��֭����

Background

Stanford Law School’s Federalist Society invited Stuart Kyle Duncan, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to Stanford Law School to give a talk on Stanford’s campus titled, “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.” The talk was scheduled for March 9, 2023. 

The talk was met with backlash from the moment it was announced due to Duncan’s stances on LGBT issues. More than 70 students emailed with requests to either cancel the event or to move it online, with one email claiming Duncan has “proudly threatened healthcare and basic rights for marginalized communities.” FIREalso posted flyers around campus expressing further criticism of the event, with messages like, “You should be ashamed,” and claims that Duncan had fought to “deny same-sex couples the right to marry” and to “deny reproductive healthcare.”

On the morning of March 9, Stanford’s Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Tirien Steinbach sent an email to the Stanford Law community, echoing many of the criticisms and adding that while the event should go on given Stanford’s free speech policies, it would be a “significant hit” to students’ sense of belonging.

As the event was about to begin, protesters gathered in the student law lounge and prevented Federalist Society student members from entering, saying they were creating a “safe space” for LGBT students. In the meantime, nearly 100 protesters began booing students who entered the room where Duncan’s event was to take place, and nearly 70 protesters entered the room with signs.

As Judge Duncan began his remarks, dozens of Stanford law students heckled him, preventing him from proceeding. After trying to speak for about 10 minutes, Duncan angrily responded to the protesters and asked for assistance from administrators — who had been present but had taken no steps to stop the disruption. 

Steinbach then stepped to the podium to address the crowd reading from remarks she had prepared. She insisted that she wanted Judge Duncan to complete his remarks, but repeatedly praised the hecklers and rebuked Duncan, claiming that his work “has caused harm” to “many people here.” “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Steinbach asked, implying that Duncan’s speech was too harmful to allow.

After repeated failed attempts to proceed with the event, the Federalist Society organizers decided to move on to the question and answer session. The atmosphere did not improve. The protesters and Steinbach continued to heckle Duncan, preventing him from responding. After a few questions the event ended with federal marshals escorting Duncan out for his safety.

In the days that followed, Stanford issued Duncan a formal apology and Stanford Dean Jenny Martinez wrote the Stanford Law alumni emphasizing the importance of free speech and decrying the events of March 9. Stanford Law placed Steinbach on leave and she later resigned for her participation in the event disruption.

The shoutdown and its aftermath took the media by storm, causing many to wonder about the state of free speech at one of our nation’s most elite colleges. We decided to find out for ourselves by surveying Stanford students about the incident, its aftermath, and their attitudes toward speech and protest. As many of our nation's colleges and universities lose faith in the value of free speech, we believe a deep-dive into this incident can ultimately shed light on broader trends facing academia and help us turn them around.

Key Findings

This report describes the results of a survey of 531 Stanford University undergraduate and graduate students administered by the FIRE(��֭����) and College Pulse from April 26 to July 26, 2023, with an overall margin of error of +/- 4%.

The report also includes an analysis of responses from 284 Stanford students separately surveyed for ��֭����’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings. This included 78 Stanford students surveyed before Judge Duncan’s visit to campus and 206 surveyed after Judge Duncan’s visit. The margin of error for the whole sample of 284 Stanford students is +/- 6%.

All analyses are weighted by school demographic characteristics after data collection to reduce discrepancies between the population vs. sample characteristics.

Key findings include:

1. Stanford students’ feelings about Judge Duncan’s visit to campus were mixed. When asked if Stanford’s administration was wrong to apologize to Judge Duncan, about two-thirds (65%) said this describes their feelings at least “slightly well,” and more than half of students (54%) also said they feel this way when asked if the administration should have canceled Judge Duncan’s speech.
2. Three-fifths of Stanford students (60%) said that someone who has stated that “same-sex marriage is unconstitutional” — a position Judge Duncan has taken — should not be allowed to give a speech on campus.
3. Conservative Stanford students felt more comfortable discussing Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford than their liberal or moderate counterparts. Liberal students also felt more comfortable expressing their views on the topic than moderates did.
4. Conservative Stanford students surveyed before Judge Duncan’s visit to campus felt more comfortable discussing a controversial political topic on campus, in the classroom, and on social media, compared to conservative students surveyed after Judge Duncan’s visit. This was also the case when it came to disagreeing with one’s professors.
5. Conservative Stanford students surveyed after Judge Duncan’s visit to campus also self-censored more often and were more worried about damaging their reputations because of someone misunderstanding something they have said or done. The frequency of self-censorship among liberal Stanford students did not change after Judge Duncan’s visit and the level of concern about damaging their reputation declined.
6. Compared to liberal Stanford students, conservative and moderate Stanford students were more concerned about being “actively discriminated against” by students or faculty because of their political beliefs.
7. Three-quarters of Stanford students said that shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, about three-fifths said that blocking other students from attending a campus speech is acceptable, and more than a third said that using physical violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable.

About Us

About ��֭����

The FIRE(��֭����) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIREalso recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses.

For more information, visit thefire.org or @thefireorg on X.

About College Pulse

College Pulse is a survey research and analytics company dedicated to understanding the attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of today’s college students. College Pulse delivers custom data-driven marketing and research solutions, utilizing its unique American College Student Panel™ that includes over 750,000 college students and recent alumni from more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and universities in all 50 states. 

