As a former news reporter for The Daily, I proudly and tirelessly helped to cover the process by which Stanford approved the Committee of 12’s (C12) proposals on academic integrity and discipline. I closely examined the Undergraduate Senate’s (UGS) objection to updated Honor Code language over a proposed study into proctoring on campus. I was one of the reporters that shed light on the Faculty Senate sidestepping the UGS by permitting proctoring university-wide — a decision that violated 102 years of precedent of deferring to students on academic integrity. I was in the room when the UGS doubled down on its objections in response to the Faculty Senate’s historic betrayal of undergraduate students, which one senator rightfully described as having “circumvented the democratic process.”
I cite this recent memory in Stanford’s history due to the University’s ongoing free speech conversations sidestepping student voices in very similar ways. Alarmingly, The Daily’s coverage on Stanford’s new free speech guidelines failed to mention how the Faculty Senate’s Ad Hoc Committee on University speech has had zero voting student representatives since its inception. The Ad Hoc Committee — central to the Faculty Senate’s conversations on Stanford’s free speech obligations and the University’s broader approach to freedom of expression — has disenfranchised the entire student body. Students being denied an equal seat when their free speech rights are on the chopping block fundamentally contradicts Stanford’s shared governance model and its supposed democratic commitments.
Shared governance, which positions students and faculty as co-equal partners in university affairs, has the precedent of giving students an equal say (at minimum) on free speech. The C12, which conducted university-wide outreach to formulate the guidelines under which the tensions between free speech and campus conduct are adjudicated, had five student and five faculty members. The Board on Conduct Affairs (BCA), which has the sole authority to initiate amendments to Stanford’s conduct procedures, has six student and six faculty members. The student and faculty panelists that determine the validity of alleged conduct violations are themselves selected by students’ and faculty’s elected representatives, respectively.
Students being on equal footing with faculty isn’t anything out of the ordinary for how Stanford navigates something as consequential as campus conduct. Why should free speech be any different?
On Stanford’s democratic commitments, the Faculty Senate’s designation of Democracy Day as an academic holiday tells students that their professors want them to be engaged in democracy. Stanford requiring freshmen to take Civic, Liberal and General Education (COLLEGE) courses suggests the University is committed to helping them develop the skills necessary to engage with one another in a democratic society.
University President Jonathan Levin ’94, the night before Election Day, signaled to students that the United States is unique in world history regarding the freedom and opportunity that it affords them.
Due to its hypocritically anti-student free speech approach, Stanford can neither claim to be where the winds of freedom blow nor can it “engage in the robust and meaningful exchange of ideas in which all voices are included.” This is how we should view free speech on campus moving forward. We are capable of having reasonable conversations on time, place and manner restrictions that govern everything from protests to chalking. However, the overlords and underlings playbook of Stanford’s leading policymakers and enforcers makes one thing clear: These guidelines, and this entire process for that matter, are a disgrace to democracy itself.
I don’t think that I’m alone in believing in the democratic promise that Stanford could live up to. This promise — cultivating the leaders of tomorrow — matters more than ever as we face society’s unprecedented challenges that transcend national boundaries and academic disciplines. For Stanford to rise to the occasion, giving students the equal role in campus discourse that they deserve is a necessary first step.
The post On Stanford’s anti-student free speech guidelines appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
