a professional necessity.
“Since 2000, almost 1,700 scholars have faced sanctions over their speech, with more than 300 of these cases resulting in termination or forced resignation. These campaigns have been driven by both on-campus actors -- such as students, faculty, and administrators -- and off-campus groups, including activist organizations, politicians, and members of the general public. They have also come from all across the political spectrum....
“FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database independently tracks and documents the ways and reasons scholars in the United States have faced calls for sanction for their speech from 2000 to present. This database includes almost 1,700 documented sanction attempts, including a record number this year, with 300 of these attempts resulting in faculty terminations. Most of these incidents have occurred over the past decade.
“While these records provide ample detail about the incidents themselves, they tell us little about the personal experiences of the scholars targeted. To address this gap, FIRE invited 635 scholars listed in the database who were sanctioned or targeted between 2020 and 2024 to participate in a survey. Of these, 209 completed our survey, yielding a 33% response rate." ...
Full article at FIRE including detailed charts and quotes. A PDF copy of the full report can be downloaded here.
New Stanford Speaker Series for Civil Disagreement
Excerpt (links added):
“KIND Snacks founder Daniel Lubetzky JD ’93 launched the Stanford Builders Forum, a new speaker series intended to promote respectful civil dialogue across lines of disagreement, with a talk at Stanford Law School (SLS) on Oct. 8.
“The Forum comes as a gift from Lubetzky in an effort to increase sociopolitical dialogue on campus. As a program of ePluribus Stanford, an initiative by Provost Jenny Martinez aimed at enhancing student citizenship, Lubetzky’s donation will also support a new faculty fellow in Civic, Liberal and Global Education (COLLEGE), the first-year course requirement for students to navigate self-definition as citizens.
“Martinez and psychology professor Jamil Zaki joined Lubetzky on the panel, moderated by School of Humanities and Sciences Dean Debra Satz, sharing how their personal experiences navigating conflict reshaped their perspectives on communicating with others.
“‘My father was a Holocaust survivor,’ Lubetzky said. ‘When I was nine years old, he started talking to me about what he went through. He terrified me … I wanted to build bridges between people so that what happened to him would not happen to people.’” ...
Full article at Stanford Daily.
Teaching Critical Thinking in the Age of AI
Excerpt (links in the original):
“[A student wrote,] ‘In class, the professor was discussing binaries, but I didn't really understand what they were. I asked ChatGPT about it, and it helped me figure it out.’
“This is probably one of the most unsettling reflections I have ever read from a student. Yet as we struggle in higher education to figure out how to integrate AI into our classrooms, it is also one of the most exciting. I want to tell you how I have finally -- after three long years of experimentation and wanting to give up -- figured it out: I’ve basically made AI my co-instructor.” ...
Full op-ed by Merrimack College Prof. Dan Sarofian-Butin at Real Clear Education.
Other Articles of Interest
Universities Can’t Pursue Truth Without Viewpoint Diversity
Full op-ed by Brown U Prof. Emeritus John Tomasi and NYU Prof. Jonathan Haidt at Inside Higher Ed.
Colleges Face a Financial Reckoning; U Chicago Is Exhibit A
Full article at WSJ. See also our Stanford Concerns webpage for data on Stanford’s administrative and other costs and Sections 3 and 4 of our Back to Basics webpage with suggestions for addressing those costs.
Despite Naysayers and Rising Costs, Data Shows That College Still Pays Off for Students and for Society Overall
Full op-ed by Columbia Prof. Stanley S. Litow at The Conversation.
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.
Common Crystal Proves Ideal for Low-temperature Light Technology
The Antidote to Loneliness Might be Recognizing How Much Others Care
Eye Prosthesis Is the First to Restore Sight Lost to Macular Degeneration
**********
October 27, 2025
Beyond the Research University
Excerpts:
. . . .
“During World War II, Vannevar Bush ran the Office of Scientific Research and Development, which funded research for radar, guided missiles and even the Manhattan Project. In July 1945, he published a report to the president titled ‘Science: The Endless Frontier,’ writing that ‘scientific progress is essential’ to promote national security and public welfare. To achieve this, he wrote, the U.S. must ‘foster the opening of new frontiers’ by doing ‘basic research in the colleges, universities, and research institutes.’
“This was a brilliant idea, and it worked for decades. The list of successful university research is astounding. Start with Gatorade and work your way up (computing, mRNA, air bags). Students and professors make for cheap research labor. Even today, post doctorates toil at universities doing biotech research before being hired by drug companies....
“‘I think universities have become detached from society and from reality as well,’ Hoover Institution director Condoleezza Rice says in a podcast interview. ‘People take for granted some of the innovations that have come out of universities.’ True. Colleges also take for granted why we do research at universities in the first place. Change is needed....
“But who will step in? A public company can’t just fund billions for new quantum models or moon-shot cancer drugs without incurring losses, which would annoy shareholders. Universities can do basic research all day long because they aren’t in the business of generating income.
“What we need is a new type of research organization with tax advantages and the ability to incur losses -- call it a Basic Research Entity, or BRE. It could hire researchers or even contract out to universities. It would be directed by corporations and government, with funding coming from corporate, government, venture-capital and even philanthropic sources. Intellectual property would be held in the BRE. No tax liability until the commercialization phase, much like today. Researchers could own a piece of future royalties.
“The government gets what it wants -- basic research, disease cures -- and companies get new product ideas and access to patents, cutting out the university middleman.
“Other models could work too.” ...
Full op-ed at WSJ.
The UVA Model for Settling with the Federal Government
Excerpt:
“Universities have been in fight mode with the Trump Administration, but it doesn’t have to be that way. On Wednesday [October 22, 2025] the University of Virginia signed an agreement with the Justice Department that pauses all federal investigations against the school, without an enormous ransom or coercive new mandates.
“The agreement specifies that UVA and the government ‘affirm the importance of and their support for academic freedom.’ It says the agreement should not be read as ‘giving the United States authority to dictate the content of academic speech or curricula.’ That’s an important note for intellectual independence.
“In return, UVA ‘acknowledges its obligation as a public institution,’ supported by federal funds, ‘to maintain admissions, employment, discipline and speech policies and practices that prevent the suppression of speech and discrimination based on political viewpoint.’ Under the new agreement, Virginia also pledges to meet the standards laid out as ‘best practices’ in the Administration’s July guidance for schools that take federal funding.” ...
Full editorial at WSJ. See also articles at NY Times and Washington Post. See also “How the Compact Curtails Academic Freedom” by former Stanford law school dean and Prof. Emeritus Paul Brest at Inside Higher Ed.
Vanderbilt Didn’t Accept or Reject the Compact; the Chancellor Plans to Provide Feedback Instead
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Vanderbilt University’s leader posted a response to the compact on Monday [October 20], taking a markedly different tack.
“Whereas presidents for seven out of the nine original recipients of the compact explicitly stated they were declining to sign the document as written, Daniel Diermeier, Vanderbilt’s chancellor, wrote, ‘Despite reporting to the contrary, we have not been asked to accept or reject the draft compact. Rather, we have been asked to provide feedback and comments as part of an ongoing dialogue, and that is our intention.’...
“Diermeier has drawn attention in recent months for imploring higher education to change, though he hasn’t endorsed the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics. He has been especially adamant about rejecting 'creeping politicization' and embracing institutional neutrality -- the idea that colleges should not take positions on current events -- which is included in the compact.”...
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education. See also our compilation of the Chicago Trifecta re free speech, institutional neutrality and standards for the hiring and promotion of faculty.
What College Rankings Are Missing
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Inscribed upon the exterior of Harvard Yard’s Dexter Gate are the words, ‘Enter to grow in wisdom,’ while the gate’s interior admonishes those leaving: ‘Depart to serve better thy country and thy kind.’ ...
“These are beautiful aspirations, which our institutions of higher learning are right to strive for. Nonetheless, our evaluations and rankings of colleges and universities frequently neglect these matters....
“In a chart we have prepared, one can take a glance at how students at the 429 institutions providing at least 50 respondents each see their college’s contributions. Harvard falls about in the middle of the pack for average scores on these four questions. While this is a far cry from Harvard’s dominant place in conventional rankings of colleges, it is nonetheless considerably better than we do in the Foundation for Individual Rights of Expression’s annual free speech rankings. The two issues -- student formation and academic freedom -- are also closely linked. As we have argued at length elsewhere, virtues such as patience, courage, justice, and humility are not only important in their own right, but are also crucial for achieving the University’s primary academic goals of education and research. Without courage, students will struggle to express controversial views in or out of class, while without patience, justice, or humility, they will struggle to give those they disagree with a fair and impartial hearing.” ...
Full op-ed and chart by Harvard Prof. Tyler J. VanderWeele and Associate Director for Research Brendan W. Case at Harvard Crimson.
Other Articles of Interest
As More Question the Value of a Degree, Colleges Fight to Prove Their Return on Investment
Full article at Hechinger Report.
Interest in American MBA Programs Shrinks, but Schools Across Asia Are Booming
Full article at WSJ.
Harvard Cuts PhD Admissions by 60% to 75%
Full article at Harvard Crimson.
How English Departments Became Broken
Full op-ed at James Martin Center.
Can VR Teach Students Ethics?
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
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.
How Stanford Is Bringing AI Into the Classroom
Why Wall Street Is Booming While Main Street Is Stagnating
Roadmap for the Future of Sustainability Education
What Does It Take to Bridge Differences?
Exercise -- The Most Powerful Drug We’ve Ever Known
Two New Therapies for Treating Prostate Cancer Without Surgery, Radiation or Chemotherapy
How Is AI Changing Your Doctor Visit?
**********
“…academic freedom and a culture of open inquiry are at the core of Stanford’s ability to fulfill our mission of research and education. Universities thrive when faculty and students invite and confront competing ideas and arguments. We have made it a primary focus this year to nurture that ideal: from clearer time, place, and manner rules on free speech, to the ePluribus initiative, to new programs to support a strong civic culture.” – Stanford Pres. Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez
October 20, 2025
The ‘Best’ Colleges Aren’t the Best Forever
Excerpts (links in the original):
“For decades, higher education seemed immune to market forces, as families stretched to pay almost any price for a top-ranked college. Prestige was seen as synonymous with enduring value: Harvard would always be Harvard, Yale would always be Yale, followed by the Northwesterns and the Cornells, with aspirants such as the University of Southern California and Northeastern further down the ladder. But with sticker prices surging and graduates facing a tough job market, many parents have begun to question whether prestige alone is worth the price. As reputation loses some of its grip on the marketplace, colleges are moving up and down the list more than ever....
“Nowadays, more than 80 percent of families with a six-figure income cross a college off their list at some point because of its cost. Only 61 percent did so in the mid-2010’s, when six figures went further....
“Driving this trend is a so-called panicking class of parents -- mostly in Gen X but also older Millennials -- who fear their kids won’t be able to replicate their lifestyle in affluent American cities and suburbs. The sticker price of college has doubled in the past 20 years, and student debt covers much of the increase. Parents know the road to adulthood is longer than in previous generations, and as a result, they’ll need to support their kids well into their 20s. And with AI threatening to displace many entry-level jobs, some families are wondering whether a prestigious degree is still a solid insurance policy....
“Prestige in higher education has long favored the incumbents at the top of the rankings. But the more that families steer their decisions elsewhere, the less secure those incumbents will become. One student described his acceptance to Columbia in 2023 as akin to winning the lottery. But once he arrived on campus, he told me, the high wore off quickly. A class he wanted to take had a waitlist so long that he wouldn’t get in until he was a junior or senior, if at all. A professor he’d hoped to do research with didn’t allow undergraduates to work in his lab. The core curriculum was a grind, and the competition to get into clubs was intense.
“He told me that he was so enamored with the brand name that he hadn’t taken the time to consider what he really wanted out of his undergraduate experience: finding great friends and working closely with faculty, without constantly clawing for the next thing. After a year at Columbia, he transferred to the University of Minnesota, some 40 spots lower in the rankings. He told me he finds his courses just as challenging as at Columbia, he gets to work in a research lab, and his classmates are more welcoming -- and his tuition has been cut in half.”
Full op-ed by Arizona State Prof. Jeffrey Selingo at The Atlantic.
See also “The Missing Puzzle Piece of Higher Education” at Minding the Campus: “From the student perspective, greater than three quarters felt the first six months of their post-graduation job taught them more than their entire four years spent at university.”
Other Articles of Interest
SOME GOOD NEWS RE FREE SPEECH AND CRITICAL THINKING:
Stanford's ePluribus Project
Full description at Stanford.
See also ePluribus Programs and Campus Programs.
USC’s Open Dialogue Project
Full description at USC.
Yale's Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech
Full description at Yale.
SOME NOT GOOD NEWS:
Elite Schools Like MIT Are Hardly Free Markets for Ideas
Full op-ed at City Journal.
Columbia’s ‘Listening Table’ Band-Aid Can’t Heal Institutional Rot
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Minding the Campus.
Higher Education Fails at Collective Action
Full editorial at Science Magazine.
ALSO IN THE NEWS:
Prominent Faculty Comment on the Proposed Government Compact
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Robert P. George, U Chicago Prof. Tom Ginsburg, Yale Prof. Robert Post, U Texas Prof. David Rabban and Harvard Prof. Jeannie Suk Gerson at Substack.
But see also “The Sweetheart Deal Is Over for Academia” at Washington Post.
Can Educators Focus on Connection Rather Than Grades?
Full op-ed at UC Berkeley Greater Good Magazine: “An educator made a small change to the way she gave feedback on assignments, with big results for students' engagement and confidence.”
What the First Amendment Doesn’t Protect When It Comes to Professors Speaking Out on Politics
Full op-ed by U Kentucky Prof. Neal H. Hutchens and U Louisville Prof. Jeffrey C. Sun at The Conversation.
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.
Saw, Sword, or Shovel: AI Spots Functional Similarities Between Disparate Objects
New Report Urges Critical Action to Address Growing Biosecurity Risks
Regular Cannabis Use Poses Risks to Those Over 65
Generative AI Is Helping Stanford Researchers Better Understand Brain Diseases
Contemplation By Design Initiative Teaches Students to Rest
**********
“Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.” -- Chicago Principles for Freedom of Expression, quoting former U Chicago President Hanna Holborn Gray
October 13, 2025
American Association of University Professors Rejects Viewpoint Diversity, and a Faculty Member’s Response
Excerpts (links in the original):
“The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recently published an essay in its flagship magazine, Academe, titled ‘Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity.’ Written by Lisa Siraganian, the J. R. Herbert Boone Chair in Humanities and professor at Johns Hopkins University, the piece makes a sweeping and unsettling claim: that efforts to foster intellectual diversity on campus are ‘anathema to academic freedom.’
“This was not an obscure post or a stray faculty blog entry. Academe is the AAUP’s most visible publication, read by professors, administrators, trustees, journalists, and policymakers nationwide. While the essay is not an official AAUP policy resolution, its prominent platform gives it influence and credibility. For many observers, publishing such a manifesto sends a message that the AAUP not only tolerates but amplifies these ideas.
“The stakes could not be higher. Public trust in higher education has collapsed. A Gallup survey conducted earlier this year found that only 36 percent of Americans express significant confidence in colleges and universities, with just 19 percent of Republicans sharing this confidence. The lack of ideological diversity on campus is one of the most pronounced and visible drivers of this crisis. By framing viewpoint diversity as illegitimate, Academe has chosen to deny what students, alumni, and citizens can plainly see: the narrowing of debate, the silencing of dissent, and the rise of an academic monoculture.
“Universities should be places of fearless inquiry, where multiple schools of thought collide in the pursuit of truth. Publishing an argument that openly rejects this ideal does not merely miss the point; it deepens the very crisis it claims to address. It substitutes orthodoxy for openness, ideology for inquiry, and isolation for engagement. To understand why this is so destructive, we must examine each of the essay’s seven theses -- and why they fail both as arguments and as a vision for higher education."...
[Followed by discussion of and rebuttals to these seven points made in the AAUP article:]
Thesis 1: Viewpoint Diversity Is Anathema to Academic Freedom
Thesis 2: Viewpoint Diversity as a Partisan Strategy
Thesis 3: Viewpoint Diversity Mistakes Politics for Expertise
Thesis 4: Some Viewpoints Are Too Dangerous or False to Include
Thesis 5: Viewpoint Diversity Justifies External Interference
Thesis 6: Viewpoint Diversity Distracts from Real Diversity
Thesis 7: Viewpoint Diversity Undermines Trust in Expertise
“The publication of ‘Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity’ in Academe is more than just another faculty essay. While it is not an official AAUP policy, its appearance in the association’s flagship magazine signals that these arguments are gaining traction within influential corners of academia. When the nation’s most visible faculty organization gives prominent space to an essay that dismisses the very notion of intellectual diversity, it sends a chilling message to the public: that higher education’s leaders are comfortable defending an ideological monopoly rather than confronting it.
“Universities now face a defining choice. They can continue to retreat into insularity, denying what students, parents, and citizens plainly see. They can insist that one dominant worldview is enough and dismiss dissent as dangerous or illegitimate. They can ignore the plummeting levels of public trust and gamble that their endowments and prestige will insulate them from scrutiny.
“Or they can choose a different path: to reclaim the spirit of fearless inquiry and robust debate that once made American universities the envy of the world. This means more than vague calls for 'tolerance' or procedural neutrality. It requires tangible reforms -- transparent hiring processes, protection for dissenting scholars, deliberate efforts to foster debate across ideological lines, and a renewed commitment to institutional neutrality so that campuses remain open to all students and ideas."...
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Minding the Campus.
NCAA Division I Campus Leaders Are Deeply Concerned About the Direction of Division I Sports
Source: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and Elon University Poll
Excerpts (links in the original):
“An overwhelming majority of NCAA Division I campus leaders express negative views about the direction of college sports, indicating that new rules and trends will disproportionately harm collegiate women’s and men’s Olympic sports. Those leaders are also concerned about the growing reliance on student fees and other institutional funding, and they are strongly opposed to the current athlete transfer rules.
“At the same time, these leaders strongly affirmed their unwavering commitment to the historic academic mission and standards of college sports.
“These findings emerge from a national survey of Division I leaders conducted in early August 2025 by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Elon University Poll. A total of 376 university presidents and chancellors, athletics directors, senior woman administrators and faculty athletics representatives responded to the survey, a 26% response rate that provides a statistically representative sample of these Division I leadership positions within a +/-4.4% margin of error."...
Full article here including detailed poll results and links to PDF copies of charts and data, executive summary and full report.
Op-ed: Academia Is Broken; the Compact Can Help Fix It
Excerpt:
....
“This sort of proposal is not unusual. For more than 20 years, government mandates on a host of issues -- including diversity, discrimination and student discipline -- have been welcomed on college campuses because they fit within the prevailing partisan ethos. But this government mandate, intended to promote excellence in core academic pursuits and to protect free speech, is being met with prophesies of doom.
“As someone who played a part in the compact’s initial formulation, working alongside an administration working group, I would like to offer what insight I can into the motivation and need for the compact and to address its detractors.
“I am the product of and have long believed deeply in the promise of America’s institutions of higher education. At their best, colleges and universities instill curiosity, critical thinking and commitment to bettering ourselves and our communities. American higher education has, moreover, been an engine of opportunity to countless Americans who have acquired the skills to pursue meaningful work, support their families and drive American prosperity.
“But the system is broken. Over the past year, I have spoken with countless university presidents, directors and advisers; scholars and academics; and lawmakers, policy experts and activists. The one thing they all agree on is that our university system, which was once one of the nation’s greatest strategic assets, has lost its way.
“The evidence is overwhelming: outrageous costs and prolonged indebtedness for students; poor outcomes, with too many students left unable to find meaningful work after graduating; some talented domestic students and scholars have been crowded out of enrollment and employment opportunities by international students; and a high degree of uniformity of thought among faculty members and administrators, which can result in a hostile environment for students with different ideas.
“Critics have argued that it is not the place of the federal government to solve these problems. But without government involvement, reform will be difficult. Many colleges and universities, and especially some of the oldest and traditionally prestigious schools, are burdened with archaic governance structures that make self-reform all but impossible. This means that course correction must come from the outside.
“Given the enormous investment of taxpayer money, it is appropriate that the federal government be involved. The government should not be using public funds -- tens of billions of dollars annually in research funding, to say nothing of student aid -- to prop up a system that purports to educate American students and serve the public good but is all too often doing nothing of the sort.”...
Full op-ed by Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan at NY Times.
See also "What President Trump Wants from Targeted Colleges" at WSJ including key deal points along with charts showing impacts at specific schools.
See also "MIT Rejects Proposed Compact" at WSJ: "In a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon Friday, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said the proposal -- called the 'Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education' -- would restrict freedom of expression and MIT’s independence. The proposal is inconsistent with the school’s belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone, she said."
See also NY Times: “'I am deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values and will always defend our fierce independence,' Dartmouth’s president, Sian Leah Beilock, wrote last week. 'You have often heard me say that higher education is not perfect and that we can do better,' she wrote, 'At the same time, we will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves.'”
See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
Other Articles of Interest
Don’t Let Polarization Undermine the Vital Role Colleges Play in the U.S.
Full op-ed by UC Davis Chancellor Gary May at Higher Ed Dive.
U.S. Colleges Feel the Pinch of Fewer Foreign Students and Fewer Dollars
Full article at Reuters.
2025 Higher Education Trends
Full article at Deloitte.
Can AI Help College Athletic Programs Win More Games?
Full article at Ed Tech.
Harvard Faculty Say Students Skip Class and Still Get High Grades
Full article at NY Times.
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.
New Undergraduate Study Options Combine Data Science with Humanities and Arts
Breaking the Chronic Disease Cycle
Stanford’s Return on Investment Portfolio and Value of the Endowment
**********
“The Trustees [shall bear in mind] that extensive and expensive buildings do not make a University; that it depends for its success rather upon the character and attainments of its Faculty.” – Stanford’s Founding Grant
October 6, 2025
Amid Controversy in Higher Ed, Vanderbilt Chancellor Daniel Diermeier Steers a Different Course
Excerpts (links in the original):
“. . . Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier is one [of the few college leaders willing to admit to the problems in higher education]. He has long been a champion of political neutrality and has called out the politicization of scholarly associations -- approaches other university leaders are only now catching up on.
“. . . In a recent interview, transcribed below, he told me that education and research are ‘noble work,’ but only if they are grounded in core principles. And he emphasized how politicization in some departments overshadows the good work conducted in others....
[Followed by Q and A, including the following:]
Daniel Diermeier: “We have seen an erosion of trust over the last few years, and it’s pretty dramatic. The critical thing is that universities need to be super-clear about what their purpose is and the values that support their purpose. We believe that the purpose of universities is to create an environment for pathbreaking research and transformative education. Universities are not political parties, and they’re not in the business of taking positions on political or policy issues. Universities have not always done a good job making this clear.
“The first pillar is open forums. This means that we have the most open possible environment for our students and faculty to explore ideas without fear of retribution and censorship. It means, in practice, that our registered student organizations or faculty can bring to campus any outside speaker they want.
“Openness also needs to happen in the classroom. We have a class that we started a few years ago, and it’s very popular, called ‘Free Speech and Dangerous Ideas.’About 120 students are enrolled in that class right now, and they only discuss hyper-controversial topics.
“The second pillar is institutional neutrality. It means that, as an institution, we will not take positions on political or policy issues unless they directly and materially affect the core functioning of the university. We do not take positions on foreign policy. We do not take positions on domestic policy. We don’t criticize the Supreme Court. If there is something directly affecting higher education, then we would get involved, but not on general issues such as abortion. And we believe that if you [comment on political issues], you are creating a chilling effect. You are creating an institutional orthodoxy that inhibits the free expression of ideas.
“The third pillar is a commitment to civil discourse. Civil discourse means that we’re members of one learning community. And we are committed to using arguments and fact-based reasoning -- to treat each other with respect, to advocate for all ideas, but also to be willing to be convinced. We don’t demonize each other. We don’t shout each other down. Our students, when they come on campus, are signing a pledge that reinforces their commitment to these values. By doing that, students are committing themselves to be stewards of civil discourse and to make sure that the culture is alive and well at Vanderbilt....
“At the end of the day, it’s people in departments, faculty in departments and associations, that make those decisions. It’s the responsibility of our faculty to uphold fundamental standards of the academy, even though they may have strong political commitments. If we are setting this [responsibility] aside to advance particular political or ideological positions, we’re basically not living up to those standards, whether that happens in a department or in a professional association....
“You’ve got to be crystal clear about your values and purpose. You’ve got to communicate them, and then you need to have the courage to act on them. My sense is that universities get into trouble when they’re trying to navigate the political waters, whether the political waters are on campus or off campus, to try to make it to the other side of a crisis. That’s when people get into trouble....”
Full interview at City Journal.
See also our compilation of the Chicago Trifecta regarding speech, political neutrality and standards for the appointment and promotion of faculty.
See also concerns about the non-academic activities of Stanford’s 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities at Section 4 of our Back to Basics webpage.
Teaching the Republic to Disagree
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A self-governing republic lives by persuasion, not intimidation....
“Law can mitigate the risk -- better security that protects public figures, electoral reforms such as top-two primaries that broaden the power of the median voter at the expense of the extremes, and a renewed federalism that lowers national stakes. Government, however, can only do so much. Law, like politics, is downstream of culture. Civil society must take the lead in addressing the mutual contempt that stokes hatred. Education is our best hope because it can habituate citizens to turn political animus into reasoned disagreement -- and at times into consensus. Unfortunately, the illiberal turn in our educational system is currently a source of antagonism rather than a solution to it. Our educational system at all stages fails to model the respectful disagreement that prepares citizens for civic discourse....
“. . . Begin with law schools. Over recent decades, the focus on legal and political debate that was once at the heart of legal education has declined. The reasons are many. First, the faculty is more ideologically homogeneous, and so are most student bodies. Overwhelmingly uniform and unchanging political perspectives breed intolerance and a lack of interest in other views that a more politically balanced community fosters. Second, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs present other obstacles because they prioritize affect over argument. When one liberal law professor argued against Roe v. Wade because no one would take that side in class, students complained to DEI. That kind of intervention chills professors from injecting dissent into class....
“Matters are even worse at the undergraduate level. There, faculties are even more politically homogeneous than they are at law schools. There is no need to address counterarguments to orthodoxy because law and judicial opinions based on contrary views are not part of the curriculum. Several studies -- from scholarly working papers to journalistic investigations and think-tank reports -- have examined college syllabi across many institutions and fields, and detected left-wing bias in assigned readings and course content. As former Harvard University President Larry Summers recently noted, an investigation of recent journal articles in the field of American studies revealed that seventy-six were critical of America, sixteen were neutral, and none were positive....
“Universities can help heal our civic culture by getting back to their own truth-seeking mission. Essential to that objective is debate over controversial matters, which encompass much of what develops at the frontier of social sciences and humanities....”
Full op-ed by Northwestern Prof. John O. McGinnis.
One of the links contained in this op-ed is to a panel recorded on September 7, 2025, “Universities in the Crosshairs: Larry Summers and Lee Bollinger,” which we commend to readers (YouTube, 1 hour ten minutes).
College Is Worth Saving
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Earlier this year, Columbia University was hit with what sophisticated PR types call a double whammy. On the morning of May 7, New York magazine posted ‘Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College,’ a 5,000-word exposé of ChatGPT reliance at the Upper West Side institution. Later that same day, 80 pro-Hamas demonstrators stormed the campus’s Butler Library, rechristening the school ‘the Basel Al-Araj Popular University’ and staying until hauled out by police several hours later. Although American colleges had been under popular suspicion for years -- not least since elite campuses responded to the latest Gaza terrorism with an outpouring of antisemitic bile -- Columbia’s day from hell seemed a culmination. If academic dishonesty was ubiquitous and campus politics had gone mad, what, exactly, was the point of higher education?
“Of course, most colleges are not Columbia. Nor is every Columbia student a participant in the intellectual and moral dissolution of the academy. One could be forgiven, however, for viewing the institution as a representative of its class, a school so famous and wealthy that it simply must stand in for the aspirations, if not the reality, of its peers. This would be, in my opinion, a grave error. Not only is Columbia unrepresentative of universities generally, but Columbia’s worst days and weeks are unrepresentative of that institution at its best. To be sure, reformers in positions of power should sometimes use the levers of the state to correct campus misdeeds -- especially, though not exclusively, at public schools. Nevertheless, higher education as it is still frequently practiced in this country deserves our gratitude and respect.
“The contrary case is so easy to make that it nearly writes itself. For decades, colleges and universities have allowed tuition to creep skyward, outpacing both inflation and the rise in instructional spending (i.e., the money devoted to actual teaching and learning). Small armies of administrators now roam most campuses, occasionally making trouble but largely shuffling paperwork and plotting to expand their ranks still further. Whereas a bachelor’s degree once carried a significant wage premium, new research by the San Francisco Fed suggests that the bump has declined notably since the pandemic. Just this July, a Financial Times analysis found that young men with a college degree now have approximately the same unemployment rate as their uncredentialed peers....
“. . . What ought not to be forgotten, however, is that American higher education is the work of many generations, the envy of the world, and the source -- still -- of life-altering value for countless men and women. One is inclined, reading the newspapers, to burn the whole system to the ground. Let’s fix it instead.”
Full op-ed at James Martin Canter.
Other Articles of Interest
Professors Can Be Ignorant; That’s Why We Need Viewpoint Diversity
Full op-ed by Ohio State Prof. Michael Clune at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Majority of Parents Now Say They Would Encourage Their Children to Skip College If Another Track Was Stable and Well Paid
Full article at Newsweek: “About 67 percent of parents said they would encourage their children to opt out of higher education, while 78 percent said they believe non-college options can deliver the same long-term success as a four-year degree.”
‘Ivy League’ Doesn’t Mean Excellent Medical Schools, According to New Index
Full article at Just the News. (Note: Stanford Medical School got a B.)
Fighting the Status Quo, Reform Faculty Search Committees
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars.
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.
New Speaker Forum to Focus on Solving Problems Across Differences
Stanford Law Unveils liftlab, an AI Initiative Focused on the Legal Profession’s Future
Rethinking Alzheimer's -- How These Tiny Balls of Fat Factor In
Tracking Microplastics from Sea to Body
**********
“At its best, the university, more than anywhere else, is where society’s leaders learn how to think, speak, and act. Universities must help students learn to listen to one another actively, to exchange their different views patiently, and to assail only bad arguments -- not people.” – UNC Prof. Jed W. Atkins
September 29, 2025
Stanford’s Administrative Costs Per Student Have Gone Up Again and Remain the Highest in the Nation
We have updated the tables and charts that have long been posted at our Stanford Concerns webpage to include the most recent numbers (2023) as reported to the National Center for Education Statistics and as then published by How Colleges Spend Money.
According to the updated numbers, Stanford’s administrative costs per student were $48,231 in 2023 (up from $45,235 in 2022) as compared to $7,770 at UCLA, $9,494 at UC Berkeley, $19,283 at Dartmouth, $24,708 at Yale, $27,903 at Chicago, $32,659 at MIT, $33,277 at Caltech, $37,862 at Princeton, and $43,816 at Harvard.
Some key points to keep in mind:
-
Quoting from the How Colleges Spend Money website, “administrative costs are defined as a function of what institutions report to the [national data base] as ‘institutional support’ expenses, or those for the ‘day-to-day operational support of the institution.’ Institutional support commonly includes costs for executive management, a legal department, fiscal operations, public relations, or a development office.”
-
“Institutional support does not include items like student activities, career services, or financial aid staff (which fall under a separate category of expenses called student services), or parking facilities, housing, or food services (which are reported as auxiliary enterprises).”
-
The tables and charts posted at our Stanford Concerns webpage show that the administrative costs per student at more than half of the schools listed there actually declined in 2023 as compared to 2022, so the questions arise: Why do Stanford’s administrative costs remain so noticeably higher than comparable schools and why did Stanford’s administrative costs go up and not down as between 2022 and 2023?
-
The numbers contained in Stanford Facts 2025 and as posted at our Stanford Concerns webpage also show that Stanford still has nearly one staff person for every student and ten staff persons for every member of the faculty.
We have long posted at Section 3 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage some proposed actions to bring down these and related costs and, in the process, hopefully simplify and improve the campus experiences of both students and faculty. We appreciate that making changes in any organization, and especially at a university, can be a complex task and requires the support of many constituencies. But we believe this is the year when significant actions need to be taken.
Unlike some other commentators around the country, we do not believe a board of trustees should be involved in the academic activities of a college or university (among other things, the longstanding concepts of “shared governance”) unless those activities significantly affect the safety and soundness of the institution. On the other hand, a primary fiduciary obligation of any governing board and its officers is to assure the efficient and cost-effective operations of the entity vis-à-vis its key stakeholders (per former Stanford president Gerhard Casper, “all of us are here for only one reason, to support our faculty and students in their work of teaching, learning and research”). Something for everyone to consider, and especially Stanford’s trustees and senior officers.
We welcome your comments here.
Stanford Ranks First in WSJ/College Pulse Rankings for Preparing Graduates for Financial Success
Excerpt (link in the original):
“Stanford University tops the list of the best U.S. colleges in the latest WSJ/College Pulse rankings.
“Unlike other school rankings, this list emphasizes one point: How well did the college prepare students for financial success? More than any other factor, it rewards the boost an institution provides to its graduates’ salaries, beyond an estimate of what they could have expected from attending any college.
“Stanford returns to the top of this list for the first time since the 2017 rankings. Ivy League schools also figure prominently, with Yale University, Princeton University and Harvard University finishing third, fourth and fifth, respectively. Two other Ivy League schools -- Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania -- come in at eighth and ninth, respectively....”
Full article at WSJ.
How to Think, Not What to Think
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Across the country, people are questioning the value and role of higher education, and institutions -- particularly the elite ones -- are experiencing a crisis in public trust. On top of that, tech titans are convinced that AI will break higher education, while many observers lament its corrupting influence and ask whether the 'mind-expanding purpose and qualities of a university,' as one historian of education put it recently, are gone forever.
“The idea that higher education has outlived its usefulness to society, however, requires taking an astonishingly narrow view of the true purpose of the university. Higher education is not merely the transfer of knowledge. We live in an age of informational opulence; we are awash in readily available data but lacking discernment, communication skills, and empathy.
“As a cognitive scientist, I have studied the negative consequences of excessive information. We are in a state of constant information overload, under assault by relentless alerts, updates, and notifications. Research shows that the cognitive burden of lots of information coming at us simultaneously can negatively affect our brains and, ultimately, our performance -- especially when we are not experts in the topics we are bombarded with.
“Despite the reforms that our institutions of higher education must embark on to ensure that we are teaching our students how to think -- and not what to think -- a four-year residential-college experience remains one of the most powerful human environments for cultivating human qualities....
“The problem isn’t just a lack of dialogue -- it’s rising polarization. As the Dartmouth political scientist Sean Westwood has shown, disparaging those with whom you disagree as the “other” erodes trust and discourages even the attempt at conversation or engaging across the aisle. That might sound abstract, but in the age of AI, this siloing has tangible consequences. When students retreat into algorithmically curated feeds -- or AI tools that reflect their own assumptions, and validate even their worst impulses -- the divide deepens. Machines are good at confirming biases, real and perceived, not challenging them. We need people to do this hard work themselves, by leaving their information bubbles and interacting with one another in the flesh, not from behind a keyboard....”
Full op-ed by Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock at The Atlantic.
Restoring the Academic Social Contract
Excerpts:
“Higher education in America sits at a paradox: American universities are simultaneously the crown jewel of the American education system and are also enduring their worst crisis in over a century. The crisis itself has multiple dimensions, including the financial challenges of escalating tuition and student debt burdens, the ideological imbalance among faculty and administrators, the institutional embrace of radical dogmas and speech restrictions, the resurgence of anti-Semitism, the deep ties many universities have forged with foreign nations whose interests are often inimical to the United States, and the new punitive measures that the Trump administration and Congress are wielding.
“Most fundamentally, the crisis is one of legitimacy and trust. It is now widely acknowledged that a critical mass of the American people has lost confidence in American universities. In last year's Gallup poll, only 36% of Americans expressed high confidence in higher education, compared to 32% who held little or no confidence. The decline is recent and substantial: A decade ago, 57% of Americans voiced trust in higher education...
“But academia's political imbalance is not the whole story. The crisis confronting our universities is best understood as both a cause and a symptom of the core problem besetting higher education: the rupturing of its social contract with American society. This fundamental problem lies at the heart of the academy's loss of public trust. It's long past time for universities to meaningfully address it....
[Followed by discussion of the historic development of the research university, the involvement of national security, the role of tenure, the punishment and cancelling of leading faculty members who thought differently, the role of foreign students and investments, the decline and renewal of the liberal arts and related matters including specific references to Stanford.]
“Many universities have already been taking important steps (albeit often under duress, or mandates from boards or legislatures) -- like eliminating diversity statements, curtailing frivolous general-education classes, and adopting new commitments to free speech and institutional neutrality -- to address their shortcomings. These are needful measures. Yet even with illiberal practices ended and speech protections restored, a major question will remain: What should universities research and teach? ...”
[Followed by discussion of the challenges of proposed reforms.]
Full op-ed by U Texas Provost William Inboden at National Affairs.
Large-Scale Syllabi Study Finds Significant Bias
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Contentious topics are often taught in college classrooms from a uniformly one-sided perspective, according to newly published research that used the Open Syllabus Project, which hosts over 27 million syllabi, to develop its findings.
“The research focused on three topics -- ‘racial bias in the American criminal justice system, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ethics of abortion’ -- to determine how controversial issues are presented.
“The research primarily looked at assigned reading materials to conclude that ‘professors generally insulate their students from the wider intellectual disagreement that shape these important controversies.’
“‘Personally, I thought we’d find some imbalance, some activist teaching,’ co-author Jon Shields, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, told The College Fix. ‘I just didn’t expect it to be the norm in the cases we studied. That was genuinely surprising to me.’
“The 66-page working paper, ‘Closed Classrooms? An Analysis of College Syllabi on Contentious Issues,’ was also co-authored by Claremont McKenna College Professor of Government Stephanie Muravchik and Scripps College Professor of Philosophy Yuval Avnur....
“The paper calls on universities to make reforms through curricular assessments and the formation of faculty groups open to teaching scholarly disagreements.
“Moreover, it suggests universities could incentivize change through course development grants or additional hiring lines for programs that show a commitment to a classically liberal education....”
Full article at College Fix, and a copy of the working paper can be downloaded here. See also "Make Syllabi Public"
by Emory undergraduate Alyza Harris at Minding the Campus.
Other Articles of Interest
Why Columbia Needs Free Speech 101
Full op-ed by Columbia alum Timothy Tracy at Columbia Spectator.
When Academics Want to Bring Down the Academy, a Princeton Example
Full op-ed at Princetonians for Free Speech; see also “Princetonians for Free Speech Defends Free Speech for All” at Daily Princetonian.
Everyone’s a Free-Speech Hypocrite
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and CEO of FIRE Greg Lukianoff at NY Times.
Colleges Once Taught Truth and Character; Now, They’re Unrecognizable
Full op-ed at College Fix.
Colleges Must Embed Career Purpose Throughout the Student Journey
Full op-ed at EDU Ledger (formerly Diversity in Higher Education).
What To Do About Political Diversity on Campus
Full op-ed at Milken Institute Review.
Federally Funded Research Should Reflect America’s Interest
Full op-ed at City Journal.
To Save In-Person Lectures, Universities Need to Provide Lessons Worth Showing Up For
Full op-ed by U Melbourne Dr. Hugh Gundlach at The Conversation.
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.
President Levin Calls on New Students to Create a Culture of Dignity; see also “President Levin in Conversation with Two Student Leaders” (video, 6:17 minutes)
Andrew Luck Aims to Recapture Stanford Football’s Glory Days
Teaching Robots Realistic Human Tasks
Connecting the Gut, Brain and Microbiome to Heal Chronic GI Conditions
How a Speech Gene Could Help Treat Huntington’s Disease
How Music Supercharges the Brain
**********
"Stanford is a resilient institution, full of problem-solvers. We are confident that we will be able to address whatever challenges come and find creative solutions.” – Pres. Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez
September 22, 2025
Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya Wants to Fix Science; Can He?
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of the National Institutes of Health, has inherited an agency in crisis. Everyone knows it.
“Some think it began this year, with dramatic funding cuts and a hostile takeover by 20-year-old DOGE coders chugging energy drinks in some backroom. Others think it began years ago, with the disastrous handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
“To close observers, the original crisis began well before any of this, in the dawning realization that a lot of medical research is junk that can’t be reproduced, that promised cures have fizzled and that Americans shell out more money on health care than people in other wealthy countries and yet we are sicker and die younger. When all this is true, can we really say the so-called crown jewel of American medical science is succeeding?
“Dr. Bhattacharya has promised to fix the decades-old problems at the government’s research funding juggernaut. He spent his career as a Stanford health economist, publishing over 100 studies on chronic disease, health outcomes for marginal populations, the cost of health care and why research funders don’t take enough risks....
“Below Dr. Bhattacharya is an entrenched bureaucracy. Above him are powerful bosses, focused so far on crackdowns. The hope is that his earnest belief in the promise of science will produce political strength, enough to move past punishment and bring new vitality to American science. The question is whether he is in over his head....
“Ultimately, Dr. Bhattacharya believes that America is at risk of stagnating in medical science, and that to make America healthy again, the main thing needed is to make science more rational and open. This is what he repeatedly calls his ‘matter of faith.’
“Dr. Bhattacharya is at his most compelling, his most charismatic when he hits these notes. Researchers who know him consistently told me that, sure, he bucked the establishment on Covid, but was eminently sane about it, not a rote contrarian. Robert P. George, a Princeton political philosopher and a colleague of both mine and Dr. Bhattacharya’s, told me he is ‘a person of absolutely impeccable integrity.’...
“Dr. Bhattacharya argues that [the disappointing results in Alzheimer’s research despite vast funding by NIH] happened because science is structured around authority. ‘You have, in field after field after field, a kind of set of dogmatic ideas held by the people who are at the top of the field. And if you don’t share those ideas, you have no chance of advancing within those fields,’ he told me....”
Full op-ed at NY Times. See also “Dr. Bhattacharya's Opening Statement at His Senate Confirmation Hearing to Lead NIH -- Five Goals if Confirmed as Head of NIH” at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage.
Censorship Hurts Our Brains -- Literally
Excerpts (links in the original):
....
“Our brains are built to form habits. The basal ganglia -- deep learning circuits that automate whatever we repeat -- don’t absorb only tennis serves or piano scales. They also wire in patterns of thought. If the only messages we hear are one-sided, the brain’s habit circuits carve them into grooves of thought that resist change....
“Neuroscience also shows that cognitive flexibility isn’t automatic. Like any skill, it must be trained. In a paper titled ‘One cannot simply be flexible,’ Ghent University cognitive scientist Senne Braem and colleagues showed that when people are rewarded for switching tasks, they later switch more readily -- even without realizing why. When switching is discouraged, they become more rigid. Flexibility is like a muscle: It grows with practice, feedback and time.
“This helps explain why rigid beliefs can turn dangerous. Dogmatism and extremism go hand in hand with low cognitive flexibility and thinking that resists correction. Political psychologist and neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod has shown that people who score high in political dogmatism also perform poorly on tasks that require mental flexibility. Studies of radicalization likewise find that when opponents are cast as monsters -- ‘Nazi,’ ‘racist,’ ‘enemy of democracy’ -- the capacity to see those opponents as human diminishes. Threat responses flare and ordinary moral limits fall away, making violence seem justified.
“As Cass Sunstein argued in his book ‘Going to Extremes,’ when like-minded people talk only with one another, they grow more extreme. But head-on clashes with opponents don’t necessarily soften rigidity....
“People point to social media as the trigger, but the narrowing of perspective often starts much earlier -- in classrooms. The glee some teachers expressed after the [Charlie Kirk] killing revealed how easily bias can masquerade as neutrality. Studies find educators lean heavily to one side politically, yet many sincerely believe they’re impartial -- the ‘bias blind spot’ in action. From primary school through college, dissent is rare and pressure runs mostly one way, etching patterns that are hard to undo. China has long understood this: It now pulls Tibetan children into state-run schools from the age 4, stripping away language and culture so Communist Party ideology can fix identity before anything else can take root....
“All of this is why free speech matters.... From kindergarten through college, schools should be the places where young people learn mental flexibility: weighing opposing arguments, wrestling with uncomfortable facts, and practicing civil disagreement. Too many schools trade that mission for the promise of ‘safe spaces.’ The result is fragility, not the strength of mind a free people needs.
“Neuroscience offers a blunt warning. The basal ganglia -- working with prefrontal circuits that normally support flexibility -- can turn repetition into habit, in our thoughts as well as our movements. If we repeatedly avoid dissent, we become expert at avoidance, sometimes at any cost. When young minds are enclosed in like-minded circles, convictions can harden until pushback strengthens them instead of loosening them. That is why exposure to difference must begin early and run deep....”
Full op-ed by Oakland U Prof. Barbara Oakley at WSJ.
The Newest Face of Long-Term Unemployment? The College Educated
Excerpts (link in the original):
....
“When the federal government released its August employment numbers on Sept. 5, the overall unemployment rate was still relatively low, at just over 4 percent. But underneath was a concerning statistic: The portion of unemployed people who have been out of work for more than six months, which is considered ‘long-term,’ rose to its highest share in over three years -- to nearly 26 percent....
“But just as surprising as the rise in long-term unemployment is the subset of workers who are increasingly driving it: the college educated. The fraction of long-term unemployed people with a college degree has grown from about one-fifth a decade ago to about one-third today, according to government data compiled by Matthew Notowidigdo and Jingzhou Huang of the University of Chicago. The problem has worsened over the past year or two after easing temporarily....
“‘The data is signaling that there’s some restructuring going on,’ said Andreas Mueller, an expert on long-term unemployment at the University of Zurich. ‘People are losing jobs and can’t find jobs in high-skilled occupations.’...”
Full article at NY Times.
See also “Colleges Are Selling Dreams, Not Reality” by Ohlone College Prof. James Andrews at James Martin Center.
But see also “U.S. Faces Shortfall of 5.3 M College-Educated Workers by 2032” at Higher Ed Dive.
University Provosts Are Focused on Funding Cuts, Academic Freedom and AI
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Despite the rising costs of college, weakened public support for higher education and the onslaught of political challenges facing colleges and universities, provosts remain optimistic about what their institution offers students. Nearly all provosts -- 99 percent -- report that their institution provides a quality undergraduate education. They are generally happy about their jobs, too: 91 percent say they are glad they pursued administrative work, and 86 percent say they enjoy being a chief academic officer.
“These stats and others come from the latest Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers, released [last week] by Inside Higher Ed with Hanover Research. The survey -- conducted in June and July of this year and garnering 478 responses -- asked provosts for their thoughts on the rapidly changing federal policy landscape, the growing prominence of artificial intelligence, the importance of tenure and academic freedom, their faculty’s job satisfaction and mental health as well as their own, and more....
“At most impacted institutions, provosts report that federal funding cuts amount to less than 5 percent. About 28 percent of impacted provosts say their institution has experienced a 5 to 10 percent federal funding cut, and 12 percent report a cut of more than 10 percent.
“Institutions are responding to these cuts in myriad ways, provosts report. Chief among them is pursuing alternative funding sources, such as private donors or industry partnerships, at 40 percent. Twenty-one percent of provosts say their institutions reshuffled internal resources to protect vulnerable programs, and about a third of provosts report their institutions restructured or scaled back specific programs that depend on federal grants....
“‘Fifty percent of provosts saying academic freedom is facing challenges is pretty bleak,’ said [Mike Gavin, president of Delta College in Michigan]. ‘That means that our administrators are having to defend the work of their faculty in ways that they should not have to.’ He explained that academic freedom and diversity, equity and inclusion policies are often unfairly framed as opposing efforts, when the two may go hand in hand....
“About two-thirds of all provosts report that their institutions are offering professional development for faculty on AI and/or integrating AI into the curriculum. Half of provosts say their institutions are actively developing policies for AI use but have not fully implemented those policies. Only 14 percent say their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional AI strategy....”
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
Experiential Learning Is an Antidote to Artificial Intelligence
Excerpt (link in the original):
....
“The longer I’ve taught (this is my 11th year as a professor), the more I’ve leaned on experiential learning: hands-on activities that get students out of their seats and engaging all their senses and capacities. Even as universities in my state are signing deals with tech companies to bring free AI training to campus, I see students clamoring for something else: meaningful in-person experiences where they can make strong connections with mentors and peers.
“As I’ve redesigned my classes to integrate more field trips to local farms, volunteer work with community organizations and hands-on lessons focused on building tangible skills, I’ve found that students work harder, learn more, and look forward to class. Instead of just showing slides of compost, I bring my students to our campus farm to harvest castings (nutrient-dense worm poop!) from the worm bins. Instead of just lecturing about how California farmers are adapting to water scarcity, I take students to visit a farm that operates without irrigation, where we help prune and harvest grapes and olives. Long wait lists for these types of classes indicate that demand is far greater than supply...."
Full op-ed by UC Santa Barbara Prof. Liz Carlisle at Ed Source.
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.
New Students Told 11 Tips to Make the Most of Their Undergraduate Education
Building Bridges Between Competing Alzheimer’s Theories
Discovery Highlights the Nervous System’s Role in Cancer Growth
On-Line Game Teaches Responsible Use of AI
Real-World Benchmarks for Healthcare AI Agents
**********
“Kirk’s murder is a wake-up call. The line between speech and violence has been crossed. Universities must decide whether they will be sanctuaries of learning or incubators of hate. The future of higher education, and the safety of our communities, depends on their answer.” – Stanford alum and Sara Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams
September 15, 2025
What Management Expert Peter Drucker Would Say About Organizational Complexity
In early May, we asked ChatGPT to suggest ways to address various concerns at Stanford and posted the responses at our Ask AI webpage. A week ago, we asked Google AI what management expert Peter Drucker might say about organizational complexity at Stanford and elsewhere. Here’s an excerpt from the response we received and with the full results posted at our Ask AI webpage:
“Drucker saw organizational complexity as an enemy of effectiveness that hinders performance and demoralizes employees. He famously quipped, ‘Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done’. Drucker believed that simplicity, decentralization, and a clear focus on the organization's mission were the best countermeasures to this natural tendency toward complexity....
“Inefficiency grows with size. Drucker compared organizations to living organisms, noting that as they grow, an increasing proportion of their energy is spent on managing their own internal structure rather than producing results for customers. He believed that an organization's internal ‘mass’ or bureaucracy grows faster than its ‘external surface’ or output. To combat this, he advocated for organizations to ‘run lean’ and prioritize having a few highly effective people over many mediocre ones....”
[Followed by:
-
Meetings are a sign of failure,
-
Information overload hinders clarity,
-
The answer is simple and decentralized,
-
The remedy is planned abandonment, and
-
Focus on external purpose.]
See also our Back to Basics and Stanford Concerns webpages.
Some Stanford Concerns
Administrative Bloat
We recently updated the article "Stanford's Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy" at our Stanford Concerns webpage to include the more recent numbers from the Stanford Facts 2025 booklet and which shows that Stanford now has 15,340 non-teaching personnel (19,169 if you add clinical and SLAC staff) as compared to 2,345 total faculty (1,738 of whom are members of the Academic Council) and 17,469 total students.
In other words, Stanford has close to one staff person for every student and ten staff persons for every member of the faculty. As shown in charts long posted at our Stanford Concerns webpage, this has resulted in Stanford having the highest administrative costs per student as compared to every other university in the United States (and per the instructions for the federal data base, these numbers don't even include student services and related activities which are reported separately) and where many/most of the other top colleges and universities are operating at a fraction of the administrative costs per student as compared to Stanford. According to 2022 data as reported to the federal data base, Stanford's administrative costs per student were $40,227 in 2022 ($49,199 in 2021) as compared to $4,640 at UCLA, $16,111 at Dartmouth, $22,461 at Yale, $23,553 at Chicago, $34,390 at Princeton and $38,835 at Harvard.
ResEd
We also note that the Stanford Daily article that was linked in our Newsletter a few weeks ago confirmed that the undergraduate neighborhood housing program is finally being disbanded. Never mind the millions of dollars and tens of thousands of staff hours that were devoted to this failed program -- a program that most alumni and students knew would never work and continued to say so. But here’s what is also interesting. In that same Daily article, it appears that with the abandonment of the neighborhood housing program, the central staff at ResEd is going to be increased, not decreased, along with more organizational complexity:
“[Assistant Vice Provost for Residential Education (ResEd) Cheryl Brown] said ResEd departments will be restructured into ‘Administration + Operations,’ ‘Communication, Strategy + Project Management’ and ‘Student Support.’ To support this transition, ResEd will hire a new associate director for student support and two associate directors for program administration. ResEd will also collaborate with ePluribus Stanford and the SHARE Title IX and Title VI office to update the curriculum for RA training. RAs will additionally have regular check-in meetings with a dedicated resident director (RD) and community coordinator (CC) during the year.”
Here are some comments we’ve received about the RedEd changes:
-
COMMENTATOR A: “There should be stricter oversight before ANY new non-academic positions are created, and maybe it should be a bunch of hard-ass people who can shield the provost and president from always being the bad guys. This is absolutely classic mission creep.”
-
COMMENTATOR B: “One of my pet peeves with Stanford since my undergraduate days has been the dysfunctionality and defects in the undergraduate residential system. I lived in six different residences during my undergraduate years. I think the Draw is a very poor way to maximize the residential experiences of students, and continuing to permit a housing shortage is an equally bad way to manage the system. Hiring more administrators doesn’t bear any relationship to fixing a bad system.”
-
COMMENTATOR C: “This is what happens with an unrestrained culture of empire-building, so that every administrator is seeking an excuse to add to the size of the empire.”
Years ago, then-Vice Provost John Bravman (president at Bucknell since 2010) had proposed that freshmen and sophomores stay in the same dorm for their first two years in order to provide continuity as well as to provide a structure where second-year students could help mentor their first-year colleagues. This would also eliminate the upheavals created by the Draw when first-year students have barely settled into college life.
For their junior and senior years, students could select among the options that have always existed at Stanford and, we and others believe, can never be overcome in light of the diffuse housing structures long in place at Stanford: dorms suitable for upper-class students, fraternities and sororities, co-op houses, theme houses, other Row houses and on-campus apartment-style units.
Follow the Money
So where does the money come from to support all of this administrative activity? Some is from tuition, room and board, and fees imposed by the university and student government. A larger portion is from what are called “indirect costs,” that is, the surcharges that are added to most grants to Stanford from government agencies and foundations -- at Stanford, currently 54% on top of the amount of the grant itself. However, longtime tenured Stanford faculty member Jay Bhattacharya -- who now heads the National Institutes of Health, the largest funder of biomedical and related research in the U.S. and the world and who understands in detail the issues of overhead -- has imposed a 15% cap on indirect costs, and other federal agencies are expected to do the same, if they haven’t already. This is compared to the fact that major foundations (Gates and others) have long imposed a cap of zero to 15% on the indirect costs that they were willing to pay.
Another source of funding is an 8% tax on donations from alumni and others, as shown at this webpage (Section IV.2.). Meaning, if you donate $10,000 for a specific program in, say, the English or athletics departments, unless subject to an exception, $800 will not go to your intended program but will be used instead for administrative and other central costs and even though the program itself typically has to budget for overhead as well. We understand that in the 1990’s, this sort of tax, which was much smaller at the time, was eliminated and the costs of the business and other administrative units were to be funded instead from the university’s central budget, not from a tax on donations.
Back to Basics
Stanford like most U.S. colleges and universities is facing serious financial pressures. Which is why we continue to advocate that Stanford get Back to Basics -- that is, that it stay focused on teaching and front-line research versus the peripheral activities that have accumulated in recent years, including at the 200 to 300 centers now housed at Stanford.
Which is why we also have posted the Peter Drucker article at the top of today’s Newsletter and why we again urge Stanford’s trustees, senior administrators and faculty to significantly simplify and flatten Stanford’s administrative organization, significantly reduce Stanford’s non-teaching staff, and in the process get Back to Basics. As Peter Druker points out, organizations are like living organisms, and as they grow, an increasing proportion of their energy is spent on managing their own internal structure rather than producing results for customers, here, Stanford’s students and faculty.
Or as Stanford's former Vice President for Administration Ken Cuthbertson used to say, “I resist the idea that learning and teaching should be ‘administered’ in a university. Servants like me and the janitor can get our kicks out of providing the means and services which allow faculty and students to learn and teach under optimal circumstances.”
Also from Cuthbertson: “My job is like that of a groundskeeper. It’s to be sure the playing field is kept in good condition so that the faculty and students can interact with one another, which is the only reason the university exists; to draw boundary lines around the edges; and after that, to stay the hell out of the way.”
See also a student’s perspective of the impact the Stanford bureaucracy has on students and Stanford generally at Stanford Review.
Comments
We welcome your comments here.
Stanford Ranks 75th Out of 257 in FIRE’s 2026 Free Speech Rankings
Excerpts (links in the original):
“WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 9, 2025 -- If America’s colleges could earn report cards for free speech friendliness, most would deserve an ‘F’ -- and conservative students are increasingly joining their liberal peers in supporting censorship.
"The sixth annual College Free Speech Rankings, released today by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and survey partner College Pulse, show a continued decline in support for free speech among all students, but particularly conservatives. Students of every political persuasion show a deep unwillingness to encounter controversial ideas. The survey, which is the most comprehensive look at campus expression in the country, ranked 257 schools based on 68,510 student responses to a wide array of free speech-related questions.
"The rankings come at a notable moment for free speech on college campuses: clashes over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a vigorous and aggressive culture of student activism, and the Trump administration’s persistent scrutiny of higher education.
“‘This year, students largely opposed allowing any controversial campus speaker, no matter that speaker's politics,’ said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. ‘Rather than hearing out and then responding to an ideological opponent, both liberal and conservative college students are retreating from the encounter entirely. This will only harm students' ability to think critically and create rifts between them. We must champion free speech on campus as a remedy to our culture's deep polarization.'...”
Other key findings from the report include:
-
166 of the 257 schools surveyed got an F for their speech climate, while only 11 schools received a speech climate grade of C or higher.
-
Only 36% of students said that it was ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ clear that their administration protects free speech on campus.
-
A record 1 in 3 students now holds some level of acceptance -- even if only 'rarely' -- for resorting to violence to stop a campus speech.
-
53% of students say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss openly on campus. On 21 of the campuses surveyed, at least 75% of students said this -- including 90% of students at Barnard.
-
For the first time ever, a majority of students oppose their school allowing any of the six controversial speakers they were asked about onto campus -- three controversial conservative speakers and three controversial liberal ones.”
And from the specific writeup re Stanford:
-
44% of Stanford students say they have self-censored on campus at least once or twice a month.
-
72% of Stanford students say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.
-
34% of Stanford students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.
-
There are roughly 5.33 liberal Stanford students for every conservative Stanford student.
Full press release at FIRE. In addition, Stanford’s specific writeup is here including, unfortunately like most other schools, grades of F for administrative support and for political tolerance and an overall grade of D-.
Other Articles of Interest
University of Chicago’s Self-Made Crisis
Full op-ed at Minding the Campus: “A society that watches a university -- U Chicago, no less -- abandon this cornerstone of its mission and recast itself as a mere economic opportunity zone should not be surprised when civic life collapses. That collapse is only hastened by the fact that students, lured by the promise of lucrative careers, discover too late that they have not only failed to receive a prestigious education, but that their prestigious, marketable degrees lead to underemployment.”
Percentage of Americans Saying College Is ‘Very Important’ Has Fallen to 35%
Full article along with charts at Gallup.
Leading Medical Accreditor Closes DEI Department and Ends Related Mandates
Full article at College Fix.
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.
Scientists Uncover Extreme Life Inside the Arctic Ice
How Physics Can Tackle the Complexity of AI
5-Day Wilderness Excursions for Stanford’s New Students
Experimental Drugs May Be Able to Reverse Symptoms of Autism
(from Neuroscience News)
Generating Synthetic Medical X-Rays with AI (video, 6:30 minutes)
**********
“Stanford is the university of the American frontier. Like the frontier, it is infused with a sense of openness, possibility, and hope that are fundamental to who we are. Those characteristics are an essential part of what makes this place so distinctive, and will help us define our future.” – Stanford President Jon Levin
September 8, 2025
Professors Should Actually Teach
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“If you want to argue that elite scholars at research universities should be focused on grant-funded research, I’m very sympathetic. I get the argument that teaching loads at the nation’s top 40 or 50 research universities might feature a lot of one-ones for pioneering scholars who are pushing the frontiers of knowledge. But this isn’t that.
“This is about the larger political economy of higher education. As Richard Keck and I documented a few months ago, the norm across much of higher education is for faculty to spend most of their time on activities other than teaching. Even at second- and third-tier institutions, faculty are mostly found shuffling papers, sitting in meetings, chasing grants, and publishing trivial, never-read papers in one of the 24,000 barely read journals. This is a story of warped expectations, incentives, and academic culture -- one with unfortunate implications for the quality and cost of undergraduate education.
“In his terrific book on college teaching, University of Pennsylvania historian Jonathan Zimmerman drily notes that faculty tend to characterize research as their ‘work’ and teaching as their ‘load’ -- a habit that, he observes, speaks 'volumes about academic priorities.' Generally, faculty aren’t hired, recognized, or promoted for their teaching. Instead, more and more instruction is off-loaded to an itinerant army of adjuncts and graduate students, few of whom have the incentive or opportunity to maintain rigorous standards or mentor their charges....
“We need to do better, and it starts by overhauling expectations for faculty. Some will inevitably read such talk as an attack on professors, given the ongoing tumult in higher education. But this isn’t about point-scoring or assigning individual culpability; it’s about misaligned priorities.... For any institution willing to realign its priorities, there’s a win-win lurking for students and scholars alike.”
Full op-ed at Education Next.
Stanford’s Graduate Student Union Tries to Stifle Dissent
Excerpts:
“I’m working as a teaching assistant while studying for a doctorate in economics at Stanford, but a campus union is trying to get me fired. The Stanford Graduate Workers Union wants my head on a plate because I refused to sign a membership form and pay dues. I won’t fund an organization whose values and tactics I don’t support.
“Similar unions across the country are using their bargaining power not to improve working conditions but to coerce ideological conformity. This isn’t solidarity; it’s suppression. Shame on Stanford for going along with it.... Freedom to dissent -- including from union politics -- is foundational to the academic enterprise. No student should face financial retaliation for exercising that freedom.”
Full op-ed by Stanford graduate student Jon Hartley at WSJ; see also Mr. Hartley’s op-ed at Stanford Review.
Editor's note: If teaching is to be given a stronger priority, per the article above; if Stanford's graduate students are the current and future teachers and frontline researchers at Stanford and elsewhere; and if viewpoint diversity is also a priority as seems to be a growing theme, how is it that Stanford entered into an agreement that works so contrary to these priorities? See also This Week's Quote at the end of today's Newsletter.
When Evidence Is Branded as Hate
Excerpts (links in the original):
“On today’s campuses, evidence itself is too often branded as hostility. Research that once sparked debate now risks being dismissed as ‘harm.’ At Sarah Lawrence College, that reflex has escalated further: a faculty member joined students in a federal lawsuit, mischaracterizing scholarship as an “attack.” That isn’t mentoring or teaching. It is indoctrination in grievance tactics, and it represents a dangerous turning point for higher education.
“I know this firsthand. In a complaint just filed in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:25-cv-06442, filed August 5, 2025), a group of students and a faculty member sued Sarah Lawrence College and Congress over the potential release of material related to campus protests and violent building occupation. Though the case is not about me or my writing, the filing made use of well-known anti-Semitic tropes against me as a Jewish and Zionist professor -- the filing invoked the ‘myth of Jewish greed’ and posited that I am a ‘mouthpiece for…deep-pocketed benefactors’ -- and then made note of my co-authored article in Real Clear Investigations, The Rise of the Single Woke (and Young, Democratic) Female, mislabeling it as an ‘attack’ on ‘politically active women.’ ...
“Professors are stewards of intellectual life. Their task is not to amplify outrage but to cultivate argument. When they fail, they betray both their students and their profession. When professors trade evidence for indignation, they do not teach citizens; they train partisans. And parents, students, and citizens alike have no reason to trust them.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Real Clear Education; see also “We Are Losing the Basis of Our Civic Discourse” by Prof. Abrams at The Hill.
Gen Z Students More Engaged in School and Ready for the Future
Excerpts:
“Gen Z students are feeling more prepared for their futures than at any point in the past three years, according to a new survey from the Walton Family Foundation and Gallup Voices of Gen Z study. Nearly six in 10 middle and high school students now agree they feel prepared for the future, an 11-percentage-point increase over 2024.
“The survey, conducted May 16-27, 2025, with 1,687 13- to 18-year-olds enrolled in grades six through 12, finds Gen Z boys and girls are equally confident in their readiness for the future (58%), while Black students (67%) are more confident than their White peers (54%). Asian (58%) and Hispanic (61%) students’ preparedness for the future is statistically similar to that of Black and White students....”
Full article at Gallup, and a copy of the full report is available for download here.
College Students Show Declining Tolerance for Free Speech Despite Stated Support
Excerpts:
“College students express strong support for free speech in principle but demonstrate significant intolerance for viewpoints they disagree with in practice, according to the 2025 American College Student Freedom, Progress and Flourishing Survey released by the Sheila and Robert Challey Institute for Global Innovation and Growth.
“The fifth annual survey of 2,067 students at 472 four-year U.S. colleges and universities reveals a troubling disconnect between students' stated values and their actual attitudes toward diverse perspectives on campus.
“While 74% of students say protecting free speech is more important than ensuring no one feels uncomfortable, their responses to specific scenarios paint a different picture. Most concerning, 72% of students favor reporting professors to university administrators if they say something students deem offensive -- a figure that has remained consistently high since the survey began in 2021....
“The survey revealed stark differences across political ideologies and gender lines. Liberal students (79%) and independent students (74%) were significantly more likely than conservative students (56%) to support reporting professors for offensive comments. Similarly, 81% of female students and 84% of students identifying as unknown/other gender supported professor reporting, compared to 57% of male students....
“Perhaps most telling, among the 71% of students who say they feel comfortable sharing controversial opinions in class, nearly half cited alignment with their peers and professors as the reason for their comfort, suggesting the apparent openness may reflect ideological homogeneity rather than genuine tolerance for diversity....”
Full article at Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
Concerns About Complaint-Driven Policing in the UK . . . and at U.S. Universities too
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan was arrested at London’s Heathrow airport [a week ago] by armed officers. The arrest was over posts he made on social media in April while traveling in the United States....
“London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley, seems to agree that Linehan’s arrest was contrary to the best aspirations of liberal society. He publicly called for a review of the speech laws his officers are obliged to enforce -- and enforce them they do. British police are making roughly thirty arrests a day for 'offensive' or otherwise unlawful online communications....
“Authoritarian governments keep their populations in check by visiting consequences on a small portion of their population and watching the effects reverberate; a single arrest might chill the speech of millions. By the end of 2023, based on the numbers in The Times [of London], the U.K. had accomplished nearly 66,000 arrests for speech....