For more information, visit collegepulse.com or @CollegeInsights on X.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Sean Stevens and Nathan Honeycutt for questionnaire design, data analysis, and authoring this report; to Andrea Lan for graphics and data visualization; and to ��֭����’s Campus Rights Advocacy, Communications, and Research departments for their help reviewing the report.

Greg Lukianoff

President and CEO, ��֭���� 

Suggested Citation

Stevens, S.T. & Honeycutt, N. (2024). The Judge Duncan Shoutdown: What Stanford FIREThink. The ��֭����. Available online: /research-learn/judge-duncan-shoutdown-what-stanford-students-think

Overview

This report describes the results of a survey administered by the FIRE(��֭����) and College Pulse from April 26 to July 26, 2023, that asked 531 Stanford students about Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford. 413 of these students were undergraduates and 90 were graduate students. The status of the remaining 28 students was unknown. The overall margin of error for this survey was +/- 4%. 

This report also includes an analysis of survey responses from 284 Stanford students surveyed for ��֭����’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings via the College Pulse mobile app and web portal from January 17, 2023 to June 10, 2023. This sample includes 78 Stanford students surveyed before Judge Duncan’s visit to campus and 206 who were surveyed after Judge Duncan’s visit. The margin of error for the whole sample of 284 Stanford students is +/- 6%.

All analyses are weighted by school demographic characteristics after data collection to reduce discrepancies between the population vs. sample characteristics.

Stanford FIREReport Mixed Feelings About Judge Duncan’s Visit

When asked how they feel about Judge Duncan’s visit to campus, Stanford students’ answers were mixed. For instance, when asked if Stanford’s administration was wrong to apologize to Judge Duncan, about two-thirds of Stanford students (65%) said this describes their feelings at least “slightly well.” This includes almost a quarter (23%) who said it describes their feelings “very well” or “completely.” 

A notable portion of students also said the administration should have canceled Judge Duncan’s speech. More than half of Stanford students (54%) said this describes their feelings at least “slightly well,” including 16% who said this describes their feelings “very well” or “completely.” 

At the same time, when asked if Stanford failed to uphold its commitment to free speech during Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford, about three-quarters of Stanford students (74%) said this describes their feelings at least “slightly well,” and almost a quarter (24%) said this describes their feelings “very well” or “completely.” And, when asked if Stanford’s administration was correct to suspend Dean Steinbach, 60% said this describes their feelings “slightly well,” and 16% said this describes their feelings “very well” or “completely.” 

Some gender and racial differences are evident. Female students and nonwhite students were less likely to report feelings that indicated support for freedom of speech when it came to Judge Duncan’s visit to campus, compared to their male and white counterparts, respectively.

Partisan differences in feelings about Judge Duncan’s visit among Stanford students are stronger than the gender and racial differences. As reflected below, liberal students at Stanford reported very different feelings about Judge Duncan’s visit to campus and its aftermath than did moderate and conservative students. Majorities of moderate and conservative students felt that Stanford should not have canceled Judge Duncan’s speech, that the talk should not be moved off-campus, that Stanford was not wrong to apologize to Judge Duncan, and that Stanford should have punished the students who disrupted the event. In contrast, a majority of liberals felt the opposite way about each of the above aspects of Judge Duncan’s visit. At the same time, a majority of liberal students — like their moderate and conservative counterparts — said they feel Stanford was correct to suspend Dean Steinbach and that it failed to uphold its commitment to free speech during Judge Duncan’s visit to campus.

How Comfortable Were Stanford FIREExpressing Their Views on Judge Duncan’s Visit?

We asked Stanford students how comfortable or uncomfortable they feel expressing their views on Judge Duncan’s visit to campus in different settings. As with their feelings about Judge Duncan’s visit, student comfort levels were mixed when it came to in-class discussions and conversations with their peers outside of the classroom. FIREhowever, were not very comfortable expressing their views on social media.

Specifically, slightly more than half of Stanford students (51%) said they feel “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views on Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford during an in-class discussion. Half said the same about expressing their views during a discussion with other students in a common campus space. In contrast, a little less than a third of students (29%) felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views on a social media account tied to their name.

Male Stanford students felt more comfortable than female students expressing their views to other students in a common campus space: 55% of males felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable doing so, while 46% of female students felt the same. Gender differences in expressing one’s views on Judge Duncan’s visit to campus during an in-class discussion or on social media were negligible.  

In terms of racial differences, more white than nonwhite Stanford students reported feeling comfortable expressing their views during an in-class discussion (58% and 45%, respectively). Racial differences in expressing one’s views on Judge Duncan’s visit to campus to other students in a common campus space or on social media are negligible.  

Once again, partisan differences emerged and are stronger than gender and racial differences. Conservative Stanford students felt more comfortable discussing Judge Duncan’s visit to campus than their liberal or moderate counterparts. Liberal students also felt more comfortable expressing their views than did moderates.

Specifically, almost two-thirds of conservative Stanford students (63%) felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views about Judge Duncan’s visit to campus during an in-class discussion, and more than half (56%) felt this way about expressing their views to their peers outside the classroom. Among liberal Stanford students, about half of them felt this way about expressing their views in each setting (49% and 49%). Fewer moderate Stanford students felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views on Judge Duncan’s visit to campus during an in-class discussion (42%) or to their peers in a common campus space outside of the classroom (45%).

