Stanford University

Location: Stanford, California
Website: http://www.stanford.edu
Type: Private
Federal Circuit: 9th Circuit

Speech Code Rating

Stanford University has been given the speech code rating Yellow. Yellow light colleges and universities are those institutions with at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application. Read more here.

Yellow Light Policies

  • Student Affairs: Policies- Acts of Intolerance Protocol

    Speech Code Category: Policies on Tolerance, Respect, and Civility
    Last updated: March 4, 2016

    For the purpose of this protocol, an act of intolerance is conduct that adversely and unfairly targets an individual or group on the basis of one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics:

    • Gender or gender identity
    • Race or ethnicity
    • Disability
    • Religion
    • Sexual orientation
    • Nationality
    • Age
    • Social or economic class

    …

    Acts of intolerance that do not rise to the level of a hate crime may involve constitutionally protected speech. Engaging in constitutionally protected expressive activities will not subject a student to discipline under the Fundamental Standard. The University may respond to acts of intolerance through education.

    » Read More

  • Office of Community Standards: The Fundamental Standard

    Speech Code Category: Policies on Tolerance, Respect, and Civility
    Last updated: March 4, 2016

    Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from the University.

    » Read More

  • Student Activities and Leadership: Plan an Event- White Memorial Plaza

    Speech Code Category: Protest and Demonstration Policies
    Last updated: March 4, 2016

    White Plaza is a Stanford University space available for programs, speeches, rallies, information tables, banners and posters. It is considered a “free speech area” on campus. … Events in White Plaza must be organized by University entities (student groups, departments, and programs) and require prior approval from Student Activities and Leadership (SAL). … 2 days minimum deadline for event request for simple events that involve items such as rallies, protests, and speakers.

    » Read More

  • Stanford Administrative Guide: 1.7.1 Sexual Harassment

    Speech Code Category: Harassment Policies
    Last updated: March 4, 2016

    Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: … The conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s academic or work performance or creating an intimidating or hostile academic, work or student living environment.

    » Read More

  • Sexual Harassment Policy Office: Danger Zones

    Speech Code Category: Harassment Policies
    Last updated: March 4, 2016

    Many behaviors could be interpreted as sexually harassing, depending on the circumstances.  Whether behavior is offensive or not depends on how it is perceived, not how it was intended. Sexual conduct is unwelcome whenever the person subjected to it considers it unwelcome.

    Watch out for these “Danger Zones” :

    1. Inappropriate e-mail and sexually explicit internet use
    2. Comments on personal appearance
    3. Hugging, massages and other touching
    4. Unwanted, repeated requests for dates
    5. Off-color jokes and innuendo
    6. Sexually explicit profanity
    7. Nicknames and stereotypes
    8. Invading someone’s personal space
    9. Intrusive personal or sexually explicit questions
    10. Suggestive looks, gestures or sounds
    11. Ridiculing someone’s sexual orientation
    12. Spreading rumors about someone’s sexual conduct
    13. Public displays of sexually explicit pictures, calendars, cartoons, etc.

    » Read More

Green Light Policies

  • Biden and Obama Rewrite the Rulebook on College Sexual Assaults

    July 3, 2016

    By Juliet Elperin at The Washington Post Last month, Vice President Biden penned a searing letter to the victim in a notorious Stanford University rape case. “I am filled with furious anger,” he wrote, “both that this happened to you and that our culture is still so broken.”… Read more here.

    » Read More

  • Is any School Properly Managing Sexual Assault on Campus?

    June 23, 2016

    By Katie Barnes at ESPN After ex-Stanford swimmer Brock Turner was found on top of an unconscious woman in the early hours of Jan. 18, 2015, the response from the school was swift. Turner voluntarily withdrew from Stanford and was charged with five felonies about 10 days later. The school announced that he was ineligible for re-enrollment and banned from campus… Read more here.

    » Read More

  • 2 High-Profile Cases Offer Glimpse of Future Trends in Campus Sex Assaults

    June 19, 2016

    By Katherine Mangan at The Chronicle of Higher Education One had just finished his first semester of college; the other was beginning his last. Both were accomplished athletes at prestigious universities who ended up making national headlines for the wrong reasons, when they were expelled for sexual assault… Read more here.

    » Read More

  • Due Process and Sex Assaults

    May 17, 2016

    By Jake New at Inside Higher Ed Citing an erosion of free speech and due process on college campuses, a group of 21 law professors on Monday released an open letter alleging that the U.S. Department of Education has unlawfully expanded how colleges must define and respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment… Read more here.

    » Read More

  • Would Allowing More Debate on College Campuses Improve our Electoral Politics?

    May 6, 2016

    By Jarvis DeBerry at Nola.Com Here are two interesting takes on free speech (or the lack thereof) on American college campuses.  Jason L. Riley, a black conservative and Manhattan Institute senior fellow who often contributes to the Wall Street Journal, says he had an invitation to speak at Virginia Tech yanked.  According to Riley, the professor who had invited him, said his department head and other faculty members thought that Riley’s writings on race could spark protests… Read more here.