“The U.K. has done exactly what FIRE has been trying to get universities to stop doing, and convince American states not to do: use complaint-driven policing to create shadow records that chill speakers and form the basis of eventual illiberal prosecutions....”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff at Substack.
See also “Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior” at our Stanford Concerns webpage regarding Stanford’s own processes that do what this op-ed is concerned about and not solely about speech. Including where even false information and accusations can be entered into students' permanent files without students knowing that this is happening but where the cumulative information can later be used in disciplinary actions against students. Our webpage also includes proposed solutions such as removing all anonymously filed information and also advising students at least annually of their rights under federal law to review their files and allow them to correct or have removed any false or other incorrect information.
Other Articles of Interest
At Dartmouth, a Green Shoot in the Higher Ed Desert
Full op-ed by former Purdue President Mitch Daniels at Washington Post.
How Stanford Has Escaped Trump’s War on Higher Ed
Full op-ed by Stanford undergraduate George Porteous at Harvard Independent.
Rise of Paper Mills -- 32,700 Fake Scientific Papers Published in Real Journals
Full article at College Fix.
What To Do About Political Diversity on Campus
Full op-ed at Milken Institute Review.
As Financial Unpredictability Looms, Higher Ed Is Borrowing
Full article with specific numbers for specific schools including Stanford at Chronicle of Higher Education.
A Trustee Guide to Ensuring a Discrimination-free Campus
Full PDF copy (18 pages, 52 with appendices and notes) available at American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA).
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.
Respond to Employee Feedback, but Not Too Quickly
New Tool Helps Users Size Up the U.S. Economy
How the Rise of Plant Life Reshaped River Behavior After First Four Billion Years
Researchers Are Creating Artificial Synapses to Replicate the Brain’s Efficiency
A New Way to Image Brain Development
**********
“When professors face career destruction for engaging in scholarly debate and university administrators cave to activist pressure rather than defend intellectual freedom, students are taught that thoughtful dissent leads to punishment. They learn that conformity is safer than critical thinking, that ideological purity matters more than rigorous inquiry, and that courage is punished while cowardice is rewarded.” – U North Texas Prof. Timothy Jackson
September 1, 2025
Why We Care
Editor’s note: As readers may notice, this week’s Newsletter is being distributed slightly earlier than usual and with different content than usual. With the three-day weekend and the end of summer, we felt everyone could use a brief respite from the issues of the day, and we also felt it would be useful to feature some of the fundamentals on which Stanford has been built. We very much appreciate your interest and continued readership of our Newsletters and website and, as always, welcome your comments and suggestions. We will resume our regular format next week, and in the meantime, wish you a pleasant and peaceful Labor Day weekend.
------------
"Let us not be afraid to outgrow old thoughts and ways, and dare to think on new lines.” – Jane Stanford
------------
“You students are the most important factor in this University. It is for your benefit that it has been established. We hope and believe that you will fully realize and live up to this fact.... We want you all to be not only a credit to the University but also a credit to yourselves.” – Leland Stanford
------------
“Stanford is the university of the American frontier. Like the frontier, it is infused with a sense of openness, possibility, and hope that are fundamental to who we are. Those characteristics are an essential part of what makes this place so distinctive, and will help us define our future.” – Stanford President Jon Levin
------------
“The combination of intelligent, creative people and contentious issues can also be a volatile mix in any community, and perhaps especially so in a tightly knit intellectual community. It is very much in keeping with Jane and Leland Stanford’s original vision of the University that such issues would be part of the academic conversation.” – former Stanford President John Hennessy
------------
"The university has values that it prizes above all others: freedom (not just academic freedom), nondiscrimination (you will be heard, among other things, regardless of your sex, race, ethnicity, religion), and equality of opportunity. Whatever we choose to study, the way in which the study is undertaken describes a culture we share as members of the university. That culture rests on such values as respect for rational inquiry, evidence, and argumentation; respect for the autonomy, integrity, and contributions of the individual; freedom of thought and expression; respect for rules for action that encompass both rights and obligations." – former Stanford President Gerhard Casper
------------
“The greatest threat to the university comes not from without, but from within -- when we allow ideological conformity or political aims to obscure our commitment to truth and learning.” – former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy
------------
Stanford in the Early Years
We also bring to your attention two websites with photos and text from Stanford in the first 15 years:
Stanford University History (40 photos and text, although some of the text may be incorrect) at Click Americana.
A Visit to Stanford University (1905) by Mary Stewart Quelle at Library of Congress. This digitized copy of the book is 96 pages with text (shorter with photos only), can be read online and can also be downloaded in PDF format. If you scroll down at this page of the Library of Congress website, you will also see digitized copies of several other items of possible interest.
August 25, 2025
With AI, College Students Have Already Changed Forever
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A college senior returning to classes this fall has spent nearly their entire undergraduate career under the shadow -- or in the embrace -- of generative AI. ChatGPT first launched in November 2022, when that student was a freshman. As a department chair at Washington University in St. Louis, I witnessed the chaos it unleashed on campus. Students weren’t sure what AI could do, or which uses were appropriate. Faculty were blindsided by how effectively ChatGPT could write papers and do homework. College, it seemed to those of us who teach it, was about to be transformed.
“But nobody thought it would happen this quickly. Three years later, the AI transformation is just about complete. By the spring of 2024, almost two-thirds of Harvard undergrads were drawing on the tool at least once a week. In a British survey of full-time undergraduates from December, 92 percent reported using AI in some fashion. Forty percent agreed that ‘content created by generative AI would get a good grade in my subject,’ and nearly one in five admitted that they’ve tested that idea directly, by using AI to complete their assignments. Such numbers will only rise in the year ahead....
“Da’Juantay Wynter, [a] rising senior at WashU who has never seen a full semester without AI, told me he always writes his own essays but feels okay about using ChatGPT to summarize readings, especially if he is in a rush....
“Another member of his class, Omar Abdelmoity, serves on the university’s Academic Integrity Board, the body that adjudicates cases of cheating, with AI or otherwise. In almost every case of AI cheating he’s seen, Abdelmoity told me, students really did have the time to write the paper in question -- they just got stressed or preoccupied by other things, and turned to AI because it works and it is available....
“[Meantime] students seem to want a deeper sort of classroom innovation. They’re not looking for gimmicks -- such as courses that use AI only to make boring topics seem more current. Students like [Harrison Lieber, a WashU senior majoring in economics and computer science], who sees his college education as a means of setting himself up for his career, are demanding something more. Instead of being required to take tests and write in-class essays, they want to do more project-based learning -- with assignments that ‘emulate the real world,’ as Lieber put it....”
Full op-ed by WashU Prof. Ian Bogost at The Atlantic.
Campus Virtue-Signaling Has Become Widespread
Excerpts:
. . . .
“Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 1,452 confidential interviews with undergraduates at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan. We asked, have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically? An astounding 88 percent said yes.
“These students were not cynical, but adaptive. In a campus environment where grades, leadership, and peer belonging often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly learn to rehearse what is safe. The result is not conviction but compliance. And beneath that compliance, something vital is lost....
“Authenticity, once considered a psychological good, has become a social liability. And this fragmentation doesn’t end at the classroom door. Seventy-three percent of students reported mistrust in conversations about these values with close friends. Nearly half said they routinely conceal beliefs in intimate relationships for fear of ideological fallout. This is not simply peer pressure -- it is identity regulation at scale, and it is being institutionalized.
“We do not fault students for perpetuating a climate that is hostile to intellectual integrity. We fault the faculty, administrators, and institutional leaders who built a system that rewards moral theater while punishing inquiry. In shielding students from discomfort, they have also shielded them from discovery. The result is a generation confident in self-righteousness, but uncertain in self....”
Full op-ed by Northwestern researchers Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman at The Hill.
Vanderbilt-WashU Statement of Principles
The quote at the end of last week’s Newsletter was taken from a statement of principles that was supported not just by administrators, but was adopted by the boards of trustees of two major universities, Vanderbilt and Washington University in St. Louis. For convenience, we have subsequently posted the full text of the statement at our Commentary from Others webpage.
The Big Beautiful Fix for Graduate School Borrowing
Excerpts (link in the original):
“When policymakers and the public talk about student debt, they usually picture undergraduates: young people taking their first steps into higher education and making some of their first consequential financial decisions. That’s where most of the attention and reform energy has gone. But the real engine of recent growth in federal student loan volume has increasingly been graduate education, where borrowing is less constrained and loans are larger -- a cost to both student borrowers and taxpayers when degrees fail to deliver a payoff.
“Despite making up a smaller share of the student population, graduate students now account for more than 40 percent of federal student loan dollars handed out each year. In 2023, economists Tomas E. Monarrez and Jordan Matsudaira wrote in a Department of Education report that ‘if recent trends continue, graduate loans will soon comprise the majority of federal student loan disbursements.’ ...
“The recently passed reconciliation legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill, tackles these problems head‑on. First and foremost, it imposes limits on how much graduate students can borrow from the federal government. Graduate students can still borrow through the graduate Stafford loan program, but will be limited to just $20,500 per year (or $50,000 per year for students in professional degree programs such as medicine and law).
“Just as importantly, the bill introduces a new system of program‑level accountability. In order for students to maintain access to federal student loans, institutions will be required to demonstrate that previous graduates fared well financially. For graduate programs, the specific requirement is that graduates of every program out-earn the average bachelor's degree holder in their state. The idea is that the programs ‘do no economic harm.’ ..."
Full op-ed at Real Clear Education. See also “U Washington Dean: Big Beautiful Bill May Cause 50% Of Law Schools to Close” at Legal Insurrection. See also the video linked in the quote at the end of today’s Newsletter.
High-Income Families Have Admissions Advantage at Elite Private Colleges and Universities but No Such Advantage at Flagship Public Schools
Excerpt:
. . . .
“Children from families in the top 1% are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college (Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, and Chicago) as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores. Two-thirds of this gap is due to higher admissions rates for students with comparable test scores from high-income families; the remaining third is due to differences in rates of application and matriculation. In contrast, children from high-income families have no admissions advantage at flagship public colleges....”
PDF copy of study by Harvard Professors Raj Chetty and David J. Deming and Brown U Prof. John N. Friedman, (c) 2023 National Bureau of Economic Studies (NBER).
Some Updated Numbers
Our Stanford Concerns webpage has long consisted of detailed information comparing Stanford’s administrative costs and staffing with the costs and staffing of comparable colleges and universities.
This past week, the Palo Alto Daily Post published an article showing that 18 Stanford administrators are paid $1 million or more. Among other things, the article names the 25 top-paid administrators along with their compensation based on IRS filings in 2024. The article also notes that Stanford reported $9.5 billion in total revenue for the year, up from $8.5 billion the year before, and that expenses went up from $8.1 billion to $9 billion during that same period.
Also this past week, the Chronicle of Higher Education published its annual Almanac (subscription may be required) with numbers that are self-reported to the U.S. Department of Education by colleges and universities in accordance with detailed instructions (much of the information at our Stanford Concerns webpage is taken from this data base). With that in mind, we note that Stanford again had (at page 45 of the Almanac 2025-2026) the largest number of personnel in the category of “business and financial operations” as follows: Stanford (4,477), U Washington (4,363), UCLA (4,005), Johns Hopkins (3,664) and U Michigan Ann Arbor (3,560).
In the category of “computer, engineering and science” support staff, Stanford was #5: U Michigan (4,923), Ohio State (4,175), U Wisconsin Madison (3,725), Johns Hopkins (3,633) and Stanford (3,615).
In the category of “research” support staff, the top five schools did not include Stanford but consisted instead of: MIT (5,140), U North Carolina Chapel Hill (3,931), Georgia Tech (3,053), U Washington (3,000) and Yale (2,929). [See also Stanford Facts 2025, discussed below, which reports 927 in the “research staff” category as compared to these other schools.]
In the category of “librarians, curators, archivists and academic affairs and other educational services,” the top five schools again did not include Stanford but consisted instead of: Harvard (1,889), Emory (1,532), U Michigan Ann Arbor (1,375), NYU (1,267) and U Chicago (1,251).
In the category of “office and administrative support,” the top ten schools similarly did not include Stanford but consisted instead of: UCLA (3,899), Columbia (3,713), WashU (3,068), NYU (2,944), Weill Cornell Medicine (2,913), Ohio State (2,810), Yale (2,807), U Kentucky (2,605) Southern New Hampshire U (2,596) and Harvard (2,364).
Meantime, per Stanford Facts 2025, Stanford has:
2,345 total faculty (1,738 of whom are members of the Academic Council, page 32 of Stanford Facts 2025)
7,554 undergraduates (page 14)
9,915 graduate students (page 21)
17,469 total students (not counting 2,596 post-docs, page 23)
11,252 managerial and professional staff
1,926 administrative and technical staff
1,235 service and maintenance staff
___927 research staff
15,340 total administrative and other staff (page 33)
1,917 clinical educators
1,912 staff at SLAC
19,169 total staff (page 33)
See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage, especially part 3 (re Stanford's administrative bureaucracy) and part 4 (re Stanford's 200 to 300 centers and similar entities).
See also detailed charts re the growth of Stanford’s managerial and professional staff in the past two decades, Stanford’s administrative costs per student compared with other major colleges and universities, and related matters at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
Other Articles of Interest
A Culture of Conversation
Full text of speech at Law & Liberty.
Is Duke Abandoning American History?
Full op-ed by Duke undergraduate Sherman Criner at James Martin Center website.
What Colleges and Universities Are Supposed to Be About (video, under 2 minutes)
Comments by Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock at Substack.
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.
Stanford’s ResEd Discontinues the Neighborhood System
The Rise of Universities as Engines of Innovation
Longevity Is Going to Change Almost All Aspects of Our Lives
Scientists Develop Interface that ‘Reads’ Thoughts from Speech-Impaired Patients
Top Scholars Call for Evidence-Based Approach to AI Policy
Pain Took Football Away from Andrew Luck; What Brought Him Back to Stanford? (NY Times)
**********
“Diversity of thought, discussion, intellectual discourse -- that is what’s fundamental to universities, and anything that questions that is a real serious problem.” — Stanford alum Reid Hoffman (from Stanford alum Joe Lonsdale podcast, American Optimist, Ep. 121, and with discussion of universities starting around the 29:10 mark)
August 18, 2025
School Is Starting and Here's What I'm Committing to for My Students, Especially My Male Students
Excerpts (links in the original):
“When the semester begins, my classroom fills with anticipation and nerves -- mine included. Every term offers a chance to start fresh, build habits, and forge relationships that will carry us through. Those first weeks of any term are far more than icebreakers; they're a blueprint signaling to students who they are in this space and what we'll achieve together.
“I work hard to elevate every student. But as a professor and parent, I've noticed a pattern: male students often drift first when the relationship isn't there. Men are relational learners. When a young man feels known -- when he senses his professor notices and values him -- his engagement transforms. The work sharpens. Questions get braver. Risks feel worth taking.... [Followed by discussion of five specific steps to be taken.]
“These steps aren't gender-exclusive. Every student benefits from being known, encouraged, and challenged. Data shows social-emotional learning benefits manifest across demographics, improving academic outcomes and long-term success, with benefits lasting 18 years post-participation. But the stakes are especially high for male students facing unique educational challenges....
“Consider the broader context: male students are increasingly struggling in educational settings. They're less likely to graduate from college, with women now earning roughly 60% of bachelor's degrees. In 2021, men received only 42% of bachelor's degrees awarded -- the lowest male share on record. Male enrollment in higher education continues declining. These trends aren't about capability -- they're about connection. When young men don't feel seen or valued in educational spaces, they check out not just from assignments but from the entire academic enterprise....
“Education isn't just transmitting knowledge; it's developing whole humans capable of critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and meaningful contribution. When we commit to seeing and supporting whole students -- especially those most at risk of disconnection -- we don't just improve academic outcomes. We change life trajectories.
“That's the real measure of our work as educators. Not the tests passed or papers written, but the confidence built, connections forged, and capacity for growth instilled. This semester, I'm committing to that deeper work, one student, one name, one relationship at a time.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Real Clear Education.
See also:
“It’s Not Just a Feeling, Data Shows Boys and Young Men Are Falling Behind” at NY Times (May 13, 2025): “The outcomes for Black boys are worse, and growing up in poverty disproportionately hurts boys.”
“The New Gender Gaps” at Harvard Magazine (May 15, 2025).
“Gender Achievement Gaps in U.S. School Districts” at Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis (June 2018) comparing math versus language skills.
“Young Men in Crisis” at Stanford Review (September 30, 2024): “The classroom is only one place in which this disparity can be observed. Young men today are three times more likely to overdose, four times more likely to commit suicide, and a staggering 14 times more likely to be incarcerated than their female peers.”
The University Presidents Who Want to Fix Universities Before They Get Fixed
Excerpts (links in the original):
“For well over a decade I have been of the view that universities need to fix themselves, or they will get fixed -- and that getting fixed is likely to be more destructive than restorative. Until recently, I held this view with regard to public universities in red and purple states, but I probably underestimated the extent to which universities had alienated large portions of the public and undermined their own reservoirs of political support -- and did not anticipate the focus with which some Trump Administration officials would target universities. To be sure, the Supreme Court's SFFA decision, which effectively declared the de facto admissions policies at most elite universities to be illegal, and the wave of campus anti-Semitism only made universities more vulnerable.
“The Atlantic has an interesting article on the growing divide among some university presidents about how to respond to the Trump Administration and current political pressures. On one side are folks like Princeton's Chris Eisgruber, who seem to think there is nothing wrong and that universities can and should ride out the storm. (Those we might call the ostriches of academia.) On the other are those like Daniel Diermeier of Vanderbilt and Andrew Martin of Washington University, who recognize that universities need to reform themselves. The latter camp accept the charge made by folks like Michael Clune that universities have brought much of their current trouble upon themselves....”
Full op-ed by William & Mary Prof. Jonathan H. Adler at Reason.
The Rapid Rise and the Disastrous Fall of the Medical University
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Since January, American higher education’s research enterprise has faced unexpected reductions in funding from federal agencies brought about by executive orders and other actions from the White House. Times of crisis are also times for stocktaking. How did we get here?
“The story begins around 1940, as federal agencies, state governments, and private foundations began to negotiate their partnerships with universities, leading to the rise of ‘the federal-grant university,’ a term coined by Clark Kerr, a former president of the University of California, in his famous 1963 lecture, ‘The Uses of the University,’ given at Harvard....
“By the 21st century, a new model of the federal-grant university had emerged -- what we call the mediversity, or the medical university. To trace the contours of this new model, it is useful to consider the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), which historically had not been an elite research hub but gained prominence in the last two decades. The research success of an institution like UAB illustrates how non-elite institutions could become serious players in the federal research-funding game. It also highlights an important transformation: In recent years, an increasing focus on medicine and health-related functions has become central to many institutional priorities, including the pursuit of federal dollars for research and patient care....
“The rise of biomedical sciences in federal research combined with the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid services at university hospitals made the academic medical center a distinctive entity within the American university -- and in the American economy. This new model, the mediversity, has spread to include about 20 universities in which the academic medical center is now the largest unit in budget, enrollment, and services in the host university, as well as the largest employer in its metropolitan area and perhaps in its state.... [Followed by discussion of the establishment and growth of biomedical companies with VC and government funding in coordination with academic medical centers, and then the sudden reversal with recent government cutbacks.]
“Did university presidents have contingency plans for this reversal of fortunes? Had overreliance on the mediversity model thrown off the gyroscope of the American university? Reviewing records and articles from 2022 through 2024, we find scant indication that university leaders, especially those at academic medical centers and the mediversity, discussed the possibility that political support might ever wane, compromising funding....
“.... For now, one cannot presume business as usual for any part of the American university system -- and perhaps especially for those that have grounded their institutional identity in the mediversity model.”
Full op-ed by U Kentucky Prof. Emeritus John R. Thelin and Prof. Neal H. Hutchens at Chronicle of Higher Education.
How I Learned That College Students Aren’t Snowflakes
Excerpts:
“For years I threatened to teach a course called ‘Books You’ll Never Read in College.’ It wasn’t only that I had grown tired of hearing students parrot the ideological orthodoxy on campus. My main concern, as a teacher of applied ethics, was that many of my students were reluctant to talk about important social, moral and political issues.
“When I asked my students to share anonymously what topics they would do their best to avoid in the classroom, the list included pretty much anything controversial: guns, religion, pronouns, the Middle East, abortion, LGBTQ rights, socialism, sexism in the workplace, transgender athletes in sports, parallels between transgenderism and transracialism, race, policing, support for or opposition to President Trump and 'anything that might anger others.'
“This spring, I made good on my threat. I came up with a better name for the course: ‘You Can’t Think That! Or Can You?’ I wrote a provocative course description to attract students. The syllabus would begin with Plato’s ‘Apology’ and John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ and then would move to contemporary works such as Thomas Sowell’s ‘Social Justice Fallacies,’ Heather Mac Donald’s ‘The War on Cops,’ Abigail Shrier’s ‘Irreversible Damage,’ and Brad Wilcox’s ‘Get Married.’ To my surprise, the course filled within minutes and amassed a substantial wait list.
“Still, I was anxious about whether this experiment would work.... Instead, with great enthusiasm, students embraced their newfound freedom to say what they thought and to change their minds based on what others thought and said....
“One student was an advocate of polyandry, and another defended traditional marriage on religious grounds. One was a self-proclaimed Zionist, and another was writing an honors thesis critical of U.S. military support of Israel. With a lot of practice, they all learned how to be good intellectual friends despite their many differences. The classroom was our practice ground, where everyone was expected to try out the ideas of so-called wrongthinkers, listen carefully to one another, and find what might be true or useful even within a worldview or ideology that might be largely mistaken. Students couldn’t get enough of it. They carried their disagreements into the halls after class, and some set up lunch dates to understand better those whose views differed from their own....
“So, no, students aren’t snowflakes. Deep down, they are as hungry as ever for intellectual freedom. It’s also what they deserve. Many of their professors once received this kind of education, and they owe it to their students to provide the same opportunities for free discussion and debate. An important part of my job as an educator is to help students see that it’s possible to challenge or reject an idea while still respecting the person who holds it. As one student said in a final reflection on the course: ‘This changed the game for me. People are more than their ideas.’”
Full op-ed by U Richmond Prof. Terry L. Price at WSJ.
Top 12 Challenges Facing Higher Ed in 2025 and Some Exemplars for Solving Them
Excerpts:
“Higher education is no longer coasting -- colleges and universities now face a defining moment. In the ‘go-go’ days just 15 years ago, higher education had 21 million students (graduate and undergraduate) and 18.1 million undergraduates. When there was a recession, higher ed institutions could count on an uptick in enrollment. Institutions were building multiple new buildings and programs to offer students, and new buildings and dormitories to teach and house the same students.
“Unfortunately, those go-go days did not last.... Then, when you kick in the cost of higher education and increased student debt, AI and technology reshaping how we teach and learn, and increased competition among colleges and universities, you have put [sic] is nearly the perfect storm....”
[Followed by discussion of these 12 challenges and examples of what some schools are doing in response:]
-
Declining Enrollment and Demographic Shifts
-
Rising Costs and Student Debt
-
Competition from Alternative Education Pathways
-
The Need for Innovation and Adaptability
-
Financial Sustainability Concerns
-
Political and Policy Changes
-
Public Perception and Value Proposition
-
Technology Challenges, Including Artificial Intelligence (AI)
-
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
-
Mental Health and Wellness
-
Globalization and Internationalization
-
Climate Change and Sustainability
Full article at Changing Higher Ed.
Other Articles of Interest
Higher Education Has Long Engaged in Racial Discrimination in Hiring
Full op-ed at City Journal. See also “Why I Support the Civil Rights Complaint Against Cornell University” by a Cornell alum at Substack. And for convenience, a PDF copy of the DOJ July 29, 2025 letter is posted at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
32 Colleges Accused of Using Early Decision to Drive Up Costs
Full article at Higher Ed Dive including a list of the schools named as defendants and NOT including Stanford. See also “Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against 32 Universities; All Students Admitted Since 2021 Named as Potential Members” at Campus Reform.
The Growing Problem of Scientific Research Fraud
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
How the Social Sciences Killed Our Universities
Full op-ed by Boston U Prof. Emeritus Liah Greenfeld at National Association of Scholars.
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.
Stanford to Continue Legacy Admissions and Reinstate Standardized Test Requirements
How Sleep Affects Mental Health, and Vice Versa
Addressing the Potential Harms of Market-Driven Drug Development
Why Voices Light Us Up but Leave the Autistic Brain in the Dark (podcast, 31 minutes)
**********
“If research universities are to pursue the truth wherever it lies, they cannot have a political ideology or pursue a particular vision of social change. They contribute to the betterment of society not by pursuing an ideological agenda but through the research and innovation of their faculty and students, by producing educated and knowledgeable leaders, and by serving as a model for civil discourse grounded in critical reasoning.” – From the Vanderbilt-WashU Statement of Principles
August 11, 2025
Stanford Research Matters
Excerpt:
“Stanford researchers have defined the cutting edge for decades. They launched the computer age in Silicon Valley, played a pivotal role in establishing the biotech industry, and have been leaders in advancing artificial intelligence, all with an eye toward benefiting humanity. In most cases, the seed of a Stanford researcher’s transformational idea was nourished by funding from the U.S. government, leading to immense economic growth and the creation of jobs across the country....”
Full article at Stanford Report including detailed individual and historical examples.
Editor’s note: As longtime readers know, our weekly Newsletters focus primarily on issues regarding free speech and critical thinking at Stanford as well as other colleges and universities nationwide. With the current pressures and uncertainties regarding the funding of university research, we felt it appropriate to draw readers' attention to the above article that was recently produced by Stanford and that highlights the significant impacts of Stanford’s research, both now and historically. And as longtime readers also know, we believe those activities can be even further enhanced by a series of reforms that we and others have long advocated. See, for example, our Back to Basics webpage (especially parts 3 and 4) as well as the various issues discussed at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
Could Artificial Intelligence Undermine Constructive Disagreement?
Excerpts:
. . . .
“While LLMs are shaped by the patterns contained in their training data, they are also further refined by their developers to align with human preferences. AI companies, seeking widespread adoption and a return on their substantial investments, have powerful incentives to design systems that maximize user satisfaction and/or retention.
“This creates a dynamic partially reminiscent of social media platforms, where algorithms optimize for engagement by showing users content that either confirms their views or caricatures their opponents. The result is a proliferation of filter bubbles, clickbait, outrage, and flattering content at the expense of substance and rigor.
“Similarly, AI systems engineered to please may prioritize affirming user beliefs, avoiding disagreement and sidestepping challenges to users’ views. As competition intensifies among AI labs, developers may feel compelled to prioritize engagement metrics and market share over epistemic integrity and ethical safeguards....
“The degree of flattery in the models’ comebacks when confronted with user pushback varied markedly between different models. In some systems, it appeared in around 10% of responses; in others, it exceeded 50%. Notably, newer models, such as GPT-4.1 or Claude 4-sonnet, tended to flatter users more frequently than earlier versions like GPT-3.5, or Claude 3.5-sonnet. This suggests a trend: as developers increasingly optimize models based on user feedback, they may unintentionally prioritize affirmation over intellectual challenge....
“Ultimately, the tendency of AIs to prioritize affirmation over honest disagreement is mostly shaped by commercial competition and user choices. Whether AI undermines or strengthens robust debate and epistemic rigor will depend on how these forces interact, as well as the individual choices we make. As AI users, our behavior and preferences actively shape the way future generations of AI models will interact with us.”
Full op-ed by Otago Polytechnic Prof. David Rozado at Substack including a detailed chart showing the frequency of flattery by specific AI models in response to user pushback.
See also “OpenAI Launches Study Mode for College Students” at Diverse Issues in Higher Education: “Unlike standard ChatGPT, Study Mode employs Socratic teaching methods, asking students probing questions and building exchanges that work toward answers collaboratively rather than providing immediate responses.”
See also “Half of Students Say AI Is Most Important Skill They'll Learn in College” at Newsweek.
FIRE Brings Lawsuit re Free Speech Rights of Noncitizens Including Non-U.S. Students; Stanford Daily Is One of Several Named Plaintiffs
Excerpts:
. . . . .
“‘In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,’ said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. ‘Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.’...
“’Two lawful residents of the United States holding the same sign at the same protest shouldn’t be treated differently just because one’s here on a visa,’ said FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley. ‘The First Amendment bars the government from punishing protected speech -- period. In our free country, you shouldn’t have to show your papers to speak your mind.’
“Plaintiffs in FIRE’s lawsuit represent the wide range of groups and individuals whose speech is threatened....”
Full press release at FIRE.
See also “Ilya Shapiro and Robert Shibley Debate the Issues – Censorship or Good Governance?” at Free Press.
Why the Ivory Tower Wants a Deal with Trump
Excerpts (link in the original):
. . . .
“The universities’ eagerness to cut a deal shows that they don’t think they can hold off Trump indefinitely. A cut of the magnitude the NIH sought [that is, a cap of 15% on the reimbursement of indirect costs for research instead of the typical 55% to 60% and higher] would put a major dent in their budgets, slow the search for breakthroughs in health and science, and enable foreign rivals to catch up, they say....
“‘It’s been made extremely clear to us from day one by members of Congress that if we don’t do something, somebody else will,’ Kelvin Droegemeier, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who’s spearheading the effort on behalf of a coalition of universities and research institutes, told POLITICO....
“The university-led group announced this spring that it was working on a new model, one that was ‘simple and easily explained,’ and in a nod to the administration’s priorities: ‘efficient and transparent.’ ...
“Debate over how much the government should pay for indirect costs has raged for decades. Both former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama suggested capping facilities and administrative costs, to no avail....
“[Former Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya and now head of NIH] said he had talked with Droegemeier during the early planning stages of the model. ‘I think they’re quite promising,’ he said....
“The university team isn’t promising cost reductions. That’s not their role, according to Droegemeier. Instead, the model is designed to show what it really costs to do research. Then the government and lawmakers can decide what they want to pay for....”
Full article at Politico.
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.
Stanford to Layoff Over 360 Staff
Covered also at Inside Higher Ed. See also “Major Cuts Include the Athletics Department” at Football Scoop.
What We’re Getting Wrong About Mental Health
Energy Supplied by Gut Microbiome Depends on Diet
**********
“The spread of administrative bloat threatens to turn universities into corporations with a sideline in education.” — Johns Hopkins Prof. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty and the Rise of the All-Administrative University (2011)
August 4, 2025
Stanford Suspends Two Undergraduate Houses After Title VI Investigations
Excerpts:
. . . .
“According to the University statement, several reports were filed with the Title VI Office against Kairos after ‘students participating in an extracurricular activity in the house were asked to leave and told, among other things, that the presence of Zionists in the group was making residents of the house uncomfortable.’ ...
“With regards to [Enchanted Broccoli Forest], the Title VI Office said an email sent by EBF’s RAs in June to incoming residents was deemed exclusionary toward white students and male students.
"Part of the email read: ‘Enchanted Broccoli Forest is historically dedicated to uplifting the voices of queer people of color, and thus is committed to being a place of refuge for those who are black, brown, gender-marginalized, and FLI. If you are white/white-passing, or if you are a man, do understand that you are being invited into space that wasn’t and isn’t made for you. We welcome you to this community, however ask that you acknowledge and are cognizant of the space you are occupying, and how, by nature, your presence may suffocate.’ ..."
Full article at Stanford Daily and also covered at Stanford Review.
Editor’s note: With the many hundreds of administrators and staff in Residential Education; Dean of Students; Community Standards; SHARE; Vaden; Provost; Office of Inclusion, Community and Integrative Learning and, separately, Office of Inclusion, Belonging and Intergroup Communication (the latter of which has just been disbanded per this article in Stanford Daily) and an unknown number of other such offices throughout the campus, how is it possible that noninclusive and discriminatory actions like these were taking place, and possibly for many previous years and not just this most recent year? And if the administrators and staff in all of these and other offices throughout the campus knew about these and similar attitudes and actions, why didn’t they raise concerns or, alternatively, did these offices, intentionally or inadvertently, actually condone these types of noninclusive and discriminatory attitudes and actions?
From Stanford's compliance manual: “Adherence to this Code also requires that any suspected violations of applicable standards, policies, laws or regulations be brought to the attention of the appropriate cognizant office.”
See also the letter to all students dated September 17, 2024 from both the provost and the vice provost for student affairs regarding Title VI, bias and related matters. See also “Stanford’s Program re Title VI/Bias” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
Discriminatory Hiring Practices at Cornell
Excerpts (link in the original):
“I’m filing a complaint against Cornell University for racial discrimination.
“This isn’t a political stunt or publicity grab. It’s a last resort in response to a gross injustice that destroyed the career I spent more than a decade building. It’s about holding accountable a powerful institution that violated the law, abandoned its principles, and discriminated against me because of my race.
“I’m an evolutionary biologist, a liberal and a first-generation college graduate. I dreamed of becoming a scientist for as long as I can remember. I pursued that passion for more than 12 years -- earning a doctorate from the University of California, Santa Barbara and completing a postdoctoral position at Pennsylvania State University. Along the way, I was awarded a competitive NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and published nearly 30 peer-reviewed papers in leading academic journals. For my career stage, I was among the top in my field.
“I applied to countless tenure-track positions across the country in 2019 and 2020. One of those applications went to Cornell, for a position in their Neurobiology and Behavior department. Unknown to me, a few months later Cornell initiated a separate search for a faculty member in evolutionary biology -- my exact field -- but kept it confidential. Internal emails now show this was no accident.
“Last month, the America First Policy Institute released internal Cornell emails showing the university conducted an effort to recruit what the search committee referred to as a ‘diversity hire.’ One committee member described the process bluntly: ‘What we should be doing is inviting one person whom we have identified as being somebody that we would like to join our department and not have that person in competition with others.’ ...
“This discriminatory practice, conducted in coordination with Cornell’s Office of the Provost -- led at the time by current Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff -- violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race.
“Let my case serve as a warning that there is a price for violating civil rights.”
Full op-ed at WSJ.
See also “Music Professor Obtains $725,000 Settlement Resulting from Attacks for His Views re Music Theory” at Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism: “When professors face career destruction for engaging in scholarly debate and university administrators cave to activist pressure rather than defend intellectual freedom, students are taught that thoughtful dissent leads to punishment. They learn that conformity is safer than critical thinking, that ideological purity matters more than rigorous inquiry, and that courage is punished while cowardice is rewarded.” More about the controversy here.
DOJ Memo Outlines Unlawful College and University Practices
Excerpt (links in the original):
“‘Race based scholarships,’ ‘preferential hiring,’ and other DEI initiatives are ‘unlawful practices,’ the Department of Justice warned in a recent memo.
“The [July 29, 2025] memo ‘clarifies that federal antidiscrimination laws apply to programs or initiatives that involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (‘DEI’) programs,’ according to a news release.
“Much of the memo specifically focuses on education policies that are ‘unlawful’ or may be.
“The memo lists several examples of ‘unlawful practices.’ ...”
Full article at College Fix. See also Inside Higher Ed. Also, for current and future reference, we have posted a PDF copy of the DOJ memo here.
1 in 2 Graduates Say Their College Major Didn’t Prepare Them for Today’s Market
Excerpt (link in the original):
“As today’s college graduates struggle to start a steady career, 1 in 2 Americans say their college major didn’t prepare them for the job market, according to a June 18 report from Preply.
“Beyond that, 1 in 6 Americans who went to college said they regret it. When thinking about their college experience, college graduates said their top regrets included taking out student loans, not networking more and not doing internships.
“One of the main concepts of seeking higher education after high school is that college will prepare you for the rest of your life. While some graduates leave their alma mater feeling prepared to enter the workforce and begin their career, others feel underprepared,” according to the report.
“In a survey of more than 1,700 Americans with an undergraduate degree, 29% said they wished they picked a different major, and 18% said they regretted the institution they attended....”
Full article at Higher Ed Dive.
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.
Antibody Enables Stem Cell Transplants Without Toxic Side Effects
Virtual Scientists Help Solve Complex Biological Problems
Designing Fair and Trustworthy AI Systems
Competing Issues re Antidepressants for Kids and Teens
************
“A university is fundamentally about inquiry. That means putting the intellectual and educational mission first.” -- Former University of Chicago President Robert J. Zimmer
July 28, 2025
Editor’s note: Click here to view recently added as well as past reader comments. And as always, we welcome your own comments and suggestions here.
**********
How AI Laws Are Reviving the Worst Ideas of Campus Censorship
Excerpts:
“One of the more frustrating things about working on free speech for over two decades is watching the same bad ideas come back wearing slightly different outfits. It’s like déjà vu, but with better fonts. Dealing with them over and over again can be tiring, but doing so remains incredibly important -- particularly when it comes to AI....
“Followers of FIRE and [Eternally Radical Idea] will be very familiar with speech codes. These were policies enacted by colleges and universities, dating back at least four decades, designed to restrict certain kinds of speech on campus. And more often than not, they used 'anti-discrimination' as their rationale. Recent regulations proposed and imposed in multiple U.S. states are also invoking 'anti-discrimination' -- only this time, it’s for technologies that seek to define objective reality itself.
“These laws -- already passed in states like Texas and Colorado -- require AI developers to make sure their models don’t produce ‘discriminatory’ outputs. And of course, superficially, this sounds like a noble endeavor. After all, who wants discrimination? The problem, however, is that while invidious discriminatory action in, say, loan approval should be condemned, discriminatory knowledge is an idea that is rightfully foreign. In fact, it should freak us out....
“Nobody wants to be anywhere near the sin of discrimination -- especially racial discrimination. That’s a noble impulse, and quite the cultural evolution from even fifty years ago. It’s a great sign that we find it so reprehensible that people will do backflips to avoid even the appearance of it. But when that instinct becomes so strong that we start reshaping reality, we’re not helping anyone. We’re just making ourselves -- and now, our machines -- less accurate, less honest, and less effective in navigating the world as it really is.
“If we continue this trend, we will be manufacturing an epistemic crisis that will be unprecedented in its scope and scale. Our budding AI technologies will inevitably become the primary source and manufacturer of the world’s information. If that information is tarnished or tampered with to spare our feelings -- especially if it’s done pre-emptively -- there will be no changing or correcting course, because our map, our compass, and even our intuitions will be completely wrong.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff at Substack. See also our prior articles about “Stanford’s Roles in Censoring the Web” at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage.
We Need a New Theory of Academic Freedom
Excerpt (links in the original):
“With their wealth, exclusivity and global clout, American universities are an easy target for populist resentment. For Americans frustrated by inequality and cultural alienation, there may be a certain satisfaction in seeing these elite institutions humbled.
“But the Trump administration’s coercive offensive against institutions like Harvard and Columbia, which clearly isn’t about antisemitism, isn’t really about elitism or populism either. It's about something deeper. It throws into question ordered liberties that are deeply rooted in America’s history and traditions.
“If that point’s hard to explain, part of the blame lies with us academics. We’ve spent too long defending academic freedom on the basis of professional norms, free speech jurisprudence and administrative due process.
“Some of these defenses might win in court, but none are winning in the court of public opinion. Whether academic freedom survives in the coming years won’t be decided by the Administrative Procedure Act or even the First Amendment. It’ll depend on whether ordinary Americans can say that academic freedom is their freedom, too. The question, in other words, is whether or not the idea of academic freedom has legitimacy.
“Today, academic freedom’s legitimacy is fraying. Rising tuition, student debt, concerns over free speech, allegations of political bias, administrative bloat, billion-dollar endowments and doubts about the real-world value of degrees have made many Americans question what universities are for and who they really serve.
“Legitimizing academic freedom under these conditions will be an uphill battle....”
[Followed by detailed discussion of historical and philosophical precedents in academic and other contexts.]
Full op-ed by Amherst Prof. Adam Sitze at Inside Higher Ed.
See also our Back to Basics webpage.
Achieve Legitimate Workplace Goals Without the Bureaucracies and Dogma of DEI
Excerpts (link in the original):
“During the past few years, DEI programs have been rolled back in both private and public organizations, and the trend may well continue. For champions of workforce diversity, who feel their work is being undone, this is a difficult time. But there is promising news. A growing body of evidence suggests that many management innovations designed to improve performance actually boost workforce diversity in the bargain -- and do so without inviting the backlash that formal DEI programs can incur....
“The animating idea of high-performance management is simple: If you can create a work environment in which all employees are valued, supported, and motivated in ways that allow them to do their best, you’ll get higher engagement from them and better business outcomes. Diversity isn’t the goal -- but it is a natural by-product.
“Our research on workplace diversity -- conducted in the United States but relevant globally -- confirms that notion. We’ve run statistical analyses of data from some 800 companies in a variety of industries. Many of the techniques that companies use to improve performance have a better record of fostering inclusion than do diversity trainings and grievance processes -- popular DEI measures that tend to be counterproductive, as we detailed in HBR almost a decade ago, in ‘Why Diversity Programs Fail’ (July-August 2016). That’s true not just for frontline jobs but for all sorts of positions, including management....
[Followed by detailed discussion of five companies: Oracle, Walmart, IBM, Gap and Amazon.]
“For years, diversity and human resources experts have been calling for firms to change their management systems to open opportunity to all. The approaches we’ve identified in this article do just that -- even if that was not the intention of their creators. In these tumultuous times for DEI, performance innovations that help employees be their best selves at work may be the best hope for the dream of equality.”
Full article by Harvard Prof. Frank Dobbin and Tel Aviv U. Prof. Alexandra Kalev at Harvard Business Review.
Other Articles of Interest
Student Concerns at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business
Full article at Poets and Quants: “Stanford Graduate School of Business, long considered among the most elite MBA programs in the world, is facing a storm of internal criticism from students who say the academic experience has fallen far short of expectations.... Students voiced concerns about outdated course content, a disengaged faculty culture, and a broken curriculum structure that they say leaves them unprepared for post-MBA careers.”
Stanford Is Creating a New Office of Investigations
Full text at Stanford website: “As the inaugural head of Stanford’s new Office of Investigations (OI), the Executive Director will oversee a team of investigators responsible for conducting independent and neutral fact finding on a variety of subject matters involving students, faculty and staff.... The expected salary range is $250,000 to $330,000 per annum.” See also new listings for “Senior Investigator, Office of Investigations,” expected salary range of $200,000-$260,000 per annum, along with others.
See also “Stanford to Reduce Budget by $140 Million and Lay Off Employees for Next Academic Year” at Stanford Daily.
University of Chicago Looking at Cuts in Humanities and Language Majors
Full article at College Fix: “University leaders cite historic funding pressures and possibility of new tax on endowment.”
Tracking the Cancel Culture in Higher Education
Full article at National Association of Scholars ("Reasoned scholarship is traded in for the cheap, vapid substitute of political activism. And in the long run, higher education itself dies.") including this link to an updated PDF chart of cases.
The Ivy League Apology Show -- Princeton and Penn as Case Studies
Full op-ed at Princetonians for Free Speech: “The apology has become a peculiar ritual in American public life. Our age of perpetual offense is also one of perpetual contrition.... Nowhere is this dynamic more pronounced than on university campuses, where the machinery of apology has become as essential as the campus bookstore or dining hall.”
We Need to Restore Credibility to Accreditation
Full op-ed at Real Clear Education: “If the U.S. truly wants to have the greatest higher education system in the world, the archaic system of college accreditation needs to change fundamentally -- and it needs to change now.”
Harvard and the Trump Administration Face Off Over Funding Cuts
Full article at Washington Post. See also “Even if Harvard Wins This Court Case, the Fight Won’t Go Away” at WSJ.
Shared Governance and Academic Freedom
Full op-ed by National Association of Scholars President Peter Wood at Real Clear Education: “The single most important responsibility of college trustees is picking the college president. The task is difficult because so few people measure up to the job. And it is all the more difficult because so many people have an interest in the outcome.”
Eight Books Regarding the University Crisis
Full article and recommended book list at The Atlantic.
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.
In-body CAR-T Cell Generation Proves Safe and Effective in Mice
Unexpected Windows into Neurodegenerative Disease
VR Training Can Help Build Empathy in the Workplace
**********
“Universities must be places open to the widest possible range of viewpoints. That is the only way minds can be truly opened.” – Former Harvard President Drew Faust
July 21, 2025
An Alternative to the Proposed Cap on Research Funding
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A coalition of 10 heavyweight higher-ed organizations is proposing to Congress an alternative to the research-spending cap the Trump administration has been seeking to impose. The new model would overhaul the federal system of reimbursing universities for indirect costs incurred for their research, which has been in place since World War II.
“The Joint Associations Group, or JAG, which includes the Association of American Universities (AAU), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU),
announced its proposal on Friday [Julyl 11]. The coalition sees its plan as a middle ground, one that responds to long-held gripes about how indirect costs are administered while lessening the billions in lost revenue for universities under the 15-percent indirect-cost cap proposed by several federal agencies, among them the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Departments of Defense and Energy.
“JAG’s ‘Financial Accountability in Research’ (FAIR) model would offer institutions two options to be reimbursed for expenses tied to a particular project: a line-item accounting, or a less-time-intensive 'base option' that would put a fixed percentage of a project’s total budget toward certain costs. The plan represents a radical restructuring of the nation’s research-funding ecosystem, but one that JAG leaders say is necessary given mounting political pressure....
“Among the advantages of the FAIR model are that it accounts for the varying costs of research across an institution, [U. Illinois Prof. Kelvin K. Droegemeier] said. Humanities, social-sciences, and theoretical math research, for example, don’t require the same expensive equipment and facilities as medical research. That makes a more-flexible approach 'more appropriate for the 21st-century research enterprise,' he said.
“The FAIR model would also eliminate the need for institutions to periodically negotiate indirect-cost rates with the government, an arduous process that typically occurs every two to four years. ‘This flexibility empowers each institution to define its own categories and cost structures using internal data, while ensuring auditability and public accountability,’ a JAG executive summary said...."
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Reform Higher Education by Raising Standards
Excerpt (links in the original):
. . .
“Most faculty who have taught in universities for a long time are aware that educational standards have fallen dramatically in recent decades. Even the most prestigious universities have made it much easier for students to graduate with little gain in knowledge and critical thinking. As David Butterfield argued in a viral article last fall, education has become infantilized. His article was about teaching classics, but the problem is widespread in the humanities and social sciences.
“Let me give an example from my own experience teaching history at Harvard. When I began teaching 40 years ago, I regularly assigned over 300 pages of reading per week. At present, assigning more than 75 pages per week, as we are advised by curriculum committees, is considered an unmanageable burden for most students. Students at highly selective colleges and universities average only about 15 hours of study outside the classroom, down from 24 hours in the 1960s. The average includes students in the natural sciences, who generally put in more hours outside of class. As long ago as 2011, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa argued, on the basis of data from the College Learning Assessment (CLA), that American higher education did not deliver substantial intellectual growth for at least a third of students. The figure must be significantly higher today....”
[Followed by detailed discussion of grade inflation, loss of core curricula, interdisciplinarity, unlimited extracurriculars, ignorance of foreign languages, politicization, and the impact of university rankings and accreditation.]
Full op-ed by Harvard Prof. James Hankins at Law & Liberty.
Higher Education’s Crisis of Domestic Confidence
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Buried in a recent report from the Economic Innovation Group is a statistic that should make every university administrator in America lose sleep: Foreign-born workers who arrived in the U.S. on student visas now out-earn their native-born peers with college degrees by nearly $30,000 annually. They’re also more than twice as likely to work in research and development -- the engine room of national progress.
‘Let me be very clear: This isn’t about IQ. It’s about institutions. It’s about a cultural drift so deep, so corrosive, that a native-born population is slowly being nudged out of its own future -- not by brute force or some grand conspiracy but by decades of educational decay, elite indifference, and intellectual cowardice. America didn’t run out of smart people. It ran out of the will to cultivate them....
“Today’s American student is increasingly guided into disciplines that produce little beyond debt and disillusionment. Fields once synonymous with discovery -- engineering, chemistry, and applied physics -- are under-enrolled, underfunded, and under-defended. Instead, ... we infantilize students, training them to feel rather than think, and then we wonder why employers look elsewhere.
“Enter the international student....
“Because it’s not just that America imports talent. It’s that we now rely on it. We lean on the drive of students raised in far less wealthy, far more disciplined societies because we’ve abdicated the responsibility of developing our own. We send our kids into debt traps for gender-theory degrees while begging H-1B visa holders to keep the lights on at Google and the research running at Stanford.
“In this academic vacuum, universities continue courting international students -- not for the sake of diversity or global exchange but for the money. Foreign students usually pay full freight. They rarely need financial aid. They’re low-maintenance revenue streams. In many cases, they subsidize the cost of educating domestic students, and colleges are now addicted....
“Finally, and perhaps most critically, the culture of education must be rehabilitated. American students have been raised in a soup of narcissism, cynicism, and ideological confusion. They are not stupid. They are not lazy. They are malnourished. Universities must stop selling therapy and start modeling truth, intellectual seriousness, and rigor. The pursuit of knowledge is something sacred, not performative....”
Full op-ed at James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. But see also “U.S. Universities Can’t Innovate in Isolation” at Inside Higher Ed: “At a time when the global race to develop cutting-edge technologies is accelerating, the U.S. should be expanding -- not constraining -- its international research partnerships.”
Cornell Historian Offers Hope for Higher Education
Excerpt:
. . .
“We are in an exciting period of reform and rebuilding. On reflection, however, I think that reforming universities will take work both on the inside and from the outside. It’s a ‘both/and’ rather than an ‘either/or’ process. Within the institution, we need leadership from administrators who understand the problem and are committed to restoring liberal education. Trustees and overseers need to back them up. Those administrators need to find like-minded faculty members and work with them. They also must be committed to devoting resources to hiring new faculty, because rare is the institution that already has enough faculty who are dedicated to those goals and not to activism instead....”
Full interview of Cornell Prof. Barry Strauss at College Fix.
The Real Crisis in Education Is What We Aren’t Measuring
Excerpts (link in the original):
“There’s a reason so many students feel disconnected from school. It’s not a lack of effort by teachers or disengagement by families. It’s that the structure of our schools still reflects priorities from a very different time. We are operating a 21st-century society on a 20th-century education system, shaped by 19th-century design....
“For years, we’ve referred to communication, teamwork, empathy and leadership as ‘soft skills.’ That phrase undersells their value. Increasingly, scholars and employers are calling them what they are: durable skills. These are abilities that persist, deepen and grow in importance across careers and life stages. They don’t become obsolete with each software update. In fact, they become more essential the more complex our world becomes....
“The stakes are real. A 2024 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that fewer than half of employers believe recent graduates are proficient in leadership. Confidence in graduates’ critical thinking and collaboration skills was even lower. That’s not just a workforce challenge; it’s a civic one. In a democracy, we need citizens who can engage across differences, analyze complex problems and lead with empathy. If we don’t teach those skills with intention, we shouldn’t be surprised when they go missing in public life....”
Full op-ed by Utah Cong. Jason E. Thompson at The Hill.
Other Articles of Interest
How Much Will Universities Pay in Endowment Tax?
Full article at AEI including chart showing, in descending order, projections for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and MIT followed by 20 others.
Editor’s note: If Stanford were to significantly reduce its over 13,000 to 18,000 managerial and other non-teaching personnel (see the charts at our Stanford Concerns webpage as well as Part 3 of our Back to Basics webpage) and were to move the 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities that are not primarily involved in front-line teaching and research along with their restricted funding into one or more separate nonprofit entities (see Part 4 of our Back to Basics webpage), to what extent might that realignment impact the pending taxation of Stanford’s core endowment? (FYI, faculty colleagues at Harvard believe Harvard has over 5,000 personnel at Harvard's own centers and similar entities -- reportedly numbering 100 to 200 and possibly more -- and that Harvard’s faculty disparagingly refer to as the peripherals.)
Why I’m Leaving Columbia
Full op-ed by former Columbia Prof. Shai Davidai at Tablet: “Don’t let the current calm on campus fool you. Even under congressional investigations, lawsuits, and threat of losing accreditation, Columbia’s leaders cling to the fantasy that these problems will fix themselves.”
Confidence in Higher Education Rises from Recent Low
Full article at Gallup: Great deal/quite a lot of confidence was 57% in 2015, 36% in 2023 and 42% in 2025. But see also “Trust in Ivy League and Elite Universities Is Tanking” at College Fix: “Only 15 percent of voters have a great deal of trust in the elite universities, while 46 percent have little to no trust at all.”
How to Save Higher Education
Full op-ed at Free Press, including text of the Manhattan Statement on Higher Education as signed by a number of faculty members nationwide, including at Stanford.
State Legislatures Are Requiring Colleges to Cut Degrees in Low Demand
Full article at Inside Higher Ed: “It’s just another sign that the era of ‘trust the universities, they’re doing the right thing’ has long since passed.”
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.
Oceanic Humanities Project Envisions New Wave in Education
Five Things to Know About Ultra-Processed Food
Symposium Charts New Frontiers in Brain Health
************
“We cannot force someone to hear a message they are not ready to receive, but we must never underestimate the power of planting a seed.” -- Monica Harris, executive director of Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR).
July 14, 2025
Doing the ‘Right Thing’ Is Not a Moral Compass
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Perhaps Cornell’s sprawling ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) bureaucracy and senior administrators didn’t intend to discriminate. Maybe they genuinely believed they were ‘doing the right thing.’ But history is filled with tragic consequences born from good intentions unmoored from principle. The real danger lies not just in bad people doing harm, but in well-meaning people redefining harm as virtue, and enforcing it as policy.
“At Cornell, this warped sense of righteousness has manifested in what now appears to be a university-wide pattern of discrimination: in hiring, scholarships, student life, and even speech.
“As detailed in a recent federal civil rights complaint, faculty candidates were allegedly eliminated not for lack of merit -- but for lack of the ‘right’ racial or gender identity. Scholarships and opportunities were offered or denied based on identity, not achievement. And those who questioned the fairness of it all were marginalized, silenced, or labeled problematic.
“How did we get here?
“It begins with a dangerous assumption: that individuals or institutions can simply declare what is ‘right’ based on ideological trends, emotional appeal, or political pressure. Who decides what’s right? One might say the law does -- and it does. Federal civil rights laws, for example, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or sex. But Cornell’s leaders decided that their version of ‘right’ -- wrapped in euphemisms like ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘inclusion’ -- should supersede those laws.
“This is not new. We’ve seen this kind of thinking before -- where subjective morality replaces objective principle, intent is elevated above consequence, and slogans obscure reality.
“Diversity became one-dimensional. It stopped meaning diversity of thought, background, or experience, and became solely about visible traits.
“Equity stopped meaning fairness. It became a mandate for engineered outcomes, regardless of effort or merit.
“Inclusion became exclusion. Anyone not conforming to the dominant ideology was treated as suspect, or worse, an oppressor.
“In this worldview, discrimination was no longer discrimination -- it was ‘justice.’ Preferential treatment was no longer unfair -- it was ‘equitable.’ And questioning these practices was no longer reasoned dissent -- it was ‘harmful.’ . . .
“The damage extends beyond individuals.
“Cornell has created segregated dorms, racially themed graduation ceremonies, and anonymous reporting tools to enforce conformity to ever-shifting ideological rules. The campus has become a minefield of suspicion and resentment. Group identity is everything; individual merit is nothing.
“And so, the university now finds itself in the crosshairs. Not of political activists, but of federal law. Outside forces are intervening because Cornell abandoned the internal compass that once guided its mission: the pursuit of truth through open inquiry, fairness, and merit.
“This is a moment of reckoning. Cornell must decide whether to continue down this path of ideologically justified lawbreaking or return to being a university in the truest sense of the word. That will require courage....”
Full op-ed by Cornell alum David Ackerman at Minding the Campus.
See also at our Stanford Concerns webpage specific data regarding Stanford’s administrative staffing as compared with other major colleges and universities, data regarding Stanford’s DEI staffing as compared with other major colleges and universities, and Stanford’s prior and recently revamped program for reporting bias.
See also Cornell President Michael I. Kotlikoff letter dated May 7, 2025 to alumni and others regarding cuts in federal funding and Cornell’s response. See also Cornell's “Statement on America First Policy Institute Complaint” (June 27, 2025) at Cornell website.
See also Guiding Principles (letter dated March 31, 2025 from Stanford's President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez) and President Levin’s Opening Remarks to the Faculty Senate (April 10, 2025).
Marc Andreessen’s Comments re Higher Education
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Influential tech investor and Trump adviser Marc Andreessen recently said universities will ‘pay the price’ for promoting [DEI] . . . according to messages he sent to a group chat with White House officials and technology leaders reviewed by The Washington Post.
“The billionaire’s messages also cited Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, a respected institution at the heart of Silicon Valley that has incubated tech companies such as Google. Andreessen and his wife [Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen] have donated millions of dollars to the school....
“The tech investor is known for making controversial statements, including to his 1.8 million followers on X, and has criticized universities and government agencies in media appearances, but his comments in the private chat went beyond his previous statements....
“‘They declared war on 70% of the country and now they’re going to pay the price,’ Andreessen alleged of universities, without calling out a specific school....
“Andreessen’s message to the group about subjecting the NSF to ‘the bureaucratic death penalty’ alleged that the agency, a major funder of university science and tech labs, backed projects that led to online censorship of American citizens.... The investor added: ‘Raze it to the ground and start over.’ ...”
Full article including screenshots at Washington Post. See also “National Science Foundation Faces Radical Shake-up as Officials Abolish Its 37 Divisions” at Science Advisor (May 8, 2025).
See also previous articles at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage including: “Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya: The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists and We Fought Back” (September 11, 2023) and “Dr. Bhattacharya's Opening Statement at His Senate Confirmation Hearing to Lead National Institutes of Health -- Five Goals if Confirmed as Head of NIH” (March 5, 2025). Editor's note: Prof. Bhattacharya was confirmed on March 25, 2025 and took office on April 1, 2025.
University of District Columbia Prohibits Panel on Race
Excerpts (link in the original):
“[Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism] is proud to announce the latest effort in our civil rights advocacy: filing a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against the University of the District of Columbia....
“In May 2025, the Our America Foundation approached UDC about hosting a debate titled ‘Is the American Dream Alive for Black Americans?’ featuring diverse Black and Hispanic panelists including FAIR’s Executive Director Monica Harris [who herself is Black]. The proposed event was intended to afford UDC students the opportunity to engage with different perspectives on one of America’s most important ongoing conversations.
“UDC’s response was swift and shocking.
“Dr. Monique Gamble, speaking on behalf of the university, rejected the debate outright, explicitly citing the racial identities of the university’s students as justification. In her written response, Dr. Gamble stated that UDC’s students have ‘identities [that] actually do put them at risk in a society that has a known history of criminalizing race, gender, sexuality, immigration and socio-economic status.’ She further claimed that the university would not ‘entertain these realities as debatable.’
“Put simply, a public university funded by taxpayers refused to host a debate about Black Americans’ experiences -- and featuring Black panelists -- because university officials determined that their perspectives were incompatible with the institution’s mission....”
Full news release at FAIR’s website. A more detailed discussion of the issues is here; a bio for FAIR’s executive director, Monica Harris, is here; and her TEDx talk “The Labels That Divide Us” (15 minutes) is here.
In a Drive to Protect Free Speech, UK Regulator Says University Students Must Face Shocking Ideas
Excerpt:
“Students at English universities must prepare to confront ideas they find uncomfortable and shocking, the national regulator for higher education said as it released new guidelines governing free speech on campuses across the country.
“The Office for Students said Thursday [June 19] that freedom of speech and academic freedom are crucial to higher education, so the guidelines are designed to ensure that universities don’t stifle any form of legal speech on their campuses or in their classrooms.
“Students must be allowed to freely share their opinions and be prepared to hear a range of views during their studies, Arif Ahmed, free speech director for the regulator, said in a statement.
“‘This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking,’ he said. ‘By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills.’ . . ."
Full article at AP. See also summary of guidance and PDF copy of the full text, effective August 1, 2025.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Is Prepping for Capitol Hill Grilling
Excerpts (links in the original):
“[Last week] was supposed to be a tough week for UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons.
“He was scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which wants to examine ‘the underlying factors instigating antisemitic upheaval and hatred on campus.’ ... However, the hearing was postponed. It will be rescheduled for a later date, according to a committee staff member....
“In a talk at the Berkeley City Club [two weeks ago], Lyons addressed the assault on higher education, its impacts on Cal, the balance between free speech and the right for all students to feel safe on campus, and how the UC system is approaching this era, all while it is wondering and waiting if UC will get one of those dreaded ‘Columbia-Harvard letters’ from the administration announcing draconian cuts.
“‘We face very substantial risks,’ said Lyons.
“UC Berkeley has already lost between $30 million and $40 million due to Trump’s cuts to approximately 35 grants, Lyons said. The entire UC system has seen $600 million in grant and research cuts, according to Nathan Brostrom, UC’s executive vice president and chief financial officer. It receives approximately $4 billion in federal funding annually....
[Followed by discussion of past and recent events, administrative and faculty responses, etc.]
“UC Berkeley and the entire UC system face multiple federal investigations, including how the system handled the spring 2024 protest against Israel’s war in Gaza, whether the system discriminates against Jewish employees, the relationship Cal has with a Chinese university and more....
“‘To be honest, and with all due respect, the hearings this committee held on this same subject last year are reminiscent not of a fair trial of any sort, but of the kind of hearings the House Committee on Un-American Activities used to hold,’ [Georgetown Law Prof. David Cole] said in his [May 7] testimony. ‘And I think we can all agree that the HUAC hearings were both a big mistake and a major intrusion on the First Amendment rights of Americans.’ ...”
Full article by Stanford alum Frances Dinkelspiel at Berkeleyside.
See also “UC System Bans Student Governments from Boycotting Israel” at College Fix.
How DEI Policies and Procedures Have Controlled University Hiring
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In early 2021, Carma Gorman, an art history professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the designated ‘diversity advocate’ for a faculty search committee, emailed John Yancey, the College of Fine Arts’ associate dean of diversity, seeking approval to proceed with a job search.
“‘I wanted to make sure that the demographics of our pool pass muster,’ Gorman wrote. She noted that 21 percent of applicants were from underrepresented minority groups, with another 28 percent self-identifying as Asian....
“‘Once we’ve sorted everyone into Qualified and Unqualified groups,’ Gorman wrote of the first stage in the search process, the committee would ask an administrator to ‘check the demographic characteristics’ of the initial cut. ‘If it is a diverse enough group to merit moving forward with the search, fantastic!’ But if the pool was deemed insufficiently diverse, the committee would revisit candidates from underrepresented groups who were initially considered unqualified, expand job advertising, or simply ‘cancel the search entirely.’ This step would be repeated for both the shortlist and the finalist slate.
“The practice raises obvious legal red flags -- particularly when it involves canceling searches outright, effectively denying all candidates a fair opportunity based on immutable characteristics. Yet documents I’ve obtained show that more than a dozen universities have adopted some version of this approach....
“If there’s one key lesson here, it’s that the desire for power, not ideology alone, gave rise to the social-justice university. More than likely, power will also prove its undoing.”
Full op-ed at City Journal.
See also “Federal Investigation Launched Over Faculty Hiring Practices at George Mason University” at Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
Other Articles of Interest
MIT Sued Over Alleged Failure to Address Anti-Semitic Harassment
Full article at Campus Reform. PDF copy of the lawsuit, as brought by the Louis D. Brandeis Center, available here.
Cornell’s New President Remains Under Attack
Full article at National Review.
Barnard College Settles Antisemitism Lawsuit with Controversial Campus Policy Changes
Full article at Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
For Grants to Prepare K-12 Teachers, Department of Education Favors Colleges and Universities with Civic Schools
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
‘Unprepared and Entitled’ College Grads Are Unpopular with Hiring Managers
Full article at College Fix including this link to the survey itself.
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.
Blood-test Analysis Can Determine the Biological Ages of 11 Separate Organ Systems
What Workers Really Want from Artificial Intelligence
AI Is Reshaping Accounting Jobs by Doing the ‘Boring’ Stuff
Students Build AI-powered Robot Dogs from Scratch
************
“I don't really understand my own position unless I also understand your opposition to my position even if I still disagree with you.” – Stanford Prof. Andrew Huberman
July 7, 2025
To Save Themselves, Universities Must Cultivate Civic Friendship
Excerpt (links in the original):
“The war between Washington and our nation’s elite universities continues to heat up. From stripping federal funding from Harvard to targeting the accreditation status of Columbia, the Trump administration is delivering on the campaign it promised to carry out against universities that refuse to meet its demands.
“As professors who have taught at institutions including Harvard and Princeton for many years, we have consistently encouraged universities to reject any demands or conditions that would compromise basic principles of academic freedom and freedom of thought, inquiry and speech. Nevertheless, as we have previously argued, elite universities themselves bear much of the responsibility for their current predicament. From fostering (or willfully looking past) campus intellectual climates poisoned by conformism, ideological homogeneity and groupthink to failing to take adequate action against harassment and other activities that undermine their core truth-seeking mission, universities have made themselves legitimate objects of scrutiny -- and low-hanging fruit for an administration that is metaphorically out for blood.
“We believe a fundamental reason for the decline of the pursuit of truth on campuses is the collapse in acknowledging the importance of civic friendship -- which, following Aristotle, we understand to be the bond of mutual respect and willingness to cooperate for the sake of the common good, even across significant disagreements or divisions....”
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Robert P. George and Union Theological Seminary Prof. Cornel West at Washington Post.
Reforming Higher-Education Reform
Excerpts (link in the original):
“To constructively reform an institution requires understanding its problems and challenges. To understand an institution’s problems and challenges, one must grasp its aims, structure, and spirit. Many well-intentioned would-be university reformers who recognize the crisis of higher education fail to appreciate the aims, structure, and spirit of liberal education, the capstone and highest justification of undergraduate study. This causes well-intentioned would-be university reformers to miss the center of the target with their criticism and impels them to advance inadequate or counterproductive remedies.
“In a late-June online conversation, ‘Are We Past Peak Harvard?’: 3 Writers Mull Higher Education’s Woes, sharp-minded New York Times writers discussed ‘the state of higher education in Trump 2.0 and beyond.’ Host Frank Bruni, a thoughtful man of the left, is a Times contributing opinion writer and a professor of journalism and public policy at Duke University. He exchanged views with Ross Douthat, a Times columnist and a wide-ranging and well-respected conservative thinker; and Lawrence H. Summers, a centrist Democrat, who is also a Times contributing opinion writer, a former Secretary of the Treasury from 1999 to 2021, Harvard president from 2001 to 2006, and a longtime Harvard professor with appointments in the economics department and at the Kennedy School.
“The roundtable covered considerable ground. Bruni’s comments and questions recognized that elite universities needed a course correction while condemning the Trump administration’s interventions as springing from resentment of elite universities’ power and influence and causing considerable harm. Douthat and Summers argued that whatever the president’s motives, progressive orthodoxy on campus has vilified and excluded conservative ideas. And they both espoused viewpoint diversity as an urgently needed corrective.
“Yet only obliquely did they recognize that fixing higher education depends on rediscovering the aim of liberal education, revising the structure of the curriculum, and setting aside the spirit of party that many professors bring to the classroom in favor of the spirit of curiosity, fallibility, and free inquiry....
[Followed by a summary of perspectives presented in the roundtable and what was missing in the discussion.]
“We need reformers who can explain that liberal education aims to form cultivated human beings capable of exercising wisely the rights and discharging effectively the responsibilities of free citizens.
