“The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow." – Former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy
FEATURED ITEMS
Vanderbilt's Declaration of First Principles -- The University and Its Purpose
Report of the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education
Restoring the Academic Social Contract
-- Stanford alum and U Texas-Austin Provost William Inboden
Guiding Principles -- Stanford President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez
From Our Latest Newsletter
"To Be True To The Best You Know" -- Jane Stanford
November 2, 2026
The Stanford Civics Initiative
Last week’s Newsletter had articles with a number of important but often contradictory statistics:
-
37% of current college students believe free speech is secure, as compared to 73% in 2016
-
46% of current college students say they should be exposed to all types of speech, as compared to 82% in 2017
-
73% of current college students believe the Constitution is an important document for the country and not an outdated one
-
84% of current college students say free speech is important or even extremely important
-
87% of current college students say the First Amendment is important
And yet:
-
28% of current college students say their colleges should protect them by prohibiting potentially offensive speech, and
-
40% of current college students say offensive speech should be subject to criminal prosecution.
So how does one reconcile these widely divergent views and where the vast majority of students believe free speech is important but 40% would support criminally prosecuting speakers for speech that the listeners believe is offensive?
One explanation is that these matters are discussed on college and university campuses, but in very homogenized ways and where the faculty, students and others are avoiding the more difficult discussions as to what actually is needed in support of free speech and viewpoint diversity.
Which is why we are pleased to bring to readers’ attention this updated summary of courses being offered by the Stanford Civics Initiative and where these and related courses have now been approved as a Minor in Civic Thought and Practice.
With one additional thought: Maybe these courses should be part of the core curriculum for all undergraduates?
The Brutal Harvard Class That Suddenly Everyone Wants to Take
It’s an ungodly amount of reading and no easy A; so why are freshmen lining up to get into Humanities 10?
Excerpts (link in the original):
“Those who see the humanities, heavy coursework and value of a Harvard education as gravely imperiled can take heart in the phenomenon that is Humanities 10....
“Hum 10, as it’s commonly known, has become the surprise hit of Harvard’s academic lineup and something of a campus institution. Demand to get into the class has surged, fueled by word-of-mouth from ‘Hum Alums’ who talk it up on social media. Applications (essays required) shot up 40% this fall with 180 incoming freshmen vying for 90 spots.
“It’s a fever that even the professors are struggling to explain.
“The class is definitely not for padding the GPA. Students read a hefty book a week and write regular essays. There is no pass/fail option. Digital devices are verboten, and attendance is taken in every lecture (pink slips for those who arrive late)....
“It’s all distinctly old school. Hotly contested terms like ‘Western Civ,’ ‘Great Books’ and ‘the canon’ appear nowhere in the course description. But the curriculum begins with ‘The Odyssey,’ travels forward in time to James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’ and then backward to end with ‘The Iliad.’ In between are assignments on Montaigne, Shakespeare, Spinoza, Baldwin, Dante and Plato....
“The course has since expanded to a rotating cast of Harvard’s loftiest faculty members, each of whom lead two lectures and a weekly seminar....
“‘It’s the only class I took at Harvard where people would call each other out for not having done the reading, said Ellie Powell, a Hum Alum who graduated in 2025. ‘You didn’t want to disappoint the seminar by being the one person who didn’t read or whose comment really didn’t add to the discussion. We all felt like we were building something, and that was a remarkable feeling.’”
Full article at WSJ.
Inside the Black Box of Higher Education
Excerpts:
“Imagine a business whose market is shrinking, whose costs are spiraling, and whose customers are discovering cheaper, more convenient and often higher-quality alternatives. Put simply, demand has fallen from its peak of some 15 years ago. The business has invested heavily in buildings, athletic programs, employees, marketing, and administrative overhead. Its options for reducing personnel costs are constrained because many of its most expensive employees enjoy lifetime job protections. Further, its enormous investment in campuses and facilities is so immobile that relocating to a more favorable market is virtually impossible.
“What would you expect a prudent business to do?
“Lower prices or at least hold them steady. Streamline product offerings -- eliminate the underperforming product lines and focus on the most promising ones. Reduce non-essential personnel. Find ways to deliver greater value at a lower price. Cut costs.
“Of course, colleges and universities are not ordinary businesses.” ...
[Followed by discussion of schools not lowering or at least freezing prices, not streamlining product offerings, not working on offering greater value as seen from students and others and not rethinking cost structures.]
Full op-ed by former Western Colorado University President Greg Salsbury at Real Clear Education. See also the numbers shown at our Stanford Concerns webpage and possible actions in response at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.
Other Articles of Interest
U.S. News Releases University Rankings for 2027
Full lists at U.S. News and with these rankings for the top national universities: #1 MIT; #2 Princeton; #3 Harvard; #4 Yale; tied for #5 Caltech and Stanford; #7 Penn; #8 Duke; tied for #9 Chicago, Johns Hopkins and Northwestern; tied for #12 Columbia and Dartmouth; tied for #14 Carnegie Mellon and Cornell; and tied for #16 Brown, Rice, Vanderbilt and WashU.