    » Read More

  • How Students are Fighting Free Speech Limits at Schools, Colleges

    November 21, 2015

    By Courtney Tompkins at The Daily Breeze When Simon Yung graduated from San Gabriel High School six months ago he could have walked away from the embattled school district, but his desire to give others a voice pushed him to do something different. Yung, 18, was part of a team of student journalists who tried to cover a story about the sudden dismissal of an inspirational teacher in May, but when students asked for comment from administration, they were shut down by their principal. The students fought back, challenging what they said was censorship and alleged the administrator had violated […]

    » Read More

  • Conservative And Libertarian Messages Require High ‘Security Fees’ On Campus

    June 10, 2015

    By Matt Lamb at The College Fix ANALYSIS Restrictions on student speech, such as free speech zones, often hit groups across the ideological spectrum in roughly the same way. Conservative and libertarian groups, however, sometimes get an odd choice from campus administrators: You can speak, but it’ll cost you. Messages that could theoretically provoke violence because they stir up such strong emotions seem to be a favorite target of the pay-to-play option on campus. It’s only when watchdog groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) intervene that administrators back down, according to […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford to Ban Students Found Guilty of Sexual Assault

    April 20, 2015

    By Akane Otani at Bloomberg Business At most colleges, if you’re found responsible for sexual assault, you may be suspended. But at Stanford University, you’ll likely be booted off campus permanently: Starting this fall, officials recommend making expulsion the default punishment for sexual assault. “Going forward, if a Stanford student is found responsible for sexual assault as it is defined in university policy, the expected sanction in such cases should be permanent separation from the university—expulsion,” a task force of faculty, students, and staff wrote in a report published this month. Panels reviewing a student’s case will be expected to consider expulsion first before moving […]

    » Read More

  • ‘Surprising Win for Civil Liberties’ in Stanford’s Sexual-Assault Report

    April 14, 2015

    By Matt Lamb at The College Fix More training and classes, but a higher threshold for expulsion Stanford University could have the most fair process for dealing with sexual assault allegations among major universities – if its student and faculty governments approve the expansion of a pilot program slated for next school year. While a task force report last week includes recommendations typical of its peers at other schools, it also proposes a higher bar for handing out severe penalties and discourages the so-called single-investigator model for handling allegations. “On the whole, the new policies are a surprising win for […]

    » Read More

  • On a Stanford Man Who Alleged a Sexual Assault

    January 28, 2015

    By Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic Earlier this month, Stanford University senior Justin Brown published an opinion article in The Stanford Daily claiming that he was sexually assaulted by a female classmate. His account came amid an ongoing debate at Stanford about how best to handle allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Those who hold that perpetrators of sexual assault escape with too little punishment have rallied around Leah Francis, who protested when a classmate she accused of “forcible rape” was found responsible in a disciplinary process, but permitted to return to campus upon completing “a five-quarter suspension, […]

    » Read More

  • Students Cancel Musical At Stanford Amid Concerns Raised By Native American Group

    November 24, 2014

    By Jake New at Inside Higher Ed As a satirical, rock n’ roll take on President Andrew Jackson’s controversial life and presidency, past productions of the musical “Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson” have drawn protest. At Stanford University, the protests — and ultimately, cancellation — of the musical came before the cast had even met for their first rehearsal. And so Stanford students ended up performing a cabaret called “Did We Offend You?” instead of the Andrew Jackson show. “Did We Offend You?” included controversial songs from several musicals including “Rent,” “The Producers,” and the now-canceled “Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson.” “The […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Sexual Assault Victim Demands Tougher Sanctions for Offenders

    June 7, 2014

    By Katy Murphy at The Washington Post STANFORD, Calif. — A Stanford sexual assault victim, furious that her assailant will be allowed to graduate this month, is demanding tougher sanctions and other changes in university policy. “Stanford did not expel the man who raped me,” Stanford senior Leah Francis wrote in an open letter that circulated rapidly online this week. On Thursday, hundreds of men and women converged on White Memorial Plaza to show their support for Francis and call for swifter resolution, stiffer penalties and more support for victims. Carrying signs demanding “Support survivors,” “Punish rapists,” and “No one should […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Sexual Assault Victim Demands Tougher Sanctions for Offenders

    June 5, 2014

    By Katy Murphy at  San Jose Mercury News STANFORD — A Stanford sexual assault victim, furious that her assailant will be allowed to graduate this month, is demanding tougher sanctions and other changes in university policy. “Stanford did not expel the man who raped me,” Stanford senior Leah Francis wrote in an open letter that circulated rapidly online this week. On Thursday, hundreds of men and women converged on White Memorial Plaza to show their support for Francis and call for swifter resolution, stiffer penalties and more support for victims. Carrying signs that stated “Support survivors,” “Punish rapists” and “No […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Student Government Upholds Funding Ban for Pro-Family Group

