Skip to comments.Atlas, Ferguson, and Hanson: On Free Speech at Stanford
Posted on 02/23/2021 8:41:03 PM PST by Rummyfan
What is the purpose of academic freedom?
Is it to allow all kinds of ideas to be expressed and explored, protecting even speech that people in the past considered heretical—protecting free expression that some people today would like to “cancel”? Or is it to allow co-workers in the ideological minority to be personally and selectively disparaged with impunity?
The answer for some faculty at Stanford University would appear to be the latter.
In a recent meeting of the Stanford Faculty Senate, four professors (Joshua Landy, Stephen Monismith, David Palumbo-Liu and David Spiegel) presented and then subsequently published a farrago of falsehoods directed against various fellows of the Hoover Institution. Their complaint was, first, that the Hoover fellows’ views were unapologetically conservative and, second, that they appeared antithetical to the majority of those of the Stanford community—and were therefore properly subject to some sort of institutional and personal censure.
Our faculty accusers failed to achieve both their overt and their implicit goals—creating a faculty-controlled committee to investigate Hoover and intimidating us into silence. Some respected faculty members, including the President, the Provost, and the former Provost all forcefully spoke up for academic freedom in general and defended Hoover in particular. They should be congratulated for doing so in these ideologically polarized times.
Nevertheless, our faculty accusers still succeeded in maligning us as individuals. The impression was left even by the President that we might have “behaved inappropriately” or “spoken untruths.” Unfortunately, this is not the first time such use has been made of the Senate. Indeed, it has happened repeatedly in recent years, for example in February 2019.
(Excerpt) Read more at stanfordreview.org ...
Dyjuan Tatro, a former "triggerman" for an upstate New York gang, began his DCCC employment this week.
Tatro is the Democrats' senior adviser for ....wait for it....."diversity and inclusion."
In lockstep w/ BLM, Democrats are muscling the political dialogue into what they call, "equal justice for people of color."
AG pick Garland (a USSC loser nom) outlined some of Democrats preliminary muscle-venues:
<><> discrimination in housing, education and jobs,
<><> unequal impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
<><> unequal impact from climate change.
In actuality Stanford in many way is more liberal than Berkeley. As a private college they were able to kick ROTC off campus and deny the CIA, etc. opportunities to interview potential future employees. Berkeley being a public university had to maintain its ROTC program and keep its job interview support open to all government agencies.
Stanford has the gay liberation "statues" on campus, has leftist deans, and something called The Firehouse that houses unironically the most flaming students on campus.
They also have a Blacks-only dorm called Ujamaa that MLK, Jr. would have found confusing.
It's a great place for students from nominally conservative backgrounds such as Indians and Asians to get indoctrinated with Marxist nonsense before being employed by the likes of Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
You’re right. Stanford, as a whole, is as liberal/left as it gets. The Hoover Institution is the lone exception, employing a mix of liberals, moderates and conservatives (e.g., Victor Davis Hanson). As such, much of the university is in a constant state of war against Hoover.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.