Search Results

Past Reader Surveys Responses to Our reader Survey Dated 7/29/24 The Question: If you were to recommend up to three books (or other documents) for incoming freshmen to read, what would they be? Responses: __________________________________________________________________________________________________ “Darkness at Noon” by Arthur Koestler “Federalist Paper No. 10” by James Madison “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Friedman ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism” by Justice Stephen Breyer "A Theory of Justice” (Chapter 5, “The Problem of Justice Between Generations”) by John Rawls "Plato’s Ethics" ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexandre Dumas ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Declaration of Independence The Constitution of the U.S.A. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams" by Stacy Schiff "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Shoshanna Zuboff "The Invisible Bridge" by Julie Orringer The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams by Stacy Schiff brings to light the historical struggles and perseverance of our founding fathers: a reminder of the price paid and sacrifices made by those fighting for our Nation’s freedom. The Invisible Bridge by Julie Orringer portrays the lives of Hungarian Jewish people during World War II. It’s a chilling remembrance of antisemitism and the horrific suffering it caused in the past. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshanna Zuboff is a must read to understand the business model of today’s social media companies and while the services of Google, Facebook and others are free, there are hidden “costs” that may become regretful, as we navigate life without privacy, constant surveillance and nefarious ways the data collected could be used in the future, i.e., to control people’s lives. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Independence U.S. Constitution Brown v. Board of Education Democracy depends upon an informed citizenry. Stanford students should have a lifetime knowledge of documents that are fundamental to our nation’s past, present and future. These three documents also could be the focus for breakout sessions during new student orientation and where incoming students learn the disciplines of careful reading and critical thinking as well as how to express and listen to competing viewpoints. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Integrity" by Stephen L. Carter "Principle-Centered Leadership" by Stephen R. Covey "The Bully Pulpit" by Doris Kearns Goodwin _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The Dying Citizen" by Victor Davis Hanson "Social Justice Fallacies" by Thomas Sowell "The Splendid and the Vile" by Erik Larson __________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World" by Malcolm Harris "The Orphan Master's Son" by Adam Johnson (Stanford professor) (or some other fiction by a Stanford author - maybe Steinbeck or Stegner) "Designing Your Life: How to Build a Well-Lived, Joyful Life" by Bill Burnett and Dave Evans (Stanford professors) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The Price of Silence: The Duke Lacrosse Scandal, t he Power of the Elite, and the Corruption of Our Great Universities" by William D. Cohen "We Were Liars" by E. Lockhart ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen R. Covey “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Victor E. Frankl “The Giving Tree” by Shel Silverstein College is not just about completing coursework and earning a degree; it is also a vital period for personal growth, developing emotional intelligence, and cultivating noble principles such as integrity, generosity, and compassion. These life-long endeavors are essential for living a happy and meaningful life. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury "On Tyranny" by Timothy Snyder "The Bells of Nagasaki" by Takashi Nagai These three books are compact in size, but huge in addressing enduring issues in modern (and sometimes much longer) history: authoritarianism, book burning, and the collision of ethics and atomic weaponry. Tim Snyder’s profound scholarship stands behind his slim volume on a current global trend away from democracy. Ray Bradbury’s novel is a grossly underappreciated classic and reminder. Takashi Nagai's story was initially [restricted and/or] banned and then made into a film. It is a stunning example of ethical witness by a survivor of the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka "The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert A.Heinlein "Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck In 80 years of reading everything I could get my hands on, these three are a test for me for being an educated human. Being able to discuss all three is a test of intelligence. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ “Separating Power” by former Stanford president Gerhard Casper “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by UCLA professor Jared Diamond “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Stanford alum Greg Lukianoff The first book is a series of essays about decisions and events that shaped the presidency, the courts and much more and continuing to the present. The second book explores how nature, culture and human invention have shaped history. And the third book is an analysis of what has happened to modern college campuses and a challenge to incoming students to think critically and independently. All three books would expose students to concepts worth exploring with classmates and for the rest of their lives. Responses to Our Reader Survey Dated 6/14/24 The Question: What Advice would you give to Stanford's incoming freshmen and transfer students? Responses: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Be kind, thoughtful, honest, humble, considerate, respectful, have dignity, and do what you can to make the world a better place. Do not believe everything you read or hear. Question everything. Explore all sides of issues. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Watch your back, keep your head down and avoid doing anything on campus, off campus or on social media that could be used against you by anyone out to find a reason to cancel you. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Come to Stanford with an open mind. Focus on academics, but make time for fun. Make friends. Get help when you need it. Eat healthful foods, and take time for exercise. Manage stress. Stay safe on campus. Skip the drugs and alcohol. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Remember and obey the Fundamental Standard. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If the student is not "progressive Identarian" instead believing in classical liberal values, buckle up as it is going to be a "rough" ride for the duration of their time on campus; regardless, don't despair and best wishes. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Stanford culture ever since its founding is to show humility, not arrogance. Don’t tell everyone you’re there to “change the world,” as seems to have become the Stanford mantra in recent years, even if some day you will in fact help make major changes. Test new ideas but feel free to speak up about what you might think and feel as well. But in the process, be sure you’re drawing out the best in others. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Learn to love the genius of the American Constitution. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Stanford starts late and quarters move fast. Summer will be here before you know it, so you need to start thinking about it now. Sorry. If you're not sure what you want to study, just pick something (for now); it's better than aimless, inchoate course selections. You can always change. Pick a couple extracurriculars and focus on them. You can't do everything, like you probably did in high school. Have fun! Join in the traditions - FMOTQ, Big Game week activities, Flicks, etc. Responses to Our Reader Survey Dated 5/1/24 The Question: What are two or three things you would suggest Stanford's leaders should do or continue doing in order to protect free speech while assuring campus safety and operations? Responses: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Adopt a policy of complete institutional political neutrality. Exercise the power of this neutrality by sponsoring quality debate - insisting only that space must be given for all views. Put the learned faculty on center stage in their natural role of developing an evermore higher quality of the discourse. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Expel people who break the law. Protests are fine but breaking the law is unacceptable. Bring in a balanced set of speakers who can explain the history and the politics.... ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ University administrators need to: (1) Identify all non-student demonstrators, arrest them for trespassing at least, and have them removed from the campus; and (2) Suspend or expel students who flaunt university policies, depending on the severity of the infraction. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Be consistent. No camping means no camping. Take a consistent approach to punishing those who break the rules. To maintain institutional neutrality, you can’t let some violations slide without creating the impression that some points of view are more legitimate than others. Right now, no one believes that protests for an unfashionable cause would be treated with the same restraint that we’re seeing now. Tents should be forcibly removed at sundown. Outsiders should be arrested and prosecuted, and students subjected to the disciplinary process. Laws against covering your face - instituted to fight the Klan - should be enforced. Same goes for anyone - pro-this, anti-that. It should make no difference. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Stanford should do what it can to stop the incessant association linking pro-Palestinian rights and human rights issues, with claims and accusation of antisemitism.…. Protesting against genocide does not equal antisemitism.... __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ When I attended Stanford in the 1960s, I led the campus protest movement against the Vietnam War. I was focused on effective persuasion, not venting my anger and causing disruption. Let alone violence. Let me tell that story -- and how it governed my 40 years as a public policy advocate. It explains why the current protests against Israel’s conduct in its war against Hamas have been so completely ineffective. (Full text at our Reader Comments webpage.) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Put fun back into Stanford's environs. Reduce the number of administrative staff. Increase counseling both for mental health as well as post graduation opportunities. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I believe the U of Chicago President perfectly explains the reason for his ultimate intervention re the campus protests at Chicago, as stated here . The Cliff Notes version: “There is no way I would ever compromise on institutional neutrality.” __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dissolve DEI. Hold students and faculty accountable for disruption of speeches and other events, particularly when the speakers are invited. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Immediately arrest and prosecute anyone who intimidates or attempts to intimidate a speaker on campus. Immediately arrest and prosecute anyone who attempts to block, impede, or otherwise detain a speaker on campus. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ They should continue to keep things quiet on campus and unless there is violence, they should not bring in police, which would just escalate matters. They are referring students participating in the tent camp to internal discipline and there should be significant consequences for these students. No matter what Stanford does, some people will be unhappy but it appears they are doing the best they can in a very difficult situation. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Adopt the Kalven Report's Principles. End political litmus tests in hiring; end DEI. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Follow your own rules. Allow speech but do not allow protests that block access to buildings or other public spaces. Do not hesitate to use campus or city policy to enforce rules. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Aggressively enforce school policies prohibiting disruptions, camping, etc. Students should be suspended/expelled for rules violations, and outsiders arrested and prosecuted. Responses to Our Reader Survey Dated 4/1/24 The Question: What should be the two or three highest priorities for Stanford's current or next President? Responses: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Support free speech. Eliminate DEI. Reduce staff. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Restore a culture of civil debate and disagreement. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ End the DEI Programs NOW, and reassign the administrative staff in that area to other areas. Strengthen programs and add faculty in the Humanities. Focus on broad education for all students, and correct the overemphasis on science and technology. Focus on educating students, not just preparing them to get jobs. Teach tolerance above all. Downsize the administrative staff, and get administrators out of students' lives. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Restore the most critical diversity of an institution worthy of the title "University" - that is, thinking and speaking. Purge the institution of simple minded doctrinaires that make up most of the faculty. Hire people who advocate Socrates' "I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think." Restore merit as the overarching criterion for all things: admissions, grades, faculty hiring, etc. Eliminate all courses and majors that have the word "studies" in their description. By definition they lack range and depth of thought. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Stop policing fun. Stop policing words. Start policing violence, vandalism, and intimidation. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Focus the institution fiercely on its academic and scholarly mission. Cultivate a culture of inquiry, curiosity, and good faith. Deliver an excellent student experience. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DEI: get rid of this racist concept. It really means Division, Entitlement, and Inequality. Slash the administrative bloat which has more administrators than students. Punish and expel anyone who shouts down or suppresses freedom of speech. No exceptions. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Chicago Trifecta. Restore ‘fun’ (no ‘neighborhoods,’ Greek and theme houses that match demand, sensible alcohol policy beer=no fear). Reduce administrators/increase faculty. The financial goal of the university should be to return to the founding charter’s requirement for no undergraduate tuition. [Comment re individual person omitted.] ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Critical thinking and the ability to civilly debate issues, based on factual information, has gradually eroded in our society and divided our country, families and friends, potentially to a point of no return. It is imperative for our universities/education system to be leaders in the promotion of free speech and debate that transcends today’s political climate. We are at a critical time in the history of our country where people must be united, not divided. DEI should be abolished due to its hypocrisy. While it is disguised as inclusive, it does not address antisemitism and promotes animosity towards white people, including young children, for the sins of their ancestors towards people of color. History repeats itself and today’s issues are not new; however, there are now sophisticated (AI) tools to promote nefarious objectives such as censorship, surveillance and controlling the peoples’ behavior. A thorough understanding of history is imperative in order to see the similarities of what previous generations endured in the fight for freedom of speech and constitutional protections. Stanford should not, in any way, be associated with the tech censorship programs which “appear” to be promoted by Stanford, in name or location. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ An increased focus on the humanities and a mandatory course, like the old Western Civ course, for all freshman. A reduction in the administrative staff. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Restore freedom of speech on campus, no censorship. Put a curb on genetic engineering and AI as leading focuses on campus. Remove the DEI etc. agenda. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bring back mandatory Western Civ curriculum. Reorient instruction toward truth seeking and critical thinking. Begin by firing any instructor incapable of keeping their political views out of the classroom or unable to dispassionately impart competing viewpoints. Drastically reduce DEI administration and purge the campus of its inclusion in instruction. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The highest priority of any academic institution, particularly one at the level of Stanford, should be the encouragement and tolerance of divergent discourse. Suppression of free speech, whether it be from a conservative or liberal viewpoint, cannot and should not be tolerated. A secondary priority must be the cutting of the bloated administration. I have read articles pro and con about the "need" for administrators, and I absolutely do not believe the university needs anywhere near the number of administrators it presently has. Start the cuts with any and all DEI personnel. They are not needed. Students need to feel safe on campus, but not locked-down by administrative shackles. While Stanford will never likely be as free and fun a place as it was in the past, there needs to be a significant return to a place that is far more open and accepting than now. