What Stanford needs is not to imitate any other institution of higher learning, whether across the Bay or elsewhere. It is tempting to look at other institutions for ideas to improve our own community. But it is Stanford’s innovation, not its conformity, that makes it a great university.

Leo Abramsky-Sze correctly points out that Stanford is, on average, a wealthier community than UC Berkeley, but he draws an unsound conclusion from this information: “Consequently, [Stanford students] have historically been less vulnerable to the malicious whims of politicians and felt less of a stake in the country’s political future.” But voting rates are lower in lower-income communities across California, suggesting that some low-income voters may feel equally or even more apathetic about election results. Income does little to address a pervasive sense that “things won’t change no matter who’s in charge.” Economic well-being in the United States tends to be relatively independent of who the president is. There are, of course, many important issues besides the economy in American politics, but the point remains that income alone does not explain the evidently greater rate of apathy at Stanford than at Berkeley.

But Abramsky-Sze’s counterproductive suggestion is that Stanford should adopt a Berkeley-esque degree of personal investment in politics, replacing its Silicon Valley optimism with a strong emotional engagement with national politics. Two problems come from this strategy: even more polarized political discourse and a loss of ingenuity.

At Berkeley, the depths of political passion have prompted some members of that community to turn to extreme rhetoric and disruption rather than substantive engagement. In February 2017, the Berkeley College Republicans invited provocateur Milo Yiannopolous to speak on campus. In response, some demonstrators provoked massive unrest going well beyond the bounds of peaceful protest. Abramsky-Sze notes the highly disturbing attacks on Dean Erwin Chemerinsky at UC Berkeley School of Law. Some Berkeley community members embrace particularly polarizing language, such as the instructors who recently listed a course for Spring 2025 (which the university subsequently delisted) calling Hamas a “revolutionary resistance force,” referring to the Israeli military as the “Israeli Occupying Force,” and describing the North Korean government as being part of “a continuous anti-imperialist politic.” Community members have a free speech right to make these statements, but it’s hard to believe that such language is at all helpful in reaching beyond individuals who already agree.

Reasonable discussions across difference do happen at UC Berkeley, but their rarity is disappointing. What Abramsky-Sze calls “the passion of [Berkeley’s] political environment” can make it seem (perhaps inaccurately) like a political monolith with no room for nuance or disagreement. To invite dialogue across differing views, a passionate political environment should come with a similar level of passion for ensuring that the environment welcomes differing perspectives, different values and different conceptions of moral, ethical and political goals. Stanford’s ePluribus initiative is an excellent step in that direction, and I encourage Stanford community members to engage with it.

My other concern — a loss of ingenuity — is equally serious. Stanford has been a laboratory of innovation for decades, catapulting it to national prestige despite its relative youth compared to other elite universities in the United States. Abramsky-Sze seems concerned about the number of students here who show a willingness to develop new products or services with no regard for what the government may think. The fact that this Silicon Valley attitude — which Abramsky-Sze calls “technological optimism” — has made its way onto campus is an asset, not a liability. Law does pervade American life, but if we allow the law to preemptively stifle innovation, without first trying to innovate to see if something is possible, we would be allowing the law to govern not just our present but our future. As a law student, I see the ability to change the law to accommodate new technologies and social phenomena as one of American democracy’s most important features.

I agree with Abramsky-Sze that too much apathy is a bad thing, and I also agree that the soulless pursuit of profit will end up being unfulfilling for a substantial proportion of our peers who follow that path in life. But to say that political passion, unbridled by a willingness to work across difference or outside the political system entirely, should fill that void is to make an unwarranted jump in logic. Community service, artistic expression and good old-fashioned friendships go a long way to building a passionate community. Politics isn’t the only way to bring us together — and it certainly isn’t the best way.

Desmond Mantle, J.D. ’26