“We need reformers who understand that liberal education must be structured around study of American ideas and institutions; the seminal intellectual achievements -- scientific as well as literary -- and decisive events of Western civilization; and the languages, culture, and history of other civilizations.
“And we need reformers who know that universities don’t in the first place need conservative professors or progressive professors but rather professors endowed with the old-fashioned liberal spirit. Such professors furnish students’ minds with facts and observations, methods and interpretations, and evidence and arguments. And such professors assist students in thinking for themselves by teaching that authors and texts must be understood before one refutes or embraces them, and that understanding an idea or an institution involves examining not only where it breaks down but also how it gained acceptance and why it exerted influence.
“The paucity of such reformers gives rise to the widespread need for remedial education focusing on the university’s mission, not least for faculty and administrators, many of whose teachers failed to introduce them to the aim, structure, and spirit of liberal education.”
Full op-ed by Hoover/Stanford Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz at Real Clear Politics.
See also Stanford Civic Initiative webpage and courses.
See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
Why the Traditional College Major May Be Holding Students Back
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance. This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today’s evolving landscape, reliance on the
discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.
“As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace....
“In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.
“At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments....
“Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change -- and so can the model.”
Full op-ed by former Miami U. Dean and Prof. Emeritus John Weigand at The Conversation.
Harvard Must Defend Its Integrity Without Losing Its Head
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Harvard Government Department professors Ryan Enos and Steven Levitsky recently warned in The Harvard Crimson that if Harvard negotiates with the Trump administration to restore frozen federal research funding, the university risks legitimizing authoritarian extortion. They describe any engagement as capitulation and argue that by cooperating with the administration -- even minimally -- Harvard will set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of liberal democracy.
“As a member of the same Harvard community for over two decades and as a scholar of political culture and higher education, I take concerns about institutional autonomy seriously. But I also see the argument of Enos and Levitsky as alarmist and counterproductive. Harvard must absolutely preserve its independence and academic mission. But it must do so through clear thinking, legal rigor, and public accountability -- not by retreating into ideological rigidity....
[Followed by discussion of specific actions that should and shouldn’t be taken.]
“Harvard, like all elite institutions, has a responsibility not just to itself, but to the country. It must show that independence doesn’t mean impunity -- and that fidelity to the law is not surrender, but strength.
“We don’t need universities to become battlegrounds in America’s partisan wars. We need them to model how to live and think together in a pluralistic democracy and—in the spirit of the Kalven Report -- to model ‘integrity and intellectual competence.’
“Harvard must hold the line. But it must also remember where the line really is. Harvard’s motto is ‘Veritas,’ or truth, and Enos and Levitsky know better than what they wrote; they presented a false dichotomy of what Harvard’s choices are vis-à-vis the Trump administration and, in doing so, willfully distorted the truth. Harvard has a principled path forward with the Trump administration that can return the school to its deserved greatness.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams at Real Clear Education.
Yale Ends DEI Initiative and Scrubs the Website
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Belonging at Yale -- a five-year initiative aimed to increase diversity, bolster a sense of inclusion and ensure equity throughout the University -- has concluded, administrators announced Thursday [June 26].
“A University-wide email sent from President Maurie McInnis, Vice Provost for Faculty Development Gary Désir and Secretary Kimberly Goff-Crews indicated that the initiative was always planned to end this year. Public access to the initiative’s once-expansive website is now steeply limited. The site, which the News accessed on Thursday through web archives, previously included pages of compiled resources on diversity, equity and inclusion; antiracism; Yale’s historic connection to slavery; prospective school-wide actions to increase diversity and a contact form soliciting ideas.
“The updated website now consists of one central homepage displaying three annual reports on the Belonging at Yale initiative, issued in 2022, 2023 and 2024. Multiple links included in those reports are now inaccessible. The reports appear to be restricted to users who can log in through Yale’s central authentication service.
“The other pages that were previously accessible on the site are no longer visible on the homepage and are inaccessible through direct links....”
Full article at Yale Daily News.
Other Articles of Interest
Four Point Agenda for Reforming Colleges and Universities
Full PDF document at Heterodox Academy.
Forget Harvard Because the Traditional University Model is Failing
Full op-ed by San Deigo State Prof. Emeritus John Eger at Times of San Diego.
Indiana Public Universities Ending 19% of Degrees
Full article at Real Clear Education.
What the University of Virginia Should Have Done
Full op-ed by former U Virgina chief legal officer Timothy J. Heaphy at NY Times.
Ohio Signs Law to Depoliticize Colleges and End DEI
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars.
The NextGen Bar Exam Is DEI in Action, Dangerously Lowering Standards
Full op-ed at The Hill.
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.
Exploring the Dangers of AI in Mental Health Care
Molecule Restores Long-term Strength to Old Mice
How Biomass Changed over 500 Million Years
************
“In most organizations, change comes in only two flavors: trivial and traumatic. Review the history of the average organization and you'll discover long periods of incremental fiddling punctuated by occasional bouts of frantic, crisis-driven change.” – Prof. Gary Hamel, London School of Business
June 30, 2025
Tuition Hikes and Layoffs Are Coming to a Broad Set of Universities
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Public universities in the Midwest are raising prices for out-of-state students, as Florida schools consider making the same move for the first time since 2012.
“Cornell and Duke are among the colleges weighing layoffs. The University of Minnesota is cutting hundreds of jobs, even as undergraduate tuition soars as much as 7.5 percent.
“Just as America’s colleges are preparing to welcome what could be the largest freshman class in the nation’s history, political and economic forces are unleashing havoc on higher education budgets. Schools are grappling with meager upticks in state support and topsy-turvy economic forecasts, and Republicans in Washington are pursuing federal budget cuts and threatening tax hikes...."
Full article at NY Times.
Stanford to Reduce Budget by $140 Million, Lay Off Employees for Next Academic Year
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Stanford announced Thursday that it will impose a $140 million budget cut for the 2025-26 academic year to adapt to reductions in federal research support and an increase in the endowment tax.
"President Donald Trump’s 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill,' passed May 22 by the House of Representatives, proposes a 21% increase on Stanford’s endowment tax from the current rate of 1.4%. The bill is currently undergoing negotiations in the Senate before being sent to the president’s office. If signed into law, the increase would represent a tax of $750 million annually, placing some financial aid -- over two-thirds of which comes from the endowment -- at risk....
“'There is significant uncertainty about how federal support for universities will evolve, but it is clear that the status quo has changed,' University president Jonathan Levin ’94 and Provost Jenny Martinez wrote in their announcement of the change.
"According to the letter, the budget cuts will require a reduction in staff positions, including through layoffs....
"The figure of $140 million excludes funding cuts for the School of Medicine, which will separately decide on reductions in the coming weeks....
“'In all the departments in the humanities and social sciences, in the natural sciences and engineering, in the medical school and elsewhere, the importance of that work is for the future of the country and the world,’ Martinez said. ‘The investment in education is for the long term benefit of society, and we really need to defend that.’”
Full article at Stanford Daily.
See also full text of Pres. Levin’s and Provost Martinez’ letter to faculty and staff, “Update on the 2025-26 Budget,” at Stanford Report.
See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage and our Stanford Concerns webpage.
More of Us Are Working in Big Bureaucratic Organizations than Ever Before
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Writing for the Harvard Business Review in 1988, Peter Drucker predicted that in 20 years the average organization would have slashed the number of management layers by half and shrunk its managerial ranks by two-thirds. Unfortunately, it hasn’t turned out that way. Despite all of the hype around alternatives -- the gig economy, the sharing economy, holacracy, lean -- bureaucracy has been growing, not shrinking....
“While many CEOs decry bureaucracy, few can claim success in defeating it. In practice, tactical victories -- like cutting out a layer of management, trimming head office staff, or simplifying a cumbersome process -- are usually small and quickly reversed. In this regard, look again at Figure 1. Notice how rapidly the thicket of bureaucracy grew back after being pruned in the wake of the 2008 recession.
[Editor’s note: charts in the article are similar to the detailed charts at our Stanford Concerns webpage showing extraordinary growth of Stanford’s managerial staff in the past 20 years as compared to virtually no growth in the faculty or student body during those same years. Among other things, note that Stanford has the highest administrative costs per student ($40,227) of any U.S. college or university and as compared to MIT ($32.719), Yale ($22,461), USC ($18,170), Cornell ($9,329) and UCLA
($7,640). ]
“It could be argued that in a world characterized by increasing complexity, the growth of bureaucracy is inevitable. Who but senior executives is going to address all those vexing new issues, like globalization, digitization, and social responsibility? Who else is going to meet all those new compliance requirements around diversity, risk mitigation and sustainability? This mindset has produced a surge in new C-level roles: Chief Analytics Officer, Chief Collaboration Officer, Chief Customer Officer, Chief Digital Officer, Chief Ethics Officer, Chief Learning Officer, Chief Sustainability Officer and even Chief Happiness Officer. And more prosaically, who, if not managers, is going to do the everyday work of planning, prioritizing, allocating, reviewing, coordinating, controlling, scheduling, and rewarding?
“Yet our research suggests that bureaucracy is not inevitable; it’s not the inescapable price of doing business in a complicated world. Rather, it’s a cancer that eats away at economic productivity and organizational resilience.”
Full article by London School of Business Prof. Gary Hamel and management consultant Michele Zanini at Harvard Business Review (2016).
Behind Closed Doors, Harvard Officials Debate a Risky Truce with President Trump
Excerpt:
. . . . .
“Unlike many other powerful institutions that have struck bargains with Mr. Trump, Harvard, the nation’s oldest and richest university, spent much of this spring as the vanguard of resistance to the White House, credited by academic leaders, alumni and pro-democracy activists for fighting the administration and serving as a formidable barrier against authoritarianism.
“Despite a series of legal wins against the administration, though, Harvard officials concluded in recent weeks that those victories alone might be insufficient to protect the university....”
Full article at NY Times.
Harvard Is Asking Corporations to Fill Its Federal Funding Gap
Excerpt:
“Harvard University and other top research schools are seeking corporate funders to support their science labs following sweeping cuts to government grants.
“The T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard, which typically gets more than 70% of its annual research dollars from the federal government, lost nearly all of the funding after the Trump administration canceled hundreds of the university’s research grants and contracts. The school expected to get more than $200 million this fiscal year.
“Administrators called the losses catastrophic....”
Full article at WSJ.
ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Does ChatGPT harm critical thinking abilities? A new study from researchers at MIT’s Media Lab has returned some concerning results.
“The study divided 54 subjects—18 to 39 year-olds from the Boston area—into three groups, and asked them to write several SAT essays using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s search engine, and nothing at all, respectively.
“Researchers used an EEG to record the writers’ brain activity across 32 regions, and found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.' Over the course of several months, ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy-and-paste by the end of the study.
“The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all delivered extremely similar essays that lacked original thought, relying on the same expressions and ideas. Two English teachers who assessed the essays called them largely 'soulless.' The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. And by their third essay, many of the writers simply gave the prompt to ChatGPT and had it do almost all of the work.
“The brain-only group, conversely, showed the highest neural connectivity, especially in alpha, theta and delta bands, which are associated with creativity ideation, memory load, and semantic processing. Researchers found this group was more engaged and curious, and claimed ownership and expressed higher satisfaction with their essays."
Full article at Time.
See also “Does AI Make Us Stupid?" at Free Press.
Educators Must Adapt to AI, but They Need Help
Excerpts (links in the original):
“I recently had the opportunity to be part of an OpenAI faculty roundtable. I was one of about a dozen professors that were joined by several staff from OpenAI’s recently created ‘Education Team.’ We talked about our best practices for teaching with AI and our worries about its impact on student engagement, motivation, and academic integrity. The Education Team listened, asked questions, and presented their own vision of an ‘AI Native Institution.’
“Our conversations were all about isolated and idiosyncratic (and, sure, exemplary) pedagogical practices, but completely lacking in big-picture vision—as if all we had to do was better integrate some whiz-bang gadget one student, one faculty, one institution at a time.
“But the real story is that AI has broken the transmission model of education, where professors teach and then grade students on how much they learned. A passing grade used to mean students had learned enough of what the professor had 'transmitted.' No longer. These past two years faculty have given out A’s left and right to students who don’t understand (much less read) the assignment they just submitted. I cannot overstate this: AI has decoupled students’ performance (what they submit to us) and student knowledge.
“AI is not just another shiny new gadget. It is a paradigm-shifting technology. The rise of the printing press in medieval Europe fundamentally altered how people related to knowledge, sparking a centuries-long expansion of literacy and thus the democratization of knowledge. I believe AI is the printing press of our time, again expanding and democratizing the process of learning.
“All of us in higher education have long known that the transmission model was deeply flawed. But until ChatGPT was released in November of 2022, we had no viable alternatives. Now we do. What OpenAI should have done, if it wanted to help reshape the future of education, is stop asking how AI fits into the old paradigm by tinkering at the edges and start imagining and investing in what a new model of education could look like.”
Full op-ed by Merrimack College Prof. Dan Sarofian-Butin at Education Next.
Colleges Need More Comedy
Excerpts (links in the original):
"We live in humorless times, and yet the need to laugh seems more vital than ever.
"Conversations on college campuses are tense right now, if they happen at all. I have taught on a university campus for close to two decades, but only recently have I started to give some consideration to comedy as a serious source of study.
"Today, I weave humor into everything and, as an English professor, I find so many promising parallels between jokes and narratives. As the humanities increasingly becomes a target in our data-driven world of deliverables and returns on investment, the study and practice of humor has the potential to enhance and enrich higher education.
"Still, humor is a subject of widespread interest among both those in academia and the larger public. As the world welcomes Pope Leo, I came across a New York Times opinion piece by his predecessor titled 'There is Faith in Humor.' Pope Francis argues that laughter is central to living, just as humor humanizes us. The piece also emphasizes the centrality of comedy to Catholic faith, interfaith conversations and social justice.
"Humor and comedy take courage, of course, and also coincide with creative and critical thinking.
"The next generation of learners can certainly benefit from this focus on lifelong learning through laughter, which in many ways is the freest form of expression."
Full op-ed by Sacred Heart Prof. Cara Erdheim Kilgallen at The Hill.
Other Articles of Interest
Department of Justice Opens Investigation re UC Berkeley’s Alleged Race and Sex-Based Hiring Practices
Press release at DOJ website; full text of DOJ notice is here.
See also “UC Sees the Good in Faculty Diversity While DOJ Says It May Be Illegal Discrimination” at LA Times.
See also “Internal Documents Show Cornell Hired Based on Race” at City Journal. See also “Civil rights Complaint Filed Against Cornell Includes Bombshell Whistleblower Emails” at College Fix.
Professors View Teaching as ‘Burden,’ Spend Less Time in Classroom
Full article at College Fix.
Can AI Compensate for an Inferior Education?
Full article at DC Journal.
Guarding Democracy by Teaching Civics
Video at Higher Ed Now.
Higher Ed Progress and Setbacks
Full article at National Association of Scholars.
College Degrees With Best Financial Return Revealed
Full article at Newsweek.
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.
Program Teaches the Art and Craft of Live Storytelling
The Bold Bet That Built a Telescope
New Language Model Helps Patients Understand Their Radiology Reports
You Can Literally Lose Who You Are
************
“Today, university campuses are criticized for being narrow and doctrinaire. The critics are not all wrong. However, when a university is at its best – when Stanford is at its best – the campus is an unparalleled place for freedom, truth, and enlightenment.” -- Stanford Pres. Jon Levin, 2025 commencement address
June 23, 2025
Moral Failure and Government Intrusion at Harvard
Excerpts (links in the original):
"To understand the crisis in American higher education, it is necessary to hold two thoughts at once. American higher education remains the envy of the world, with seven of its universities in the top 10 of Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings. Yet the behavior on many campuses has caused public confidence in higher education to plummet. With a recent drop of 21 percentage points, only 36 percent now express a lot of confidence, while 32 percent have little or no confidence. Among those dissatisfied with higher education, politicization stands as a major cause of their dismay. Significantly, though, the public does not seem happy about the attacks on higher education coming from the administration, with only 27 percent approving. Those mixed messages may be the fingerpost for finding a solution.
“Harvard has been among the worst offenders, with cancellations, shout-downs, disruptive encampments, and egregious antisemitic conduct.
“… the treatment Harvard is receiving from the Trump administration is neither measured nor reasonable nor, according to many legal scholars across the ideological spectrum, within statutory authority. Yet worse is the federal government’s apparent willingness to accept the damage being done to American scientific progress.
“Enumerating the sins of Harvard is not difficult, and Harvard will need to be more transparent and specific than it has been
about the way it will measure the effectiveness of its reforms. Moving forward will not be easy, and if it is to happen, both Harvard and the Trump administration will need to adjust their positions and their rhetoric. There is every reason to do so….
“Governing boards that, for good reason, do not want Leviathan’s intrusion into their campuses need to ensure fair admissions, fair hiring, and freedom from discrimination. This is their moment for strong, principled institutional governance.
“But it must be said out loud: Limited government is a core value within the American concept of liberty, especially for classical liberals and conservatives. It is reasonable and wholesome in a free society for private institutions to challenge governmental fiat and intrusion into their operations. It behooves the Trump administration to respect such boundaries.”
Full op-ed by American Council of Trustees and Alumni President Michael B. Poliakoff at Law & Liberty.
Reforming Higher Ed from Within -- Restoring Viewpoint Diversity Through Checks and Balances
Excerpts (footnotes deleted):
“Concern over one-sided ideological bias in higher education has built over the past few years, resulting in a slew of articles calling for change. Government actors—namely, the Trump administration—have stepped in with the blunt instrument of threats and funding cuts, setting a poor precedent for reforming higher education. These actions often violate academic freedom and are almost certain to backfire in the long run.
“A much better approach is to reform academia from the inside by setting up new policies and procedures that address the ideological imbalance and the resultant groupthink, junk science, and 'cancellations' that have occurred at such high rates in recent years.
“Taking a cue from the US Constitution, we propose a series of ‘checks and balances’ among the major actors in institutions of higher ed to prevent any one faction from dominating. Each of these actors—trustees, administration, faculty, outside accrediting agencies, and review committees—must play a role in restoring the balance to higher ed.
“We recommend that trustees, presidents, provosts, deans, and chairs—or their proxies—play a more active role in the hiring process to correct for this. This would not necessarily mean they would sit on every individual search committee, which would be impractical. Rather, they would participate in a holistic process tasked with examining overall viewpoint imbalance in departments, divisions, and the school as a whole.
“Solutions to higher ed’s political bias problem have ranged from new centers devoted to civic education to eliminating DEI. While such measures may help, none gets to the heart of the problem, which is ultimately the ideological makeup of the faculty and its effects on curricula, student experience, and knowledge production. Our proposal is designed to address this core problem head-on that is distorting and discrediting academia. Higher ed has lost the trust of the American people, as polls show, and it’s imperative that it takes action. If this had been done earlier, we might not have seen the kind of blunt interventions higher ed is now enduring.”
Full op-ed by Boston University Prof. Michael Jindra and Occidental College Prof. Jacob L. Mackey at AEI.
Burnout Is the Curriculum
Excerpt (link in the original):
"Today’s college students are more anxious and depressed than ever. A study by the Healthy Minds Network revealed that 38 percent of students in 2023–24 reported symptoms of depression, including loss of enjoyment and persistent feelings of hopelessness. In response, universities have ramped up mental health messaging—through emails, workshops, and mindfulness events—urging students to prioritize self-care.
"These offerings, though well-meaning, ignore the core problem: students are overwhelmed not by a lack of wellness resources but by the impossible demands of modern college life.
"Students invest hours in performative accomplishments while neglecting authentic intellectual growth. So when colleges tell us to 'take a mental health day,' it rings hollow—because students have been conditioned to believe that missing out on anything risks falling behind in the relentless pursuit of credentials. Sure, students can take a 'mental health day'—but it might cost them the edge they’ve been told they can’t afford to lose.
"If universities are serious about improving student mental health, they should reconsider their investment in wellness events and instead reevaluate the structure of student success. That means reinforcing a different metric of accomplishment—one that values meaningful education over manufactured achievement.
"It means creating a campus culture that encourages focus, reflection, and intellectual curiosity, not nonstop involvement or artificial 'passion.' Only then will students be free to pursue learning without sacrificing their sanity."
Full op-ed by Emory University undergraduate Alyza Harris at Minding the Campus.
To Fight Political Polarization, Reinvest in Civics and the Liberal Arts
Excerpts (link in the original):
"As a history PhD, I’m used to hearing that I should have studied STEM (science, technology, engineering, or math) instead. We humanities graduates often retort that our skills are under-appreciated, but our arguments ring hollow in the face of a difficult job market. Facing this reality, ambitious students rapidly abandoned arts majors throughout the 2000s, causing universities to slash funding for the likes of literature and civics. Even as students learn ever less about America’s history and constitution, there has never been a compelling argument for the practical use of the humanities like there is for STEM.
"Now, rising political instability has begun to change that calculus. Reinvesting in civics and the liberal arts could help arrest political chaos that has imposed very real costs on American society.
"Although political polarization threatens nearly all facets of American life, its economic costs are the easiest to measure. For example, both Democrats and Republicans recognize that they will need to reform programs like Social Security and Medicare—which account for the majority of federal spending—but political mistrust has prevented them from reaching a compromise.
"While turning most students into literature and history majors might help mitigate political chaos, it still wouldn’t address the humanities’ employability problem: hospitals won’t be hiring fresh history majors as surgeons, regardless of the social benefits. Instead, colleges could require all students to take classes in history and politics as part of a curriculum designed to develop them into good citizens. The University of Chicago and Columbia, for example, already require students to take a 'core curriculum,' which includes classes on history and culture.
"Supporting history and civics wouldn’t require reorienting the U.S. economy; the country still needs engineers, surgeons, and bankers. Even if America reinvests in teaching our nation’s political tradition, I wouldn’t shy away from hard questions about my employment prospects. But when conversations turn to politics, more respectful discussions might replace the anger and conspiracy theories that pervade today."
Full op-ed at Minding the Campus.
Cornell Announces Major Staff Cuts and Hiring Restrictions in Light of 'Profound Financial Challenges'
Excerpt (links in the original):
"Top administrators announced actions to combat 'profound financial challenges' in a statement to the Cornell community on Wednesday. These actions include downsizing staff as the University streamlines processes, consolidates operations and restricts hiring for the 2025-2026 academic year.
"The statement attributes the financial challenges to federal funding cuts, including those to research, financial aid and medical reimbursement. Additionally, the statement notes that the school faces rapidly escalating legal expenses, an anticipated tax on its endowment income and rising costs of inflation...."
Full article at Cornell Daily Sun.
See also “Tuition Increases and Layoffs Are Coming to a Broad Set of Universities” at NYT.
See also our Stanford Concerns webpage with extensive data re Stanford's staffing and costs and our Back to Basics at Stanford
webpage re proposed corrective actions.
Other Articles of Interest
How Universities Would Overhaul Research Funding
"Two New Models Are Geared Toward Creating a More Transparent and Accountable System to Track Costs Indirectly Related to Research."
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
Reimagining College
Full book review at Law & Liberty.
The Encampment Mindset -- The Psychology of Student Protests
Full op-ed at Sapir Journal.
The Handwriting Revolution
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
The Great Antisemitism Debate
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Medical School Has Gotten Too Political
Full op-ed by U. Alabama Birmingham Prof. Emeritus Thomas S. Huddle and Yale Medical School lecturer Sally Satel at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Harvard Medical School Faces Backlash Over Latest DEI Office Renaming
Full article at Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
The Unraveling of the AAUP
Full op-ed by U. Illinois Prof. Emeritus Matthew W. Finkin at Chronicle of Higher Education.
The Hijacking of American Classrooms and How We Can Reclaim Them
Full op-ed at Fair For All.
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.
Stanford Celebrates Its Largest Graduating Class Ever at Commencement 2025 (Video)
An AI Analyst Made 30 Years of Stock Picks – and Outperformed Human Investors by a ‘Stunning’ Degree
New Award Recognizes Efforts to Elevate Constructive Dialogue at Stanford
How Stanford Is Simplifying Decisions and Processes
How Language Bias Persists in Scientific Publishing Despite AI Tools
************
“Historical thinking requires suspending present-day judgments and learning to appreciate the complexity of human motives and actions across time. It’s a practice of empathy grounded in evidence.” – Stanford Prof. Emeritus Sam Wineburg
June 16, 2025
The Courage to Converse – Tough Dialogue on Campus
Excerpts:
“This past spring semester, the College Debates & Discourse (CD&D) Alliance organized and hosted more than 80 campus debates and dialogues, engaging several thousand students at partner institutions across the nation. In total, these events covered a panoramic range of topics and elicited a myriad of student perspectives. A key shared takeaway has emerged: students, faculty, and community members attest that in today’s sharply divided political climate, it is more crucial than ever that universities remain strongholds of free speech and open dialogue.
“National surveys of students and faculty have cast a spotlight on their reluctance to discuss controversial political and social topics. The pervasive culture of fear across campuses can feel overwhelming. Students with widely varying perspectives are increasingly afraid to speak up, unsure if participation in political advocacy or the expression of their beliefs will bring about social repercussions, or worse.
“Sitting in a roomful of people with conflicting perspectives can be unnerving, and listening to someone you vehemently disagree with can be nothing short of infuriating. Sharing the deeply personal stories that influence your social and political ideology with a group of strangers can feel like a dystopian episode of Fear Factor. But these are precisely the kinds of experiences that young people need to develop the humility and empathy so crucial for navigating the diverse voices and perspectives they will encounter once they step off campus.
“The right to express dissent is one of the most fundamental American values and remains critical to maintaining the integrity of our academic institutions. Against the backdrop of campus protests and volatile climate in higher education, colleges and universities should encourage their students to ask tough questions, embrace having their perspectives challenged, and build capacity to listen attentively to others with differing views.”
Full article at GoActa.
See also “Civil Discourse Is a Lost Art on Campus but I Learned to Disagree Better” at Minding the Campus.
See also “Free Speech and the Philosophy Classroom -- The Wrong Question” at APA Online.
Will the University Survive AI?
Excerpts (links in the original):
" . . . it is not ideology, but technology that is precipitating the greatest crisis higher education has ever faced.
"A recent article by James D. Walsh in New York Magazine, widely circulated among academics, reported that “just two months after OpenAI launched ChatGPT [in 2022], a survey of 1,000 college students found that nearly 90 percent of them had used the chatbot to help with homework assignments . . .
"One problem is that it’s difficult to prove that students have cheated with chatbots. They’ve learned how to detect “Trojan horse” traps in assignments, engineer prompts that won’t make them look too smart, and launder their essays through multiple bot-generated iterations. Nor is AI-powered software a reliable means of detecting such schemes.
"Faced with these difficulties, universities have punted. They’ve done little more than leave faculty to establish their own AI-use policies, which vary widely and are, in any case, largely unenforceable. (What is more, some professors are using chatbots to formulate assignments and grade papers. In their classrooms, machines are talking to machines.) This response is completely inadequate. Universities will not survive if they are little more than expensive diploma mills. Nor will the United States, for what will take their place in preparing future citizens, leaders, and builders to repair our broken institutions and maintain a healthy and prospering polity?
"The ultimate aim of a liberal education is fully to actualize the human capacity 'to form an instinctive just estimate of things as they pass before us,' in the words of John Henry Newman. If we are to maintain our humanity in the age of AI, an education that teaches young people to read, write, and think through the investigation of traditional sources of human meaning — goodness, truth, justice, beauty — and the cultural and political conditions in which they acquire a prominent place in human life, will be more necessary than ever.
"If colleges and universities have any hope of surviving, they must articulate a compelling vision of what higher education is, and what it is for — of its signal importance for individuals and society alike. If they are to equip students to find their way in an increasingly complex world, they must provide not just a technical education, but a genuinely liberal one. That’s the only way they can convince students not to cheat themselves out of the chance to live rich and meaningful lives by unreflectively turning over their distinctively human energies and capacities to AI. Let’s hope they succeed. For if higher education ceases to preserve, extend, and transmit the wisdom and knowledge our ancestors struggled and suffered to achieve, who or what will?
Full article at Unherd.
See also “Assessment in the Age of AI – Universities Must Do More Than Tell Students What Not to Do” at The Conversation.
See also "AI Ethics in Higher Education: How Schools Are Proceeding" at EdTech.
Other Articles of Interest
Here’s What Utah’s Colleges Are Doing to Win Back State Funding
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
The Alarming Decay of Mathematical Competency in America
Full article at Minding the Campus.
Ohio State Will Require AI Classes for All students This Fall
Full article at College Fix.
Four Ways Colleges Can Prepare for an Uncertain Future
Full article at Higher Ed Dive.
College Students Are Using No Contact Orders to Block Each Other in Real Life
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.
How Stanford is Advancing Constructive Dialogue
Designing Blood Vessels for 3D Printed Hearts
Digital Twins Offer Insights into Brains Struggling with Math — and Hope for Students
Advance in Creating Organoids Could Aid Research, Lead to Treatment
Blood Sugar Response to Various Carbohydrates Can Point to Metabolic Health Subtypes
************
“The most morally valuable focus that a university provides is the commitment to, and practice of, reasoning clearly and thinking critically.” – Stanford Prof. Russell Berman
June 9, 2025
Note to Readers: In light of comments from readers and ongoing developments nationally, we have updated our webpage Back to Basics at Stanford and where we have highlighted the new or changed text.
************
Don’t Just Fix Higher Education, Reconstitute It
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Academic institutions think they have a problem and that its name is Donald Trump. But he’s only the beginning of their problems. The difficulties are systemic, not only legal or political, and that means it’s time to reconsider what higher education should look like.
“The current institutional players are in no condition to rethink higher education. Having cultivated and tolerated violations of civil-rights laws, universities and colleges can’t afford candid introspection, lest it be understood as an admission of wrongdoing. They are controlled, moreover, by administrators who generally don’t have the stomach to recognize the damage they’ve done to higher education, let alone what should be done with their jobs.
“The federal government is no better at re-evaluating higher education. It’s focusing on the tools available to it: enforcing antidiscrimination laws and defunding science (even though scientists aren’t typically the culprits).
“The academic failures of universities and colleges are obvious enough. Departments generally appoint their own faculty members -- so that once a department is ideologically captured, it tends to tilt further in the same direction, inevitably producing instruction and research that, considered as a whole, is slanted. Institutions then inculcate conformity, punish dissenters, and apply harsh disciplinary proceedings. Put another way, the recent antisemitism didn’t develop in a vacuum. It was nurtured amid ideological capture and selective enforcement of the rules. These are substantial impediments to the pursuit of truth....
“It’s time for a thorough reconsideration of higher education -- not only to fix it, but to reconstitute it.
“Academic institutions could, if they had sufficient fortitude, begin to repair themselves. Colleges could avoid the impediments created by closed-minded departments by shifting funds to new, interdisciplinary departments. Where a political science department is indifferent to historical inquiry and the history department is indifferent to the development of political institutions and theory, for instance, a new department straddling the two would be well justified....
“If there is to be federal funding for higher education, it should be reduced and refined. Institutions fattened on federal funds have expanded the number of administrators more than professors. The amount of student loans and their interest rates should be inversely related to the ratio of administrators to faculty. Although it’s difficult to quantify intellectual openness, federal funds should be linked to such tolerance, whether on campus or in hiring and admissions....”
Full op-ed by Columbia Prof. Philip Hamburger at WSJ.
See also our Stanford Concerns webpage and our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
University Boards Need Fewer People from Wall Street, Hedge Funds and Venture Capital
Excerpts (link in the original):
“If it feels like there are a lot of billionaires mucking around in higher education, that might be because there are. In 1989, private-equity and hedge-fund managers held 3 percent of board seats at the top 30 private universities as ranked by Times Higher Education. By 2017, they held 17 percent of trustee positions, according to a study published earlier this year in Socio-Economic Review.
“The upshot is that over the last generation, the most prestigious colleges have had the means to gather extraordinary wealth. That wealth reinforces those colleges’ exclusivity, which in turn is helping to fuel resentment against higher education, argues one of the study’s co-authors, Charlie Eaton, a sociologist at the University of California at Merced. ‘That’s become a political vulnerability,’ he said....
“Eaton published a book about the role of Wall Street in higher education, Bankers in the Ivory Tower: The Troubling Rise of Financiers in US Higher Education, in 2022. His Socio-Economic Review paper expands on findings in the book....
“... ‘elite ties are really valuable and important for the private-equity and hedge-fund business model, because when they’re buying companies or doing financial transactions to try to outperform the stock market, what they do is trade on private information. That doesn’t necessarily require illegal insider trading. If you’ve got knowledge of what kind of public policies might change that could affect the value of a company or an industry, or if you’ve got elite information about companies that are privately held and that don’t have much public [Securities and Exchange Commission] reporting, you can make smarter decisions about what kind of private companies to try to buy out.
“‘So when you’re on an elite university board with other business and government elites, you learn things that are valuable for making these private-equity buyouts, and we show this. We find that investment returns go up for private-equity firms after they gain a seat on a top university board....'"
Full article and interview at Chronicle of Higher Education.
America’s DEI Colleges Get an ‘F’ on Free Expression
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Another chaotic school year has ended at universities, and the graduates have danced across the stage waving diplomas that are shrinking in significance. Here’s hoping college administrators find time during their leisurely summer breaks to recognize their roles in diminishing the academy, largely because they have lost a commitment to rigorous truth-seeking that can only happen when ideas are freely debated.
“Americans should all be concerned about the sad condition of higher education. Confidence in these previously esteemed institutions has cratered....
“Oh, sure, college administrators still pay lip service to the principle of free expression, but they really don’t seem to mean it. They hope their bold paper pronouncements about free speech will be sufficient sleight of hand to distract sensible students, their parents, alumni and employers. These constituencies, however, have figured out that academic cultures determined to push indoctrination are incapable of preparing graduates who can think critically and function effectively in today’s complex world.
“The focus of any college or university should be to advance knowledge through intellectual inquiry. That can only happen when free, wide-ranging debate and expression are allowed to examine all perspectives and evidence. Too many institutions today, however, push pre-approved dogmas taught by activist professors who were hired by search committees seeking people with views identical to their own.
“Disrupting the search for truth and robust free expression is a patch of weeds that presumes to promote diversity, equity and inclusion. That sounded noble enough initially, but in reality, the DEI initiative morphed into the advancement of sociopolitical ideologies designed to discredit and bludgeon Western values and civilization.
“This push is more than just a relativistic replacement of truth and freedom as fundamental principles. Instead, as author and Manhattan Institute fellow Christopher Rufo has written, DEI is 'a complex of policies, priorities, departments, administrators, budget numbers, hiring guidelines, and admissions practices.' Indeed, the practices and systems of DEI manipulation permeate curricula, graduation requirements, orientation sessions and financial aid.
“The irony is that the supposed push for ‘diversity’ has reduced diversity of ideas, thus suppressing free expression in classrooms. Students report in multiple surveys their hesitance to engage in honest debate, fearing repercussions for not wearing the campus ideological straightjacket. A college can’t be fully committed to free expression when it is simultaneously parading around contradictory bombast about preferred perspectives and limiting others based on how one feels....
“It is time for colleges to straighten themselves out -- not because of government pressure, but because it is the right thing to do in terms of promoting rigorous education and winning back public confidence. The ball can only get rolling with a full return to the principles of free expression and the search for truth.”
Full op-ed by DePauw Prof. Jeffrey M. McCall at The Hill.
See also our revised Back to Basics at Stanford webpage with newly added language re academic freedom and viewpoint diversity.
Other Articles of Interest
The Economic Consequences of Destroying Harvard
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Emeritus and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman at Substack.
Lawmakers Probe China’s Influence on U.S. Universities
Full article at College Fix.
See also “Uncovering Chinese Academic Espionage at Stanford” at Stanford Review and “How Universities Should Respond to Chinese Government Interference” by Stanford Prof. Larry Diamond and visiting fellows Matt Pottinger and Matthew Turpin at Stanford Review letters to the editor.
Don’t Let Trump’s Brutality Fool You; the Internationalization of American Schools Is a Real Issue
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. David A. Bell at NY Times.
Educators Have the Tools but Not the Training or Ethical Framework to Use AI Wisely, and That’s a Problem
Full op-ed at Hechinger Report.
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.
A Game-Changing Way to Treat Stroke and Other Clot-Related Diseases
Students Create an Unofficial Guide for Incoming Students
How Lasting Emotions Arise from Brief Stimuli in Humans and Mice
Tree Cover Reduces Mosquito-borne Health Risk
Five Things to Do in Virtual Reality – and Five to Avoid
************
“I want this institution to deal particularly with the welfare of the masses. The few very rich can get their education anywhere. They will be welcome to this institution if they come, but the object is more particularly to reach the multitude -- those people who have to consider the expenditure of every dollar.” – Leland Stanford in his last letter to President Jordan shortly before Sen. Stanford’s death
June 2, 2025
Note to Readers: We have added a new webpage, Ask ChatGPT, to our website and where we have posted our prior inquiries to ChatGPT and its answers regarding current issues impacting Stanford and other colleges and universities across the country. We will update this material from time to time.
************
Harvard Derangement Syndrome
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In my 22 years as a Harvard professor, I have not been afraid to bite the hand that feeds me. My 2014 essay ‘The Trouble With Harvard’ called for a transparent, meritocratic admissions policy to replace the current ‘eye-of-newt-wing-of-bat mysticism’ which ‘conceals unknown mischief.’ My 2023 ‘five-point plan to save Harvard from itself’ urged the university to commit itself to free speech, institutional neutrality, nonviolence, viewpoint diversity and disempowering D.E.I. Last fall, on the anniversary of Oct. 7, 2023, I explained ‘how I wish Harvard taught students to talk about Israel,’ calling on the university to teach our students to grapple with moral and historical complexity. Two years ago I co-founded the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, which has since regularly challenged university policies and pressed for changes.
“So I’m hardly an apologist for my employer when I say that the invective now being aimed at Harvard has become unhinged....
“The nation desperately needs this sense of proportionality in dealing with its educational and cultural institutions. Harvard, as I am among the first to point out, has serious ailments. The sense that something is not well with the university is widespread, and it’s led to sympathy, even schadenfreude, with Mr. Trump’s all-out assault. But Harvard is an intricate system that developed over centuries and constantly has to grapple with competing and unexpected challenges. The appropriate treatment (as with other imperfect institutions) is to diagnose which parts need which remedies, not to cut its carotid and watch it bleed out....
[Followed by discussion as to why many/most of the proposed government demands are inappropriate.]
“The most painful indictment of Harvard is its alleged antisemitism -- not the old-money WASP snobbery of Oliver Barrett III, but a spillover of anti-Zionist zealotry....
[Followed by discussion of whether there is or isn’t antisemitism at Harvard and ways to address the issues.]
“Another no-brainer is to apply standards of scholarly excellence more uniformly. Harvard has almost 400 initiatives, centers and programs, which are distinct from its academic departments....
“If the federal government doesn’t force Harvard to reform, what will? There are legitimate concerns that universities have weak mechanisms for feedback and self-improvement. A business in the red can fire its chief executive; a losing team can replace its coach. But most academic fields don’t have objective metrics of success and rely instead on peer review, which can amount to professors conferring prestige on one another in self-affirming cliques.
“Worse, many universities have punished professors and students who criticize their policies, a recipe for permanent dysfunction. Last year a Harvard dean actually justified this repression until our academic freedom council came down on the idea like a ton of bricks and his boss swiftly disavowed it.
“Still, there are ways to let the light get in...."
[Followed by discussion of ways to make appropriate changes.]
Full op-ed by Harvard Prof. Steven Pinker at NY Times.
See also our own concerns and proposals regarding the 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities at Stanford at Part 4 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
Harvard Digs In for Battle, but Trump’s Blows Are Landing
Excerpts (links in the original):
“As President Trump escalated his attacks against Harvard University, its board resolved to fight.
“Trustees discussed whether to sue or pursue deal talks after Trump first targeted the university in March. But as the president lobbed bomb after bomb at the school -- pulling billions in federal funds, threatening its tax-exempt status, and now trying to block it from enrolling international students -- the group stood firm.
“By [May 23, 2025], the school had filed two lawsuits against the administration, the latest to regain its foreign students....
“Harvard’s conundrum is that it cannot trust the Trump administration to negotiate in good faith nor can it count on winning an extended battle with the federal government, says Aziz Z. Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago.
“The result, Huq suggests, will be a reset not only for Harvard but across higher education. The current model for research universities was created during World War II, when the military outsourced its research and development to schools. That model served the nation well for decades but is increasingly under attack from MAGA conservatives who believe that higher education has become a hotbed of liberal ideology that needs to be torn down and rebuilt....”
Full article at WSJ.
Can Trump Force Harvard to Improve? Probably Not.
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Three outcomes are possible in Donald Trump's war with Harvard: Scenario one is that the nation’s top private universities remain delusional about the dozen reasons a large and growing share of the public distrusts them. The 'plan' is to avoid institutional course-correction and seek protection from the courts and ultimate rescue from the Democratic Party in 2029 or after.
"Scenario two is that Mr. Trump and other populist-inspired politicians force change from without by intervening more consistently and even more forcefully in the internal operations of these schools.
“Scenario three is that substantive reform comes from within these schools, or at least some of them. That would require their leaders to listen humbly to a broad range of legitimate criticisms....
“Every constructive path forward therefore requires the Ivy League and Ivy-adjacent schools to acknowledge they’ve screwed up. Although their crests once represented the most distinguished education in the world, years of misguided administration have left them academically adrift. Top-tier universities act entitled to elite status, even as they neglect the necessary work of persuading fellow citizens of their value and seriousness. Standards are slipping and political activism has been on the rise in classrooms, all in the public eye. When those entrusted with massive endowments fail to acknowledge valid criticism and correct course, is it any wonder they trigger a backlash?” ...
Full op-ed by former U Florida and Midland U president and former U.S. Senator Ben Sasse at WSJ.
See also “Trump Remedies to Harvard’s Ills Should Respect Free Speech” by Hoover Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz at Real Clear Politics.
At UC Berkeley, the Faculty Asks Itself, Do Our Critics Have a Point?
Excerpts (links in the original):
“President Trump’s second administration has targeted higher education with funding cuts, charging that colleges -- particularly prestigious ones -- have let antisemitism go unchecked and progressive ideology run amok.
“The sector’s leaders have responded by weighing whether to give ground or fight back. Lingering inside that question is another uncomfortable one: Do Trump and his allies have a point?
“At the University of California at Berkeley, two professors recently put a version of that query to their peers via survey. The results -- obtained by The Chronicle -- cut against the stereotype of Berkeley’s campus as an ultra-progressive monolith. Rather, they conveyed complicated feelings among a subset of the faculty about whether and where higher education has gone wrong, and how to course-correct if it has. While some respondents did not think Berkeley should recalibrate on certain issues because of Trump, they did think their university should recalibrate, period.
“As one unnamed professor put it: ‘Over the years, I’ve been confronted by various scenarios that have caused me to mutter to myself, ‘This has gone way too far.’ Do we really have to acknowledge that we are holding a conference on stolen land when it takes place over Zoom?’
“Chris Hoofnagle, a professor of law in residence, and Will Fithian, an associate professor of statistics, started sending out the survey earlier this year. Called the ‘Bearometer,’ it poses one question every so often to members of Berkeley’s faculty senate, though it’s not affiliated with that body. Inspired by a similar effort at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the goal, as described on the Bearometer’s webpage, is to discover and highlight the views of faculty members, particularly “the reticent and the too busy for senate service,” in order to inform campus discussions.
“Berkeley professors can submit questions for consideration, which are then upvoted or downvoted by their colleagues. Hoofnagle and Fithian have procedures in place for keeping the results anonymous. When they’re circulated, they’re labeled with ‘UC-FEYES: UC Faculty Eyes Only.’ (Hoofnagle and Fithian both declined to be interviewed, citing the poll’s internal nature. Both are also involved in a faculty group meant to encourage free inquiry at Berkeley, which has been a growing concern among some on campus.) ...
[Followed by discussion of some of the survey results.]
“Even faculty members who expressed concerns about various aspects of academe also said that caving to the federal government would be a mistake. ‘UC autonomy comes first, after which we clean up our own messes in our own way,’ wrote the professor who was uneasy about the ‘feminist’ brand of social justice being embedded in curriculum....
“Still, others advocated for serious reflection -- not because of Trump necessarily, but because they think introspection is overdue.... ‘It would be a shame,’ this person argued toward the end of a lengthy response, ‘to let defensiveness, self-righteousness, and justifiable antipathy toward the current presidential administration prevent us from seeing that our own excesses have degraded the situation of the university and left us with less public sympathy and support than we have ever had.’
“Put a bit blunter, by another faculty member: ‘Universities are under attack (often by idiots), but they deserve it and should get their houses in order.’”
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Becoming Stanford -- The Making of an American University
At a time when our U.S. colleges and universities, including Stanford, are having to assess what they are and what they need to be, we were reminded of this documentary “Becoming Stanford -- The Making of an American University” released in connection with the Millennium and as posted at YouTube (1 hour, 58 minutes).
This is from the description at YouTube: “Part 1, ‘The Founding,’ covers the origins and building of the university through World War I; highlights include Stanford family history, the first Big Game between Stanford and UC Berkeley, early student life, the rise of tenure, and the 1906 earthquake. Part 2, ‘The Transformation,’ covers the development of Stanford as a world-renowned research university; highlights include the administrations of Provost Frederick E. Terman and President J. E. Wallace Sterling, the role of federal funding in the university's expansion, the turmoil of the 1960s, and the growth of new technologies leading to the personal computer revolution.”
See also the more recent and partially student-produced documentary "Leland: A Stanford Story" (38 minutes) that is shown as part of the required COLLEGE program for first-year students at Stanford and as posted at YouTube.
Other Articles of Interest
Stanford Student Group Hosts 90 Startups in Second-ever Demo Day
Full article at Stanford Daily.
'Listen to People Who Disagree with You,' Stanford Alum Stephen Breyer Tells Students
Full article at Stanford Report.
Harvard Alum Bill Ackman Writes About Ongoing Concerns and Possible Solutions
Full op-ed at X.
Harvard President Discusses Need to Stand Firm Against Government Attacks
Full article at NPR.
How Overregulation Has Hamstrung Progressive Priorities, Incuding at Colleges and Universities
Full book review of Abundance at Real Clear Education.
Medical School Accreditor Says Schools Will No Longer be Graded on Diversity
Full article at USA Today.
Universities Map Out New Investment Strategies to Deal with Tax Hike on Endowments
Full article at WSJ.
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.
Popular AI Models Show Partisan Bias When Asked to Talk Politics
Scientists Repair Damaged Mitochondria Linked to Common Diseases
Nano-scale Biosensor Lets Scientists Monitor Molecules in Real Time
Alzheimer's Resilience Signature Predicts Who Will Develop Dementia and How Fast
************
“We must always ask, are we putting students and their learning first? That is the measure of a great university.” -- Harry J. Elam, Jr., former Stanford Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and former President of Occidental College
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.
Other Articles of Interest
One Year After the Encampments, Campuses Are Quieter and Quicker to Stop Protests
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
A New Headache for Honest Students -- Proving They Didn’t Use AI
Full article at NY Times.
ChatGPT Can Pass an Engineering Class
"The chat bot earned a B, slightly below the class average. It excelled in practice problems and computing exercises but was unable to justify its work or simplify systems."
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
Breaking the Deadlock -- The Interplay Among Presidents, Congress and the Courts (video)
“A fast-paced one-hour journey where a moderator, UC Davis Law Professor Aaron Tang, guides a diverse panel of participants through hypothetical scenarios around the use of executive power.”
Full video (56 minutes) at PBS and also posted at YouTube.
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.
Making the Case for Active Listening
Alzheimer’s Resilience Signature Predicts Who Will Develop Dementia and How Fast
Mutation That Makes Orange Cats Orange
************
“Today, and every day, let us remember the servicemen and women we have lost, and let us honor them by rededicating ourselves to strengthening our Nation's promise. With love, grace, and reflection, let us honor our fallen fellow Americans, known and unknown, who sacrificed their freedom to ensure our own.” – Barack Obama
May 19, 2025
Faculty Hiring Is Under Federal Scrutiny at Harvard
Excerpt (links in the original):
“A federal agency is claiming Harvard University may have violated antidiscrimination law through its faculty hiring and promotion decisions, citing the university’s own demographic data, The Washington Free Beacon first reported [a week ago].
“Andrea R. Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, issued what’s called a commissioner charge against the university, which typically precedes an investigation by the EEOC. The document, which the Free Beacon obtained and is dated April 25, cites an annual report on faculty development and diversity showing the proportion of white male professors declined over the past decade, as the ranks of women and faculty of color increased. (Those reports are no longer publicly accessible on Harvard’s website, but at least some information has been archived online.)
“Among the tenured, the percentage of white men decreased from 64 percent in the 2013 academic year to 56 percent in 2023. Among the tenure-track, that share dropped from 46 percent to 32 percent in the same period.
“‘Since at least 2018 and continuing thereafter, Harvard may have violated and may be continuing to violate Title VII’ -- the federal law barring employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, and other factors – ‘by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion (including but not limited to tenure decisions), compensation, and separation decisions,’ wrote Lucas, whom President Trump designated acting chair in January. She also alleges that Harvard’s ‘pattern or practice of discrimination’ goes beyond the faculty and lists programs that aim to enroll students from underrepresented groups.
“Asked for comment, a Harvard spokesperson referenced a Monday letter from Alan M. Garber, the university’s president, addressed to Linda E. McMahon, the education secretary. Last week, McMahon upbraided Harvard in a letter to Garber, recounting the institution’s many failures as she saw them and informing the university president that the institution ‘should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided.’..."
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
See also the Shils Report on the hiring and promotion of faculty and comprising the third part of the Chicago Trifecta.
Harvard Spends $1.4 Billion a Year on Non-instructional Staff
Excerpts:
“Harvard is spending about $1.4 billion a year on ‘Salary Outlays for Full-time Non-medical School Non-instructional Staff,’ according to its most recent filing with the federal government, a figure that is about double what Yale and the University of Chicago pay, and more than triple what Harvard devotes to paying professors and other teaching staff.
“Since 2017, Harvard’s spending on administrators, clerical and technical workers, and other functionaries included in that ‘Non-instructional Staff’ category has soared by about $400 million, or about 40 percent. Over the same period, spending on professors and other teachers at Harvard grew by about $80 million, or 25 percent. Degree-program enrollment has remained roughly flat, though Harvard has ramped up revenue-generating online and short-term executive-education programs offering non-degree credentials such as certificates....
“And keep in mind that the ‘Salary Outlays for Full-time Non-medical School Non-instructional Staff’ don’t even capture a lot of the money that Harvard spends on contracted-out labor, like security guards from a company called Securitas, the outside landscapers that Harvard brings in to spruce up the campus in advance of Commencement and reunions, or the 16 lawyers from King & Spalding, from Ropes & Gray, from Quinn Emanuel, and from Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP that are representing Harvard in its suit against the federal government. Harvard has cut back its spending on internal money managers at the Harvard Management Corporation and instead farmed the endowment out to private equity and venture capital managers whose fees aren’t counted as Harvard staff salary outlays. That’s another whole story.”
Full op-ed including detailed charts at Substack.
See also charts showing similar spending and staffing at Stanford at our Stanford Concerns webpage. See also proposed actions to reduce administrative bloat at Part 3 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage. These also are reasons, per Part 4 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage, to move the staffing and costs of Stanford’s centers, accelerators and incubators that are not primarily engaged in front-line teaching and research and supervised directly by Stanford’s tenured faculty into one or more separate entities and, in most cases, off the core campus.
Ivy League Is Still Struggling to Figure Out What's Free Speech and What Isn't
Excerpt:
“Our country’s most esteemed institutions of higher learning -- the Ivy League schools -- should have figured out how to ensure free speech rights on campus long ago. But they haven’t.
“While these private institutions don’t have the same First Amendment requirements that public universities do, they promise their students and faculty a comparable environment where freedom of expression can flourish. Indeed, that’s a huge part of what a college education is all about.
“That’s why it’s concerning to see such apparent confusion over what kind of behavior deserves punishment -- and what should be accepted....”
Full op-ed at USA Today. Note however that, unlike what is stated in this op-ed, Stanford and other private schools in California are subject to the Leonard Law which requires the schools to comply with the First Amendment in disciplinary and other actions vis-à-vis their students.
See also “Survey Finds Many Americans Hold Negative Views of the Ivies” at Inside Higher Ed. See also “Columbia Students Call on School to Crack Down on Protests that Disrupt Learning Ahead of Finals” at Just the News.
Other Articles of Interest
Stanford Daily Interview of President Levin (May 12, 2025)
Full video at Stanford Daily (32 minutes); also at YouTube.
Legislation Would Increase Tax on Endowments by Up to 21%
Full article at Inside Higher Ed. See also “Here’s What the Endowment Tax Plan Might Cost Your College” at Chronicle of Higher Education. Also, a 47-page, section-by-section outline of the legislation can be downloaded here.
Colleges Spend Heavily on Lobbying
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
Here’s a Look at the Emerging College Applicant -- the Independent Student
Full article at University Business. See also “Independent Applicants - A Growing but Underserved Pool” at Inside Higher Ed.
Instead of Punishing Students for Using AI, Colleges and Universities Need to Provide Clear and Consistent Guidelines and Rules
Full op-ed at Hechinger Report.
Brown Won’t Discipline Student Journalist for His Report on Administrative Bloat
Full article at College Fix.
Writing Tutors at Claremont McKenna Told Correcting Grammar Is Racist
Full article at College Fix.
We Have to Rethink the Purpose of Education
Full transcript at NY Times.
Professionalization Is Killing College Sports
Full op-ed at James Martin Center.
Reinvigorating Civil Discourse at MIT
Full podcast (28 minutes) at Higher Ed Now. See also MIT’s revised webpages re Merit and re Understanding MIT.
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.
Stanford Course Helps Students Put Pluralism into Practice
Targeting Cells’ Trash-Sorting Systems Could Unlock New Treatments for Neurodegenerative Disease
The Secrets of Resilient Aging (Podcast - 36 minutes)
************
“No one should have to pass someone else’s ideological purity test to be allowed to speak. University life -- along with civic life -- dies without the free exchange of ideas.” – Reed College Prof. Lucia Martinez Valdivia
May 12, 2025
Indirect Costs Make Science a Revenue Game, not a Discovery Quest
Excerpts (links in the original, endnotes deleted):
“Since the Trump administration proposed a 15 percent cap on them in February, indirect costs on research grants are the object of a roiling controversy.
“If you have no idea what that sentence means, you are not alone. Indirect costs are one of the more arcane features of how scientific research is funded in American universities. As it was with the Albigensian heresy, great passions are exercised on fine points barely understood by normal people. How do we know this? Ask a critical question about indirect costs, as the Trump administration did with its proposal to cut them, and out will come the sectarian mobs to denounce you.
“The indirect costs heresy obscures the fundamental question about indirect costs: is science helped or harmed by them? The message from universities and astroturfed mobs is clear: science will be devastated if they are reduced in any way. I argue here the opposite: under our current regime of science funding, science has become less free, less innovative, more craven, and more dishonest, and indirect costs have been the instruments of its degradation.
“Some history. Federal support of university science is a recent phenomenon, launched in 1950 as an experiment, kicked off with the establishment of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Since then, the NSF model of university science funding has spread to some two dozen federal agencies, which have distributed roughly a trillion dollars over the past 75 years. Nationwide, federal support accounts for 60-80 percent of all university research. At some universities, nearly their entire research portfolio is supported by federal funds....
“The drafters of the founding document of modern science, Science: The Endless Frontier, recognized the disparity and took pains in their recommendations to protect the interests of academic scientists from the prevailing interests of universities, governments, and powerful corporate interests. Their recommendation was to support academic science through long-term block grants to universities, which would then allocate the funds similarly to how it had used institutional funds to support the work of their scientists. Many universities had research committees, staffed by academics and administrators, who could consider proposals from colleagues and distribute funds accordingly. Scientists could appeal directly to their university administrations to raise funds. This was how most particle physics work pre-war was funded, for example, including the development of the instrument that laid the foundation for particle physics, the cyclotron. And it was admirably suited to the unique demands of the basic sciences: curiosity-driven, responsive to inspiration, built around ad hoc risk-taking, and responsive to intimate person-to-person appeals....
“...A spirit of discovery still exists in the academic sciences, although its flame is flickering. Restoring the flame will mean removing the well-entrenched landscape of perverse incentives that currently prevail. Indirect costs reform is one aspect of the restoration, along with restructuring the models for funding science that have allowed that perverse landscape to flourish. We have some suggestions for how to do that in a subsequent article.”
Full op-ed by SUNY Prof. Emeritus J. Scott Turner at Minding the Campus.
See also the February 7, 2025 announcement by the National Institutes of Health to place a cap of 15% on indirect costs and including a chart showing the indirect cost rates (zero to 15%) paid by nonprofits such as the Gates, Packard and Zuckerberg foundations and others for comparable work. According to Stanford's website, Stanford's current indirect cost rate for most research is 54% but can be as high as 90% when animal research is involved.
Is Harvard Complying with the Tax Code?
Excerpts:
“President Trump’s announcement [a week ago] that he plans to take away Harvard’s tax exempt status prompted me to do something I never did while working there or serving as an alumni volunteer: actually read the plain text of the tax code that covers the tax exemption for Harvard and most other charities.
“The law -- Section 501(c)(3) -- says the tax exemption applies to a corporation ‘organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes . . . no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda . . . and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’ Courts have struggled for a century to distinguish ‘educational’ from ‘propaganda’ for tax purposes. In Bob Jones University v. U.S. (1983), the Supreme Court even ventured beyond the statutory language and upheld the Internal Revenue Service’s decision to pull a tax exemption ‘where there is no doubt that the organization’s activities violate fundamental public policy.’...
“On the education-or-propaganda question, first-year Harvard medical students were required to take a course on the ‘principles of advocacy and activism’ while focusing on ‘a most consequential public health threat -- climate change.’ A high-profile Harvard task force recently reported ‘that certain faculty were injecting highly partisan discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of American Jewish groups in courses that had no direct connection with these subjects.’ The task force described a divinity school program on religion and public life as ‘one-sided, ideologically partisan, and biased.’
“At the education school, some sections of a required course featured a ‘pyramid of white supremacy’ illustrating ‘the day-to-day racist norms’ at work in American culture. Examples include the Anti-Defamation League, opposition to boycotting Israel, Wall Street, the war on terror and community policing....”
Full op-ed at WSJ. But see also “The Law Bars Trump from Threatening Harvard’s Tax Exemption” by Georgetown Prof. Neal Katyal, also at WSJ.
Viewpoint Diversity and the Scientists
Excerpts:
“Two weeks after the lawsuit, the battle is on between Harvard, which did not want battle, and the Trump Administration that sought it. A major concern among the Trump Administration is Harvard’s lack of viewpoint diversity....
“Who risks the most in Harvard’s battle? The scientists, who need the government’s money. This fact opens up a second problem of viewpoint diversity within universities that is not so easy to fix: The divide between the scientists and the humanists.
“Harvard scientists will no doubt admire its president’s impressive move to check the Trumpist attempt to take over the University, but some of them will reflect that it is Harvard’s humanists who cause the trouble while the scientists pay the cost. A deeper look into the difference between science and the humanities will help to understand this second division....
“Why should Harvard be independent? Because it helps society; it’s worth the money! That answer makes Harvard the expert part of society. Doesn’t it need some standard from outside society to justify itself as independent? Something like veritas that combines science and the humanities -- a Harvard that looks for the wisdom that makes science valuable to human beings.
“A political scientist myself, I like to think that this wisdom centers on politics. A wiser politics than devotion to a single party would have protected the scientists and corrected the humanists.”
Full op-ed by Harvard Prof. Harvey C. Mansfield at Harvard Crimson.
Other Articles of Interest
Yes, Harvard Deserves Due Process
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff and FIRE senior officer Adam Goldstein at Persuasion.
See also Harvard Prof. Roland Fryer at WSJ: “Harvard Should Stand Up for Itself More Often - Many of these reforms may be welcome and reflect genuine concerns I’ve heard faculty express. But they aren’t reforms the federal government can or should impose on private universities.”
New ESPN Documentary on the Katie Meyer Case
A 13-minute segment of the one-hour documentary that was broadcast this past Saturday on ESPN re the Katie Meyer case is now available at YouTube. For convenience, we also have updated the documents posted about this case at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage.
See also our long-existing article about “Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior” at our Stanford Concerns webpage including relevant PDF documents and that we believe played a role in the Katie Meyer case.
Brown Continues to Go After Student Journalist for His Article About DEI at Brown
Full op-ed at FIRE.
Audit Says U. Wisconsin System Spent Tens of Millions of Dollars on 1,200+ DEI Activities
Full article at College Fix.
Not All Students Go to College, and We Need to Make That OK
Full op-ed at NY Times.
What Do College Students Do All Day? The Answer Isn’t Studying
Full op-ed at Manhattan Institute.
Demand for Higher Education Remains Strong Despite Ongoing Barriers
Full summary of Gallup/Lumina Foundation study along with a link to the full report at Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
AI Pioneer Says World Is Not Prepared for What's Coming
Excerpt of CBS interview of Nobel Laureate and U Toronto Prof. Emeritus Geoffrey Hinton at YouTube (8 minutes). Full interview (51 minutes) here.
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.
We Can Change Diet to Generate a Healthier Microbiome and a Healthy Individual
MRI Technique Lights Up Zombie Cells That Contribute to Arthritis
Treating Cardiovascular Fibrosis
************
"If you take difficult positions, you are bound to make enemies. But if you always avoid controversy, you risk making no difference at all." – Stanford alum and former Harvard president Derek Bok
May 5, 2025
What ChatGPT Would Recommend
Editor’s note: We and other alumni and commentators from around the country have been concerned about the growing administrative costs and related problems at U.S. colleges and universities. See for example “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage which, among other things, has detailed comparisons of Stanford’s numbers with the numbers at comparable schools. So we decided to ask ChatGPT what it might do to address these concerns and are reproducing below, in both language and format, what ChatGPT recommended in response to each of our two questions. See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage. We also wonder whether these actions might be a pathway for ending the government's disputes with Harvard and others.
Our Question: How can a university stop or reverse administrative bloat?
ChatGPT's response:
1. Governance and Accountability
-
Reform leadership incentives: Tie senior administrator evaluations to academic outcomes, cost-efficiency, and faculty/student satisfaction -- not just expansion of services or programs.
-
Create oversight committees: Faculty-led bodies should review new administrative hires and budget allocations.
-
Implement sunset clauses: Temporary administrative roles should automatically expire unless justified and renewed.
2. Budgetary Discipline
-
Adopt zero-based budgeting: Instead of automatic increases, every department -- including administrative -- must justify its entire budget each cycle.
-
Cap administrative growth: Set hard limits on admin-to-student or admin-to-faculty ratios.
-
Redirect resources: Prioritize instructional and research expenditures over non-academic roles.
3. Recenter on Core Mission
-
Reaffirm academic priorities: Ensure that new policies and spending support teaching, research, and student learning.
-
Audit role alignment: Identify positions that duplicate services or whose duties have drifted from academic goals.
4. Process Streamlining and Tech Integration
-
Digitize bureaucracy: Invest in technology to automate compliance, scheduling, and reporting instead of hiring staff.
-
Simplify compliance: Work with regulators to reduce redundant or unnecessary compliance burdens.
5. Cultural and Structural Shifts
-
Strengthen shared governance: Give faculty and students more influence over administrative policy and hiring.
-
Decentralize decision-making: Empower academic departments to manage more of their own operations.
6. Transparency and Data
-
Publicly report admin growth: Regularly disclose metrics like admin salaries, staff-to-faculty ratios, and non-academic expenditures.
-
Benchmark against peers: Use data to assess whether admin growth aligns with similar institutions or exceeds norms.
************
Our Question: Suggest ways that a university can increase viewpoint diversity in its faculty and students.
ChatGPT's response:
1. Inclusive Hiring Practices
-
Broaden candidate pools: Actively recruit from a variety of institutions, including those with differing philosophical, political, or religious leanings.
-
Use structured interviews: Minimize bias by applying consistent criteria across all candidates.
-
Encourage intellectual diversity as a hiring value: Include questions in hiring processes that explore a candidate’s commitment to open inquiry and constructive engagement across differences.
2. Admissions and Outreach
-
Widen geographical and demographic outreach: Target recruitment in underrepresented regions or communities that may have different perspectives.
-
Consider a broader definition of diversity: Incorporate ideological and experiential diversity alongside race, gender, and socioeconomic status.
3. Curriculum and Course Design
-
Offer courses in diverse traditions of thought: Include curricula representing a wide range of political, philosophical, and cultural viewpoints.
-
Encourage debate and dialogue: Design courses that require students to engage with contrasting views, supported by evidence and respectful discourse.
4. Campus Culture
-
Support student organizations across the spectrum: Ensure funding and support is available for a wide range of political, religious, and cultural groups.
-
Host speaker series and debates: Bring in a variety of voices, including those that challenge mainstream or dominant campus perspectives.
-
Foster a climate of civil discourse: Promote norms that encourage listening, questioning, and respectful disagreement.
5. Institutional Commitments
-
Adopt free speech and open inquiry policies: Publicly affirm the institution’s support for academic freedom and diverse viewpoints.
-
Create a viewpoint diversity advisory committee: Include faculty, students, and administrators tasked with monitoring and supporting intellectual diversity efforts.
May 2, 2025
The Broken Promise of Academic Freedom
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Lately, everyone seems to have an opinion about academic freedom. Some defend it as sacred. Others sneer that it’s a racket. The truth is: it’s neither. Academic freedom isn’t a right. It’s a deal -- a bold investment society made in people who could wrestle meaning from complexity and pursue truth beyond the noise of daily life.
“And it paid off. Spectacularly. In exchange for protecting a small class of thinkers from mobs, markets, and monarchs, humanity doubled life expectancy, eradicated famine on a planetary scale, and wiped out entire categories of disease -- not with good vibes, but with methodical inquiry, evidence, and reason.
“In the 19th century, within the Humboldtian model, universities became the natural home of the emerging intellectual class -- offering not only time and resources for research, but a growing degree of protection from public, political, and commercial pressures. They offered not only space for research but also a means of transmitting knowledge -- teaching others how to seek truth with rigor and independence. As religion receded as the primary source of shared moral authority, the modern university stepped in to fill the void. It fashioned itself not just as an institution of learning, but as one of value formation.
“It was a noble ambition. And it’s where the trouble began.
“The Humboldtian ideal envisioned the university as a space free from political and social pressures, dedicated solely to dispassionate, objective scholarship. But as massive public funding began to flow into universities to support research and teaching, one of the key pillars of independence -- financial detachment from the state -- began to erode. As the old saying goes: he who pays the piper calls the tune.
“Academic freedom was never a license to say or do anything without consequences. It was a shield -- meant to protect scholars chasing truth, not activists pushing boycotts, slogans, and ideological manifestos. The moment your research becomes a political weapon, you step outside the zone academic freedom was built to defend....
“Let’s be clear: universities don’t need cosmetic diversity. They need viewpoint diversity. In such environments, viewpoint diversity isn’t a nice feature -- it must be the core of the academic enterprise and the foundation of academic legitimacy. It’s the only check against intellectual ossification and mechanism for self-correction. A genuine contest of ideas, not just a rainbow of faces parroting the same beliefs. Affirmative action for ideas isn’t ‘woke in reverse.’ It’s the minimum standard for any institution serious about the pursuit of truth....
