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.

Dear students,

I hope you have had a productive first few weeks of the quarter and are excited by the opportunities of the new school year. As an individual and — through my office — an institutional leader, we (as in, the royal we) have spent many weeks considering the best way to ensure that our campus discourse is not hampered by students feeling fearful of expressing their opinions during this hyper-polarized election cycle. Such self-censorship undermines the ability of students to learn from each other’s views and foments institutional orthodoxies on a campus that we (as in, Professor Saller and I) have committed to institutional neutrality. Orthodoxy at a neutral institution is much like blood in wee (as in, urine): the two cannot and should not be found together. 

First, let this letter be a reminder that we will not tolerate any action that violates another’s right to free speech. Specifically, this academic year we will investigate accusations of faculty members, student leaders and researchers using their institutional power to either physically or metaphorically silence, smother or even stifle other individuals with the highest level of scrutiny. However, we know full well that even if we enact the most perfect of reforms to discourage institutional censorship, we would have done nothing to reinvigorate deliberation, debate and discourse on an individual level. Institutional censorship’s removal means nothing without the complete annihilation of self-censorship.

That is why from this day on, we will punish students found to have self-censored with measures up to and including expulsion. In other words, if we determine that a student did not actively speak their truth, express their opinion or say their piece, either verbally or symbolically, we will gather their things and remove their presence from our community. We do not find these measures to be draconian or even, some might say, “a totalitarian blight upon the Winds of Freedom.” Rather, using President Levin’s impressive grasp of game theory, we have determined that there does not exist sufficient incentives for students to express their true beliefs in our community. Therefore, while we continue to adhere to institutional neutrality, we are not afraid to mobilize and even weaponize the powers of this great University to encourage students to do their democratic duty and speak their mind (subject to relevant time, place and manner restrictions). These new rules will prevent The Orthodoxy from forcing students to express a False Neutrality, and say they are ambivalent, unknowledgeable, or even “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” on an issue when they clearly have an opinion. We are not creating a Ministry of Truth, but are instead establishing a new framework for student-to-student relations in pursuit of Absolute Truth.

Therefore: if you say one thing and are caught believing another, you will be expelled. If you end the expression of your opinion with “but I may be wrong” or “double check me on this” when you clearly do not believe you are wrong nor want someone to check you on that, you will be expelled. If you are with someone you love, hate, passionately desire or vehemently despise, but fail to express the true depths of your feelings to them, you will be expelled and banned from ever setting foot on this campus again. 

Sarcasm will be banned due to it being fundamentally defined by the utterance of statements that do not reflect the speaker’s beliefs or perception of reality. Satire will be encouraged as necessary for an active civil society. However, while we are neutral on these pieces’ content (subject to relevant time, place and manner restrictions), anything in the piece that involves the use of irony, exaggeration or absurdity as a means of making a broader satirical point will be treated as sarcasm and, thus, grounds for expulsion. We will actively prevent organizations from publishing material that “punches down,” but we will also punish any writer and/or student publication found to have actively “pulled” its “punches” (either physically or metaphorically).

It is our belief as a (neutral) institution that we must fight censorship with the loud, symphonic cacophony of the free expression of ideas. And for those concerned about the potential issues created from the interaction between our anti-self-censorship policies and other relevant time, place and manner restrictions (along with other exceptions like obscenity or incitement), we believe that the two do not contradict each other. Students must speak up and speak out, even if doing so is a form of harassment, obscenity, fighting words or is liable to alienate them from friends or family (which we think is a perfectly welcome outcome of our policy, as that means that an individual was either accepted or rejected based purely on the content of their character). 

Finally, note that the Stanford Statement on Academic Freedom states: 

“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.”

This new self-censorship policy not only gives the fullest protection and strength to free expression, but also “encourages” the expression of all viewpoints without fear of orthodoxy or coercion. Our reforms of the institution are preventing “external” coercion, but our system of free-speech incentives does nothing if not prevent the worst form of internal coercion: that of the self. These policies will protect our community at such a politically fraught time, and do more than any other University to ensure that the great form of the Winds of Freedom — that of speech coming from the mouths of our community members — Blow across the Farm and into the world. Together, we will be a City Upon a Hill, a University dedicated to excellence where no stone is left unturned, and every individual speaks their mind (subject to relevant time, place and manner restrictions).

Sincerely,

Jenny Martinez, Provost