In a new affirmation that changes, affirms, and supports a Declaration on Academic Freedom that was first passed 50 years ago, in 1974, according to the Stanford Report, Stanford University researchers recently pledged themselves to the concepts of free speech and freedom of expression.
The move comes thanks in part to the work of an Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech, formed last year to address some free speech and intellectual freedom controversies at the school, including a” Secured Identity Harm” reporting system deemed Orwellian by some observers and a , 13- page” Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” discouraging the use of more than 125 typically benign words, including ,” American”.
Jay Bhattacharya, a long-term Stanford professor of medicine, wrote in 2022 that his establishment had carefully abandoned him because of his antiquated views on COVID. A crowd of students, assisted by a DEI professor at the time, yelled down a federal prosecutor during a visitor lecture in 2023, which likewise made headlines. Most recently, the university has been plagued with complaints of prevalent hatred.
The college continues to be embroiled in controversies. In a survey released earlier this year, more than one third of Stanford University students said using real force to stop a conversation is appropriate in at least some conditions.
The Faculty Senate, after much discussion, approved last year a declaration that aims to address some of those issues.
” The freedom to explore and current new, innovative, and yet controversial ideas is crucial to the scientific mission of the university, so, Stanford may promote the widest probable freedom of expression, consistent with the university’s legal and moral obligations to prevent harassment and discrimination. Accordingly, university policies must not censor individuals ‘ speech based on the content of what is expressed, except in narrow circumstances”, it reads in part.
” At the same time, Stanford’s educational role as well as its academic and legal obligations differ across locations and contexts on campus, such as spaces open to all community members, classrooms, and dormitories. Additionally, it adds that community members have varying privileges and responsibilities in various circumstances.
” Likewise, legal rights and obligations pertain in different ways to community members depending on whether they are acting as students, teachers, staff, or faculty members. These variations in contexts and roles will help us understand the principles of freedom of speech and expression. An illustration of how some of these distinctions can be drawn can be found in the campus disruption policy.
The free speech statement is non- binding, as scholars had talked it down from a policy, according to the Stanford Report.  ,
The Stanford Report furthermore stated that the Faculty Senate approved an Institutional Statements Policy, which “requires institutional restraint in making statements and aims to stop the establishment of institutional orthodoxy that might stifle dissent.”
The policy, which applies to leadership, vice provosts, and deans, among others, states that when” speaking for the institution, Stanford University leaders and administrators should not express an opinion on political and social controversies, unless these matters directly affect the mission of the university or implicate its legal obligations”.
MORE: Embattled Stanford Professor of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya: ‘ Academic freedom is dead’
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