“Winning that trust back will require making room for real debate, not just sanctioned variations on a single moral narrative. And it will mean ditching the pretense of ‘moral clarity’ as the new scholastic paradigm instead of objectivity. History never lacked agents for moral clarity -- Torquemada and Hitler both claimed it. The lesson is not that moral conviction is dangerous, but that without epistemic humility and rigorous self-correction, it becomes indistinguishable from dogma....
“Academic freedom is still worth defending -- but only if we remember what it was for. It wasn’t meant to protect ideology. It was meant to protect inquiry.
“What society grants, society can also revoke. If academic freedom is to endure, we must remember: it's not a sacred right -- it's a promise to keep.”
Full op-ed by Sasha Rozenberg at Fair for All.
See also our long-existing webpages:
-
Back to Basics at Stanford including (at Part 4) calls for the removal from the core campus the 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities if they are not engaged in frontline teaching and independent research but instead are engaged primarily if not exclusively in advocacy and implementation activities, are run by non-members of the faculty, are devoid of scholarly inquiries and generally exclude consideration of alternative viewpoints.
-
Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy with charts and other data showing Stanford’s massive and costly administrative apparatus that all too often gets in the way of the university’s core teaching and research.
-
Stanford’s Roles in Censoring the Web which we believe is an example of the harm that has been caused in recent years by the 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities that are largely if not exclusively delivering viewpoints and outcomes that are directed by government agencies, foundations and other grant-makers and donors.
How Universities Should Respond to the Attacks on Academic Freedom
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Facing federal funding suspensions and investigations, elite universities have arrived at a moment of crisis.
“Many have -- rightly, in our opinion -- pledged never to compromise on core principles of academic freedom, and vowed to resist the federal government’s heavy-handed tactics. Most have refused, however, to fully acknowledge how their own delinquencies have precipitated their current predicament: their failure to maintain viewpoint diversity in any meaningful sense among faculty and students; failure to dismantle entrenched campus cultures of self-censorship and intellectual conformism; failure to sustain robust climates of intellectual freedom; and failure to act against anti-Semitic and other forms of harassment. These failings undermine the most basic mission of universities -- namely, the pursuit of truth....
“This is by no means to say the government may not investigate compliance failures or misconduct in or by universities. But government itself must, as a matter of law, comply with federal regulations in conducting investigations and deciding whether a grant should be suspended....
“University units, and in some cases entire institutions, have become politicized and ideologically partisan. Viewpoint diversity, particularly among faculty members but in some institutions among students, too, has essentially collapsed. A 2023 survey revealed that nearly 80 percent of Harvard faculty identify themselves as liberal or very liberal, while less than 3 percent identify as conservative -- all while prominent leaders at Harvard have called for content-based restrictions on faculty members’ freedom of expression rights. More broadly, classrooms are too often centers of indoctrination, not forums for learning by the examination of the best evidence and arguments on competing sides of contested questions....
“The way to [achieve reform] is not through ‘affirmative action’ or preferences of any kind to conservatives, as some propose. Viewpoint diversity can be increased simply by ending discrimination in hiring and promotion against scholars who dissent from ideas that have hardened into orthodoxies on so many campuses. This means, among other things, getting rid of such practices as mandatory ‘statements’ on job or promotion applications, which screen out dissenters by implicitly demanding a pledge of ideological fealty as a condition of employment or advancement.
“In addition, elite universities in particular need to admit their past hypocrisy and failures on free-speech matters (as the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology tragically failed to do in a widely publicized December 2023 congressional hearing) and adopt strictly enforced free-speech and institutional-neutrality policies to ensure that non-sectarian universities function as impartial forums for the robust examination of ideas, and not as partisan participants in political debates....”
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Robert P. George and Union Theological Seminary Prof. Cornel West at The Hill.
What Must a Modern Top-Flight Education Look Like?
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A good education prepares one for the realities of adulthood and successful interaction with the world. At the university level, whether via college or homeschooling, a good education develops the intellectual, emotional, and social muscles. One is moulded into a person who uses tools, not crutches; who accepts responsibility rather than accepting stories of victimhood; and who recognises that human flourishing happens in communities, not in isolation....
“We ourselves have enjoyed the best of the system as it was in the late 20th century, from European gymnasiums to the American Ivy League. Indeed, our generation has the highest average IQ of any generation in the West.
“By contrast, newer generations have regressed to cognitive levels not seen for a century, with sharp declines at the top end: average mathematics scores have dropped, and attention spans are particularly reducing for the young, from over half an hour to under a minute. The abilities to focus, to think critically, and to be socially resilient have declined spectacularly over the past 50 years. Studies suggest strongly that the average IQ in Western countries, after steadily increasing during the 20th century as more people got access to better education, has been falling for the past few decades....
"The first solution principle is to deliver higher education once again in a small and independent format. This requires eliminating the layers upon layers of bureaucracy that encrust our modern institutions of higher learning, as these layers rob academics and the institution as a whole of independence, including the freedom to deliver transformative education....”
[Followed by a discussion of issues and possible solutions.]
Full op-ed by New South Wales Prof. Gigi Foster, London School of Economics Prof. Paul Frijters and writer Michael Baker at Brownstone Institute.
Stanford’s Seven Schools and Other Units Told to Prepare for Potentially Significant Budget Cuts
Excerpt:
“School of Humanities and Sciences (H&S) Dean Debra Satz informed H&S program directors and chairs of a new directive to model potentially ‘significant’ budget cuts in their divisions in a Tuesday email obtained by The Daily.
“The email stated that Satz and others in Stanford’s seven schools had been asked by Provost Jenny Martinez to model budget cuts and submit ‘high-level plans’ for their implementation. H&S’s planning exercise involves modeling a 10% and 15% cut to general funds and a 10% cut to endowment funds.
“Graduate School of Business (GSB) Dean Peter DeMarzo affirmed in an email to the Daily that the GSB ‘received the same guidance as other units on campus.’...”
Full article at Stanford Daily.
Other Articles of Interest
Foreign Funding Comes Under Scrutiny at UC Berkeley and Harvard
Full article at College Fix.
How Universities Restrict Faculty Freedom
Full op-ed at City Journal.
Yale Professors Call Out University’s Bureaucracy
A letter from nearly 100 members of the Yale faculty denounces administrative bloat and stresses the importance of focusing on the school's academic mission.
Full op-ed at City Journal including a link to the letter.
Concerns About Discrimination in Faculty Hiring at Princeton
Full op-ed at Rufo website. See also “Trump Challenges Princeton on Race and Free Speech” by Princeton alum Stuart D. Taylor at Real Clear Politics.
Harvard Fights in Court but Retreats on Campus
Full article at Harvard Crimson.
Harvard Promises Changes After Reports on Antisemitism and Islamophobia
Full article at NY Times. See also “Internal Harvard Report Criticizes School’s Response to Antisemitism” at WSJ.
Harvard Finds Politicized Instruction in Long-Awaited Antisemitism Report
Full article at Off the Press. See also Just the News.
Harvard’s Kennedy School Criticized for Lack of Viewpoint Diversity
Full op-ed at Harvard Salient.
Harvard Law Review Criticized for Alleged Pattern of Racial Discrimination
Full op-ed at Washington Free Beacon. See also Associated Press.
National Association of Scholars Releases Quantitative Study of DEI Statements in University Job Listings
Press release at NAS along with a link to the full report.
Majority of Gen Z Graduates Now Think College Was a Waste of Money
Full article at Newsweek.
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.
Stanford Law School Creates Largest-ever Public Dataset of Over a Million Corporate Contracts
Stanford Students Learn to Lead with Civic Courage
Stents and Bypass Are More Comparable Than Once Thought
************
“The truth is slower to catch on but it's harder to get rid of.”— Stanford Prof. Andrew Huberman
April 28, 2025
Statement by Dartmouth's President
Editor’s note: Last week, Dartmouth’s president Sian Leah Beilock circulated a letter to the Dartmouth community which set forth what we believe are some very important concepts regarding the current pressures on U.S. colleges and universities. She, like our leaders at Stanford (see Developments at Stanford, below), has resisted signing petitions and group letters and instead is trying to resolve the issues in more individualistic and hopefully productive ways.
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“People on and off campus are asking what I think about the battle between higher education and the federal government. A binary framework has emerged -- fight or flight -- that, I worry, means higher-education institutions aren’t reflecting on what we could do better to further our standing as a trusted beacon for knowledge and truth.
“To be clear, reflection does not mean capitulation. I commit to you that I will always stand up for higher education, academic freedom, and Dartmouth’s specific dedication to values like ‘responsibility for each other and for the broader world’ and ‘vigorous and open debate of ideas within a community marked by mutual respect.’ For example, the recent threat to Harvard’s tax-exempt status, among other threats, is fundamentally inconsistent with the notions of free expression and inquiry that make America’s universities the envy of the world, and of the limited government that our founders rightly celebrated. Receivership, censorship, and external pressures about what can and cannot be taught or studied hamper the free exchange of ideas on our campus and across institutions. Dartmouth will never relent on these values, and I hope my peers don’t either....
“Higher-education institutions, especially the most elite among us, are not above reproach. Not only is trust in higher education at an all-time low, but that trust is hugely polarized, second in polarization only to the U.S. presidency. If we don’t ask ourselves why, we will squander this opportunity to do better. That spirit of self-reflection does not, in any way, insulate the government from criticism. It simply gives us an opportunity to look at ourselves and ask where we can be truer to our own ideals....”
Full text of the letter by Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock at Dartmouth website and also posted at our Commentary webpage.
See also video interview on Bloomberg as posted at X (3-1/2 minutes).
A Conservative Harvard Professor’s Assessment on How the University Can Save Itself
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In recent reports about the Trump administration’s assault on Harvard, the statistic is often cited that, at most, 3% of Harvard faculty members identify as conservative. I’m one of that 3%. I’ve taught at Harvard for 40 years. I’ve known some of my liberal and progressive colleagues for decades. I have great respect for many of them as scholars, scientists and human beings. I have a good idea of how they think....
“Faculty at Harvard for the most part are serious scholars and scientists who just want to get on with their work. They have books to write and papers to publish. They want to pass on what they have learned to the next generation. They resent it when activists create turbulence at department meetings and waste everyone’s time....
“In his official response to the Trump administration, [Harvard President Alan Garber] refused its demands while strongly reaffirming the university’s commitment to values that conservatives and traditional liberals can fully endorse....
“One inescapable truth in higher education is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Harvard’s endowment is massive, around $50 billion, but most of it is tied up in donor-restricted funds, and it pays for only 37% of Harvard’s annual operating costs of $6.5 billion. For the rest, the university relies on tuition (20%), federal grants (11%), current gifts from alumni and other donors, and borrowing. Since Harvard’s response to the Hamas attack of October 2023 led to a donor revolt, it has increasingly resorted to the bond market to cover operating costs, and on increasingly unfavorable terms.
“In the short term, unwinding the university’s dependence on federal funding risks creating a substantial deficit. But that funding itself comes at a steep price, not all of which can be measured in dollars and cents. It changes how the university operates and how power is distributed within it. Federal funding tends to increase the number and power of administrators, to turn faculty into their supplicants and to insulate the university from alumni opinion.
“For instance, a 2011 ‘Dear Colleague’ letter from the Obama administration’s Education Department led Harvard to hire over 50 ‘Title IX Resource Coordinators’ to police sexual mores. The university’s sprawling DEI apparatus created, without faculty input, the pressure to regulate speech, require trigger warnings and enforce preferred pronouns. These administrators, who are the most politically active element in the university, opened the doors to further radicalization following the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.
“There are very good reasons for Harvard (and other universities) to reduce our financial dependence on the federal government. Instead, we should strengthen ties with loyal alumni who know and love Harvard. Alumni are loyal in part because they remember with gratitude the teaching they received as undergraduates. That makes them more closely aligned with the university’s real mission: to teach and to produce high-quality, unpoliticized research. Empowering alumni would carry its own risks, no doubt, but in my experience, they have a much sounder sense than politicians and government bureaucrats of what Harvard should be doing to help the country and itself.”
Full op-ed by Harvard Prof. James Hankins at WSJ.
See also the detailed graphs and charts at our Stanford Concerns webpage showing the very large growth of non-teaching staff at Stanford in recent years, the fact that Stanford has the highest total amount of government funding in recent years as compared to all other colleges and universities and similar data.
See also our previous link to "Stanford's Bureaucracy Undermines Its Academic Mission" at Stanford Review.
UC Faculty Rejects Ethnic Studies Admissions Requirement
Excerpt (links in the original):
“The University of California will not proceed with making a semester-long course in ethnic studies a new admissions requirement.
“The UC Faculty Assembly defeated the proposal by a vote of 29 to 12 with 12 abstentions on Wednesday. (Go here for background on the proposal.)
“Had the Assembly endorsed it, the plan would have gone before the UC regents, who would have had the final say. Instead, the rejection ends a five-year effort by the UC ethnic studies faculty to determine the content of high school ethnic studies courses that would have met the admissions requirement.
“The Legislature has already mandated that high schools offer an ethnic studies course, starting in the fall of 2025, and that all students take the course to graduate, starting in 2029-30. But implementation of the 2021 law is contingent on state funding, at a cost the California Department of Education has estimated at $275 million per year. But Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t funded it, and a Newsom adviser told a UC faculty representative that it will not be a priority for 2025-26, amid uncertain revenues....”
Full article at Ed Source. See also statement from FAIR.
Europe Really Is Jailing People for Online Speech
Editor’s note: We have previously presented a number important articles by Johns Hopkins Prof. Yascha Mounk but suggest this one may be the most important to date and strongly urge readers to read the article in its entirety here. As is discussed by Prof. Mounk, the risks are not just within Europe but that these types of actions could erode even the protections provided within the U.S. by our own laws and Constitution.
Excerpts (endnote deleted):
“Imagine this scenario.
“The interior minister of a country that considers itself a democracy reports scores of citizens to the police for making critical statements about her while she is in office. Many of them are given hefty monetary fines or even prison sentences.
“In protest, a journalist publishes a satirical meme. It features a real photograph of the interior minister holding a sign that is digitally altered so that, apocryphally, it reads: ‘I hate freedom of speech.’
“As if to prove the point, the interior minister reports the journalist to the police. He is duly prosecuted and, after a brief trial, given a seven-month suspended prison sentence.
“Would you say that this nation has a problem with free speech?
“If you do, then you should be very concerned about what has happened in Europe over the last few years. For, as you may have suspected, this scenario is not fictional; rather, it depicts the true facts of a recent German court case -- one that is far less of an outlier than most otherwise well-informed observers recognize.... [followed by discussion of prohibitions being established throughout Europe]
“As a result of these broad prohibitions and the ease of enforcing them, Britain has quickly become one of the continent’s leaders in prosecuting -- and even jailing -- people for speech. As the Times of London recently reported, ‘officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests [under section 127] in 2023.’ This means that, on average, over 33 arrests are made every day for what people in the United Kingdom have said on the internet....
“The argument for strong restrictions on free speech implicitly rests on the idea that these have historically proven necessary to preserve our democratic institutions, making them all the more justified at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise. But this argument is historical nonsense twice over.
“This argument wrongly presumes that past failures of democracy can be chalked up to an excess of free speech when the opposite comes closer to being true. [followed by further discussion and examples] ...”
Full op-ed by Johns Hopkins Prof. Yascha Mounk at Substack, a version of which was initially published at Dispatch.
See also our prior postings "Stanford's Roles in Censoring the Web" at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage.
Developments at Stanford
Last Week's Faculty Senate Hears Report on Government Pressures and Other Issues
Excerpt (link in the original):
. . . .
“President Jonathan Levin also discussed a letter published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) this week. 'I don’t disagree with the sentiments in that letter,' Levin said. 'In general, I prefer not to sign open letters. I think it’s good practice at a university for people to formulate and express their own views.'
“Levin noted that he and Provost Jenny Martinez have shared their views regarding government overreach and the need for universities to engage with legitimate criticism, which has been covered widely by national media.
“‘To be clear, I do believe in working together with a broad array of peer institutions on actions to advance higher education,’ Levin said. ‘We’re doing that in many ways, in small groups with the [Association of American Universities] and other organizations, including just last week, filing a second successful lawsuit related to cuts in federal funding.’
“Levin added that he foresees many opportunities to collaborate in greater depth in coming months...."
Full article at Stanford Report. See also “Levin and Martinez Field Questions at Admit Weekend About Academic Freedom and Budget Cuts” at Stanford Daily.
From the Faculty Senate Two Weeks Earlier, President Levin Expands on the University’s Guiding Principles
Excerpts (posted in a prior Newsletter but we believe worth repeating here; link in the original):
. . . . .
“In addressing the senate, Levin expanded upon the set of principles he and Provost Jenny Martinez are using to guide the university at this time.
“‘First, the partnership between universities and the federal government is exceptionally important -- to universities and the country,’ Levin said. ‘There is perhaps no university which demonstrates that more than Stanford. When the government began its investment in scientific research, we were a good regional university. Federal funding enabled us to become a great national and global university. In turn, we demonstrate how university research can be an engine of innovation for the country and for the world.’
"Studies of federally funded research find that it has exceptionally high social return on the investment, Levin said, and many specific examples come from Stanford.
“‘Second, academic freedom is an essential part of that contract,’ Levin said. ‘It protects members of the university to question orthodoxy, to debate ideas, to pursue lines of thought that go against the prevailing political winds. It requires protection from both internal and external coercion. On the external side, First Amendment protections for free speech, including unpopular ideas, are a fundamental part of the country.
“‘It is also important for universities to recognize that we have not always lived up to our internal end -- we have had speakers shouted down, published lists of harmful words, and had situations where the careers of students or faculty were threatened for politically unpopular speech. Today, I believe we can be proud of what we are doing at Stanford to protect free inquiry and model civil discourse.’ ..."
Full article at Stanford Report. See also the Guiding Principles as outlined by President Levin and Provost Martinez in their March 31, 2025 letter to the community, a copy of which is now also posted at our Stanford Speaks webpage.
April 25, 2025
Harvard Showed a Spine; Now Comes the Hard Part
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“On April 11, three federal agencies sent the university a sweeping list of demands: make major changes or risk losing billions in research funding. While some demands -- like ending ideological litmus tests in hiring -- reflect reforms [Heterodox Academy] supports, many others crossed a dangerous line. For example, the government called for mandatory plagiarism reviews of all current and prospective faculty and audits of departments it deemed ideologically ‘captured’ -- without offering clear evidence of problems or due process.
“These are not reasonable steps to fight discrimination; they’re an attempt to control a university’s internal affairs while claiming failure to address antisemitism as the reason. As Harvard rightly argued in its response, the demands violate core constitutional principles and threaten academic freedom. No school should be forced to choose between government funding and intellectual independence, and certainly not without due process. In rejecting these terms, Harvard defended more than itself. It defended the very idea of the university....
“The administration’s demands are a serious threat to academic freedom. Yet Harvard's resistance will ring hollow unless it pairs its bold defense of independence with an equally honest reckoning about the internal failures that made it vulnerable to such scrutiny in the first place.
“In a recent op-ed for the Boston Globe, the faculty chairs of the Academic Freedom Councils at Columbia, Harvard, and Princeton spoke of these problems:
“‘While differing in our politics and much else, we recognized that our campuses had become intellectually cramped, with insufficient diversity in the range of ideas and viewpoints we teach and research. We witnessed the cancellation of speakers with unpopular views, saw some departments devolve into monocultures inhospitable to contrary opinions, and watched in dismay as well-meaning administrators implemented identity-focused policies that hardened boundaries between groups instead of dissolving them.
“‘Lately, we have seen universities fail to adequately address antisemitism, tolerate protests that cross the line from expression to disruption and coercion, violate their own well-founded rules, and apply antidiscrimination and harassment rules inconsistently. The result is a spiral of silence in which students and faculty censor themselves, leaving public discourse to the loudest and most zealous voices....
“ .... If a 26:1 ideological imbalance shows viewpoint diversity, what would count as a monoculture?
“At [Heterodox Academy], we believe the best defense against political overreach is a university that lives up to its highest ideals. Harvard’s moment of courage must now be matched by real reform. That means publicly affirming its commitment to civil rights and the open exchange of ideas -- and then demonstrating that commitment through faculty hiring practices, classroom culture, and intellectual climate. America needs great universities. And it needs those universities to be truly great -- not just in rankings, but in their commitment to truth, pluralism, and academic integrity.
“Harvard just showed it has a spine. But now comes the hard part: Harvard must commit itself to the difficult, long-term work of building a culture of open inquiry.”
Full op-ed by Brown U Prof. and President of Heterodox Academy John Tomasi at Substack.
See also:
Additional Articles re Harvard
In Harvard vs. Trump, Both Are Right and Both Are Wrong
Full op-ed by Harvard Fellow Barak Sella at The Hill.
“Harvard’s inglorious past deserves scorn and punishment, but the size and scope of the Trump administration's sanctions go too far”
Full op-ed by NYU Prof. Richard Epstein at Civitas.
Commonsense Changes at Harvard Could Go a Long Way to Diffusing the Trump Standoff
Full op-ed including detailed numbers and charts re federal grants, foreign donors, growth of endowment, increased administrative costs, etc. by Open the Books at Substack.
Harvard Sought a Deal, and Some Donors Still Want That Outcome
Full article at NY Times.
A Perfect Storm Comes for Elite Universities
Excerpts (links in the original):
“The country’s most elite universities are panicking over President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign against them, but their problems run far deeper than a stand-off with the White House.
“Fewer students are applying to top schools. Private donors are closing their checkbooks. Lucrative foreign student visas are in the State Department’s crosshairs.
“And the diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracies that grew around universities’ desire to pursue liberal social justice not only inflicted reputational damage -- they may have exposed the schools to civil rights violations.
“‘Higher education periodically goes through crises, which sometimes feel more existential than others. By all indications, this is among the more serious crises that we’ve faced in many decades,’ Neil Gross, a sociology professor at Colby College, told the Washington Examiner. ‘It’s been building for some time.’ ...
[Followed by discussion of declines in student applicants.]
“Federal funding is not the only source of income presently at risk for elite universities.
“Amid the backlash to top schools’ handling of anti-Israel protests and leadership upheaval at several universities, some private donors stopped giving money before the fight with Trump began.
“Donations to Harvard fell by 14% in fiscal 2024, according to the Harvard Crimson.
“‘The $151 million decline marks one of the most significant year-over-year drops in donations in the past decade,’ the school paper reported....
“However, others see the current moment as an opportunity for an overdue course correction after years of drifting from the core values of higher education.
“‘This is a comeuppance that has been long coming,’ [Drexel Prof. Stanley Ridgley] said. ‘The bar tab that Harvard ran up over the last 20 years, well, that tab is coming due.’..."
Full article at Washington Examiner.
Kicking Out Foreign Students Is a Loss for America
Excerpts:
“Imagine a country that invites the world’s best students to study there, only to deport them over a traffic violation....
“Revoking legal status en masse for unclear or illegitimate reasons contributes to a climate of uncertainty that will drive the best and brightest students into other countries, upending their lives and depriving the U.S. of massive talent.
“Based on what’s known about some of the legal statuses that have been revoked, it’s not clear that [engaging in activities that are contrary to U.S. policy] is the case for these students, who have also already gone through extensive background checks when applying for their visas. Immigration attorney Charles Kuck, who is involved in one of the lawsuits against the government for the termination of SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records, said in an interview that many students have had their status terminated merely for having a traffic violation, or a discharged offense from years ago, and some don’t have a criminal record at all. His clients weren’t involved in the pro-Palestinian protests, either. The government didn’t give a clear reason why their statuses were terminated. ‘ICE didn’t tell these students what they did wrong,’ Kuck stated....
“Student visas are expensive and hard to get. Applicants must be accepted by a U.S. university, pay hefty fees, comply with many regulations, and secure funding for their tuition and living expenses throughout their education. (These visas often don’t allow students to work while they study.) This process is already prohibitive and discourages many talented individuals from applying.
“The mass revocation of legal status for hundreds of apparently peaceful students is a loss for America. These individuals are among the ‘best and brightest’ who come here to pursue great education, are willing to pay for it, and often aspire to build a life here. They know this country affords unique opportunities and they greatly benefit from this opportunity....
“Ultimately, the whole student visa program should be overhauled to allow more freedom for universities to attract students, and for companies to hire them. But for now, the current student visa program should make it easier, not harder, for students to come here. President Trump’s idea [in June 2024 during the campaign] of attaching a green card to every college degree was good back then -- and his administration should pursue that end instead of the path it’s currently on....”
Full op-ed at Real Clear Politics. See also "The Case Against Student Deportations" at Stanford Review.
Other Articles of Interest
NIH Says Colleges Must Eliminate DEI Programs to Receive Research Funding
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education.
When Do Scholarly Retractions Become a Form of Censorship?
Full op-ed at Quillette.
GenAI Will Not Make Students Smarter
Full op-ed at James Martin Center.
Federal Government to Begin Garnishing Wages on Defaulted Student Loan Borrowers
Full article at Politico.
When Good Academics Do Bad Things
Full op-ed at Quillette.
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.
From School of Medicine: RNA Blood Test Designed to Detect Cancers, Other Clues
From Center on Artificial Intelligence: Assessing the Role of Intelligent Tutors in K-12 Education
From School of Engineering: In My Lab, Curiosity Drives Discovery
************
"I think we have a very good Honor Code. What’s broken is the education around it. We need to inculcate it by talking about it … and infuse it in our culture." -- Stanford Prof. Andrea Goldsmith
April 18, 2025
Editor’s note: Because of rapidly changing developments regarding recent demands on Harvard and other universities, we are distributing this Newsletter a few days earlier than normal. As always, we welcome reader comments and suggestions here.
************
President Levin and Provost Martinez Address Government Attacks on Harvard and Universities Generally (April 15, 2025)
“America’s universities are a source of great national strength, creating knowledge and driving innovation and economic growth. This strength has been built on government investment but not government control. The Supreme Court recognized this years ago when it articulated the essential freedoms of universities under the First Amendment as the ability to determine who gets to teach, what is taught, how it is taught, and who is admitted to study.
“Universities need to address legitimate criticisms with humility and openness. But the way to bring about constructive change is not by destroying the nation’s capacity for scientific research, or through the government taking command of a private institution. Harvard’s objections to the letter it received are rooted in the American tradition of liberty, a tradition essential to our country’s universities, and worth defending.”
[Note: A copy of the government's letter to Harvard dated April 11, 2025 is posted at our Commentary webpage. See also April 18, 2025 op-ed at Stanford Review.]
Statement from Our Colleagues at Harvard Alumni for Free Speech
Excerpts (link in the original):
"Harvard Alumni for Free Speech (HAFFS) believes deeply in the principles of academic freedom, free expression, and genuine viewpoint diversity. These values are not merely aspirational -- they are essential to the mission of any university, and to the health of a democratic society.
"We have reviewed the federal government’s letter to Harvard University dated April 11th. The letter goes far beyond ensuring that Harvard does not discriminate....
"We believe that further changes are needed to current Harvard policies and that the implementation of changes made at Harvard in the past year needs to be assessed to confirm that the core principles of academic freedom and free expression are being advanced. However, we do not think it appropriate for the federal government to be the party responsible to determine and monitor what values are acceptable for private universities to foster, and we are deeply troubled by the growing federal overreach into the intellectual life of universities.
"Free expression cannot thrive under any orthodoxy -- whether imposed by university administrators or by federal agencies...."
Full text of statement here.
Reclaiming Academic Rigor and Intellectual Vitality
Excerpts:
“Roosevelt Montás is an outspoken advocate for a humanistic liberal arts education rooted in transformative texts, particularly the Great Books tradition. As director of Columbia’s Center for the Core Curriculum from 2008 to 2018, he did more than anyone else to safeguard and sustain a set of foundational courses and essential knowledge that all students are required to engage with and master.
“A Dominican immigrant who discovered the power of classical texts as a Columbia undergrad, Montás argues that exposure to foundational works of literature, philosophy and political thought is not an elitist pursuit, but a democratizing force -- one that offers students, regardless of background, the tools for intellectual and moral self-discovery....
“We often hear about the threats to education from political polarization, but the real crisis is more insidious: a broad cultural shift that has deprioritized deep learning, rigorous intellectual engagement and the foundational knowledge necessary for an informed citizenry.
“This is not a conspiracy of the right or the left -- it is a product of market forces, technological shifts and a culture that increasingly values efficiency, credentialing and convenience over substantive education....
“Here’s how higher education lost rigor and depth:
[Followed by discussion of:
-
The Decline of the Humanities and the Marginalization of the Serious Arts.
-
The Absence of a Serious Foundation in Science, Mathematics and Quantitative Methods.
-
The Shift to Asynchronous, Low-Engagement Online Learning.
-
The Weakening of General Education and the Fragmentation of Knowledge.
[As well as proposed corrective actions.]
“The strength of a nation is not measured merely by its economy or its military but by the depth of its ideas, the clarity of its discourse and the rigor of its thinking. In an era of misinformation, declining civic literacy and technological distractions, the need for an intellectually engaged citizenry has never been greater. If America is to lead in the 21st century -- not just in wealth or power but in wisdom -- it must first make America smart again.
“This is not about nostalgia for a past golden age but a recognition that serious learning, deep engagement and intellectual rigor are the foundations of a flourishing democracy. It is time to raise -- not lower -- the bar."
Full op-ed by U Texas Prof. Steven Mintz at Inside Higher Ed.
There’s a Limit to Government Intrusion in Academic Matters
Excerpts (link in the original, endnotes deleted):
“On April 11, President Trump sent a letter to Harvard with various demands, threatening to cut off federal science grants if Harvard does not comply. Some demands related to ending racial discrimination in admissions and hiring, which is fine, since Harvard has blatantly discriminated against white and Asians in the past and continues to do so.
“Other demands are improper, even if they are things that we think the university should do. He asks Harvard to check faculty publications for plagiarism. Maybe Harvard should do that, but why should the federal government condition cancer research grants given to Professor Smith on whether the university has audited Professor Jones’s publications? This is an intrusion onto the university’s internal management....
“Even more dubious is the demand that Harvard require its departments to have diverse viewpoints. The letter says,
"'Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity’
“This sounds good, but it isn’t....
“Liberal faculty think that if 20% of a department voted for Trump, that department is hideously conservative; they have lost sight of their own biases. And Trump is not even asking for ‘the MAGA worldview’. He is just asking that biology departments not veto job candidates who say that a man cannot become a woman and that economics departments not veto candidates who favor tariffs.
“Even imposing a little balance on a politicized university department, though, is still not the business of the federal government....
“... If a department doesn’t hire an economist because of his views on sex change operations or climate change, that is a bad thing. Where universities have gone most wrong is in refusing to hire people because they have conservative views on topics unrelated to their field of study. That is what we should aim to end....
“If you were the university president, vested with full authority from the board of trustees, what would you do?”
Full op-ed by Indiana U. Prof. Eric Rasmusen at Substack.
See also “Only 39 U.S. Colleges Can Withstand Trump’s Freeze on Research Dollars” at Times of India.
What Our Universities Need to Do Now
Excerpts (links in the original):
“’Finally!’
“That was my first reaction to Harvard’s letter on Monday, which pledged to resist the Trump administration’s attacks on its autonomy. You can’t have a free university or a free society when the government is dictating what you can teach, think or write. Good on Harvard, for stating what most schools have been too scared to say.
“Yet we should also read the letter as a challenge to our universities, which haven’t always lived by their ideals of free expression and open inquiry. President Trump’s proposed restrictions and penalties pose a dire threat to these values, as the Harvard letter makes clear. But we shouldn’t pretend that we have made good on them ourselves.
“Consider the question of viewpoint diversity, which the Trump administration highlighted in its own letter to Harvard earlier this month. The university was instructed to abolish 'ideological litmus tests' and to 'hire a critical mass of new faculty' in departments where everyone thought the same way.
“I heartily endorse that goal, even if I detest Trump’s mechanism for achieving it. Surveys have repeatedly confirmed that faculty at elite schools like Harvard lean heavily and almost uniformly left in their politics. That’s a big problem if you think that education should expose us to a wide range of perspectives. And it also helps explain the rising public disdain for universities, especially -- but not only -- among conservatives.
“But I don’t want Trump or any other government official deciding which departments or schools are so ideologically lopsided that they will forsake their federal funding, as Trump has threatened. That’s a formula for corruption, not balance.
“And that’s why the universities have to step up, admit they have a problem, and commit to solving it. So I was pleased to see that Harvard’s letter pledged to ‘broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community,’ as Harvard president Alan M. Garber wrote.
“Message to the world: Harvard isn’t as intellectually diverse as it should be. Nor has it done enough to ‘nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry’ or to ‘develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another,’ as Garber also admitted...."
[Followed by discussion of additional concerns and possible actions.]
Full op-ed by Penn Prof. Jonathan Zimmerman at The Hill.
This Is How Universities Can Escape Trump’s Trap, If They Dare
Excerpt:
....
“There is a way for universities to fight back. It requires more than refusing to bend to Trump’s will, and it requires more than forming a united front. They must abandon all the concerns -- rankings, donors, campus amenities -- that preoccupy and distract them, and focus on their core mission: the production and dissemination of knowledge." ...
Full op-ed at NY Times. See also our long-existing Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
Other Articles of Interest
Stanford Professor Discusses Harmful Impact of DEI
Full op-ed by Stanford Prof. Jonathan Berk at Stanford Daily.
Without Self-Criticism, There Can be No Progressive Thought in the Academy
Full op-ed by Queen Mary U of London Prof. Eric Heinze at Education Next.
The Importance of Viewpoint Diversity and Free Expression, What Comes After DEI?
Full op-ed at New Yorker.
Higher Ed Digs In, Refuses Reform
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars.
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.
From Graduate School of Business: The Grit and Determination of Entrepreneurs
From Department of Biology: The Neuroscience and Physiology of Animal Relationships
Multi-disciplinary Study Reveals How to Make Prescribed Forest Fires Burn Safer and Cleaner
************
“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.” — Stanford’s 1974 Statement on Academic Freedom
April 14, 2025
Editor’s note: We present here four articles with competing messages. The first article includes the results of recent polling showing that the majority of U.S. students believe their campuses have a climate that promotes free speech. The second article discusses some of the conflicts that nevertheless also are taking place. The third is an example of the tensions that have long existed and the fourth is a call for better civic education.
These are themes that have been consistently presented ever since these Newsletters and the related website were launched in September 2022, and long before these issues became the subject of more widespread public discussion. Stanford itself has been a participant in what many/most observers believe were seriously wrongful actions such as the government-coordinated censorship that was based at Stanford Internet Observatory and its affiliates, the attacks by Stanford’s own faculty and others on Prof. Jay Bhattacharya, and related issues (see examples at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage).
On the other hand, Stanford’s administration and faculty are to be commended in their trying to address these concerns including President Levin's and Provost Martinez’s recent statement on disruption along with Stanford's updated policies on freedom of expression, the Civic Dialogues program for freshmen, the Democracy and Disagreement course being offered this spring quarter and the long existing Stanford Civics Initiative. We welcome here your own comments on these issues.
Gallup Poll Says Majority of Students Feel Safe with Campus Speech
Excerpts:
“About three-quarters of currently enrolled bachelor’s degree students say their college or university does an ‘excellent’ (31%) or ‘good’ job (43%) promoting free speech on campus. Nineteen percent say their institution is ‘only fair’ at promoting free speech, while 5% say their school does a ‘poor’ job. Republican, Democratic and politically independent students are about equally likely to say their school does an excellent or good job promoting free speech....
“Bottom Line: Amid significant national debate over free speech protections on college campuses, particularly in response to last year’s protests related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, most students report that their institution fosters a respectful and open environment. The majority of bachelor’s degree students believe their college does a good job of promoting free speech, with similar ratings across political affiliations.
“Additionally, most students say they feel respected by both their peers and faculty, and a substantial majority report a sense of belonging at their institution. These findings suggest that although high-profile controversies have sparked public discourse about campus tensions, most students feel their school does a good job promoting free speech, respect and feelings of belonging on campus.”
Full article at Gallup website and including a link to a PDF copy of the full report.
But see also FIRE's and College Pulse's most recent report and rankings (released September 2024) re campus speech, including this student comment about Stanford which ranked 218 out of 251 schools: “Generally, other students are not particularly accepting. If you don't follow whatever Instagram or TikTok is claiming to be the most 'moral' political view at the moment, people don't want to hear it and they will label you as non-politically correct. This behavior usually comes from liberal students -- I'm saying this as a very liberal person myself. I don't think I have non-politically correct viewpoints. I often agree with these students, but the manner in which they enforce their viewpoints across campus is something I disagree with....”
I Was Called an ‘Inbred Swine’ at a Recent Princeton Event
Excerpt (links in the original):
“[Last week] at Princeton, Jewish students were called ‘inbred swine,’ told to ‘go back to Europe,’ and taunted with gestures of the Hamas triangle by masked protesters. Sadly, slurs like these have become commonplace at anti-Israel protests at my college in the months since Hamas invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, but university president Christopher Eisgruber insists he is ‘proud of the campus climate at Princeton.’
“What would it take for him to question that belief?
“The latest outrage was sparked by a visit from former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett. More than 200 students had turned up to hear Bennett talk about his time as prime minister from 2021 to 2022 and the current government under Benjamin Netanyahu post-October 7.
“Days before Bennett arrived, the Princeton chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine had plastered posters all over campus, calling him a ‘war criminal,’ and flooded listservs and social media with messages saying the college was ‘complicit in normalizing his murderous policies.’ SJP students publicly declared that ‘Bennett should be in prison, not at Princeton.’ Never mind that he was the first Israeli PM to form a coalition with the Arab party in the Knesset. Or that Princeton’s Hillel and four other organizations had invited him to the talk in good faith. All students who registered for the event were encouraged to submit questions in advance; only those with a Princeton ID were able to register...."
Full op-ed at Free Press. See also “Tackling Antisemitism in Higher Education Requires Boldness, Not Moderation” at Real Clear Education.
The Campus Cold War – Faculty vs. Administrators
Excerpts (link in the original):
“If you’ve ever worked in higher education, you know the stereotypes. College administrators are soulless careerists brimming with will to power who ram through clueless decisions, whether the rest of the institution likes it or not. College faculty members, meanwhile, are myopic, overeducated children who take forever to do anything and throw tantrums anytime their routines are disrupted.
“These caricatures are unfair to the actual people who run and teach at colleges. But they’ve only gained purchase in recent years. Behind closed doors, presidents are more likely to grumble about obstreperous, obstructionist professors. In faculty-senate meetings and other public forums, those professors are directing distrust, even disdain, at administrative leaders.
“The two factions aren’t meant to move in lockstep, and they never have. Tension is baked into the way colleges are run, says Brian C. Rosenberg, former president of Macalester College who’s now a visiting professor at the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University. The American Association of University Professors’ 1966 ‘Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities’ laid out the blueprint most colleges follow. ‘The faculty has responsibility for the academic programs and curriculum,’ Rosenberg says. ‘The president has responsibility for the other stuff. You have built into the shared-governance model this divide, so it’s always been strained.’ ...
[Followed by a detailed discussion of likely causes and effects.]
“Ultimately, most administrators and professors want the same thing: to do right by their students and continue their work. Many of the obstacles they face they share, including their own foibles. ‘Tension is inevitable because we’re humans,’ says Mills, of Buena Vista University, ‘trying to do human things.’ If administrators and professors can look beyond their own immediate concerns and consider those of their counterparts, who knows what could happen?”
Full op-ed at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Why Civic Education Must Be at the Forefront of Reform
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Gen Z was expected to be more instrumental in the 2024 presidential election than they turned out to be. Despite their active engagement in political discourse online, only 42 percent turned out to vote, down from 50 percent in 2020. While the reasons for this vary, one core issue can be remedied: American grade schoolers aren’t learning what it means to be American....
“Civic education is not a partisan issue. Society benefits when citizens are knowledgeable and invested in the functions of their government. That’s why we need programs like California’s State Seal of Civic Engagement and initiatives like Project Citizen, which have demonstrated measurable success in increasing political participation among young people. The Ramos Research Institute is developing a Citizenship Empowerment Framework, with plans to release it this summer as a comprehensive, actionable model for strengthening civic education in higher education institutions. With its emphasis on media literacy, this program addresses the growing digital crisis where algorithm-driven newsfeeds influence public discourse...."
Full op-ed at DC Journal. See also discussion of model legislation -- the REACH Act -- at James Martin Center.
The Costs of Federal Taxation on Endowments and Cutbacks in Federal Funding
Late last week, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an article discussing the possible impact on 77 named colleges and universities of the proposed cutbacks in federal funding as well as the proposed tax on endowment income. The article also includes a detailed interactive chart for the named schools, including these highlights but all of which also are subject to the various assumptions set forth in the article:
Among other things, the endowment tax, which is only in discussion stages, could potentially cost Stanford $404 million a year as compared to $566 million for Harvard, $460 million for Yale, $390 million for Princeton and $273 million for MIT.
When you combine the endowment tax along with proposed cutbacks in National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation funding and compare that total with the total of all expenses at a given school, the total impact as a percent of total expenses -- again, subject to various assumptions -- would be 19% for Princeton, 18% for Grinnell, 13% for Yale and 7% for Stanford and where the total cost per student of the proposed cutbacks and tax would be $49K at Princeton, $42K at Yale, $41K at Caltech, $32K at Stanford, $30K at MIT and $27K at Harvard.
The schools most impacted by reductions in NIH funding, in descending order, would be Johns Hopkins, Yale, Penn, Michigan and Columbia (Stanford could come in as eighth with a loss of $113 million). The schools most impacted by reductions in NSF funding, again in descending order, would be Texas, Michigan, UC San Diego, Cornell and Washington (Stanford would come in as twenty-first with a loss of $43.5 million).
Full article and interactive chart at Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription may be required). See also the detailed charts we have previously published at our Stanford Concerns webpage including a chart from Open the Books showing schools with the highest federal contracts and grants (2018 to 2022) and where Stanford shows as the highest of all schools at $7 billion during those years.
Other Articles of Interest
ASU’s Investments in Virtual Reality Education Are Paying Off
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
Lawsuit Is Filed Alleging University Discrimination Against Asians
Full op-ed at Substack. In addition to the substance of the complaint, note the quotes of one or more university leaders and also the fact that the complaint was largely drafted with the use of AI. Note also, an SAT score of 1590 is at the top 99%.
A Colloquy on Free Speech
A PDF copy of the discussion featuring ACTA President Michael Poliakoff and former ACLU President/Prof. Nadine Strossen can be downloaded here.
I Led Harvard’s Medical School, and I Fear for What’s to Come
Full op-ed by former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier at NY Times.
NYU Cancels Doctor’s Speech, Citing Anti-Government Tone
Full article at NY Times.
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.
A PDF copy of the full report is here.
3D Printed Human Organs -- ‘It Really Is the Holy Grail of Curative Medicine’
Six Big Ideas to Help Avoid a U.S. Electricity Crisis
Gene Linked to Development of a Critical Coronary Artery
************
"It’s very important that if we’re going to have free speech, we have it for everyone." — Stanford Prof. (now deceased) and one of the pioneers in AI John McCarthy
April 7, 2025
Colleges Have to Be Much More Honest with Themselves
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Leaders of American higher education have largely reacted to the Trump administration’s rhetorical and financial assaults by locking down in a defensive crouch. That is understandable given the administration’s view of universities, which JD Vance once called ‘hostile institutions,’ and its apparent admiration of the Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban’s takeover of higher education. But there will be scant room for American higher education to tell its story of opportunity, transformation and discovery as long as colleges and universities deny what many of us know but few will say: Our critics have a point.
“I worked in Democratic politics before my second career in higher education. Many ideas commonly espoused on the academic left would have been considered bizarre in the Democratic mainstream, assuming they could be understood at all. As a sector, higher education is considerably left of the American public, a perspective often expressed in language that is less offensive than it is incomprehensible.
“We decry state censorship while ignoring a comparable threat to free expression on campuses: the crushing pressure inside many colleges and universities to conform with dominant political views. This pressure is hardly new. But the outrage emanating from campuses about Trump administration policies places our lack of self-awareness about longstanding dynamics within higher education in sharper relief....
“Taken together, those survey results [discussed earlier in the op-ed] suggest that some of the most intense pressure to conform to political orthodoxy comes from within the academy. The solution is neither more regulation nor more denial. It is sitting in front of us: Colleges and universities should retreat from politics and renew our core mission of teaching, learning and discovery.
“That is easily said, of course. But faculties have immense powers of self-governance. Neither academic administrators nor elected officials should regulate what is taught in college classrooms. But members of faculties can formally recommit to what the principle of academic freedom has long required: not only tolerating but also encouraging different perspectives. Even those disciplines in which contemporary controversies may seem more relevant -- such as my own field, political science -- serve students better by focusing on enduring ideas rather than transient events....
“Colleges and universities have a compelling story to tell. But we will have neither an audience for that story -- nor the moral authority to tell it -- until we are as fearless about examining ourselves as we are about decrying interference from beyond our walls."
Full op-ed by Assumption University President Greg Weiner at NY Times. And once again, see our "Back to Basics at Stanford" webpage.
Principles That Should Stand at the Foundation of Universities
Excerpts (endnotes deleted):
“To assert that American universities, and in fact most western universities, are in a crisis simply restates the obvious. The crisis, long in the making, is not just one of financial solvency, costly and rapidly expanding bureaucracies, worthless academic programs or declining enrollments. It is primarily a crisis of meaning resulting from the pursuit of divergent, often wildly contradictory goals: the traditional pursuit of Truth, wherever it leads, social engineering in the name of repairing the world, or simply vocational training to help students to advance their careers.
“Finding possible solutions to this malaise is the main focus of the essay but, before engaging in this task we: 1) recall what are the putative, i.e., commonly accepted, principles of our institutions of higher learning, 2) provide a diagnosis of the degree to which those principles are being adhered to and 3) formulate what principles should lay at the foundation of future universities -- or perhaps educational and scientific institutions more broadly. Once done, a series of proposals are presented that could be used to bring universities more closely in line with both the current putative principles of the university as well as those proposed for the future university....
[Followed by detailed discussion of the points stated above.]
“Here are some ideas about the steps which need to be taken:
a. Ban DEI, based on Trump’s recent executive actions and reduce university administrations significantly, perhaps to about 30% of their current size.
b. Eliminate all grievance-based academic programs, based on their low intellectual content and discriminatory axioms, approaches and practices.
c. In new institutions, replace tenure with a 5-10 year renewable contract to allow departments and universities to get rid of dead wood and reward people willing to take risks with faster promotions and higher salaries....
d. Bring back the Great Books programs and make them obligatory for all first-year students. Introduce serious, broad based, courses on the history of mathematics and the natural sciences, including Philosophy, and history of Western civilization, and make these courses mandatory for first and second year students.
e. A special effort must be made to reform the Humanities....
f. Reduce the reliance on NSF, NIH and other major US government [agencies] for funding research and rely more on private organizations, like the Simons Foundation, who will, hopefully, choose to fund new and risky directions of research.
g. Reform NSF and NIH by cutting all programs which are not directly connected to fundamental research and which can be funded by industry. Make sure that projects are evaluated on scientific merit alone. We applaud the recent efforts to reduce the percentage of allowed indirect funds to universities. There is little rationale for indirect funds except to allow these universities to divert government funds to other projects unrelated to the grants....
h. Reform the National Academy of the Sciences (NAS).... The NAS is a much too important national institution to be left to wither on the vine....
i. Pressure existing professional organizations, heavily compromised by wokeism, by creating alternatives ones.”
[Followed by details of other proposals.]
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Sergiu Klainerman at Substack.
The Case for Economic-Based Affirmative Action
Excerpts:
“In November 2020, with the Covid-19 pandemic raging, I took off my mask and sat down nervously in the witness stand at the federal district courthouse in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
“I was there to testify as an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a conservative group challenging racial preferences at the University of North Carolina. (SFFA and I were also involved in a parallel suit against Harvard University.) I would be testifying that racial student body diversity is very important to achieve on college campuses, but that, according to my research, UNC-Chapel Hill could create an integrated campus without using race -- if it jettisoned its preferences for privileged children of alumni and faculty and gave a meaningful admissions boost to economically disadvantaged students of all races.
“This was a very unusual position for me to be in. Over the years, I’d allied myself closely with civil rights groups and leading Black officials -- from civil rights activist and attorney Maya Wiley to politicians like Sen. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and President Barack Obama’s Education Secretary John B. King -- on issues of schooling, housing and employment. But on the issue of whether preferences at elite colleges should be based on race or class, I was on the opposite side from many of my friends....
“I had long been convinced, however, that there was a better way to achieve the valid goals of racial affirmative action. I agreed with my liberal friends that campuses needed to be racially integrated. It is crucial that in a multicultural democracy students learn to appreciate and value individuals of all backgrounds. And I agreed that the nation had to take steps to remedy a terrible history of racial oppression. But giving a break to economically disadvantaged students, the evidence showed, could help universities do both without all the divisiveness and unfairness associated with counting skin color in who gets ahead...."
[Followed by a discussion of political pressures, the Supreme Court decision re Harvard admissions, responses by various universities, and related matters.]
Full op-ed by GW Prof. Richard D. Kahlenberg at Politico.
Other Articles of Interest
President Levin and Provost Martinez Discuss Key Issues at the Start of Spring Quarter
Full letter at Stanford Report. See also “President Levin and Provost Martinez Discuss Campus Uncertainty in Light of Recent Federal Actions” at Stanford Daily.
About the Proposals to Increase Taxation of University Endowments
Full analysis by Stanford law school alum Ed Yingling at Princetonians for Free Speech.
The College Essay Is Everything That’s Wrong with America
Full op-ed by Johns Hopkins Prof. Yascha Mounk at Substack.
Why Censorship Is Making Us All Dumber
Full op-ed at Substack.
The Bias in Health Science
Full op-ed by Indiana Prof. Richard Gunderman. See also “UConn Med School Drops Mandatory DEI-infused Hippocratic Oath” at College Fix.
A College Education Still Easily Beats the Alternatives
Full op-ed by Cornell Prof. Emeritus Glenn C. Altschuler and Hamilton College President Emeritus David Wippman at The Hill.
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.
An Open-Source AI Agent for Doing Tasks on the Web
Glucose’s Surprising Role As Master Manipulator of Tissue Maturation
A Prevention Plan for Avoiding a Bird Flu Epidemic
************
"The greatest threat to academic freedom is not external censorship but self-censorship -- the fear of speaking one's mind in an environment that should encourage, not stifle, debate." – Former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy
March 31, 2025
Scholarship and Activism Are Two Different Things
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Disciplines have been central to the organization of academic life since the dawn of the modern university. They serve as communities for organizing the interrogation of knowledge, each making claims to expertise in a distinct approach or subject matter.
“Yet many disciplines now seem to be destabilizing. The complexity of the world never fits into neat boxes, and there is an increasing recognition that major problems require interdisciplinary collaboration to tackle. Disciplinary coherence is also being challenged by constantly shifting border claims in knowledge production.
“At the same time, some disciplines have become highly ideological, creating echo chambers that stall progress. This in turn has diminished the image of universities in the eyes of the general public, posing a profound political threat. Some disciplines have become, one might say, undisciplined -- freely pronouncing on matters outside their putative field of expertise, or expanding their claims of special knowledge to match political exigencies....
“The question is particularly salient in light of the variable stances of disciplines with regard to core governance questions. Disciplines are not uniformly disciplined in exercising their role as gatekeepers of good scholarship, nor are they all equally tolerant of dissent. Some of them purport to speak via collective associations about issues of the day, a major trend in our era. And many are not content with knowledge formation as the sole or primary mission of academe but instead seek to advance versions of activism....
“When one’s scholarship is designed to include advocacy -- what Tarunabh Khaitan has called ‘scholactivism’ -- risks are obvious. Advocates may reject or downplay inconvenient results, distorting academic debates. More deeply, they violate the “role morality” -- the notion that some roles entail specific ethical commitments -- of scholarship, which is the very basis for the social tolerance of academic freedom in the first place. While of course there is always a deep politics of scholarship, for example in the selection of topics for inquiry or methods for approaching them, these biases ought to be examined and minimized in genuine inquiry, not celebrated. This requires a humility about the limits of one’s own perspective....
“In a prescient observation in 2001, Clark Kerr noted that there was a conflict between the traditional view of the university that flowed from the enlightenment, embodied in a vision of seeking truth and objectivity, and a postmodern vision in which all discourse is political, with university resources to be deployed in ways that were liberatory and not repressive. He thought the conflict might further deepen, and noted that ‘any further politicization of the university will, of course, alienate much of the public at large.’
“As we stand at a moment of deep alienation, stepping back from the further politicization of scholarship is an existential step.”
Full op-ed by U Chicago Prof. Tom Ginsburg at Chronicle of Higher Education and initially published at Inquisitive (Prof. Ginsburg is also the founding faculty director of Chicago's Forum on Free Inquiry and Expression).
See also Part 4 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage where we have long advocated that the 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities that do little if any front-line research or teaching but instead are engaged primarily if not exclusively in advocacy and implementation activities need to stop using the Stanford name and need to be moved off the core campus.
How Campuses Can Better Cultivate Critical Awareness, Civic Engagement, Student Development and Global Literacy
Excerpt (link in the original):
“In 2019, sociologist Musa al-Gharbi called for a college education that would help students ‘understand biases and cognitive distortions (including and especially their own!)’ and prioritize civic education and engagement.
“Al-Gharbi noted that despite significant increases in the number of Americans with college degrees and a rise in average IQ levels, civic, historical and cultural literacy have remained stagnant. Meanwhile, political polarization, mistrust and social fragmentation have intensified, with many Americans increasingly reluctant to marry, date or even befriend those with different political views. Trust in one another and confidence in the future have steadily declined.
“Al-Gharbi’s observations raise a troubling question: If more Americans than ever are educated, why hasn’t this translated into greater civic knowledge or social cohesion? One answer may lie in the fragmented structure of today’s college curriculum. While most universities attempt to balance breadth, depth and choice, these elements often don’t work together to produce the kind of well-rounded, civically engaged graduates higher education aspires to cultivate....”
[Followed by a discussion of these topics:
-
Addressing deficiencies in civic and cultural literacy
-
The need for holistic multidimensional development
-
Toward a transformative and cohesive curriculum
-
Development of an integrated and purpose-driven program of learning
-
From passive learning to active engagement
-
Redefining faculty roles
-
Enhancing the student experience
-
Strengthening civic and ethical engagement
-
Encouraging critical self-reflection and self-awareness
-
A path toward holistic education]
Full op-ed by U Texas Prof. Steven Mintz at Inside Higher Ed.
Other Articles of Interest
Brown U. Student Asked Administrators: What Do You Do All Day?
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education. See also the student-created website, “Bloat@Brown." (NOTE: the students' homepage says that after they went public with their investigation, someone with a Brown IP address hacked their website and that access to a public data base also was blocked; some of their webpages nevertheless remain in operation while they are working to restore all of the website's functionality.) See also article at FIRE website.
New Law Requires Utah State Students to Study Western Civ in General Ed Revamp
Full article at College Fix.
How Universities Could Reduce Poor Teaching and Shoddy Research
Full op-ed at Heritage.
Feds Tell Med Schools to Stop Discriminating
Full article at James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
AI Ethics in Higher Education
Full article at Ed Tech.
Cornell Says Deletion of DEI Language Was a Clerical Error
Full article at College Fix.
Senate Committee Probes the Censorship Industrial Complex
Full video at YouTube (1 hour 40 minutes) including references to the Virality Project at Stanford and similar activities at other universities and nonprofits. See also “Stanford’s Roles in Censoring the Web” at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage.
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.
Can Generative AI Tackle Global Health Problems?
Science-Backed Ways to Combat Self-Doubt
Roles of Nature and Nurture in Brain Organization
************
"Colleges and universities are among the few places in the United States today where people from remarkably different backgrounds, cultures, and ideologies come together to wrestle with the complexity of what it means to be a democratic community." – Penn professor and education historian Jonathan Zimmerman
March 24, 2025
More About the Indirect Costs of Federal Research
Excerpts:
. . . . .
“Previously, the NIH was adding up to 69 percent of a research grant to cover the facilities & administration infrastructure that allegedly undergirded subsidized research. For every dollar that a university received to support a particular project, NIH would throw in as much as an additional 69 cents for indirect costs, say, bringing the total amount of the grant to $1.69.... Now, the NIH announced in February, those indirect cost rates would be capped at 15 percent of the direct cost of a grant and would not be negotiated on a university-by-university basis. The 15 percent indirect cost-rate cap applied to grants already under way, not just to future grants.
“Reaction was apocalyptic....
“University skeptics reject the advocates’ arguments. A number of red flags suggest that federal overhead payments are not the lean and mean reimbursements that the universities claim they are. The principle of economies of scale appears to have been suspended in the indirect cost funding context. Ordinarily, one would think that bigger universities with richer grant portfolios would spend a lower percentage of their grants on indirect costs. The opposite is the case....
“Furthermore, similar indirect cost rates apply to wildly different types of research grants....
“In 2023, NIH gave Stanford University $2 million to cover the direct costs of enrolling ‘sexual minorities (individuals with a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual) and gender minorities (individuals with a gender identity that is not congruent with their sex assigned at birth)’ in a federal health database, in the words of the NIH grant. According to the agency, ‘sexual and gender minority communities’ share a ‘common experience of social marginalization, legal discrimination, political disenfranchisement, and familial rejection.’ The NIH grant included $907,660 in indirect costs. It is unlikely that that database project imposed nearly $1 million in overhead on Stanford University, even if the target population is, as NIH insists, ‘socially marginalized’ and ‘politically disenfranchised.’
“The NIH guidance justified its new 15 percent indirect cost cap by comparing what foundations typically pay for indirect costs: zero. The Gates Foundation has a maximum indirect cost rate of 10 percent. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation pays up to 12 percent. If universities accept zero to 12 percent indirect cost rates from foundations, they should accept a similar rate from the government, argues the NIH....”
Full op-ed at City Journal. See also "The Angst of Well-Endowed Colleges" by Matt Taibbi at Substack.
Democracy and Disagreement Course Encourages Students to Explore Differing Viewpoints in Peer-led Discussions
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In a winter quarter course, Stanford undergraduates learned another way to disagree: by learning why people hold the positions they do.
“Approaching difference through curiosity was at the center of an optional, peer-led discussion seminar for undergraduates enrolled in Democracy and Disagreement, the popular course taught by Debra Satz, the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences (H&S), and Paul Brest, professor emeritus (active) and former dean at Stanford Law School (SLS). The course features scholars with opposing viewpoints modeling meaningful conversations on contentious topics such as hate speech, presidential immunity, the composition of the Supreme Court, and reparations....
“Students discovered that disagreement can lead to a better understanding of complex issues.
“‘We’ve created an environment where we encourage everyone to try and view arguments in their full complexity,’ explained ICDP fellow Shreya Mehta, ’26, who is co-facilitating a discussion group with Ryan Loo, ’25.
“‘One thing we really emphasized is asking clarifying, or dialogic, questions,’ Mehta added.
“While students agreed on a problem or issue, they found they often disagreed on solutions. Probing questions helped uncover nuances and dig deeper into issues....
“This distinction became clear on Feb. 25 when, for the first time in the course’s two-year history, several individuals who were not Stanford students disrupted a session featuring former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and economist Emmanuel Saez, preventing Summers from delivering his opening remarks for about 12 minutes.
“Frustrated, students attending the course asked the demonstration to stop so they could listen to the speakers. Afterward, Brest addressed the class, noting that this was the first disruption in 18 sessions on controversial topics, including one featuring politicians from Israel and Palestine....
““It goes against the whole point of class,’ one student said. Another agreed: ‘It was ineffective, given the audience is a group of people who want to hear a debate.’ Some noted that a more constructive approach would have been to challenge Summers with questions during the discussion portion of the class.
“Loo also invited students to consider protests and disruptions more broadly. ‘What do you think is the point of protest?’ he asked.
“Students discussed how protests can raise awareness or mobilize actions versus when they backfire, as seen in the Democracy & Disagreement class that week....”
Full article at Stanford Report.
See also “Dorm-Based Civic Salons Engage Students on Complex Issues” also at Stanford Report.
The Misinformation Crisis Isn’t About Truth, It’s About Trust
Excerpts (links in the original):
[This op-ed begins with a discussion of controversial subjects in recent years and how they were treated politically, in media and elsewhere. After that discussion:]
“It’s difficult to overstate just how much damage our academic, scientific, and intellectual elites have done to our universe of shared facts, our institutions, and the public’s ability and willingness to believe them. There is a growing sense among people that trust and confidence in our experts and institutions is unwarranted -- and particularly in the last ten years, there has been no shortage of behavior to justify this suspicion.
“The paperback edition of [Greg Lukianoff’s] and Rikki Schlott’s 2023 book ‘The Canceling of the American Mind’ hits shelves on April 29 with updated data, reflections on FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, and an entirely new epilogue. The book is filled with examples and case studies illustrating how the behavior of our social and intellectual elites has contributed to this crisis of trust in expertise and institutions. This includes Cancel Culture itself, which Greg has previously described as ‘the military arm of the Anti-Discourse Industrial Complex.’
“In the last decade or more, we have seen people getting in trouble for being on the ‘wrong’ side of virtually every hot button issue in the United States. Cancel Culture has ruined lives. It has cost people their livelihoods. And combined with the constant denial that Cancel Culture even exists, it has understandably fomented a general distrust in academia, journalism, and expertise -- the very mechanisms of knowledge creation in our society.
“This shouldn’t be surprising. When the penalty for having a disfavored opinion can be life-destroying, trust in the objectivity of experts is inevitably going to take a hit. As Greg mentioned in an early [Eternally Radical Idea] post, ‘When even a single thinker is punished for their academic opinion or for engaging in thought experimentation, it leads the public to be justifiably skeptical that any expert on that topic is being fully honest.’ ...
“This shouldn’t have been a surprise. Studies have shown that politically or ideologically homogenous media and institutions
increase polarization -- but you shouldn’t have needed that data to see how counterproductive a move like that would be. Actions like these have the aftereffect of politicizing everything, making the acceptance of a scientific fact a signal of tribal affiliation more so than a pragmatic position based on empirical evidence. It’s not hard to imagine how this will destroy trust in science overall....
“Our expert class and our institutions need to earn back the trust they lost. And they need to do this by consistently showing themselves to be transparent, honest, and competent.... This is also why academic freedom is critical. A circumstance where people do not feel free to dissent, challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, and engage in good-faith debate is one in which our ability to discern truth and produce knowledge ceases to exist....”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff and co-author Angel Eduardo at Substack.
See also “Stanford’s Censorship: An Interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya” at Stanford Review (May 7, 2024) and various articles re censorship at our Stanford Concerns 2 webpage.
How Business Metrics Broke the University
Excerpts:
….
“In eras past, when power was more decentralized, distinguished faculty voices of varied political persuasions might compete with the president from power bases inside the institution. Today, in contrast, politically active junior faculty see that attracting controversy can be a way to get ahead, while traditionally minded senior faculty who once acted as moderating forces in academic life have been sidelined as their departments and disciplines have been merged and dissolved in favor of new interdisciplinary programs....
“Addressing the hyper-politicization of academia must therefore start with a recognition that metrics-based centralized planning nurtured this tendency [of politicization] in the first place. While other factors played a role, the centralized university became an incubator for ideological extremism above all because its structural design makes students into customers and incentivizes faculty to seek visibility through controversy rather than through traditional scholarly achievement....
“The most visible leader of the centralization movement was Arizona State University President Michael Crow, who first articulated his model for a ‘New American University’ when he took the helm in 2002. His ‘reinvention’ and ‘transformation’ involved breaking down disciplinary ‘silos’ to put students before faculty and ‘impact’ before everything else....
“The intellectual vacuum on campus is filled by junior faculty who gain visibility by taking extreme positions that respond to the incentives of the attention economy. The rise of metrics-driven administration coincided with the rise of social media, making it easier for politically driven faculty to build followings outside of department structures. The most radical voices bypassed traditional academic hierarchies entirely, deploying online attention to demonstrate their ‘impact’ directly. A star system was born. Adjunct instructors, lacking job security, also came to see that provocation and siding with students could serve as a kind of employment insurance, ensuring popular classes. The traditional forces that once encouraged moderation and scholarly rigor have been replaced by incentives that reward polemics and ideological fervor.
“The push for scale further nudges the climate toward politicization. Administrative metrics favor large or online courses that can process hundreds of students simultaneously....
“Universities must recognize that their experiment with centralized planning has had unintended consequences that have damaged the institution’s status and pose serious political risks. They must support their own faculty voices and devolve power to departments, not in deference to quaint traditions but as an essential mechanism for maintaining academic standards and intellectual diversity. Only by addressing the vacuum that enabled polarization can universities claim their proper role as centers of reasoned debate and scholarly inquiry.”
Full op-ed by Utah Prof. and former Dean of the College of Humanities Hollis Robbins at Compact.
See also Part 1 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage where we have long suggested that control of academic matters must be restored to Stanford’s faculty and Part 4 of that same white paper where we believe a significant part of the problem are the 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities that use the Stanford name and campus resources but have little if any involvement of tenured faculty and do little if any front-line research or teaching but instead are engaged in advocacy and implementation activities determined by donors and non-faculty staff. Tenured faculty at Harvard have identified a similar problem at Harvard: approximately 5,000 personnel at centers, etc. and that the Harvard faculty pejoratively refer to as "the peripherals" -- people and entities that don't have to meet academic standards but publish white papers, hold panels, seek media coverage, etc. using the Harvard name.
See also “Stanford's Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage including the charts that show, among other things, that Stanford’s faculty went from 1,640 in 2000 to 2,304 in 2022 while Stanford's managerial staff went from 3,127 in 2000 to 12,336 in 2022. Or that Stanford, with a total of 17,529 undergraduate and graduate students, has 4,140 administrative personnel in its business and finance offices as compared to Ohio State that has 2,652 comparable personnel for a student population of 60,540 – and these are numbers provided by the universities themselves.
Other Articles of Interest
A Look at Princeton’s DEI Structure, the Federal Attacks and Related Matters
A detailed examination of the issues by Princeton alum Stuart Taylor at Real Clear Politics.
SpaceX Parachutes Use Zylon, a Fabric Invented at Stanford
Full article at space.com. See also “SpaceX Completes Crucial Tests of Its Crew Dragon Parachutes” at Engadget (November 2019).
UC Bans DEI Statements in Faculty Hiring
Full article at College Fix.
Amherst’s Title IX Office Goes After Student Following His Article in the Campus Newspaper Criticizing DEI
Full article at College Fix.
Aftermath of DEI
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars.
Modern Learners Demand a Change to the Status Quo
Full article at University Business.
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.