This finding is unexpected. Survey data collected by FIREand other organizations over the past decade have consistently found that conservative students report less comfort expressing their views on campus than do their liberal counterparts.[1] Yet, after the Judge Duncan incident, conservative Stanford students were the most comfortable discussing the incident in the classroom and outside of it.

What is the State of Free Speech at Stanford?

Following the questions specifically about Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford, we asked some more general questions about freedom of speech on campus. These questions include a handful also asked in ��֭����’s annual College Free Speech Rankings survey on administrative support and the acceptability of using illiberal forms of protest to stop a campus speech. They also include questions on whether or not controversial speakers that we have not yet asked about should be allowed on campus.

How Do Stanford FIREPerceive the Administration's Stance on Freedom of Speech?

Stanford’s stance on freedom of speech is nebulous, at least according to students surveyed after the Judge Duncan incident.

When asked how clear it is that their college administration protects free speech on campus, fewer than 1 in 10 Stanford students (6%) said it is “extremely” clear, about another quarter (23%) said it is “very” clear, and about 1 in 5 students said it is “not very” or “not at all” clear. When asked how likely their college administration would be to defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy, about a third of Stanford students said it is “very” or “extremely” likely that it would. At the same time, a quarter said it is “not very” or “not at all” likely.

This confusion among Stanford students about the administration’s stance on freedom of speech and whether it would defend a speaker during a controversy is understandable. During the controversy leading up to the Judge Duncan appearance, an administrator informed the students that Stanford would not cancel the event despite requests to do so. When students then disrupted the event that same administrator admonished Judge Duncan for his legal opinions and proclaimed she was proud of the students’ actions. A different administrator then criticized the first administrator’s behavior during the shoutdown and issued Judge Duncan a formal apology. Stanford then placed the first administrator on administrative leave, and she ultimately left her position at Stanford.

Gender and racial differences on the clarity of the administration’s stance on free speech are negligible, but there are noticeable partisan differences. Almost a third of liberal students (31%) said it is “very” or “extremely” clear Stanford’s administration protects free speech on campus, and just more than half (51%) said it is “somewhat” clear. Just 18% of liberal students said the administration’s stance is “not very” or “not at all” clear. Results among moderate students are similar: A quarter said that Stanford’s stance is “very” or “extremely” clear, and another 59% said it is “somewhat” clear. Conservative students had a different opinion. About a quarter of them said that Stanford’s stance is “very” or “extremely” clear, but only 37% said it is “somewhat” clear, and 40% said it is “not very” or “not at all” clear.

Gender and racial differences in the administration’s likelihood of defending speech during a controversy are also negligible, however, partisan differences are again noticeable. Almost two-fifths of liberal students (37%) said it was “very” or “extremely” likely Stanford’s administration would defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy, compared to 13% of moderate students and 17% of conservative students. And almost half of conservative students (47%) said it is “not very” or “not at all” likely that Stanford’s administration would do this, compared to a fifth of liberal students and a quarter of moderate students. 

How Acceptable Do FIREConsider Illiberal Protest at Stanford?

Shouting down a speaker, blocking entry to an event, preventing others from seeing a speaker, and using violence to stop a speech violate a speaker’s right to speak and an audience’s right to listen. A troubling number of Stanford students report that they find use of these tactics at least rarely acceptable.

Three-quarters of Stanford students surveyed for this report said shouting down speakers to prevent them from speaking on campus is at least “rarely” acceptable, about three-fifths (62%) said that blocking other students from attending a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable, and more than a third (36%) said that using physical violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable. To put that in perspective, these percentages among Stanford students range from 9% to 17% higher than the percentages among the roughly 55,000 undergraduate students across the United States surveyed at the other 253 schools for ��֭����’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings.[2]

As reflected below, gender, racial, and partisan differences are also evident when it comes to shouting down a speaker or blocking entry into an event, but not when it comes to using violence to stop a campus speech — the one exception is that fewer white than nonwhite Stanford students said violence is at least “rarely” acceptable to stop a campus speech.

How Often Do FIREThink They May Experience Political Discrimination?

When asked how often, if at all, they think students or faculty would actively discriminate against them because of their political beliefs, Stanford students reported worrying about their peers than faculty discriminating against them for political reasons. Almost a quarter of Stanford students (23%) said they feel this way about their peers at least a couple of times a week, whereas 13% of Stanford students said they feel this way about the faculty.

Student thoughts also differed based on gender, racial, and partisan differences. About a quarter of males at Stanford (24%) said they think other students would actively discriminate against them because of their political beliefs at least a couple of times a week, compared to 16% of female students. The same percentage of Stanford male and female students (12%) said they think faculty would actively discriminate against them because of their political beliefs at least a couple of times a week. In contrast, about a quarter of white students (24%) and nonwhite students (23%) said they think other students would actively discriminate against them because of their political beliefs at least a couple of times a week. However, nonwhite students were more concerned than white students about facing political discrimination from faculty (17% and 12%, respectively).

