Your Cart is Empty
By Francesca Block, Princeton '22
March 23, 2023
The system of punishment at Stanford is more than a decade old. Class of 1977 alum Bob Ottilie, . . .who has represented over 100 students investigated by Stanford since 2011, said a majority choose to admit responsibility and accept a lesser punishment through an “early resolution option,” which is like a plea deal. While some take this approach because they committed the violation, he said many choose it because they feel the odds are stacked against them. He sees Stanford’s disciplinary process not as a system designed to find truth, but to punish “bad behavior.” “Think about that,” he added. “That’s a presumption of guilt.” . . . In an April 2021 report, [a Stanford] committee concluded that the university’s disciplinary process is “overly punitive” and “not educational.” Less than one year later, Katie Meyer was dead.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
I recently listened to Ross Douthat’s interview with the philosopher Jennifer Frey. She is a serious thinker and an unusually courageous academic entrepreneur. What she built at the University of Tulsa before it was dismantled is exactly the sort of thing more universities should be attempting. Yet almost every argument she offered for the humanities is, I think, completely unpersuasive to anyone not already on our side of the table.
This report presents findings from a national survey of 1,959 law school faculty at 192 American Bar Association (ABA) approved law schools in the United States, conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). As one of the largest surveys of law faculty on free expression and professional norms, the data reveal a profession that strongly endorses free speech principles while struggling to live them out in practice.
I just returned from the University of Wyoming, where I debated the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Todd Wolfson over the need for colleges and universities to maintain institutional neutrality. The debate was organized by the Steamboat Institute and was live-streamed.
The formal question presented for debate was: “Is institutional neutrality necessary to preserve the university as a forum for open inquiry rather than an actor in political disputes?” I spoke in favor of institutional neutrality while Wolfson argued against it as a necessary component to higher education.
