No one has ever doubted that the Hoover Institution, a think tank and research center named after Republican president Herbert Hoover, leans conservative. Its fellows have shaped American domestic and foreign policy under nearly every president for the past 50 years. Despite this prestigious service to our university and our country, several members of the faculty senate suddenly decided they had had enough of the sole conservative institution on campus. Professor Kenneth Taylor called the Hoover Institution’s conservative ideology “intellectually bankrupt.” In a published statement last Friday, over a dozen Stanford professors described Hoover’s commitment to its mission statement, as ‘constraining’ and “antithetical to the spirit of open inquiry that is a fundamental element of liberal education.”
The Hoover Institution’s perceived conservative slant and lack of diversity were the subject of debate at Tuesday’s Faculty Senate meeting.
Turning Point USA’s newly formed Stanford chapter hopes to distinguish itself from its national organization and the Stanford College Republicans by acting as a mediator between left and right, chapter executives told The Daily.
During its second meeting of the quarter, the Faculty Senate heard ASSU executives Shanta Katipamula ’19 and Ph.D candidate in education Rosie Nelson outline their goals for the 2018-2019 school year, with particular attention paid to forming partnerships between Stanford students, faculty and staff.
Controversial social scientist Charles Murray and Freeman Spogli Institute senior fellow Francis Fukuyama discussed inequality and populism at the Hoover Institute on Thursday night in the second of four Cardinal Conversations, a program that aims to promote open political discourse on campus.
The event had visibly low attendance, with most of the back segment — around 100 seats — of the 400-person auditorium unfilled. Towards the front of the room, multiple reserved seats were left empty, as were several in the first row.
Meanwhile, across the street at the History Corner, “Take Back The Mic” counter-programming protested Murray and statements he has made regarding the relationship between class, race and intelligence.
To the Editor: We are professors who teach constitutional law at Stanford Law School. We have political views ranging across the political spectrum, but we share a commitment to the protection of free speech under the First Amendment as well as to academic freedom. We are concerned about recent attacks on Professor David Palumbo-Liu of…
I followed last week’s pissing contest between The Stanford Review and David Palumbo-Liu with perverse delight. Catfights like this don’t come along often enough in student journalism, and in otherwise despondent times (winter quarter, I mean) such performative spite is a welcome distraction from the darker aspects of our current reality (mass druggings, say). At…
As anyone who has carefully read the U.S. Constitution knows, the right to free speech is a negative freedom — it protects us from any attempt by our government to stifle the expression of our ideas. The underlying belief is that the free flow and debate of ideas are essential to a democracy. If we cannot…