Stanford University’s IT department used to offer a “financial reward” to people who reported supposedly “racist terminology” on university websites. Critics say this chilled free speech and academic freedom.
The IT department’s offer was part of a “Statement of Solidarity and Commitment to Action” campaign that was launched in 2020. Critics objected to it at a January 2023 faculty senate meeting, arguing it contributed to an Orwellian environment at Stanford.
Professors also objected to Stanford’s “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” the IDEAL Anti-Racism Toolkit pushed on campus and the university’s recent “Protected Identity Harm Reporting” system, calling them threats to free speech and academic freedom.
A week ago, Stanford’s faculty senate voted to create an “Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech” to consider these ongoing concerns and suggest possible solutions.
The objections came soon after nationwide ridicule of Stanford in response to its 13-page “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” first publicized last December by The Wall Street Journal. It drew widespread criticism for depicting as biased more than 125 words, including common ones such as “addict,” “American” and “trigger warning,” and claiming they should be purged from school websites.
While college officials dismissed the national ridicule as an overreaction and amounted to making a mountain out of a molehill, the faculty objectors argued it was much more than that.
They observed that the college officials behind the “Statement of Solidarity and Commitment to Action” and “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” represent “senior-most technical leaders” of all schools and units, and that their efforts included a “multi-year, multi-phase project” to scan all Stanford websites, including “both external-facing and internal-facing sites.”
“Many faculty perceive [the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative] as a broader threat to academic freedom,” state the objectors’ faculty presentation slides. Seven Stanford web domains were scanned for harmful words last year, even though “the process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase.”
The financial incentive to report taboo words has since been removed and rephrased. In addition, the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” website has been taken down, and Stanford spokesperson Stett Holbrook said the initiative is “being re-evaluated and is not operational.”
A conservative campus publication emailed Holbrook and asked if any financial rewards were doled out to college staff for turning in others for using harmful language. He did not respond.
Engineering Professor Juan Santiago says the plans to study threats to free speech were put in motion when “77 faculty signed a petition to bring a motion before the Faculty Senate” over the Christmas break.
Professor Richard Berman says “one senior faculty member reports feeling that ‘he is walking on eggshells’ when he delivers lectures, so now he is careful to avoid making any jokes. This is part of the chilling effect of EHLI.”
Professor Santiago and others are also worried about Stanford’s IDEAL Anti-Racism Toolkit and Protected Identity Harm Reporting System.
The anti-racism toolkit is based heavily on the teachings in Ibram Kendi’s book, “How to be an Antiracist.” It states that “free speech doesn’t mean free reign,” later adding that “maybe you can’t change minds, but you can close lips. And curb behavior.”
The Protected Identity Harm Reporting system urges students to report “incidents of bias” in which “a community member experiences harm because of their identity. The system is much like bias response teams found on campuses nationwide, some of which have been withdrawn after First Amendment lawsuits by Speech First.
But critics argue Stanford administrators stealthily established the system without any faculty input, and civil liberties groups say it is effectively punitive and chills free speech despite campus officials’ insistence it is non-coercive.
The new “Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech” is likely to issue a report during the next academic year, and the resolution to create it also states there “shall be an interim report to the senate that explains the process by which this committee shall conduct its work.”
A professor at Sarah Lawrence College said the faculty objections to free speech infringements is a good sign. It “is one of the first times faculty on their home campus have publicly declared their opposition to omnipresent and precarious administrative overreach,” Professor Samuel Abrams wrote at Minding the Campus.
He says it’s a“positive step forward to finally see a group of faculty who are ready to take a stand against dangerous and irresponsible behaviors on the part of activist administrators.”
“Hopefully, other faculty will follow Stanford’s lead and showcase how education, viewpoint diversity, and open inquiry should work by embracing debate and difference.”