    June 3, 2014

    By Kaitlyn Schallhorn at Campus Reform Stanford’s student government is standing behind its decision to limit a conservative student group’s free speech. The California school’s Graduate Student Council (GSC) came under fire earlier this year when it retracted funding for the Stanford Anscombe Society’s (SAS) pro-family and traditional marriage conference. Following the $600 retraction, the student government threatened to impose a $5,600 security fee on the student organization, allegedly because of the controversial nature of the conference. SAS eventually filed a grievance with the Associated Students of Stanford University’s (ASSU) Constitutional Council, but to no avail. “We do not find that the denial or revocation of funding constitutes […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Relents Somewhat Toward Pro-Traditional Marriage Society

    March 25, 2014

    By Alec Torres at National Review Online When the Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS) — devoted to promoting discussion on marriage, the family, and sexual integrity — was denied university funding for a pro-traditional marriage conference deemed “hate speech” by the campus community, the university added insult to injury by tacking on a $5,600 security fee to post ten security personnel at the conference. Only after SAS decried the action, calling it a “tax on free speech” and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) sent a letter to the school did Stanford “find” the funds to pay for security personnel they imposed upon the […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford ‘finds funds’ for pro-family conference after fight with conservative student group

    March 24, 2014

    by Kaitlyn Schallhorn at Campus Reform Stanford’s Anscombe Society had funding for its conservative conference withdrawn by the graduate student council at the behest of LGBT groups. The university told the Anscombe Society that they could still hold an event if they paid a $5,600 security fee. Stanford now says it will foot the bill for security. Stanford University has “found the funds” to pay for a 10-person security detail for a student organization’s upcoming conservative conference after initially asking the group to front thousands of dollars just two weeks prior to the event. Between a last minute retraction of funding and imposing […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford to fund anti-marriage equality event after claims of censorship

    March 24, 2014

    by  James Hardy at Deseret News National After complaints that Stanford University was at risk of violating students’ First Amendment protections, school administrators agreed to pay the high cost of security for a controversial student-organized conference titled “Communicating Values” taking place next month. The student group organizing the April conference, Stanford Anscombe Society, describes the event as a chance to “engage in intellectual and civil discourse about the issues of marriage, family and sexual integrity.” The American Conservative reported that the event will promote ideas in opposition to marriage equality for all sexual orientations, which is a hot-button topic on the Stanford campus. […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford gives up on using ‘security costs’ to cancel conservative students event

    March 22, 2014

    By Joel Gehrke at Red Alert Politics Conservative students at Stanford University won’t have to pay thousands of dollars in “security costs” to host an event on traditional marriage views, as the administration reversed course after the student group accused them of trying to tax free speech. Stanford made it sound as if the policy change took place after administration officials found unexpected $20 bills in their laundry. “Hi everyone. Found more funds to subsidize the full cost of the security, ” Nanci Howe, Associate Dean of Students and Director of Student Activities and Leadership, wrote in a Thursday email to the […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford So Smart Even Its Rapists Are Logical

    July 21, 2011

    A Stanford University student accused of sexual assault in an incident that the Palo Alto police and prosecutor investigated and declined to pursue nevertheless was convicted by a student court under relaxed evidence standards introduced by U.S. Department of Education.  In the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, Princeton alumna Samantha Harris reports that the student court – which I guess is what you would get if you replaced kangaroos with students in a kangaroo court – changed its standard mid-trial, in response to a letter from Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR):  At the time the student was […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford University punishes dissent when training teachers

    July 29, 2009

    By Adam Kissel at The Examiner Michele Kerr has had a harder year than most aspiring math teachers. For her, the math was easy and the teaching was a snap. The problem was the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP). Once administrators found out she didn’t fully share what she calls the “progressive” teaching philosophy that is pervasive at STEP and education schools nationwide, they tried to thwart her career. In March 2008, Kerr attended an open house for admitted students and stated her concern about paying big bucks to learn a teaching philosophy that strongly differed from her own. Soon she […]

    » Read More

  • They Messed With the Wrong Blogger

    July 24, 2009

    By Jay Mathews at The Washington Post Michele Kerr (she tells me it is pronounced “cur”) is a hard-working educator and Web surfer who is often mean to me. This is probably a good thing. When I post something stupid, Kerr—using her nom de Internet, “Cal Lanier”—is on me like my cat chasing a vole in the backyard. Her acidic humor is so entertaining, however, and her command of the facts so complete, that I have come to look forward to her critiques. She tends to eviscerate me whenever I embrace anti-tracking or other progressive gospel preached in education schools these […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Review Indicted

    February 6, 2006

    Stanford’s Organizational Conduct Board (OCB) started a formal investigation of The Stanford Review after the publication distributed door-to-door throughout dorms in the eastern part of campus on Saturday, January 21, 2006. Jane Camarillo, Director of Residential Education (ResEd) filed a complaint with the OCB, alleging that several members of The Review openly violated the Soto, Serra House, Trancos, and Larkin North and West distribution policies. All of these residences officially do not allow door-to-door distribution in their halls. Meanwhile, the University’s General Counsel has begun to discuss the legality of the current policy with ResEd. Many believe that disallowing door-to-door […]