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I realize my opinions are 'dated' and 'old fashioned', but here goes: Get back 'to basics' by emphasizing a truly, TRADITIONAL, liberal education grounded in the fundamentals of the 'ill-named' "Western Canon"; RESTRUCTURE and make 'free standing affiliates' of Stanford, the professional Schools of Business, Law, & Medicine along the lines of the current [uneasy!] relationship between Hoover and Stanford; Require, to the extent lawful & practicable, full financial disclosure of ALL research undertakings of more than 2 years in duration and $5 million dollars of internal AND extramural financial support; & SHRINK the size of the Graduate School enrollment by 1/3 over a ten-year period of time, notwithstanding the suggestion above re: the Professional Schools. This change will have, IMO, a catalytic impact on the Undergraduate experience for which the Stanfords founded the University in the 19th century. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ End the Election Integrity, Virality, Internet Observatory projects and all other projects designed to censor citizens, sway public opinion, and essentially serve as the government’s mouthpiece. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Start with ending Stanford's destructive Bias Reporting program, move all programs not associated with teaching and research off campus, end DEI, stop funding frivolous SHARE games and similar silly programs, trim the excessive and out-of-control administrative bureaucracy, present freedom of speech training at every new student orientation. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A vibrant and creative undergraduate social life. Note Bene: Live-in selective social groups are critical. Die Luft der Freiheit Weit! Both speech and activities. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Turning out students who can become functional citizens and future leaders in a diverse country: people willing to listen to two sides of a topic, people who understand two sides of an argument, people who are taught two sides of an argument, people who don't demonize those who disagree with them. And while I am a proponent of free speech and academic freedom, it only works when there is some degree of viewpoint diversity, when the faculty and student body are not self-selected to primarily have one view. And while I am also a big proponent of STEM, students need a grounding in our history and values, with all its good and bad, taught by professors focused on education not indoctrination, to allow our society to function constructively, and to resolve how to best use the advances that STEM will bring. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Emphasize meritocracy and end DEI racism. End the policy of prohibiting alums from taking the initiative to contact students. End discrimination against women applicants (favoring male applicants who are less qualified). _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Adopt and enforce the Chicago principles. Over time, increase the population of faculty and staff who are more to the center and right politically. Reduce the number of administrators. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Reestablish civility on campus. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Restore student life to the students. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stanford Concerns - 2 Click on any bulleted item for direct access: Censorship House Judiciary Committee Letter to Stanford Dated October 22, 2025 Regarding Alleged Censorship Activities (New) Stanford's Prior Roles in Censoring the Web Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's Opening Statement at His Senate Confirmation Hearing to Lead NIH -- Five Goals if Confirmed as Head of NIH Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya: The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists, and We Fought Back Campus Speech Stanford is 218th in FIRE'S 2025 Free Speech Rankings (updated 4/15/25) The Contrarian Ethos, by Student Mimi St. Johns Prof. Gunther's Concerns Decades Ago re Free Speech Events at Stanford Law School Protesting Federal Judge Kyle Duncan Academic Freedom Videos from the Academic Freedom Conference Held at Stanford November 2022 Letter Signed by Faculty Worldwide re Restoring Academic Freedom How Stanford Failed the Academic Freedom Test American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) Issues Stanford Academic Freedom Challenge Student Life Stanford's War Against Its Own Students The Current Student Climate at Stanford; Student Theo Baker's 'Stanford's War on Fun ' Miscellaneous Stanford Concerns The Katie Meyer case (updated 5/12/25) Censorship House Judiciary Committee Letter to Stanford Dated October 22, 2025 Regarding Alleged Censorship Activities (New) On October 22, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee sent the following letter to various parties at Stanford. Among other things, it raised questions regarding recent meetings and other activities that discussed ways for U.S. and foreign governmental units to potentially moderate content in social media, search engines and similar platforms and included references to past activities where Stanford entities allegedly engaged in censorship activities, such as through the now-defunct Stanford Internet Observatory and related entities: The letter also made specific reference to an invitation-only session held at Stanford on September 24, 2025 that was titled "Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Changing Landscape" and that reportedly consisted of "trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives" to discuss standards and enforcement mechanisms within their jurisdictions but with potential worldwide effect. On the following two days (that is, on September 25 and 26), Stanford then hosted a public "Trust & Safety Research Conference," and for convenience we have pasted below a copy of the agenda for the public part of these sessions: The letter and related actions resulted in a number of media commentaries including these: Michael Shellenberger’s posting at X (October 28, 2025). "House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan Demands Stanford Turn Over Documents Relating to Foreign Censorship Scheme" at Substack (October 29, 2025). “Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center Coordinates International Internet Censorship” at Stanford Review (October 29, 2025) . See also: Transcript of Senate hearing on jawboning with testimony from Meta and Google executives (October 30, 2025) . “Tech Execs Give Qualified Backing to ‘Jawboning’ Legislation” at Roll Call (October 29, 2025) . “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) . See also these related articles: "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) . See also the next articles on this webpage regarding Stanford's prior roles in censoring the web, the past attacks on Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya and others as a result of their questioning government policies, etc. House Judiciary Committee 10/22/25 Letter to Stanford Final Agenda 2025 Trust & Safety Conf. at Stanford Stanford’s Prior Roles in Censoring the Web (Updated 12/19/24) On December 18, 2024, a federal district court in Louisiana issued a ruling to allow discovery in a case against Stanford and others – Hines v. Stamos, Stanford et al. – and where it is alleged that Stanford and Stanford affiliated persons engaged in censoring the speech of residents of Louisiana. Here is a PDF copy of the court’s order: This latest action follows a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year – in the case of Murthy v. Missouri – regarding the activities of government agencies to flag content and even authors that the agencies believed were posting misleading information, including restricting access to those materials or even suggesting that the materials be blocked altogether. An issue in the case was the involvement of private entities, including at Stanford, to assist in these activities and where Stanford's own medical school Prof. Jay Bhattacharya was one of the plaintiffs in the case. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs in the Murthy case lacked standing to bring the case, which is a reason for this subsequent action in Louisiana and possibly other similar actions around the country. Justices Barrett, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson were in the majority in the Murthy decision, and a dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. We have posted below PDF copies of the majority and dissenting opinions in addition to copies of an amicus brief filed on behalf of independent journalists, an amicus brief filed by Stanford alum Mitchell Keiter on behalf of several public interest groups, a copy of Stanford's own amicus brief and a copy of the transcript of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court in March 2024. Hines v. Stamos, Stanford et al. Murthy v. Missouri Opinion Independent Journalists' Brief Public Interest Groups' Brief Stanford's Brief Transcript of Oral Arguments These legal issues are obviously important, but putting aside what the courts decide now and in the future, there are important questions of academic freedom and national policy that separately must be addressed, also now and in the future, by Stanford and nationwide, including: Who gets to decide what is and isn’t true and subsequently gets to enforce the answers? Is it a proper role for Stanford not only to research the issues, but then to be the implementer of the solutions and the rejecter of alternative viewpoints? Is it appropriate that the Stanford name is seen as an endorsement of these activities? At what point does an entity, especially at Stanford, lose its independence and, in turn, its trustworthiness by engaging in these types of activities? Also, how did it come about that Stanford reportedly spent a million dollars or more on lawyers to assert the position that it was appropriate for non-academic staff and entities at Stanford, or anywhere for that matter, to play a role in censoring Stanford's own faculty members (Stanford's Prof. Bhattacharya being one of many faculty members who were subject to these censorship activities) and, of all things, in areas that are within the recognized expertise of those faculty members? Among other things, see this detailed summary of the Stanford Internet Observatory's prior funding by and interactions with government entities. See also " The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists -- We Fought Back ” by Prof. Bhattacharya. See also Section 4 of our Back to Basics webpage , including paragraph 4.d. that Stanford must never again play a role in censoring members of its own faculty. See also “Mark Zuckerberg Says White House Was Wrong to Pressure Facebook on Covid” at PBS and WSJ among many places. ************ And here are some links and comments previously posted: From The Stanford Review, “Stanford’s Dark Hand in Twitter Censorship” : https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-dark-hand-in-twitter-censorship/ ********** Some explanations from Stanford: https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/new s/background-sios-projects-social-media https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/cyber-events ********** Some Tweets about Stanford's newly announced Project Liberty (see further discussion in "Read more," below) : https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1666864855087976448 ********** Some commentaries from third parties: See articles at Uncover DC , at Brownstone, at Real Clear Investigations , and at California Globe A detailed analysis of what the authors call the Censorship-Industrial Complex, including Stanford’s various roles (see Item #7 re the Stanford Internet Observatory as well as various cross references to other Stanford-coordinated entities): https://www.racket.news/p/report-on-the-censorship-industrial-74b Matt Taibbi's op-ed from the Twitter Files: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1636729166631432195.html Michael Shellenberger's op-ed re alleged involvement of the CIA and others in the Stanford projects: https://public.substack.com/p/why-renee-diresta-leads-the-censorship George Washington Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley, “There is nothing more inherently in conflict with academic values than censorship. Stanford’s association with this censorship effort is disgraceful and should be a matter for faculty action. This [Virality Project] is a project that sought to censor true stories that undermined government or media narratives”: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/19/true-stories-could-fuel-hesitancy-stanford-project-worked-to-censor-even-true-stories-on-social-media/ As noted above, these are important topics to be studied. The more difficult questions are, as also noted above, who then gets to decide what is and isn’t true and subsequently gets to enforce the answers? And is it a proper role for Stanford not only to research the issues, but then to be the implementer of the solutions and the rejecter of alternative viewpoints? We believe similar concerns arise with many if not most of the other centers, incubators and accelerators Stanford has been creating and hosting in recent years. We therefore suggest moving those implementation activities off the main campus and into the Stanford Research Park, which was why a valuable portion of Stanford's land was set aside for this purpose in the first place, and/or to an entity comparable to Stanford Research Institute, which was why SRI and entities like it throughout the country also were created years ago. The Redwood City administrative campus that currently houses nearly 3,000 of Stanford's 18,369 non-teaching staff (see our February 26, 2024 Newsletter) might also be repurposed for the centers, incubators and accelerators. Among other things, these changes would free up land and buildings on the main campus for the university's core purposes of teaching and research and would help solve Stanford's problems with Santa Clara County for its land use permits. These changes also would allow a significantly reduced administrative staff to interact in person with Stanford's faculty and students and thus be focused again on the university's core purposes of teaching and research and not something else. And for reasons that will become clearer over time, we believe these and similar reforms will also go to the heart of free speech and critical thinking at Stanford. Stanford’s Recent Press Release About New Projects In June 2023, Stanford issued a press release about new projects it has undertaken: https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/06/07/stanford-joins-international-initiative-strengthen-democracy-foster-responsible-technology/ While the goals outlined in the press release seem laudable on the face, a more careful reading starts to raise questions about what really will take place as well as the roles of donors, Big Tech, government agencies and others. These words and phrases all come directly from the four-page press release: liberty, responsible technology, foundations of democracy, working together to shape emerging technologies, designed and governed for the common good, shaping an ethical future for our digital society, create more enduring democracies worldwide, a more equitable and inclusive technology infrastructure, openness to collaboration, focus on solutions, shared sense of urgency, at this critical junction, informing emerging technologies, the internet of tomorrow, accelerate our mission, a better web for a better world, support democracy, build a digital society, benefits the many and not just the few, inject ethics, ensure a meaningful encounter, engage with ethics at critical junctions, placement of technologists into positions of influence, shape thinking and decision-making, bring about a culture shift, ensure a flourishing and inclusive democratic society, transform the training, usher in a new breed, ethical society, implications of their work, serves rather than subverts democracy, a new generation of global leaders, define how we govern the future, shape the global conversation, transform social media, for the betterment of society, convene leading experts, spark a global conversation, can support democracy, be a benefit to society, flow of truthful and thoughtful information, vast digital web of social connections, the well-being of society, promote truth, mitigating those that amplify misinformation, confusion and polarization, a broad collective of stakeholders, shape a new digital society for the world, and many more. Note also the repeated use of “partnering,” thereby blurring any concepts of independence and who in fact is in charge: Is it tenured members of Stanford’s faculty and where these activities are core to their independent research, or is it the donors, government agencies, third-party advisory boards and nonfaculty managers who now direct what Stanford is doing? And per our earlier Newsletters, shouldn’t these activities at least be moved off campus into separate centers, incubators and accelerators; not be allowed to use the Stanford name; and not blur the distinction between independent research, which belongs at a university, versus being the deciders and implementers of outcomes that are largely decided by donors and government entities and therefore belong elsewhere and are better defined as to who funds and runs them and why? Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's Opening Statement at His Senate Confirmation Hearing to Lead NIH -- Five Goals if Confirmed as Head of NIH Dr. Bhattacharya’s full opening statement at his Senate confirmation hearing on March 5, 2025: [Editor's note: Dr. Bhattachaya was confirmed on March 25, 2025 and took office on April 1, 2025.] Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and members of the Senate Health Committee, I’m honored to speak with you today and deeply humbled by President Trump’s nomination. I’m delighted to have with me my wife, Kathy, my son, Matthew, and my brother, Deep. My two other adult children, Jod and Benjamin, unfortunately could not attend today but are here with me in spirit. The NIH has played a pivotal role in my career. I served for a decade as a standing member of NIH Grant Committees. I helped train many trainees to prepare for scientific careers with NIH support, and I want NIH funding to study population aging, chronic disease, and obesity. I’ve made the study of scientific institutions, including the NIH itself, a focus of my own scientific work. The NIH is the crown jewel of American biomedical sciences, with a long and illustrious history of supporting breakthroughs in biology and medicine. I have the utmost respect for the NIH scientists and staff over the decades who have contributed to this success. The NIH’s mission to support scientific discovery to enhance health and lengthen life is vital to our country’s future and, indeed, the world’s. I love the NIH, but post-pandemic American biomedical sciences are at a crossroads. A November 2024 Pew study reported that only 26% of the American public had a great deal of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interest; 23% have not much or no confidence at all. So, how can I help the NIH better achieve its mission? 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. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and the administration to guarantee that happens. While I believe there are real problems to be addressed, I want to finish by reiterating my great respect for the work and mission of the NIH. If confirmed, I’ll carry out President Trump’s agenda of making the public science institutions of this country worthy of trust and serve to make America healthy again. Stanford Prof. Jay Bhattacharya: The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists and We Fought Back In early September 2023, a federal appeals court confirmed that science cannot function without free speech and freedom of inquiry. Longtime Stanford Medical School Prof. Jay Bhattacharya reflects on how this judicial decision was a victory not only for him personally, but for all Americans. And although the decision was subsequently set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked standing, see above, Prof. Bhattacharya's essay raises critically important issues regarding scientific inquiry and academic freedom, both now and going forward. By Jay Bhattacharya September 11, 2023 When I was four, my mother took her first flight and first trip out of her native India to the U.S. with me and my younger brother in tow. We were going to meet my father, an electrical engineer and rocket scientist by training, who had won the U.S. visa lottery in 1970. He had moved to New York a year earlier. By the time we arrived he was working at McDonald’s because engineering jobs had dried up during a recession. Both of my parents—children of the violent partition of India and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)—had grown up in poverty, my mother in a Calcutta slum. They immigrated to this country because they believed in the American dream. That belief led to the success my father ultimately found as an engineer and my mother found running a family daycare business. Our family had indeed won the lottery. But coming to America meant something more profound than financial opportunity. I remember in 1975 when a high court found that then-prime minister of India Indira Gandhi had interfered unlawfully in an election. The ruling disqualified her from holding office. In response, she declared a state of emergency, suspended democracy, censored the opposition press and government critics, and threw her political opponents in jail. I remember the shock of these events and our family’s collective relief that we were in the U.S., where it was unimaginable that such things could happen. When I was 19, I became an American citizen. It was one of the happiest days of my young life. The immigration officer gave me a civics test, including a question about the First Amendment. It was an easy test because I knew it in my heart. The American civic religion has the right to free speech as the core of its liturgy. I never imagined that there would come a time when an American government would think of violating this right, or that I would be its target. Unfortunately, during the pandemic, the American government violated my free speech rights and those of my scientist colleagues for questioning the federal government’s pandemic policies. My parents had taught me that people here could criticize the government, even over matters of life and death, without worry that the government would censor or suppress us. But over the past three years, I have been robbed of that conviction. American government officials, working in concert with big tech companies, have attacked and suppressed my speech and that of my colleagues for criticizing official pandemic policies—criticism that has been proven prescient. On Friday, at long last, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that we were not imagining it—that the Biden administration did indeed strong-arm social media companies into doing its bidding. The court found that the Biden White House, the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General’s office, and the FBI “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints.” The judges described a pattern of government officials making “threats of ‘fundamental reforms’ like regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions” if we did not comply. The implication was clear. To paraphrase Al Capone: Nice company you have there. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to it. It worked. According to the judges, “the officials’ campaign succeeded. The platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.” In exposing this behavior—and in declaring it a likely violation of the First Amendment—the ruling is not just a victory for my fellow scientists and me, but for every single American. The trouble began on October 4, 2020, when my colleagues and I—Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford—published the Great Barrington Declaration. The Declaration called for an end to economic lockdowns, school shutdowns, and similar restrictive policies on the grounds that they disproportionately harm the young and economically disadvantaged while conferring limited benefits to society as a whole. The Declaration endorsed a “focused protection” approach that called for strong measures to protect high-risk populations while allowing lower-risk individuals to return to normal life with reasonable precautions. Tens of thousands of doctors and public health scientists signed our statement. With hindsight, it is clear that this strategy was the right one. Sweden, which in large part eschewed lockdown and, after early problems, embraced focused protection of older populations, had among the lowest age-adjusted all-cause excess deaths than nearly every other country in Europe and suffered none of the learning loss for its elementary school children. Similarly, Florida has seen lower cumulative age-adjusted all-cause excess deaths than lockdown-obsessed California since the start of the pandemic. But at the time, our proposal was viewed by high government officials like Anthony Fauci and some in the Trump White House, including Deborah Birx, then-White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, as a kind of heresy. Federal officials immediately targeted the Great Barrington Declaration for suppression because it contradicted the government’s preferred response to Covid. Four days after the Declaration’s publication, then-director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, emailed Fauci to organize a “devastating takedown” of it. Almost immediately, social media companies such as Google/YouTube, Reddit, and Facebook censored mentions of the Declaration. As The Free Press revealed in its Twitter Files reporting, in 2021 Twitter blacklisted me for posting a link to the Great Barrington Declaration. YouTube censored a video of a public policy roundtable of me with Florida governor Ron DeSantis for the crime of telling him that the scientific evidence for masking children is weak. I have been a professor researching health policy and infectious disease epidemiology at a world-class university for decades. I am not a political person; I am not registered with either party. In part that is because I want to preserve my total independence as a scientist. I have always viewed my job as telling people honestly about the data issues, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans liked the message. Yet at the height of the pandemic, I found myself smeared for my supposed political views, and my views about Covid policy and epidemiology were removed from the public square on all manner of social networks. I could not believe this was happening in the country I so love. In August 2022, my colleagues and I finally had a chance to fight back. The Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general asked me to join as a plaintiff in their case, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, against the Biden administration. The aim of the suit was to end the government's role in this censorship—and restore the free speech rights of all Americans in the digital town square. Lawyers in the Missouri v. Biden case deposed representatives, under oath, from many federal agencies involved in the censorship efforts, including Anthony Fauci. Broad discovery of email exchanges between the government and social media companies showed an administration willing to use its regulatory powers against social media companies that did not comply with censorship demands. The case revealed that a dozen federal agencies—including the CDC, the Office of the Surgeon General, and the Biden White House—pressured social media companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter to censor and suppress even true speech contradicting federal pandemic priorities. For instance, in 2021, the White House threatened social media companies with damaging regulatory action unless it censored scientists who shared the demonstrable fact that the Covid vaccines do not prevent people from getting Covid. True or false, if speech interfered with the government’s priorities, it had to go. On Independence Day this year, federal Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction in the case, ordering the federal government to immediately stop coercing social media companies to censor protected free speech. In his decision, Justice Doughty compared the administration’s censorship infrastructure to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. His ruling decried the vast federal censorship enterprise that dictated who and what social media companies could publish. The government appealed, convinced it should have the power to censor scientific speech. An administrative stay followed and lasted much of the summer. But on Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously restored a modified version of the preliminary injunction, telling the government to stop using social media companies to do its censorship dirty work: Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social media companies’ decision-making processes. As I read the decision, I was overcome with emotion. I think my father, who died when I was 20, would be proud that I played a role in this. I know my mother is. That is because the victory is not just for me but for every American who felt the oppressive force of this censorship industrial complex during the pandemic. It is a vindication for parents who advocated for some semblance of normal life for their children but found their Facebook groups suppressed. It is a vindication for vaccine-injured patients who sought the company and counsel of fellow patients online but found themselves gaslit by social media companies and the government into thinking their personal experience of harm was all in their heads. The decision provides some solace for scientists who had deep reservations about lockdowns but censored themselves for fear of the reputational damage that came with being falsely labeled misinformers. They were not wrong in thinking science wasn’t working right; science simply cannot function without free speech. The decision isn’t perfect. Some entities at the heart of the government’s censorship enterprise can still organize to suppress speech. For instance, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security can still work with academics to develop a hit list for government censorship. And the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci’s old organization, can still coordinate devastating takedowns of outside scientists critical of government policy. But the headline is a good one: the federal government can no longer threaten social media companies with destruction if they don’t censor on behalf of the government. The Biden administration, which has proven itself to be an enemy of free speech, will surely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. But I am hopeful that we will win there, just as we have at every venue in this litigation. I am grateful for the resilience of the U.S. Constitution, which has withstood this challenge. But I can never go back to the uncomplicated faith and naive confidence I had in America when I was young. Our government is not immune to the authoritarian impulse. I have learned the hard way that it is only we, the people, who must hold an overreaching government accountable for violating our most sacred rights. Without our vigilance, we will lose them. ******* Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, is a professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, where he researches epidemiology and health economics. He is a founding fellow of the Academy for Science and Freedom, a Hillsdale College initiative. He also podcasts at the Illusion of Consensus site. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @DrJBhattacharya. Campus Speech Stanford is 218th in FIRE's 2025 Free Speech Rankings (as compared to 106th in 2022) Executive Summary For the fifth year in a row, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit organization committed to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, and College Pulse surveyed college undergraduates about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses. This year’s survey includes 58,807 student respondents from 257 colleges and universities. Students who were enrolled in four-year degree programs were surveyed via the College Pulse mobile app and web portal from January 25 through June 17, 2024. The College Free Speech Rankings are available online and are presented in an interactive dashboard (rankings.thefire.org ) that allows for easy comparison between institutions. Highlights 75% of Stanford students say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is at least rarely acceptable 40% of Stanford students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is at least rarely acceptable For every one conservative student at Stanford, there are roughly six liberal students. 54% of Stanford students say they have self-censored on campus at least once or twice a month. Sample Student Quote "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." – Stanford Class of 2024 Click here for more specific findings re Stanford and click here to download a PDF copy of the full report. The Contrarian Ethos By Mimi St. Johns | From the Stanford Review, November 14, 2022, https://stanfordreview.org/editors-note-the-contrarian-ethos/ [Editor's note: Mimi St. Johns is currently a junior at Stanford studying both Computer Science and German.] The philosopher G.K. Chesterton once quipped, “freedom of speech means practically, in our modern civilization, that we must only talk about unimportant things.” At the moment, freedom of speech is more restricted than possibly any other time in the history of Stanford — and more broadly America. Depressing as that may be, this predicament often allows for contrarians to have an even greater effect. In the Review’s founding decade, the 1980s, politically incorrect hits like Caddyshack, Airplane, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High played in theaters. George Carlin and Rodney Dangerfield, still in their irreverent prime, dared to tour college campuses. Donahue and Oprah broadcasted taboo social, cultural, and political topics onto American screens. The Latchkey Kids — a generation of children with little parental supervision — found their way into the world. America has changed significantly since then. Now, like it or not, we’re in a culture war. At Stanford, the current coming-of-age generation is not the freewheeling Latchkey Kids but one of sheltered students, protected from anything that is possibly offensive by a nanny state of a university. The 1980s were a time when unpopular opinions were still tolerated by the public, without mass-scale condemnation or cancellation. Stanford was still the spot for intelligent bohemians who tolerated disagreement. Now, we’re at a period in Stanford’s history when many, understandably, have a bleak view of this university and their place in it. Students not only face a battle when espousing dissenting opinions, but they also deal with a campus bereft of genuine social connection and the fading geographic relevance of Silicon Valley. While we can only speculate about what exactly the next decade will look like, we can be certain of how the Review and contrarianism fit into it. Minority opinions are not only crucial, but they can also be supremely impactful in the next decade. Perhaps this is because we find ourselves in a time where that which is most pertinent can no longer wait. Contrarianism is most needed now. Throughout the past 35 years, the Review is the one place on