When it comes to partisan differences, liberal Stanford students were less concerned than moderate or conservative students about experiencing active discrimination from students or faculty based on their political beliefs. About 1 in 10 liberal students were concerned about facing political discrimination from other students or faculty at least a couple times a week (12% and 9%, respectively). On the other hand, 52% of moderates and 46% of conservatives were concerned about being actively discriminated against by other students based on their political beliefs. Conservative students were more concerned about being actively discriminated against by faculty at least a few times a week — a third of them, compared to 22% of moderate students, reported this. 

Which Controversial Speakers Should Be Allowed on Campus?

Campus speech controversies — including Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford — often arise because a student group or organization invites a speaker to campus who has said or done something some students find objectionable. These controversies are one kind of stress test for college’s or university’s commitment to protecting freedom of speech.

Since the 1950’s, political scientists have asked people whether controversial speakers should be allowed to express themselves in a variety of contexts — such as in a community or on a campus — to assess people’s political tolerance.[3] ��֭����’s College Free Speech Rankings survey uses this methodology to assess political tolerance among undergraduates. The survey first instructs students that:

Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who has previously expressed the following idea?

The survey then presents students with different hypothetical speakers who have clearly expressed controversial liberal or conservative ideas and asks them which speakers should be allowed on campus.[4]

As seen in the table below, Stanford students strongly opposed allowing on campus a speaker who has expressed the viewpoint, “The Holocaust is a myth; it never happened.” When it comes to the other seven speakers, at least two-thirds of Stanford students said four of them should “probably” or “definitely” be allowed on campus. Each of these speakers were said to have expressed a liberal viewpoint (e.g., “The federal government should confiscate all guns”). And only about a fifth of students said that a speaker who expressed the viewpoint, “Biological differences help explain gender differences,” should “probably” or “definitely” be allowed on campus. Support for allowing the other two speakers on campus — both of whom were said to have expressed a conservative viewpoint (e.g., “Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional”) — was lower. 

There are also a number of gender, racial, and partisan differences.

A majority of male and female Stanford students supported inviting five of the eight speakers to campus. Four of these five speakers were said to have expressed liberal positions that may offend conservatives. A roughly equal portion of male and female students supported a hypothetical speaker said to have expressed the viewpoint, “Biological differences help explain gender differences.” The results by race were similar. There was only a noticeable difference in support between white and nonwhite students for a speaker said to have expressed the viewpoint, “The Holocaust is a myth; it never happened.”

Partisan differences in tolerance are stronger. A majority of liberal Stanford students supported allowing five speakers on campus — the same five supported by males, females, whites, and nonwhites — while moderate students supported six, and conservative students supported seven. More conservative students than liberal or moderate students supported allowing the remaining three speakers on campus than liberal or moderate students. 

Comparing Undergraduate and Graduate ��֭����

Graduate students were more familiar than undergraduate students with Judge Duncan’s visit to campus. Almost 1 in 3 graduate students said they were very familiar with Judge Duncan’s visit to campus and another 28% said they were “somewhat” familiar with it. In contrast, 12% of undergraduate students said they are “very” familiar with the incident and another 24% said they are “somewhat” familiar with it. That graduate students were more familiar with Judge Duncan’s visit to campus is not surprising, as the judge’s remarks were intended for Stanford law students.

Graduate and undergraduate students mostly reported similar feelings about Judge Duncan’s visit to campus.

Graduate students were slightly more likely than undergraduates to say Stanford failed to uphold its commitment to freedom of speech during Judge Duncan’s visit to campus — 30% of graduate students said this described their feelings “very well” or “completely,” while 22% of undergraduates said the same. In contrast, undergraduate students were slightly more likely than graduate students to say Stanford was wrong to apologize to Judge Duncan — 24% of undergraduates said this described their feelings “very well” or “completely,” while 17% of graduate students said the same.

When asked broadly about Stanford’s stance on free speech, graduate students reported slightly more confidence in the administration than undergraduates did. Almost two-fifths of graduate students (38%) said that it is “very” or “extremely” clear their administration protects freedom of speech on campus, while 26% of undergraduates said the same. Roughly a third of graduate students (34%) and undergraduate students (33%) said it is “very” or “extremely” likely the administration would defend a speaker’s speech rights during a controversy, while a quarter of undergraduates and a fifth of graduate students said this is “not very” or “not at all” likely.

Stanford graduate students were less accepting than undergraduate students of students blocking entry to a campus event or using violence to stop a campus speech. Specifically, a little more than half of graduate students (54%)  said blocking entry is at least “rarely” acceptable, and about a quarter (24%) said the same about using violence to stop a campus speech. Roughly three-fifths of undergraduates (62%) said the same about blocking entry and a third (35%) said the same about using violence to stop a campus speech. Graduate and undergraduate views about whether students shouting down a speaker is acceptable did not differ.

Finally, as the figure below demonstrates, Stanford graduate students were also more willing than undergraduates to say that controversial speakers should be allowed on their campus.

Stanford Before and After Judge Duncan’s Visit

Judge Duncan’s appearance at Stanford occurred while FIREconducted its annual College Free Speech Rankings survey.[5] Comparing the survey responses of students who took the survey before the shoutdown of Judge Duncan to students who took the survey afterward allows us to test for evidence of a chilling effect at Stanford following the incident.

At first glance, there is little evidence a chilling effect occurred.

