UPDATED
Backlash led to retraction, new initiatives to demand free speech, academic freedom
Members of Stanford Universityâs information technology department once offered a âfinancial rewardâ to those who flagged and reported âracist terminologyâ on university websites.
The offer was part of a âStatement of Solidarity and Commitment to Actionâ program that debuted in 2020, but the financial incentive was raised during a late-January faculty senate meeting during which professors voiced alarm over what they contend is a growing Orwellian atmosphere on their campus.
Stanford scholars also cited the schoolâs âElimination of Harmful Language Initiative,â the IDEAL Anti-Racism Toolkit pushed on campus and the university’s relatively new âProtected Identity Harm Reportingâ system as alarming projects stifling both free speech and academic freedom.
The faculty senate on Feb. 9 voted to create an âAd Hoc Committee on University Speechâ to review these ongoing concerns and present solutions.
The late-January faculty presentation came on the heels of nationwide blowback to the universityâs 13-page âElimination of Harmful Language Initiative,â first reported on in December 2022 by The Wall Street Journal.
The initiative, one aspect of the âStatement of Solidarity and Commitment to Actionâ program, drew widespread criticism for stating more than 125 words, including common ones such as âaddict,â âAmericanâ and âtrigger warning,â should be eliminated from school websites.
While campus brass mostly brushed off the national criticism as an overreaction to a minor IT department effort, the faculty presentation argued it was much more than that.
It pointed out campus leaders behind the âStatement of Solidarity and Commitment to Actionâ and âElimination of Harmful Language Initiative,â represent âsenior-most technical leadersâ of all schools and units, and that their efforts included a âmulti-year, multi-phase projectâ to scan all Stanford websites, including âboth external-facing and internal-facing sites.â
âMany faculty perceive [the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative] as a broader threat to academic freedom,â state the faculty presentation slides, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix.
Seven Stanford web domains were scanned for harmful words last year, a December 2022 news release stated, adding âthe process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase.â
The financial incentive has since been removed and reworded.
Moreover, the âElimination of Harmful Language Initiativeâ website has been taken down, and media representative Stett Holbrook told The College Fix the initiative is âbeing re-evaluated and is not operational.â
The College Fix emailed Holbrook on Feb. 15 and asked if any financial rewards were provided to employees for turning in others for using harmful language. He did not respond.
Stanford engineering Professor Juan Santiago told The Fix the plans to study threats to free speech were put in motion when â77 faculty signed a petition to bring a motion before the Faculty Senateâ over the winter break.
Russell Berman, another Stanford professor who has expressed concerns about speech restrictions, told The Fix that âone senior faculty member reports feeling that âhe is walking on eggshellsâ when he delivers lectures, so now he is careful to avoid making any jokes. This is part of the chilling effect of EHLI.â
In addition to the politically correct language guide, Professor Santiago said he and his peers are concerned about Stanfordâs IDEAL Anti-Racism Toolkit and Protected Identity Harm Reporting System.
The anti-racism toolkit draws heavily from Ibram Kendiâs book, âHow to be an Antiracist.â One of the documentâs headers reads âfree speech doesnât mean free reign,â with the document later stating âmaybe you canât change minds, but you can close lips. And curb behavior.â
The Protected Identity Harm Reporting system encourages students to report âincidents of biasâ in which âa community member experiences harm because of their identity.â
As The College Fix also reported, âthe system is similar to bias response teams found on campuses nationwide, but critics argue Stanford administrators quietly established the system relatively recently without faculty input, and civil liberties watchdogs argue it can be punitive in nature and chills free speech despite campus officialsâ insistence it does neither.â
The new âAd Hoc Committee on University Speechâ is expected to issue a report during the 2023-24 academic year, and the resolution to create it also states there âshall be an interim report to the senate that explains the process by which this committee shall conduct its work.â
A political scientist at Sarah Lawrence College said the faculty pushback against free speech infringements is good news on campus.
It âis one of the first times faculty on their home campus have publicly declared their opposition to omnipresent and precarious administrative overreach,â Professor Samuel Abrams wrote for Minding the Campus.
He called it a âpositive 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.â
âHopefully, other faculty will follow Stanfordâs lead and showcase how education, viewpoint diversity, and open inquiry should work by embracing debate and difference,â Abrams wrote.
The move also comes on the heels of an Academic Freedom Conference hosted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business in November 2022.
Editor’s note: Professor Berman’s name has been corrected, it is Russell.Â
MORE: Stanford âProtected Identity Harmâ reporting system prompts concerns
IMAGES: Stanford faculty presentation
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.