Stanford’s campus where free speech has been consistently celebrated. This publication is a home for contrarians, intellectual outlaws, and those with controversial opinions. Though the inquisitive and irreverent ethos of Stanford is dying, it’s always alive in individuals and in the Review. Contrarianism is not disagreement purely for the sake of opposition, but unfiltered thought for the purpose of intellectual engagement. Tolerance for unorthodox beliefs is at a modern low. This is perhaps most prominent on college campuses. A majority of college students feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions and some even think violence is an acceptable reaction to speech with which they disagree. Instead of more conscious learners, modern higher education is building mobs. These hordes continually degrade the fabric of university education and culture. This struggle exemplifies Stanford’s gradual stagnation from an academic standpoint. We see it in the injection of leftist ideology into every facet of university life. Humanities courses often cover obscure topics and focus on identity politics. Engineering and science courses — ones that most think should be the most concrete and logical — are often not. If we cannot genuinely discuss big ideas and debate in the highest echelons of American education, then where does intellectual honesty exist? How does one instill it in at least some of the crop of future leaders that Stanford indelibly spawns? The answer lies in small groups of students and faculty who remain willing to question the leftist orthodoxy and argue for heterodox opinions. When institutions fail, it’s up to individuals to save our society’s fundamental values. Ernst Jünger, a German reactionary thinker, wrote “when all institutions have become equivocal or even disreputable, and when open prayers are heard even in churches not for the persecuted but for the persecutors, at this point moral responsibility passes into the hands of individuals, or, more accurately, into the hands of any still unbroken individuals.” This is the spirit of contrarianism. The courage required makes people more confident and better writers. We can rise out of the ashes of a broken university. This is not a time to be complacent: we must be proactive. For the remainder of Volume LXVI, we’ll continue to expose woke antics in every corner of campus, offer thoughtful and intellectual pieces, and showcase the intellectual vitality of our quite disagreeable community. Most importantly, we’ll continue to build an even stronger heterodox political scene at Stanford. We are the intellectual rebels and most importantly, you can be too! For any students lost and searching for a place where rational intellectual engagement is still alive, drop by a meeting or consider joining the Review. You have the opportunity to expose and elucidate some of the most crucial arguments of the decade. This is a moment that should not, and cannot, be wasted. Fiat Lux, Mimi St Johns Stanford’s Prof. Gerald Gunther Warned About Limits on Campus Free Speech Three Decades Ago By Ronald L. Collins, March 29, 2023 Three decades ago, Stanford Law School’s renowned constitutionalist Gerald Gunther (1927-2002) predicted the problem that today has engulfed his law school in a heated free speech controversy. Gunther did so in a debate published in the Stanford Lawyer in 1990. His exchange with professor Charles Lawrence centered around the topic of whether “one person’s freedom of expression may be another’s verbal assault — a dilemma with First Amendment implications.” Below are a few passages from Professor Gunther’s comments: "[Limits of free speech on campuses] are not only incompatible with the mission and meaning of a university; they also send exactly the wrong message from academia to society as a whole. University campuses should exhibit greater, not less, freedom of expression than prevails in society at large. "Proponents of new limits argue that historic First Amendment rights must be balanced against 'Stanford’s commitment to the diversity of ideas and persons.' Clearly, there is ample room and need for vigorous University action to combat racial and other discrimination. But curbing freedom of speech is the wrong way to do so. The proper answer to bad speech is usually more and better speech-not new laws, litigation, and repression. "Lest it be thought that I am insensitive to the pain imposed by expressions of racial or religious hatred, let me say that I have suffered that pain and empathize with others under similar verbal assault. My deep belief in the principles of the First Amendment arises in part from my own experiences." Gunther’s personal history influenced his views on free speech. The German-born American constitutional law scholar was in primary school when Hitler gained power and experienced “virulent anti-Semitism.” One Nazi teacher called Gunther a “Jew-pig” and “segregated him from his classmates.” In response, his family fled Germany in 1938, “only a few hours after witnessing the destruction of their town synagogue.” Reflecting back on those experiences, Gunther explained: “I lived in a country where ideological orthodoxy reigned and where the opportunity for dissent was severely limited. The lesson I have drawn from my childhood in Nazi Germany and my happier adult life in this country is the need to walk the sometimes difficult path of denouncing the bigots’ hateful ideas with all my power, yet at the same time challenging any community’s attempt to suppress hateful ideas by force of law. . . . Obviously, given my own experience, I do not quarrel with the claim that words can do harm.” Such harm notwithstanding, Gunther felt compelled to defend such expression: “I firmly deny that a showing of harm suffices to deny First Amendment protection, and I insist on the elementary First Amendment principle that our Constitution usually protects even offensive, harmful expression. “That is why — at the risk of being thought callous or doctrinaire — I feel compelled to speak out against the attempt by some members of the Stanford community to enlarge the area of forbidden speech under the Fundamental Standard. Such proposals, in my view, seriously undervalue the First Amendment and far too readily endanger its precious content. Limitations on free expression beyond those established by law should be eschewed in an institution committed to diversity and the First Amendment.” For Gunther, even offensive speech — the very kind railed against by Stanford’s Tirien Steinbach (associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion) — deserved protection: “[S]peech should not and cannot be banned simply because it is ‘offensive’ to substantial parts or a majority of a community. The refusal to suppress offensive speech is one of the most difficult obligations the free speech principle imposes upon all of us; yet it is also one of the First Amendment’s greatest glories — indeed it is a central test of a community’s commitment to free speech.” Events at Stanford Law School Protesting Federal Judge Kyle Duncan (Updated) On March 9, 2023, a Stanford law school student organization (the Federalist Society) had invited Judge Kyle Duncan of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to give a talk and answer questions about specific cases and how they relate to recent Supreme Court developments. Unfortunately, the judge was continually heckled by a group of protestors and then the law school’s Associate Dean for DEI read to the judge and the attendees her previously prepared remarks largely attacking the judge. The judge eventually was escorted from the school by a security detail that intervened after there were mounting concerns. As was reported in our July 28, 2023 Newsletter, on July 20, 2023, Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez announced that Associate Dean for DEI Tirien Steinbach had resigned from Stanford Law School. The text of Dean Martinez' announcement is set forth in our July 28 Newsletter. A Vimeo video showing key portions of the protest against Judge Duncan and the intervention by the law school’s Associate Dean for DEI Tirien Steinbach is available here. And here are some items about the issues being raised (see also comments from our readers here): Law School Dean Jenny Martinez’s Letter to the Community A copy of Stanford law school Dean Jenny Martinez’s March 22, 2023 letter to the Stanford law school community is available here: From David Lat – Dean Jenny Martinez Speaks Out About the Protest of Judge Duncan at Stanford Law School: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/dean-jenny-martinez-speaks-out-about Excerpt: In the world of campus free-speech issues, certain pronouncements have acquired canonical status. There’s the Kalven Report (1967). The Woodward Report (1974). The Chicago Principles (2014). And now we have a new addition to their august ranks: the Martinez Memo (2023). This is what leadership looks like . . . [Website editor's note: See our own compilation of the Chicago Trifecta here.] As I’ve said before, I wish Judge Duncan had been more restrained in reacting to the protestors. But as I told Nico Perrino of FIRE when we discussed L’Affaire Duncan on his free-speech podcast, So To Speak, that’s not really the news; the news is that yet another event at an elite law school was subject to a disruptive protest. (And in fairness to Judge Duncan, let’s not forget that he was provoked—by protestors who said, among other things, “we hope your daughters get raped”—and he tried to give his prepared remarks for quite some time before finally criticizing the hecklers.) See also prior posting: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech WSJ Op-ed by Stanford Law School Associate Dean for DEI Tirien Steinbach The WSJ published an op-ed by Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach in which she expressed her own views about the incident. A copy of that op-ed can be found at this link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-coexist-at-stanford-steinbach-duncan-law-school-protest-dei-27103829?mod=opinion_lead_pos5 Excerpt: Diversity, equity and inclusion plans must have clear goals that lead to greater inclusion and belonging for all community members. How we strike a balance between free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion is worthy of serious, thoughtful and civil discussion. Free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion are means to an end, and one that I think many people can actually agree on: to live in a country with liberty and justice for all its people. From Above the Law – Mandatory Programming at Stanford Law: https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/stanford-law-protects-their-speakers-from-institutional-orthodoxy-and-coercion-by-forcing-their-students-to-undergo-mandatory-educational-programming/ Excerpt: The letter [from law school Dean Jenny Martinez] is well written enough, but there are some obvious questions that remain after reading. What is going to be the content of the half-day thought etiquette course? Will there be an arts and crafts segment that details how distracting your protest cards are allowed to be? Will the civility for dummies course have some defensive strategems for what to do if the esteemed speaker calls you some flavor of idiot like Judge Duncan did? There should be some elaboration, given the recognition of behavior that is freely within one’s rights to express but still unfit for whatever culture Stanford is aiming for. . .. [On the other hand,] there are some views worth nipping in the bud, whose tacit approval in the name of tolerance and civility enable social mores that violate tolerance. From NY Times – Free Speech Doesn’t Mean Free Rein to Shout Down Others: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/23/opinion/free-speech-campus.html Excerpt: . . .an ideological monoculture doesn’t prepare students for these kinds of confrontations. Instead, they’re provided with a mountain of confirmation bias divorced from real-world context. . .. Those who strike down free speech aren’t liberators; they’re oppressive (even when they silence powerful men). And when aspiring lawyers act oppressively, they don’t just undermine liberty; they undermine the very profession they seek to join. From National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/stanford-dei-dean-escalates-battle-against-law-school-dean/ Excerpt: [Associate Dean for DEI Tirien Steinbach] never acknowledges or apologizes [in her WSJ op-ed] for her own gross misconduct. On the contrary, she defends her conduct in terms that directly conflict with Martinez’s criticism of her: She aimed “to give voice to the [protesting] students.” She “wanted Judge Duncan to understand why some students were protesting his presence on campus” so that he could ponder “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” So much for Martinez’s admonition that administrators “should not insert themselves into debate with their own criticism of the speaker’s views and the suggestion that the speaker reconsider whether what they plan to say is worth saying.” From a law school alum: http://the18thcenturyclub.com/free-speech-at-stanford-associate-dean-for-dei-urges-balancing-test-between-free-speech-and-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/ Excerpt: The fundamental flaw in this reasoning [by the law school’s Associate Dean for DEI] is the assumption that free speech should be “balanced” against diversity, equity, and inclusion, or any other societal goal. Balancing free speech against any goal of society (Who decides what are and ranks societal goals? Who balances? What standard or test is used to balance?) is a slippery slope that leads very quickly to the curtailment of free speech. Academic Freedom Videos from the November 2022 Academic Freedom Conference Sponsored by the Classical Liberalism Initiative at Stanford In early November 2022, Stanford’s Graduate School of Business hosted a two-day conference on issues related to academic freedom and with panelists and attendees nationwide and even worldwide. Videos of each of the individual panels can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/@stanfordcli . Also, here’s a link to the conference agenda: https://cli.stanford.edu/events/conference-symposium/academic-freedom-conference . This program was organized by some very talented Stanford faculty who, in addition to their other teaching and research, are leading a unit at Stanford known as the Classical Liberalism Initiative and which sponsors a regular series of webinars found here: https://cli.stanford.edu/ . Faculty Letter re Restoring Academic Freedom [Editor’s note: The following letter was drafted by a diverse group of Stanford faculty members from various departments throughout the University. The letter has now garnered signatures from nearly 1,700 faculty members from colleges and universities throughout the country and worldwide and with the number increasing daily. A list of all the signatories can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_vTk2EPGqe_4pjj9KntQLKAKO8ZqfL0Pquj89TlazYA/edit] The mission of the university is the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. A robust culture of free speech and academic freedom is essential to that mission: Intellectual progress often threatens the status quo and is resisted. Bad ideas are only weeded out by unfettered critical analysis. Unfortunately, academic freedom and freedom of speech are rapidly declining in academic institutions, including universities, professional societies, journals, and funding agencies. Researchers whose findings challenge dominant narratives find it increasingly hard to get published, funded, hired, or promoted. They, and teachers who question current orthodoxies, are harassed in person and online, ostracized, subjected to opaque university disciplinary procedures, fired, or canceled by other means. Employment, promotion, and funding are increasingly subject to implicit or explicit political litmus tests, including approval from bureaucrats seeking to impose a social agenda such as specific views of social justice or DEI principles. Activism is replacing inquiry and debate. An increasing number of simple facts and ideas cannot even be mentioned without risk of retribution. Public high-profile victims are the tip of the iceberg. An atmosphere of fear and self-censorship pervades academia. Many faculty and students believe they cannot voice their views, question dogmas, investigate certain topics, or question the loss of academic freedom without risking ostracization and damage to their careers. Knowledge is lost, and many talented scholars are leaving academia. Universities and professional societies are failing to resist such illiberal forces–which have arisen many times throughout history, from all sides of the political spectrum –and to defend academic freedom and freedom of speech. Many universities and professional organizations now qualify their support for freedom: free speech, they say, so long as the speech does not offend or exclude; free speech, so long as it does not challenge institutionally approved narratives and conceptions of social justice; free speech, but only within narrow credentialed boundaries. These restrictions are counterproductive, even to their goal of advancing a particular ideology. People infer from censorship a desire to protect lies from being exposed. Historically, censorship has supported monstrous regimes and their ideologies. Bad ideas are only defeated by argument and persuasion, not by suppression. True justice and freedom cannot exist without each other. The loss of academic freedom results in part from a leadership crisis. While many university leaders issue statements that support open debate, they nonetheless oversee and expand politicized bureaucracies that harass, intimidate, and punish those who express views deemed to be incorrect and enforce ideological conformity in hiring and promotions. A boilerplate generic defense of free speech does little good if at the same time university administrators conduct investigations in secret, without due process, and based on anonymous complaints; if administrators publicly ostracize the victim to all potential future employers. Boards of trustees, alumni organizations, donors, government granting agencies, and other institutional stakeholders likewise fail to uphold the principles of academic freedom. Universities and professional organizations are instead moving headlong into institutional political and ideological activism. Departments and other university units make public statements of political views, thus effectively branding as heretics -and even bigots- members who may question those causes. Increasingly, centers and “accelerators” are devoted to political and policy advocacy, advocacy of the supporting ideologies, and suppression of competing ideas. Professional organizations and journals announce, all too often, that certain kinds of research, no matter how methodologically valid, may not be published, and have turned to advocacy. University bureaucracies demand that certain authors be included and others excluded from reading lists and classroom discussion. What can be done? We call for all Universities, academic associations, journals, and national academies to adopt the “Chicago Trifecta,” consisting of the Chicago Principles of free speech, the Kalven Report requirement for institutional neutrality on political and social matters, and the Shils report making academic contribution the sole basis for hiring and promotion. The Kalven report emphasizes, “To perform its mission in society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures.’’ The University and its administrative subunits must abstain from taking position on the political issues of the day: “While the university is the home and sponsor of critics, it is not itself the critic and therefore cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness.” “The neutrality of the university as an institution arises … not from lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.” We also call for faculty to create (or join existing) non-partisan associations, aimed at defending these values on campus, and at a national level such as FIRE, the Academic Freedom Alliance, Heterodox Academy, FAIR and ACTA. Professional organizations should prioritize the defense of academic freedom and free speech of their members. Many universities have officially adopted the Chicago Principles. Robust structures must be developed to uphold these principles. Faculty under fire from student groups, other faculty, deans and administrators, or university staff, must be able to effectively assert their freedom of speech and inquiry by appealing to those statements. Universities must deploy safeguards to ensure that administrators work to uphold these principles rather than to undermine them. University disciplinary procedures must become transparent, following basic centuries-old protections of the accused such as the right to see and challenge evidence, confront witnesses against them, the right to representation, and innocence until proven guilty. University leaders must also promote and institutionalize free speech and academic freedom by concrete actions. Freedom is a culture, not merely a set of rules, and a culture must be nurtured. Free speech, free inquiry, tolerance for opposing views, meeting such views with argument, logic and fact, abstaining from ad-hominem attacks, character assassination, doxing and other unethical behavior must be highlighted in the orientation materials for all new students and employees. Freedom comes with a culture of responsibility, but responsibilities are better enforced by social norms than by extensive rules enforced by non-academic bureaucrats. If community members or groups petition school leaders for the sanction or punishment of a faculty member or a student for expressing their point of view, university leaders should publicly and clearly respond with a statement affirming that the University is a place to discuss and debate all views, and that an attempt to punish others for having “incorrect” views is incompatible with the community standards of the school. The University should also commit to all students, faculty, and employees, that it will not punish or sanction free expression. How Stanford Failed the Academic Freedom Test As many readers know, Prof. Jay Bhattacharya, who has been at Stanford for over 30 years, was subjected to extreme criticism and hostility at Stanford in the past three years. And the controversy was solely over a position Prof. Bhattacharya had taken regarding what became known as The Great Barrington Declaration , now with nearly a million signatories worldwide. Read here Prof. Bhattacharya’s personal description of what he encounte red, and why he believes Stanford failed the academic freedom test. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Prof. Bhattacharya, in our view and that of increasing numbers of others, Stanford’s leadership fell woefully short in protecting Prof. Bhattacharya’s right to raise important scientific and social issues. It brought to mind Galileo putting forth the preposterous (at the time) idea that earth might revolve around the sun and not the other way around, and having the elites at the time convict Galileo and others of heresy which potentially carried the death penalty. In our view at least, Stanford’s administrators, faculty and even trustees fell far short of their obligations to demonstrate that Stanford is a place that cherishes and protects speech and the freedom to pursue important areas of inquiry, even if unpopular at the time. This also is another reason we urge Stanford to adopt the Chicago Trifecta (freedom of expression, the university’s role in political and social matters, and criteria for academic appointments) posted here along with the Back to Basics reforms we have posted here . ACTA Issues a Challenge to Stanford Regarding Academic Freedom ACTA (the American Council of Trustees and Alumni) has issued a challenge to Stanford’s faculty, students and alumni on issues of free speech and academic freedom. Their press release can be found here , and an ACTA webpage that is devoted to the Stanford challenge is here . We have posted the related video below, which is also available at YouTube here . According to ACTA’s website, the group is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting academic excellence, academic freedom, and accountability at America’s colleges and universities. Their challenge to Stanford, as they have done with other major colleges and universities: commit to a culture of free expression, foster civil discourse, cultivate intellectual diversity, break down barriers to free expression, and advance leadership accountability. And with specific action items listed at their website for each of these five goals. While our Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking group was not involved in creating this challenge, we think the issues it raises are very important ones for all of Stanford’s faculty, students and alumni, and we thus hope the issues will receive appropriate discussion and resolution. We also note that the challenge makes reference to the Chicago Trifecta, something we have long endorsed and is posted at our Chicago Trifecta page. Further information about ACTA and the initiatives it sponsors can be found here , and if you have any thoughts about the challenge or the issues it raises, please feel free to submit them at our Contact Us page. Student Life Stanford’s War Against Its Own Students An article titled “Stanford’s War Against Its Own Students” was recently published by The Free Press (the Substack publication created several years ago by former NY Times editor Bari Weiss). The article raises concerns about Stanford’s Office of Community Standards and related administrative units, including their involvement in cases involving residential education, student discipline, the Katie Meyer suicide and other items. The article further notes that Stanford now has more than 10,000 administrators who oversee the 7,761 undergraduate and 9,565 graduate students—"almost enough for each student to have their own personal butler.” A copy of the article is available at this link . And we again call your attention to our proposed reforms regarding student matters at our Back to Basics webpage. The Current Student Climate at Stanford [Editor's note: In addition to the main theme in a recent 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 to 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 Requeste d 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 Inside 'Stanford's War on Fun': Tensions Mount Over University's Handling of Social Life By Theo Baker, Stanford Daily, October 24, 2022 On the first Friday of the academic year, a group of students wandered aimlessly through campus, cutting the silence with music played from a portable speaker. They took turns climbing lamp posts and pushed shopping carts filled with beer through Main Quad. One wore a shirt emblazoned with “Stanford Hates Fun” written in red marker. This was, perhaps, what passed for fun after unclear instructions from University administrators forced the Kappa Sigma fraternity to postpone its annual Eurotrash event, typically the first all-campus party of the year. In a normal year, the postponement of a single party would not be cause for alarm. But to some frustrated students, the delay was yet another example of University pressure to restrict student social life. Across more than a dozen interviews with The Daily, students alleged that Stanford has exerted pressure through its policies, lack of communication and adversarial approach to party registration and funding. The University, on the other hand, has maintained that it has worked to provide social opportunities for students during this academic year, the first in two years free of widespread pandemic restrictions. But a University spokesperson broadly declined to comment on specific allegations raised by students for this article, and numbers provided by the spokesperson indicate that the number of social events on campus has fallen sharply. There were just 45 parties registered on campus during the first four weeks of the fall quarter, compared with 158 in the same period in 2019, according to Student Affairs spokesperson Pat Harris. Student concerns are also not going away: one month after Eurotrash was postponed, four students, including mascots from both Stanford and Arizona State University, walked a 40-foot banner with the same “Stanford Hates Fun” slogan into the middle of a football game during Reunion Homecoming. Without alternatives, students and safety advocates warned that dangerous decision-making, including solitary drinking or rebellious adventures such as pole-climbing, is on the rise. Freshmen this year describe wandering campus Friday and Saturday nights in search of an open party or even trekking to San Jose State University in search of social engagement. Where music and loud laughter once were prevalent, weekends are often much quieter. Moritz Stephan ’24, president of the Sigma Nu (SNU) fraternity, said communication with the administration about hosting social events for non-members broke down in the months leading up to the new school year. “There was no guidance to any organizations about what the rules were going to be for this quarter until the Friday of the first week of classes, which is crazy,” he said. Stephan said he and other Greek life leaders reached out to administrators repeatedly asking for guidance. In addition to the lack of communication, Stephan charged that the administration’s policies on social life and the resulting lack of options have led the existing parties to be dangerously overcrowded. “When you do host [parties], there are just way too many people,” Stephan said. “Last year, there were a couple where 600 to 800 [underclassmen were] trying to storm into our house, breaking through windows, physically and verbally assaulting members doing door security. And we just had to call the police on ourselves to, like, get everything cleared out.” Harris declined to comment on the allegations that the University did not provide adequate and timely guidance, and on the threat posed by overcrowded parties. 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.” Arman Sharma ’24, author of the Review op-ed, said he wrote his piece in response to “dead silent” bike rides home on weekend nights. He said his friends in the Kappa Alpha (KA) fraternity told him “about the bureaucratic nightmare that they had to go through to get [the annual KAbo party] approved. And I was like, this doesn’t really make sense for a college campus. [One] like this, in particular, that has been known as America’s dream school for a very long time.” Complaints have spread beyond the initial concentration of those in or around Greek life circles — according to several students, a marked decline in social events of all types has swept Stanford as a direct result of actions taken by the administration. One Voluntary Student Organization leader, who requested anonymity because much of the group’s funding is supplied by the office they criticized, said, “You feel like you’re being audited by the IRS to get boba for people.” The student said the University is “excessively bureaucratic” and those trying to host events are “burnt out” from trying to navigate a ruleset that “has expanded and [adds] challenges that don’t need to be there.” Harris, who also responded on behalf of the Office of Student Engagement, wrote that the University has worked to expand social opportunities. “Student Affairs, student leaders, and campus partners have been working earnestly to provide many and vibrant social options for undergraduates this fall,” Harris wrote. “We now have funds specifically earmarked to support all Row houses, Greek and non-Greek, in hosting all-neighborhood or all-campus events,” Harris added. But some students alleged that programs like Cardinal Nights have not been funded and advertised enough to serve as real alternatives, especially since they have been actively hampered by changing school policies. (Cardinal Nights disappeared in September 2021 after a departmental reshuffling, though it has returned under new management.) And other efforts have proven ineffective. In April 2022, the University created a Student Social Life Accelerator Task Force, claiming “Stanford has long been known for its fun, irreverent, whimsical social scene. Yet it just hasn’t felt as vibrant as it could be.” According to students, the task force has failed to make progress. (The co-chairs of the task force did not respond to a request for comment.) Other policies have also served as cause for concern among some in the student body, including changes to the alcohol policy in May 2021. Multiple members of residential staff said that the changes reversed a previous “open door” understanding, where students who were underage could drink in their rooms under supervision from their residential staff. 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. Many students echoed the danger they felt this policy caused students. A 5-SURE on Foot employee, who requested anonymity in fear of retaliation from superiors, said the new alcohol policy “made our job a lot worse. I’ve seen firsthand the side effects of that which are, like, really catastrophic. Last year and this year I’ve seen people extremely drunk, some slipping on the verge of alcohol poisoning, just on their own” because they don’t have safer alternatives. Stephan shares this concern for underclassmen. “I’m of age,” Stephan said. “I just went to San Francisco with my friends. And the number of freshmen that I saw there — girls by themselves, trying to get into crappy bars in bad areas with fake IDs — was just scary.” When approached with these concerns about the alcohol policy, Harris declined to comment, and Dean of Students Mona Hicks did not respond to a request for comment. Eurotrash eventually did take place at the end of Week 2, but the party was shut down at 11 p.m. after a student was taken to the hospital. The first major all-campus party was held the third week of the quarter at Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp). Leo Rossitter ’25, a sober monitor at the party which left little room for dancing much less for conversation, said, “Social definitely has a lot more headaches now. The University is putting up barriers [that] are unnecessary.” When asked why, he said he “[couldn’t] speak to that.” Rossitter’s restraint was echoed by a number of other sources. More than 30 students involved in campus social life and employees involved in alcohol and social life policy declined to be interviewed, fearing retribution for being associated with criticisms of the University. When asked whether they would be comfortable with including some of their anodyne quotes in this article with attribution, the club leader whose funds come from the University said: “Ah, sorry, but the perception would be terrible if I’m associated in any way.” Other sources were similarly skittish. Claudio Aguilar ’24, the president of SigEp who had agreed to an on-the-record interview, stood up and walked out of an interview after being told he couldn’t review the article in advance, which is The Daily’s policy. Some of their concerns were not unfounded. When the University learned that a SUPER employee had spoken with The Daily for this article, Joe Kaczorowski, assistant director at SUPER, emailed 5-SURE student-workers telling them any conversations with the media “need to be cleared by me first.” The Daily reviewed materials and policies from the SUPER office extending back several years and could not find records of such a policy. When asked where this policy had appeared in writing previously, Kaczorowski declined to comment. Stephan said that with the current administration, “We have to be hyper-cautious. [It’s] a big reason why almost all Greek parties aren’t open to everyone anymore; we have to control the risk and control the liability.” The alternative to this tiptoeing, he said, is clear: Last spring, all on the same day, the administration “sent basically every Greek org an investigation letter.” Over the summer, they hired outside lawyers to investigate the fraternities for their various potential transgressions. The night of the SigEp party, DJs shut off the music at around 12:34 a.m., a strategy several brothers described as an attempt to get the freshmen to leave. Jack Givhan ’25 summed it up in an interview at the party. “This is the only thing going on tonight.” Theo Baker is a writer for the campus life desk. Contact news 'at' stanforddaily.com. Miscellaneous Stanford Concerns The Katie Meyer Case (updated 5/12/25) A lawsuit was filed in late 2022 against Stanford by the Katie Meyer family regarding Ms. Meyer's suicide. The case raises important issues separate from the merits of the case itself, including what many believe is the overly legalistic and overly bureaucratized manner in which Stanford's administrative groups function vis-a-vis Stanford's own students. Here is a PDF copy of the Complaint that was filed by the Meyer family in November 2022: And here is a PDF copy of the motion to compel the disclosure of evidence that was filed on April 30, 2025 and among other things raises still more questions about how Stanford handles its cases involving students and others: See also our article "Stanford's Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior " and which, without independent confirmation, describes a process that could have been a factor in what happened to Ms. Meyer. Meyer Complaint 11-24-2022 Meyer Motion to Compel 4-30-2025