    » Read More

  • Students to Res-Ed: Let Our Voices Be Heard

    November 11, 2005

    After two years of Residential Education’s strict enforcement of the no door-to-door distribution policy, many students want the university to consider altering the prohibition. Despite a vote from the student body in support of changing the policy last year and the passing of a corresponding ASSU Senate advocacy bill, Residential Education (ResEd) has failed to take action. The Stanford Daily even ran an editorial last month asking ResEd to adopt a new stance on door-to-door distribution. Currently, ResEd does not allow the distribution of student publications from door-to-door without the explicit consent of the dorms’ Resident Fellows (RF). Instead, the […]

    » Read More

  • Conformity on Campus

    June 1, 2005

    We hear a lot these days about the importance of diversity in ensuring that ideas are heard fairly. But the individuals who are most insistent about this are interested only in racial and sex diversity. Intellectual and ideological diversity is not what the enforcers of political correctness on campuses and other sectors have in mind. This magazine has helped pioneer evidence of how politically unbalanced most college campuses have become. Most recently (see our January/February 2005 issue) we presented the findings of University of California economist Daniel Klein, who found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in social sciences […]

    » Read More

  • Dartmouth trustee vote raises controversy

    May 13, 2005

    While Penn prepares to graduate a new class, alumni of Dartmouth College hope to finally see the end of a controversy over trustee elections. Unlike at Penn — where all new trustees are selected by the current board — Dartmouth alumni vote directly to elect seven of the 17 members of the Board of Trustees. With two such seats up for grabs this year, campaigning and politicking have reached unprecedented levels in Hanover, N.H. Much of the intensity stems from the fact that although Dartmouth’s Alumni Council, a group mostly made up of class- and alumni-group leaders, originally nominated four […]

    » Read More

  • Trustee Election at Dartmouth Is Seen as ‘Battle for Academic Freedom’

    May 5, 2005

    Elections of trustees to college and university boards are generally a snooze. Not so at Dartmouth College, where an alumni vote for two slots on the Board of Trustees has featured as much drama as a mudslinging congressional campaign. The results of the election will be released in the next few weeks. Dartmouth alumni choose seven members of the college’s 17-trustee board. With two seats open this year, the Alumni Council, a body composed mostly of class and alumni-group leaders, selected a slate of four candidates for the election. However, two dark-horse candidates have mounted successful petition campaigns to get […]

    » Read More

  • Big mandate on campus

    September 17, 2002

    » Read More

  • Radio Interview with Ina Jaffee (Halvorssen)

    December 3, 2001

    » Read More

  • Thought Reform 101

    March 1, 2000

    At Wake Forest University last fall, one of the few events designated as “mandatory” for freshman orientation was attendance at Blue Eyed, a filmed racism awareness workshop in which whites are abused, ridiculed, made to fail, and taught helpless passivity so that they can identify with “a person of color for a day.” In Swarthmore College’s dormitories, in the fall of 1998, first-year students were asked to line up by skin color, from lightest to darkest, and to step forward and talk about how they felt concerning their place in that line. Indeed, at almost all of our campuses, some […]

    » Read More

  • Former Stanford provost on ‘the threat from within’ to intellectual tolerance

    February 27, 2017

    Last week, Stanford University’s news site published an excerpt from a recent speech by former Stanford University provost John Etchemendy to Stanford’s board of trustees. Titled “The threat from within,” the speech discusses a number of threats Etchemendy sees to the success of the university in America today, first listing those he believes are coming from outside, including cuts in funding, taxing of endowments, and travel restrictions on scholars. He then goes on to say: “But I’m actually more worried about the threat from within. Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country—not intolerance […]

    » Read More

  • ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Rob Corry, ‘speech code slayer’

    February 23, 2017

    In 1994, law student Rob Corry joined with eight other students to file a legal challenge to a Stanford University speech code. It was the first-ever lawsuit filed under California’s recently-enacted “Leonard Law,” which applies First Amendment protections to private, non-sectarian colleges in the state of California (like Stanford), and which the students argued made Stanford’s restrictions on free speech unlawful. Winning wasn’t going to be easy: Corry would be representing himself and his co-plaintiffs against one of America’s richest and most powerful research universities. But on Feb. 27, 1995 – 22 years ago next week – a California state […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Task Force Recommends Improvements to Sexual Assault Policy

    April 13, 2015

    Amidst too many of its peer institutions taking significant steps back when it comes to campus sexual assault and due process, Stanford University is poised to take steps forward in order to ensure that students accused of sexual misconduct are granted a fair hearing. Since last summer, a Task Force appointed by Stanford Provost John Etchemendy and comprised of faculty, students, staff, and an alumnus has been reviewing the university’s policies and crafting recommendations for how to better protect all members of the Stanford community. The Task Force released its report last Wednesday, and there are several recommendations worth noting. […]

    » Read More

  • Cancelled Musical a Missed Opportunity for Dialogue at Stanford

    November 24, 2014

    Last week, the Stanford University student theater organization At The Fountain Theatricals (ATF) performed a well-received cabaret of various selections of edgy and provocative musical theater selections. The program was titled “Did We Offend You?” and was aimed at celebrating theater’s role in thrusting difficult and controversial issues into the open. Having worked in theatre before coming to FIRE for a company whose mission revolved around producing works posing challenging political and social questions, I see this as something to be unreservedly celebrated. Unfortunately, ATF was playing from a compromised position, having cancelled production of its originally-planned musical, “Bloody Bloody […]

    » Read More

  • A Big Year for Campus Censorship

    July 30, 2014

    Yesterday, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff and Senior Vice President Robert Shibley kicked off Minding the Campus’s series on “the year that was” in higher education by writing about some of the past academic year’s biggest trends in censorship.