A roughly equal portion of Stanford students said they self-censor at least a couple times a week because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond (20% before Duncan’s visit, 17% afterward). The story is similar for students who were asked how worried they are about damaging their reputation because someone misunderstands something they have said or done —  59% said they worried “a little” or “a lot” about this before the Judge Duncan incident compared to 55% afterward.

Likewise, Stanford students were slightly more comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space — 44% of students surveyed before the Judge Duncan incident were “somewhat” or “very” comfortable doing so, while half of students surveyed afterward said the same. When it comes to expressing views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion, student comfort levels did not change — an identical 39% felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable doing so before and after the Judge Duncan incident.

Recall that when we asked Stanford undergraduate and graduate students similar questions about Judge Duncan’s visit to campus, about half said they feel “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views on the Judge Duncan incident. This indicates Stanford students reported more comfort expressing their views on a specific, and recent, campus controversy than when asked about a more amorphous “controversial political topic.”

Stanford students surveyed for ��֭����’s College Free Speech Rankings also reported experiencing considerably less pressure to avoid discussing controversial topics in their classes after the Judge Duncan incident. Before the Judge Duncan incident, 39% of Stanford students said they feel a “good” or a “great” deal of pressure, whereas after the incident 23% said they feel this way.

Indeed, disagreeing with a professor on a controversial political topic, whether publicly or privately, were the only campus domains in which Stanford students reported experiencing less comfort expressing themselves after Judge Duncan’s visit to campus. Prior to Judge Duncan’s visit, 30% of Stanford students felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor, while 21% felt this way afterward. A similar decline was evident for disagreeing with a professor on a controversial political topic privately in a written assignment — 44% felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable doing so before Judge Duncan’s visit, while 35% felt this way afterward.

Further, in the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings survey, we provided students with a definition of self-censorship and then asked about how often they self-censor during conversations with other students on campus, with their professors, or during classroom discussions.[6] Prior to the Judge Duncan incident, roughly a quarter of Stanford students (26%) said they self-censor in conversations with other students on campus at least a couple of times a week, while 21% said the same after the incident.

Declines in self-censorship were much starker when students were asked about conversations with their professors, with 28% self-censoring at least a couple of times a week before the incident compared to 13% afterward. And when asked about classroom discussions, 30% of students self-censored in classroom discussions at least a couple of times a week prior to the incident compared to 14% afterward. In other words, self-censorship in the classroom decreased.

What do we make of this decline in classroom self-censorship following the Judge Duncan incident, combined with findings from a different Stanford sample that show at least half of Stanford students said they feel comfortable discussing Judge Duncan’s visit to campus? We believe the decline in self-censorship in conversations with professors and in the classroom occurred because difficult conversations were happening.

Thus, evidence for a general chilling effect at Stanford after Judge Duncan’s shoutdown is scant. In fact, much of the data suggest the opposite occurred, with Stanford students feeling more comfortable expressing themselves on campus after the incident than before.

A deeper dive into the data, however, reveals evidence of a chilling effect for conservative viewpoints at Stanford after Judge Duncan’s visit.

A Chilling Effect for Some Views on Campus, But Not Others

First, the frequency of self-censorship on Stanford’s campus increased sharply among conservative students after Judge Duncan’s visit.[7] Before the incident, 24% of conservative students at Stanford said they self-censor at least a couple of times a week because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond, whereas afterward the percentage jumped to 41%. In contrast, among liberal students, the percentage who said they self-censor at least a couple of times a week did not change after the incident (12% before the incident, 14% afterward). Before the incident, however, not a single liberal Stanford student said they self-censor “very often, nearly every day,” while afterward 7% said they did.

Second, conservative Stanford students, in contrast to liberal Stanford students, were also more worried after Judge Duncan’s visit than they were before it, about damaging their reputation because someone misunderstands something they have said or done. Prior to the incident, a quarter of conservative students said they worry “a little” or “a lot.” After the incident 69% of conservative students said they worry “a little” or “a lot.” Further, the percentage of conservative students reporting “a little” bit of worry surged from 21% before the incident to 61% afterward.[8]

In contrast, liberal students were less worried about damaging their reputations after Judge Duncan’s visit. Prior to the incident, three-fifths of liberal Stanford students said they worry “a little” or “a lot” about damaging their reputation because someone misunderstands something they have said or done, while after the incident 53% felt this way. However, the percentage of liberal students who said they worry “a lot” about damaging their reputation increased from 4% prior to the incident to 13% afterward.

Third, as can be seen below, conservative Stanford students were also less comfortable expressing their views after the Judge Duncan incident in all of the settings about which they were asked. Of particular note is the fact that among conservatives, the sharpest decline in comfort expressing controversial political opinions occurred when disagreeing with a professor publicly. 

In contrast, liberal Stanford students were more comfortable expressing their views outside the classroom after Judge Duncan’s visit. Prior to the incident, almost half of liberal students (46%) felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space, while 57% felt this way afterward. About a third of liberal students (34%) felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion, while 44% felt this way afterward. And 15% of liberal students felt “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing an unpopular political opinion to their fellow students on a social media account tied to their names, while 29% felt this way afterward.

