Table of Contents
Stanford has changed dramatically since my freshman fall. Then, back in 2021, students donned masks to go to class (and the dining halls). Students, recovering from lockdowns, were re-integrating into and rebuilding social life on campus. Covid restrictions forced the Review to hold its meetings outdoors.
With the resumption of “normal life” came renewed social pressures—and the desire to fit into the new social order. Self-censorship reigned supreme. It was deeply unpopular to be contrarian, much less conservative. The Economist reports that woke-ism peaked my freshman year.
When I first started attending Review meetings, indulging my curiosity about the ‘other side,’ I felt compelled to hide that fact from my peers.
Old Union 215 (we meet inside now) is filled to the brim during the Review’s weekly meetings. We often run out of chairs. Though I have some nostalgia for the days of vigorous debate on campus my parents reminisce about, I am heartened to note that student interest in contrarian ideas and debate itself is on the rise.
Perhaps for the first time in the Review’s history, being conservative is no longer exclusively contrarian. Gen Z is poised to become the most conservative generation since the Baby Boomers. Legacy media admits, albeit pejoratively, that it is cool to be conservative. The trend is evident in high freshmen attendance at Review meetings; among their cohort, I hear that conservatism is in vogue.
Even the “No Justice, No Peace” banner was removed from Green Library.
The total breakdown and malaise of the left—evidenced by the lack of protests on campus after Trump’s November victory—means that opposition is scarce. I anticipated campus-wide chaos after Trump’s election; I was wrong.
One of my favorite articles published this volume wrestled with the idea that conservatives get the best of a college education because we always have to defend our ideas. This advantage is at risk, both because vocal leftism is declining on campus and because the right is increasingly popular.
The Review, by design, is both a contrarian and a conservative newspaper. Neither identity can be compromised for the other. To be contrarian requires challenging the party line rather than echoing it mindlessly. Yet, being contrarian without conservative principles would leave the Review intellectually empty, idolizing the jester rather than the thinker.
Open debate should be celebrated and ideas win not because they are popular but because they are correct. That is the essence of the Review. As such, the Review is a bulwark against the intellectual weakening of the right.
In my first Editor’s Note, I wrote that, more than anything, “the Review will be steadfast in its defense of intellectual freedom.” Even though the culture has changed, the Review’s central values will not, holding onto our curiosity, perseverance, and love for debate.
***
I owe tremendous thanks to the Volume LXIX Review staffers, who have built a community defined by excellence, curiosity, and courage. This volume would not be possible without your hard work and your friendship. I also want to extend my thanks to my Review friends and mentors that I have had the pleasure to know, learn from, and work with. An organization is its history, its people, and its output. I am quite proud of all three.
Most of all, I want to extend thanks to my friend and successor, Abhi Desai. Abhi has excelled as an executive editor, and I have full confidence he will be an equally outstanding leader of the Review in its 70th volume.
As graduation approaches, I’ve reflected extensively on my Stanford experience. The Review has been a true highlight of my time on The Farm, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.
Julia Steinberg
Editor-in-Chief, Stanford Review Volume LXIX
If you want to support the Review, you can subscribe to our free mailing list or make a donation. Email eic@stanfordreview.org with any questions.
