Stanford encourages students to express themselves freely. The University contends “Freedom of expression is a fundamental value for the university’s knowledge-bearing mission, alongside the inclusion of all viewpoints and the promotion of rigorous and reasoned academic debates.” Activism and public writing are part of campus life. However, for international students, participation in public life has started to come with calculations that are invisible to most of their peers. For students from politically unstable countries or with weaker passports, visibility can carry consequences that extend far beyond campus.
Many international students at Stanford are deeply engaged in activism, student media and academic work that involves political expression. They organize protests, write op-eds, lead discussions and take public positions on issues that matter to them. This is visible within student media and campus organizing spaces. International students have been active as reporters, editors, and contributors, covering political issues and participating in public-facing journalism. In public statements tied to The Daily’s recent lawsuit, editors noted that many of the students most affected by fears of retaliation were those involved in political reporting, opinion writing and campus activism.
At the same time, international students navigate a legal and political reality that makes public speech risky. Immigration status shapes what feels safe to say, how publicly to say it and sometimes whether silence feels like the safer option.
The tension is not between fear and courage, but between freedom and cost. Stanford’s culture encourages students to be visible, outspoken and opinionated. Recent immigration systems, however, reward caution. For international students, these realities exist at the same time. Speaking up is not only about belief or passion; it is also about visas, borders and futures that depend on forces far beyond the University’s protections and policies.
International students hold back before engaging publicly. Questions that rarely enter the minds of U.S. citizens quietly shape their decisions: How might this appear on a background check? How could it be interpreted at a border crossing? Could this affect family members back home? These considerations do not stop students from caring, but they often change how or whether they choose to speak.
This fear has become especially visible within student media. In August 2025, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio on behalf of The Stanford Daily and two noncitizens, challenging federal immigration provisions used to revoke visas over protected speech. According to the lawsuit, international students working at The Daily declined assignments, requested the removal of past articles or left the paper altogether due to fear that reporting on political topics could threaten their immigration status.
“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” said Greta Reich ’26, Volume 268 editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily, in a public statement.
The lawsuit also reflects a broader concern about the freedom of press on campus. In interviews conducted at the start of the academic year, Reich explained that the decision to pursue legal action came from The Daily’s responsibility to represent the entire Stanford community, including international students. When international students hesitate to speak to reporters or avoid writing publicly, entire stories and perspectives disappear. According to Reich, fear does not just affect individual students but changes the face of journalism on campus.
These pressures exist within a university that publicly claims to champion free expression. Stanford policies emphasize students’ rights to engage in political speech and campus culture often celebrates activism as a sign of leadership and engagement. Immigration law, however, operates under a different logic. Visa regulations are often unclear, enforcement is unpredictable and consequences are rarely explained in advance. This uncertainty intensifies fear, particularly for students from countries where political speech can already carry serious risks.
The result is an uneven landscape of speech. While all students technically have the same right to freedom of speech on campus, not all students experience the same level of safety in exercising them. Immigration status creates a quiet hierarchy of risk — one that is rarely acknowledged in conversations about free speech or student activism.
This invisible labor extends beyond protests or journalism. It affects classroom participation, research topics and public-facing academic work. Some students avoid studying political issues related to their home countries. Others hesitate to publish under their own names. These choices are not typically framed as sacrifices, but they nonetheless shape academic and personal paths.
What often goes unrecognized is that caution does not signal apathy; rather, it reflects a necessary approach shaped by survival. Many international students are deeply politically aware because they have grown up in one political context and are now studying in another. Their experiences navigating different governments, borders, and expectations make them more attentive to possible consequences. Their restraint is not disengagement; it is strategy. In this context, silence is not absence but it is a response to risk.
When international students are viewed only through narratives of resilience or gratitude, these complexities are flattened. Navigating multiple legal, cultural and political systems requires constant awareness and calculation. Freedom, in practice, operates differently depending on who is exercising it.
For immigrant students at Stanford, freedom of expression is not just a space of possibility; it is a space of negotiation. Their voices exist within layers of fear, awareness, and responsibility that most of their peers never have to consider. Understanding that difference matters — not only for how immigrant students are seen, but for how freedom itself is understood on campus. If a university encourages students to speak openly, it also carries a responsibility to recognize the uneven risks some students face and to protect their ability to participate without fear. Otherwise, Stanford’s policy of free speech exists only in theory but not in practice.
Ela Boran is an international high school student and a writer with The Stanford Daily Winter Workshop.