However, like their conservative counterparts, liberal Stanford students also felt more uncomfortable expressing disagreement with their professors on a controversial political topic after the Judge Duncan incident. Prior to Judge Duncan’s visit almost a third of liberal Stanford students (31%) said they feel “somewhat” or “very” comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor on a controversial political topic, while 26% said the same afterward. And almost half of liberal Stanford students (45%) said they feel “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing disagreement with one of their professors about a controversial political topic in a written assignment prior to Judge Duncan’s visit, while 37% said the same afterwards.

Fourth, when provided with a definition of self-censorship, conservative Stanford students reported self-censoring more often after Judge Duncan’s visit than previously in conversations with other students on campus. Prior to Judge Duncan’s visit, 14% of conservative Stanford students reported self-censoring at least once or twice a week in conversations with other students. After the incident, 39% of conservative Stanford students said they self-censor at least once or twice a week in conversations with other students, including 17% who said they now self-censor nearly every day.

In contrast, there is little difference between liberal and conservative students in the frequency of self-censorship in conversations with other students after Judge Duncan’s visit. Prior to the incident, roughly a fifth of liberal students (21%) said they self-censor at least once or twice a week in conversations with other students, while 19% said this after Judge Duncan’s visit.

In sum, after Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford’s campus, conservative students were less comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic in the five different settings about which they were asked, were more worried about damaging their reputations because of someone taking something they said or did out of context, and self-censored more frequently than liberal students did in conversations with other students. These findings indicate that after Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford, conservative students felt less comfortable expressing themselves on “controversial political topics,” suggesting that the shoutdown of Judge Duncan resulted in a chilling effect for conservative viewpoints.

Conclusions

The totality of these findings raises the question: If, after Judge Duncan’s visit, conservative Stanford students are more comfortable expressing their views about Judge Duncan’s visit than their peers, how can they also be less comfortable expressing their views — according to ��֭����’s College Free Speech Rankings data — on controversial political topics? Perhaps conservative Stanford students were more comfortable discussing the Judge Duncan incident, an event which actually happened, than they were discussing a more abstract “controversial political topic,” because of what occurred after the shoutdown.

The incident received extensive media coverage, much of it critical of the protesters and then-Dean Steinbach’s behavior. However, Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez, and then-university President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, issued an apology to Judge Duncan two days later. Martinez also announced that all students will participate in mandatory free speech training and that Steinbach was “on leave.”[9] Stanford also promoted Martinez to provost while Steinbach resigned.[10]

In other words, the Stanford administration made it clear it did not approve of the shoutdown. Could this have made conservative Stanford students more comfortable discussing the Judge Duncan incident with their peers and professors? By Stanford making clear its position, did some reveal their conservative leanings for the first time to and/or face negative consequences from others in the community, making them less comfortable expressing their views on other controversial political topics? Unfortunately, our survey questions preclude us from offering a more definitive answer to these questions.

Broadly speaking, however, our findings paint a bleak picture for free speech at Stanford. A majority of students surveyed think that someone who has said, “Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional” — a position Judge Duncan has taken — should not be allowed to give a speech on campus, that Stanford should have canceled Judge Duncan’s speech, and that Stanford was wrong to apologize to him after the shoutdown. A majority of Stanford students also think it is “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely” acceptable to engage in illiberal forms of protest including shouting down speakers or blocking other students from attending the event. Additionally, more than a third said this about using physical violence to stop a campus speech.

The Judge Duncan controversy is not the only deplatforming incident recorded at Stanford within the past year. Around the same time as Judge Duncan’s visit to campus, an op-ed in the student newspaper called for cancellation of an event featuring conservative media personality Matt Walsh. The student senate also opposed the event and some students set promotional materials for the event on fire. Eventbrite even removed the event from its website, forcing its organizers, the Stanford College Republicans and Young America's Foundation, to find a new ticketing platform. Walsh ultimately spoke successfully despite this deplatforming campaign, and multiple events presenting other points of view took place at the same time.[11]

Earlier this year the university’s current president, Richard Saller, held a fireside chat featuring Martinez, Israeli Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism Michal Cotler-Wunsh, and a few other panelists. Prior to the event, the campus chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace condemned Saller and Martinez for sharing the stage with Cotler-Wunsh. Then, during the Q&A, protesters interrupted and chanted “Ceasefire now!” over Cotler-Wunsh’s answer. Stanford had the protesters escorted out of the event.[12]

Even though Stanford responded well to each of these incidents, all of them reveal its students’ significant level of hostility toward freedom of speech. As colleges and universities increasingly grapple with protests and speaker disruptions, particularly in the aftermath of Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, the onus is on administrators to send a clear message to their campus community by protecting freedom of speech and punishing attempts to silence it.

Topline Results

How clear is it to you that your college’s administration protects free speech on campus?

  3% Not at all clear

19% Not very clear

50% Somewhat clear

23% Very clear

6% Extremely clear

If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how likely is it that your college’s administration would defend the speaker's right to express their views?

  6% Not at all likely

19% Not very likely

43% Somewhat likely

26% Very likely

  6% Extremely likely

How familiar are you with Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan’s recent visit to Stanford’s campus?