Reader Survey Results Responses to Our Reader Survey Dated The Question: New responses can be inputted at our Reader Survey webpage here . To see responses to past Surveys, click here . Reader Responses In the order of most recently received, some with minor edits for style or to remain on topic. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____

Past Newsletters -- 2022 - 2024 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

Stanford Speaks - 2 Click on any bulleted item for direct access: Letter from former President Richard Saller and Provost Jenny Martinez to Class of 2028 Stanford Daily: 'Keeping Stanford's Speech Free' Former President Gerhard Casper: 'Die Luft der Freiheit Weht -- On and Off' Letter from former President Richard Saller and Provost Jenny Martinez to Class of 2028 April 3, 2024 Dear XXX, Congratulations on earning a place in Stanford University’s Class of 2028! This is a moment to celebrate the hard work and determination that have brought you to this moment, and also to reflect on the next stage of your education. Amid all the challenging and polarizing issues being discussed in the world right now, you may be wondering what kind of intellectual community you would be joining at Stanford. And we think this is important to address directly. Stanford strives to provide its students with a liberal education, which means one that broadens your mind and horizons by exposing you to different fields of study and different ways of thinking. A rigorous liberal education depends on questioning your assumptions and seeing if they hold up. As a member of the Stanford community, you will quickly learn that freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression are core values at Stanford. They animate our central missions of teaching and research. Stanford is also a place that values diversity in its broadest sense – which includes diversity of thought. This means that every member of the Stanford community is accepted and valued for their unique characteristics and ideals. It is precisely the distinct attributes each community member brings to Stanford that, when openly and constructively shared, create a vibrant educational environment where the search for truth is advanced. Our Founding Grant commits the University to “teach the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and … the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The "blessings of liberty” are a middle point between mere license (doing whatever you want) and conformity (doing what others want you to do). Liberty to think and say what you believe involves taking responsibility as well. It requires recognizing the freedom and rights of others and helping to create the conditions that make everyone’s freedom possible here on campus and in our broader society. Freedom of expression does not include the right to threaten or harass others and prevent them from engaging as equal participants in campus life. But the freedom of expression necessary for fulfilling the mission of a university – and for a democracy – does require allowing speech that some may find offensive or wrong. Many of humanity’s greatest advances have come from ideas that offended conventional wisdom and seemed heretical at first. In a university, the remedy for ideas that you think are wrong is not to seek to silence them but to counter them with better ideas, evidence, and arguments. As a part of your education you should expect, and indeed welcome, disagreement. You will undoubtedly encounter and hear ideas that are contrary to your beliefs and values. Stanford culture will expect and demand that when you face disagreements that you respond with respect for the humanity of those you disagree with, and with an open and curious mind. We aim for an environment where we are tough on ideas, but generous and respectful to one another. Being exposed to the very different views of others will invariably broaden your outlook and may transform some of your beliefs -- or at least change your understanding of what they mean and how to defend them. Your education at Stanford is designed to prepare you for life as a citizen of the communities in which you live. Whether it is your dormitory, your town, or your workplace, and regardless of what career path you eventually choose, you should have the skills to critically and constructively engage with those who are different from you. Guided by the principles outlined above, we are delighted to welcome you and your unique perspective into this culture of free thought, inquiry, and expression. We hope you’ll seriously embrace the extraordinary opportunities available here. Sincerely, /s/ Richard Saller, President, and Jenny S. Martinez, Provost Stanford Daily: Keeping Stanford's Speech Free By the Stanford Daily Editorial Board, October 29, 2023 Stanford is again in newspaper headlines. Most notably, The New York Times recently published a column titled “The War Comes to Stanford,” highlighting students’ speech, banners and chalk messages around campus. Other universities have been under as much, if not more , scrutiny. This is not a new phenomenon; college students’ reactions to current events have long stoked heated debate. As a Board, we are grateful to attend university in a country with the greatest free speech protections in the world. That scope of freedom includes the expression of beliefs that we may consider immoral, inflammatory or even factually incorrect, all in the shared interest of our own speech not being silenced for these very reasons. We are also fortunate to be under the leadership of President Saller and Provost Martinez, who have come out strongly in defense of free speech within both legal limits and Stanford community guidelines — despite strong opposition from some. The alternative to ban, condemn or censor such speech would make Stanford the arbiter of acceptable speech, which is not a position that any leading research institution should take. Vindictive retaliation to students’ political expression can dampen free speech on college campuses. To be clear, we do not believe that college students deserve any sort of special pass to speak without facing the associated consequences. However, students should not receive threats to their safety on the basis of their opinions. We believe that being held accountable means that our views may — and should — be questioned and criticized. Our ideas may be lambasted; they may be called unacceptable and disgusting. But recent years have seen targeted efforts to punish students by exposing personal information such as their email and home address, opening the gateway for online harassment and physical danger. These include doxxing trucks parading the names and faces of college students who voiced strong opinions on geopolitical issues, Turning Point USA’s “Professor Watchlist” which includes undergraduate students, harassment of student journalists and doxxing campaigns against professors and alumni. Such attacks do not constitute engagement with someone’s ideas, but rather an attempt to humiliate and punish those who take staunch stances on social and political issues. It is these threats — especially when issued by those who wield the power to realize them — that chill speech, as students rightfully fear for their safety and future prospects. As a college student in this environment, is it better to be silent or to test your ideas? Either choice seems unacceptable according to social media, yet at least silence carries less risk. But our country’s educational institutions should be incubators of ideas, which requires us to engage with a diversity of interpretations. Students should be free to challenge and contradict their peers’ views, and even their own. This is how we learn about the world with nuance, change our minds and reinforce our beliefs. Some may say that such a view is nice in theory, but dangerous when words hold so much power to stoke hatred. It is undeniable that the modern world exists in a continual war of information and the presentation of that information. We must each acknowledge the weight of that responsibility: that our words have the real ability to harm and misinform others. Incitement that is likely to produce violence is, of course, unacceptable. Despite these risks, the alternative of a quiet campus is far worse. As the Supreme Court has held over the ages, we must preserve a free market of ideas so that the best ones may prevail through trial and scrutiny. If we fail to do so, instead choosing to silence the voices of our opponents out of fear that their views will overwhelm ours, we will have lost all faith in our peers — and the future of our country. ---------- The Editorial Board consists of Opinion columnists, editors and members of the Stanford community. Its views represent the collective views of members of the Editorial Board. Gerhard Casper: 'Die Luft der Freiheit Weht - On and Off' Former Stanford President Gerhard Casper, "The Origins and History of the Stanford Motto," October 5, 1995 Every so often, Stanford wonders how it came by the German motto "Die Luft der Freiheit weht."1 The basic outlines of the story are by now well established, including the fact that the "German" motto is actually the German translation of a Latin text. However, the accounts that I have seen are rather unsatisfactory concerning the question of how President Jordan came to embrace it. Jordan himself does not tell us. I should like to do two things today. First, I should like to shed some fresh light on the matter of David Starr Jordan and the motto. This effort will take us back to Indiana University. Second, I should like to begin an effort to trace the motto's fate at Stanford more fully than has been done so far. To set the stage, I begin by reminding you of what is known. Jordan has given us a couple of fairly meager reports on how the motto was introduced at Stanford. For instance, in 1917, in an extemporaneous Founders' Day address, then Chancellor Emeritus Jordan told how, "[I]n connection with one of my early speeches, I had occasion to quote what Ulrich von Hutten said when Luther was being persecuted. 'Don't you know that the air of freedom is blowing?' This pleased Mr. Stanford and it pleased the faculty, and somehow 'Die Luft der Freiheit weht' got on the seal of the university of those days."2 A year later, he gave a slightly different and slightly fuller version: "In the first year of the University I tried to tell the story of this martyr of democracy. Mr. Stanford was impressed with the winds of freedom - which we hoped would continue to blow over Stanford University. . . . And so on the temporary seal adopted by the professors for their convenience, we put these German words."3 What the second version suggests is that in 1891/92, Jordan gave a talk about Ulrich von Hutten, referred to the winds of freedom, and found Senator Stanford "impressed." An undefined "we" then placed the words on the "temporary seal of the faculty." "We" may refer to Jordan and Stanford, or to Jordan and the faculty, or to all three of them. No evidence has been found of the faculty formally adopting a seal, nor of any official embrace of the motto by the faculty. The University Archivist, Maggie Kimball, speculates that, given the small size of the faculty and Jordan's relationship to each member, the faculty could have accepted the Hutten motto informally.4 There is no existing evidence of a seal used by Jordan or the faculty that carries the motto.5 A few reminders about Hutten, a humanist who was associated with Johannes Reuchlin, Albrecht Durer's friend Willibald Pirkheimer, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Sir Thomas More. Hutten was born in 1488. He belonged to the lesser German nobility that at the time found itself severely squeezed by the princes of the Holy Roman Empire and by the Church. In 1521, when Martin Luther was called before the Diet of Worms to abjure his beliefs and teachings, Hutten, in support of Luther and the "cause of truth and freedom," published, in Latin, three so-called Invectives. In the third of the Invectives, he admonished his own and Luther's enemies among the clergy with the words videtis illam spirare libertatis auram.6 Literally translated this means: "See," or better, "Recognize that the wind of freedom blows." The Latin "aura" can be rendered various ways. The German term "Luft" means "air" rather than "wind," though "wind" is clearly appropriate. Indeed, one might argue that Der Wind der Freiheit weht would have been a better translation of the Latin into German.7 The words videtis illam spirare libertatis auram constitute the beginning of a sentence, the remainder of which tells the Catholic clergy that people are tired of the present state of affairs and want change. Now, why do we have Hutten's words in German? The answer to this question is rather more complex than one might expect and involves 19th- century intellectual history. I begin by discussing Jordan's source for the Hutten text. In 1885, only 13 years after graduating from college and 5 years after he had become professor of natural sciences at Indiana, Jordan, age 34, was made president of Indiana University. The following year, 1886, he published, in two parts, a long article about Ulrich von Hutten in a Chicago literary journal by the name of Current.8 A lightly edited version, under the new title A Knight of the Order of Poets, appeared in 1896, after Jordan's move to Stanford, in his book The Story of the Innumerable Company and Other Sketches.9 It was also published as a separate in 1910 and 1922.10 In short, throughout his life, Jordan publicized Hutten. Hutten had been poet laureate of the Holy Roman Empire. His German poetry resonated with Jordan. Jordan translated some of Hutten's poems in his sketch, just as he had previously, when still a student at Cornell, published translations of other German poetry.11 In the 1886 version, Jordan offers an explanation for his effort that, in this form, he eliminates from the 1896 edition. I quote: Almost four hundred years ago began the great struggle for freedom of thought, which has made our times what they are. Modern science, modern religion, modern freedom alike date from this great struggle which we call the Reformation. I wish to give in this paper something of the history of one who was not the least in this struggle, one who dared think and act for himself, when daring to think and act was costly, one to whom the German people, and we their English-speaking cousins, owe a debt not yet wholly paid or appreciated.12 It is later in this 1886 article about Hutten, "this lover of freedom," that "the wind of freedom" makes its first appearance, however, in English only. Jordan's source was not Hutten's writings themselves, but rather the German theological critic David Friedrich Strauss. Jordan's piece on Hutten begins with an asterisked footnote: "For many of the details of the life of Hutten, and for most of the quotations from Hutten's writings given in this paper, the writer is indebted to the charming memoir by David Frederick Strauss, entitled 'Ulrich von Hutten'. . . . No attempt has been made to give, in this brief paper, a full account of Hutten's writings, only a few of the most notable being referred to at all."13 I have not found any information on how and where Jordan came across Strauss' biography of Hutten. The book was first published in three parts in 1858-60. Jordan refers to the 1878 fourth edition. A one- volume English translation made its appearance in London in 1874. Among the protagonists of humanism, Ulrich von Hutten was a rather minor, and in some ways problematic figure.14 Outside Germany, 19th- century interest in him may have had more to do with the person of the biographer, Strauss, than the humanist himself. Strauss was a fairly famous, even notorious, author who, in the 1830s, had caused a considerable stir with the publication of two volumes entitled The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. The book treated the Gospels as "myths" rather than history. An English translation by no less a writer than George Eliot appeared in 1846. Later in life, Strauss received the honor of being singled out by Nietzsche in 1873, in the first of his Unfashionable Observations, as the foremost among "cultivated philistines" who, following the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, engaged in a nationalistic glorification of German culture.15 Strauss died in 1874. There is