    » Read More

  • Why Free Speech Isn’t Conditional

    July 29, 2014

    It’s difficult to argue that free speech isn’t important. So when I explain FIRE’s mission to curious inquirers, they always seem to respond the same way—smiling, nodding, and occasionally interjecting with an “Oh, wow, that’s great!” When I began discussing some of the specific cases that FIRE has been involved in, one friend stated: “I believe in free speech, but I think that we should still fight against what we think is morally wrong.”

    » Read More

  • Did Stanford’s Student Government Break the Law?

    July 3, 2014

    This past spring, the Stanford Constitutional Council—the judicial arm of the student government, bound by a student constitution that essentially restates the First Amendment—made a remarkable pronouncement: “We do not feel compelled,” the four Stanford undergraduates on the panel declared in a ruling, “to follow the precedents set by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

    » Read More

  • Introducing FIRE Summer Intern Jason Willick

    June 19, 2014

    Jason Willick is a rising senior at Stanford University, where he is majoring in history and writing a thesis about the politics of academic freedom in the postwar United States. He has worked as a research assistant at Stanford Law School and writes a column on politics, culture and current events for The Stanford Daily. On why he decided to intern for FIRE this summer, Jason writes: When I attended FIRE’s summer conference at Bryn Mawr last July, I was struck by the intellectual and political diversity of its employees. Some were liberal Democrats and others were conservative Republicans, but […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Student Government Steamrolls Club, Ignores Promises on Free Speech

    June 2, 2014

    STANFORD, Calif., June 2, 2014—In the wake of its heavily criticized, viewpoint-based retraction of funding to the Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS) student group for a conference on traditional values and marriage, Stanford University’s student government has ruled that the government’s Graduate Student Council (GSC) did not violate the group’s rights under Stanford rules. Additionally, the student government maintains that there is “simply not enough money” to fulfill requests for funding such as SAS’s request for $600—despite the fact that the student government has amassed a “Graduate buffer fund” of more than half a million dollars.

    » Read More

  • Stanford Covers Security Fee, But Viewpoint Discrimination Remains

    March 21, 2014

    FIRE received word yesterday evening that Stanford would cover the costs of security after all. As SAS announced, it was informed via email that the university had “[f]ound more funds to subsidize the full cost of the security”—a lucky break, given that Stanford is only a “$4.8 billion enterprise.”

    » Read More

  • When Campus Intolerance Means Free Speech Gets Torn Up and Run Over, Literally

    March 21, 2014

    Being offended is what happens when you have your deepest beliefs challenged. And if you make it through four years of college without having your deepest beliefs challenged, you should demand your money back. I have been saying that line in speeches on campus for more than a decade. Even though it often gets a laugh, the idea that students have an overarching “right not to be offended” seems more entrenched on campus than ever.

    » Read More

  • FIRE to Stanford: End Viewpoint Discrimination Against ‘Sexual Integrity’ Group

    March 20, 2014

    FIRE today wrote Stanford University President John Hennessy and the school’s Graduate Student Council to protest the $5,600 “security fee” charged by the university to the Stanford Anscombe Society student group for its upcoming “Communicating Values: Marriage, Family, and the Media” conference, as well as the student government’s viewpoint-based refusal to provide partial funding for the conference.

    » Read More

  • Stanford Student Group Denied Funding for Conference on Family Issues

    March 14, 2014

    Last week, the Stanford University Graduate Student Council (GSC) denied a request from a student group, the Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS), for $600 to bring speakers to a conference on marriage and family issues. Critics of the event—including GradQ, an LGBT group for Stanford graduate students—objected to SAS’s decision to invite several speakers who advocate against same-sex marriage. Campus newspaper The Stanford Daily reports that GradQ members said the speaker list was “inappropriately controversial.”

    » Read More

  • Do School Admins Need to Have a Thicker Skin for Discussion of Social Issues?

