In 2022, a diverse group of Stanford faculty published a “Statement on Open and Inclusive Discourse at Stanford,” which began:

Stanford University, along with many of its peer institutions, faces significant challenges to free and open discourse and therefore to its core academic mission. Students and faculty of all backgrounds—whether minorities or majorities—are disserved by a polarized atmosphere that has become increasingly intolerant and antithetical to the open exchange of ideas.

A year later, the Law School conducted a “Policy Lab Practicum on Polarization, Academic Freedom, and Inclusion” to begin addressing these problems.

The several following years saw at least a temporary increase in polarization around the Israel-Palestine conflict. This was accompanied, however, by the University’s increased commitment to improving discourse in and outside the classroom—especially through the Provost’s ePluribus Stanford initiative. At the same time as this initiative addresses the challenges of polarization, it tackles the more fundamental problem that many students enter Stanford without the discourse skills necessary for their educations and their future roles as citizens.

The current Policy Lab aims to contribute to ePluribus Stanford and similar efforts with the goals of improving discourse and civic knowledge among Stanford students, fostering the sense of belonging of students from diverse backgrounds, and ensuring their actual inclusion in discourse inside and outside of the classroom.

Part I of the Report is concerned with the campus community as a society and polity. The campus is not immune from the ideological and affective polarization that permeates the broader society. At the same time as the University protects students’ rights to freedom of speech and association, it also plays a role in assisting students in dealing with their differences constructively. To this end, this section examines what are termed “bridgebuilding” programs that rely on constructive discourse to increase mutual understanding and tolerance.

Part II starts from the premise that the habits and skills of critical thinking are essential outcomes of a university education. We focus on critical discourse in the classroom as a way to inculcate those habits and skills. Critical discourse draws on many of the same skills and techniques—for example, active listening and charitable framing of others’ arguments—as constructive discourse considered in Part I. However, the goal of critical discourse goes beyond understanding different viewpoints to subjecting them to (as the term suggests) critical scrutiny.

Part III centers around efforts to foster students’ sense of belonging at Stanford and their inclusion in discourse and other activities in and outside of the classroom. These efforts are guided by two rationales. First, students’ sense of belonging to the community is intrinsically important on a residential campus that serves not only as their workplace but also their home often for four or more years. Second, their sense of belonging is an important determinant of their engagement and participation in discourse inside and outside of the classroom. We believe that the University must be concerned about the belonging and inclusion of students of all backgrounds and identities—for example, political and social beliefs, geography, and socioeconomic class as well as conventional protected categories.

Part IV broadens the focus to the world outside the campus: preparing students for their roles as citizens of the United States and other countries. Of course, critical thinking skills are important foundations for these roles. Beyond this, however, many universities are adopting specially designed “civics” curricula. The winter quarter course, Citizenship in the 21st Century, offers such education to first-year Stanford students. The Civics Initiative, housed in the Political Science Department, is based on “the belief that U.S. universities have a responsibility to offer students an education that will promote their flourishing as human beings, their judgment as moral agents, and their participation in society as democratic citizens” and “aims to provide students with a series of superbly taught courses relevant to the ideas and practices of democratic citizenship.”

Part V observes that the vast majority of programs and initiatives examined in the Report are lacking in empirical evidence about their effectiveness. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Part VI concludes the Report with several recommendations for improving discourse among Stanford students.