Tied for #20 Notre Dame, UC Berkeley and UCLA; tied for #23 Emory and Georgetown; #25 Michigan; #26 Virginia; tied for #27 UNC and USC; tied for #29 Georgia Tech and UC San Diego; tied for #31 Boston College, NYU and Tufts; and tied for #34 Boston U, UC Davis, UC Irvine, U Florida, U Illinois, U Texas and U Wisconsin.
When Free-Speech Disciples Favor Shouting Down Speakers
Full article by North Dakota State Prof. John Bitzan at Real Clear Education: “Our survey shows that student attitudes toward preventing speech they disagree with are not limited to outside speakers. We find that two-thirds are in favor of reporting professors for disfavored opinions related to DEI practices, climate change, police shootings, guns, vaccines, or biological sex. This presents a conundrum for professors who aim to strengthen critical thinking by exposing students to different points of view.”
Stanford's Title IX & Title VI Office Quietly Changes Name, Programming and ‘Survivor’ Terminology
Full article at Stanford Daily: “According to a former SHARE student staff member, Pelagia Martin ’27, the office made plans to modify their language for victims of sexual violence from ‘survivor’ to ‘impacted student.’ ... Patrick Dunkley, vice provost for Institutional Equity, Access and Community, wrote to The Daily that the term ‘survivor’ will be used in ‘educational programming’ but that investigations will use neutral language like ‘impacted student’ to prevent biases from affecting cases.”
See also “Stanford’s Computerized Case Management System for Student Behavior” at our Stanford Concerns webpage.
Syracuse University Plans Review of Administrative and Executive Staff
Full article at Higher Ed Dive: “The intent of this review is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the executive and administrative offices, units and functions across the University.”
Michigan Public Universities Lost Over 5,000 Students in Fall 2026
Full article at Higher Ed Dive.
Freedom of Association, Unless You Belong to a Fraternity
Full op-ed at Cornell Alumni for Free Speech.
Stanford Has Lower Faculty-to-Student Ratio Compared to Peer Institutions
Full article at Stanford Daily including a ratio of 2 students per fulltime instructors. But see also our Stanford Concerns webpage and where Stanford's ratio is shown as 15.3 students per fulltime instructors and significantly below most peer institutions.
Stanford Removes Another AI-Produced Image
Full article at Inside Higher Ed. See also EDU Ledger.
Why We Care -- Samples of Current Teaching, Research and Other Activities at Stanford
Click on each article for direct access; selections are from Stanford Report and other Stanford websites.
Study Refines our Understanding of Long COVID
Exploring the Cellular Mystery Behind ALS
New Stanford Exhibit Traces the Transformative History of Paris
**********
“Only through diversity of opinion is there, in the existing state of the human intellect, a chance of fair play to all sides of the truth.” — John Stuart Mill
Comments and Questions from Our Readers
See more reader comments on our Reader Comments webpage.
Need Dialog, Not Prohibitions
I suggest the university produce forums in which ultimate concerns about war and peace presently unfolding be formally debated, subject to the rules of decorum. This is what the university is for, not prohibitions on argument or advocacy. Silence renders learning impossible.
Hoping for Balanced Speech at Stanford
I am so in support of the opinions expressed here and hope Stanford will adopt a more balanced approach to free speech. I can only hope.
Teaching Young People and Others How to Disagree Civilly
While I believe that supporting free speech is very important in and of itself, I also believe that there is a related component that is often ignored. That component is teaching people, especially young people, how to disagree civilly/how to constructively respond to free speech they might not agree with.
Question About Ties to the Alumni Association
Q. I notice that the SAA website contains no links to the Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking website. Why is that?
A. Our website is not linked at the SAA website since we intentionally did not seek to become an affiliate of SAA. Among other things, we wanted to maintain independence, including since SAA became a subsidiary of
the university in the mid-1990’s. That said, there are a number of current and former Stanford administrators and trustees who receive our Newsletters and read the materials that are posted at the website.
About Us
Member, Alumni Free Speech Alliance
Stanford Alumni for Free Speech and Critical Thinking is an independent, diverse, and nonpartisan group of Stanford alumni committed to promoting and safeguarding freedom of thought and expression, intellectual diversity and inclusion, and academic freedom at Stanford.
We believe innovation and positive change for the common good is achieved through free and active discourse from varying viewpoints, the freedom to question both popular and unpopular opinions, and the freedom to seek truth without fear of reprisal from those who disagree, within the confines of humanity and mutual respect.
Our goal is to support students, faculty, administrators, and staff in efforts that assure the Stanford community is truly inclusive as to what can be said in and outside the classroom, the kinds of speakers that can be invited, and what should always be the core principles of a great university like Stanford. We also advocate that Stanford incorporates the Chicago Trifecta, the gold standard for freedom of speech and expression at college and university campuses, and that Stanford abides by these principles in both its policies and its actions.