    December 2, 2013

    I have to admit, I am tempted to have the text of this blog entry consist of the word “yes” and then head home for the day. A thick skin seems so self-evidently critical to the functioning of a free and democratic society that it’s hard to believe people need to be reminded of it. Yet they do, and among those most in need of a dermatological toughening are administrators at our nation’s high schools (and colleges). Frank LoMonte of the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) brings to our attention a new joint report on civic education from Stanford University and the […]

    » Read More

  • Four Key Points About Free Speech and the Feds’ ‘Blueprint’

    July 15, 2013

    It’s been more than two months since FIRE and the higher ed community were shocked by a letter issued jointly by the Departments of Education and Justice to the University of Montana. FIRE staff have blogged extensively about the Departments’ “blueprint” for campus sexual harassment in the last 10 weeks, but there are four crucial points that I believe bear special emphasis. 1. Overbroad and vague harassment rationales have been the primary justification and legal theory behind campus speech codes since the 1980s.  In one sense, the attempt to stretch the definition of harassment beyond all recognition is nothing new. Speech codes came into vogue on campuses […]

    » Read More

  • Dear Associated Press: Welcome to Our World. Sincerely, Student Press

    May 22, 2013

    As the nation focuses on the news about the Department of Justice’s monitoring of the Associated Press (and other reporters), it’s easy to forget that many student media outlets routinely endure egregious treatment from administrators at their schools. But yesterday, writers Devin Karambelas and David Schick penned a spot-on article for USA TODAY reminding us of just that: Student newspapers often deal with many questionable — and sometimes downright illegal — actions from administrators who shut down operations over an explicit sex issue, campus safety officers who refuse to provide any criminal records (including of a sexually violent nature), student government associations that […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Shows that Going Above and Beyond Isn’t Always a Good Thing

    May 13, 2013

    Stanford University Main Quad – Wikimedia Commons Generally speaking, doing more than you’re required to do is great. Everyone appreciates an over-achiever. Unfortunately, when your assignment is to take away student due process rights, going above and beyond is actually the opposite of what you should do.   Stanford University doesn’t seem to understand this. In response to the mandates passed down by the Office for Civil Rights’ 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter (DCL), Stanford has decided that it would be a good idea to restrict due process even further than the federal government now requires.   As Torch readers likely […]

    » Read More

  • New FIRE Op-ed in ‘The Stanford Daily’

    November 2, 2012

    FIRE President Greg Lukianoff and Legislative & Policy Director Joseph Cohn have a new op-ed in The Stanford Daily today, calling on the school to more seriously consider its current standards for adjudicating sexual misconduct on campus. As Greg and Joe report, Stanford has adopted a “temporary ‘Alternate Review Process’ (ARP) that reduces the standard of evidence from ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to the lower ‘preponderance of the evidence.’”  While responding seriously and appropriately to allegations of sexual assault is critical, Greg and Joe point out that “[t]here need be no tension between a university’s moral and legal obligation to […]

    » Read More

  • Dueling Editorials at Stanford about Standard of Evidence

    May 24, 2012

    This week, the Stanford Daily student newspaper featured dueling editorials about Stanford’s decision to lower the standard of evidence in sexual misconduct cases in response to last year’s Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). FIRE has taken the lead in opposing several provisions in that letter, which states that colleges and universities must employ a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—a 50.01%, “more likely than not” evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual harassment or sexual violence. The OCR regulations further require that if a university judicial process allows the accused student to appeal […]

    » Read More

  • ‘Stanford Review’ Questions University’s Political Speech Policy

    May 21, 2012

    Last week, Gideon Weiler of student newspaper The Stanford Review penned an article criticizing Stanford University’s policy governing “political activities.” Weiler wrote:   Stanford University has an ambiguous set of policies regarding student political activism on campus. Students running for public office, for example, are not allowed to use campus resources for their campaign efforts. As a result, Stanford forbids students from using Zimbra email accounts to send campaign related messages. University regulations make it that much more challenging for student politicians to succeed. It is hard enough as it is, for students such as Roman Larson, who ran for […]

    » Read More

  • FIRE to Stanford Graduate Student Council: Protect Students’ Due Process

    May 3, 2012

    The latest battleground for students’ due process rights when facing allegations of sexual misconduct appears to be Stanford University, which is contemplating measures in its Alternative Review Process (ARP) that would fail to adequately protect students who are accused of some of society’s vilest offenses. Yesterday, FIRE sent a letter to Stanford’s Graduate Student Council (GSC) urging the GSC to not approve those measures and to stand up for their fellow students’ fundamental due process rights. The ARP has been the subject of a good deal of discussion and debate on Stanford’s campus, and for good reason. Among other things, […]

    » Read More

  • ‘Minding the Campus’ Applauds FIRE, Criticizes Stanford’s Due Process Failures

    July 21, 2011

    In response to our press release from yesterday as well as Samantha’s op-ed in the New York Post, Professor KC Johnson has written an article on Minding the Campus praising FIRE for its work in exposing the blatantly biased materials Stanford University uses to train those in charge of adjudicating allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault. As we reported, these materials (excerpted from Lundy Bancroft’s book, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men) teach student jurors that “act[ing] persuasive and logical” is a sign of guilt, that “[t]he great majority of allegations of abuse—though […]

    » Read More

  • The Problem with Stanford’s Definition of ‘Intoxication’