36% Not at all familiar

22% Slightly familiar

25% Somewhat familiar

16% Very familiar

If “not at all familiar” was selected on the previous question, students were presented with the following description of the incident:

On March 9, 2023 the Stanford Law School Federalist Society attempted to host a discussion with Judge Kyle Duncan from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on the topic of “Covid, Guns, and Twitter.” For the duration of the event, students persistently heckled Duncan, preventing him from delivering his prepared remarks. A little over 10 minutes into the event, after help from an administrator was requested, Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach came to the front of the room and, under the pretext of quieting the protestors, delivered prepared remarks. Following, Duncan, being unable to finish his speech, turned directly to Question and Answer time. A handful of questions were asked while the heckling continued. Finally, flustered and unable to continue, the event concluded and Duncan was escorted out by Federal Marshals who said they were there to protect him.

How well, if at all, do the following statements DESCRIBE YOUR FEELINGS about Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford?

Stanford’s administration should have canceled Judge Duncan’s speech.

46% Does not describe my feelings at all

22% Describes my feelings slightly well

16% Describes my feelings somewhat well

  9% Describes my feelings very well

  7% Completely describes my feelings

Stanford’s administration was correct to suspend Dean Steinbach.

40% Does not describe my feelings at all

22% Describes my feelings slightly well

21% Describes my feelings somewhat well

  7% Describes my feelings very well

  9% Completely describes my feelings

Judge Duncan’s talk should have been moved to an off-campus location.

44% Does not describe my feelings at all

20% Describes my feelings slightly well

17% Describes my feelings somewhat well

12% Describes my feelings very well

  7% Completely describes my feelings

Stanford's administration should have punished the students who disrupted Judge Duncan's speech.

52% Does not describe my feelings at all

19% Describes my feelings slightly well

15% Describes my feelings somewhat well

  6% Describes my feelings very well

  8% Completely describes my feelings

Stanford’s administration was wrong to apologize to Judge Duncan.

35% Does not describe my feelings at all

20% Describes my feelings slightly well

22% Describes my feelings somewhat well

12% Describes my feelings very well

11% Completely describes my feelings

Stanford failed to uphold its commitment to free speech during Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford.

26% Does not describe my feelings at all

26% Describes my feelings slightly well

24% Describes my feelings somewhat well

15% Describes my feelings very well

  9% Completely describes my feelings

How COMFORTABLE or UNCOMFORTABLE do you feel expressing your views on Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford during an in-class discussion?

12% Very uncomfortable

37% Somewhat uncomfortable

36% Somewhat comfortable

15% Very comfortable

How COMFORTABLE or UNCOMFORTABLE do you feel expressing your views on Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford to other students during a discussion in a common campus space such as a quad, dining hall, or lounge?

15% Very uncomfortable

35% Somewhat uncomfortable

30% Somewhat comfortable

20% Very comfortable

 

How COMFORTABLE or UNCOMFORTABLE do you feel expressing your views on Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford to your fellow students on a social media account tied to your name?

34% Very uncomfortable

36% Somewhat uncomfortable

22% Somewhat comfortable

  7% Very comfortable

How often, if at all, do you think other students on campus would actively discriminate against you on the basis of your political beliefs?

13% Never

34% Rarely

30% Occasionally

12% Fairly often, a couple times a week

11% Very often, nearly every day

How often, if at all, do you think faculty on campus would actively discriminate against you on the basis of your political beliefs?

18% Never

38% Rarely

31% Occasionally

  7% Fairly often, a couple times a week

  7% Very often, nearly every day

How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker?

Shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.

  8% Always acceptable

37% Sometimes acceptable

30% Rarely acceptable

25% Never acceptable

Blocking other students from attending a campus speech.

  3% Always acceptable

21% Sometimes acceptable

38% Rarely acceptable

38% Never acceptable

Using physical violence to stop a campus speech.

  2% Always acceptable

12% Sometimes acceptable

22% Rarely acceptable

64% Never acceptable

Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who has previously expressed the following idea?

Note: All students were asked about a speaker who previously said “same-sex marriage should be illegal” and then were randomly presented with three other controversial speakers.

Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. (Answered by all 531 students)

31% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

30% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

27% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

12% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

Biological differences help explain gender differences. (Answered by 243 students)

12% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

30% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

37% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

22% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

Women who have an abortion should be prosecuted for murder. (Answered by 288 students)

41% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

29% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

20% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

10% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

Organized religion is a sexist, misogynistic institution. (Answered by 273 students)

10% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

23% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

46% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

21% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

It’s okay for a transgender woman to compete in women’s sports. (Answered by 258 students)

  5% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

13% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

43% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

39% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

Parents have no role in directing the education of their children. (Answered by 187 students)

  6% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

25% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

49% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

21% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

The Holocaust is a myth, it never happened. (Answered by 164 students)

65% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

19% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

13% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

  3% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

The federal government should confiscate all guns. (Answered by 180 students)

  2% Definitely should not allow this speaker on campus

26% Probably should not allow this speaker on campus

44% Probably should allow this speaker on campus

28% Definitely should allow this speaker on campus

Using the following scale, how would you describe your political beliefs?

20% Very liberal

30% Somewhat liberal

11% Slightly liberal

  9% Moderate, middle-of-the-road

  7% Slightly conservative

  7% Somewhat conservative

  3% Very conservative

  9% I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative

  4% Haven’t thought much about this

Methodology

The sample consists of 413 undergraduate students, 90 graduate students, and 28 students of unknown status — for a total of 531 students. The overall margin of error for this survey was +/- 4%. 

