Editor’s Note: This article is purely satirical and fictitious. All attributions in this article are not genuine, and this story should be read in the context of pure entertainment only.

The administrators of Stanford University have imposed a so-called “Free Speech Hour” in White Plaza on weekdays between 12pm and 1pm. Amplified sound and disruptive public displays are prohibited outside this time, even in White Plaza. Other areas of campus outside of 5 designated zones are a no-go for demonstrations altogether. As the policy has now made its impact on the Stanford community, I decided it’s prime time to reflect on the lessons I have learned from the silence as I pass through the heart of campus. My big takeaway? I sure would like to hear less from my peers.

Sure, Stanford University claims to be infused with the American West’s spirit of openness and possibility, but we all know we’re here for the spirits (80 proof), openness to jobs in the military-industrial complex and possibility of landing a rich husband. It’s clear that the university shares these values, and I just don’t see how public displays of diverse viewpoints contribute to our central tenets. 

One must wonder, why would students at Stanford want to hear from and engage with their passionate peers? I’d ask, but free speech hour is over.

Upon further reflection, I realized I’d heard enough from my peers. I understand the breadth and fullness of their experiences as individuals because I peer-reviewed a Mech-E student’s PWR2 draft on free speech this fall. Having studied the Program in Writing and Rhetoric page many times, I know that the rigorous course provides a unique opportunity to share ideas and arguments with readers in the classroom and in the wider campus and world. Surely, anything produced in that class is as good as what would be shared in White Plaza. The last line of my classmate’s essay really had an impact on my thinking about Free Speech Hour:

“If you’d like, I can make the tone more casual to get that ‘conversational vibe,’ add direct quotes from the authors you mentioned, or really raise the register to make sure it’s A+ worthy. Do you want me to do that next?” 

This was clearly an invitation by my fellow student to take a post-structuralist lens to his opus. So, I went back and spent many hours in conversation with his essay on free speech. After I coaxed out its response, I was encouraged to think big about Free Speech Hour. How else might a mute campus community benefit our ambitions for free speech?

While reflecting on second-order benefits of Free Speech Hour, I naturally thought of our dearly departed Charlie Kirk. Could his death have been prevented by Free Speech Hour? If Kirk had packed up promptly at 1pm, would he have lived to know if we were counting or not counting gang violence?

Unfortunately not. The crime occurred at the admin-approved hour of 12:23pm. Nonetheless, I thought I would share this — the beginning of a thought I had in support of my broader argument about free speech on campus — despite its lack of relevance. Apologies. It’s been a while since I’ve engaged in a civil dialogue regarding a subjective matter of values as a member of the Stanford community.

That’s not to say I care too much to speak with my peers about things we disagree on. To be quite frank, the only person I want in my echo chamber is myself. Even still, I’d shut up if I could help it. Wouldn’t want some kind of an internal dialogue distracting me from the many lessons I learned in COLLEGE 102.

So, in closing, I have this request for Provost Martinez: Let’s replace Free Speech Hour with a Minute of Silence.