    July 21, 2011

    I want to take a few moments today to discuss a particular aspect of FIRE’s recent work regarding due process protections for those accused of sexual misconduct. Specifically, I want to focus on the issues of consent and intoxication. Because many cases of sexual misconduct involve intoxicated students and questions of consent, precisely how a school defines intoxication is of obvious importance when thinking about due process rights and ensuring fair procedures. Let’s take Stanford University as an example. As FIRE detailed in yesterday’s press release, Stanford defines sexual assault as occurring “when a person is incapable of giving consent.” This […]

    » Read More

  • Accused Student Pays Heavy Price at Stanford, Where Intoxication Eliminates Consent and ‘Acting Persuasive and Logical’ is Sign Of Guilt

    July 20, 2011

    Today, both FIRE’s press release and Samantha’s op-ed in the New York Post pry the lid off an ugly story at Stanford University, where due process rights and fair hearings have seemingly been abandoned for students accused of sexual misconduct. It’s hard to know quite where to begin, but let’s start with the fact that Stanford University is training student jurors in sexual misconduct cases to believe that “act[ing] persuasive and logical” is a sign of guilt. That’s not all: Stanford also instructs campus tribunals that being impartial is the equivalent of siding with the accused. The training materials for Stanford’s […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Trains Student Jurors That ‘Acting Persuasive and Logical’ is Sign of Guilt; Story of Student Judicial Nightmare in Today’s ‘New York Post’

    July 20, 2011

    SAN FRANCISCO, July 20, 2011—Displaying a shocking disregard for fair procedures on campus, Stanford University is training student jurors in sexual misconduct cases to believe that “act[ing] persuasive and logical” is a sign of guilt. Stanford also instructs campus tribunals that taking a neutral stand between the parties is the equivalent of siding with the accused. In this climate, Stanford last semester found a male student guilty of sexual assault solely because it determined that his partner was intoxicated (as was he). Stanford policy states that students cannot consent to sex—even with a spouse—if “intoxicated” to any degree. To make […]

    » Read More

  • ‘California Watch’: No Free Speech at California Colleges

    January 7, 2011

    Free speech is not safe at California colleges—not by a long shot. That’s what investigative reporter Erica Perez found in FIRE’s 2011 speech code report, as she wrote yesterday for California Watch: A new report from a national free speech advocacy organization found most of the four-year universities it surveyed had speech codes that substantially limit students’ freedom of speech, including dozens of colleges in California. […] Of the 33 California universities the organization rated, 64 percent got a red light, including San Diego State University, UC Santa Cruz and Claremont McKenna College. About 36 percent got a yellow light, including UC Berkeley, Occidental College and San Jose State University. […]

    » Read More

  • Join FIRE’s President for Lecture at Stanford Law School

    February 25, 2010

    Please join us on Thursday, March 4th, at the Stanford Law Lounge from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. for a free, open lecture by FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. Greg will return to his alma mater to discuss how students are “Unlearning Liberty” when they see administrators censoring their fellow students. From these acts of censorship, students learn that they should follow administrators’ example to seek punishment for protected expression. The event, hosted by the Federalist Society, will be followed with a reception, drinks, and hors d’oeuvres.  We hope you can make it! To host a speech on your campus, see […]

    » Read More

  • Adam Takes on Stanford School of Education in ‘Examiner’ Newspapers as Notoriety Surrounding Case Spreads Through Media

    July 29, 2009

    Amidst the escalating chatter following Jay Mathews’ Washington Post article exposing Stanford University’s deplorable treatment of teacher education student Michele Kerr, Adam Kissel levels another blow to Stanford’s School of Education, in a column seen today in both the San Francisco Examiner and Washington Examiner newspapers. The School of Education, as has been well noted by now, made concerted efforts not only to prevent Kerr from entering STEP after being admitted, but also to build a case against her that would result in her removal from the program. Adam’s description of its attempts to police Kerr’s blog—and its blatant use […]

    » Read More

  • Greg in ‘Huffington Post’ on Stanford Blogger Case

    July 27, 2009

    In his most recent article for The Huffington Post, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff discusses the shocking treatment of student blogger Michele Kerr by the Stanford University Teacher Education Program (STEP). The controversy, which was recently featured in The Washington Post, stemmed both from Kerr’s dissenting pedagogical views and from the fact that she operated a blog documenting her experiences as a future certified teacher in California. Despite Stanford’s repeated attempts to derail her career, she was able to graduate in June with help from FIRE. Greg writes: Despite the fact that my chosen career path is as a watchdog against […]

    » Read More

  • Victory for Freedom of Speech at Stanford: Student Graduates Despite Ed School Efforts to Revoke Admission, Investigate Private Blog, and Declare Student Unfit for Teaching

    July 24, 2009

    As we noted in today’s press release, Stanford University’s Teacher Education Program (STEP) has finally let dissenting student-blogger Michele Kerr graduate. Stanford tried to revoke Kerr’s admission after she voiced disagreement with “progressive” views held by STEP administrators, but FIRE intervened and resolved the issue. Kerr also was blogging about her thoughts and experiences as a future certified teacher. Stanford School of Education administrators demanded the password to her private blog and threatened to expel her for her opinions and teaching philosophy. The shameful story of Kerr’s travails is featured online in The Washington Post today by education columnist Jay […]