no indication that Jordan's interest in Strauss went beyond his having been captivated by the liberal Protestantism of the Hutten biography and the questioning, critical spirit that characterized Hutten. At the end of his sketch, Jordan sums up what Hutten's life, as characterized by Strauss, meant to him. Hutten, Jordan said, was one of the first to realize that religion is individual, not collective: "It is concerned with life, not creeds or ceremonies. In the high sense no man can follow or share the religion of another. His religion, whatever it may be, is his own."16 Returning to the "The Wind of Freedom" phrase, I should like to quote, from Jordan's 1896 paper about Hutten, the entire paragraph in which the phrase makes its appearance. The 1896 version is identical to the 1886 one but for a starred footnote that gives the crucial sentence in German.17 Hutten, on his sick-bed at Ebernburg, not far away, was full of wrath at the trial of Luther. "Away!" he shouted, "away from the clear fountains, ye filthy swine! Out of the sanctuary, ye accursed peddlers! Touch no longer the altar with your desecrating hands. What have ye to do with the alms of our fathers, which were given for the poor and the Church, and you spend for splendor, pomp, and foolery, while the children suffer for bread? See you not that the wind of Freedom* is blowing? On two men not much depends. Know that there are many Luthers, many Huttens here. Should either of us be destroyed, still greater is the danger that awaits you; for then, with those battling for freedom, the avengers of innocence will make common cause." * "Sehet ihr nicht dasz die Luft der Freiheit weht?" If one compares the third Invective in its original Latin with Strauss' account of it, one notices that Strauss takes elements out of sequence, in short, rearranges the text. Furthermore, Strauss renders the Latin text from which the Stanford motto derives into German by transforming the affirmative statement ("Recognize that the wind of freedom blows") into a rhetorical question that Jordan translates into English as "See you not that the wind of freedom is blowing?"18 Indeed, one wonders whether Jordan was under the mistaken impression that Hutten's original text was in German. Jordan's starred footnote to his summary of the Invective in the 1896 version of the sketch supplies, and thereby emphasizes, the German text of the wind of freedom passage. Furthermore, in his 1918 article about the motto, Jordan quoted the German in a context in which he emphasized that Hutten was one of the first scholars in Europe to throw aside the Latin "and speak in a tongue the people could understand."19 A close reading of Strauss and his footnotes would seem to rule out the possibility that Jordan could have been mistaken about the language in which Hutten had written the Invectives. And yet he might have been. Occasionally, all of us may become neglectful of our sources as we become enamored of their contents. Can any light be shed on the question why, in 1886, while he was at Indiana University, Jordan makes so much of Hutten and freedom? In 1887, after he had become president of the College Association of Indiana, Jordan gave a substantial talk on "The Evolution of the College Curriculum" in which he lends forceful support to the elective system of course selection. "Freedom is as essential to scholarship as to manhood. Not long since I met a young German scholar, a graduate of a Prussian gymnasium, who has enrolled himself as a student of English in an American college. To him the free air of the American school was its one good thing" [emphasis added].20 Later in the same speech he says: "The ideas of 'Lehrfreiheit' and 'Lernfreiheit,' - freedom of teaching and freedom of study, - on which the German university is based, will become a central feature of the American college system."21 He meant these two sides of the academic freedom coin to be central features of Indiana University. Jordan was the first Indiana president not to be an ordained minister, a "Darwinian extrovert among Hoosier fundamentalists," as Thomas Clark has said.22 When he became president, chapel attendance every morning was still mandatory. The faculty was small and old and the curriculum was that of an "antebellum classical college."23 In Jordan's words: "The college course in those days led into no free air" [emphasis added].24 Jordan, on the other hand, was caught up in that vast transformation of American colleges and universities that took place during the last third of the 19th century and that was associated with such names as Charles Eliot of Harvard, Daniel Gilman of Johns Hopkins, Andrew White of Cornell, and William Rainey Harper of the University of Chicago. Jordan wanted science to invade the college and he wanted faculty to be as inspiring and open as had been his own teacher Louis Aggasiz, who "believed in the absolute freedom of science and that no authority whatever can answer beforehand the questions we endeavor to solve."25 On Charter Day 1893, at Berkeley, Jordan delivered a lengthy address in defense of public universities in which he denied denominational colleges any role in higher education and asserted that, about universities, one should ask only, "in the words of the old reformer, Ulrich von Hutten, if 'die Luft der Freiheit weht?' - whether 'the winds of freedom are blowing'.26 After my inauguration in 1992, I turned to the then president of Indiana University, Tom Ehrlich, who was also the former Dean of our Law School, to determine whether, at Indiana, they knew what had been the catalyst for Jordan's interest in Hutten. He wrote me back that there was nothing in the Jordan Papers at Indiana that gave a clue. But, Ehrlich said, he was persuaded that Jordan's interest in Hutten "was a result of Jordan's own struggle to obtain freedom - for Jordan, this meant academic freedom, but he well understood the term in all dimensions."27 I think this is the correct view of the matter. Hutten's appeal to Jordan had first of all to do with the most fundamental of Protestant tenets: the right of individual interpretation, the "priesthood of all Christians." Jordan appreciates Hutten primarily as an early example of Protestant individual daring - a point Jordan makes much of in a rather nonreligious, "general theory of life" sort of way that reflects Jordan's attenuated universalist religiosity. In his Hutten sketch he sums up: "The issue was that of the growth of man. The 'right of private interpretation' is the recognition of personal individuality."28 When David Starr Jordan decided to leave the Midwest to come to Stanford, he wrote to his mentor Andrew Dickson White, the president of Cornell, that he was prepared "to take whatever came." Jordan's nonreligious, secular use of Hutten is evidenced by the fact that even on this occasion, hardly a religious turning point, he quoted two lines from a very militant, "Protestant" poem by Hutten entitled "Hutten's Song": "With open eyes I have dared, and cherish no regret. . . ."29 However, in the context of university building at Indiana and Stanford, Hutten's significance for Jordan lies in his association with the fight for the freedom to challenge established orthodoxy and perhaps the most important freedom that the humanists battled for: the pursuit of knowledge free from constraints as to sources and fields. As to this, Jordan employs the Hutten motto in a secularized, somewhat attenuated way - as if Hutten had been a precursor of the scientific spirit that Jordan, along with many other American educators, found epitomized in the German university of the second half of the 19th century. Indeed, the point about science is made explicitly in the opening paragraphs to the 1886 version of the Hutten sketch when Jordan refers to the Reformation as the source of "modern science, modern religion, modern freedom."30 Once at Stanford, Jordan seemed to localize the motto and discover in it an expression of what we might call Stanford's "Western" spirit, a way to capture the spiritus loci of a campus, then without any ivy, stretching more or less from "the foothills to the Bay." The only mention of the motto in Jordan's 1922 autobiography occurs in a quote from an article by Ellen Elliott, wife of the registrar, about the experiences of the "Cornell Colony" in Stanford's early days. Jordan quotes: Perhaps it is the spirit of the West, perhaps it is the vital breath of the Pacific, coming in to us over the mountains, but whatever it may be, some enchantment has blinded us to the crudities, the drawbacks, the limitations of our state. The giants looming in the path of the pioneer appear but frivolous windmills in our eyes. Come not out to us, O doubting Cornellians, thinking to return untouched by the unreasonable enthusiasm. Christmas shall bring you, and the months of spring shall bring you, critical, skeptical, curious, speering after our library, questioning about our funds, and you shall return - if you return at all - chanting as fervently and irrelevantly as we, "Die Luft der Freiheit weht."31 The motto was certainly not irrelevant when Stanford University, nine years after its opening, had its first academic freedom controversy, resulting from Jane Stanford's displeasure with the political activities of Edward Ross, a professor of sociology.32 At the time, faculty contracts were renewed annually and Ross had been advised by Jordan that he would not be reappointed at the end of the academic year 1900/01. Whereupon Ross, in November of 1900, announced that he had been forced to resign. The "Stanford University scandal" led other faculty members to quit in protest and the Ross affair became "one of the most celebrated academic freedom cases in United States history."33 What I am concerned with is the fact that the affair was viewed as testing the motto's implications for academic freedom. The most interesting and telling comment is perhaps a well-known one by Ray Lyman Wilbur, then a first-year assistant professor of physiology at Stanford. In his memoirs he wrote: "Up to the time of our difficulty with Dr. Ross we had taken as a matter of course at Stanford the right of every man to express his opinion. We gave it no more thought than the air we breathed. We were all for Dr. Jordan's slogan which was popularly adopted as a Stanford motto, 'The winds of freedom are blowing'."34 As a result of the Ross affair, academic freedom at Stanford had a more precarious status. Among the faculty members who resigned was the economist Frank A. Fetter, who later would become President of the American Economic Association. He left Stanford not out of solidarity with Ross but because Jordan refused to accept his condition for returning from a leave at Cornell. Fetter, to whom Jordan had given the task of recruiting new faculty, demanded from Jordan formal statements, in writing and in public, that members of the economics department would be guaranteed "as large a measure of academic freedom as is enjoyed in any university." The members of the department were to be "free to teach and discuss any question within the range of their studies; that they shall not be called to account for any opinion on social questions which they may hold, or for the public expression of their views; that they shall not be limited by the university in the exercise of any political rights or the performance of any political duties pertaining to good citizenship."35 Jordan replied that he could not issue such a statement nor "pledge the University in any unusual manner." Instead, he insisted on the customary "unwritten contract": "Liberty of thought, speech and action, on the one hand; reasonable discretion, common sense and loyalty on the other."36 I did not have the time to examine papers related to the Ross case to see whether and how the motto was employed by the various parties to the issue. What does seem clear is that the aftermath of the turmoil did not substantially diminish the motto's overall popularity. B. Q. Morgan reports that, prior to World War I, all the seal stationery, all the shields and jewelry, and other mementos sold at the Stanford Bookstore showed the German phrase on the Stanford seal.37 So did the many plaques, cast in bronze, since the first decade of the century by generations and generations of engineering students learning the skills of foundrymen at the foundry of the engineering laboratories under James Bennett Liggett.38 To Wilbur, the Ross case seems not to have affected the fundamental situation at the university. He writes: "As we knew first-hand what remarkable freedom we had at Stanford that did not seem much of an issue to us."39 However, Wilbur notwithstanding, the motto's implications for academic freedom had become somewhat of an issue and the motto was seen, at least by some, with a certain ambivalence. One of the most intriguing episodes in the history of Stanford's motto came in the first decade of the century when the Board of Trustees adopted a seal for itself. Among the most influential early trustees was George E. Crothers who had concerned himself as a committee of one with designing a seal for the Board that, in 1903, had taken over Jane Stanford's role in the governance of the university. In 1908, the Board chose a seal with the Latin motto Semper Virens meaning "ever greening" or, staying forever young and vital. The Board's motto is a reference to the Sequoia sempervirens, the tall redwood for which Palo Alto is named, but also, in Judge Crothers' words, stands for "perpetuity of life, growth, and strength"; "a pledge and resolve that the University shall never become stagnant, unprogressive, self-glorifying, or petrified in its imperfections."40 According to Crothers, the Board acquiesced in his selection without ado. "I [had the seal] cast and adopted by the Board of Trustees without mentioning 'Semper Virens', lest the wisdom of the selection, not to mention its correctness or suitability, should result in a discussion sure to result in many other suggestions, perhaps better ones."41 The year before, in 1907, Crothers had, however, consulted Jordan concerning the matter of an official seal and motto. This led to a fascinating exchange of letters between the two men. Jordan suggested "that a motto if used should be short and in a foreign language." He refers to Die Luft der Freiheit weht, makes some other proposals, but expresses a preference for a Latin aphorism that was inscribed over the bedroom of the great Swedish botanist and taxonomist Linnaeus: innocue vivite, numen adest. Jordan renders this as "live blameless [sic!] in divine presence (divinity is here)." Bartlett's Familiar Quotations gives the text as "Live innocently; God is here."42 I am not sure about either translation. Another possibility would be: live righteously, God helps you. Be this as it may. What matters is the fact that Jordan concludes his letter to Crothers by indicating his preference for the Linnaeus motto, "with the German one as second choice."43 Jordan previously had invoked the Linnaeus maxim in his address at the opening of Stanford on October 1, 1891. I quote: "For the life of the most exalted as well as the humblest of men, there can be [no] nobler motto . . . . 'This', said Linnaeus, 'is the wisdom of my life'. Every advance which we make toward the realization of the truth of the permanence and immanence of law, brings us nearer to Him who is the great First Cause of all law and phenomena."44 It seems somewhat strange that Jordan would propose as his first choice for the Board of Trustees' motto a maxim of this complexity that pertains to bringing individuals nearer "to Him who is the great First Cause of all law and phenomena." Had the Ross affair, during which he had been widely and publicly attacked,45 left Jordan with reservations about whether the Hutten aphorism could be reconciled with "reasonable discretion, common sense and loyalty"? Crothers, responding to Jordan's suggestions, is explicit about his reservations concerning Die Luft der Freiheit. I quote: I personally prefer a motto in either English or Latin, preferably the former. The words "truth" and "service" come about as near to expressing the aim which the founders had in founding the University, and the ideals which the University should have in the execution of the founders' purpose, as any words which occur to me. I think that the word "truth" implies "freedom." The motto "Die Luft der Freiheit weht" is certainly a splendid motto, with splendid associations, but my recollection is that it includes a freedom both on the part of the student and the professor as to what is learned and the method of learning, and what is taught and the method of teaching which is not really recognized in any American college.... Would not its adoption imply the adoption of the German university system of instruction and teaching under quite different conditions? 