Jon Levin and His Father Rick Levin (President Emeritus of Yale) Discuss Generational Shifts
Micro-lightning in Water Droplets May Have Sparked Life on Earth
Researchers Develop Easy-to-Apply Gel to Prevent Abdominal Adhesions in Animals
Five Things to Know About the Effects of Seed Oils on Health
Theta Delt Alumni File Appeal in Lawsuit Against Stanford
************
"In a free society, universities must be strong, they must be free, and they must be creative. Freedom of the mind is the best defense against the ignorance that would destroy democracy." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
March 17, 2025
More Universities Are Choosing to Stay Neutral
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Just a few years ago, university statements on the day’s social and political issues abounded.
“When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, Harvard’s president at the time called it ‘senseless’ and ‘deplorable,’ and flew the invaded country’s flag in Harvard Yard. After George Floyd died under the knee of a white police officer, Cornell’s president said she was ‘sickened.’ The University of Michigan’s president described the Oct. 7, 2023, violence against Israel as a ‘horrific attack by Hamas terrorists.’
“But over the last year, each of those universities has adopted policies that limit official statements on current issues.
“According to a new report released on Tuesday [March 11, 2025] from the Heterodox Academy, a group that has been critical of progressive orthodoxy on college campuses, 148 colleges had adopted ‘institutional neutrality’ policies by the end of 2024, a trend that underscores the scorching political scrutiny they are under. All but eight of those policies were adopted after the Hamas attack....”
Full article at NY Times.
See also “Institutional Neutrality Is Sweeping Across American Higher Ed” at Heterodox.
See also the Kalven Report regarding a university’s involvement in political and social matters at our Chicago Trifecta webpage.
Students Speak Up -- Fill the Empty Buildings
Excerpts (link in the original):
“In recent years, Stanford University has repurposed prime student housing into administrative offices, significantly reducing the availability of on-campus accommodations. Buildings such as Bechtel International Center, Mariposa House, and Attneave House -- once vibrant student residences -- now sit empty as administrative staff continue working remotely.
"A Stanford Review investigation revealed that these buildings, which once housed students, remain eerily deserted during business hours. Over multiple visits, The Review found them completely unoccupied -- offices meant to justify the displacement of student housing are now unused....
“The emptiness of these buildings reflects a systemic failure in Stanford’s resource management. The university’s adoption of flexible work policies has allowed many administrators to work remotely, leaving these office conversions vastly underutilized. Meanwhile, the housing crisis has reached critical levels: singles have been converted into doubles, doubles into triples, and in Roble Hall, formerly spacious rooms have been repurposed into cramped quads. Many students have been pushed off campus entirely, while prime residential spaces remain empty....
"The university has a clear path forward: relocate administrative offices and restore student housing to its rightful place....”
Full op-ed at Stanford Review.
See also “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage. See also possible ways to address these concerns at Part 4 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage including not only reducing the size of the administrative staff but also moving the 200 to 300 centers, accelerators, incubators and similar entities off the core campus if they are not primarily engaged in frontline teaching and faculty-supervised research versus the advocacy and implementation activities that often are their primary and sometimes sole functions.
Department of Education Sends Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitism, Including Stanford
Excerpt (link in the original):
“The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to 60 universities currently under investigation for alleged antisemitic harassment and discrimination.
“The letters, issued Monday [March 10, 2025], warn the universities of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, according to department press release. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. National origin includes shared Jewish ancestry....”
Full article at Campus Safety Magazine.
9th Circuit Rules in Favor of Professor Punished for Criticizing College for Lowering Academic Standards
Excerpt (link in the original):
“[On March 10, 2025], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Lars Jensen, a math professor unconstitutionally punished for criticizing what he believed was his college’s decision to water down its math standards.
“Reversing a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit held Jensen suffered wrongful dismissal of his claims against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, and that he should have his day in court to prove college administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held Jensen’s right to speak out about the math standards was so clearly established that the administrators were not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.
“‘This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,’ said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. ‘This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.’ …”
Full article at FIRE website.
The Power of the Classroom -- Why Diversity in Higher Education Matters
Excerpts (link in the original):
. . . .
“A university education is more than lectures and exams; it’s a gateway to opportunity, transformation, and belonging. Diversity in the classroom isn’t just important -- it’s essential. As a faculty member who studies leadership in post-secondary education, I see both the challenges and opportunities within higher education. The lack of diversity at top institutions impacts not just who enters our classrooms, but how students experience their education. Representation matters, and universities must reflect the diverse realities of the students they serve.
“For centuries, great universities have been bastions of knowledge, passing on a rich heritage to the next generation of scholars and leaders. For me, teaching at the university feels like an immense responsibility. Entering that classroom isn’t just about transmitting knowledge; it is about honoring a legacy passed down by my mentors and predecessors, while also shaping the future through my students, although in some small way. The impact of what occurs at the university extends far into society and democracy....
“Providing access and opportunity to high-quality education for every student is an important societal goal. Elite institutions of higher learning play a pivotal role and bear the responsibility of shaping future leaders. True fulfillment of both the students’ aspirations and our democratic principles is achieved when access to college classrooms is made inclusive for all.”
Full op-ed by U Wisconsin Prof. Anthony Hernandez at Fulcrum.
College Application Surge; Underrepresented Students Lead Growth in 2024-25 Admissions Cycle
Excerpts (link in the original):
“According to Common App's latest Deadline Update report released Thursday [March 13, 2025], college applications for the 2024-25 admissions cycle continue to show strong growth, particularly among underrepresented and first-generation students....
“One of the most significant trends is the substantial growth among underrepresented minority applicants, which increased by 12% over last year. Specifically:
-
Latinx applicants rose by 13%
-
Black or African American applicants increased by 10%
-
The share of domestic applicants identifying as Black or African American grew from 13.3% to 14%
-
White applicants' share of the applicant pool continued its long-term decline, dropping from 48.2% to 45.7%
“First-generation college students showed remarkable growth, with a 13% increase in applicants while continuing-generation applicants remained flat. Similarly, applicants eligible for Common App fee waivers increased by 9%, compared to just 2% for non-eligible students....
“Applications to public institutions grew at 10%, significantly outpacing the 2% growth rate for private institutions. Additionally, less selective institutions (those with admit rates above 25%) saw application growth of 6-7%, while the most selective institutions (admit rates below 25%) experienced the slowest growth at 4%....”
Full article at Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
Other Articles of Interest
USC Shutters DEI Office but Keeps Racially-Themed Graduation Ceremonies and Dorms
Full article at College Fix.
When Student Protest Goes Too Far
Full op-ed by Barnard College President Laura Ann Rosenbury at Chronicle of Higher Education.
National Association of Scholars Supports Legislation to Combat Foreign Influence in Higher Education
Full article at NAS website.
Whatever Happened to Freedom of Association?
“Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the propensity of Americans ‘of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions’ to form voluntary associations. Indeed, he regarded the free pursuit of a common interest among like-minded citizens as key to the survival of our democracy.” Full op-ed by Carleton College Professors Amna Khalid and Jeffrey Aaron at Substack.
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.
Stanford Researchers Team Up with Student-Athletes to Unlock Peak Performance
Newly Discovered Molecule Rivals Ozempic in Weight Loss and with Fewer Side Effects
What’s the Deal with the Gut-Brain Connection?
From Stanford Review - Stanford’s Hiring Freeze Exposes the Big Lie of Research Funding
From Stanford Daily - Student Favorite Places on Campus
************
“The most important aspect of freedom of speech is freedom to learn. All education is a continuous dialogue -- questions and answers that pursue every problem on the horizon. That is the essence of academic freedom.”
Former U.S. Supreme Court Judge William O. Douglas
March 10, 2025
The Smearing and Resurrection of Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
Editor's note: Many of the attacks on Dr. Bhattacharya discussed below came from the leaders of the National Institutes of Health, the largest funder of medical research in the world, and related entities. Ironically, Dr. Bhattacharya has now been nominated to head the NIH.
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Jay Bhattacharya was in pretty terrible shape five years ago. He was losing sleep and weight, not because of the COVID-19 virus but in response to the efforts of his colleagues at Stanford University and the larger medical community to shut down his research, which questioned much of the government’s response to the pandemic.
“Some of his Stanford colleagues leaked false and damaging information to reporters. The university’s head of medicine ordered him to stop speaking to the press. Top leaders at the National Institutes of Health, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, dialed up the attacks, dismissing him and his colleagues as what Collins termed ‘fringe epidemiologists’ while their acolytes threw mud from a slew of publications, including the Washington Post, The Nation, and the prestigious medical journal BMJ....
“‘Free speech is fundamental for science to function properly,' [Bhattacharya] notes simply....
“Bhattacharya first caught the attention of the nation’s scientific bureaucracy in April 2020 when he reported that the COVID virus was not as dangerous but more widespread than many of his colleagues and government officials were maintaining. This suggested a policy focusing on the most vulnerable populations with fewer restrictions on younger, healthier Americans. The study was discussed at the highest levels of the government and was passed around by Fauci and others in the White House, according to emails made public by a Freedom of Information Act request.
“‘For anyone with an open mind, the study’s results implied that the lockdown-focused strategy of March 2020 had failed to suppress the spread of the disease,’ Bhattacharya wrote in a 2023 essay. But the paper’s other obvious conclusion put Bhattacharya in the crosshairs of Stanford faculty: It suggested that fear-mongering about the fatality rate of the virus was irresponsible....
“Responding to the Buzzfeed flurry of reports, Stanford announced a fact-finding investigation of Bhattacharya’s research, which he began calling an ‘inquisition.’ The administration later informed him there was no ‘whistleblower’ as Buzzfeed had falsely reported, and they sent a confidential report that found him and his colleagues at no fault.
“‘I got a letter which basically says we did nothing wrong. But also a condition that I’m not allowed to release the letter,’ Bhattacharya explained in a 2023 interview. ‘This was a low period in my life. I was getting death threats, racist attacks, because the press was attacking me.’ …”
[Followed by a detailed discussion of the coordinated attacks on Bhattacharya; his research and the Great Barrington Declaration that to date has been signed by over 940,000 scientists, doctors and others worldwide; alleged conflicts of interest of those leading the attacks; some of the activities at the Wuhan labs, and related issues.]
“[Former CDC Director Robert] Redfield said that Collins, Fauci, and other critics should apologize to Bhattacharya for the years of harassment and actions that were both wrong and unprofessional. ‘If you survive these attacks, and you have a resurrection, you do very well,' Redfield said. ‘You now have a reputation for substance and standing up for what you believe is true. Not everyone has that. I’m pretty confident he’ll do well, move forward, and do the right thing.'"
Full article at Real Clear Investigations.
See also “Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya: The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists, and We Fought Back" (September 11, 2023) at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage.
Five Goals of Dr. Bhattacharya If Confirmed As Head of NIH
Reproduced in their entirety, as excerpted from Dr. Bhattacharya’s opening statement at his Senate confirmation hearing last week:
. . . . .
“I have five concrete goals if confirmed as director of the NIH.
“First, NIH research should focus on research that solves the American chronic disease crisis. American health is going backwards. Life expectancy flatlined between 2012 and 2019, plummeted during the pandemic, and still has not bounced back to pre-pandemic levels. The chronic disease crisis is severe, with hundreds of millions of Americans, children and adults, suffering from obesity, heart disease, cancer, and more. If confirmed, I will carry out President Trump and Secretary Kennedy’s agenda of committing the NIH to address the dire chronic health needs of the country with gold-standard science and innovation.
“Second, NIH-supported science should be replicable, reproducible, and generalizable. Unfortunately, much modern biomedical science fails this basic test. The NIH itself, just last year, faced a research integrity scandal involving research on Alzheimer’s disease that throws into question hundreds of research papers. If the data generated by scientists is not reliable, the products of such science cannot help anyone. It is no stretch to think that the slow progress on Alzheimer’s disease is linked to this problem. The NIH can and must solve the crisis of scientific data reliability. Under my leadership, if confirmed, it will do so.
“Third, if confirmed, I will establish a culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent at the NIH. Over the last few years, top NIH officials oversaw a culture of coverup, bias, and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differed from theirs. Dissent is the very essence of science. I’ll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement respectfully.
“Fourth, the NIH must recommit to its mission to fund the most innovative biomedical research agenda possible to improve American health. My plan is to ensure that the NIH invests in cutting-edge research in every field to make big advances rather than just small, incremental progress over years.
“Fifth, the NIH must embrace and vigorously regulate risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic. It must regulate risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic. It should embrace transparency in all its operations. While the vast majority of biomedical research poses no risk of harm to research subjects or the public, the NIH must ensure that it never supports work that might cause harm...."
See Dr. Bhattacharya's full opening statement at his Senate confirmation hearing at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage here.
Santa Clara County DA Dismisses Criminal Case Against Stanford Daily Reporter
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Prosecutors in California said Thursday [March 6, 2025] that they are not going to pursue a criminal case against Dilan Gohill, the Stanford student journalist who was arrested while covering a pro-Palestinian campus protest and occupation of the university president’s office last June.
“Gohill had faced allegations of burglary, vandalism, and conspiracy -- all felonies. He was never formally charged, even though Stanford’s provost and then-president had publicly urged the Santa Clara County district attorney to prosecute the teenager. The case raised concerns among press and civil liberties groups about how authorities should handle a journalist who is caught up in a lawbreaking event.
“‘This Office supports a free press and recognizes that the law gives reporters latitude to do their jobs in keeping the public informed,’ District Attorney Jeff Rosen stated. ‘We have no evidence that this student did anything other than cover this event as a journalist.’ …
“The news comes nine months after Gohill, then nineteen and a freshman reporter for the Stanford Daily, was handcuffed and jailed while covering the predawn break-in and occupation of Building 10, where the Stanford president’s office is located. A story about his arrest and the journalistic issues surrounding it appeared in CJR last December.
“By most accounts -- including contemporaneous Slack messages as well as interviews with protesters and Daily staffers -- Gohill was there to report on the demonstration, not to participate in it.... Gohill spent the next twelve hours in jail, until his mother mustered the money to cover his $20,000 bail....”
Full article by Stanford alum and Columbia U Prof. Bill Grueskin at Columbia Journalism Review.
See also letter from the Daily's editorial board that was sent shortly before the DA made his announcement. See also “District Attorney Declines to File Charges Against Daily Reporter” at Stanford Daily.
Editor's note: We likewise had questioned Stanford’s longtime equivocation in the matter. Trespassing has to be without the consent of the property owner, and Stanford itself had concluded there was no trespassing or other wrongful behavior by this freshman reporter, so why was Stanford then so reluctant to tell the DA to drop the case?
Harvard College's Intellectual Vitality Statement
Reproduced in its entirety:
"During spring 2020 a group of students convened to discuss campus climate and the critical need to develop principles around respectful dialogue and understanding not only among the student body but for the entire College community. From those conversations, the following statement was created:
“Members of the Harvard College community affirm the value of intellectual vitality -- meaning, a spirit of open and rigorous inquiry. To this end, we believe that our community is best served through the charitable exchange of ideas, where we take as given one another’s best intentions and treat each other as partners in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. In doing so, we recognize the importance of giving and receiving criticism of ideas without extending these critiques to people themselves. Further, an engagement with and sincere consideration of competing views lies at the heart of education more broadly.
“To maintain a spirit of intellectual vitality, we must cultivate in ourselves an attitude of humility, respect, and curiosity toward each other. Through the spirit of intellectual vitality, we are able to strengthen our perspectives and reconsider foundational assumptions about the world, society, and our place in it -- while this may prove discomforting, the capacity to test core ideas is a precondition of growing in wisdom and understanding.
“All members of the Harvard College community therefore commit ourselves to uphold intellectual vitality in our respective capacities. We agree to foster this spirit of rigor, charity, and open exploration in classrooms, student organizations, and social interactions.”
Editor's note: Harvard’s Intellectual Vitality project is a much broader multiyear program, and we urge readers to look at the project’s more complete website here.
Two-thirds of Colleges Show At Least One Sign of Financial Stress
Editor’s note: In the detailed table, linked below, Stanford shows as having one year of operating losses and one year of endowment losses as compared to, for example, Harvard (2 years of operating losses and 3 years of endowment losses), Yale, Princeton and MIT (each with 3 years of operating losses and 3 years of endowment losses), UC Berkeley (3 years of operating losses and 2 years of appropriations losses) and Pomona (4 years of operating losses and 4 years of endowment losses).
Excerpt (links in the original):
“The first month of the Trump administration has been a series of body blows to American colleges. These actions include the freezing of grants for research and outreach that were even tangentially related to topics of race or gender, attempts to sharply reduce indirect cost rates for existing grants, and a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter that seeks to go well beyond the current Supreme Court’s decision limiting race-conscious admissions. This has led to a series of major research universities implementing hiring ‘chills’ and freezes while they wait to see how everything plays out in the courts.
“See the table to look up how your college has performed over the past 10 years [subscription may be required].
“It is somewhat ironic that the universities most affected by the Trump administration’s actions to this point are the ones that have fared the best over the last decade. Enrollment growth in recent years has been concentrated at a small number of flagship public and wealthy private universities, while regionally focused institutions -- engines of social mobility -- have generally struggled. Tuition prices have increased more slowly than the rate of inflation for much of the last decade, and rising tuition-discount rates have reduced revenue for many colleges. On the other side of the ledger, operating costs have risen quickly since the pandemic and typically outpace gains in revenue. While there was some rare good news on enrollment across higher education last fall, this does not make up for a lost decade for many institutions....”
Full article and table by U Tennessee Prof. Robert Kelchen at Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription may be required).
See also “NIH Funding Cuts Leave Stanford Researchers in Limbo” at Stanford Daily.
Don't Derail Universities, America's Innovation Engine
Excerpt (links in the original):
“Since World War II, American universities have served as our nation's engines of innovation, combining government funding with academic research to yield breakthrough discoveries in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and computer science. This was made possible largely by the system of funding that underpins university-based research. That system is now under attack from the Trump administration. Critics charge that the system is inefficient, unduly costly, and that universities can fund these efforts through other means. We think the decision is short-sighted and will harm U.S. interests by debilitating the system of research that underpins our national security and the most innovative sectors in our economy.
“Most of the important research at our universities relies on funding from federal agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and others. Universities negotiate an 'indirect cost rate' with the government whereby each dollar of research funding comes with additional support for building, maintaining, and staffing the facilities needed to conduct the research in question. The most research-intensive universities charge rates in excess of 60 percent to support these costly research activities. However, the Trump administration ordered the NIH to reduce its indirect rate to 15 percent. Federal judges issued restraining orders temporarily pausing the change. If this reduction ultimately occurs and spreads to other federal government funding agencies our national capacity for research will rapidly decline....”
Full op-ed by USC Deans/Professors Pedro A. Noguera and Mark Power Robison at Newsweek.
Other Articles of Interest
Students Question the Appropriateness of Using Memorial Church for Fashion Shows
“To see random people . . . posing in front of the crucifix, wearing revealing clothes on a Saturday night, showing up drunk in the church, treating it like it’s a party, or like a place to see and be seen, it’s so upsetting.” Full op-ed at Stanford Review.
Penn State Will Close Some Campuses Amid Enrollment Decline
Full article at Higher Ed Dive.
University of North Carolina System Makes It Nine Years in a Row with No In-State Tuition Increase
Full article at Just the News.
How Many Administrators Do Colleges Have?
Full op-ed at AEI. See also “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage including detailed graphs and charts.
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.
Stanford to Introduce Revenue-sharing Model for Athletes
New Antibodies Show Potential to Neutralize Virus That Causes COVID-19
A Stanford-led team has found two antibodies that can work together to defeat all SARS-CoV-2 variants. More research is needed, but the approach could help in the development of treatments to keep pace with evolving viruses.
Stanford Engineers Help Prepare Air Force Test Pilots for Autonomous Technology Advances
A Prescription for Produce Improves Health
Summit Explores Role of Human-Centered AI in the Learning Ecosystem
************
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” – Plato
March 3, 2025
Recent Developments at Stanford
President Levin’s and Provost Martinez’s Statement Re Recent Classroom Disruption
Reproduced in its entirety (February 26, 2025):
On Tuesday afternoon, Feb. 25, several individuals disrupted the Democracy and Disagreement course in Cemex Auditorium to protest a guest speaker, former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, who was there to debate with the economist Emmanuel Saez on the idea of a wealth tax.
The protestors were not Stanford students.
This behavior violates university policy and will not be tolerated. The Department of Public Safety collected information from the disruptors and is referring the information to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. We are taking steps to ban these individuals from our campus, which is private property. We extend the university’s apologies both to the speakers and to the students who were in attendance.
The expression of divergent views is welcome and expected in our community, and our policies provide ample opportunities for protest. But the classroom is at the center of the university’s educational mission. Disruption in the classroom setting is a fundamental disruption of the university’s operations and of the enrolled students’ opportunity to learn. Indeed, the Stanford students in the class on Tuesday afternoon vocally demanded that the demonstration stop so that the students could hear the speakers. The Democracy and Disagreement class has successfully hosted eighteen sessions of respectful debate on controversial topics in the last year, and we are encouraged by the fact that a few hundred audience members were present to actually hear the debate and promote the values of civil discourse.
President Jonathan Levin
Provost Jenny Martinez
Full text also at Stanford Report. See also articles at Stanford Daily, Stanford Review and College Fix.
Stanford Announces Freeze on Staff Hiring
Reproduced in its entirety (February 26, 2025):
Dear Stanford community,
We are in the process of developing Stanford’s budget for the 2025-26 academic year. This work is occurring as potential financial uncertainties are mounting for universities across the United States.
Most recently, as you know, the National Institutes of Health sought to dramatically reduce the payments it makes to universities for the indirect costs associated with research. Though this is currently under review by the courts, a cut of this magnitude would have a significant negative budget impact at Stanford. There is also uncertainty about the level of direct federal funding for scientific research as agencies like NIH and NSF face cuts.
In addition, there are Congressional proposals to expand the current endowment tax paid by universities including Stanford. This too would negatively affect Stanford’s finances, because the annual payout from the endowment forms a crucial part of our yearly budget. In particular, the endowment supports roughly two-thirds of the budget for undergraduate and graduate financial aid, as well as a significant portion of faculty salaries, research, and key programs like libraries and student services. Taken together, these are very significant risks to the university.
We have more work to do on our next budget, and we will learn more in the coming months about the outcomes of the various federal policy proposals. Given the uncertainty, we need to take prudent steps to limit spending and ensure that we have flexibility and resilience.
To better prepare us to meet these challenges, we are implementing a freeze on staff hiring in the university. Critically needed positions may be approved by the cognizant dean, vice president, or vice provost, though these situations should be limited. Similarly, hiring may continue for positions that are fully funded through externally-sponsored research awards; please confirm these hires with the cognizant dean’s office. The freeze does not apply to faculty positions, contingent employees (temporary and casual), or student workers.
We will be in further touch as the budget for next year develops. In the meantime, we do urge that new financial commitments be given careful consideration in the current environment.
President Jonathan Levin
Provost Jenny Martinez
Full text also at Stanford Report. See also articles at Stanford Daily and Stanford Review.
Making Stanford More Agile
Excerpt (link in the original):
“As the academic year began, Stanford President Jonathan Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez identified simplification -- making processes and decision-making on campus more agile -- as one of their top three priorities.
“Levin charged former President Richard Saller, former Provost John Etchemendy, and Vice President for University Affairs Megan Pierson with leading the simplification initiative, whose goal, as he explained last fall, is to 'reduce frictions and help make it easier to get things done.'
“The effort builds on work begun during Saller’s presidency when he asked Etchemendy to explore ways to enhance efficient use of resources and to cut down and ease hurdles that sometimes stand in the way of progress...."
Full Q&A at Stanford Report. See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
****************
An Analysis of DEI at Princeton and Nationwide
Editor’s note: Stuart Taylor, the author of this op-ed, is an American journalist, author and lawyer; has served as a fellow at the Brookings Institution; is currently president of Princetonians for Free Speech; and is the co-author of two books, the first of which broke open the wrongful actions of prosecutors, university officials and others in the notorious Duke lacrosse case.
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . .
“The pressure is intense on Princeton and all other universities to have a deep and prompt review of their DEI policies, their design and effectiveness, their use of overt and covert racial and gender preferences in admissions, financial aid, faculty hiring and training, racially segregated dormitories, graduation ceremonies, and other programming.
“The little-known nature and size of Princeton’s DEI -- ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’-- activities appear by some estimates to be more extensive, at least in terms of numbers of DEI personnel, than at most other Ivy League schools, and much more extensive than at most larger state schools -- although modest by comparison with some, such as the huge and much-remarked DEI bureaucracy at the University of Michigan. Meanwhile, the University of Virginia spends an estimated $20 million a year to or for employees who work on diversity, equity and inclusion, according to an analysis of the public school’s spending by a group called OpenTheBooks.com. It said UVA has at least 235 employees whose job titles signal they do DEI work for the school. (UVA has claimed this was inaccurate.)
“This article will describe in some detail Princeton’s DEI activities and the effects university DEI programs have had across the nation, and will sketch the Trump Administration’s anti-DEI policies....”
Full op-ed at Princetonians for Free Speech including a detailed discussion of programs at Princeton and elsewhere, their impact on free speech and on numerous faculty members personally, and what the various responses have been to date.
Third party comment at end of the op-ed: “Thank you for this insightful analysis. DEI was meant to foster inclusion, but at places like Princeton, it has morphed into an expensive, ideological bureaucracy that stifles free speech, fosters division, and prioritizes optics over true equity. When administrators wield more power than faculty and students fear speaking openly, it’s clear how far we’ve drifted from the university’s mission. We can and should encourage diverse perspectives, but never at the expense of intellectual freedom.”
See also “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” and Stanford’s Program re DEI” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
USC Scrubs DEI Amid Crackdown
Excerpts:
“After the Trump administration told schools to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs or face federal funding cuts, USC has deleted the website for its university wide Office of Inclusion and Diversity and merged it into another operation, scrubbed several college and department-level DEI statements, renamed faculty positions and, in one case, removed online references to a scholarship for Black and Indigenous students.
“The University of Southern California’s actions -- similar to some other universities throughout the country -- appear to be aimed at avoiding federal scrutiny, according to USC faculty and staff and reviews of portions of the USC website archives....
“Nationwide, universities have taken different stances. The president of Colorado State University, citing a need for federal funding, said it would remake its race-related programs and avoid a ‘gamble’ in challenging the Trump administration. At the University of Cincinnati, the president said that he had ‘little choice’ but to fall in line. Regents for the University of Alaska voted for DEI to be scrubbed from the system. The University of Iowa will end dorm communities next year for Black, Latino and LGBTQ+ students, according to news reports.
“Jerry Kang, a law professor and DEI expert who was UCLA’s first vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion until 2020, said it was not surprising that ‘universities engage in risk-averse overcompliance.’ ...
“At the [USC] Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, the ‘diversity and inclusion’ section of its website now says ‘mission and vision.’ The title of a professor, Laura Castañeda, has changed from associate dean of ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and access’ to ‘community and culture.’
“Castañeda declined to speak with The Times. Speaking to Annenberg Media, a student publication, she said the goal was to ‘soften language.’
“'I think the idea was -- and I think this is true university-wide -- [that we would] soften language, just because it might buy us some time. We’re going to continue the work -- the work doesn’t stop,' Castañeda said...."
Full article at LA Times.
Vanderbilt and Wash U Publish a Statement of University Principles
Editor’s note: A week ago, Vanderbilt and Wash U (of St. Louis) published a full-page ad in the WSJ and possibly elsewhere setting forth a statement of university principles. While we welcome this type of action, we still believe Stanford and other colleges and universities would be best served by adopting all three parts of the Chicago Trifecta which were written by faculty and have withstood the test of time. That said, here are the first two paragraphs of the recent ad:
“American higher education is at a crossroads. Ideological forces in and outside of campuses have pulled too many universities away from the core purpose, principles and values that made them America’s great engines of learning, innovation and discovery, and the envy of the world.
“It is imperative that universities reaffirm and protect those core principles, strengthen their compact with the American people, and build on their unmatched capacity for teaching and innovation. They must do so not only because universities provide education that is transformative and research that improves everyday life – but also because their work is vital to American property, competitiveness and national security....”
[Followed by a summary of basic principles: (1) excellence, (2) academic freedom and free expression, and (3) growth and development, followed by a discussion of creeping politicization.]
For more information, visit their website here.
What College Presidents Really Think
Excerpts (link in the original):
“College presidents showed tepid support for tenure with a little more than a third agreeing that the pros outweigh the cons, according to Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents, conducted with Hanover Research and released in full [on February 26, 2025].
“That was just one of many findings across the annual survey, now in its 15th year.
“Presidents were optimistic in some areas, with most expressing confidence that their institutions will be financially stable over the next five to 10 years and positivity about the job itself. But campus leaders also expressed concerns about politicians trying to shape institutional strategies, which they see as an increasing risk, plus a seeming lack of improvement on undergraduate mental health, even as campuses make more investments in related services....”
[Followed by discussion and graphs re faculty tenure, campus speech, economic confidence, being a president, student mental health and other findings.]
Full article at Inside Higher Ed including links to the full report and a future webinar.
UW-Madison Cancels Planned Tech Talk of Blind Doctor with Conservative Views
Editor’s note: We present the following article not because we favor any particular political views but rather because this is another example of colleges and universities still not realizing the importance of free speech and critical thinking.
Excerpts (links in the original):
“University Health Services at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has canceled a talk scheduled to be given by an addiction psychiatrist who said he has been ‘canceled’ due to his outspoken conservative views.
“Dr. Timothy Cordes, a UW–Madison alumnus and former employee -- and the second blind person ever to be accepted to an American school of medicine -- was invited to speak to a group of physicians and counselors who treat students at the university about the psychological effects of social media and technology use and what can be done to help combat the adverse effects....
“Although university brass claim some sort of scheduling conflict, the event organizer privately informed him that the UHS administration canceled his talk due to concerns that hosting someone with conservative views, which he has publicly expressed on his podcast and Substack, might have a ‘negative impact … on some members of the team.’...
“[Dr. Cordes] received an official cancellation notice via email from the university, which The College Fix reviewed. The email stated his talk was canceled due to a scheduling conflict. However, there was no attempt to reschedule the event.
“A spokesperson for UW-Madison told The College Fix via email the event was cancelled so UHS admin could meet to focus on changes they are making in their program....”
Full article at College Fix.
See also "I'm a Surgeon and I've Never Been More Alarmed About My Profession" at City Journal.
Teen Hired by Google Was Rejected by 16 Colleges; Now He’s Suing for Discrimination
Excerpts (links in the original):
“He had a 4.42 GPA and a near perfect 1590 score on his SAT. Yet he was rejected by 16 colleges he applied to. Now he’s suing for discrimination.
“Stanley Zhong, who ended up taking a PhD-level software engineer job at Google out of high school, is fighting for other Asian-American students who might face the same dilemma -- a kid who is perfect on paper but rejected due to his ethnicity.
“At least, that’s what the Zhong family hopes to prove in court.
“‘The story is bigger than Stanley himself,’ his father, Nan Zhong, recently told ABC Bay Area News. ‘And what we’re trying to get out of this is a fair treatment of Asian applicants going forward, including my other kids and my future grandkids.’
“The lawsuit, filed Feb. 11, names the University of California system and campus leaders as defendants -- as well as leaders at all five UC schools he applied to that had rejected him....”
Full article at College Fix.
Other Articles of Interest
American Bar Association Suspends DEI Standards for Accreditation
Full article at Inside Higher Ed.
The Secret That Colleges Should Stop Keeping – The Cost of Obtaining Higher Education is Getting Cheaper
Full article at The Atlantic.
Which Type of Note-Taking Is Better for Learning – Laptop or Pen and Paper?
Full article at The Conversation.
Eleven Steps to Revitalize the Practice of Medicine
Full op-ed at Brownstone.
How Educators Are Using Kindness to Transform Schools
Full article at UC Berkeley Greater Good Magazine.
Harvard College Dean Says He Will Focus on Re-centering Academics
Full article at Harvard Crimson.
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.
Town Center Project to Reshape White Plaza and Stanford Bookstore
The Future of Geothermal for Reliable Clean Energy
Managing Risks in AI-Powered Biomedical Research
Immune ‘Fingerprints’ Aid Diagnosis of Complex Diseases
************
"The ultimate goal of the educational system is to shift to the individual the burden of pursing his own education. This will not be a widely shared pursuit until we get over our odd conviction that education is what goes on in school buildings and nowhere else." – Deceased Stanford alum, former Stanford trustee and founder of Common Cause John W. Gardner
February 24, 2025
Active and Passive Academic Freedom
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In a NYTimes op-ed by former NCI and NIH director, and Nobel Laureate, Harold Varmus, Varmus argues that future NIH director Jay Bhattacharya is wrong to tie NIH funding to academic freedom. He calls the plan ‘outlandish’ [long quote deleted] ….
“Varmus’ claim begs the questions: What is academic freedom? Is there a public interest to incentivize universities that honor it? How can the NIH practically consider it in grant giving?
“I consider academic freedom to come in two forms: passive and active.
"Passive academic freedom means that Universities should take no disciplinary action towards faculty based on their point of view or speech (as long as it is legally permitted), while active academic freedom means University should actively encourage debates and discussion on important, disputed topics, particularly those with relevance to ongoing policy decisions....
“Bob Harrington, Chair of Medicine at Stanford, told Eran Bendavid, an [infectious diseases] doctor, to stop speaking to the press with his view that school closure and lockdowns were misguided. Bob was rewarded by being promoted to Dean of Cornell. Eran went silent.
“Scott Atlas, a radiologist, underwent academic censure for stating that kids should not wear cloth masks, that covid-19 posed low risks to children, and that school closure was misguided....
“On the issue of active academic freedom, universities failed even more spectacularly. There were no debates on school closures, masking children, vaccine mandates, and other health policy of incalculable significance at major universities, including Johns Hopkins, Harvard, or Stanford. These discussions were simply not held....
“In short, there is nothing 'outlandish' [typo corrected] about Jay Bhattacharya considering academic freedom alongside other facilities and opportunities present at universities in deciding whether federal funding should be invested. We already ensure universities treat women fairly, lest they lose [typo corrected] funding. We already ensure universities have the physical space to conduct the work that is being funded. We now ask only that universities offer the intellectual environment that is conducive to free and open thought. That is not only in the interest of universities, it is directly in the public interest as well.”
Full op-ed by UCSF Prof. Vinay Prasad at Substack.
JP Morgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon Sounds Off on Bureaucracy
Excerpts (link in the original):
“The breaking point came at a town hall in Ohio [a week ago]. According to audio obtained by Barron's, JPMorgan's CEO unleashed his frustration when he learned a single wealth management project needed approval from 14 different committees. ‘I am dying to get the name of the 14 committees, and I feel like firing 14 chairmen of committees. I can't stand it anymore. I want it out of the company.’
“For Dimon, the issue goes beyond wasted time. Every year brings more controls, more checkpoints, more coordination meetings. Until one day your organization can barely move. ‘It just kind of creeped in,’ he said....
“He went on to say:
"’Bureaucracy is also centralizing too much. Everything's got to be documented too much, and so it's just creeped in in a million different ways’
“This is how bureaucracy works -- it spreads under the guise of prudence, risk management, and coordination. Each additional approval step seems reasonable. Each new committee appears to add valuable oversight. Each documentation requirement feels prudent. But the cumulative effect is organizational sclerosis....
Full article at Michele Zanini website.
For an example of what Dimon is talking about, see Stanford’s party planning webpages for what it now takes for students to hold a party at Stanford.
TreeHacks Awards $200,000 in Prizes to Students from Around the World
Excerpts:
“At 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, students were hard at work under bright lights in the basement of the Jen-Hsun Huang Engineering Center competing in TreeHacks, Stanford’s annual hackathon.
“TreeHacks is a 36-hour sprint. Over 1,000 students from around the world convene on Stanford campus for two days of intense collaboration to create a prototype or functioning product by the end of the event. While there is no set challenge, participants are instructed to ‘turn [their] crazy ideas into real projects,’ according to the TreeHacks website.
“Teams of up to four competed for over $200,000 in prizes, with awards including the ‘Most Creative Hack,’ ‘Most Impactful Hack’ and ‘Most Technically Complex Hack.’...
“For Legasse Remon, a junior from the University of Florida, coming to TreeHacks has long been a dream. Remon applied four times before being accepted this year, and he believes that hundreds of students applied from his university.
“’I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t come to [TreeHacks],’ he said. ‘They gather people from around the world -- it’s the biggest [hackathon] with a lot of the biggest prizes.’...
Full article at Stanford Daily.
There’s Good News in U.S. Higher Education If You Look for It
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Anxiety and uncertainty are high within U.S. higher education right now. Anyone attending or working at an American university is struggling to understand what 2025 and beyond will bring. And, of course, the whirlwind of challenges did not start this year. Throughout 2024 there was no shortage of surveys revealing that an increasing percentage of Americans are disappointed with traditional colleges and universities.
“Given this turbulence and uncertainty, it would seem almost perverse to talk about good news in higher education. Still, it exists and needs to be highlighted, if only to remind ourselves of our collective mission to educate students and advance their social and economic mobility.
“First, college applications are up....
“On employability, student demand for apprenticeships currently outstrips supply. And three-year degrees are gaining momentum: good news for working adults and those seeking to accelerate their pathway to a degree. This is evidence of innovative thinking within higher education and a deep commitment to college completion for more Americans.
“Access is also getting fairer....
“None of this is to deny the profound challenges higher education must address. But amid the current uncertainty, it is as well to acknowledge that while US post-secondary education is imperfect, it remains among the best strategies for individuals to gain a foothold in the middle class and contribute to the nation’s economic and social prosperity.”
Full op-ed by UCLA Prof. Eileen L. Strempel at Times Higher Ed.
Other Articles of Interest
AI Grading -- A Game-Changer or a Double-Edged Sword?
Full op-ed at Educators Technology.
Alumni Reactions Around the Country
Full article at Real Clear Investigations
Theory and Practice of Excellent University Governance (podcast)
Full interview (24 minutes) at Higher Ed Now.
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.
How to Turn Old Ideas into Creative Solutions to Modern Problems
Why Corporate AI Projects Succeed or Fail
New Findings on the Power of Enzymes Could Reshape Biochemistry
Researchers Identify DNA Changes, Biological Pathways Associated with Inherited Cancer Risk
************
"Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think." – Albert Einstein
February 17, 2025
President Levin Discusses Recent Wave of Executive Orders and Other Federal Actions
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In a Friday [February 14, 2025] interview with The Daily, University president Jonathan Levin ’94 commented on the storm of policies under President Donald Trump that have rocked Stanford since January, including potential federal funding cuts, escalating immigration enforcement, a clampdown on DEI efforts and changes to Title IX rules.
“Levin acknowledged the instability in federal policies, expressing his opposition to research funding cuts, and said he was ‘very concerned’ about the potential effects of new immigration policies on international and undocumented community members. He refrained from overtly criticizing the Trump administration, instead emphasizing institutional neutrality....
[From the Q and A interview:]
Levin: “I believe it’s a critical moment for universities, and a moment not just to wrestle with specific issues, of which there are many, but to renew the social contract between universities and the federal government, which is such a defining source of strength for the country.
“The U.S., after World War II, established a brilliant strategy for scientific leadership. It’s allowed the U.S. to be the leader in the world. The government funds research in universities through a competitive merit-based process. Universities share the results openly, the private sector builds on them, and that is what drives innovation in the country.
“That’s just an exceptional model. Virtually every study of federal funding has shown that a dollar allocated to university research generates several dollars in return. The NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, and the research that it funds is what drives advances in human health and in biomedicine. It benefits everyone in the country and everyone in the world.
“Last week, the agency announced that it would make a sharp cut in the indirect cost payments to universities. It’s not the greatest terminology, but the concept is pretty simple. That is the money that goes to fund the construction and maintenance of labs and facilities, equipment and administrative support for research. It’s hard to do research without a lab and the equipment that’s in it.
“The order has been rescinded, and we’re part of a lawsuit objecting to it, but the threat to federal funding is very real and it’s hugely consequential for Stanford, every research university in the country and for the country as a whole. This is a moment not just to respond to that particular issue, which we have to do, but to be focused on, ‘How do we strengthen this core partnership between universities and the government on which everyone depends?'… "
Full interview at Stanford Daily including re cutbacks in federal funding, Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya as nominee to head the NIH, the future of the U.S. Department of Education, immigration, institutional neutrality and other issues.
New Guidance from U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights re Non-Discrimination Policies
Editor's note: The following is the text of the letter from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights sent on Friday, February 14, 2025 to Stanford and all other U.S. colleges and universities and that is also referenced in the interview with Pres. Levin, above.
Excerpts (footnotes deleted):
“Dear Colleague:
“Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is illegal and morally reprehensible. Accordingly, I write to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education (Department). This letter explains and reiterates existing legal requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities.
“In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income families....
[Followed by discussion of the Supreme Court decision in the Harvard admissions case and how those principles will now be applied to all aspects of a school's operations.]
“Although some programs may appear neutral on their face, a closer look reveals that they are, in fact, motivated by racial considerations. And race-based decision-making, no matter the form, remains impermissible....
“All educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.
“Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding....”
Full text of letter including with footnotes at U.S. Department of Education website.
UK University Adds Over 200 Trigger Warnings to Shakespeare
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A university in England has put over 200 trigger warnings on Shakespeare works and adaptations for things such as the ‘popping of balloons,’ violence, ‘psychological trauma,’ ‘extreme weather,’ and more.
“The University of the West of England issued warnings for murder, suicide, violence, and family trauma in Macbeth, as well as ‘storms’ and ‘extreme weather’ in The Tempest, The Telegraph reported.
“The school also placed a warning on a stage adaptation of The Tempest due to the ‘popping of balloons,’ while another work, Much Ado About Nothing, has been flagged for ‘treatment of women’ and ‘mourning.’
“For Romeo and Juliet, the university issued warnings for ‘death, suicide, violence, knives and blood,’ the outlet reported.
“Further, ‘Students are warned that the Winter’s Tale has ‘accusations of adultery’ and ‘references to wild animal attack,' the New York Post reported...."
Full article at College Fix.
Science Returns to Science
Excerpts (link in the original):
“I thought the academic DEI juggernaut was unstoppable. Then, a week after President Trump’s inauguration, I got an email with an announcement from the Department of Energy: ‘The Office of Science is immediately ending the requirement for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) Plans in any proposal submitted. . . . Reviewers will not be asked to read or comment on PIER Plans. Selection decisions will not take into consideration the content of PIER Plans or any reviewer comments on PIER Plans.’
“PIER plans, which the Biden administration instituted in 2022, required every grant application to ‘describe the activities and strategies of the applicant to promote equity and inclusion as an intrinsic element to advancing scientific excellence.’ In the words of the announcement, ‘The complexity and detail of a PIER Plan is expected to increase with the size of the research team and the number of personnel to be supported.’
“The end of the PIER Plan and other DEI-related requirements is seismic. The major source of physical science research support in the country has sent a message to universities: Stick to science. It may be the death knell of what appeared to be an invulnerable academic bureaucracy that has been impeding the progress of higher education and research for at least a decade....
“Last year a colleague of mine and I used ChatGPT to examine all 12,065 awards made by the National Science Foundation and classified more than 1,000 of them, accounting for more than $675 million, as focused on DEI rather than science. And under Biden decrees, even science-focused grants were evaluated on DEI grounds....”
Full op-ed by ASU Prof. Emeritus Lawrence Krause at WSJ.
A Call for a Return to Core Medical Principles
Excerpts (link in the original):
. . . .
“The original Hippocratic Oath, though not penned by the Greek physician Hippocrates himself, encapsulated ethical responsibilities that resonate with the essence of patient-centered care. The Oath’s call to avoid harm and respect the dignity of patients has been a guiding light for countless physicians....
“A recent trend has emerged in medical schools across the United States and Canada, where the incorporation of terms like 'equity,' 'diversity,' and 'social justice' have been incorporated into revised versions of the Hippocratic Oath. A 2022 survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges revealed that a staggering 96% of participating institutions are prioritizing diversity and inclusion as key learning outcomes. While the intentions behind these changes may in some cases be commendable -- aimed at acknowledging the social determinants of health -- the implications for medical education are deeply troubling....
“As a physician trained within the framework of the Hippocratic tradition, I find these developments misguided. The focus on demographic categories risks overshadowing the rigorous scientific education that is vital for effective medical practice. Rather than equipping future healthcare providers with the profound understanding of disease mechanisms, prevention, and treatment, we are diverting attention to a discourse that categorizes patients into overly simplistic boxes. This approach not only undermines the complexity of individual health needs, but also has the potential to dilute the mastery of clinical skills required for effective patient care....
“We can recognize diversity and treat everyone fairly without promoting division and ostracization. Personalized care can and should be provided based on demonstrated evidence of need. By prioritizing the fundamental tenets of the Hippocratic tradition, we can cultivate a healthcare system that respects individual differences without allowing them to overshadow the art and science of medicine. Let us not forget that the ultimate goal is to improve patient health outcomes -- something that can only be achieved through unwavering dedication to the craft of medicine.”
Full op-ed by Dr. Nikki M. Johnson at Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.
What Do We Mean by the Liberal University?
Excerpts (links in the original):
“When faculty members attempt to raise their students’ political awareness or mobilize them to political action, are they living up to their highest calling or betraying it? When university presidents take official stands on issues like the Black Lives Matter protests or Israel’s actions in Gaza, are they displaying civic responsibility or undermining their institutions’ intellectual mission? Underlying these topical concerns is the vexed and longstanding question about the proper relationship between academe and politics.
“The positions people take on this question range between two poles. At one end are those who regard academic work, especially in the humanities and social sciences, as political activism by other means. Richard Rorty speaks for this group when he writes that “we cannot take the idea of unpoliticized humanities any more seriously than our opposite numbers in the clergy can take seriously the idea of a depoliticized church.” For Rorty, there is no return to the humanist myths of universal values, disinterested criticism, or objective knowledge. Teaching and scholarship are inescapably political because knowledge, culture, and subjectivity are inescapably political. Classrooms are political spaces, whether we like it or not. The honest thing is to admit it.
“At the other end of the spectrum are those who hold that academe and politics are distinct realms which should be kept as far apart as possible. Stanley Fish, the most-trenchant proponent of this view since Max Weber, insists that academics are neither trained nor qualified -- let alone paid -- to act as moral guides or political seers. We have no business shaping the political consciences of the students who wander into our classes. Our job is to train them in the forms of knowledge and methodology appropriate to our disciplines. When we go further by trying to recruit students to our pet political causes, we overstep the bounds of our professional remit.
“I think it’s fair to say that, after a decade of activist ascendency, Fish’s view is about to have its moment in the sun....
“To put my cards on the table: I believe this course correction is, on the whole, a good thing. The aggressive framing of academic scholarship, pedagogy, and administration in overtly progressive terms has yielded few demonstrable gains for progressive politics, while causing real harm to individual careers, institutional reputations, and academic culture at large. A reaction was bound to happen....
“Doing the job of an academic requires checking one’s politics at the classroom’s door -- not because a professor’s political opinion is a dirty secret, but because once politics are allowed in, the discussion ceases to be academic and becomes something else. In fact, the more a professor’s politics are a matter of public knowledge -- which is not uncommon, as many academics are also public intellectuals -- the more stringently they should depoliticize their classrooms. To check one’s politics at the door is not to compromise one’s values; it is to make room for another kind of value....”
Full op-ed by Tel Aviv Prof. Nir Evron at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Other Articles of Interest
Yale Jewish Students Kicked Out of Their Own Center During Pro-Palestinian Protest
Full article at College Fix.
New Stanford Database Tracks Learning Losses and Gains in California and Other School Districts Nationwide
Full article at Ed Source.
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.
Study Reveals Striking Variations in Pandemic Recovery Among U.S. School Districts
Additional Benefits of Tool for Carbon Dioxide Removal
New Sepsis Test Significantly Reduces Life-or-Death Diagnosis Time
Physicians Make Better Decisions with Help of AI Chatbots
Student Voices
Stanford Review: A Place to Debate
Stanford Daily: DEI Information Disappears from University Web Pages
************
"Stanford remains steadfast in its dedication to academic freedom, which serves as a key foundation for the university’s truth-seeking scholarship and impactful research.” -- Stanford Board Chair Jerry Yang
February 10, 2025
Removing the Ivy-Tinted Glasses
Editor’s note: Stanford has long been a key member of what are called the “Ivy-Plus” schools, including as discussed in the article that follows.
Excerpts (links and most italics in the original):
“Many Americans are frustrated by elite private universities. We’ve seen their hostility to diversity of opinion and free speech, politically imbalanced faculty and administrators, galling instances of antisemitism, enormous costs, unfair admissions processes, and more. For such reasons, public approval of higher education had been low and falling for some time, particularly on America’s right. And that was before the campus unrest of 2024, which was concentrated at the most affluent private schools.
“As a result, a growing number of hiring managers claim to be looking elsewhere. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on firms souring on Ivy grads, and 13 federal appeals court judges now won’t hire clerks from Columbia. However, according to two major new studies, it would take a whole lot more to make even a dent in the influence of America’s most prestigious private schools.
“It’s no secret that a few American institutions are led by a disproportionate number of elite-college graduates. For example, all nine of today’s US Supreme Court justices went to private colleges; seven went to Ivies as undergraduates, and eight went to Ivies for law school. And since 1989, every president other than Joe Biden has had at least one Ivy degree. But that might be only the tip of the iceberg. A 2023 paper by a team of Ivy economists about ‘Ivy+’ schools (the eight Ivies plus four other highly selective privates) argued that 'leadership positions in the US are disproportionately held by graduates' of these colleges. Covering the study for The Atlantic, a Harvard-educated author wrote an essay titled, ‘You Have to Care About Harvard’ with the subtitle, ‘It creates the super-elite. The super-elite create America.’ …
“[On the other hand,] I researched the educational backgrounds of those holding an array of top public positions: governors, state attorneys general, state supreme court justices, state legislative leaders, and state education superintendents. I also identified which law firms were considered the most elite in each state and then researched the schooling of those firms’ leaders (e.g., managing partner, practice leader, management-team member).
“My findings challenge the notion that the graduates of a small number of elite private schools dominate our leadership ranks and show the importance of geography when considering leadership development....
“More than half of governors went to a public college, and all of these went to a school in their state or in a state that bordered their own. Demonstrating that America has many pathways into public leadership: The 49 governors with a college degree graduated from 46 different colleges. State legislative leaders (like house speakers and senate presidents) were seven times likelier to go to a public flagship than an Ivy+.
“Possibly the most surprising office is state supreme court justice. Vastly different than U.S. Supreme Court justices, these leading figures were likelier to go to public undergraduate and public law schools than private. In fact, in 22 states not a single Supreme Court justice went to an Ivy+ college; in half of states, not a single justice went to an Ivy+ law school....”
Full article by former chair of the Maryland Higher Education Commission Andy Smarick at Law and Liberty.
We also recommend the full text of the report here including the egalitarian education of American leaders, rightsizing for opportunity, American pluralism, the Ivy-Plus universities as compared to the state flagship and other public universities, degree inflation, and detailed charts regarding federal and state supreme court and lower court judges, legislators, governors, education chiefs, attorneys general and top law firms.
Celebrating Ten Years of the Chicago Principles
Editor’s note: Not only do we concur with the following, but we again suggest that Stanford’s faculty, administration and trustees should adopt all three parts of the Chicago Trifecta as set forth here. And if anyone disagrees with any of the specific items in any of the three parts, they should consider the following questions: What provision do you disagree with, what specific language do you suggest instead, and why? This process would put in place a fundamental framework for decisions and operations while allowing the various governing bodies to debate any specific changes they think are needed.
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In 2014, American colleges faced an existential crisis -- campuses erupted over controversial speakers as the heckler’s veto
increasingly replaced debate. In response, the University of Chicago drafted a landmark statement reaffirming the school’s commitment to free speech.
“Since then, more than 110 colleges and universities have adopted the ‘Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression,’ commonly known as the Chicago Statement or the Chicago principles, transforming the landscape of higher education in the country.
“In a star-studded, all-day symposium last month, the University of Chicago celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the iconic Statement and its famous assertion, ‘It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.’ ...
“Geoffrey Stone, the First Amendment scholar and chair of the committee, spoke of the ‘fundamental challenge’ universities face in encouraging students and faculty to speak their minds. Kenneth Warren, professor of English, echoed this by speaking of faculty members ‘who are taking on the deep responsibility of exploring difficult questions.’
“The conversation was engaging and frank -- all faculty members acknowledged challenges and remained open to the possibility that mistakes may be made along the way -- sentiments true to the ethos of the principles themselves....”
Full article at FIRE.
Harvard Committee Reports Students Frequently Self-Censor and Give Extracurricular Activities Higher Priority Than Academics
Excerpts:
“A Faculty of Arts and Sciences committee released a report Friday concluding that many Harvard College students self-censor when discussing controversial topics and frequently prioritize extracurricular commitments over their academics.
“The committee recommended strengthening course attendance requirements, discouraging phone use in class, standardizing grading, and amending student and faculty handbooks to include a classroom confidentiality policy....
“The report concluded that some undergraduates avoid politically fraught conversations, opting instead to socialize and take courses with like-minded peers and instructors. Only 33 percent of graduating College students feel free to express their views on controversial issues, according to a 2024 survey of graduating seniors cited in the report....”
Full article at Harvard Crimson including a summary of recommendations.
************
The Costs of DEI
Editor’s note: We are presenting below a mere sampling of articles from the past week re DEI issues universities are facing nationwide with respect to the recent Executive Orders. We do so not to reflect a political view, one way or another, but rather to put a spotlight on activities that have been allowed to accrue in recent years that turned out not only to be very costly but also appear to have been largely counterproductive to diversity and inclusion.
We suggest a solution is not to reinvent the wheel but to simply adopt all three parts of the Chicago Trifecta and then to address all of the pending issues based on those concepts. See also Back to Basics at Stanford where we have proposed (paragraph 3.c.) that as these and other programs are reduced or eliminated, all savings, dollar for dollar, “shall be redirected SOLELY to undergraduate scholarships, research grants and independent projects and graduate student fellowships.” In other words, let’s move resources from administrative overhead back to where they should be spent: solely on the core educational activities of the students themselves.
DEI Costs at U Michigan
Excerpts (links in the original):
“New research has found the number of University of Michigan employees who work either full-time or part-time on diversity, equity, and inclusion-related efforts now tops 1,100.
“The findings come as the U.S. Department of Education under President Donald Trump has eliminated all its DEI initiatives, including placing DEI staff on paid administrative leave and removing DEI language, trainings, directives, and advisory boards throughout the agency....
“Economist Mark Perry, a University of Michigan-Flint emeritus professor who tallied up the latest number of DEI jobs at UMich, told The College Fix its DEI bureaucracy is extraordinary in its size and scope.
“The report identifies 248 full-time UM staff members whose main duties are to provide DEI programming services and advance DEI 2.0 at an annual payroll cost of $24 million.
“When fringe benefits are added at a rate of 32 percent of base salaries it brings the total annual compensation of UM’s DEI staff to nearly $31.7 million -- or enough to pay in-state tuition and fees for approximately 1,800 students.
“On top of [the activities of the central DEI staff], the university employs 167 staffers across UM’s schools, colleges, centers, programs, offices, and libraries to advance DEI, such as the College of Engineering’s Office of Culture Community and Equity (21 staffers) and Michigan Medicine’s Office for Health, Equity, and Inclusion (20 staffers) ....
“Michigan maintains an Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, or ODEI, that includes a chief diversity officer, Chavous, who earns $417,000 annually plus benefits.
“'In contrast, Michigan’s governor Gretchen Whitmer’s salary is $159,300, and the average salaries for assistant, associate, and full professors at UM (all campuses) are $130,037, $145,360, and $207,827 respectively,' according to the research study compiled by Perry and provided exclusively to The College Fix....
“But wait -- there’s more. To enact its massive ‘DEI 2.0 Plan,’ the university has tapped 118 ‘Unit Leads’ -- a mix of deans, scholars and staffers -- 46 who are full-time diversity employees and 72 who work part-time alongside their normal jobs to oversee the implementation of the various DEI goals within each of the university’s 51 units, from 17 academic schools and colleges to the IT division to Athletics to the Department of Public Safety to three libraries to the Museum of Art and even the Matthaei Botanical Gardens & Nichols Arboretum.
“To support those ‘Unit Leads,’ a total of 679 additional staffers across the 51 units have been tasked with helping roll out the DEI 2.0 plan, according to Perry, who reviewed each of the 51 Unit Strategic Plans to count the number of employees tasked with DEI advancement.
“All told, that’s roughly 1,122 jobs dedicated to advancing DEI at the University of Michigan, according to Perry’s findings. The University of Michigan-Flint emeritus professor also notes in his report he didn’t even include 51 jobs in the Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX Office in his round-up....”
Full article at College Fix.
See also “Stanford’s Program re DEI” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
DEI Courses Consume 40 Million Hours of Undergraduate Time and $1.8 Billion in Selected States
Excerpts from summary article (links in the original):
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion course requirements in at least 30 states cost students and taxpayers at least $1.8 billion per four-year period. Meanwhile, ‘the current undergraduate population at public universities will spend at least 40 million hours’ fulfilling these mandates in order to graduate, a conservative think tank report found.
“The author of the Goldwater Institute report told The College Fix that DEI initiatives are costly to taxpayers not only due to the funds diverted to them but also because consultants and faculty profit from these programs.
“‘One of the reasons DEI is so costly to taxpayers is because its proponents actively enrich themselves as they increase its scope and influence over institutions,’ Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at the Goldwater Institute, told The College Fix.
“‘DEI ‘consultants’ and other ‘gurus’ such as Ibram X. Kendi extract speaking fees from taxpayer-funded public institutions at rates of tens of thousands of dollars per engagement,’ Beienburg said....”
Full article at College Fix; full text of the report here.
Other Articles of Interest
Survey Indicates Students Feel Unprepared to Use AI in the Workplace
Full article at Ed Tech.
UNC’s New School Uses AI to Promote Civil Discourse
Full article by UNC Prof. Mark McNeilly at James Martin Center.
The Use and Misuse of AI in Higher Education Writing Courses
Full op-ed by Indiana Wesleyan Prof. Russell Fox at Minding the Campus.
UConn Requires Medical Students to Take DEI Oath
Full article at FIRE.
Brown Medical School Gives DEI More Weight Than Clinical Skills in Promotion Criteria for Faculty
Full article at Free Beacon.
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
Alumni and Others Again Seek Dismissal of Charges Against Stanford Daily Reporter
How Four Stanford Researchers Are Using 3D Printing to Improve Health
Advances in the Science, Prevention and Care of Cancer (an entire issue of Stanford Medicine magazine)
Stanford Professor Tells Davos Attendees That Billions of Dollars Are Being Wasted on AI
Recycling Lithium-ion Batteries Delivers Significant Environmental Benefits
************
"The freedom to question and challenge ideas -- even those held sacred -- is what makes the university the engine of progress and the guardian of truth." — Clark Kerr, former President of the University of California
February 3, 2025
Interview of Stanford President Jon Levin (podcast)
This interview by Freakonomics co-author and University of Chicago Prof. Steven Levitt took place in a podcast that was initially broadcast on January 17, 2025. The interview began with questions and answers about Pres. Levin’s academic background including his obtaining a PhD in economics at MIT following his undergraduate studies at Stanford and then his returning to Stanford years ago as a new member of the faculty. The discussion later turned to the challenges of being the president of a modern university like Stanford, including these excerpts:
LEVITT: In the abstract, being the president of perhaps the most important and influential university in the world, Stanford University, sounds like it would be fun. But the actual tasks that I imagine you do on a daily basis, those don’t sound at all fun to me -- trying to please a dozen different constituencies, fundraising, making difficult budget decisions, saying no on tenure cases. You’re probably working 70 hours a week doing these things. Do you actually enjoy your job?
LEVIN: I love my job. The opportunity to lead a great academic institution like Stanford, it’s an incredible honor. It’s a big responsibility. But it’s mostly just an extraordinary opportunity and pleasure. And that’s because -- look around the world. There’s just very few places on the planet that assemble the collection of people and talent and brilliant scholars, students across so many disciplines, that you have on a campus like this. And your job is, first and foremost, to gather those people and then ensure that they have the freedom and the resources to accomplish really extraordinary things.
That’s a great job to have. There’s just so much to take pride in terms of what people are doing and to see their success. And of course, there’s strategic elements -- what should the university be investing in, and direction. And there’s some challenges too. There’s certainly legion at the moment when it comes to higher education. One of the things I discovered in my career, which was -- serendipity was I loved being a economist and a faculty member and a researcher. You could more or less spend your time thinking about any problem that you’re interested in. What job gives you that kind of freedom to explore and be curious and be creative and engage in problems and have collaborators to do it with?
Maybe 15 years ago, I became a department chair and I realized being a faculty member is a very entrepreneurial thing. It’s you, your graduate students, a few collaborators, you get grants, you kind of run your own ship with a lot of freedom and autonomy. And I really enjoyed when things went well, whether it was hiring colleagues or seeing people get tenure or success in student programs. The collective feeling of success, that kind of got me hooked on academic leadership and ended up taking my career in a little bit different direction. And of course, at the scale of a university like Stanford, it’s a great feeling to have an institution that you care about and deeply want to succeed, and you have a whole set of people who want the same thing. And to feel that if you can articulate a compelling vision for the future and bring people along and empower them, great things happen. And many, many people can take pride in the success of a great university. Who wouldn’t love to be in that position? And I feel fortunate to be in it....
LEVITT: Where a lot of universities got into a kind of trouble was in trying to define hate speech. As you say, look, it’s pretty easy to say that we’ll put restrictions on activities like blockading classrooms or shouting down invited lecturers because those are interfering with other people’s activities. But my impression is that this slippery slope came around this idea of hate speech and hate speech is hard to define because somebody’s got to draw a line someplace and people won’t necessarily agree where that line is. Do you see that definition of hate speech as being fundamentally challenging for what you do?
LEVIN: At Stanford, the boundary for what speech is permissible and at what point it crosses the boundary into discrimination or harassment is we protect constitutionally protected speech. So we use the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment as our formal rules. The Constitution protects a lot of speech that is not necessarily what you’d want to have on a campus. It’s not necessarily productive and conducive to discovery and learning, which is what we’re here to do. Some of that is having rules, but a lot of that is culture.
So much of what drives behavior at a university and drives the quality of dialogue and discourse is just people’s thinking about: why am I here? What am I fundamentally involved in? Campuses should be places with deep curiosity about ideas and they should be places where you can take chances and test things out. And your research is a great example of this, Steve. You’ve done some research that was very controversial on issues that got people quite upset because you were pushing and testing ideas that went against the grain of how people necessarily wanted to think about things. And having a university that protects that kind of activity is so important because it might be right and it might change the way people think.
So you want people to come into a university to help them understand that about a campus, and tell them this is a place to be curious. This is a place to have an open mind. This is a place to try to engage with people who don’t think about things in the same way, to ask them questions. And it’s so important for the faculty to set that example in the classroom. And rules can get you so far there, but really that’s about culture. That’s about people’s expectations of: what does it mean to be a constructive member of this institution and be here and contribute to the learning of others? There’s an important role there for university leadership and there’s a very important role there for the faculty and there’s a very important role there for actually everyone who’s on the campus....”
Full podcast (58 minutes) at Freakonomics, including a written transcript.
Hate Endowment Taxes? Reform the University
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Now that the second Trump administration has begun, colleges are busy navigating what could be the most adversarial relationship between the presidency and higher education in American history.... One avenue that Republicans may pursue is to tax college endowments.... Rather than simply denouncing these developments, college leaders should work to understand why they came about -- and why they might be in a weaker position to fight them off than they imagine....
“There is nothing inevitable about endowments as a financial basis for education, and the vastness of the present endowments of the major American colleges is anomalous both in a comparative and historical perspective. Other countries’ universities have nothing like endowments of this size, when they have endowments at all. And historically U.S. college endowments were smaller and covered a smaller proportion of their overall costs. It is not a law of nature that societies be so permissive toward the accumulation of capital and property beyond the necessary operating expenses of educational institutions. Laws can be made that tightly condition the privileged tax position of endowed nonprofits on certain spending and institutional requirements; or that restrict or disincentivize gifts to colleges; or that simply stipulate that colleges distribute each year such a portion of their assets that their endowments dwindle. Measures of this sort were contemplated in this country a mere half-century ago in the deliberations that led up to the 1969 Tax Reform Act that placed heavier regulations on private foundations, and other liberal nations have policies in place that are designed to discourage endowment accumulation.
“Nor should we think of skepticism toward endowments as an intrinsically right-wing proposition, even if that is the direction from which hostility is coming at present. As I have noted before, what historians considered liberalism’s heyday saw liberal politicians and authors express wariness toward educational endowments and encourage the state to reform them. Arguably the greatest liberal statesman in history (not to mention one of the most devoted to education), William Gladstone, proposed removing the tax exemption from the endowments of charitable foundations, including schools and colleges. In this attitude, such figures were drawing on a venerable legacy. Animosity toward endowments of all sorts was a feature of the French Enlightenment, and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations included an extended discussion of how inappropriate endowments were for educational purposes, arguing that they insulated professors too much from the realities of market demand (or lack thereof) and left colleges ill-adapted in the long run to the needs of the population....
“Finally, and at the risk of stating the obvious, we should remind ourselves that exemption from taxation is a subsidy. To pay no or less tax than other similarly situated institutions or persons effectively increases the resources available to the exempt entity no less than receiving a direct financial grant from the government would. And it likewise increases the burden on others. As one report puts the matter plainly, 'the favorable tax treatment of private nonprofit and public higher education is a mechanism to transfer resources to higher education.' If colleges wish for their endowments to remain in this fiscally privileged position, what is needed is a set of justifications for the specific proposition that the current methods of financing higher education, which facilitate the development of institutions at once less reliant on consumer preferences and on government largesse, are so valuable that we should continue placing extra fiscal requirements on the rest of the public to preserve it, rather than simple denunciations of endowment taxes as attacks on education. After all, higher education is provided the world over, while American colleges almost alone enjoy such enormous untaxed or undertaxed resources....”
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Gregory Conti at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Censorship in the Sciences -- Interdisciplinary Perspectives
A three-day conference (January 10 through 12, 2025) was held at USC regarding censorship in the sciences. A full conference schedule is available here, and videos of all three days are now posted at YouTube:
Day One - "What Is Censorship and How Does It Operate?" and "Research Freedom versus Ethical Restraints"
Day Two - "Scientific Freedom versus Social Responsibility" and "Consequences of Censorship for Public and Society"
Day Three - "Censorship in Life Sciences and Medicine"
In addition, these presentations have been individually posted at YouTube:
We Must Defend Liberalism – Brookings Senior Fellow Jonathan Rauch
The Censorship Crisis Gripping Academia – ASU Prof. Emeritus Lawrence Krauss
The Rise of Women in Science and Society – Behavioral Scientist Cory Clark
How Woke Warriors Destroyed Anthropology – San Jose State Prof. Elizabeth Weiss
The Free Speech Recession and How to Reverse It – Danish Commentator Jacob Mchangama
Transgender Discourse & Censorship – Northwestern Prof. Michael Bailey
Mechanisms of Censorship in Academia – Stony Brook Prof. Musa al-Gharbi
Other Articles of Interest
Why I’m Celebrating the End of the DEI Era
“As a Black woman born into poverty in rural Virginia, I benefited tremendously from the Civil Rights Movement. But today’s DEI policies are not advancing that cause.”