    » Read More

  • Rights in the News: ‘Washington Post’ Article Shines Light on Stanford Ed’s Bullying Tactics

    July 24, 2009

    As we said in our press release today, The Washington Post‘s Jay Mathews has done us a service with his article on Stanford University’s shameful treatment of former student Michele Kerr throughout her year in the School of Education’s teacher education program, during which, among other things, the university tried to revoke its offer of admission to her and sought to force her to give administrators the password to her private blog. Fortunately, Kerr has graduated and found employment, and it’s safe to alert the public to her travails. Read Mathews’ article and our press release for more. While I’m […]

    » Read More

  • Victory for Freedom of Speech at Stanford: Student Graduates Despite Ed School Efforts to Revoke Admission, Investigate Private Blog, and Declare Student Unfit for Teaching

    July 24, 2009

    SAN FRANCISCO, July 24, 2009—Stanford University’s Teacher Education Program (STEP) has finally let dissenting student-blogger Michele Kerr graduate. When Stanford tried to revoke Kerr’s admission after she voiced disagreement with “progressive” views held by STEP administrators, Kerr turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. Kerr sought FIRE’s aid a second time after Stanford School of Education administrators demanded the password to her private blog and threatened to expel her for her opinions and teaching philosophy. The shameful story of Kerr’s travails is featured online in The Washington Post today by education columnist Jay Mathews. “From […]

    » Read More

  • The State of Free Speech on Campus: Stanford University

    June 2, 2009

    Throughout the spring semester, FIRE is drawing special attention to the state of free speech at America’s top 25 national universities (as ranked by U.S. News & World Report). Today we review policies at Stanford University, which FIRE has given a red-light rating for maintaining policies that clearly and substantially restrict free expression on campus. Stanford University is private, but it explicitly commits itself to protecting free speech on campus. The university’s policy on campus disruption—labeled one of just a few “critical policies” for student organizations—states that The rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are fundamental to the democratic […]

    » Read More

  • FIRE President to Speak at Stanford Law School

    November 18, 2008

    FIRE President Greg Lukianoff will be speaking at Stanford Law School’s Constitutional Law Center (Crown Quadrangle, 559 Nathan Abbott Way), Room 180 tomorrow at 12:45 p.m. Pacific time. The event is open to the public and we invite all of FIRE’s friends in the area to come hear Greg speak on the topic of “Unlearning Liberty” on campus.

    » Read More

  • Censorship at Stanford

    April 13, 2007

    In a story just breaking today, it appears that Stanford University is going to ban the public from attending an event featuring an “ex-terrorist” merely because the administration has determined it to be “controversial” in nature. When attempting to justify this decision, Stanford spokeswoman Elaine Ray said: “We’re not worried about violence. This is a controversial speaker, and we want to make sure that our students have a constructive dialogue.” (Emphasis added.) Although Stanford is a private institution, it is still bound by the standards of the First Amendment because of the state’s unique Leonard Law, a statute ensuring that […]

    » Read More

  • Stanford Bans Public from ‘Controversial’ Event

    April 13, 2007

    I just got a disturbing article concerning my alma mater: Stanford University, renowned as a global hub of intellectual freedom, says it will bar the public from attending a panel discussion Monday night because one of the speakers is “controversial.”   The speaker, who goes by the name Walid Shoebat, has been making the rounds on the nation’s lecture circuit claiming to be a former Palestinian terrorist-turned-Israeli-sympathizer. Poor form, Cardinal! The article delves deeper into Stanford’s weak defense of this troubling decision. Stanford spokeswoman Elaine Ray said security was not the university’s concern.   “We’re not worried about violence,” she […]

    » Read More

  • Possible Lawsuit at Stanford

    February 28, 2006

    FIRE recently learned that FIRE Legal Network attorney Robert Corry, who successfully sued Stanford University for its speech code in 1994, has taken up the cause of preserving door-to-door distribution of student publications on Stanford’s campus. Stanford bans door-to-door distribution of literature unless hall residents specifically vote to endorse it, and the conservative Stanford Review, whose editors have long distributed their issues door-to-door, has joined The Stanford Progressive in objecting to the current state of affairs. Review editors have refused to abide by Stanford’s policy and are currently facing sanctions. All of this has led Corry to write to Stanford’s […]

    » Read More

  • College free speech shouldn’t be muzzled

    March 30, 2005

    COLLEGE campuses are supposed to be places that would make Thomas Jefferson and James Madison proud. However, the free exchange of ideas has suffered both from the stranglehold of political correctness and a spiral of silence stifling expression of student views held in opposition to those of their professors. No one ever predicted democracy would be easy, not even Madison or Jefferson. And today, no one can dispute that freedom of speech on college campuses is in danger of petering out. Put into that larger context, a bill proposed by state Sen. Bill Morrow goes in the wrong direction by […]

    » Read More