Stanford: What has the university been doing to foster constructive dialogue?
Jon Levin: We created ePluribus Stanford last year to collect a whole set of programs that strengthen the university’s culture of curiosity and inquiry, including the COLLEGE first-year curriculum and the Stanford Civics Initiative. The ePluribus name came from an initiative at the Law School. That was a good choice—from many, one. A campus where not everyone sees things the same, but everyone is part of Stanford.
What are some examples of ePluribus programs?
A strong culture starts when students arrive, so we start right at the beginning. The provost and I write to the incoming freshmen about our expectations—our hope that they will use their time at Stanford to explore, be open-minded, and seek out different perspectives. Last year, the ePluribus faculty also started offering summer dialogues.
The COLLEGE curriculum is now in its fifth year. It’s organized around questions. In the fall, “What does it mean to live a good life and what’s the role of education?” And in the winter, “What does it mean to be a citizen in a democracy?” The students are in small faculty-led seminars. We have faculty teaching from every school, and from the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. The goals are substantive. The students read classic texts—Plato, Locke, Mill, the Declaration of Independence—and modern work. A big part of the class is to get students talking and debating. When we survey students at the end of winter quarter about whether they feel comfortable raising contrary viewpoints and speaking their minds, a large majority of students say they do. That runs counter to a lot of the data that you see published these days about campuses.
Students have picked up on the importance of constructive dialogue. There are a bunch of debate societies, including one that’s quasi-secret, so it’s possible I’m not supposed to know about it. The Stanford Political Union, which was defunct for a long time, is thriving. They have a nontraditional format. Rather than hosting debates, they pose a hard question and put the students into small groups to talk and then report out. I love that design.
How is the university approaching issues of free speech?
The principles in my view are pretty simple. First, we have broad protection for constitutionally protected speech. That freedom has deep roots—you have to be able to question orthodoxy to advance knowledge. Second, there are boundaries: You can’t disrupt a class; you can’t disrupt a speaker; you can’t disrupt the functioning of the university. That’s necessary to protect the freedom of other people. One of our law faculty, Bernie Meyler [JD ’03], led an effort to clarify those rules two summers ago. The clarity has been very helpful.
I think of those principles as establishing the foul lines. Of course, what matters is what’s happening on the field—in classes and seminars and dorms. That’s why we’ve put so much focus on strengthening Stanford’s culture of curiosity and fostering constructive dialogue.
What about support and protections for faculty?
Stanford has in my view an extraordinary policy on academic freedom, adopted in 1974 and reaffirmed at the beginning of the last academic year by the Board of Trustees on its 50th anniversary.
The key part reads, Stanford University’s central functions of teaching, learning, research, and scholarship depend upon an atmosphere in which freedom of inquiry, thought, expression, publication, and peaceable assembly are given the fullest protection. Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.
Think about what that captures: freedom of inquiry, expression of the widest range of viewpoints, the avoidance of institutional orthodoxy, protection from internal and external coercion. That’s a north star when it comes to freedom and pluralism. And it’s exactly the right set of principles for the current moment.