Full op-ed by retired Vanderbilt and Princeton Prof. Carol M. Swain at Katie Couric Media.
Is Classroom Discussion a Dying Art?
Full article at Ed Surge.
Polarization Is Battering Campuses; Here Is How College Leaders Are Fighting Back
Full article at Higher Ed Dive.
America Needs New Science Standards
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars and also published at Real Clear Education.
Time to Abandon the College Lecture
Full op-ed at Vanderbilt Hustler.
Tracking Higher Ed’s Dismantling of DEI
Full article periodically updated 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
California Historical Society Archives Are Being Moved to Stanford
Includes 600,000 items as the 154-year-old society ends its operations.
Cancer-Fighting Compound Shows Immense Potential to Eradicate HIV
Stanford’s Multimodal AI Model Advances Personalized Cancer Care
Bigger Than Basketball -- Tara VanDerveer Launches Stanford Class
************
“At a university like Stanford, we give the faculty and the students extraordinary freedom to choose what they’re going to think about, what they’re going to write about, what they’re going to say. And there’s a reason for that, which is: that’s part of the freedom, the underlying freedom, that gives rise to great research.” – Pres. Jon Levin
January 27, 2025
Stanford Students Speak Up
Stanford’s Bureaucracy Undermines the University’s Academic Mission
Excerpts (links in the original):
"Stanford University stands at a crossroads. Once a beacon of innovation and academic excellence, it is now suffocating under the weight of its own bloated bureaucracy. Administrative growth has spiraled out of control, alienating students, frustrating faculty, and diverting resources from the university’s true mission.
"Over the past two decades, administrative staff have tripled, ballooning to nearly 17,000 employees -- almost outnumbering students. Yet this explosion of bureaucracy has made the university less functional, less innovative, and less aligned with its core mission.
“Former Provost John Etchemendy, in an interview with the Review, has been candid in his assessment of the university’s bloat. ‘When I first came to Stanford, I just felt that if you had a good idea, you could do it at Stanford -- anything was possible,’ Etchemendy said. ‘And now people will say that Stanford is a no-can-do university.' Faculty and students alike are drowning in a sea of red tape. Processes that should take minutes, such as the procurement of services for campus events, now drag on for weeks, weighed down by unnecessary layers of approvals and oversight.
“As one university insider put it, 'Its [administrative size] has grown too much. And it's actually hampering the mission of the university.' These layers of inefficiency don’t enhance the university -- they actively harm it....
“For faculty, simple tasks like securing research funding or hiring staff for labs have become ordeals. Each step involves multiple levels of approval, requiring sign-offs from finance, compliance, and legal departments. One administrator who wished to stay anonymous shared an experience where a straightforward grant reimbursement was delayed for weeks, bouncing back multiple times for minor clarifications, only to be approved in the end without any changes....
“For students, the burden is equally stifling. Administrative offices that should exist to support them have become regulatory mazes that punish them instead. Bob Ottilie, an alum who has long defended students in disciplinary cases with the Office of Community Standards (OCS), highlighted the absurdity of Stanford’s processes: ‘Instead of hiring a bunch of people to help educate students on risk...they [OCS] hire a bunch of people to prosecute you for offenses associated with the risk that they never spent any time trying to help you avoid.’
“A prime example of this is the coffee-throwing incident and the ensuing OCS investigation that now deceased Stanford soccer star Katie Meyer was subject to. Processes that could once be resolved with a quick conversation between students and an RA or dean now require extensive paperwork, hearings, and follow-ups....”
Full op-ed by Stanford senior Abhi Desai at our Stanford Concerns webpage. Also posted at Stanford Review. See also:
Challenges of Becoming a Less Hierarchical Organization at Harvard Business Review.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Flat Organizations at Business.com.
Fitter, Flatter, Faster -- How Unstructuring Your Organization Can Unlock Massive Value at McKinsey & Company website.
See also proposals to address these concerns at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
President Levin Confirms Daily Reporter Will Not Face Campus Disciplinary Action
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Stanford has dropped the disciplinary case against Daily reporter Dilan Gohill ’27, according to an email from President Jon Levin ’94 obtained by the Daily. Gohill had been detained last June while covering the occupation of Building 10 by pro-Palestinian protesters.
“‘I can confirm that this process is complete and resulted in no disciplinary action,’ Levin wrote to Ginny LaRoe, advocacy director at the First Amendment Coalition (FAC), and Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) in an email on Monday. The email was in response to a letter he received from FAC and the SPLC....
“Levin also wrote in the email that Stanford will let the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office ‘determine how to proceed based on the evidence it has assembled’ and will ‘leave that judgment up to the DA.’ …
Full article by Stanford sophomore Anna Yang at Stanford Daily, including comments subsquently posted; see also prior Daily article.
A PDF copy of the January 17, 2025 letter from national press advocacy groups to Pres. Levin is available here.
Alumni and Others Speak Up
2025 -- A Breakthrough Year for Free Speech on Campuses Nationwide
Excerpts (links in the original):
“It is now widely understood that for years many of our country’s colleges and universities have been losing their way; they are no longer bastions of the core values of free speech, open discourse, and academic freedom, nor are they focused on promoting learning and the advancement of knowledge. Instead, they have increasingly become focused on a specific agenda and advancing that agenda, in the process often repressing these core values.
“There have been individuals and institutions fighting back, trying to reform universities and to restore these core values, but it often seemed a lonely fight. Much of the effort was to support those who had been ‘cancelled.’ In more recent years the reform side gathered new advocates and began to coordinate. Existing organizations -- such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), and the Heterodox Academy (HxA) -- became stronger and expanded their efforts. Faculty across the country organized to form the Academic Freedom Alliance....
“In 2024, there was important movement on many fronts in the battle to restore universities to their historic and critical role. Yet still there were warning signs of the walls that had to be scaled. Greg Lukianoff, President of FIRE, has stated that, according to FIRE’s database, 2024 was the worst year ever for deplatforming attempts, such as shout downs and disinviting speakers, since FIRE started tracking them in 1998.
“There were many green shoots in 2024, but 2025 is sure to be a year of dynamic and disruptive change....”
[Followed by specific discussion of students, prospective students, parents and employers; faculty; alumni; Congressional action; regulatory action; and university administrations.]
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and co-founder of Princetonians for Free Speech Ed Yingling at our Commentary webpage. Also posted at the PFS website. We note that Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking is a member of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance which was started by the leaders of PFS; see also our Resources webpage for other websites and organizations.
Bias Reporting Systems Were a Nightmare on Campus, and Now They’re Everywhere
Excerpts (links in the origina):
“Neighbors reporting neighbors for speech that is protected under the First Amendment is textbook totalitarianism, and it must not be tolerated.
“As regular readers [of my Eternally Radical Idea postings at Substack] and followers of FIRE will know, I’ve been defending free speech on campus since 2001 -- nearly all of FIRE’s 25-year history. In 2022, FIRE expanded its mission, going from being the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This was in no small part because we grew more and more concerned that the free speech crises we were dealing with on campus could and would spill over to other areas of our country.
“That has actually been my biggest nightmare, and it has become reality in more ways than one. As I posted on X this morning, the word ‘fascist’ is overused, mainly for things that look nothing like fascism. Words have meanings, and ‘fascism’ is often invoked for a range of things -- from the very bad but nonetheless distinct idea of ‘authoritarianism’ to something more akin to ‘anything I don’t like.’ Hell, I’ve even heard people equate support for free speech with fascism, which is just about the most ahistorical assertion imaginable....
“I am speaking about bias reporting systems, sometimes called bias response teams, which are essentially snitch hotlines where people can report others for ‘offensive’ or ‘hateful’ speech. The act of doing this to your fellow Americans over protected speech would be bad enough, but these systems go further. They often consist not only of administrators, but also law enforcement. Your eyes are not deceiving you. These systems include law enforcement dedicated to ‘responding’ to reports on First Amendment-protected speech....
[Quoting from an article in Free Beacon:]
“In January 2020, the top law enforcement agency in the state of Oregon launched a ‘Bias Response Hotline’ for residents to report ‘offensive jokes.’
“Staffed by ‘trauma-informed operators’ and overseen by the Oregon Department of Justice, the hotline, which receives thousands of calls a year, doesn’t just solicit reports of hate crimes and hiring discrimination. It also asks for reports of ‘bias incidents’ -- cases of ‘non-criminal’ expression that are motivated, ‘in part,’ by prejudice or hate.
“Oregonians are encouraged to report their fellow citizens for things like ‘creating racist images,’ ‘mocking someone with a disability,’ and ‘sharing offensive jokes about someone’s identity.’ One webpage affiliated with the hotline, which is available in 240 languages, even lists ‘imitating someone’s cultural norm’ as something ‘we want to hear’ about....
[Followed by additional examples in Connecticut, Philadelphia, California and elsewhere.]
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff at Substack.
See also “Stanford’s Program re Title VI/Bias” at our Stanford Concerns webpage regarding Stanford’s own bias reporting system that was modified in September 2024 but appears to still use the same computerized case management system as was previously used and that, if true, maintains permanent records about the speech and actions of students and others that may be reported from time to time.
See also “Stanford’s Program re Speech,” also at our Stanford Concerns webpage, that includes a PDF copy of the list of words and phrases Stanford’s IT department created (who originally authorized this and how much time did they spend on it?) and which reportedly has been deleted but some at Stanford say still is being used by some administrators and staff.
Should What Happens in the Classroom Stay in the Classroom?
Excerpts (links in the original):
“If 2024 is remembered as the year when ‘DEI’ was deservedly put on the defensive and institutional neutrality gained traction as a long overdue higher-ed reform, what big changes could 2025 bring?
“Some hope this will be the year when ‘the Chatham House Rule’ takes academia by storm....
[Followed by discussion of the history and use of the Chatham House Rule]
“Solveig Lucia Gold, a Senior Fellow in Education and Society for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (or ACTA), calls it a ‘pro-speech policy that is ripe and ready for prime time’ in this new Real Clear Education piece.
[Quoting from the Gold article:]
“Harvard’s ‘Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue’ working group recommended that the university’s various schools consider adopting the Chatham House Rule -- a recommendation that was accepted by the president and provost and endorsed by most (though not all) of the Harvard Crimson’s editorial board. Now it’s up to individual faculty members at Stanford and the deans of Harvard’s schools to follow through....”
Full op-ed at Alumni Free Speech Alliance "Alma Matters" website.
The Courage to Disagree in Academia
Excerpts (links in the original):
“If a college education doesn’t teach students to disagree constructively with status quo opinions and perspectives then then it’s not fulfilling its mission. Yet too often this is precisely what happens. Colleges and universities were established on the premise of open inquiry, critical thinking, discovery, and invention. The courses students take typically expose them to new, unfamiliar topics and ways of thinking. Students who are open and curious often find that these exposures trigger questions, including questions about the disciplinary status quo that they are being taught. If colleges do not honor students’ openness and curiosity and encourage their questioning of the status quo, then they are not properly performing their function.
“Challenging the academic status quo involves asking questions and introducing new perspectives or explanations that interrogate and even threaten dominant ideologies or frameworks. For example, is racism always the reason for racial disparities in academic achievement among students? Or, how does one determine which, if any, aspects of school curriculum are so influenced by white supremacist ideology that they require ‘decolonization’? Asking such questions does not indicate condemnation or dismissal, but rather the motivation to develop a critical, multifaceted understanding of these and other issues.
“I’m a professor in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. I’m a proponent of the work of Dr. Craig L. Frisby, Professor Emeritus of School Psychology at the University of Missouri, because it challenges the orthodoxy that has saturated school psychology research and practice. In his book, Meeting the Psychoeducational Needs of Minority Students, he addresses how contemporary school psychology research is focused on portraying racial and ethnic minority students as individuals who are endlessly victimized by racism, microaggressions, discrimination, and systemic oppression in schools at the hands of educators and administrators. Although these are certainly real forces that affect some students, an extreme emphasis on these particular topics reflects an ideological and political bias of many researchers. The dominant perspective in school psychology risks doing a real disservice to the very students it purports to help because it encourages all minority students to see themselves as helpless victims with no control over their lives. The problem is that this ‘in essence absolves them from any personal responsibility or accountability for life outcomes’ (p. 34) ….
“As I reflect upon the state of academic free speech, I am reminded of a comment that a colleague once made to me early in my career as a professor: ‘As professors, our job is to think.’ That comment deeply resonated with me. Most of our days are taken up with teaching, service, and publishing, but the core of our job, our real job, is to think objectively and critically about topics that concern our field. Objective, critical, and of course intellectually humble thinking allows us to ponder the multitude of ways in which an issue can be solved while simultaneously being open to the reality that we could be wrong. Although it can be scary to do so in an academic environment that is very much politically lopsided, we owe it to ourselves and to our students to have the courage to disagree and the courage to challenge the academic status quo.”
Full op-ed by UC Santa Barbara Prof. Miriam E. Thompson at Journal of Free Black Thought.
Everything a University Does Can Be Done in Half the Time for Half the Cost
Excerpts (links in the original):
“When I was a business executive and CEO in the transportation and technology sector, we used a concept called ‘lean thinking.’ This concept is a manufacturing philosophy developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Jim Womack, who has been called the ‘Godfather of Lean,’ a nickname that stemmed from his work as a consultant to the Japanese automobile industry. While bringing the industry back to the United States, Womack helped transform our automotive industry into one of the best in the world. ‘Lean thinking’ means always looking for ways to reduce waste and improve quality while continuously lowering costs. It particularly focuses on time management and doing things faster than you thought possible. This takes discipline and leadership, but the results can be astonishing.
“Why not apply lean management methods to our universities?
“The U.S. bachelor’s degree takes students four years to complete. It can easily be done in three years, or even two if you include the summer semesters. The same goes for graduate professional degrees. The MBA can be finished in one year. The J.D. degree can easily be done in two years or even one full year. The M.P.P. is usually a two-year graduate track, but it is antiquated and will be decommissioned. That leaves the medical degree or M.D. There is nothing sacrosanct about it either, and even New York University (NYU) has cut it down to three years. With the right undergraduate preparation and focus, it can be done in two years, getting doctors where they need to be—working. Indeed, paralegals in law and nurse practitioners in medicine can do at least 50 percent of what their fully credentialed superiors do, and they can do so for a fraction of the cost. In business, the undergrad business major from schools like the University of Texas McCombs School and many others are very competitive, and they are more efficient programs for gaining technical skills like financial accounting.
“Then there’s the Ph.D. In the United Kingdom, it’s a three-year program. It’s twice as long in the United States, and in the Humanities, it is not unusual to see a candidate spend up to eight years....
“Lean business thinking can bring enormous benefits to education because it forces us to ask basic questions about how we do things, what they cost, and how to improve 'throughput.' Because education, at an institutional level, is very much like manufacturing, the throughput concept is relevant and helpful in understanding education production, cost, and efficiency....”
Full op-ed at Minding the Campus.
Other Articles of Interest
Stanford to Review DEI Programs Following Trump’s Executive Orders
Full article at Stanford Daily.
Wanted: More Young Men Enrolling in College
Full article at Deseret News.
Can Cornell Alumni Steer Their University Away from Campus Madness?
Full op-ed at National Review.
Harvard Settles It’s Title VI Antisemitism Lawsuits
Full article at The Hill.
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
AI Agents Simulate 1,052 Individuals’ Personalities with Impressive Accuracy
Stanford Launches NIH-Funded Study on Gut-Brain Connection in Parkinson’s Disease
Brain-Cell ‘Periodic Table’ for Psychiatric Disorders Reveals New Schizophrenia Clues
What We Know About the Health Effects of Wildfire
************
"Education requires confrontation with ideas that we don’t like. Part of education is unsettling people’s considered opinions and getting them to think in new ways and learn from ideas that are outside their comfort zone." -- Prof. Debra Satz, Dean of Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences
January 20, 2025
Judge Rebukes Stanford Misinformation Expert for Using ChatGPT to Draft Testimony
Editor’s note: This is an update to a previous article that was in our Newsletter dated December 23, 2024. We also note that the faculty member who is the subject of these articles was and remains the faculty supervisor of Stanford Internet Observatory, the activities of which have been the subject of ongoing concerns both at Stanford and nationwide.
We further note that SIO and Stanford itself are named defendants in several cases around the country, including one or more cases that may eventually make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of California’s labor, corporate and other laws, Stanford may have obligations to defend former and current members of the SIO staff, something that could be extremely expensive and, if true, would be paid from the university’s general funds absent government contracts and private donations that allowed payment for these types of legal costs.
The point is, the 100 to 300 centers, incubators, accelerators and similar entities at Stanford come with their own financial and reputational risks. See our Back to Basics at Stanford with suggestions as to ways to possibly address these types of concerns.
See also “Stanford’s Roles in Censoring the Web” at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage including this link regarding the past funding and operations of SIO.
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A federal district judge issued a harsh rebuke and tossed out the testimony of a Stanford misinformation expert who submitted a court document, under penalty of perjury, containing misinformation in a Minnesota election law case.
“Jeff Hancock, who specializes in ‘research on how people use deception with technology,’ was retained by the office of Attorney General Keith Ellison to submit expert testimony defending Minnesota’s new law banning election deepfakes, which was signed in 2023 and updated the following year.
“After Hancock filed written testimony last November, attorneys for plaintiffs Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, and YouTuber Christopher Kohls noticed that the document contained several citations to academic articles that do not exist.
“The plaintiffs moved to have the testimony thrown out, and Hancock subsequently filed a document admitting he used a version of ChatGPT to draft the testimony, which included the non-existent citations, known among AI researchers as 'AI hallucinations.' The Attorney General’s Office argued Hancock should be allowed to file an amended declaration containing correct, non-hallucinated citations....
“Hancock is billing the Attorney General’s office $600 an hour for his services, according to a copy of the contract obtained by the Reformer under a Data Practices Act request, with billing capped at $49,000....”
Full article at Minnesota Reformer, and a PDF copy of the January 10, 2025 ruling can be found here.
About the Growth of Administrative Staff at Universities Nationwide
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“In recent decades, the growth in university bureaucracies has far outpaced the growth in faculties and student bodies. Department of Education data shows that, between 1993 and 2009, college admin positions grew by 60 percent, a rate ten times that of tenured faculty. Moreover, between 1987 and 2012, the number of administrators at private schools doubled, while their numbers public university systems rose by a factor of 34. Overall, colleges added more than half a million administrators and then even more in the decade after that. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects their number to grow by 7 percent a year between 2021 and 2031.
“Around 2010, schools started employing more administrators than full-time instructors. Through the following decade, some, especially elite places such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, and MIT even started having more administrators than students. Yale's administration rolls grew by 45 percent in 2003–21, expanding at a rate nearly three times faster than that of the undergraduate student body. At Stanford, administration grew by 30 percent in 2017–22 alone, with the biggest growth coming in the first full pandemic year of 2020–21. Stanford now has nearly twice as many nonteaching staff as undergrads and nearly six times as many as faculty. The ratios tend to be lower at public schools, but still, administrative growth at UCLA has far outpaced growth in other sectors, so there are now four times as many staff as faculty....”
Full op-ed at Reason. And for more detailed numbers at Stanford, see “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage and possible solutions at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
AI Finds Widespread Bias in Stanford's Required Reading and Writing Classes
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . . .
“First for some context, under the [Programme in Writing and Rhetoric] students are mandated to choose from two classes over their freshman and sophomore years. These classes include ‘The Rhetoric of Plants,’ investigating ‘how plants can be a markers for social inequality,’ ‘The Politics of Pleasure, Love and Joy,’ where students explore 'the politics of sexual pleasure, heteronormative structures of joy, decolonization of joy, and love under capitalism,’ or the ‘Rhetoric of Ethnic narratives’ to learn ‘how biracial and bicultural people define their ethnicity.’...
“Notably, the issue is not that we are having discussions involving oppression, inequality and anti-imperialist perspectives on the indigenous communities' use of psychedelics. (which are all real class discussions). Nor do I have a qualm with the quality of instruction: PWR lecturers are dedicated and eminently intelligent. The issue arises when the only topics and conclusions PWR deems worthy of teaching are aligned with the unique philosophical tradition of critical theory and grievance studies. When alternative centrist viewpoints and opposition to extreme views are bereft from curricula, PWR devolves into radically progressive opinions masquerading as mandatory introduction to writing and research classes....
“If the Western canon and classical conceptions of critical thinking were more universally taught, PWR students would likely realize the infamous aspiration of John Stuart Mill encapsulated in the lines ‘He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.’
“We cannot maintain the platitude that there is still room for debate when we overwhelmingly teach one set of opinions and facts in introductory classes. By broadening the range of perspectives in PWR classes, Stanford has an opportunity to foster a more inclusive and robust intellectual environment. This would not only enrich students' understanding but also uphold the university's commitment to rigorous and open academic inquiry.”
Full op-ed at Stanford Review
Letter to the Incoming President from FIRE’s CEO
Headings:
1. Support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act
2. Address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies that erode free speech
3. Rein in government jawboning
4. Protect First Amendment rights in the regulation of AI technologies
Full text of letter from Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff here
Colleges Are Businesses -- A Budget and Business Forecast
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Oftentimes, those concerned with the state of higher education get wrapped up -- rightly so -- in bringing awareness to the loss of rigor, excellence, and pursuit of merit in academia. However, there is another facet of higher education forgotten right under our noses.
“A former business professor of mine, and vice president of the college I attended, never let his students forget a simple fact: colleges are businesses. Though a liberal arts education, emphasizing the pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty, is paramount to becoming a virtuous citizen, we cannot forget that any college or university must be run well to teach students and achieve its academic mission. Whether you agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, there is an indisputable element of truth -- good business practices make for more successful institutions in the long-run. I would add, an eye to economic trends is also imperative....
“California governor Gavin Newsom revealed last week a $322 billion budget plan for the state with a mixed bag for higher education. Some higher ed administrators expressed dismay over the proposed 2025-26 fiscal budget slashes to ongoing state funding, including an almost eight percent reduction -- i.e., $375 million -- to the California State University system, and $271 million slashed from the University of California system....”
[Followed by discussion of specific colleges and specific states, potential federal cutbacks and predictions of other future actions.]
Full op-ed at National Association of Scholars
What It Takes to Be an Effective Education Scholar
Excerpts:
“On [January 16], I’ll be publishing the 2025 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings, tracking the 200 education scholars who had the biggest influence on the nation’s education discourse last year. Today, I want to take a few moments to explain the nature of the exercise. (I’ll reveal the scoring formula tomorrow.)
“I start from two simple premises: 1) Ideas matter, and 2) People devote more time and energy to those activities that are valued. The academy today does a passable job of acknowledging good disciplinary scholarship but a poor job of recognizing scholars who move ideas from the pages of barely read journals into the real world of policy and practice. This may not matter much when it comes to the study of physics or Renaissance poetry, but it does if we hope to see researchers contribute to education policy and practice. Of course, it’s vital that those same scholars engage constructively and acknowledge the limits of their expertise.
“After all, I’m no wild-eyed enthusiast when it comes to academic research. I don’t think policy or practice should be driven by the whims of researchers. I think that researchers inevitably bring their own biases, that decisions around education policy and practice are value-laden, and that decisions should therefore be driven by more than the latest study.
“That said, I absolutely believe that scholars can play an invaluable role when it comes to asking hard questions, challenging lazy conventions, scrutinizing the real-world impact of yesterday’s reforms, and examining how things might be done better. Doing so requires both that scholars engage in these endeavors and that they do so in responsible ways. Of course, while it’s incredibly tough to evenhandedly assess how constructively they’re playing this role, it’s more feasible to gauge which scholars are wielding the most influence. From there, we can make our own judgments about whether their contributions add value to the public discourse....
“The contemporary academy offers many professional rewards for scholars who stay in their comfort zone and pursue narrow, hypersophisticated research, but few for five-tool scholars. One result is that the public square is filled with impassioned voices (including scholars who act more like advocates than academics), while we hear far less than I’d like from careful, scrupulous researchers who are interested in unpacking complexities and explaining hard truths....”
Full op-ed at Education Next
Other Articles of Interest
Limitations on DEI Will Likely Accelerate in 2025
“Though the Department of Education has spent over $1 billion on DEI grants since 2021, the incoming Trump administration is poised to cut federal spending and potentially abolish the department.”
Full article at Campus Reform
The Number of 18-Year-Olds Is About to Drop Sharply, with Significant Impact on Colleges and the Economy
Full article at Hechinger Report. But also see “College Freshman Enrollment Is Up, Not Down; Error Led to Undercount” at Washington Post
University of Washington Alumni Seek to Revive the Spirit of Free Inquiry
Full article at FIRE website
Is Higher Education Inevitably Stuck in the Past?
Full book review at James G. Martin Center
The College Student Mental Health Epidemic
Full article at Yale Alumni Magazine
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
From Graduate School of Business: Is a Lack of Corporate Competition Stifling the U.S. Economy?
From School of Medicine: AI Predicts Cancer Prognoses and Possible Responses to Treatment
From Stanford Law School: Want to Save Democracy? Start by Reforming the Criminal Legal System
************
“Freedom of communication is indispensable for the development and extension of scientific knowledge ... it must be guaranteed by law. But laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man may present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population." -- Albert Einstein
January 13, 2025
Reflections of a Stanford Alum
Excerpts (links in the original):
“I started at Stanford Law School in 1997. I don't say this to note how old I am, but rather to point out that my tenure there was just two years after the notorious Stanford Law School speech code was defeated, in a court case called Corry v. Stanford University (FIRE Executive Vice President Nico Perrino interviewed the case’s namesake, Rob Corry, for the So to Speak podcast back in 2017, which I encourage you to check out!).
“Stanford is a private university, which would normally mean that it isn’t beholden to First Amendment standards. However, after the passing of a 1992 California Education Code statute known as the Leonard Law, this was no longer the case. Named after its legislative sponsor Sen. William R. Leonard, the Leonard Law essentially extends some (but not all) First Amendment protections to students at non-religious, private institutions of higher education in California. It was passed to prevent universities like Stanford . . . from adopting a politically correct speech code -- which by then was increasingly seen as a relic of the excessively politically-correct 1980s and early 1990s, and which would infringe upon the free speech rights of students....
“It was only in 2001, when I began working as the first legal director for FIRE, that I started to understand the true nature of speech codes like these. Going back all the way to the 1960s, and accelerating through the 1970s and 80s, all attempts to regulate speech with what might be called ‘politically correct speech codes’ used anti-discrimination as their rationale....
“Unfortunately there are plenty of examples of precisely the kind of thing I’m talking about here. Carole Hooven, for instance, was forced out of Harvard for having the opinion that biological sex is real. Also at Harvard, Roland Fryer was targeted for publishing a study that found no racial differences in the frequency of officer-involved shootings. At Stanford, Jay Bhattacharya was targeted for questioning mask and vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the University of Pittsburgh, Associate Professor of Cardiology Norman Wang’s teaching privileges were revoked because he published a research paper examining the potential harms of affirmative action policies. The list goes on.
“When the general public witnesses incidents like these, they are eventually going to come to the realization that dissent is not tolerated in higher education. It will be a clear sign to them that these institutions are holding ideological conformity above free inquiry, open debate, and intellectual diversity. As a result, the public will no longer trust any ‘truths’ or ‘information’ our institutions enshrine or disseminate. This is terrible -- not just for the institutions themselves, but also for our ability to rely on expertise and, most importantly, our ability to discover knowledge....”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff at Substack.
See also Greg Lukianoff “There’s Cause for Optimism on Campus Free Speech” at Dispatch.
See also former Stanford President Gerhard Casper, “Statement on Corry vs. Stanford University” at our Stanford Speaks webpage
How Trustees Can Bring Viewpoint Diversity Back to Their Universities
Editor’s note: We present the following op-ed because it raises some important issues about intellectual diversity at colleges and universities today. On the other hand, we question a fundamental concept that underlies much of what is discussed in the op-ed, which is that trustees and regents should play a more direct role in the academic activities of a given college or university.
We remind readers that most campuses operate with the concept of shared governance. That is, the trustees are fiduciaries for the facilities and the endowment, have a direct role in hiring and firing the president and sometimes other senior officers, and usually review and approve the budgets. Sitting inside that structure is a separate professional body that consists of the faculty, usually with its own rules of governance and operating in the form of an academic senate or similar body and which is usually in charge of the academic activities of the relevant college or university. We also have serious concerns about one of the author's proposals as a way to overcome the current situation, which is the creation of centers that are focused on the perspectives and desires of donors, and in fact, we think that is a large source of the problems at modern universities, including Stanford, NOT a solution. See Back to Basics at Stanford.
That said, we agree that trustees and regents need to be better informed about what the president and other senior administrators are doing with respect to the college or university. And like directors of all other nonprofit and for-profit entities, they should regularly sample the activities of the college or university and quiz senior administrators whether they agree or disagree with those activities. There also are obligations of trustees and regents, acting as fiduciaries, when approving budgets and allocating funds, looking at performance ratios such as the number of administrators as compared to the number of faculty and students, the costs of overhead imposed on research, the ranges of salaries of administrators and staff, the adequacy and costs of facilities and support systems and the like.
Trustees, regents and senior administrators also have obligations to interact with faculty when the school's teaching and research are losing the support of alumni, government and other funders, parents, students and other essential constituents. See, for example, last week's Newsletter dated January 6, 2025 that had links to a long list of articles showing the major cutbacks already taking place this year at elite and other colleges and universities, all of which are clear warning signs for what lies ahead.
Excerpt (endnotes deleted):
“There is no issue more important for higher education than ensuring the free exchange of ideas. Acquiring and teaching knowledge requires the ability to expose facts, theories, and beliefs to intense investigation without political pressure.
“Unfortunately, the American campus is in danger of lapsing into a rigidly partisan mentality. In many places, it has already done so; at times, it seems that the ideological bias of higher education is so great that its institutions are beyond reforming.
“This rigidity of mind did not appear overnight. Higher education, which depends on collegiality and consensus among faculty, seems especially prone to groupthink -- a gradual process in which ‘majoritarianism tends to produce ideological conformity in a department,’ according to former National Association of Scholars president Steve Balch. Since a large majority of faculty already lean to the left, groupthink puts constant pressure in that direction on all....”
[Followed by these topics: Subversive principles in higher education, ideological imbalance in practice, the public-private distinction, the board problem, a reform that would empower boards, board structure and control, direct board action, improving the intellectual environment, take control out of the wrong hands, employment, and conclusion.]
Full op-ed at Manhattan Institute website
From the Archives
Stanford’s War on Fun
Editor’s note: In this new feature, we will present from time-to-time past articles from our Newsletters and postings at our website. Today, we are taking excerpts from then-freshman Theo Baker’s October 24, 2022 Stanford Daily article, “Inside Stanford's War on Fun” along with this commentary that has long been posted at our website, combined with indications that Stanford's new leadership is already addressing these types of concerns.
Commentary at our website: In addition to the main theme of this October 2022 Daily article about student social life at Stanford, reprinted below, a number of us were struck with a secondary theme regarding what comes across as a climate of fear, stonewalling and retaliation. These words and phrases are in the order they appear in the Daily article, including the redundancies:
Has exerted pressure ~ Lack of communication ~ Adversarial approach ~ Broadly declined comment ~ Communication … broke down ~ There was no guidance ~ Lack of communication ~ Declined to comment ~ Bureaucratic nightmare ~ Requested anonymity because much of the group’s funding is supplied by the office they criticized ~ You feel like you're being audited by the IRS ~ Excessively bureaucratic ~ Burnt out ~ Did not respond ~ Requested anonymity after supervisors warned staff against communicating with reporters ~ Requested anonymity because of [office] policy ~ Requested anonymity in fear of retaliation from superiors ~ Declined to comment ~ Did not respond ~ Couldn’t speak to that ~ Declined to be interviewed fearing retribution for being associated with criticisms of the University ~ The perception would be terrible if I’m associated in any way ~ Were similarly skittish ~ Walked out of an interview after being told he couldn’t review the article in advance ~ Any conversations with the media ‘need to be cleared by me first’ ~ Declined to comment ~ Have to be hyper-cautious ~ They hired outside lawyers to investigate.
Excerpts (links added):
. . .
“Students interviewed said discontent about campus social life has been on the rise since last winter, but discourse was kicked into high gear in the spring when San Francisco magazine Palladium published an article called ‘Stanford’s War on Social Life’ written by then-senior Ginevra Davis. (A derivative of that article’s title, the ‘war on fun,’ was a term used by multiple students to refer to the University’s approach to social events.)
“Though the article drew some criticism for its portrayal of Greek life as an innocent actor in the University’s alleged ‘war on fun,’ the article also galvanized outrage over the steady decline of spontaneity. The piece was followed by other student articles in campus publications, including an op-ed earlier this month in The Stanford Review titled ‘Take Stanford Back: A Call to Revitalize Fun.’
“The Daily spoke with three employees of the Office of Substance Use Programs Education & Resources (SUPER) who requested anonymity after supervisors warned staff against communicating with reporters, according to emails provided to The Daily. One employee characterized the new alcohol policy as ‘hopelessly out of touch with reality’ and ‘absolute s**t.’ Students interviewed agreed, broadly characterizing it as an unhelpful, adversarial system.
“One Resident Assistant (RA), who requested anonymity because of an Office of Residential Education policy preventing RAs from speaking with reporters, explained that ‘a lot of [Resident Fellows] in the neighborhood have said, ‘This is the University’s policy on alcohol and drugs, let’s make our own policy.’ [They] are telling us, don’t worry about half of this stuff.’ When asked about RFs disavowing University alcohol policy, Harris declined to comment.
“Another RA vented that ‘people are still drinking, their doors are just closed. And that leads to people who are drinking for the first time who don’t know their limits,’ whom RAs can’t help...."
Full article at Stanford Daily (October 24, 2022)
See also Stanford’s current website that contains what apparently are still the policies and procedures for holding a party, and you wonder why students complain about a lack of spontaneity? Also consider, how many staff people, and at what cost, administer all of this? And how is it possible that contemporaries of Stanford students who attend non-residential colleges and universities somehow do just fine without this sort of micromanagement? As noted above, we trust that Stanford's new leadership is already addressing these concerns.
Other Articles of Interest
Recently Adopted Title IX Regs Blocked Nationwide; Here’s What That Might Mean
Full articles at Chronicle of Higher Education, at National Association of Scholars website and at Title IX for All website
AAUP Survey Shows Faculty Feel They Have Less Academic Freedom Than Six Years Ago
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education including a link to a PDF copy of the report. See also FIRE’s recent survey of faculty with similar findings.
Three Reasons to be Optimistic for 2025
Full op-ed at Campus Reform
Yale Free Speech Survey Suggests Change Is in the Air
Full article at Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA) Substack website
Three-Year Medical Schools Are Coming
Full op-ed at James Martin Center
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
Five Books to Help You Disagree Productively in 2025
Report Outlines Stanford Principles for Use of AI
In Stanford’s Practical Ethics Club, Students Examine Life’s Moral Complexities
Hoover Initiative Addresses the Erosion of Trust in American Institutions
Economics Major Expanded to Better Suit Different Career Paths
Researchers Use AI to Help Predict and Identify Subtypes of Type 2 Diabetes
Blood Test Can Predict How Long Vaccine Immunity Will Last
A New Ultrathin Conductor for Nanoelectronics
*************
“We need to encourage real diversity of thought in the professoriate, and that will be even harder to achieve. It is hard for anyone to acknowledge high-quality work when that work is at odds, perhaps opposed, to one’s own deeply held beliefs. But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth. It is absolutely essential to the quality of our enterprise.” – Former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy
January 6, 2025
College Faculty Are More Likely to Self-Censor Now Than at the Height
of McCarthyism
Excerpt (link in the original):
“For a number of faculty members, the threat of censorship is so pervasive on campuses across America that not even the cloak of anonymity is enough to make them feel safe expressing their ideas. This year, FIRE surveyed 6,269 faculty members at 55 major colleges and universities for “Silence in the Classroom: The 2024 FIRE Faculty Survey Report,” the largest faculty free speech survey ever performed.
“What we found shocked even us here at FIRE. A deeply entrenched atmosphere of silence and fear is endemic across higher education.
“We found that self-censorship on US campuses is currently four times worse than it was at the height of the McCarthy era. Today, 35% of faculty say they have toned down their written work for fear of causing controversy. In a major survey conducted in 1954, the height of McCarthyism, by the sociologists Paul Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens, only 9% of social scientists said the same.
“In fact, the problem is so bad that some academics were afraid even to respond to our already anonymous survey for fear of retaliation. Some asked us by email, or in their free response replies, to keep certain details they shared private. Some asked us to direct all correspondence to a private personal email. Others reached out beforehand just to confirm the results would truly be anonymous. Still others simply refused to speak at all....”
Executive summary at FIRE website
PDF copy of the full report available here including specific numbers for Stanford (page 61)
See also “Professors’ Self-Censoring Has Consequences” at Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA) Substack website
Deficits and Cutbacks from Around the Country
Editor’s note: The following is a mere sample of articles appearing in recent months. We present them here not to say that Stanford itself may have financial challenges (it might or might not), but rather that all of higher education is facing a moment of truth and when political, social and now financial issues have come to the forefront. The winners will be those colleges and universities that address the issues with honesty that is backed by facts and effective, long-term actions. We also bring readers attention to “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage and proposed corrective actions at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage. It would be tone deaf to say that Stanford is so wealthy that none of these issues are of concern.
USC Is Facing a $158 Million Deficit This Year
Full article at Campus Reform
Brown Is Facing a $46 Million Deficit This Year
Full articles at Inside Higher Ed and at Real Clear Education
Harvard Medical School Is Facing a $26 Million Deficit This Year
Full article at Harvard Crimson
Harvard Is Facing a $151 Million Decline in Donations This Year
Full article at Harvard Crimson
Boston University Is Suspending Admissions for Humanities and Social Sciences PhD Programs (American and New England studies, anthropology, classical studies, English, history, history of art and architecture, linguistics, philosophy, political science, religion, Romance studies and sociology)
Full article at Inside Higher Ed
Colleges in Crisis - Had Prior Warning Signs
Full article at NBC News and Hechinger Report
Colleges Slash Majors - An Effort to Cut Costs
Full article at CBS News
Three More Major Universities Reveal Plans for Budget Cuts (Penn State, U Connecticut, U New Hampshire)
Full article at Forbes (January 2024)
U.S. Colleges Cut Programs Because of Budget Deficits, Fewer Students
Full article at Voice of America
More Academic Cuts - May 2024 Edition
Full article at Bryan Alexander website
Ohio State's Potential Budget Cuts in Athletics Could Be a Canary in the Coal Mine
Full article at Extra Points website (August 2024)
Watchlist of Schools in Trouble
Full article at Scholarship Foundation website
Other Articles of Interest
Is University Worth It? Yes, for Both Students and Society
Full op-ed by York President Rhonda Lenton at The Conversation
Association of American Medical Colleges Pushes for DEI ‘To Be Embedded in Everything’
Full article at Daily Wire
Do No Harm Releases Report Showing How Association of American Medical Colleges Has Been Politicizing Medical Education (MCAT, applications, admissions, curriculum, accreditation, licensing, lobbying and more)
Full article and link to PDF copy of the full report, "Activism Over Meritocracy," at Do No Harm website
What Today’s Economics Students Aren’t Learning About Economics
Full op-ed by Texas Tech Prof. Alexander William Salter
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
Predictions for AI in 2025 - Collaborative Agents, AI Skepticism and New Risks
Five Tips for Keeping Winter Bugs at Bay
How Cellular Neighbors Shape the Aging Brain
Students Help Archivists Preserve the Past
More Beans, Peas, Lentils - A Nutrition Expert’s Take on New Guidelines
************
"Critical thinking is not something you do once with an issue and then drop it. It requires that we update our knowledge as new information comes in." - McGill Prof. Emeritus Daniel Levitin
December 23, 2024
Why Harvard Faculty Are Leaving the University to Pursue Their Work Elsewhere
Editor’s note: There are growing concerns that prominent faculty members nationwide, especially in engineering and the hard sciences, are finding that the bureaucracies at their universities as well as the bloated overhead have reached a point where they would prefer doing their research and other work elsewhere. Some have said they will continue teaching, but for free and as a contribution to the next generations, but that remaining at their universities was no longer worth the time and cost. We hope this trend will not take hold at Stanford. In that regard, see our long-existing webpages Back to Basics at Stanford and
Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy.
Excerpts:
“Not infrequently, companies lure professors to highly paid positions directing scientific research in pharmaceuticals, technology, and related fields. But the recent departures of some leading Harvard scientists deeply committed to improving human health point to a different phenomenon: challenges to conducting translational life-sciences research in academic settings. Given the University’s emphasis on and investment in the life sciences and biomedical discovery, these scientists’ differing decisions suggest emerging issues and concerns about current constraints and the future of such research.
“Applying for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants can take a substantial portion of an investigator’s time, and as much as a year can pass between a submission deadline and the point when funds are received and disbursed by the recipient’s home institution. With the NIH the dominant funding source for university biomedical research, what’s at stake is not only the ability of academic institutions to remain at the cutting edge of biomedical discovery, but also their ability to attract and train the next generation of scientific talent. The typical for-profit pharmaceutical or biotechnology company can move far more quickly and mobilize vastly greater resources -- from top-notch facilities to copious funding -- enabling the private sector to rapidly move basic science research discoveries to the point of clinical application. Increasingly, researchers committed to improving human health wonder whether working within the constraints of university research settings is really in the public interest....”
[Followed by interviews of specific Harvard faculty members and others]
Full article at Harvard Magazine
Federal Court in Louisiana Allows Case to Move Forward Against Stanford and Stanford Internet Observatory
Editor’s note: We are posting this story not to embarrass Stanford but rather to again highlight the dangers of censorship activities, especially when funded by and coordinated with government agencies while using Stanford as a way to shield the activities and drawing upon the prestige of the Stanford name. These activities also again demonstrate the risks of Stanford's estimated 100 to 200 centers, accelerators and incubators that are not primarily engaged in the front-line teaching and cutting-edge, peer-review research of tenured members of the faculty but instead are largely run by third parties and who are engaged primarily or even exclusively in political and social advocacy and implementation activities. We would hope that Stanford can find a way to admit what took place here while limiting the university’s financial and reputational exposures and thereby bring closure to these matters once and for all.
Excerpts (link in the original):
“From Hines v. Stamos [Stanford, et al.], decided [December 18, 2024] by Judge Terry Doughty (W.D. La.):
“‘This case stems from Defendants' alleged participation in censoring Plaintiffs' speech on social media. Defendants are ‘nonprofits, academic institutions, and researchers alleged to have been involved in examining the issue of the viral spread of disinformation on social-media and the resulting harms to society.’ Plaintiffs are social media users, each with significant followings, who allege that the acts of Defendants caused Plaintiffs' disfavored viewpoints to be censored -- namely their speech concerning COVID-19 and elections. As a result of this alleged past and ongoing censorship, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and ‘others similarly situated,’ against Defendants….
“The court didn't agree with plaintiffs that they had conclusively established that the federal court in Louisiana had personal jurisdiction over defendants -- but it did conclude that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts that would justify further discovery as to personal jurisdiction....
“'Plaintiffs have alleged -- to the point of ‘possible existence’-- that the Stanford Defendants effectuated censorship in Louisiana by ‘assigning analyst[s] specifically to Louisiana, determining whether speech originated in Louisiana, tracking the speech's spread from Louisiana, and communicating with state officials in Louisiana about supposed disinformation.’ And as such, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Stanford Defendants' online activities may support personal jurisdiction. Limited jurisdictional discovery is thus necessary to show to what extent Defendants' online activities were ‘directed’ at the forum state....”
Full article by UCLA Prof. Emeritus and Hoover Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh at Reason, including a note that one of the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs in this case is expected to be nominated as Solicitor General of the United States.
And here's an additional excerpt taken directly from the court’s order, citations deleted: “... we find that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient allegations to put beyond mere conjecture or suggestion that Defendants [including Stanford and Stanford Internet Observatory], through their participation in the Election Integrity Project and Virality Project, caused Plaintiffs to be censored on social media platforms. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were active participants, if not architects, of a vast censorship scheme, and -- in collaboration with government officials -- actively monitored, targeted, and ultimately induced social media platforms to censor Plaintiffs’ speech (among many others) ….”
See also Part 4 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage, “Greater Control Must Be Exercised Over the Centers, Accelerators, Incubators and Similar Entities and Activities at Stanford.”
See also “Stanford’s Roles in Censoring the Web” at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage and where, for convenience, we also have posted a PDF copy of this recent court order.
See also this prior analysis of Stanford Internet Observatory
Western Accreditor Reverses Course on DEI Requirement
Editor’s note: Last week’s Newsletter had a link to an article stating that the accrediting agency for California colleges and universities, including Stanford, had deleted its requirement that a school demonstrate its commitment to DEI. In the intervening week, the accreditor has reversed course, saying it will leave the language in place and will study the issue some more.
Full article at Inside Higher Ed
Higher Education Is in Trouble
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Higher education in the U.S. faces a crisis: Its credibility is under attack. The public is increasingly skeptical of university-trained experts and the test-score-based meritocracy that dominates America’s upper middle class....
“Education level has become the great divider in contemporary American politics, eclipsing race and sex. Those with four-year college degrees tend to vote differently than those without....
“Measures reportedly under consideration include ending government loans for graduate students, capping the total amount a student can borrow, holding educational institutions at least partially responsible for student-loan defaults, and linking student aid to institutional policies on diversity, equity and inclusion. Colleges and universities will likely face increased congressional oversight of the political imbalance of their faculties. President-elect Trump has suggested he will use the college accreditation process to make higher education toe the line. And with deficit hawks in Congress hoping to offset a portion of Mr. Trump’s proposed tax cuts with increased revenue, Mr. Vance’s December 2023 proposal to raise the excise tax on elite universities’ endowment income from 1.4% to 35% is likely to resurface.
“Faced with these challenges, colleges and universities should adopt three strategies.
“First, they should get their houses in order. They should end mandatory DEI statements for faculty and staff candidates. They should adopt the principle of institutional neutrality spelled out in the University of Chicago’s seminal 1967 Kalven Report and should extend a similar policy to all academic divisions and departments, as Dartmouth College did last week....
“Second, four-year colleges and universities should broaden their support by expanding their alliances with local institutions, especially community colleges....
“Finally, these institutions should refocus on their civic mission: imparting basic knowledge about American history, political institutions and civic culture to every student; promoting social mobility by helping students who are the first in their families to attend college; and promoting civil discourse with campus wide programs such as College Presidents for Civic Preparedness, which gives students opportunities to engage in civil discourse and debate.
“By modeling the balance between social order and individual liberty, higher education can best promote the common good -- and its own long-term best interests.”
Full op-ed at WSJ
For convenience, we have posted a PDF copy of the Dartmouth policy, discussed above, at our Commentary from Others webpage
See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage
************
“Principles of free speech are among those we most cherish, as Americans and as members of a university dedicated to the open, rigorous and serious search to know.” – Former Stanford President Gerhard Casper
December 16, 2024
Stanford Daily Interview of Jon Levin – Excerpts re Levin’s First Quarter as
Stanford’s President
Excerpts (links in the original):
“I started this year with a real sense of optimism, and also some uncertainty given all of the campus dynamics around the country last year. The first priority that Provost Martinez and I set for the year was to strengthen the culture of inquiry at Stanford and to foster constructive dialogue. I’m very happy about how that’s going.
“We’ve had seminars, discussions and conferences on the election, the Middle East, COVID policy. There have been forums for discussion even on contentious topics. We announced the new ePluribus initiative, and I love that the faculty are volunteering to host discussions in the dorms -- that’s part of the ‘Pizza, Politics and Polarization’ series. I really believe that Stanford can be a model for how students approach each other with curiosity and with open minds.
“We had two other main priorities for the year that we talked about in our first interview. The second is to advance Stanford’s leadership in AI and data-driven discovery. We opened the Stanford robotics center this quarter and it’s amazing to see the work that the faculty and the students from different departments are doing -- everything from autonomous drones to household robots. We opened the new high-performance shared computing facility, and that’s one of the leading academic facilities for research computing, and there [are] incredible opportunities there.
“The third priority we set was to help make Stanford work better for faculty, students and staff. We tasked John Etchemendy Ph.D. ’82, the former provost, Richard Saller, our former president and [vice president for university affairs] Megan Pierson to lead a simplification initiative to reduce frictions and help make it easier to get things done. Everyone at Stanford wants to see the administrative parts of the university, which play an essential role supporting research and teaching, be enabling forces for faculty and students.
“The last thing I’ll say is, it’s been a joy to get out around campus and meet students, faculty, staff and alumni. Every day I walk on campus, and I’m reminded how extraordinary this place is. The range of talent and ideas at Stanford [is] extraordinary. The fact that we can give students and faculty such freedom to be ambitious and to accomplish great things, it’s inspiring....
Full interview at Stanford Daily including re the incoming Trump administration, the roles of Stanford faculty and others in the incoming administration, special issues for international students, the pending University and criminal actions against Stanford Daily reporters, revised free speech guidelines, developments in intercollegiate athletics and other matters of interest.
Bari Weiss Interview of Marc Andreessen – Excerpts re Censorship and AI
[From Wikipedia: Marc Andreessen is an American businessman and former software engineer. He is the co-author of Mosaic, the first widely used web browser with a graphical user interface; co-founder of Netscape; and co-founder and general partner of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.]
Excerpts:
…
“[At a White House meeting,] they said, AI is a technology basically that the government is going to completely control. This is not going to be a start-up thing. They actually said flat out to us, ‘Don’t do AI start-ups. Don’t fund AI start-ups.’ ...
“The federal government didn’t let start-ups go out and build atomic bombs. You had the Manhattan Project and everything was classified. And at least according to them, they classified down to the level of actual mathematics.
“Part two is there’s the social control aspect to it.
“Which is where the censorship stuff comes right back and is the exact same dynamic we’ve had with social media censorship. That is happening at hyper speed in AI....
[After discussing a wide range of issues including re the election, Elon Musk, etc.:]
“At these big companies, there’s been absolute intentionality. That’s how you get black George Washington at Google. Because there’s an override in the system that basically says, everybody has to be black. Boom.
“There are large sets of people in these companies that determine these policies and write them down and encode them into these systems. So overwhelmingly, what people experience is intentional. There’s just no question about that. These companies were born woke. They were born as censorship machines.
“My concern is that the censorship and political control of AI is a thousand times more dangerous than censorship and political control of social media -- maybe a million times more dangerous. Social media censorship and political control is very dangerous, but at least it’s only people talking to each other and communicating.
“The thing with AI is I think AI is going to be the control layer for everything in the future -- how the healthcare system works, how the education system works, how the government works.
“So if that AI is woke, biased, censored, politically controlled, you are in a hyper-Orwellian, China-style, social credit system nightmare. This hasn’t rolled all the way out yet because AI is still new and it’s not in charge yet. But this is where things are headed....”
Full interview at The Free Press
See also “Stanford’s Roles in Censoring the Web” at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage
The Hidden Cost of Academic Bloat
Excerpts:
“A Stanford Computer Science degree requires 180 units to graduate. However, only 58 of these units -- less than a third -- consist of actual computer science coursework....
“The reason why lies within the labyrinth of additional requirements Stanford has constructed under the guise of a ‘liberal arts education.’ Take the mandatory COLLEGE program for freshmen, for instance -- two-quarters of discussion-based courses, where it's an open secret that virtually nobody completes the readings, and assignments are graded on completion only. Without any reason to engage meaningfully with the content, COLLEGE just becomes a useless 6-unit obstacle for already overwhelmed freshmen.
“The WAYS requirements also illustrate this academic padding. For example, the Exploring Difference and Power (EDP) requirement, featuring classes like Intersectional Feminism, Black Feminist Theater, Introduction To Queer Theory, or Antiracism and Health Equity, generally translates to courses that seem more focused on ideological conformity than academic rigor. Similarly, the Creative Expression (CE) requirement compels software engineers and mathematicians to briefly dabble in theater, art, or dance -- enjoyable hobbies perhaps, but hardly relevant to their chosen disciplines.
“Even within the technical majors, there is no shortage of unnecessary padding. Computer Science students must fulfill science electives requirements, leading to the common spectacle of future developers memorizing rock formations in an introductory geology class. Extensive physics and mathematics requirements, though theoretically relevant, seldom connect practically in any way with computer science applications....”
Full op-ed at Stanford Review
U Michigan Ends Required DEI Statements in Hiring but Stops Short of Cutting Funds to DEI Programs
Excerpt (links in the original):
“The University of Michigan on Thursday [December 5] announced it will no longer require diversity statements in faculty hiring, promotion and tenure decisions -- but several members of its Board of Regents at their monthly meeting denied reports they plan to cut DEI spending at this time.
“In announcing the decision on diversity statements by Provost Laurie McCauley, campus leaders pointed out that most faculty surveyed ‘agreed that diversity statements put pressure on faculty to express specific positions on moral, political or social issues.’
“The top-down decision means different departments can no longer formulate their own rules on diversity statements, as had been the practice....”
Full article at College Fix
Other Articles of Interest
CSU's New 'Other Conduct of Concern' Rule Is Administrative Overreach
Full op-ed by San Diego State Prof. Peter Herman at Times of San Diego as republished at MSN News
UC Riverside's DEI Guardians Came After Me
Full op-ed by UC Riverside Prof. Perry Link at WSJ
Yale Event Explores Role of Merit in Higher Education and Hiring
Full article at College Fix
Students Think Faculty Should Be Mentors, but What Does That Look Like?
Full article at Inside Higher Ed
University Accreditor Proposes Cutting Commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from Its Required Standards
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education
Editor’s note: This is the accreditor for colleges and universities in California, including Stanford. See also article on the same subject at College Fix
How Will Colleges Fare Financially in 2025? It Depends
Full article at Higher Ed Dive
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
Stanford Welcomes First GPU-Based Supercomputer
Decoding the Mysteries of the Universe
AI Could Help Reduce Injury Risk in Pianists
What Soccer Fans Can Teach Us About Irrationality
Making Robots Real Partners in Daily Life
Existing EV Batteries May Last Up to 40% Longer Than Expected
Portola Valley Approves New Housing for Stanford Faculty and Local Community
************
"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." — Hubert H. Humphrey
December 9, 2024
An Exceptional Example at Stanford - From the Farm to The Farm, Elic Ayomanor Took an Unlikely Path to Stanford
Excerpts (link in original):
“Each week during the football season, Elic Ayomanor is introduced in some way -- to a television audience, in a game program, on a flipcard distributed in a press box.
“He is a redshirt sophomore wide receiver from Stanford, and one of the best in college football. His major is computer science. And he’s from Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada.
“But where is someone from exactly? Is it their birthplace? The town where they grew up? Or is it the place they feel they belong?
"Medicine Hat is Ayomanor’s point of origin. It’s where he grew up, where his mother raised him, where his dreams sprouted. But where does he belong? Maybe it’s a remote farm on a gravel road, a prep school in the countryside, or a green swath 100 yards long under bright lights.
“‘Medicine Hat’ is the simple answer. The long answer is not so simple....
“Pamela Weiterman split from Elic’s father when her son was an infant. A farm girl growing up, Weiterman settled in Medicine Hat, a small prairie city of 63,000 along the South Saskatchewan River. It’s known as the ‘The Gas City,’ for its natural gas reserves, and ‘The Sunniest City in Canada,’ belying the fact that temperatures dip to minus-40 Fahrenheit during the winter. And it’s a hockey town, home of the Medicine Hat Tigers, a major junior team in the Western Hockey League....
“The family brand was the Flying J and during branding season, Elic helped tag calves and hold them down while their ears were clipped.
“Elic witnessed the difficulties of calving season, when pregnant cows need to be checked frequently, including in the middle of the night in the coldest of winters. If a mother was in trouble, [Elic's grandfather Jack] would have to pull the calf out, sometimes even bottle feeding until they were strong enough to return to the mother, who sometimes would reject it.
“‘They were long days, but that was farm life,’ Pam said. ‘We grew up as strong kids because we worked. We really worked.’ …
“As a single working mom, Pam was conscious of outside influences and tried to keep Elic as busy as possible. That meant signing up for every sport imaginable.
“His middle school doubled as a hockey academy and each day Elic alternated between a day of classes and a day of hockey. There were camps, trips, and games in whatever the sport and because Medicine Hat was so remote, Elic and his friends spent much of their time in Pam’s car, traversing across the emptiness of the northern plains.
“This was where Pam felt like she really got to know her son. She could hear his conversations, learn his music....
“Early on, [scout Justin Dillon] put Stanford out there as the ultimate goal, the epitome of all that Elic and Pamela valued. Dillon had a Stanford connection through Wesley Annan, a 6-4, 275-pound defensive tackle from Whitby, Ontario, who Dillon steered through Lake Forest (Ill.) Academy to The Farm. Though Annan never played at Stanford because of injuries, he graduated with a human biology degree in 2019. That connection helped Dillon get the attention of Cardinal coaches, especially David Shaw’s receivers coach, Bobby Kennedy.
“After sending video to Kennedy, Dillon’s declaration was being put to the test. Dillon, his wife and mother-in-law were on the way to visit relatives when a call came to Dillon’s cell. It was Kennedy, who had just watched a compilation that Dillon provided the night before.
“‘I love this kid,’ Kennedy said. ‘This guy’s going to be special.’ …”
Full article at Go Stanford website
Another Exceptional Example at Stanford - Prof. Jay Bhattacharya
[Editor’s note: Ever since the launch three years ago of our website and weekly Newsletters, we have attempted to shine a light on what appeared, to us at least, as inappropriate censorship of scientific and social discourse, including by government involvement in Stanford’s own activities. This includes the external and internal attacks on Prof. Jay Bhattacharya who has spent his entire academic career at Stanford but received little if any support from Stanford’s own leaders and fellow faculty members for his speaking out on issues directly within his areas of expertise. We and many others also had serious concerns about the activities of the Stanford Internet Observatory and its involvement in deciding what was and wasn’t allowable speech regarding Presidential elections and then regarding COVID.
[With that in mind, we present here excerpts from one of hundreds of articles that have appeared this past week regarding the nomination of Prof. Bhattacharya to head the all-important National Institutes of Health. Link in the original.]
“Jayanta ‘Jay’ Bhattacharya’s Bengali first name means ‘one who is victorious in the end.’ That fits the past 4½ years of his life, in which Dr. Bhattacharya has gone from a pariah in the medical and scientific establishment to President-elect Trump’s nominee to direct the National Institutes of Health.
“Dr. Bhattacharya’s tale begins on these [WSJ] pages with a March 25, 2020, op-ed titled ‘Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?’ Co-authored by Eran Bendavid, a fellow professor of medicine at Stanford, the article argued that many asymptomatic cases of Covid were likely going undetected, making the disease far less dangerous than authorities were claiming.
“‘That is when the attacks started,’ Dr. Bhattacharya, 56, says in a Zoom interview from his office in Palo Alto, Calif. In April 2020 he and several colleagues published a study that confirmed his hypothesis. The prevalence of Covid antibodies in Santa Clara County, where Stanford is located, was 50 times the recorded infection rate. That, he says, ‘implied a lower infection mortality rate than public-health authorities were pushing at a time when they and the media thought it was a virtue to panic the population.’ His university opened a ‘fact finding’ investigation into him after BuzzFeed made baseless charges of conflict of interest. ‘This was the most anxiety-inducing event of my professional life,’ he says....
“To the limited extent that the NIH is a household name, it is sullied because of the pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya wants Americans to understand what it does. ‘It is the single most important funder of biomedical research in the world,’ he says, dispensing grants of nearly $50 billion a year. ‘It has a track record of funding some of the most important biomedical projects in history,’ including the human genome project, and it is ‘the gold standard for institutional support for biomedical scientific research.’ …
“Dr. Bhattacharya says he will ‘rebalance the portfolio of the NIH so that it emphasizes newer ideas that have the potential for huge breakthroughs.’ …
“Another issue Dr. Bhattacharya intends to address is ‘the major problem of scientific fraud.’ We’ve had ‘scandal after scandal of biomedical scientists publishing papers where they Photoshopped key scientific data.’ Major scientists had to retract papers. Science depends on being able to trust results, so that fraud can produce ‘a whole tower of ideas built on a foundation of sand. And the ultimate consequence of that is that clinical advances that we think we have ended up not working to actually help people.’ ...
“Dr. Bhattacharya believes ‘very strongly that I have a purpose in life, and I’m supposed to use my gifts for this purpose.’ As a health economist and epidemiologist, his avowed purpose is ‘to use my knowledge so that I can make discoveries and suggest policies that would improve the health and well-being of the poor, the vulnerable, and the working-class.’ It wasn’t only the scientist in him but also the Christian that rose up in revolt during the pandemic when he ‘saw the widespread adoption of policies that were not grounded in science, that were harming the welfare of the vulnerable, particularly children.’ He felt he ‘had an obligation to speak. Because what’s the purpose of my career otherwise?’
“Any reform of America’s scientific institutions, Dr. Bhattacharya says, must ensure that they ‘work for the people again.’ Instead of ‘this haughty relationship, where the scientists sit above the public and say, ‘Look, you can’t think that,’ or ‘You’ll be censored if you say that,’ they need to remember that they are servants of the American people. The people are the ones paying the bills. They’re the ones giving the $50 billion a year. We scientists serve the people, not the other way around.’”
Full interview at WSJ
See also "The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists, and We Fought Back" by Stanford Prof. Bhattacharya at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage
See also former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy “The Threat from Within”
How UNC and Others Are Restoring a Core Curriculum
Excerpt (links in the original):
“As the autumn sun warms the historic campus outside, a professor specializing in ancient and modern political philosophy guides undergraduate students through the seemingly ruthless nuances of Machiavelli’s 16th-century philosophy of morals.
“In another class, a professor specializing in political theory offers students a guided tour of the early American republic, as seen through the enlightened eyes of French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville.
“And a professor of rhetoric, who moonlights as a conservative political consultant in national races, diagrams the components of a bulletproof argument on a blackboard as he preps students for an upcoming class debate on the pros and cons of universal basic income.
“These vignettes may seem unexceptional, but they are at the center of an ambitious movement to reform.... The classes taught this fall in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s newly launched academic experiment, the School of Civic Life and Leadership (SCiLL), revive approaches and values that were once accepted as essential to shaping informed and virtuous citizens in a liberal democracy, but are now regarded with deep suspicion by many academics: the classical liberal arts, the great books, Western Civilization, Socratic dialogue, civil discourse....”
[Followed by discussion of similar programs at other colleges and universities nationwide]
Full article at Real Clear Investigations
See also “University of Utah Creates Task Force for Intellectual Diversity” at Campus Reform
See also “University of Austin Fights College Censorship Culture” as broadcast on 60 Minutes and posted at YouTube (13 minutes)
See also the Stanford Civics Initiative website
Students Unable to Speak with Those Who Disagree with Them
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Students can no longer converse with people who disagree with them because of a rise in online ‘echo chambers,’ an Ivy League university president has warned.
“Sian Beilock, a cognitive scientist who took the reins at Dartmouth College last year, said social media has made it difficult for young people to interact with each other in person.
“‘We’re seeing that students aren’t practiced at having conversations with people who disagree with them, in part because social media puts you towards people who agree with you,’ Ms. Beilock told The Times.
“The Dartmouth College president said that ‘learning to talk to people who are different from you is a muscle that you build with training’ and that it is something her university encourages alongside counselling and wider support mechanisms....
“At the new Texas-based university [University of Austin], students are encouraged to disagree with each other and it is all but impossible for faculty members and undergraduates to get cancelled.
“UATX claims to be a place where students and faculty ‘have the right to pursue their academic interests and deliberate freely, without fear of censorship or retribution’.”
Full article at NY Times, as republished at MSN News
What I Would Fix at the National Science Foundation
Excerpt (link in the original):
“As outlined in a recent Senate report, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has become a swamp of identity politics. With a new Presidential Administration coming to power, it’s a good time to think about reform. I’d like to see NSF focused on funding excellent scientific research again, using fair and merit-based criteria to award grants....”
[Followed by seven specific recommendations]
Full op-ed by University of Chicago Prof. Dorian Abbot at Heterodox
Other Articles of Interest
Supreme Court Urged to Hear Cases re Campus Bias Response Teams
Full article at Speech First website
See also “Stanford’s Program re Title VI/Bias” at our Stanford Concerns webpage (updated 12/5/24)
Study Shows Fewer People Want to be Unique – a Warning re Free Speech
Full article at FIRE website
Two Cheers for Viewpoint Diversity
Full article at Law & Liberty
Higher Ed’s Staffing Concerns Eased by Technology
Full article at Ed Tech
How Universities Are Trying to Stop Another Year of Anti-War Activism
Full article at Intercept
Law Schools Have Created Two Legal Systems, Two Teaching Standards and Two Personalities
Full article at Minding the Campus
Why Colleges Are Turning to Institutional Neutrality
Full article at Higher Ed Dive
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
For Major U.S. Cities, the Donut Effect Persists
Legal Representation Is Out of Reach for Many – How to Remedy
Making AI Work for Health Care
FDA Approves Stanford Medicine-Developed Drug That Treats Rare Heart Disease
************
“There is absolutely no data that shows better facilities and more administrators lead to better education outcomes; however, they are highly effective for branding and recruiting, and they create a lot of high-paying jobs for bureaucrats who don’t even teach students.” – Author Robert Glazer
December 2, 2024
More About Academic Freedom at Stanford
[Editor’s note: Last week's Newsletter (November 25, 2024) featured articles about the recent refusal of Stanford’s Faculty Senate to rescind their censure four years ago of Dr. Scott Atlas.
[Stanford’s President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez have been at the forefront of university leaders nationwide to emphasize the importance of free speech and academic freedom, which makes the recent actions of the Faculty Senate all the more disconcerting, especially when one would hope that such freedoms would be among the highest priorities of the faculty.
[Subsequent to last week’s Newsletter, the Stanford Review published an op-ed about these issues, excerpts below, and in this regard, we also think it appropriate to quote directly from the Chicago Principles:
[“Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.... Because the university is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the university community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.”]
Excerpts from Stanford Review op-ed "Atlas Censure Vote Reveals Academia's True Colors" (links in the original):
“Last Thursday [November 21], the Stanford University Faculty Senate voted against repealing the 2020 censure of Dr. Scott Atlas, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and former Trump administration advisor on the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
“Our faculty’s rejection of the motion to rescind Dr. Atlas's censure is a definitive blow to academic freedom at Stanford. Worse yet, it reveals a troubling reality within elite academic institutions: the hollow nature of their proclaimed commitment to free speech. Initially twice postponing the vote to avoid political interpretation, the Faculty Senate has now taken the dramatic step of refusing to rescind the censure, cementing its politically motivated decision.
“The Senate's outright rejection is particularly striking given the subsequent dismissal of several positions for which Atlas was initially censured. When Stanford faculty censured him in 2020 for questioning COVID-19 policies like lockdowns and mask mandates, they did so without even offering him an opportunity to defend his positions. Even as evidence has mounted supporting many of Atlas' positions, the institution has doubled down on its censure....
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, the state- and academia-sanctioned suppression of alternative viewpoints prevented crucial debate about the effectiveness and consequences of lockdown policies. As Atlas notes, these policies resulted in significant harm, particularly to vulnerable populations and children, yet the academic community's unwillingness to engage with opposing views hindered proper scrutiny of these measures. Stanford itself played a massive role in the suppression of free speech, not only through the censure of Scott Atlas and the silencing of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, but it also engaged in the censorship of American citizens through the Stanford Internet Observatory....”