The sample was drawn from College Pulse’s American College Student Panel™, which includes more than 750,000 verified undergraduate students and recent alumni from schools within a range of more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and universities in all 50 states. Panel members were recruited by a number of methods to help ensure student diversity in the panel population. These methods include web advertising, permission-based email campaigns, and partnerships with university-affiliated organizations. To ensure the overall panel reflects the diverse backgrounds and experiences of the American college population, College Pulse recruited panelists from a wide variety of institutions. The panel includes students attending large public universities, small private colleges, online universities, historically Black colleges, women’s colleges, and religiously affiliated colleges. 

College Pulse uses a two-stage validation process to ensure that all its surveys include only students currently enrolled in two- or four-year colleges or universities. FIREare required to provide an “.edu” email address to join the panel and, for this survey, had to acknowledge that they are currently enrolled full-time in a four-year degree program or a graduate level program. All invitations to complete surveys were sent to the student’s “.edu” email address or through a notification in the College Pulse app, available on iOS and Android platforms. 

College Pulse applies a post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions from multiple data sources, including the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The post-stratification weight rebalances the sample based on a number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables. Weights are trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results. 

The use of these weights in statistical analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the target populations. Even with these adjustments, surveys may be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context, and order effects. For further information, please see: .

College Pulse calculated two weights for the statistical analysis of the present survey: a weight based on the demographic information provided by Stanford to IPEDS and a weight that also accounted for whether the respondent was an undergraduate or graduate student. 

Endnotes

[1] Knight Foundation/IPSOS (2023). College student views on free expression and campus speech 2022. The Knight Foundation. Available online: https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/KFX_College_2022.pdf; Zhou, S & Barbaro, N. (2023). Understanding campus expression across higher ed: Heterodox Academy’s annual Campus Expression Survey. Heterodox Academy. Available online: https://heterodoxacademy.org/reports/2022-campus-expression-survey-report/;  Zhou S. & Zhou, S. (2022). Understanding the campus expression climate: A research report from 2019, 2020, and 2021. Heterodox Academy. Available online:  

[2] Stevens, S.T. (2023).  2024 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The ��֭����. /research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings 

[3] Gibson, J. (2006). Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer’s Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties. Perspectives on Politics, 4, 21–34; Stouffer, S. A. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties: A cross-section of the nation speaks its mind. Transaction Publishers; Sullivan, J. L.; Piereson, J.; & Marcus, G. E. (1979). An alternative conceptualization of political tolerance: Illusory increases 1950s–1970s. American Political Science Review, 73, 781–794; Sullivan, J. L.; Piereson, J.; & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political Tolerance and American Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 

[4] All 531 students were asked about a speaker who had previously expressed that “Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.” This was done because one of Judge Duncan’s judicial decisions that was cited by those opposed to his appearance on campus argued for this position. FIREwere also randomly presented with three of the other seven speakers.  

[5] A total of 284 Stanford students were surveyed in the 2024 rankings survey. Of these 284 students, 78 of them took the survey on March 9, 2023 or earlier (71 once the weighting variable was applied) and 206 of them took the survey March 10, 2023 or later (213 once the weighting variable was applied). 

[6] This next series of questions asks you about self-censorship in different settings. For the purpose of these questions, self-censorship is defined as follows:

Refraining from sharing certain views because you fear social (e.g., exclusion from social events), professional (e.g., losing job or promotion), legal (e.g., prosecution or fine), or violent (e.g., assault) consequences, whether in person or remotely (e.g., by phone or online), and whether the consequences come from state or non-state sources.

[7] All analyses in this section that compare liberal and conservative Stanford students were based on students who participated in the College Free Speech Rankings survey this year before or after the Judge Duncan incident. They are based on the following sample sizes: Liberal, Pre-Duncan = 42; Liberal, Post-Duncan = 151; Conservative, Pre-Duncan = 13; Conservative, Post-Duncan = 29. Only two moderates took the survey before the Judge Duncan incident, precluding any before and after comparisons among students in this group. 

[8] The percentage of conservative students saying they were “worried a lot” about damaging their reputation also doubled, from 4% to 8%. 

[9] Letter from Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez to the campus community, March 22, 2023. Available online: /research-learn/letter-stanford-law-school-dean-jenny-martinez-campus-community-march-22-2023; Barnes, T. & Willis, J. (March 22, 2023). Stanford Law School dean makes powerful commitment to free expression after shout-down controversy. The ��֭����. Available online: /news/stanford-law-school-dean-makes-powerful-commitment-free-expression-after-shout-down 

[10] Moody, J. (July 21, 2023). Dean at center of Stanford Law controversy resigns. Inside Higher Ed. Available online:  

[11] Aidala, A. (February 21, 2023). Matt Walsh: A dangerous presence on campus. Available online: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/02/21/from-the-community-matt-walsh-a-dangerous-presence-on-campus/; Chen, C. & Cu, M.A. (March 3, 2023). Despite controversy, no protests materialize for Matt Walsh’s visit. Available online:  

[12] Yang, A. & Chen, C. (January 26, 2024). Jewish protester disrupts Saller, Martinez panel on antisemitism. The Stanford Daily. Available online: https://stanforddaily.com/2024/01/26/protestors-disrupt-saller-martinez-panel-on-antisemitism/?utm_campaign=digest&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailchimp&utm_content=Jan-26-2024