46 In short, Crothers had come to understand Jordan's earlier "more idealistic professions"47 quite accurately. As I have pointed out, the wind of freedom, to Jordan, originally also meant Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit. The Republican lawyer from San Francisco was, however, worried whether these were alien, "un-American" concepts. Jordan himself obviously had reservations about professors who appeared to be using their position for political propaganda.48 Jane Stanford, following the Ross affair, in 1902, had amended the Founding Grant to stress the nonpolitical, nonpartisan nature of the university.49 It was as if an age of innocence about academic freedom had ended: What the wind of freedom actually meant had become problematic. Ironically, only a few years later, Jordan's own political activities as a pacifist became the target of others who thought the motto alien. In the years immediately preceding World War I and American entry into the war, the most controversial person at Stanford was easily its former president. Jordan would have retired from the presidency in the ordinary course of events in 1916 when reaching the age of 65. Jordan himself had been ambivalent about waiting that long, given his ever increasing efforts on behalf of world peace50 and his vision of a better world, one ruled by ideas, not by guns, bayonets, and poison gas. A new trustee by the name of Herbert Hoover, who had joined the Board in 1912, arranged matters. He saw to it that Jordan, in 1913, was "relieved of routine work for the remaining three years" of his administration by being given the title Chancellor. This freed Jordan to pursue his work for peace in Europe and what he called "my propaganda against the war system."51 Jordan's friend and colleague (and Hoover's former teacher) John Casper Branner became Stanford's second president, to be succeeded in January of 1916 by Ray Lyman Wilbur. In those years, Jordan gave hundreds of lectures, both here and abroad, for the cause of peace. As Edith Mirrielees puts it dryly: "Dr. Jordan had preached peace when peace had been everybody's good word. He went on preaching it now."52 But now he became viewed by some as an "unwitting," "deluded tool" in Germany's "plot against humanity,"53 by others "as actively Pro-German before the entrance of the United States into the war."54 After the United States declared war on Germany in April of 1917, Jordan issued a statement that began with the words "Our country is now at war and the only way out is forward."55 Nevertheless, Jordan remained a target of accusations and attacks. For instance, in May of 1918, members of the Cornell class of 1873 called on the Board of Trustees of Cornell University to revoke his degree.56 Jordan had to spend endless time and effort to defend himself against charges and distortions. In a letter to Senator Lee Slater Overman, of North Carolina, who chaired a special investigating committee of the United States Senate, Jordan wrote on December 23, 1918: "For myself, I wish to deny emphatically that I have ever been actively or otherwise 'pro- German'. For eight years I have openly and vigorously opposed the German emperor and the system he represented. In 1910, I spoke publicly in the German language in Berlin against German militarism, and later in the fall of 1913 in the cities of Southern Germany, from Frankfort to Munich. Among other things I said that the German war-system had 'perverted and poisoned all teaching of history, of patriotism and even of religion'. I believe that I am the only outsider who has thus spoken in Germany in open meetings in the German language."57 The Chancellor Emeritus was forced to worry about the impact of it all on the university and to bend over backward to distance it from himself. There is an almost pathetic letter from Jordan to President Wilbur, dated September 9, 1918, responding to some document attacking Jordan that had been addressed to Wilbur. I quote: I send you my answer, by which you will see that the charges are based on accident and misinterpretation. I have used great care not to entangle the University in any opinions of mine. But to avoid misapprehension, I shall send out no printed matter of any kind, and shall use only plain envelopes, posting my letters outside the campus. At the bottom of the letter is a note in Jordan's handwriting that reads: "Kindly show the document to Mr. Hoover. I regret the whole business very much on my own account but more especially on that of the University."58 In May of 1918, the university felt obliged to deny reports "apparently circulated" by "subtle German propagandists" that, "on the official seal of Stanford appears a phrase in the German language." The Daily Palo Alto wrote: "Unofficially, a motto in German has sometimes been used at Stanford, but Acting President C. D. Marx said . . . that it never was adopted by the trustees, that it appears nowhere on official University stationery or documents, and whatever use may have been made of it at any time has not received the sanction of the Board of Trustees or of the Academic Council of the faculty." I guess in order to make the point how unfamiliar they were with the motto, the editors of The Daily Palo Alto went on to quote the motto as "Die Luff [sic!] der Freiheit Weht."59 At the same time, The Stanford Illustrated Review published an article by Jordan entitled "The Wind of Freedom." The article is prefaced by the following editorial comment: "German propaganda made it necessary for the University to issue recently a statement explaining that the University has no German motto on its seal. This history of the phrase by Chancellor Emeritus Jordan is timely as well as interesting." And interesting, if somewhat disingenuous, it is. I should like to quote the first three paragraphs. Some one in a spirit of illiterate intolerance has lately ventured to criticise Stanford University for its alleged German motto "Die Luft der Freiheit weht" (the wind of Freedom is blowing). As a matter of fact this is not the motto of the University, as it has never been officially adopted and does not appear on the University official seal. It is not the policy of the trustees to use a living language for this purpose, and the only motto I know to have been actually considered is "Semper virens" (ever green, or practically, ever growing), the scientific name of the redwood tree (Sequoia sempervirens) which is the central figure of the University seal. But the German phrase has a noble history in which Stanford is in a degree concerned. Then follows an account of Hutten and the previously cited mention of Jordan's exchange with Senator Stanford about Hutten and the winds of freedom back in 1891/92. The article concludes with the sentence: "Meanwhile it is still true that 'the wind of freedom is blowing', and it will in due time sweep over the whole earth."60 It appears that the "alleged" motto that, at best, had been adopted by custom, though never "officially," returned to ordinary use no later than 1923.61 Just before the beginning of World War II, when the Stanford Alumni Association commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of the laying of the cornerstone for the university with a 250-page "pictorial record," the seal with the motto in German decorated the cover.62 Of course, contrary to the hopes of Jordan who had died in 1931, the wind of freedom was not sweeping over the earth. Nazi Germany had started a second world war. Among the devastations of World War II and in the wake of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis, Stanford invoked its motto in defense of the values the motto represented, especially and poignantly Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit. American universities now stood for the very values that Wilhelm von Humboldt's University of Berlin had symbolized since the 19th century, but, in 1933, abandoned. Two months before Pearl Harbor, on October 1, 1941, the university celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of its opening. At a dinner in San Francisco, attended by more than a thousand alumni, faculty, and friends, the Stanford Associates invited their guests to dedicate themselves once more to the ideals upon which the university was founded and "to perpetuate," as the program said, "for all time Stanford University as a place where indeed the winds of freedom blow."63 In the spring of 1941, the University of Leyden in Holland had been closed by the Nazis. This event prompted, at the anniversary dinner, a "mask," a presentation by the Department of Speech and Drama, under the title "The Winds of Freedom Blow." The only speaker at the dinner was the President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Raymond B. Fosdick. His subject, likewise, was "Let the Winds of Freedom Blow." Fosdick began by talking about Leyden. Three hundred and sixty-six years ago, in one of the darkest hours that Holland ever knew, William the Silent founded the University of Leyden. He needed it in his struggle against Spain. He needed it as a weapon against tyranny. He realized that a university could be a mighty bulwark of liberty, a citadel of ideas which no physical force could permanently overthrow. For 366 years Leyden has stood for political and scholastic freedom; it has been the determined foe of absolutism in every form. It has welcomed scholars like Grotius, Arminius and Descartes - heretics in their day. It has been a center of intellectual ferment. For over three centuries and a half the cultural life, not only of Holland but of all of Europe, has borne witness to the influence of Leyden. Today Leyden is silent and isolated. When the Germans over-ran Holland, all Jewish professors were dismissed from the faculty, and three prominent Nazis were appointed to the chairs of political economy, history, and what is called "new philosophy." An outstanding member of the faculty who objected to these German measures was imprisoned; and when the student body held a meeting of protest and sang the Dutch national anthem, the institution was closed "until further notice." Judged by outward appearances the University of Leyden has ceased to exist as an effective force in the extension of knowledge and in the development of a free society. Fosdick went on to detail other instances, elsewhere in Europe, including Germany. He then reminded his audience that "the Nazi mentality is not necessarily confined to Germany" and that it "has a way of coming to life even in localities in the United States." I quote again: It may seem superfluous, especially before a Stanford audience, to underscore this matter of academic freedom, but in days like these when intolerance and public suspicion are so easily fanned into flame, there is an occupational hazard connected with some branches of teaching and research; and a university as an institution must be prepared to stand unfalteringly behind the isolated and perhaps dangerously exposed individual scholar.... Let the winds of freedom blow.64 I am coming to a close. The limited time available to me in my "off- hours" has not allowed me to go beyond World War II and what role, if any, the motto played during the periods of McCarthyism and of student protest against the Vietnam War. Since my Inaugural Address, where I spoke about what the motto might entail for a university's freedom, Die Luft der Freiheit weht has seen some modest revival. I say "revival" because it is my impression that it had somewhat fallen into desuetude. As its legitimacy is based on custom rather than formal adoption, we need to remind ourselves that custom is undone by nonuse. The seal with the motto now appears (apparently for the first time) on the President's stationery - and that is as far as my influence reaches. In my Inaugural Address, I spoke about nine aspects of a university's freedom. And most likely there are more than that. My nine are not easily reconciled with one another nor is it easy to arrive at syllogistic conclusions about their application to the demands of the hour. But then, contrary to the truly obnoxious habits of contemporary television and politics, few issues can be reduced to two opposing, sloganeering sound bites. May Die Luft der Freiheit always be understood as a guiding principle that - instead of being a slogan itself - blows away the slogans that stifle academic debate and freedom. * For research assistance, I am much indebted to Margaret Kimball, Head of Special Collections and University Archivist, and to Steven Martinez. The paper also reflects help I received in the summer of 1992 from two then graduate students at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, Ed Callahan and Jonathan Strom. 1 Cf. David Starr Jordan, The Wind of Freedom, The Stanford Illustrated Review, May 1918, 297; B. Q. Morgan, How Stanford Selected That "Winds of Freedom" Slogan, The Stanford Illustrated Review, November 1937, 22-23; Gunther W. Nagel, M.D., The Legacy of Ulrich von Hutten, Stanford Review, March 1962, 12-15; Gerhard Casper, Inaugural Address, Stanford University Campus Report vol. XXV, 12-13, October 7, 1992. 2 David Starr Jordan, Founders' Day Address, The Stanford Alumnus, March 1917, 224. 3 David Starr Jordan, The Wind of Freedom, note 1 supra. 4 Memo from Margaret Kimball to Gerhard Casper, August 7, 1995. Nineteen men were in attendance at the first faculty meeting on October 3, 1891; Edith R. Mirrielees, Stanford: The Story of a University, New York 1959, 58. 5 Memo from Margaret Kimball to Gerhard Casper, August 25, 1995. 6 Ulrich von Hutten (Eduard Bocking, ed.), Opera vol. 2, Leipzig 1859, 34. 7 On the matter of translation, also see letter to the editor from Ronald Bracewell, Stanford University Campus Report vol. XXV, 3, October 14, 1992. 8 David Starr Jordan, Ulrich von Hutten, Current vol. 6, 357-59, December 4, 1866; 375-76, December 11, 1866. Cf. Alice N. Hays, David Starr Jordan: A Bibliography of His Writings 1871-1931, Stanford, Calif. 1952, 4. 9 David Starr Jordan, A Knight of the Order of Poets, in The Story of the Innumerable Company and Other Sketches, San Francisco 1896, 205- 44. 10 Alice N. Hays, note 8 supra, 4. 11 Id. at 3. 12 David Starr Jordan, note 8 supra, 357. In 1896, Jordan substitutes "modern civilization" for "modern science, modern religion, modern freedom" and deletes the reference to the German people and their English-speaking cousins; Jordan, note 9 supra, 207. 13 David Starr Jordan, note 8 supra, 357. 14 See Gerhard Casper, Inaugural Address, note 1 supra; also Gerhard Casper, Invectives, Stanford University Campus Report vol. XXV, 14, March 10, 1993. 15 See Friedrich Nietzsche, Unfashionable Observations, The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche vol. 2, translated, with an Afterword, by Richard T. Gray, Stanford, Calif. 1995. 16 David Starr Jordan, note 9 supra, 244. 17 David Starr Jordan id. at 235. Cf. Jordan, note 8 supra, 376. 18 Ulrich von Hutten, note 6 supra; David Friedrich Strauss, Ulrich von Hutten 2. Teil, Leipzig 1858, 176. 19 David Starr Jordan, note 1 supra. 20 David Starr Jordan, The Care and Culture of Men, A Series of Addresses on the Higher Education, San Francisco 1896, 41. 21 Id. at 53. 22 Thomas D. Clark, Indiana University: Midwestern Pioneer, Bloomington, Indiana 1970-77, 211. I was referred to this account of Jordan's Indiana days by Myles Brand, President of Indiana University. 23 Id. 24 David Starr Jordan, note 20 supra, 184. 25 David Starr Jordan, The Days of a Man, Volume One 1851-1899, Yonkers-on-Hudson 1922, 113. 26 David Starr Jordan, note 21 supra, 111. 27 Letter from Thomas Ehrlich to Gerhard Casper, November 6, 1992. 28 David Starr Jordan, note 9 supra, 242. 29 David Starr Jordan, note 25 supra, 362. 30 David Starr Jordan, note 8 supra, 357. Hutten himself did display a bit of "modern" scientific spirit in his book about syphilis; see Gerhard Casper, Invectives, note 14 supra. He addressed the theory that syphilis was God's punishment for moral depravity. Hutten displayed his impatience with theologians who pretend to know God's will and firmly came down on the side of natural causes. I am indebted to Carlos A. Camargo, M.D., for having referred me to Hutten's text from 1519, an English translation of which appeared in 1540. 31 David Starr Jordan, note 25 supra, 420. 32 For Jane Stanford's views, see Gunther W. Nagel, Jane Stanford, Stanford, Calif. 1975, 134-44. 33 Warren J. Samuels, The Resignation of Frank A. Fetter from Stanford University, The History of Economics Society Bulletin vol. VI, issue 2, 16 (1985). 34 Edgar Eugene Robinson and Paul Carroll Edwards (eds.), The Memoirs of Ray Lyman Wilbur, 1875-1949, Stanford, Calif. 1960, 99. 35 Quoted in Warren J. Samuels, note 33 supra, 20. 36 Id. at 21. 37 B. Q. Morgan, note 1 supra, 23. 38 The Stanford Illustrated Review, June 1932, 395. 39 Edgar Eugene Robinson and Paul Carroll Edwards (eds.), note 34 supra, 100. 40 Letter from George E. Crothers, Stanford Alumni Review, February 1947. 41 Id. 42 John Bartlett (Justin Kaplan, general ed.), Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Sixteenth Edition, Boston, Toronto, London 1992, 312. 43 Letter from David Starr Jordan to George E. Crothers, August 10, 1907 (Stanford University Archives). 44 David Starr Jordan, note 21 supra, 263. 45 Edith R. Mirrielees, note 4 supra, 105. 46 Letter from George E. Crothers to David Starr Jordan, August 27, 1907 (Stanford University Archives). 47 Edward McNall Burns, David Starr Jordan: Prophet of Freedom, Stanford, Calif. 1953, 168. 48 Id. 49 Stanford University: The Founding Grant with Amendments, Legislation, and Court Decrees, Stanford, Calif. 1987, 22. 50 Edith R. Mirrielees, note 4 supra, 159 51 David Starr Jordan, The Days of a Man, Volume Two 1900-1921, Yonkers- on-Hudson 1922, 455. 52 Edith R. Mirrielees, note 4 supra, 183-84. 53 Letter from Bernard Bienenfeld to David Starr Jordan, March 29, 1917 (Stanford University Archives). 54 Letter from David Starr Jordan to Lee Slater Overman, December 23, 1918 (Stanford University Archives). 55 David Starr Jordan, note 51 supra, 735. 56 See Dorothy Driscoll, An Unjust Attack on Dr. Jordan, The Stanford Illustrated Review, June 1918, 331, 354. 57 Letter from David Starr Jordan to Lee Slater Overman, note 54 supra. 58 Letter from David Starr Jordan to Ray Lyman Wilbur, September 9, 1918 (Stanford University Archives). 59 The Daily Palo Alto, May 7, 1918 (Stanford University Archives). 60 David Starr Jordan, note 1 supra. 61 Memo from Margaret Kimball to Gerhard Casper, August 7, 1995. 62 Norris E. James (ed.), Fifty Years on the Quad, Stanford, Calif. 1938. 63 Program of the Stanford Associates dinner commemorating the university's fiftieth anniversary, October 1, 1941 (Stanford University Archives). 64 Raymond B. Fosdick, Let the Winds of Freedom Blow, Talk given at the Stanford Associates dinner commemorating the university's fiftieth anniversary, October 1, 1941 (Stanford University Archives).

Reader Survey -- Tell Us What You Think The survey system does not track the names or other information about respondents, and selected quotes will appear in a future Newsletter. If you voluntarily include your name or other identifying information as part of your response, that is totally at your discretion although comments might or might not be posted with that information.