Full op-ed at Stanford Review
See also comments at end of Stanford Daily article (November 22)
See also video of Dr. Atlas discussing civil discourse and the free exchange of ideas at YouTube (28 minutes)
Universities Have a 2025 Rendezvous with Reality
[Editor’s note: In our minds at least, this isn’t a question of political beliefs. That’s personal. It’s a question of whether all of this demonstrates a longtime and systemic lack of intellectual diversity and inclusion.]
Excerpts:
“Universities have suffered a cataclysmic decline in public approval and support.
“A Gallup poll taken this year found that only 36 percent of Americans polled either expressed ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in higher education -- once the agreed-on touchstone to upward mobility.
“Gifting to most universities has been down for two consecutive years.
“There is zero intellectual diversity on most university campuses.
“Stanford University may be representative of these crises.
“In the 2020 election, 94% of Stanford faculty voted for the Biden-Harris ticket. Four years later, some 96% of all Stanford-affiliated donations went to Democrats during the 2024 election season.
“Former Stanford law professors Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried -- parents of mega-Democratic donor and now imprisoned Sam Bankman-Fried, and recipients of millions in gifts from their felonious son -- were reportedly heavily involved in either bundling large left-wing campaign donations or offering legal advice to their son's bankrupt and Ponzi-like business.
“In 2023, a federal judge was shouted down at Stanford Law School, his lecture aborted and then hijacked -- by a Stanford DEI administrator!
“Former Trump health advisor and Hoover Institution scholar Scott Atlas in 2020 was censured by the Stanford faculty.
“Yet subsequent events supported Atlas's prescient warning that a complete lockdown of the country and the shutdown of K-12 schools would not only not retard the COVID epidemic, but would cause far greater economic, social, cultural, and health damage than the virus itself.
“Two recent attempts to lift that censure failed -- in part because some faculty claimed -- that to do so would empower the Trump reelection bid!
“In contrast, Stanford Professor Jeff Hancock, who founded the ‘Stanford Social Media Lab,’ boasts he researches ‘how people use deception with technology.’ Yet when liberal Minnesota officials wanted such ‘experts’ to support their new law banning ‘deep fake’ technology at election time, they called in the expert deception-detector Hancock.
“However, the references Hancock provided to prove his support for the law allegedly never existed.
“In fact, the lawyers who challenged his online expertise argued his sources apparently were invented by artificial intelligence software like ChatGPT.
“Who will police the deception police? …”
Full op-ed by Hoover Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson at Real Clear Education
See also former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy “The Threat from Within”
Study Finds DEI Initiatives Are Creating Hostile Attribution Bias
Excerpts from a report published by the Rutgers Social Perception Lab (citations deleted):
“DEI programs purport to cultivate inclusive environments for people from diverse backgrounds and encourage greater empathy in interpersonal interactions. A key component of DEI offerings lies in diversity pedagogy: Lectures, trainings and educational resources ostensibly designed to educate participants about their prejudice and bias in order to eliminate discrimination. As institutions across corporate and educational sectors increasingly embed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) into their foundational strategies, it is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of common aspects of this pedagogy.
“A 2023 study by the Pew Research Center found that 52% of American workers have DEI meetings or training events at work, and according to Iris Bohnet, a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, $8 billion is spent annually on such programs. Despite widespread investment in and adoption of diversity pedagogy through lectures, educational resources, and training, assessments of efficacy have produced mixed results....
“[Based on the studies that were undertaken and are discussed in detail in the report,] the evidence presented in these studies reveals that while purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment. Although not addressed in the studies reported herein, it is also possible that these factors are mutually reinforcing and spread through social contagion. Our findings raise this possibility which we offer here in the form of a post-hoc process model (to be investigated in future studies).” …
Full PDF copy of the report at Rutgers website
See also “Researchers Find People Are More Suspicious and Hostile after DEI Trainings” at College Fix
President Levin Interviewed by Stanford Review
Excerpts:
“I’ll just start by saying I'm 100 days into this role. So, of course, I’m still at a point where I’m learning a lot about everything. I came into this role knowing that it has been a very challenging period for universities nationally and the experience I've had so far has been really positive. It's been incredibly exciting to see just the breadth of excellence across the university, the feeling of openness and discussion on the campus this year, which has been particularly gratifying given the last couple of years, and just the overall sense of optimism at Stanford, something I really love and value. And that's what I talked about in my inauguration.
“You asked about the differences over time and in university leadership. I think that's a very good question. I think universities like Stanford have for many years played such an important role in the country as the source of ideas and new knowledge and discovery and innovation and the place that is the magnet for talent from all over the world. People have the chance to explore and learn and go off and make significant contributions. The most important part of university leadership is to try to sustain that crucial mission. So that hasn't changed, that's always there and always will be there in another 20 or 100 years.
“There are some distinctive challenges about today because of just everything that's going on in the world and on campuses and so that's part of current university leadership. But the part that's exciting about being university president is really all the people on the campus and all the things, ideas they come up with and things they're doing. And I think that is an enduring aspect of nursing leadership....”
Full interview at Stanford Review including Q&A re priorities, COLLEGE, political concentration of Stanford faculty and others, institutional neutrality, Stanford Internet Observatory, integrity of research, role of AI and much more
Other Articles of Interest
Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya to Head NIH
Full article at BBC
See also “Poetic Justice for Jay Bhattacharya” at Bari Weiss Free Press
See also "The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists, and We Fought Back" by Stanford Prof. Bhattacharya at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage
How Scientific American's Departing Editor Helped Degrade Science
Full op-ed at Reason
See also “National Science Foundation Spent Over $2 Billion Imposing DEI on Scientific Research” at College Fix
Want to Find Highly Engaged Students at 4-Year Colleges? Look at Transfer Students
Full article and link to podcast at Ed Surge
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
Andrew Luck Named General Manager of Stanford Football
See also Stanford Daily
AI Tool ‘Sees’ Cancer Gene Signatures in Biopsy Images
Milky Way Is an Outlier Among Similar Galaxies
Exotic Quantum State of Matter Visualized for First Time
Combatting a Gravely Serious Clotting Condition
Dopamine and Serotonin Work in Opposition to Shape Learning
************
“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”
Winston Churchill
November 25, 2024
University Liberalism and Independent Thinking, Versus the Push for Relevance
Excerpts:
....
“Visit most any university or college campus today, and the vision of the idyllic community -- the stately buildings, well-tended lawns, state-of-the-art athletic facilities, and lively local hangouts -- survives. So do broad fields of genuine excellence, particularly in STEM fields such as biomedical research, astrophysics, and computer science. And universities still play a vital role as educators of future doctors, attorneys, nurses, engineers, and other essential professions.
“But the broader argument for universities has become harder to make in recent years....
“How did universities fall off their pedestals? Many reasons, but one is central: the turn away from liberalism as the dominant mindset of the academy.
“By liberalism I do not mean the word in the usual ideological or political sense. I mean it as the habit of open-mindedness, a passion for truth, a disdain for dogma, an aloofness from politics, a fondness for skeptics and gadflies and iconoclasts, a belief in the importance of evidence, logic, and reason, a love of argument rooted in intelligent difference. Above all, a curious, probing, independent spirit....
“Except in a few surviving corners, that kind of university is fading, if not altogether gone. In its place is the model of the university as an agent of social change and ostensible betterment. It is the university that encourages students to dwell heavily on their experience of victimization, or their legacy as victimizers, rather than as accountable individuals responsible for their own fate. It is the university that carefully arranges the racial and ethnic composition of its student body in the hopes of shaping a different kind of future elite. It is the university that tries to stamp out ideas or inquiries it considers socially dangerous or morally pernicious, irrespective of considerations of truth. It is the university that ceaselessly valorizes identity, not least when it comes to who does, or doesn’t, get to make certain arguments. It is the university that substitutes the classics of philosophy and literature with mandatory reading lists that skew heavily to the contemporary ideological left. It is the university that makes official statements on some current events (but not on others), or tips its hand by prominently affiliating itself with political activism in scholarly garb. It is the university that attempts to rewrite the English language in search of more 'inclusive' vocabulary. It is the university that silently selects an ideologically homogeneous faculty, administration, and graduate-student body. It is the university that finds opportunistic ways to penalize or get rid of professors whose views it dislikes. It is the university that has allowed entire fields of inquiry -- gender studies, ethnic studies, critical studies, Middle Eastern studies -- to become thoroughly dogmatic and politicized.
“A charitable term for this kind of institution might be the relevant university -- relevant in the sense of playing a direct role in shaping public and political life. In fact, there are many less political and more productive ways in which universities can credibly establish their relevance to the world around them: by serving as centers for impartial expertise, making pathbreaking discoveries, and educating students with vital skills, not just academically but also with the skills of good citizenship and leadership....
“There’s a straightforward way out of this mess. It’s a return to the values of the liberal university.
“Already, there are academic leaders willing to go there. In his impressive inaugural speech, Jonathan Levin, Stanford’s new president, put the point clearly: ‘The university’s purpose is not political action or social justice,’ he said. ‘It is to create an environment in which learning thrives.’ Sian Leah Beilock, the president of Dartmouth, has been equally clear: ‘Universities must be places where different ideas and opinions lead to personal growth, scientific breakthroughs, and new knowledge,’ she recently wrote in The Atlantic....
“What will turn the system around? Leadership is essential, starting with boards of trustees who must refuse to serve as mere cheerleaders or rubber stamps for university administrators drawn from the usual academic ranks and in tune with their ways of thinking and acting. It’s also essential to change the value system on campus, not only by moving away from identity politics but also by finding ways to rekindle the dying art of disagreement....”
Full op-ed by editor-in-chief Bret Stephens at Sapir Journal
See also Part 4 of our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage, including questions as to what extent the centers, incubators, accelerators and similar entities at Stanford are engaged primarily in advocacy and implementation activities (and run primarily by the thousands of non-teaching personnel now housed at Stanford), versus the front-line teaching and peer-reviewed research of Stanford’s faculty themselves.
In Praise of Institutional Neutrality
Excerpt:
“We are engaged today in a struggle for the future of the university. Do universities today want to preserve -- or restore -- their status as institutions of teaching and learning or do they see themselves as engines of social change? It is one thing to provide students with the tools they need to become agents of social change -- we all hope they will -- but quite another to say that the university should seek to determine the direction of that change. Let me explain why the position of institutional neutrality is best suited to achieve this end.
“Our basic values are not only contestable, they stand in deep tension with one another. The English philosopher Isaiah Berlin was profoundly correct when he said that everything is what it is and not something else. Freedom is not justice; equality is not liberty; and diversity is not excellence. To deny these basic facts is either to indulge in wishful thinking or Orwellian double-speak.
“However it might appear, issues of equality, freedom and social justice are inherently contestable. Can a university devoted to the cause of rectifying past injustices maintain its commitment to intellectual excellence? Can a university seeking to guarantee safe spaces for students maintain an atmosphere of free and open debate?
“It is our job as educators to bring out the complexity of moral and social issues, not to put our thumb on the scale in advance to determine what kind of change is deemed morally or politically acceptable. When this happens, education becomes indoctrination and teaching a form of ideology training....”
Full op-ed by Yale Prof. Steven B. Smith at Yale Daily News
Stanford's Faculty Senate Refuses to Rescind Its Censure Four Years
Ago of Dr. Scott Atlas
[Editor’s note: Compare the following with the two articles, above. And did it not occur to anyone on Stanford's faculty, especially the medical school's own leaders and faculty, that an open debate on the issues was in order, not motions of censure? Isn't that how an academic community is supposed to function?]
By a secret vote of 21-13, Stanford's Faculty Senate on Thursday, November 21 refused to rescind its censure four years ago of Dr. Scott Atlas. See summaries of the Faculty Senate's actions at Stanford Report and Stanford Daily.
See also Stanford Prof. Ivan Marinovic op-ed dated October 24, 2024 at Stanford Review on reasons to rescind the censure, including these excerpts:
"In November 2020, the Stanford Senate convened to deliberate disciplinary actions against Scott Atlas. His offense? Expressing views on COVID policy that challenged those of other faculty. Atlas was neither informed of the meeting nor given an opportunity to attend and respond to the accusations. In essence, he was denied the right to defend himself and was judged for his speech in absentia.
“Several months prior, in September 2020, ninety-eight professors from the Stanford School of Medicine had circulated a letter, addressed to the entire Stanford academic council, using the university's academic secretary, condemning Atlas in harsh terms: ‘To prevent harm to the public’s health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas…. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy… Failure to follow the science -- or deliberately misrepresenting the science -- will lead to immense avoidable harm.’ …
“The censure of Atlas marks a low point in Stanford’s history. Never before had Stanford censured a professor without affording him the fundamental right to defend himself. And while the resolution condemned Atlas’s conduct with moral indignation, the Senate was blind to its own moral failure in passing this resolution.
"The censure also sent a chilling message to the Stanford community: Any faculty member who challenges orthodoxy risks public condemnation and institutional ostracism. The lesson is clear: those who dissent will face not just academic and online mobs targeting their reputations and careers, but also formal denunciation from the university itself.
“By censuring Atlas, the Senate revealed the fragility of Stanford’s commitment to free speech and academic freedom....”
There’s an Answer to College Diversity Right in Front of Us
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Several leading universities recently released enrollment data on the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision gutting affirmative action. As critics -- myself among them -- predicted, the reports show a dramatic decline in the enrollment of Black and Latino students in these institutions.
“A survey of 50 top-ranked schools concluded that, at three-quarters of them, fewer Black students were enrolled than before the court’s ruling. In some instances, the drop-off has been substantial. At Columbia University, for example, 12 percent of the class of 2028 is Black, compared to 20 percent in previous years. Black student enrollment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dropped from 20 percent to 12 percent, while at Amherst College, Black students, who make up 11 percent of the class of 2027, constitute only 3 percent of the class of 2028.
“How can elite universities maintain a diverse student body in a post-affirmative-action world? Here’s one promising approach: recruit community college graduates....
“The transfers in my 60-student undergraduate class, ethics in a cataclysmic era, are hungry to learn and eager to try out new ideas. I invite them to link their life stories -- being homeless or raising two children as a single parent, for instance -- to the topic we’re discussing. They introduce a reality check -- especially valuable in an applied ethics class -- during sessions that could otherwise become hyper-theoretical....”
Full op-ed by UC Berkeley Prof. Emeritus David Kirp at Washington Post
The Fall of the AAUP
Excerpt (links in the original):
“One of the great disappointments of my professional life has been watching the decline of the American Association of University Professors, formerly the gold standard for defense of academic freedom on campus. Of course, there have always been and still are good, principled AAUP members and chapters out there. But since the beginning of my career back in 2001, the national AAUP have gone from being principled (if slow and plodding) defenders of academic freedom to increasingly partisan critics of freedom of speech and the First Amendment -- taking institutional positions that directly threaten academic freedom.
“This week Joan W. Scott, a current AAUP member and former chair of the AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, published a piece in Inside Higher Education making a number of false accusations about my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This is on the heels of a contentious exchange on X two weeks ago, where FIRE’s Vice President of Campus Advocacy Alex Morey called the AAUP out for their continuing fall from principle, and the AAUP replied with even more (mostly now-deleted) false accusations.
“FIRE’s principled, nonpartisan defense of free speech and academic freedom is not only on record, but baked into our very founding in 1999 by left-leaning libertarian Harvey Silverglate and right-leaning libertarian Alan Charles Kors. The AAUP are, sadly, a different story....”
Full op-ed by FIRE president and Stanford alum Greg Lukianoff at Substack
See also “AAUP’s New President Is Not Staying Neutral” at Inside Higher Ed
Stanford’s New Program for Student Civic Engagement and Constructive Dialogue
Excerpt (link in the original):
“Stanford University has announced a new, university-wide initiative, ePluribus Stanford, designed to empower students to think critically and empathetically, engage in meaningful conversations across their differences, and embrace active, life-long roles in civic life through whatever field or career path they pursue.
“The initiative, which builds on Stanford’s long commitment to civic purpose, comes at a critical time for democracy and freedom of expression in the country.
“‘Freedom of speech and academic freedom are critically important,’ said Stanford Provost Jenny Martinez. ‘To create an environment in which free ideas flourish, though, it’s not enough to just avoid official censorship. We hear a lot about self-censorship, and about people feeling like their ideas and voices aren’t being heard and valued in the conversation on campus. To address those concerns, we need to cultivate a culture of openness and curiosity in our community. What’s more, we need to help students develop the skills to think critically and to engage constructively. These are essential to the university’s mission of research and education, and also to sustaining democracy in the broader society.’ ...”
Full article at Stanford Report
See also “Civic Dialogues Program Helps Freshmen Tackle Tough Conversations”
Other Articles of Interest
Academe’s Divorce from Reality
Full op-ed by former Yale Prof. William Deresiewicz at Chronicle of Higher Education
Meet California’s Most Neglected Group of Students with Special Needs - the Gifted Ones
Full op-ed at LA Times
UC Berkeley to Offer New Course That Describes Hamas as a 'Revolutionary Resistance Force Fighting Settler Colonialism'
Full article at Campus Reform
ASU's Religious Studies Department Teaches Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Even Witchcraft - but rejects courses on Christianity
Full article at Alma Matters
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
The Unexpected Journey of Neural Networks in AI
More Accessible Yet Less Personal - The Two Sides of Digital Banking
Mysterious Brain Malformations in Children Linked to Protein Misfolding
How Ketosis Influences Metabolism
************
“When we truly understand another person’s perspective, it opens a door to compassion and can bridge the deepest divides between us.” – Stanford Prof. Geoffrey Cohen
November 18, 2024
AI May Ruin the University as We Know It
Excerpts (links in the original):
“A social-media post for a Google product known as NotebookLM outlines the following instructions to college students for ‘how to do school.’ First, close your laptops, use your phone to record lectures, and write down only the important bits. Next, upload the recording and scans of any handwritten notes to Google. Finally, process the material through an executive summary generated by NotebookLM. An added perk, or shortcut, as the case may be: At the end of the week, generate a summary of the summaries in the form of a synthetic podcast narrated by a pair of conversational agents. No more extracting concepts from long-form arguments, no more psychic struggle with complex ideas: just autosummary on demand, made possible by a vast undifferentiated pool of content that every successive use of the service helps to grow.
“Such is the ed-tech vision of higher education now. What the example of NotebookLM’s promotional campaign demonstrates is the emergence of a new model or template for education, if not for learning itself: a productivity schema ready to be laid across the full spectrum of the postindustrial knowledge economy. It is not difficult to see that in the next phase one can eliminate the lectures and discussions and simply start with the summaries (and eventually the summaries of the summaries), streamed on demand....
“In essence, the university itself has become a service. The idea of the University as a Service extends the model of Software as a Service to education. Software as a Service refers to the practice of businesses licensing software and paying to renew the license rather than owning and maintaining the software for themselves. For the University as a Service, traditional academic institutions provide the lecturers, content, and degrees (for now). In return, the technological infrastructure, instructional delivery, and support services are all outsourced to third-party vendors and digital platforms.
“Licensing and subscription agreements favor short-term budget planning; so too do they enable an administrative vision of universities as customizable, scalable, cost effective, and available on demand. Too often the decision-making about the IT systems that will shape the research and instructional environments is largely or even exclusively in the hands of CIOs, IT staff members, and instructional development, with academic affairs relegated to the position of managing the implementation of commercial ed-tech applications that promise continuous pedagogic improvement, which is now to be accelerated by new AI features, all of them generating revenue through the scraping of data. As with other industries like health care, the ‘service’ that the university now provides is the concentration of human capital and engagement for the magnitude of data collection necessary to the continued growth and financial viability of AI systems....”
Full op-ed by U Maryland Prof. Matthew Kirschenbaum and UC Santa Barbara Prof. Rita Raley at Chronicle of Higher Education
See also Stanford Prof. Russell Berman’s remarks to the Faculty Senate about the situation where Stanford’s IT department had developed a list of words and phrases that Stanford faculty, students and staff then were told they should no longer use, “Does Academic Freedom Have a Future at Stanford” at our Stanford Speaks webpage
How Department of Education’s Guidance re
Title VI May Conflict with the First Amendment
[Editor’s note: At the start of the current academic year, Stanford revised its controversial bias reporting policies and procedures with new policies and procedures that treat such matters as arising under Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act. See “Stanford’s Program re Title VI/Bias” at our Stanford Concerns webpage. We had noted at the time that this seemed to be a positive development but where we also had surmised, without confirmation, that the same automated emails and protocols that the student services staff had used in the past for handling alleged bias would still be used, but with a different name since the same templates are embedded in the computerized case management system that is used by Stanford and other colleges and universities nationwide.
[More recently, guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on these issues has become the focus of a lawsuit, as discussed below.]
Excerpts:
“The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit last week against the U.S. Department of Education, demanding the release of all guidance it has given to colleges on how to fight discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.
“The free-speech advocacy group believes the federal agency has been privately instructing college administrators on how they should respond to campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
“‘Some universities seem to be under the impression that they are under an obligation to suppress speech protected under the First Amendment,’ said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute.
“The department, the institute alleges, has denied several requests to make public parts of its guidance to colleges since the start of the war.
“The Department of Education declined to comment on the pending litigation....”
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education
See also our articles about “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” and “Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System” at our Stanford Concerns webpage
The Decline and Fall of the University
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Since retiring from the university, several people have asked if I miss it. I tell them I miss what it was, but not what it has become. Higher education in America has gone from being the best in the world to one of the most pathetic. Why? It’s hard to describe what academia was to me and to millions in the past. It was not just a job, but a way of life, and of Western Civilization; and I’m so close to it, that it’s hard to describe -- like trying to describe one’s own mother (hence alma mater!).
“But let me try. University life at its best was both the most serious, difficult, challenging and maddening existence; and yet, it was also the most exciting, lively, rewarding, and fun experience.
“It was deadly serious because we constantly examined the most intense human issues: historical and personal tragedies; ethical dilemmas, philosophical complexities; theological mysteries; and scientific wonders. It was hard because it stretched you intellectually and emotionally, made you question everything and be changed by that knowledge. And it was difficult, because of the enormous workload and demands; assignments, exams, papers, presentations and seminars. I don’t know of another situation, except possibly the military during a war, where one could be tested so much....
“Academia was full of eccentric professors with various crazy ideas and habits (some brilliant), naïve students, and pompous administrators; but they all adhered to the same standard of knowledge. This led not just to scientific discovery and technological progress, but to every other kind of progress: economic, political, social, and ethical....
“Political correctness effectively replaces free, diverse debate and a positive collegial community with Nazi-like speech control. In place of a ‘free-marketplace of ideas’ examining all subjects and perspectives is one official ideology that eclipses all the other views. That PC doctrine, essentially, is that Western Civilization in general, and America in particular, is racist, sexist, imperialist and unjust. This means that nothing good can be said about certain figures or subjects (Jefferson, the founding, Christianity, etc.) and nothing bad or ‘offensive’ can be said about ‘protected groups’.... This ideology has pretty much captured the humanities and social sciences in American universities (as well as the most prominent academic associations and journals, and the most prestigious awards).
“This system of thought was codified and weaponized by the largely illegal and unconstitutional expansion of the Title IX Regulations in 2014. This was a provision of the Civil Rights Acts requiring equal expenditures on college sports along gender lines. It was deftly transformed into a PC blitz by equating ‘discrimination’ with ‘harassment.’ When ‘harassment’ was expanded to include ‘verbal’ harassment, it allowed censorship and punishment of any speech that was deemed offensive or 'unwanted' by anyone. Title IX offices at every American university (with names like: The Office of Conduct, Compliance, Control, Diversity, Inclusion and Demasculinization) run Gestapo-like operations of surveillance, mandatory reporting, investigations, interrogations (without due process) and reprimands, dismissals and expulsions....
“My guess is that in 10 years, half of America’s universities will be turned into vocational-technical schools or closed entirely (or possibly turned into minimum-security prisons or drug rehab centers). The remaining, I hope, will return to a model similar to the lively, rigorous and useful universities we once had. Combinations of online efficiency with onsite community may be the best solution. And if secondary schools returned to teaching the best of Western Civilization (literature, history, art, music, philosophy) it would prepare Americans who do not go to college to be well-informed, thoughtful citizens, Jefferson’s ideal for American democracy....”
Full op-ed by U Virginia Prof. Emeritus Garrett Sheldon at The Jefferson Council website and previously published at Brownstone Institute. Also republished at our Commentary from Others webpage.
The Economics of Political Correctness
Excerpts:
“One morning, chatting with Harvard undergraduates just before my class, I reminisced about my own college years in the late 1990s -- debating religion in our residence hall or arguing about the role of discrimination in America in common rooms.
“Those conversations were uncomfortable and even heated at times. But they were positive experiences for me and I’m pretty sure everyone else. Grappling with different views helped us understand one another, and that helped me understand, and sometimes change, my own outlook.
“I asked a student in the front row: With all this technology and social media, where do you have these types of conversations? She looked up from her turquoise notebook and replied: ‘We don’t.’ I looked around the amphitheater and asked, ‘Really?’ A hundred heads nodded in unison....
“Even if stone cold economists have fallen prey to self-censorship, economics can tell us why. A brilliant analysis by Stephen Morris -- a formalization of early ideas developed by Glenn Loury-- develops the basic economics of political correctness. Here is an example:
“Suppose there is an informed professor advising a less informed politician as to whether diversity, equity, and inclusion policies help minorities. If the professor says DEI is harmful, the politician might interpret the recommendation as the honest findings of an unbiased researcher. But he also might interpret it as the motivated reasoning of a racist, and might even stop asking the professor for advice.
“Mr. Morris demonstrates mathematically that if the professor is sufficiently concerned about being thought a racist, he will lie and recommend DEI even when he knows it’s a bad idea for minorities....
“The question is what can be done. First, we need to take a careful look at how we hire and promote faculty. Instead of having them sign statements swearing fealty to DEI, perhaps they should promise to tell the truth. Second, we need high-powered incentives for people who are correct regardless of politics. If someone scientifically demonstrates that systemic racism is the main factor in racial disparities in America, this should be celebrated. If someone finds that health disparities are driven by genetics rather than social factors -- that too should be celebrated. We need something like the MacArthur Fellowship or the X Prize for telling the truth about data.
“I am gravely concerned about the rise of political correctness on college campuses, its effect on the type of analysis that is being published and being taught, and how this will undermine, among many other things, efforts to help the marginalized in America. Such efforts will succeed only if they are rooted in the truth.”
Full op-ed by Harvard Prof. Roland Fryer at WSJ
How to Save Free Speech on Campus
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Back in February, Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer was supposed to give a lecture on toxic polarization in American discourse at the University of Puget Sound. He didn’t. The event was canceled after pro-Palestinian protesters forced themselves into the lecture hall and stormed the stage.
“That same month, Israeli Defense Forces reservist and lawyer Ran Bar-Yoshafat was supposed to speak on the geopolitical dynamics of Israel’s war in Gaza at the University of California-Berkeley. He didn’t. The event was canceled after hundreds of angry protesters surrounded the venue, broke glass doors, obstructed entryways, and forced themselves into the building....
“In the last decade we have seen more than 1,000 campaigns to get professors punished for their First Amendment-protected speech. Nearly two-thirds of those campaigns succeeded, and almost 200 professors ended up being fired or forced out. For perspective, during McCarthyism, about 60 communist professors were fired, and about 100 professors were fired for political belief overall. We know this is a wild underestimate, given that about 1 in 6 professors say that they have been punished or threatened with punishment for their speech, teaching, or research. To give further perspective, if extrapolated nationally that would be about a hundred thousand professors targeted for speech. There is no parallel to that in American history....
“Our institutions of higher learning have done this to themselves. As Tyler Austin Harper put it in a piece for The Atlantic, higher education created this problem by favoring applicants who are interested only, or primarily, in engaging in activism. Indeed, they made activism a part of their marketing and recruitment materials....
“Right now, many students enroll with a predetermined moral and political certainty and an intolerance for dissent -- and schools largely encourage and reinforce it....
“Our institutions of higher education should protect their activists, but they should also prioritize recruiting scholars. The ideal student should think more like a field anthropologist, someone who is trying to figure out where the other side is coming from, rather than a strident warrior in a battle of good versus evil. That open, curious, intellectually humble, and receptive mindset is the foundation of actual learning, and is critical to fostering an educational environment that lives up to its intended purpose....
“However difficult it might be for universities to reestablish these norms after decades of encouraging the opposite, failing to do so will have dire consequences. Our institutions will be little more than dogma factories, churning out wave after wave of activists and leaving us with no scholars, no thinkers, and no higher learning at all.”
Full op-ed by FIRE President and Stanford alum Greg Lukianoff at Substack
Other Articles of Interest
A Frosh’s Reflection on Free Speech at Stanford
Full op-ed at Stanford Review
How Stanford Students Can Bring the Fun Back
Full op-ed at Stanford Daily
Universities Like Yale Need a Reckoning
Full op-ed by Yale Prof. David Blight at NY Times
The Department of Education’s Approach to Antisemitism Is Dangerous and Won’t Work
Full op-ed at The Hill
Is It Time to Regulate AI Use on Campus?
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education
Study Shows Most Workers Pay Back Student Loans on Time
Full article at College Fix
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
New Center Unites Stanford’s Robotics Expertise Under One Roof
Civil Dialogues Program Helps Freshmen Tackle Tough Conversations
Stanford Researchers Probe Consistency and Bias in AI
Historian Jonathan Gienapp Challenges Originalist Interpretations of the Constitution
New Specialty Spaces Coming to the Graduate School of Education
Scientists Find Novel Use for Ancient Malaria Remedy
************
“An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life -- becoming a better person.” -- Leo Tolstoy
November 11, 2024
Cancel Culture, Administrative Bloat and the Misguided Concept
of Student Consumerism
Excerpts (links in the original):
. . . .
“Cancel culture has made it possible for students to amplify grievances or objections to give them a type of veto power over faculty. Recording of classes posted on social media can lead to intense and immediate backlash, often for things taken out of context or at the whim of an emotional reaction. In many cases, faculty who attempt to introduce controversial ideas, engage in difficult discussions, or simply express an unpopular opinion may find themselves targeted, with students mobilizing to demand their removal, disciplinary action, or public apology. This climate has forced many faculty members to censor their teaching, avoid contentious topics, and minimize challenging coursework, all to avoid the potential repercussions of offending students. The power students hold in this dynamic can be oppressive, leaving professors with limited control over their curriculum and pedagogical approach, weakening the educational value of open inquiry and debate....
“[Meantime,] administrative bloat has increased the number of non-academic staff in universities, often in roles designed to cater to student needs, experiences, and complaints. While some of these roles serve legitimate purposes -- such as ensuring student safety, compliance with regulations, and supporting diverse student populations -- this growth has created an extensive support network that can empower students to challenge faculty more directly and frequently.
“With more administrators available to field student grievances, students find it easier to report issues, file complaints, and demand change within university structures. Administrative staff often feel pressured to respond quickly and decisively to these complaints to maintain student satisfaction and prevent potential public relations issues. This can create an institutional bias in favor of student concerns, even when they conflict with faculty perspectives or academic freedom. Administrators may side with students in disputes to avoid controversy or backlash, reinforcing student authority over faculty. With administrative structures expanding in this way, students gain leverage to challenge faculty decisions on grading, content, or classroom management, effectively placing themselves above faculty judgment....
“Addressing this imbalance requires universities to reevaluate their approach to governance, student relations, and administrative structure. It must first start with reinforcing academic freedom and support for faculty. Universities must explicitly protect faculty members’ right to academic freedom and provide them with institutional support when they engage in challenging or controversial teaching. Clear policies that protect professors’ ability to engage in intellectual discourse are essential.
“A mindset shift is also important. Educational institutions should actively promote a culture where students see themselves as active participants in learning rather than as customers. This could involve orientation programs, campaigns, or statements from leadership that emphasize the role of education in personal growth and critical thinking, not simply as a commodity....”
Full op-ed by U San Diego Prof. Rebekah Wanic at Minding the Campus. See also “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage
Upcoming USC Conference on Censorship in the Sciences (January 10 to 12, 2025)
Excerpt:
“Censorship in sciences entails suppression of the investigation of scientific questions, or the publication or dissemination of scientific research, on the grounds that such knowledge would be dangerous, undesirable, or contrary to moral, political, or religious beliefs, attitudes or values adhered to by some segment of the population.
“This conference brings together experts (both within and outside academia) to address a series of contentious issues about scientific censorship. When, if ever, does rejection of manuscripts for publication or grants for funding constitute censorship? How much of a role, if any, should ethical/moral issues play in deciding which scientific ideas to disseminate? What are the likely costs and benefits of institutionalized censorship, how do we decide, and who decides, when the benefits outweigh the costs?
“When and how do university administrations and funding agencies, through either action or inaction, mask censorship by finding ostensibly ‘other’ reasons to silence scientists? How does censorship of scientists or scientific ideas manifest? Is compelled speech a form of censorship, and, if so, how does it manifest in science? …"
PDF copy of schedule and full description and registration at USC website; speakers include Stanford professors Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis, former Caltech provost and Hoover fellow Steven Koonin, FIRE CEO and Stanford alum Greg Lukianoff, and over 30 other prominent scientists and commentators
A More Practical Argument for Free Speech
Excerpts (links in the original):
“One of the most persistent pitfalls in political argumentation is a version of the fallacy of false equivalence. A friend dubs it the fallacy of ripe apples and rotten oranges. In a political context, it's when an advocate compares an idealized or best-case version of his preferred position with a realistic -- or perhaps even exaggeratedly negative -- version of his opponent’s....
“As the broad American consensus in favor of free speech erodes, we have seen a similar unsatisfactory form of disputation proliferate. Critics of ‘free speech absolutism,’ as it is condescendingly dubbed -- we don’t refer to ‘rule of law absolutists’ or ‘separations of powers absolutists,’ for example -- highlight all manner of alleged deficiencies with the status quo and trace them to an alleged excess of free speech. If we could just get rid of free speech, then the ills associated with this ‘unmitigated disaster,’ as one ... journalist calls it, would vanish, with apparently none of the good things we might wish to retain being threatened.
“These opponents of free speech typically provide little sense of what the new, non-free-speech dispensation would look like in practice. In this asymmetrical theoretical comparison, implicit in much of today’s fashionable attacks on free speech, the alternative is hardly laid out at all. Somehow, we are led to believe, falsehoods and hurtful talk will vanish without truths getting caught in the dragnet, and no one, it appears, will be left any the worse off....
“As the requirements of correct speech are not only essentially vague but also shifting and nebulous, systems of speech-restraint predictably take on the exclusionary dimensions of codes of etiquette and manners. Appeals to ‘decency’ and ‘civility’ then become pretexts for ignoring the voices of those, often from less polished or less privileged backgrounds, who have not had the opportunity to master these codes, and mistakes of phrasing or word choice are magnified into markers of ‘being a bad person.’ Caste loyalties are entrenched, and instead of approaching disagreeable remarks charitably, with an eye toward learning from the other person, a feeling of superiority at having stayed current with the latest shibboleths crowds out a shared sense of civic commonality. Snobbery based on petty linguistic gamesmanship spreads, and respect for real intellectual achievement is lost to an inegalitarianism founded on ‘not saying the wrong thing.’ ...
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Gregory Conti at City Journal (free registration may be required)
See also our PDF download of the list of proscribed words and phrases that Stanford’s IT department somehow felt itself empowered to create and enforce until the entire matter became the subject of national embarrassment (scroll down to “Stanford’s Program re Speech” at our Stanford Concerns webpage)
In Time of Campus Turmoil, More Colleges Try Teaching Civil Discourse
Excerpts (links in the original):
“As Alexandra Delano prepared to moderate a civil discourse event for fellow students at Providence College in anticipation of the presidential election, some people quipped ‘good luck with that’ or ‘you’re brave for that.’
"They predicted that the event, whose blue and red flier read ‘There’s an election in two weeks? Let’s talk about it!,’ would be tense. It was sponsored by the college’s Dialogue, Inclusion and Democracy Lab, where Delano is a student fellow....
“Colleges have gradually increased their efforts to promote civic dialogue in the past several years, as partisanship has grown. But a new push has happened in higher ed after conflict erupted in the Middle East on October 7, 2023, along with campus protests -- college administrators have realized that they can’t provide a quality education in a chaotic environment, says Michael Murray, the president and chief executive officer of the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, which has funded several campus dialogue projects. Students need stability and a way to handle tense situations in order to succeed in and outside of the classroom, he says.
“Many colleges have sought that help from nonprofit organizations, such as Interfaith America or Braver Angels, he says. They provide toolkits, strategies and training to help administrators grow their programs. They also offer colleges resources on the best practices in constructive dialogue or suggest specific types of events, such as the round table strategy at Providence.
“The Constructive Dialogue Institute, for instance, offers a series of videos and online lessons for students to work through at their own pace, training for faculty and staff and a yearly program to help campus administrators learn more about constructive dialogue. Last year, the organization worked with 30 colleges. This year, that number has grown to 122 campuses, says Mylien Duong, senior director of research at the institute....”
Full article at Ed Surge
Cheating Has Become Normal; Faculty Are Overwhelmed
and the Solutions Aren’t Clear
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Before she returned to teaching last spring after a leave of absence, Amy Clukey braced for the possibility that her students might cheat with ChatGPT. She’d heard complaints from her fellow professors and thought, sure, that’s not good. But plagiarism had never been much of a problem in her English classes.
“‘I was always, like, I’ll create unique assignments and they will be somewhat plagiarism-proof, and some students will get by me,’ said Clukey, an associate professor at the University of Louisville. ‘But that’s fine because most of them will be doing their own work, and it’ll be great.’
“It wasn’t great....
“Some institutions, including Middlebury College, in Vermont, and Stanford University, are reconsidering elements of their honor codes because they’re simply not working. At Middlebury, the percentage of students who admitted on an annual survey to violating the honor code rose from 35 percent in 2019 to 65 percent in 2024. The most common self-reported violations were using unauthorized aids, such as SparkNotes or a friend, cheating on a test, and misusing AI....
“But do more students cheat today than in the past? It’s hard to know. Data so far is limited, and studies often rely on students to self-report. Some research documented a spike in cheating in online courses during the pandemic. Another study, which surveyed high-school students before and after ChatGPT’s arrival, did not find an increase in cheating over time. Other studies done before 2020 suggest that cheating may have fallen since the 1990s or early 2000s....”
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education
Other Articles of Interest
The Renaissance of Civic Education
Full op-ed by Michael Poliakoff, president of ACTA, and Jack Miller, founder and chairman emeritus of center devoted to these issues
See also “Reopening the American Mind” at City Journal
But see also “Why the Election Is Keeping Current Events Out of the Classroom This Fall” at WSJ
UCSF Med Professor Suspended for Post Asking if Israeli Student Participated in Genocide
Full article at College Fix
Columbia Needs to Stop Doing Politics and Start Doing Higher Education
Full op-ed at FIRE website
As Illiberal Anti-Israel Protests Continue, Let Dartmouth Serve as a Shining Example
Full op-ed at Real Clear 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
Cracking the Code of DNA Circles in Cancer, Stanford Medicine-Led Team Uncovers Potential Therapy
Stanford Launches Center Focused on Human and Planetary Health
Digital Health Symposium Highlights Trustworthy and Equitable Innovation
Stanford Experts Detail Democratic Decline, Authoritarian Trends in the Middle East
************
“On Veterans Day, we are called to consider the meaning of their service and to reflect on the liberties we enjoy as a result of their sacrifices. I’m inspired by the courage and selflessness of our nation’s veterans. I am especially proud of Stanford’s veterans, who enrich our campus community with their talent, dedication and spirit of leadership.” – Former Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, November 11, 2021
November 4, 2024
Internal Emails Show University Leaders at Harvard and Elsewhere Debating Responses to Hamas Attack
[Editor’s note: Many of us learned long ago that email is a useful form of one-way communication, that is, for statements like "attached is the agenda" or “the meeting has been cancelled.” It is a very inefficient and often destructive method for problem-solving which is best accomplished via two-way communication in the form of face-to-face meetings or other simultaneous interactions. And, as described in the following article, email creates a potentially embarrassing record.
[This is also a reason we raised concerns over a year ago regarding Stanford's massive use of automated emails and other interactions with students in connection with disciplinary and similar matters, versus the student services staff actually meeting and talking with students and resolving issues in more humane and personalized ways. See "Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior" at our Stanford Concerns webpage.]
Excerpt (link in the original):
“Two days after Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel last year, senior administrators at Harvard University wrestled with how to respond. Drafting a public statement, they edited out the word ‘violent’ to describe the attack, when a dean complained that it ‘sounded like assigning blame.’
"They debated whether to explicitly disown a declaration by some Harvard student groups that Israel was responsible for the violence, but ultimately decided not to.
“The internal debate among Harvard leaders including Claudine Gay, then the school’s president, played out furiously in emails and text messages that were released in a report on Thursday by the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The report, part of a nearly yearlong inquiry by House Republicans investigating antisemitism on university campuses, offers a rare window into the discussions at multiple universities and how difficult judgment calls made by a small handful of people were scrutinized around the world....
Full article at NY Times, including detailed examples at Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern and elsewhere
Students and Faculty Express Differing Views re Stanford’s Free Speech Policies
Excerpt:
“Some students have expressed concern that campus activism and free speech is experiencing a chilling effect following the University’s updated free speech guidelines that were announced early this school year.
“The University announced a series of free speech guidelines in September that detail the parameters of what’s allowed in campus demonstrations, following a tumultuous year of protests and counter-protests over the Israel-Gaza war.
“Several faculty members have expressed their support for the guideline, calling it a proactive measure. Introduced in September by Provost Jenny Martinez and Vice Provost for Student Affairs Michele Rasmussen, the new guidelines outlined several points include advance registration of major events, designated outdoor spaces for gatherings, identification and masking guidelines and an emphasis on the policy’s viewpoint neutrality....”
Full article at Stanford Daily. See also Stanford’s Freedom of Expression website
Civil Liberty on Campus (video)
SUMMARY (quoted from YouTube): “What is the proper relationship between free speech and civility in an academic context? How can students and faculty be afforded broad rights to free expression and academic freedom without sacrificing order and education on campus? Which forms of protest are permissible and which go too far for a university community to tolerate? This panel features world-renowned experts considering these topics and offering ideas for a positive path forward for American higher education during these challenging times.”
MODERATOR: Carleton College Prof. Amna Khalid
PANELISTS:
-
NY Law Prof. Emerita Nadine Strossen (and past president of the ACLU)
-
Yale Law Prof. Keith Whittington (and founding chair of the Academic Committee of the Academic Freedom Alliance)
-
George Mason Prof. JoAnn Koob
Full video of American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) panel at YouTube (1 hour, 13 minutes)
See also “Pursue Truth; Never Fear, Never Waver,” Harvard Prof. Roland G. Fryer, accepting ACTA award, at YouTube (21 minutes, core discussion starts at the 11-minute mark)
It’s Getting Still Harder to Get Admitted to America’s Top Colleges and Universities
Excerpt:
….
“In general, schools seeing increases in median SAT scores vastly outnumber those seeing decreases.
From 2016 to 2023:
-
median SAT scores for 4 percent of schools increased by 100 points or more.
-
median SAT scores for 38 percent of schools increased by 50 points or more.
-
median SAT scores for 9 percent of schools decreased.
[Followed by examples of specific schools and a link to a larger data base although not including Stanford]
Full article at Education Next
Law Student Faces Expulsion for Aggressive Pointing
[Editor’s note: While we don’t know firsthand whether Pace uses the same automated case management system that Stanford uses, these are the types of templates, emails and case management protocols, as also noted in an earlier article in this Newsletter, that are contained in the automated systems in use at Stanford and hundreds of other colleges and universities around the country and that are similar to the types of communications Katie Meyer reportedly was receiving.]
Excerpts (link in the original):
“When Houston Porter, a 28-year-old law student at Pace University, first walked into the college auditorium last month, he was surprised to see a packed house for the ‘Saving Women’s Sports’ panel he was co-moderating.
“’Our events normally don’t get that kind of turnout,’ says Porter, a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative advocacy group that sponsored the panel at Pace’s law school in White Plains, New York. ‘So it was exciting.’ ...
“But not long after, Porter’s world started ‘crumbling down’ -- with at least one professor shouting at panelists and another allegedly rushing the stage, followed by a Title IX investigation that accuses him of having ‘aggressively pointed’ at a transgender student and misgendering her. Now Porter faces the possibility of suspension, expulsion, and even being barred from practicing law....
“Nine days later, the situation became even stranger. Porter saw an email flash across his phone, titled ‘Notification Letter.’
“‘I felt scared, like time stopped. I was shocked,’ he told me.
“When he expanded the email, he saw a PDF attachment from Bernard Dufresne, the school’s Title IX coordinator, stating that Porter is being investigated for a potential act of ‘sex-based discrimination’ against a transgender student who attended the Federalist Society event along with about two dozen members of the school’s LBGTQ+ affinity group. The charge? That he ‘aggressively pointed’ at the transgender student and ‘purposefully referred to her as a man in front of classmates, law school faculty and administrators, and guests.’ He now faces a disciplinary hearing that could result in community service, suspension, or even expulsion....”
Full article at Free Press. See also “Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
Other Articles of Interest
Yale Adopts Institutional Neutrality
Full article at College Fix
Stanford-Affiliate Donations Lean Further Left Than Previous Election Cycles
Full article at Stanford Daily (nearly $800,000 to Harris versus $18,280 to Trump, along with comparisons with past years)
AI Tutors Are Reshaping Higher Education
Full article at Axios as reprinted at MSN
No U.S. History?
Full PDF report at ACTA website including detailed charts re history curricula at major U.S. colleges and universities including Stanford (page 58)
By Politicizing Health Care, Medical Schools Are Putting Lives on the Line
Full article at College Fix including link to Do No Harm full report
How to Help Students Debate Constructively
Full article at Inside Higher Ed
Should AI Be Allowed in the College Application Process?
Full article at Ed Scoop including link to survey results
Educating for Freedom
Full video of ACTA panel at YouTube (one hour, six minutes), including discussion of the benefits of a core curriculum for incoming students, the ongoing risks of self-censorship, etc.
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
Can AI Improve Medical Diagnostic Accuracy?
New Study Shows that Partisanship Trumps Truth
A New Technique Signals Cancer Cells to Self-Destruct
Innovative Techniques Shed Light on Hamstring Injury in Athletes
New Voltage Indicator Enables Ultra-Sensitive Synaptic Imaging
************
"Gratitude encourages reciprocity, with all the social benefits it brings. Grateful people enjoy better physical and emotional health, increased happiness, decreased depression and decreased materialism.” – Former Stanford Pres. Richard Saller
October 28, 2024
A Bipartisan Vision for Higher Education Reform
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Higher education has taken a beating lately. The industry has been roiled by seemingly endless crises on topics ranging from affordability and student debt to free speech and antisemitism. It is hardly surprising that public confidence in higher education has plummeted, as over two-thirds of Americans now believe it is headed in the wrong direction. This broad, bipartisan malaise has yet to translate into any action at the federal level, as divisions between the House and Senate have forestalled all attempts at enacting meaningful reforms. This has been the case for the past decade, as political polarization has doomed multiple attempts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act -- a task that Congress is charged with performing every four years and yet has failed to accomplish since 2008.
“Though reform has been stymied at the federal level, America’s statehouses have continued to pursue new and innovative ways to strengthen public colleges and universities. In the past few sessions alone, Connecticut provided trainings for its trustees and regents, Ohio pledged $24 million to fund a number of institutes focused on improving civic education, and five states moved to ban legacy admissions. The states, while certainly not immune to partisan rancor, have continued their proud tradition of serving as laboratories of democracy.
“The strength of this tradition was in full display with the release of a new report from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) -- a bipartisan nonprofit that serves state lawmakers and their staff. After over two years of work by a task force representing legislators and their staffs from 32 states, NCSL published in October a wide-reaching new vision for public higher education entitled, A State-Led Strategy to Enhance the Value of Degrees....
“The task force directly addresses college trustees, suggesting that boards of public institutions should take greater pains to evaluate program-level student outcomes to ensure that degree offerings ‘lead to desirable life, career and earning outcomes.’ This push for program-level evaluation is long overdue, as too many colleges promote programs -- particularly graduate degrees -- that saddle students with life-altering debt without providing a path toward financial stability....”
Full article at American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) website
American Academy of Sciences and Letters Honors Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya with Its Highest Award for Intellectual Freedom
Excerpt (link in the original):
“Dr. Jay Bhattacharya received the American Academy of Sciences and Letters’ top intellectual freedom award on Wednesday [October 23] for resisting attempts to politically control his scientific work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The academy presents its annual Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom to a scholar ‘who displays extraordinary courage in the exercise of intellectual freedom,’ according to its website.
“Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, received the honor during the academy’s annual investiture ceremony at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Afterward, he joined Princeton University Professor Stephen Macedo for an interview on stage.
“Macedo began by asking about the first time Bhattacharya pushed back against the government’s handling of the pandemic.
“‘I wasn’t prepared for it,’ Bhattacharya said.
“‘I had never published an op-ed. I had never been on TV. I was a quiet scholar, and I had this idea regarding the pandemic that the disease was more widespread than people realized,’ he said.
“Then, after he wrote an op-ed about it, he ‘got death threats.’ Bhattacharya said attacks came from Stanford as well.
“‘The university, which I loved, … investigated me for false allegations … that they knew were false,’ he said. ‘I got sent a very clear signal that I needed to stay quiet.’
“‘I lost sleep, I couldn’t eat,’ he said. ‘But I decided that I didn’t care about my career anymore and I needed to say what I saw.’...”
Full article at College Fix
Over Half of Harvard Professors Are Too Afraid to Discuss Controversial Subjects
with Students
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Harvard professors are biting their tongues and dodging political issues out of fear of losing their jobs, being ‘cancelled’ or attracting heat online.
“Harvard is the nation’s premier university and produces a disproportionate number of our leaders. It’s expected to set an example and be a bastion of discourse and debate -- with its professors boldly leading the way.
“But a survey published by the university’s own Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue Working Group found a solid majority of profs now avoid touchy topics both inside and outside of the classroom, after things boiled over in the last year with campus protests related to the war in Gaza.
“The 1,411 surveyed faculty and staff were prompted to ‘think about teaching a controversial issue in a class at Harvard’ -- and their primary reaction seems to be fear.
“Just 18% said they would be very comfortable doing so, and 31% somewhat comfortable. But more than half said they would be somewhat (33%) or very (18%) reluctant.
“According to the report, professors said they fear for their reputations and their jobs: ‘They cited potential damage to their professional standing as the reason for their reluctance, in particular, the prospect of negative teaching evaluations, the possibility of contract nonrenewal or tenure denial, the potential for criticism on social media, and the possibility that difficult conversations might trigger complaints about bullying and harassment.’ ...”
Full op-ed at NY Post
The Ongoing Problems of Administrative Capture
Excerpts (links in the original):
“‘The reason that university politics is so vicious is because stakes are so small,’ former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once restated Sayre’s law in this famous quip on competition in academia. That was the 1970’s when scholarly debates about communism and Marxism had little influence on government policies at the height of the Cold War. Times have changed....
“There is a more insidious and equally consequential battle taking place on college campuses: the battle of administrative capture, in which full-time, unelected bureaucrats actively usurp higher learning, academic freedom, and the marketplace of ideas. Once in position, agents of administrative capture work tirelessly to maintain the status quo for purposes of ideological proselytizing, self-aggrandizing, or both....
“Dr. Matthew Garrett was a tenured history professor at Bakersfield College, a two-year public community college and part of the Kern Community College District (KCCD). In April 2023, the school fired him on grounds of ‘immoral/unprofessional conduct,’ ‘dishonesty,’ ‘violation of COVID guidelines,’ ‘unsatisfactory performance’ and other politically charged offenses. In a 19-page report, Bakersfield College substantiated the litany of charges against the conservative academic, starting with Garrett’s 2019 op-ed, criticizing the school’s labeling of anti-Marxist stickers on campus as a ‘hate crime.’
“Bakersfield College’s troubles with Dr. Garrett escalated in 2022 when he co-founded the Renegade Institute for Liberty, a faculty free speech coalition. When the group posted a chart breaking down KCCD’s spending on segregated classes and programs in the 2021-22 academic year, the school disparaged the effort as ‘harmful,’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘inflammatory.’ Garrett was also removed from the school’s diversity committee after questioning the school’s use of grant money on social justice initiatives....”
[Followed by a detailed discussion of the Garrett case]
Full article at Minding the Campus
See also “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage, and recommendations for addressing these types of issues at our Back to Basics webpage
Professors in Trouble Over Protests Wonder if Academic Freedom Is Dying
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Universities have cracked down on professors for pro-Palestinian activism, saying they are protecting students and tamping down on hate speech. Faculty members say punishments have put a ‘chill in the air.’ ...
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has intensified what many faculty members and their allies believe is part of a growing assault on the ideals of academic freedom, a principle that most American colleges and universities hold dear.
“Visiting scholars, adjuncts and lecturers without tenure have had their contracts terminated or not renewed. Some had their classes suddenly canceled. Faculty members say they have been publicly criticized in ways that have trampled on their reputations and hurt their careers....
“The disciplinary actions have followed a movement to ensure students feel safe on campus. In the last year, many Jewish students have said protests and classroom discussions about the war have threatened that feeling of safety, sometimes intimidating them from expressing their views and making them nervous about revealing their Jewish identity.
“Academic freedom is also not absolute. It does not protect ‘propagating wrongheaded ideas’ in teaching or research, said Nadine Strossen, a former head of the American Civil Liberties Union. And it does not put faculty members above the law or above campus rules meant to make sure protests, whatever their point of view, do not disrupt learning.
“But it means that academics are broadly allowed the First Amendment right to express opinions or to speak beyond their area of expertise outside the classroom, including on social media.
“Yet that is where many faculty members are getting into trouble, Ms. Strossen said.
“Professors have been criticized for creating hostile environments in classrooms and stifling the speech of students who might not agree with them, taking on the role of activists instead of teachers. And some say faculty members are professing views that could cross legal lines requiring universities to protect students from discrimination....”
[Followed by discussion of specific cases at various campuses]
Full article at NY Times
Institutional Neutrality Applies to Actions, Not Just Words
Excerpts:
“Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier has emerged as a strong advocate for institutional neutrality in recent years, arguing that institutions often go beyond their core mission when they strike stances on public issues. He expounded on those views in an interview with Inside Higher Ed in which he discussed the growing number of institutions that have adopted institutional neutrality and how tensions in the Middle East and related protests on campuses are driving university leaders to rethink how they engage on contentious issues at home and abroad....
[Followed by Q&A with Chancellor Diermeier, including the following]
“Q: What is your threshold for speaking out on an issue now for taking a position on something?
“A: Institutional neutrality means [asking], ‘Am I taking a position that goes beyond that core purpose of the university?’ … It’s not about being silent all the time. Of course, you can talk to your community, but you have to be careful that you restrict your comments and focus your comments on the values related to the core purpose of the university, like access for students, financial aid, research support for your faculty. These are all related to values, but they are related to the core purpose of the university.
“You can and you should talk about the important value that universities bring to society, forcefully. That’s not a problem with institutional neutrality, because it’s your core purpose.
“When you have a tragedy, for example, that affects the members of the community deeply, I think there is a need for the leader of the institution, a president or chancellor, to have a pastoral function, where you connect with the community emotionally, with empathy, with the suffering, with the concerns that they have. That can be a natural disaster or, as we had in Nashville, a school shooting that was only a few miles from campus, and that affected members of our community in the most horrendous way. When you do that, you need to comfort people and connect with them empathetically in an authentic fashion. But it’s not about decision-making. It’s not about position taking on policy issues. In the case of the school shooting, you can connect with people as a community that’s suffering. What you shouldn’t do is now come down with a position on gun control; that’s a policy issue.” ...
Full text of interview at Inside Finance
See also ACTA fireside chat with Chancellor Diermeier, "Leading a University in a Time of Turmoil," at YouTube
Other Articles of Interest
New College Protest Rules Spur an Outcry from College Faculty
Full article at Associated Press
America’s Schools Are Facing a Public Emergency
Full article at The 74 website including quotes from co-chair Condoleezza Rice
Zombie Psychology, Implicit Bias Theory and the Implicit Association Test
Full report at National Association of Scholars
Why Very Few Colleges Will Divest from Israel
Full op-ed at The Hill
Viewpoint - College Officials Must Condemn On-Campus Support for Hamas Violence
Full op-ed by UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky at NY Times
A Higher Ed Renaissance?
Full podcast at Law & Liberty (47 minutes)
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
Is the United States’ Borrowing Binge About to Burst?
Scientists Glue Two Proteins Together, Driving Cancer Cells to Self-Destruct
Ten Questions Predict Mental Health Risk After Emergency Hospitalizations
Ten Tips for Picking and Solving the Next Great Problem
The Transformative Power of Film
************
"Universities are the great repositories of knowledge...yet they have become bastions of orthodoxy, where diversity is extolled in everything but thought." – Former University of Chicago Prof. Allan Bloom (1930-1992), author of The Closing of the American Mind
October 21, 2024
NY Times Analysis of Michigan’s DEI Experiment
Excerpts from NY Times summary article (links in the original):
“A decade ago, the University of Michigan intentionally placed itself in the vanguard of a revolution then beginning to reshape American higher education. Around the country, college administrators were rapidly expanding D.E.I. programs. They believed that vigorous D.E.I. efforts would allow traditionally underrepresented students to thrive on campus -- and improve learning for students from all backgrounds.
“In recent years, as D.E.I. programs came under withering attack, Michigan has only doubled down on D.E.I., holding itself out as a model for other schools. By one estimate, the university has built the largest D.E.I. bureaucracy of any big public university.
“But an examination by The Times found that Michigan’s expansive -- and expensive -- D.E.I. program has struggled to achieve its central goals even as it set off a cascade of unintended consequences....
“The percentage of Black students, currently around 5 percent, remained largely stagnant as Michigan’s overall enrollment rose -- and in a state where 14 percent of residents are Black. In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members across the board reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging....
“Instead of improving students’ ability to engage with one another across their differences, Michigan’s D.E.I. expansion has coincided with an explosion in campus conflict over race and gender. Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements are now cast as crises of inclusion and harm....
“At Michigan, as at other schools, campus protests exploded after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks in Israel and Israel’s retaliation in Gaza. So did complaints of harassment or discrimination based on national origin or ancestry. This June, civil rights officials at the federal Department of Education found that Michigan had systematically mishandled such complaints over the 18-month period ending in February. Out of 67 complaints of harassment or discrimination based on national origin or ancestry that the officials reviewed -- an overwhelming majority involving allegations of antisemitism, according to a tally I obtained -- Michigan had investigated and made findings in just one.”
AND FROM THE MORE DETAILED NY TIMES INVESTIGATIVE REPORT:
....
“These growing bureaucracies represented a major -- and profoundly left-leaning -- reshuffling of campus power. Administrators were even more politically liberal than faculty members, according to one survey, and far more likely to favor racial preferences in admissions and hiring. They promulgated what Lyell Asher, a professor of English at Lewis & Clark College in Oregon, has called ‘an alternate curriculum,’ taught not in classrooms but in dorms, disciplinary hearings and orientation programs.
“Some administrators discovered that student activists could be a potent campus constituency. The former president of one top research institution recalled for me how students once came to his office with demands, presented in a kind of theatrical performance, to enhance the university’s D.E.I. program. The former president, who asked for anonymity for fear of risking his present job, later learned that some of the program’s senior staff members had worked with and encouraged the students to pressure the administration on their behalf. ‘That was the moment at which I understood that there was a whole part of the bureaucracy that I didn’t control,’ he said....
“On their private text-messaging group, deans across the university grumbled about the mountains of data they were required to submit each year. Their public progress reports and D.E.I. strategic plans were heavily vetted by the university counsel’s office and [former Vice Provost for Equity and Inclusion Robert M.] Sellers’s team; the resulting public documents, though meant to ensure accountability, were often both lengthy and vague. ‘No one knew what they were supposed to be doing,’ the former dean said. ‘And no one would tell us. But we had to show that we were doing something.’
“At the same time, Sellers and his allies began building what amounted to a parallel hiring system, giving them a more direct role in reshaping Michigan’s faculty. [State initiative] Proposal 2 expressly prohibited racial or gender preferences in hiring. But in 2016, Michigan began a new program called the Collegiate Fellows, reserved for postdoctoral scholars ‘in all liberal-arts fields who are committed to diversity in the academy.’ Based at the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, Michigan’s largest division, the program provided additional budget dollars with each fellow hired, a further incentive to department chairs....
“Even within the academy, though, some long-accepted precepts of D.E.I. are coming under closer scrutiny. Some researchers argue that teaching students to view the world chiefly through the lens of identity and oppression can leave them vulnerable instead of empowered. Psychologists have questioned whether implicit bias can be accurately measured or reduced through training. The notion that microaggressions are not only real but ubiquitous in interracial encounters is widespread in D.E.I. programs; a 2021 review of the microaggressions literature, however, judged it ‘without adequate scientific basis.’ ..."
Summary article at NY Times
More complete investigative report at NY Times Magazine
See also “University of Michigan Spent $250 Million on DEI, Made Students Unhappier” at Reason Magazine
College Administrative Bloat Is Robbing Our Children of Their Futures
[Editor’s note: Last week’s Newsletter included an article from Minding the Campus, “Student Loans Are the Fudge Factor in University Costs.” Contained within that article was a link to an article from a few years earlier arguing that the continual increase in the nation's student loan programs is a major factor in the dramatic increase in the administrative staffs at U.S. colleges and universities, "College Administrative Bloat Is Robbing Our Children of Their Futures."
[While universities with large endowments, including Stanford, provide significant financial support to students, especially undergraduates, the point remains, a major reason for the huge growth in the number of managerial and other administrative personnel at Stanford and elsewhere has been the result of few if any pressures coming from the financial side of the university’s operations incuding as a result of student debt. We believe this is a key reason the nation’s public universities -- including major research universities like UCLA, UC Berkeley, Michigan, Ohio State, etc. -- are operating with a fraction of the administrative staff and a fraction of the costs as compared to our elite private universities since the public universities are under the continual scrutiny of taxpayers, elected officials and others.
[See, for example, the charts at our Stanford Concerns webpage, “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” and that show, among other things, the growth of managerial and professional staff of slightly more than 3,000 at Stanford in the year 2000 to over 18,000 in the current year as compared to a very modest growth in members of Stanford's faculty in those same years, that is, from approximately 1,500 faculty in 2000 to 1,730 faculty in 2024. Or that show, based on publicly reported data, that in 2022, administrative costs per student at Stanford were $40,227 as compared to $11,128 at Michigan, $9,211 at UC Berkeley and $7,640 at UCLA.
[And the huge increase in managerial and professional staff seems to have resulted in little if any improvement in the student experience. In fact, quite the contrary. Much of the discontent of students at the nation’s elite private universities seems to be the result of the constant involvement of the administrative staff in student life. See for example "Stanford’s War on Fun” by Stanford undergraduate Theo Baker at Stanford Daily and separately "Stanford's War Against Its Own Students" by Francesca Block at Free Press.
[With that background, we are providing excerpts from the article that was linked in last week’s Minding the Campus op-ed.]
Excerpts (links in the original)
. . .
“Everyone agrees that something must be done about skyrocketing costs at colleges and universities. Second only to mortgage debt, student loan debt has grown approximately 157% in the past 11 years to $1.6 trillion....
“[Many are now calling for the forgiveness of this student debt.] These policies are dangerously misguided. First, the policies are regressive. According to a recent study from the University of Chicago, full college debt forgiveness would distribute $192 billion to the top 20% of earners while only giving $29 billion to the bottom 20%.
“These plans also transfer the burden to millions of taxpayers who have worked hard to pay off their student loans, especially those who scrimped and saved and those who were employed during school to pay for them. In turn, those former students would be forced to foot the bill for people who did not make such sacrifices. The people who make these cost-saving decisions often come from lower-income backgrounds, while those who rack up expensive debt by attending private and out-of-state schools are typically from affluent families....
“Instead of forgiving student debt and tolerating the superfluity that is now common in higher education, we need to cut costs. We must attack the growing monster of administrative bloat.
“Between 1993 and 2007, administrative costs increased an outrageous 61.2%, while instructional costs increased 39.3%. According to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, noninstructional spending at colleges and universities from 2016 to 2017 exceeded the gross domestic product of 134 countries. We have seen the explosion of vice presidents, counselors, diversity coaches, and all kinds of administrative staff. Someone must supervise the addition of climbing walls, spectacular gyms, and the now-ubiquitous ‘safe spaces.’ Some administrators now see their mission to be more political than educational, and the student ends up funding their ideological initiatives....”
Full article at American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) website
See also our Back to Basics webpage including setting targets for reducing costs not directly related to faculty teaching and research and redirecting the savings (paragraph 3.c.) solely to undergraduate scholarships, research grants and independent projects and graduate student fellowships.
Stanford Trustees’ Special Committee on Investment Responsibility Declines to Act
on Student Demands for Divestment
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Dear Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine,
“Thank you for sharing your divestment petition on May 6th. We are empathetic to your deep concern for the tragic events of the past year in Gaza and Israel. They have been painful to observe and particularly distressing for those with loved ones in the region who have been living with violence and fear....
“Your petition asks for the endowment to divest certain companies. The university strives to provide a forum for the exchange of diverse perspectives among members of its community. However, as cited in the Board’s Statement on Investment Responsibility, ‘Just as the University does not take positions on partisan or political issues, the Trustees maintain a strong presumption against using the endowment as an instrument to advance any particular social or political agenda.’ It further provides that the Trustees ‘may choose to take no action on a request if an issue is divisive within the campus community.’ The Board additionally reaffirmed in a recent resolution the ‘avoidance of institutional orthodoxy’ as a critical principle that supports Stanford’s environment of free inquiry.
"As a result, the [Special Committee on Investment Responsibility] agreed to take no action on the divestment petition after discussing the matter with the Board ...."
Full letter at Stanford Report
See also “Brown University Says No to Pro-Palestinian Students' Demands for Divestment” at NPR
An Anti-Israel Agenda Motivated the AAUP to Abandon Core Principles
Excerpts (links in the original):
“After more than 100 years as the 'primary defender of academic freedom' in American higher education, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) rejects its long-held principles with its controversial endorsement of academic boycotts.
“While the AAUP claims that its recent embrace of academic boycotts is not intended to target Israel, make no mistake, it is clearly motivated by an anti-Israel ideology and, to some, smacks of antisemitism.
“What makes the AAUP’s ideological shift in support of academic boycotts so striking is the seeming ease with which it ignores its long history of steadfast and principled opposition to such tactics....
“Over the years, the AAUP has remained resolute in opposing academic boycotts, even of institutions whose governments have faced international condemnation, including China, Nigeria, Iran, and Brazil....
“By abandoning its core principles and endorsing academic boycotts, the AAUP has not only compromised its commitment to academic freedom, but has also set a dangerous precedent where ideology trumps open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas -- principles it once championed.”
Full op-ed by the former longtime general counsel of the Massachusetts Community College System and former faculty member Ken Tashjy at Campus Reform
See also “AAUP Continues to Back Away from Academic Freedom” by its new statement supporting mandatory diversity statements in faculty hiring, at FIRE website
Other Articles of Interest
What’s Behind the Push for ‘Institutional Neutrality’?
Full article at Insider Higher Ed
Contrary to Media Reports, Americans Have Actually Not Turned Against Higher Ed
Full op-ed at New America. A version of this op-ed also appears at Chronicle of Higher Education.
Using Faculty Meetings to Declare Political Positions Undermines Princeton’s Mission
Full op-ed at Daily Princetonian
A Student Group’s Endorsement of Violence Splits Columbia’s Faculty
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education
Poll Shows That One-Quarter of Applicants Ruled Out Colleges Because of States’ Political Climate
Full article at The Hill
Harvard’s Ten-Minute Rule for Speaker Disruptions
Full article at Simple Justice
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
From School of Business – Promoting Free Speech in the Classroom
From Geo-Physics and School of Engineering – The Search for Water in Space Results in Gains on Earth
From School of Medicine – How Stanford Medicine Diagnoses Diseases Using Nuclei.io
From School of Medicine – Liver Cancer Stem Cells Shown to Use Immune System as Shield to Spark Disease Recurrence
From AI Center – How Large Language Models Could Speed Promising New Classroom Curricula
From Cyber Policy Center – The Stanford Adolescents and Social Media Initiative
************
“Colleges and universities exist for one reason above all: to promote learning. They are democracy’s greatest arsenal.” -- Harvard Prof. Cass R. Sunstein
October 14, 2024
Censorship, Academic Freedom and the Pandemic
Excerpts:
. . . . .
“Truth is not determined by consensus, or by numbers of people who agree, or by titles. It is discovered by debate, proven by critical analysis of evidence. Arguments are won by data and logic, not by personal attack or censoring others....
“As a professor and physician at top universities for 30 years -- as a graduate of the University of Chicago School of Medicine, when facts mattered, I fear for our students. Students cannot learn critical thinking without hearing differing views, especially ideas they may not agree with -- and critical thinking is THE most important lesson to learn in college.
“Yet many faculty members of our acclaimed universities are dangerously intolerant of opinions contrary to their favored narrative. Some employ toxic smears and organized rebukes against those of us who disagreed….
“Finally, to the students, never forget what G. K. Chesterton said: ‘Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about it.’”
Full text of speech by Dr. Scott Atlas at the recent pandemic policy conference held at Stanford, as published at Stanford Review
See also Stanford Daily's coverage of the conference. See also “Will Free Speech Come to Stanford?” at Stanford Review.
President Levin Emphasizes the Importance of Open Dialog
Excerpts:
. . . .
“When I was invited to participate in this event [the pandemic policy conference] a few months ago, it was with the understanding that the goal was to bring together people with different perspectives, engage in a day of discussion, and in that way, try to repair some of the rifts that opened during COVID.
“That struck me as a valuable goal, and the sort of goal we should aim for at Stanford. So I agreed to give a few brief remarks to that effect.
“What followed was disappointing.... When an initial and partial agenda was posted, it was immediately perceived as one-sided, and as I’m sure you all noticed became the subject of op-eds and social media posts.
“Ironically, instead of repairing rifts as intended and perhaps spurring fresh thinking, the process seemed to reopen old and existing divisions.
“As an observer and as the leader of this university, I found the episode dispiriting, in a way that goes beyond the specifics of this particular event.
“We have many issues today at Stanford, and on other campuses, where views are divided, and in some cases, like this one, where feelings are raw.
“Yet I believe we need to make every effort to get people who disagree, even sharply, in dialogue with one another. I believe it’s essential for us to do that as members of the faculty and university leaders -- not just because it’s a way to advance knowledge, but because we need to model that behavior if we want to expect it from our students. And in today’s world, we absolutely need to ask and expect our students to be able to engage with, listen to, and debate with people with whom they disagree. My view is that we need to err on the side of talking to one another...."
Full text of Pres. Levin’s remarks at Stanford Report
Higher Education Shouldn’t Mean Higher Indoctrination
Excerpts (links in the original):
“University faculty and staff face one of the oldest problems on campus: what free speech means. Our students are entering an extraordinarily polarized world that encourages them to think only in binary terms: yes, this is right, or no, this is wrong. It is our responsibility to equip them with the critical thinking skills to navigate this world, not to indoctrinate them.
“We cannot teach people to be critical thinkers if we do not allow for different opinions, views, and belief systems on campus and in classrooms. To forbid expressing other views risks indoctrinating students instead of educating them. Indoctrinated students have no room to question, challenge, debate, or defend positions on complex issues -- in fact, it leaves no room to even fathom that other perspectives may exist....
“The dean of Berkeley’s School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, summed up what our role is not: ‘It’s not our role to make them safe from ideas that they don’t want to be exposed to. But that line, I think, has gotten blurred.’ If we operate from that premise, our next question is: how do we unblur that line? Do we focus only on the First Amendment, the kind of ‘hard-nosed constitutionalism’ that once prevailed and left vulnerable student populations in the cold? Surely that can’t be the right path forward. But how do we even start building spaces where free speech is respected on campus?" ...
Full op-ed by UC Berkeley International House CEO Shaun Carver at Minding the Campus
Student Loans Are the Fudge Factor in University Costs
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Imagine an American college or university president making the following public statement:
“‘I regret that my institution, along with many others, has contributed to burdensome federal student loan debt and to rising college tuition levels, allowing our institutions to profit from the existence of student loan monies. At the same time, we have failed to offer our students adequate skills and knowledge required to compete in today’s world.’
“If collegiate presidents struggled with questions about antisemitism on their campuses -- as they did during recent Congressional testimony -- they would surely be unable to speak frankly on student loan burdens, high and rising tuition levels, institutional profiteering from student loans, and whether students benefit academically from attending college....
“Institutions can apply the increased tuition revenue to budgetary expenditures of their choice. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has shown that much of the increased tuition revenue has financed administrative bloat such as diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and other administrative bureaucracies such as student counseling rather than expanding educational offerings....
“[In addition, at major research universities,] federally sponsored research awards carry additional ‘indirect cost’ funding intended to reimburse institutions for overhead expenses of providing campus space and services for grant-funded research. Indirect cost rates, which typically range from 35-50% of direct costs, are negotiated with federal grant-sponsoring agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, and numerous others that fund the research. Thus, for example, a federal research grant funded at $100,000 in direct costs is awarded a total $135,000-150,000 including indirect costs....
“Investigation of these sweeping issues is a discussion for another day. In the meantime, where is the collegiate president who will speak the truth about federal student loans?”
Full op-ed at Minding the Campus
See also “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
See also “Stanford’s Administrative Bureaucracy Must be Brought Under Control” at our Back to Basics webpage including setting targets for reducing non-teaching costs and redirecting the savings (paragraph 3.c.) solely to undergraduate and graduate student research grants and similar student-based educational activities.
Other Articles of Interest
Harvard President Is Disappointed by 2023 Fundraising Numbers
Full article at Harvard Crimson
A Detailed List of Cancel Culture Events in Higher Education
Full article at National Association of Scholars and including a detailed chart of 238 academic cancellations in recent years
Reflections on the Loss of Rigor in College Classes
Full op-ed by UCLA Prof. Emeritus Stan Trimble at Minding the Campus
Oct. 7 Kicked Off a Difficult Year for Higher Ed; How Universities Might Move Forward
Full article at Inside Higher Ed, including statements from various university presidents, faculty and third parties
Colleges Could Benefit from Taking a Data-Driven Look at Hostility Toward Jews on Campus
Full op-ed by Brandeis Prof. Leonard Saxe and Brandeis Associate Research Scientist Graham Wright at The Conversation
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
Nanotechnology is Everywhere - Why Very Small Tech Matters
Why the Risk of Rogue AI is Significantly Overstated
Possible Ways to Generate New Neurons in Old Brains
How the Unchecked Power of Companies Is Destabilizing Governance
************
“If you want to create a culture of free speech on campus, it needs to start with the students in the classroom, not with faculty or administrators.... Students are not the problem, they’re the solution.” -- Former Duke, now UNC Prof. John Rose
October 7, 2024
Stanford’s New President Is Hitting the Right Notes
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Attending Stanford over two decades ago was a privilege. I was surrounded by brilliant faculty, bright peers, and a great basketball team. But I relish my time at Stanford because I was often intellectually uncomfortable. I had my views challenged and my norms questioned; I had to be introspective and ready to explain ideas and practices which were a given. I also had to accept difference and tried to understand new values, traditions, and narratives that were previously quite foreign to me; I had to be open and address my own ignorance. That discomfort helped shape me into an empathic, inquisitive scholar and prepared me to effectively contribute to the community and my future students.
“I moved west to Stanford as a religious Jew from the East Coast and found myself in an extremely different world -- one that was far more racially and ethnically diverse than home and was very religiously secular. While a student, I had my views and biases challenged in class, in the dorms, and in the dining halls; I did not understand other cultures, beliefs, or traditions, so I asked questions. Many did not understand my cultural upbringing, and fellow students approached me, asking about my values, my history, and my worldview. We engaged with each other inside and outside of the classroom, and we started to gain insight into cultures different than our own. Disputes and differences became heated at times, but this is the essence of a liberal educational experience....
“Stanford has changed in recent years. There have been several well-known cases of shouting down speakers and administrative overreach to control ideas and speech.
“With the appointment of economist Jonathan D. Levin as the school’s 13th president, however, Stanford placed at its head a president who is committed to open debate, discourse, viewpoint diversity, and institutional neutrality and has boldly shown the higher education community what a liberal education should look like.
“In his first remarks as President of Stanford, Levin gave an inspiring speech referencing former President Casper. President Levin noted that Casper was taken with the idea of freedom in a university and worked to ensure that while he was president, he understood the school’s motto -- 'The wind of freedom blows’ -- to mean that there was ‘freedom of faculty and students to pursue knowledge without constraints; the freedom to challenge orthodoxy, whether old or new; and the freedom to think and speak openly' for ‘these freedoms nurture the conditions for discovery and learning.’ [followed by quotes from Levin’s inauguration address]
“Levin is correct on every point. While only time will tell how well these ideas will play out on campus, Stanford is showing the world what higher education can be. The students are quite fortunate to have such principled leadership now, and the higher education world should be looking west for principled and authentic leadership from President Levin.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and Sarah Lawrence Prof. Samuel J. Abrams
See also article at Campus Reform
Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein Delivers Free-Speech Lecture at Princeton
Excerpts:
“‘Universities should follow the First Amendment, period. That’s it. That’s the framework.’ ...
“Sunstein emphasized that the First Amendment is a solid foundation to underpin universities’ free speech policies. ‘Building a building from the ground up is really hard and people are going to disagree about how many doors and how many windows. To say, ‘we are following the first Amendment’ makes life far more manageable.’
“He maintained that his proposition is not as simple as free speech absolutism. Universities occasionally must enforce content-neutral restrictions if speech impedes upon their educational mission. Some of these restrictions, he explained, are simple and unobjectionable. Universities need not tolerate speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Speech must pass the ‘clear-and-present-danger test’ -- that is, if speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action, it should not be allowed on college campuses....”
Full article at Daily Princetonian. Sunstein's book “Campus Free Speech – A Pocket Guide” is available at Amazon.
UNC Aims to Create a Free-Speech Culture at Its New School
of Civic Life and Leadership
Excerpts:
“Why American politics in the 21st century is marred by incivility and mistrust is the subject of more books and essays than any normal person would wish to read. The premise underlying most of them is that it’s a left-right problem: The right hates the left and the left hates the right, only the reasons for the hatred vary according to the author.
“But what if it isn’t a left-right problem at all? What if the acrimony and loathing that animate our politics have more to do with class than ideology, more to do with educational status than any set of views on culture and policy? ...
“An awareness of this state of affairs recently led the trustees of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill -- among the nation’s top public universities -- to imagine a way forward. In January 2023 the board voted 12-0 to create a School of Civic Life and Leadership. Its purpose, according to an official statement, is to prepare students ‘for the responsibilities of citizenship and civic leadership by fostering a free-speech culture’ dedicated to the ‘human search for meaning and developing the capacities for civil discourse and wise decision-making.’ ... [followed by comments by Jed Atkins, dean of the new School of Civic Life and Leadership]
“‘The civic crisis,’ Mr. Atkins says, using his term for Americans’ inability to engage civilly on political subjects, ‘is downstream from the crisis of meaning.’ A properly liberal education of the sort UNC’s new school aims to foster ‘asks students to rise above their partial viewpoints and perspectives to consider questions that transcend their own time and place, and to do that together.’
“What sort of questions? ‘What is the best political form? What is the best economic form? Does history have a direction and purpose? How do we reconcile liberty and our responsibilities to society? Is there a God? Maybe more particularly to the American regime: The foundational principles of the Declaration, liberty and equality -- are they universal?’ ...
“Mr. Atkins speaks frequently about his students coming to appreciate the complexity and fluidity of their own social and political views, and by extension the recklessness of judging the views of others too easily. ‘There’s a humility that comes with recognizing how complicated the world can be,’ he says. We don’t often hear about students at top-rated universities learning and exhibiting the virtue of humility. Maybe, in time, we will.”
Full article at WSJ. See also our posting of the WSJ op-ed three years ago by former Duke Prof. John Rose, “How I Liberated My College Classroom.” Prof. Rose is now the director of a similar program at UNC.
See also Prof. Rose’s comments at the free speech conference at Stanford in November 2022 (starting at the 22-minute mark and continuing for ten minutes, including “Half of America is missing from the college classes at elite universities,” and followed by an audience Q&A).
Commitment to DEI a Requirement in Increasing Numbers of Mental Health Degree Programs
Excerpts:
“For twenty years, Suzannah Alexander functioned as a wife and mother with four children as well as a community volunteer. Then her vision for her entire world imploded. Her marriage ended and she realized she needed to begin her life all over again. Ms. Alexander decided helping others to heal would be the best way to get back on her feet. She decided to enter the counseling profession and soon attended the University of Tennessee’s Clinical Mental Health Counseling Master’s program....
“The faculty told the students that the classroom was a ‘brave space’ and a safe place to share ideas and feelings. Ms. Alexander believed them. As a practicing Buddhist, in class, she shared some of her meditation practices to help others maintain control over their emotions during difficult future counseling sessions and view clients with more compassion. Unexpectedly, her professors warned her to stop.
“The course lectures soon turned to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). One professor introduced Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies. Ms. Alexander learned she was a privileged White person and marginalized persons must work at tolerating her whiteness. After one such class, she told her professor she believed this type of thinking promoted ‘tribalism and hostility.’ ...
“Ms. Alexander was soon told, that despite excellent grades, she would not be moving forward in the program with the rest of her cohort....” [followed by discussion of the major accreditation agencies now demanding acceptance of DEI by people seeking a mental health counseling degree, versus studies at ASU and elsewhere showing the negative impacts of these types of requirements]
Full op-ed at Substack
Other Articles of Interest
A Radical Idea to Save College Football
"A group of disruptive sports executives has unveiled a vision for a breakaway by the biggest programs, promising collective bargaining for student players, a salary cap and a cascade of new TV money." Full article at WSJ
New Yale Law School Center Seeks to Safeguard and Promote Academic Freedom and Free Speech
Full article at Yale Law School website
The Two Fiduciary Duties of Professors
Full op-ed by Heterodox Chair and NYU Prof. Jonathan Haidt at Heterodox Academy website
Freedom of Speech Isn't Just a Legal Right, but a Way of Life
Full transcript of speech by Matt Taibbi at Substack
Harvard Alum Bill Ackman Publishes an Analysis of Harvard as an Entity to Buy, Sell or Hold?
PDF copy of slides at Pershing Square Foundation website
At Yale Listening Sessions, Students Largely Oppose Institutional Neutrality, Faculty Split on the Issue
Full article at Yale Daily News. See also our compilations of the Chicago Trifecta including the Kalvin report on a university’s involvement in political and social matters.
The Elite College Students Who Can't Read Books
Full article at The Atlantic
Harvard Issues Report on Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialog
Download PDF copy of the report here. See also Harvard Crimson.
Alternative Viewpoint - Institutional Neutrality Doesn’t Go Far Enough
Full op-ed by San Diego State Prof Peter C. Herman at Inside Higher Ed, including a discussion of Stanford’s antisemitism report from last spring. See also “Depoliticizing the University” at Law & Liberty. See also "Committees on Antisemitism and Islamophobia Find Widespread and Pernicious Bias, Restricted Speech and Harassment on Campus" at Stanford Daily.
Building a Free Speech Culture (video)
Full interview of Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff at Big Think website (32 minutes)
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
Stanford Education Scholar Uses AI to Help Medical Students Hone Diagnostic Skills
Creating a Culture of Civic Engagement
The Science of Mental Time Travel and the Brain's GPS System
**********
"A society that fails to teach its young people the basics of democracy and civic engagement is at risk of losing the very values and principles on which it was founded." – Stanford alum and former Harvard President Derek Bok
September 30, 2024
Investiture of Stanford’s 13th President Jonathan Levin
As longtime readers know, we largely avoid a cheerleading function on behalf of the university. That occurs in lots of other places, and our primary purpose, instead, has been to raise issues that need discussion but where there are few other forums in which to have that discussion. It is in that context that we are providing a link to a video of the investiture last Friday of Stanford’s thirteenth president, Jonathan Levin. At least in our minds, and notwithstanding the challenges nationwide that are discussed in some of the other articles that follow, this is an example of everything that is right about Stanford and its future.
Full video at YouTube (Levin's remarks start around the 32-minute mark, 11 minutes in length; transcript at Stanford Report)
**********
Reflections on the New Encampment Culture
Excerpts (links in the original):
“This is a story of two political cultures. One of them shapes the attitudes that dominate political discussion in American universities. The other culture persists among a broad and reasonably well-informed public outside the universities and their government and philanthropic tributaries. When, in the academic year 2023-24, the two cultures faced each other with expressions of mutual dismay, the moment had been coming for a long time. On October 7, 2023, scores of Hamas fighters broke through the boundaries of Gaza, killed more than 1200 Israelis and kidnapped more than 200 others: the worst terror attack in Israel’s history. Within hours, 34 student groups at Harvard University had circulated a public letter affirming that ‘We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.’ (The word ‘unfolding’ covered the violence of the past, the present, and the future.) ‘Today’s events,’ the letter went on to say, ‘did not occur in a vacuum,’ and it added: ‘The apartheid regime [of Israel] is the only one to blame.’ The signers concluded by urging solidarity with the Palestinian suffering which was sure to follow once the Israeli retaliation in Gaza had commenced.
“What shocked many people about the student letter was its heartlessness. Even as the bodies were being counted, the signers told us not to blame the killers but to redirect our gaze and fix all responsibility on Israel. To anyone acquainted with the climate on American campuses, the timing of the letter was disturbing (not a moment’s pause for grief), but the sentiments were hardly surprising. They reflected the only highly visible political viewpoint that exists in universities today. Other opinions are tolerated, and have a lively presence in the curriculum, but settler vs. colonized, oppressor vs. oppressed, white people vs. persons of color -- these moral antinomies guide the discourse in student-initiated and faculty-sponsored groups and events alike....
“Where did this leave Jewish students? ‘I don’t know which I found more discouraging,’ one of them told me, ‘the fact that they hate us, or that they don’t really know why they hate us.’ At Yale, during the first couple of days, I walked around the embryonic protest site and saw a table and makeshift awning with a placard identifying Jews against the bombing and another identifying non-Jews. They joined forces later, but an expansion of aims would have been more impressive. After all, it seemed to begin as an anti-war protest, delivered against the United States as the sponsor of so many wars and proxy wars. Yet the passion and momentum soon went the other way. Enlistment in the cause became indistinguishable from rooting for one side, the Palestinians, against the other side, the Israelis (or ‘Zionism’). The exclusionist temper of the Columbia protest emerged in tactics like one leader's announcement, ‘We have Zionists who have entered the camp. We are going to create a human chain where I am standing so that they do not pass this point and infringe upon our privacy and try to destroy our community. Please join me in this chain’ -- followed by step-by-step instructions to the human chain....
“The long-term consequences of the specialization of campus politics have been unhappy for American society generally. Political complexity of mind is rare among students, but the same students will go on to be full-time citizens. Some of the fault is traceable to university administrators: their political position-taking, after recent elections and supreme court decisions and certain shocking local or national events, has seemed to define the boundaries of polite opinion. Such public statements are now being pulled back, with recent moves toward ‘institutional neutrality,’ and that is a good thing. The idea that universities, as if they were a person, should carve out an official stance on social and political issues of the day is a recent innovation; it has had a fair trial and been found useful mainly as an instrument of social control and conformity -- neither of which qualifies as an educational value....”
Full op-ed by Yale Prof. David Bromwich at Persuasion. Also see again our compilations of the Chicago Trifecta regarding freedom of speech, a university’s involvement in political and social matters, and standards for the hiring and promotion of faculty.
Why Engineers Should Study Philosophy
Excerpts:
. . . .
“One of the most important skills I’ve learned in decades of managing engineering teams is to ask the right questions. It’s not dissimilar with AI: The quality of the output of a large language model (LLM) is very sensitive to the quality of the prompt. Ambiguous or not well-formed questions will make the AI try to guess the question you are really asking, which in turn increases the probability of getting an imprecise or even totally made-up answer (a phenomenon that’s often referred to as ‘hallucination’). Because of that, one would have to first and foremost master reasoning, logic, and first-principles thinking to get the most out of AI -- all foundational skills developed through philosophical training. The question ‘Can you code?’ will become ‘Can you get the best code out of your AI by asking the right question?’ ...
“Generative AI changes our relationship with knowledge, flattening barriers that not only provide access to it, but also explain it in a tailored approach. It creates a gentle slope between your level of knowledge and the level of knowledge required to attack a particular subject. But the ability to access knowledge that is appropriately tailored and, more importantly, accurate, starts -- and ends -- with the user....”
Full op-ed by Marco Argenti, Chief Information Officer at Goldman Sachs, at Harvard Business Review
It’s Easy to See What Drove Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway to Quit
[Editor’s note: Jonathan Holloway is a Stanford alum, Class of ‘89]
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Last week Jonathan Holloway, the president of Rutgers University, announced he would be stepping down at the end of this academic year -- the latest in a series of university president departures....
“‘It’s a punishing job in normal times,’ Holloway, a scholar of African American history, told me when I spoke to him last week. ‘But the standards we’re being held to are impossible. I had to ask myself, ‘What is it I want to do, how can I do it, and is this the right position?’
“Holloway, who previously served as a dean at Yale and a provost at Northwestern, said he struggled with how to balance the role of a college president today, which demands quick responses, with what he described as his own values -- listening to people, carefully weighing potential actions and having the freedom to speak his mind....
“His goal, he told me, is to challenge students to be critical thinkers in an era of righteousness, an atmosphere in which people have stopped considering whether someone else may be right....
“The atmosphere on campus, he realized, has fundamentally changed in discouraging ways. The culture of curiosity, the culture of empathy seemed to have gone. He no longer felt he could function to the best of his abilities as a leader in this charged university environment. He didn’t feel he could do the job and stay true to himself....
“If American universities continue to lose leaders like Jonathan Holloway, higher education is in even greater trouble than it already was.”
Full op-ed at NY Times
Have Americans Actually Lost Faith in Higher Education?
Excerpts (links in the original):
“In the last year, a growing collection of polls has suggested grim prospects for the public perception of higher education. Most notably, Gallup found in 2023 that only 36 percent of Americans have ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in higher education -- down about 20 percentage points from 2015
“At the same time, many higher education institutions have faced sharp drops in enrollment and intense political scrutiny, leading media organizations to link the drop in confidence to a decline in both the perceived value of a college degree and the number of prospective students.
“But analysts from the left-leaning think tank New America argue in a policy brief released Monday that that might not be the case after all, and that rumors of higher education’s demise have been greatly exaggerated, to borrow from Mark Twain’s famous words to the New York Journal.
“Ben Cecil, senior education policy adviser at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said looking at recent higher education survey data is like walking and chewing gum at the same time -- and Americans are smart enough to do both.
“‘There’s a real difference between trust and value, and the definitions of those two have often been conflated when they’re actually two different things,’ he said. ‘You can not trust something as much as you would like to, but you can also still see that it has value.’...
““We engaged in a societywide experiment of financing higher education through long-term individual debt, and it went badly,” [Vanderbilt Prof. William Doyle] said. ‘I don’t think it’s a good idea to say … it’s strictly just what’s going on in partisan politics. There is another aspect of this which has to do with the price, which I absolutely think is related.’...
Full article at Insider Higher Ed
Reporting Professors for Wrongthink
Excerpts (links in the original):
“As [Eternally Radical Ideas] readers will likely recall, ‘the Conformity Gauntlet’ is the name Greg [Lukianoff] and his ‘Canceling’ co-author Rikki Schlott gave to the layer after layer of social pressures, ideological litmus tests, and punishments both formal and informal that a would-be academic must endure from high school on up to become a tenured professor. Plenty of research and data was used to back up these claims, and thanks to the 2024 American College Student Freedom, Progress and Flourishing Survey, we now have even more.
“The survey shows that the (already stunning) 71% of students who believe professors should be reported for their speech aren't just focused on disagreeable words or rude behavior; many are openly policing professors’ viewpoints.
“The survey’s creator, North Dakota State University’s Sheila and Robert Challey Institute for Global Innovation and Growth, describes it as follows:
“’The survey assesses student perceptions about viewpoint diversity and campus freedom; human progress and beliefs about the future; and student attitudes toward entrepreneurship, capitalism and socialism, and how college is influencing their views.’...
“Almost a decade ago, Jeanne Suk Gerson wrote about criminal law professors who avoided teaching sexual assault and rape law because they feared being reported for a Title IX violation. Now imagine that same fear, except it’s about every topic, all the time. In the NDSU survey, one-third of students want professors to drop uncomfortable readings, and a quarter want professors to drop uncomfortable discussion topics. [followed by a detailed discussion of percentages of students who think professors should be reported for even talking about specified topics] ....
“In many cases, the proliferation of bias response teams on campus has made reporting a professor or peer for having the wrong opinion almost frictionless. A 2022 study of over 800 schools found that most (56%) have bias response teams of some sort; that study also found that ‘nearly every’ system permitted anonymous reporting. They also encourage it however they can. As Rikki Schlott has pointed out in the past, the number for the Bias Response Line is printed on the back of NYU’s student ID cards....
“Given the numbers in all of these surveys, it’s no surprise that people are unwilling to speak up.”
Full op-ed by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff and FIRE VP Adam Goldstein at Substack
See also our September 23 Newsletter about Stanford’s previous bias response program and the articles at our Stanford Concerns webpage, Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior and Stanford's Program re Title VI/Bias
Other Articles of Interest
New California Law Signed in Honor of Former Stanford Goalkeeper Katie Meyer
Full article at NY Times/The Athletic.
See also paragraph 2.e. that has long been included in our Back to Basics webpage, “All students facing potential disciplinary actions must be treated fairly, humanely and with a focus on protecting the individual’s constitutional and other rights. Students must also be offered emotional and other support from the outset of and throughout any disciplinary warnings, discussions and proceedings and thereafter.” That section 2 of our Back to Basics white paper also suggests other needed reforms to the student disciplinary process.
See also “Katie’s Save” that has long been linked at our Resources webpage.
What Happened to Free Speech?
Full op-ed at WSJ
University Cancels Panel Because Author Is a ‘Zionist’
Full article at Free Press
When Should Colleges Call the Cops?
Full article at The Hill
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.
The Neuroscience of Campus Memories
By Stanford junior Lara Selin Seyahi at Stanford Daily
The New Tech That Could Improve Care for Parkinson’s Patients
The Digitalist Papers: A Vision for AI and Democracy
Stanford Researchers Lead Efforts to Cut Carbon in Concrete Production
************
“Appointive bodies must remember that universities are, insofar as their major intellectual functions are concerned, places for scientific and scholarly analysis and training in such analysis, not theaters for the acquisition of vicarious experiences.” -- From the Shils Report, the third of the three parts of the Chicago Trifecta
September 23, 2024
President Levin Welcomes Incoming Students
Excerpts (link in the original):
“In his first Convocation address as Stanford University president, on Tuesday evening [September 17], Jonathan Levin reflected on his own first days at Stanford and encouraged students to embrace uncertainties, grapple with big questions, and be grateful for the opportunities and community around them....
"In his address, President Levin stressed that asking questions is central to the college experience. He encouraged students to engage in Socratic dialogue, following the example of the Greek philosopher Socrates, who used probing questions to challenge others with strong convictions.
“’Unlike the people around him, he [Socrates] was comfortable not knowing,’ Levin said. ‘He was comfortable asking questions and not having answers.’ ...
“[Levin] advised students to find a balance in their approach to Stanford. He said that during his many years on the Farm, he’s observed that the most successful students set goals and make plans, but also remain open to serendipity. ‘They put themselves out there to try new things and to take a risk in meeting new people,’ he added.
“Lastly, Levin reminded students to be grateful for the rare opportunity ahead. ‘We should all try, through humility and service, to be deserving of these circumstances, and to help the people around us make something of these opportunities.’”
Full article at Stanford Report
Update re Bias Reporting
The special edition of our Newsletter last Tuesday, September 17, had text and links regarding Stanford’s revised policies re speech, protests and related matters. The changes also included ending the controversial Protected Identity Harm Reporting system and merged this area into Stanford’s Title VI policies and procedures re discrimination. We have therefore updated our prior article about bias reporting at our Stanford Concerns webpage, including the benefits of the changes but also some ongoing concerns.
Excerpts (from our Stanford Concerns webpage, links in the original):
. . . .
“Stanford’s newly revised website focuses on Title VI rather than ‘bias’ and where it further says:
‘To be considered a violation of Title VI, unwelcome conduct must create a ‘hostile environment,’ meaning it must be based upon an individual’s actual or perceived protected class (e.g., race, color, national origin, shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics) that, considering the totality of the circumstances, is subjectively and objectively offensive, and is so severe or pervasive that it limits or denies a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from a university education program or activity.’
“These changes are a very welcomed improvement, although much will depend on who administers this revised policy since a wide range of statements and actions could still be covered by the revised policy. In addition, it looks like Stanford is still planning to post reports on a public dashboard. It also looks like Stanford is still using the same module in the computerized case management system that it uses for all aspects of student activities and behavior (see the article "Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System" at our Stanford Concerns webpage) and that it has been using for these same monitoring and reporting purposes in the past. Stanford had previously renamed this particular module “Protected Identity Harm Reporting” instead of the term “Bias Reporting” that is used by most other schools that are using the same system. But the fact remains, this module remains largely the same as before and remains part of the far more comprehensive system for monitoring and managing all aspects of student life.
“Assuming our discussion above is correct, a report for Title VI purposes about someone saying or doing something, even if not followed up on, will still be permanently stored in that student’s profile in the computerized case management system, will still be cross-referenced with all other students, and can still be pulled up at any time in the future by the student services staff if ever there is a future issue about the student who was the subject of the Title VI report. And in which case, the prior Title VI (discrimination/bias) report, even if the student didn’t know one had been made about her or him, can be used against them in any new matters.
“Which is why, as we said in our September 17 Newsletter and have said numerous other times in the past, we again urge that Stanford advise students at least annually of their rights to review their files and be able to correct incorrect and even false information that has been reported about them. See also in paragraphs 2. h, i. and j. at our Back to Basics webpage....”
Study of Yale Faculty Shows Significant Lack of Intellectual/Political Diversity
Editor’s note: Longtime readers know that the purpose of these Newsletters and the related website is not to promote political doctrines but rather to raise issues about free speech and critical thinking and from all parts of the political spectrum. We thus present the following not to promote or attack specific political viewpoints but rather to note concerns about the apparent lack of intellectual diversity that has developed in recent years at major universities.
Excerpts (links in the original):
“The Buckley Institute is proud to present our annual Report on Faculty Political Diversity at Yale. This report examines the voting history and political affiliation of Yale’s faculty members as part of our mission to promote free speech and intellectual diversity on campus....
“The discrepancy was most apparent in the social sciences and the humanities. Across 14 departments in those two areas (as classified by Yale), the report identified 312 Democrat faculty (88%) and only 4 Republicans (1.1%), a ratio of around 78 to 1. Of those 14 departments, Buckley identified zero Republicans in 10, or 71% of the total, including American Studies, Economics, and Philosophy....”
Full news release at Buckley Institute website and including a link to the report
The Politicization of Science Funding
Excerpts (links in the original):
“How should taxpayer money earmarked for science funding be used? This is a $90-billion-per-year question....
“The traditional, time-tested criteria have been scientific merit, the track record of the investigators, and alignment with the agency’s mission. Decision making relies on a peer-review process involving reviewers with appropriate expertise, clear guidelines for assessment, and avoidance of personal or professional conflicts of interest. The success of this merit-based approach to science funding can be seen in the achievements and excellent worldwide reputation of the U.S. research enterprise.
“But this is changing, and not for the good. To get funding today, scientists must show that their research will advance the goals of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI)….
“In practice, this means that scientists seeking research funding must now profess their belief in the existence of systemic barriers in their institutions and present plans for how, through their research, they will advance the goals of DEI, such as by giving preference to historically underrepresented groups in the hope of achieving representation proportional to their numbers in the general population. Agencies require researchers to dedicate resources to DEI activities, and some even recommend the hiring of paid ‘DEI consultants.’ What’s more, they require researchers to submit diversity statements that will be evaluated along with the scientifically substantive parts of the research proposal....
“The NIH’s efforts toward advancing racial equity also offer an invitation to ‘Take the Pledge,’ which includes committing to the idea that ‘equity, diversity, and inclusion drives success,’ ‘setting up a consultation with an EDI [DEI] liaison,’ and ‘ordering the ‘EDI Pledge Poster’ (or … creat[ing] your own) for your space and hav[ing] your team sign it.’
“As Kevin Jon Williams, a cardiovascular researcher at Temple University, explains, this creates a moral dilemma for scientists of ‘diverse’ ancestry who are skeptical of the DEI regime. ‘If I refuse to identify myself as African American, our application is more likely to lose on ‘diversity’ grounds. It’s a double wrong. Not only is the system rigged based on nonscientific -- and possibly illegal -- criteria; it encourages me to join in the rigging.’ Williams doesn’t mince words: ‘I can never forgive the National Institutes of Health for reinjecting racism into medical research.’
“For its part, NASA requires applicants to dedicate a portion of their research efforts and budget to DEI activities, to hire DEI experts as consultants -- and to ‘pay them well.’ How much do such services cost? A Chicago-based DEI firm offers training sessions for $500 to $10,000, e-learning modules for $200 to $5,000, and keynotes for $1,000 to $30,000. Consulting monthly retainers cost $2,000 to $20,000, and single ‘consulting deliverables’ cost $8,000 to $50,000. Hence, taxpayer money that could be used to solve scientific and technological challenges is diverted to DEI consultants. Given that applicants’ DEI plans are evaluated by panels comprising 50 percent scientists and 50 percent DEI experts, the self-interest of the DEI industry is evident.
“Instructions to applicants and examples of successful proposals make it abundantly clear that DEI plans must adhere to a specific ideological doctrine. According to NASA, ‘the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will be based on […] the extent to which the Inclusion Plan demonstrated awareness of systemic barriers to creating inclusive working environments that are specific to the proposal team.’ Thus, to get funding, scientists must declare that their own institution and research groups are uninclusive and discriminatory, which is an offense to the many scientists who have worked hard to ensure fair and transparent hiring practices in their institutions. These requirements effectively constitute DEI loyalty oaths as prerequisite for funding....
“We know from the history of totalitarian regimes that when science is subjugated to ideology, science suffers. And the current approach to linking DEI considerations to funding decisions weakens achievement- and merit-based criteria in science funding, which means that money paid by hardworking taxpayers is not being used to support the best scientific projects.
“Moreover, when funding agencies use their power to further a particular political or ideological agenda, they contribute to public distrust of science and scientific institutions. When scientists become complicit by infusing ideology into their research, they are no longer perceived as trustworthy experts -- nor should they be. Should the public withdraw its support for science, loss of funding will ultimately ensue, with attendant detrimental consequences to the nation....”
Full op-ed by Princeton Prof. Robert P. George and USC Prof. Anna I. Krylov at Chronicle of Higher Education and based on a paper recently published in Frontiers of Research Metrics and Analytics
See also "Stanford Tech Marketing Course Requires a DEI Statement to Enroll" at College Fix and also linked below
The Sorry State of Medical School Curricula
Excerpts (links in the original):
“If medical schools are short-changing rigorous training in science for the political indoctrination of future doctors, there are real consequences. Lives are on the line. This is why documenting the extent to which medical education has become politicized is critically important....
“Several prominent medical school professors and students have shared accounts revealing the distorted priorities of America’s medical schools, sparking concerns. Stanley Goldfarb, previously the associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and currently the chair of the board for Do No Harm, was the first to draw attention to the issue in 2019 with a Wall Street Journal article and book, both titled, ‘Take Two Aspirin and Call Me By My Pronouns.’
“Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School, expressed similar concerns in a more recent piece in the Free Press, warning that ‘diluting rigor and precision with ideological agendas will degrade the quality of medical education.’ Kevin Bass, who attended medical school at Texas Tech, cataloged his experiences in the New York Post, declaring: ‘Ideology has replaced health care.’ …”
PDF copy of report, including re Stanford Medical School, at Do No Harm Medicine website
See also “How the Modern Law School Promotes Political Division and Lawfare” at Minding the Campus
Other Articles of Interest
Stanford Tech Marketing Course Requires a DEI Statement to Enroll
Full article at College Fix
It Took Years, but Elite Colleges Are Learning the Value of Institutional Neutrality
Full op-ed by ACTA’s Steve McGuire at The Hill
A Guide to Distinguishing Legitimate Protest from Antisemitism
Full op-ed at LA Times and republished at MSN
Learning Civics from History
Full op-ed by Harvard Prof. James Hankins at Law & Liberty
What Makes You Ready to Be a College President?
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education. See also articles at Diverse Issues in Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed.
An AI Tutor Helped Harvard Students Learn More Physics in Less Time
Full article at Hechinger Report
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.
A free, seven-week program led by Stanford H&S Dean Debra Satz and Stanford Prof. Larry Diamond; first session is this Wednesday, September 25.
A Stanford Treasure - Monterey Bay Scientists on Preserving Kelp Forests
Synthetic Neuroscience Grants Promote Transformative Brain Tech
************
“[A university] cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted.” – From the Kalven Report, the second of the three parts of the Chicago Trifecta
Special Edition
September 17, 2024
Stanford Takes Major Steps Forward re Free Speech
Today, Stanford's office of the provost sent a letter to all students about campus speech and related issues. A full copy of the letter is linked here. It is, in our view, a major step forward in creating a campus climate where, per Jon Levin’s Stanford Magazine interview, respectful discourse and critical thinking can thrive.
Excerpts:
. . . .
“Our community comes together this September amid a presidential election, continued conflicts around the globe, and impassioned public debate about a wide range of issues. At Stanford, our work of research and education is contributing to deeper knowledge and understanding of many of these issues....
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental value for the university’s knowledge-bearing mission, alongside the inclusion of all viewpoints and the promotion of rigorous and reasoned academic debates. 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. Accordingly, university policies must not censor individuals’ speech based on the content of what is expressed, except in narrow circumstances.” …
This text is followed by further discussion and these links:
1. A new Freedom of Expression webpage and a two-page summary of specific policies and procedures for events, including but not limited to protests.
2. A “What’s New” webpage that highlights major elements of these new policies and procedures.
3. The previous Protected Identity Harm Reporting program, which for several years was subject to criticism on campus and nationwide, has been replaced with a new set of policies and procedures and including these FAQs.
We trust that orientation for new students will emphasize these important values, that there will be ongoing dialog among students and faculty about implementation of these values, and that the administrative staff will understand that Stanford exists for educational purposes and that their activities must therefore give priority to these values.
We assume Stanford's computerized case management system will continue to be used to monitor and act upon student behaviors, including behaviors that are subject to these revised policies and procedures. Which is why we again urge that Stanford annually advise students of their rights to review their files and be able to correct incorrect and even false information that has been reported about them.
But let’s also keep all of this in context. These are major developments in restoring a campus climate of free speech and critical thinking, and in that regard, we believe President Levin, Provost Martinez and the rest of Stanford’s leadership are setting a standard that will be a model for colleges and universities nationwide.
September 16, 2024
Board of Trustees Commends Recent Actions in Support of Academic Freedom
Excerpt (links in the original):
“The Stanford Board of Trustees has approved a resolution reaffirming the university’s commitment to free inquiry, the avoidance of institutional orthodoxy, and the open exchange of ideas. The timing coincides with the 50th anniversary of the 1974 board adoption of Stanford’s Statement on Academic Freedom.
“The resolution commends the Faculty Senate for adopting in May of this year a Statement of Freedom of Expression and an Institutional Statements Policy, both of which complement and strengthen Stanford’s long-standing principles of academic freedom.
“'Stanford remains steadfast in its dedication to academic freedom, which serves as a key foundation for the university’s truth-seeking scholarship and impactful research,' said board Chair Jerry Yang. 'We are immensely grateful for the Faculty Senate’s deliberations earlier this year on this critically important issue, which benefits our entire university community and beyond.'” ...
Full article at Stanford Report
See also “Law School Professor to Serve as Special Advisor to the Provost on University Speech” at Stanford Report
Editor’s note: While we appreciate recent actions by Stanford's faculty, provost and trustees, we think it is important to also read this Stanford Report article regarding discussions in May of this year and which, in our minds at least, raise these follow-up questions:
1. Why won’t Stanford’s administration, faculty and/or trustees simply adopt all three parts of the Chicago Trifecta and resolve issues that otherwise are going to plague the campus in the months and years ahead? And why spend so much time and resources reinventing the wheel? We again note that all three reports that comprise the Chicago Trifecta were written during prior times of considerable campus turmoil regarding campus speech and academic freedom, were considered and acted upon by highly distinguished faculty members at the University of Chicago and subsequently copied by other leading universities nationwide, use extraordinarily concise language and have withstood the test of time.
2. If there are one or more specific items in the Chicago Trifecta with which Stanford’s administration, faculty and/or trustees disagree, why not propose alternative language to those specific provisions and explain the reasons for the changes?
3. Why did Stanford’s Faculty Senate insist that the proposal they adopted in May of this year be treated solely as a statement and not a policy? What's the difference, especially when it then is posted as a Core Policy Statement (see below)?
4. For several decades, the 1974 Statement on Academic Freedom was set forth solely in the Faculty Handbook, and then of all things buried in the handbook’s chapter on research. It recently was moved to a section in the Faculty Handbook called Core Policy Statements but where the other provisions solely concern faculty discipline and appeals. So what is being done to give this and related statements and policies greater visibility and distribution, and what does Stanford’s leadership intend to do to stimulate greater dialogue among its faculty and students on these important issues?
Saving the Idea of the University
Excerpts (link in the original):
. . . .
“Universities must be places where different ideas and opinions lead to personal growth, scientific breakthroughs, and new knowledge. But when a group of students takes over a building or establishes an encampment on shared campus grounds and declares that this shared educational space belongs to only one ideological view, the power and potential of the university dies -- just as it would if a president, administrators, or faculty members imposed their personal politics as the position of the institution....
“In the 1950s, the social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments that showed how easy it is to quash the differences of opinion essential for advancing knowledge. In one experiment, Asch brought groups of college students together to take a simple perceptual test with two possible responses, one right, one wrong. The catch: In each group, all students were instructed to say in turn the incorrect answer -- except for one unsuspecting student, who went last.
“The results were stark. Three-quarters of the unwitting students went along at least once with the incorrect answer that the majority had given. When asked why, the hoodwinked students typically articulated a fear of ridicule and said they doubted their own knowledge. In short, conformity won.
“But when Asch ran a modified version of the test, the results looked very different. If even a single other student gave a dissenting, correct answer, the unbriefed student chose the consensus view only a quarter as often.
“Instead, students, faculty members, even university presidents should feel able and willing to speak out and break with uniformity when good evidence compels it.
“At Dartmouth, our faculty members do exactly this.... [followed by discussion of approaches used at Dartmouth, including faculty with different perspectives teaching together]
“As Asch’s work showed, being willing to stand alone can be very difficult, especially when one looks around and sees the consequences that can come with a failure to conform. Appeasement can feel safe and easy -- if that means giving in to the demands either of student protesters or of vocal donors. But when the future and credibility of American higher education is at stake, university leaders have no choice but to be laser-focused on the academic mission of their institutions, even when doing so prompts discord and disagreement. It’s the engagement in argument that makes universities great.”
Full op-ed by Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock at The Atlantic and republished at MSN
See also our compilation of the Shils Report regarding principles for academic appointments (the important third part of the Chicago Trifecta)
See also The Threat from Within, speech in 2017 by former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy: “The threat from outside is apparent.... But I’m actually more worried about the threat from within. Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country -- not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines -- there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around ourselves.”
Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya - What Happens When Scientific Discourse Is Hijacked by Dogma
Excerpts (links in the original):
“The COVID era has been difficult for scientists whose ideas run against the grain of powerful scientific and government bureaucracies. Even for university scientists with unblemished reputations in the before times, the price of speaking up has been vilification by social media companies, the media, and, unfortunately, even scientific journals and our fellow scientists. It is a wonder that any scientists dared to speak out, with only their commitment to the truth as a reason to do so....
“One of the authors of this piece, Jay Bhattacharya, coauthored the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) in October of 2020, which called for the focused protection of the vulnerable elderly, for opening schools, and for lifting lockdowns. In response, the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a piece falsely alleging that the GBD had received support from the dreaded Koch brothers. In Left-leaning academia, such an accusation is like the mark of Cain, and many scientists feared associating with the GBD as a result, though they agreed with its ideas.
“Embarrassingly, the BMJ had to issue a correction to the article because there was no Koch funding for the GBD. But the defamatory damage was already done, and many scientists stayed silent as schools closed and children were harmed, even though they knew better. They did not want to be similarly smeared.
“Next month, a conference will be held at Stanford University, featuring civil discussions among scientists who differ on how best to manage pandemics and prevent their occurrence. Four-plus years into the COVID-era, it is far past time for such a discussion....
“Amazingly, some scientists and media figures have vilified the conference for including lockdown skeptics like Dr. Vinay Prasad of UCSF and Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford University among the speakers. A Baylor doctor, Peter Hotez, a devotee of Tony Fauci and author of The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science, accused the conference of indulging in ‘anti-science aggression’ for the crime of having scientists who disagree speak with one another. ‘While I'm all for free speech, this type of anti-science aggression doesn't have to be promoted by the Stanford leadership, given the chilling message it sends to the serious science faculty/students,’ wrote Hotez on Twitter in a typical act of projection. Elsewhere he wrote about ‘antiscience as a killing force,’ further explaining ‘My point: ‘health freedom’ antiscience aggression = a leading killing force’.
“Scientists should be able to disagree on public health policy without being branded monsters. The public is watching this spat and has lost trust in science, medicine, and public health.
"Society forfeits the benefits of science when scientific discourse is hijacked by dogma, when dissenting views are silenced out of fear of career repercussions, and when questioning the prevailing narrative invites accusations of bigotry or even murder.
“Science thrives on skepticism, on challenges to the status quo. When the pursuit of scientific truth is sacrificed on the altar of ideological conformity, science ceases to be a beacon of enlightenment and instead becomes a tool of oppression. Let's hope the upcoming Stanford conference marks the beginning of a course correction.”
Full op-ed by Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya and Rutgers Prof. Bryce Nickels at Newsweek
See also “Stanford’s Roles in Censoring the Web” at our Stanford Concerns-2 webpage and including prior essays by Prof. Bhattacharya and others
How to Restore Trust in American Higher Education
Excerpts:
. . . .
“The turbulent campuses seem far removed from the desired ‘marketplace of ideas,’ where diverse perspectives on contemporary issues are discussed with civility and respect. A ‘cancel culture’ where speakers are shouted down or even kept off campus is the norm at some universities. Arguably even worse, the honesty and integrity of the academic research is increasingly questioned, with well-documented incidents involving faculty and administrators plagiarizing and deliberately falsifying research results. One respected publisher, Wiley, recently closed down a number of academic journals because of continuing evidence of downright fraudulent results....
“Universities are inherently inefficient and costly. Internal forces within schools are constantly pressuring the president for costly changes -- higher salaries, more staff, nicer facilities. With the possible exception of medical care (which has had huge qualitative improvements), no other major form of consumer spending has increased prices as much as higher education in the four decades between 1980 and 2020. Expensive facilities (for example, classroom buildings with fancy atriums) often are constructed to meet a frenzied ‘edifice complex,’ but heavily utilized typically only about eight months a year. Most faculty offices are used less than 20 hours weekly for fewer than 35 weeks a year. Students getting bachelor’s degrees are typically in classes about 33-36 months total, easily attainable in three calendar years but typically stretched out over four years or more. Moreover, partly a byproduct of grotesque grade inflation, time-use studies show most students actually study an average of under 30 hours weekly -- less than middle school students....
“Mitch Daniels as Purdue’s president froze tuition fees for a decade while reexamining the noncore activities of the school, a model worth emulating....
“Over time, the balance of collegiate power has shifted largely to an army of administrators typically far outnumbering those actually teaching students and conducting research. Rather than supporting the teaching/research mission, often these administrators detract from it, diluting the emphasis on learning and discovery. I once estimated that if we reduced the administrator-student ratio to what it was a generation ago, we could reduce tuition fees 20 percent and restore emphasis on job No. 1: educating students and expanding discovery and pursuit of truth....”
Full op-ed by Ohio U Prof. Emeritus Richard K. Vedder at Independent Institute
See also “Stanford’s Ballooning Administrative Bureaucracy” including charts and comparative data at our Stanford Concerns webpage. See also our recommendations for Back to Basics at Stanford.
See also op-ed by DePauw Prof. Jeffrey M. McCall at The Hill (links in the original): “Colleges and universities face many challenges as the new academic year gets underway. But the American public has no sympathy for these supposed ‘enlightened’ institutions, because college administrators and boards of trustees are only facing the consequences for the bad decisions they themselves have made. Colleges have failed to effectively manage the rhetorical sphere around higher education. Students, parents and the public at large have been kept largely in the dark as tuition hikes, vacuous curriculum expansions, administrative bloat and ideological activism have taken root....”
Students Increasingly Treat College as a Transaction; Who or What Is to Blame?
Excerpts (link in the original):
. . . .
“How widespread is this crisis? It’s difficult to know. Professors frustrated by these dynamics fear being accused of undermining student-success efforts on their campus if they publicly criticize students’ work ethic or challenge their behaviors. And students rarely speak openly about why they feel disengaged or shortchanged by their education, or why they are inclined to cheat. But a key study, described in the 2022 book The Real World of College: What Higher Education Is and What It Can Be, sheds light on some aspects of these evolving dynamics....
“What they heard from students alarmed them: a preoccupation with grades, jobs, and institutional reputation; little discussion or understanding of the intellectual opportunities campuses present; feelings of alienation. The findings troubled them enough to issue a warning: ‘While in fact there remains much to admire in U.S. higher education,’ they wrote, ‘the sector has lost its way and stands in considerable peril.’ …
“While highly selective colleges are unlikely to experience this dystopian future, students at these institutions describe an environment in which the pressure to succeed can also lead to a transactional attitude.
“This past spring, Niheer Patel, then a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote an opinion piece for the student newspaper describing this ecosystem, 'Where Dreams Come to Die.' Patel came to Penn expecting to find people who were highly driven and hoping to do good in the world. But the drive he found was toward landing jobs in consulting and finance, the dominant careers for recent graduates....”
Full article at Chronicle of Higher Education
Other Articles of Interest
The Top U.S. Colleges That Make New Graduates Rich
Full article at WSJ and where the top ten are, in descending order: MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Georgia Tech, Penn, Caltech, Harvey Mudd, Babson, Missouri S&T and Carnegie Mellon
See also our prior article (September 6, 2024) where Stanford was ranked third in the WSJ’s overall rankings
How Colleges Are Changing Their Rules on Protesting
Full article at NY Times including a discussion of specific actions at specific schools; see also summary of college protest policies at Chronicle of Higher Education
Alternative Viewpoint - Elite Colleges Are More Diverse Than Ever; They’re Still Unequal
Full op-ed by Boston U Prof. Anthony Abraham Jack at Chronicle of Higher Education
More About the Chilling Effect of AAUP’s Decision Allowing Academic Boycotts
Full op-ed at WSJ
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.
MicroDicer and MicroGrater Make Quick Work of Tumor Dissection
Researchers Make Mouse Skin Transparent Using a Common Food Dye
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression Can Lead to Lasting Changes in the Brain
************
“I’m looking forward to using Stanford as a model for other universities, especially in terms of protecting expression and developing protocols that ensure all community members are heard, while sustaining our rich educational environment.” – Stanford Law School Professor Bernadette Meyler who also is the newly named special advisor to the provost on university speech
September 9, 2024
Follow-Up on Recent College Free Speech Rankings
Last Friday's Newsletter dated September 6, 2024 included a summary and links to FIRE’s recently released free speech survey and where Stanford was ranked #218 out of 251. We therefore are providing this link to a follow-up article by Stanford alum and FIRE’s CEO Greg Lukianoff about reactions to the survey and other matters, as published at Substack.
A Second Chance for Universities
Excerpts:
“As students return to school this fall, universities have a second chance at managing difficult conversations about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This past spring, we saw news and social media videos showing groups pitted against one another. Violent images, like those that surfaced out of UCLA, included students battering each other with sticks, using chemical sprays, and launching fireworks as weapons. Hateful rhetoric like “F--- you, Jew” and “take off your hijab and get a job” have further fueled these firestorms. Students were being attacked for their identity and beliefs, causing them to feel unsafe on the campuses they called home. Did it have to be this way? Is this the only vision for free speech on college campuses?
“Recently, I participated in a Braver Angels Common Ground Workshop on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Braver Angels, a nonprofit organization dedicated to bridging America’s partisan divide, teaches Americans of all ages how to share their perspectives in a healthier, more productive way. Our core approach is built on structured dialogue. In my workshop, we had five people who leaned pro-Israel and five who leaned pro-Palestine sitting across a table from one another. Two trained Braver Angels moderators led the conversation and established explicit norms and ground rules. Throughout the workshop, I felt safe to share my most honest opinions and always felt heard despite disagreements....
“Creating spaces for structured dialogue on college campuses requires change. Firstly, there needs to be a shift in institutional culture towards valuing and prioritizing open discussions. This includes training faculty and staff in conflict resolution and dialogue facilitation by providing them with the necessary resources and support. Secondly, there should be a commitment to structural reform, including establishing dedicated offices or roles focused on promoting dialogue and helping navigate conflicts. Policies should encourage staff to engage in debates without fear of repercussions, creating guidelines that ensure safety in facilitating and participating in controversial dialogues. Universities could also partner with organizations like Heterodox Academy, FAIR, BridgeUSA, and Braver Angels to bring their expertise in facilitating constructive disagreement at universities to their campuses....”
Full op-ed at Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism website
See also the articles at our Stanford Concerns webpage regarding Stanford’s program for reporting bias, Stanford’s list of proscribed words and phrases, and Stanford’s computerized program for controlling student behavior and ask yourself: Aren’t these and similar staff-initiated and staff-run programs key contributors to the negative campus climate re free speech? And how many of the staff members who create and administer these programs are part of the 18,369 non-teaching personnel at Stanford?
We also suggest it is time for Stanford to create an office or ombudsperson for free speech and who will speak up on behalf of students and faculty who believe their rights of free speech and academic freedom are being infringed upon and even to participate at Cabinet and similar meetings to help counteract contrary pressures.
Other Articles of Interest
License Plate Cameras to Be Installed at Entrances to the Stanford Campus
Full article at Stanford Report
See also “Stanford’s Security Regime Takes Root” at Stanford Review September 28, 2023, “Faculty Senate Debates Expansion of Video Surveillance" at Stanford Daily April 21, 2022, and “240 New Security Cameras on Campus Raise Privacy Concerns” at Stanford Daily November 27, 2023
How Colleges Plan to Deal with Student Protests
Full article at The Hill
UCLA Aims to Rebuild Trust with New Free Speech Zones, More Security, More Dialogue
Full article at LA Times
************
“A sure sign that a college or university is failing in its promise to provide a liberal education is the prevalence of ideological dogmatism and intolerance, and the presence of groupthink.” -- Princeton Prof. Robert P. George
September 6, 2024
Editor's note: Because there are so many items of current interest, we are distributing this edition of the Newsletter a few days earlier than usual.
Stanford Is #3 in New Best U.S. Colleges Ranking by WSJ and College Pulse
Excerpts (links in the original):
"Princeton University took first place in the WSJ/College Pulse ranking of U.S. colleges for the second year in a row. But there are plenty of new schools in the upper echelon of the ranking.
"Half of the colleges in the top 50 this year are new, with a wide range of schools -- large and small, public and private, technical and liberal-arts -- serving their students especially well and leaving them broadly satisfied with their college experience.
"Our ranking measures how well each college sets graduates up for financial success. We look at how much a school improves students’ chances of graduating and their future earnings, balancing these outcomes with feedback from students on college life. We don’t measure reputation, nor the college’s own finances....
“[While Princeton was first,] schools with strong tech or business programs also fared well, including No. 2 Babson College and No. 3 Stanford University. Stanford is one of 17 California colleges in the top 50, up from six last year and by far the most for any state...."
See the full ranking and methodology here, and with the top ten being Princeton, Babson, Stanford, Yale, Claremont McKenna, MIT, Harvard, UC Berkeley, Georgia Tech and Davidson.
See also College Pulse "the voice of college students" homepage
Stanford Is #218 Out of 251 in New Free Speech Ranking by FIRE and College Pulse
Editor’s note: Last year, Stanford was ranked #207 out of 237 schools in the comparable 2024 survey.
The top ten in the new 2025 survey, in descending order, are: Virginia, Michigan Tech, Florida State, Eastern Kentucky, Georgia Tech, Claremont McKenna, North Carolina State at Raleigh, Oregon State, North Carolina at Charlotte and Mississippi State.
And the bottom ten, also in descending order, are: Pomona, Indiana, UT at Austin, USC, Syracuse, Barnard, Penn, NYU, Columbia and Harvard.
Stanford student quote from the survey:
“Generally, other students are not particularly accepting. If you don't follow whatever Instagram or TikTok is claiming to be the most 'moral' political view at the moment, people don't want to hear it and they will label you as non-politically correct. This behavior usually comes from liberal students -- I'm saying this as a very liberal person myself. I don't think I have non-politically correct viewpoints. I often agree with these students, but the manner in which they enforce their viewpoints across campus is something I disagree with. I study communication and psychology and I've put a lot of time and effort into understanding the propaganda that is spread on social media. Stanford students on both sides are constantly posting infographics with no citations, video/photo media that is doctored or not even of what they claim it is, and straight up incorrect information. Stanford desperately needs a mandatory media literacy class for freshmen where they learn to identify propaganda. It's very concerning." – Survey respondent from Stanford Class of 2024
Full report at FIRE website including specific writeup for Stanford
See also “Free Speech Is in Trouble - Higher Education Needs Higher Standards” by Stanford alum and FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff at The Hill
See also Stanford's system for reporting allegedly biased statements and actions of others as well as Stanford's computerized systems for overseeing all aspects of student behavior at our Stanford Concerns webpage
Carleton Faculty Members Discuss Statement on Academic Freedom
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Colleges and universities across the country are busy revisiting and revising their free speech and academic freedom policies. Here at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, we were part of a special committee charged with drafting a new academic freedom statement. The statement was approved by the faculty and the Board of Trustees last academic year and has now been incorporated into Carleton’s faculty handbook. The full text of the statement appears below -- followed by some bullet points that spell out what we see as the statement’s key features....
“The four pillars of academic freedom are as follows:
1. Freedom of inquiry and research: faculty are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of results. Research for pecuniary return should be based on an understanding with the College.
2. Freedom of teaching: faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in teaching their subject and in developing their pedagogy. Inside the classroom, professors have the authority to decide what to teach based on their academic expertise and the parameters of a particular discipline or field. They also have the prerogative to decide how to teach based on their pedagogical goals and the broader objective of helping students develop critical thinking skills.
3. Freedom of intramural speech: faculty governance depends on academic freedom, with professors holding the primary responsibility for educational matters ranging from design and content of the curriculum to recommendations for faculty hiring and promotion. Academic freedom protects speech in the context of faculty governance.
4. Freedom of extramural speech: faculty are private individuals and community members. As such, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline when speaking on matters of public concern. However, as associates of learned professions and employees of the College, they should remember that the public may judge their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should make an effort to indicate that they are not speaking for Carleton when engaging in extramural speech....”
Full op-ed by Carleton professors Amna Khalid and Jeffrey Aaron Snyder at Substack
See also our compilations of the Chicago Trifecta regarding freedom of speech, a university’s involvement in political and social matters, and standards for the hiring and promotion of faculty
The First Amendment Seen as an Arms Control Agreement
Excerpts:
. . . .
“Here's something that might produce, if not a smile, at least a nod: Seeing the First Amendment, in its current form, as an arms control agreement. Some people would much like to ban critical race theory on campus. Other people would like to ban teaching, or perhaps speech, that puts the United States and U.S. history in the most unfavorable light -- emphasizing, for example, what might be seen as the centrality of slavery and racism.
“Some people would like to ban antisemitic speech on campus. Other people would like to ban racist and sexist speech, regarding it as incompatible with the educational mission. How, it might be asked, can students learn, if they are demeaned by virtue of their skin color or their gender?
“If we understand the First Amendment as an arms control agreement, we can give essentially the same answer to all these people. Properly understood, the Constitution requires all censors to lay down their arms.... [Followed by discussion of specific court decisions and universities.]
“For the current period, the lesson is not obscure. College and university administrators have been, and might be, sorely tempted to punish points of view that are inconsistent with their values and that seem beyond the pale. They should avoid that temptation. They should lay down their arms.”
Full op-ed by Harvard Prof. Cass Sunstein discussing his recently published book “Campus Free Speech,” as posted at the Eugene Volokh Conspiracy website and republished at Reason
See also "Cass Sunstein Wants to Help Universities Navigate Free Speech" at Inside Higher Ed
What the Freshman Class Needs to Read
Excerpts (link in the original):
“All universities claim to provide some kind of intellectual foundation for their students. Sadly, the reality of what freshmen and sophomores are required to study usually belies the admissions-office propaganda.
“In our view, liberal education requires that students, like rowers, face backward in order to move forward. If they are to become active and reflective individuals, they must learn to regard the past not merely as the crime scene of bygone ages, but as the record of human possibilities -- an always unfinished tapestry of admirable and shameful lives, noble and base deeds. They must develop an ear for the English language and the language of ancestral wisdom as well as the various languages of intellectual inquiry, including mathematics. They need a good grasp of modern statistical methods. But they must also allow themselves to be inwardly formed and cultivated by the classics -- what the English critic Matthew Arnold called ‘the best which has been thought and said.’ …
“A core curriculum cannot be both foundational and comprehensive. The further Columbia has strayed from its original purpose, the more skewed the Core Curriculum has become, as the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently noted. The 20th-century readings, he writes, now cover ‘progressive preoccupations and only those preoccupations: anticolonialism, sex and gender, antiracism, climate.’ Instead of reading George Orwell, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or Hannah Arendt, students read Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault, and the Combahee River Collective Statement -- which, as Douthat argued, are ‘texts that are important to understanding only the perspective of the contemporary left.’ This looks to us like a clear case of a university teaching its students what to think, not how to think.
“But at least Columbia offers a genuine core. Pity the poor freshmen at Harvard and Stanford, who each year look in vain for anything remotely as coherent....”
Full op-ed by Niall Fergusson and University of Austin Provost Jacob Howland at The Atlantic; article also available here
Admissions at Elite Universities
Excerpts (links in the original):
“Since the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina in June 2023 that repealed race-conscious admissions policies, many observers have wondered what would happen to the racial makeup of elite universities. In the past, such schools have proudly advertised the data on the racial makeup of incoming freshmen. So far this year, most have remained strangely silent.
“Last week, however, MIT broke the silence by reporting that the percentage of underrepresented minorities enrolling had precipitously dropped. Whereas black and Hispanic students, respectively, made up 15 percent and 16 percent of MIT’s Class of 2027, the Class of 2028 is just 5 percent black and 11 percent Hispanic. Meanwhile, Asian Americans have increased their enrollment from 40 percent to 47 percent, while the white share stayed essentially unchanged at 37 percent. That Asian Americans were the primary beneficiaries of the removal of racial preferences is consistent with the work we have published on the SFFA cases....
“While MIT is to be lauded for actually releasing its numbers, the picture is more complicated than MIT and the media let on: it depends heavily on how one defines ‘diversity.’ As MIT and the media are using it, the term seems to mean ‘representative of the national population.’ Asian Americans are a diverse group, representing many different cultures and ethnicities. But MIT and the media treat them as a monolith. To them, the diversity they bring as individuals of particular cultures and ethnicities is less important than their representativeness of the U.S. Asian-American population as a whole.
“The framing of the MIT numbers also neglects another component of diversity. Compared with the classes of 2024 through 2027, the number of first-generation college students rose from 18 percent to 20 percent, and the number of students eligible for Pell grants increased from 20 percent to 24 percent. MIT actually became more diverse based on socioeconomic measures, perhaps partly in response to the ruling....”
Full op-ed by Duke Prof. Peter Arcidiacono at City Journal
Other Articles of Interest
Revised Policies Nationwide Will Impact Campus Protests
Full article at FIRE website including FAQ’s re student protests and re political speech
College Free Speech Policies Are a Mess and a Liability
Full op-ed by former Northwestern Law School Dean Kimberly A. Yuracko and Northwestern Prof. Max M. Schanzenbach at Chronicle of Higher Education
Editor’s note: Stanford, unlike Northwestern and most other private colleges and universities around the country, in fact is subject to First Amendment requirements pursuant to California law.
The Fight for Political Neutrality in America’s Classrooms
Full review of book "You Can't Teach That" by Yale (formerly Princeton) Prof. Keith Whittington at Law & Liberty
See also “Academic Freedom Under Fire” by Harvard Prof. Louis Menand at The New Yorker
Yale Divinity Students Forced to Read from Witch’s Spell at Orientation
Full article at College Fix
UC Faculty Challenge University’s Free Speech Suppression
Full article at Brownstone
Survey Finds College Students Reluctant to Discuss Race, Abortion, Israel
Full article at College Fix along with a link to the report itself
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.
From School of Humanities & Sciences - Stanford Participates in Pathway to College for Military Vets
From Neurosciences Institute - Depression's Distinctive Fingerprints in the Brain
From Graduate School of Business - How Does Workplace Secrecy Affect Employees?
From Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) - Covert Racism in AI and How Language Models Are Reinforcing Outdated Stereotypes
From Graduate School of Business - A Little Humor-Bragging Could Help You Land Your Next Job
**********
“I couldn’t imagine a better job than getting to be the president of Stanford. It’s a great institution, and I think the same is true of our peer universities. We play a very important role in the country and in the world. Yes, we face many significant and contentious issues that have to be the subject of discussion and debate on campus, and that does create challenges to be a university president.” – Stanford President Jon Levin