Table of Contents
Over 2024, liberal beliefs on free expression on college campuses have radically shifted. Articles on the importance of free discourse and engagement with opposing ideas on elite college campuses have been published by status quo publications such as The Atlantic and The Harvard Crimson, a far cry from the groupthink which predominated among elite institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the George Floyd protests. As free speech and institutional neutrality have made a comeback at schools like Stanford and UChicago, liberals are beginning to observe the drawbacks of groupthink on intellectual rigor. Thus, due to being intellectually and socially challenged, conservative Ivy Plus students derive more value from a liberal education than their left-wing peers.
A recent piece from Publius, Yale’s anonymous opinion publication, argued that conservative students at elite universities derive more value from a liberal education than their left-wing peers because they are often intellectually and socially challenged. Presumably, the liberal editorial board at Publius is envious of conservative students’ ability to articulate and defend their ideas in a hostile environment, where 4/5th of their peers and virtually all of their faculty support Democratic candidates. Yale is infamous for its left-wing atmosphere, with even an email about Halloween costumes triggering massive student protests. Even in its attempt to create a politically tolerant atmosphere through its article, Publius failed to platform conservative voices within it, further demonstrating the sidelining of heterodox thought.
Publius’ piece underscores the importance of intellectual diversity and the ability to have open discourse at elite universities. As Publius stated, even America’s top students can easily regurgitate slogans like “healthcare is a human right” without much thought or justification. Conservatives enjoy no such luxury. When our speakers are regularly shouted down and our opinions shunned in class and social circles, we must develop strong reasons for holding inconvenient opinions.
Harvard, however, represents another approach to conservative intellectual life on elite campuses. The rise of quasi-secretive spaces at Harvard such as the John Adams Society, Abigail Adams Institute, and The Salient reflects some conservatives' efforts to revive the Western canon and inject contemporary conservatism with intellectual substance. Yet, these spaces often operate in the shadows, largely limiting their engagement with the broader campus community and, arguably, diminishing their intellectual rigor. As The Crimson editorialized, “Conservatism, like any ideology, grows dull the less it is challenged.”
By retreating into insular communities, Harvard’s conservatives risk perpetuating the very groupthink they seek to challenge. This is exacerbated by the fact that The Salient operates anonymously, with its contributors afraid to align themselves with conservative thought publicly. This anonymity does nothing to dampen the hostile environment conservatives face at Harvard, where openly expressing dissenting views is often met with personal and professional risk.
Stanford’s students and administration have long perpetuated the same cultural hegemony, which treats liberalism as the entirely acceptable Overton Window of worldviews. Our Democracy Day events are prime evidence of this, with no conservative voices being featured, as is the continued presence of the “No Justice, No Peace” sign outside of Green Library.
While Stanford still has much to work on, we believe the school offers some reprise for conservative students compared to the Ivies. Our new president, Jon Levin, has committed to preserving institutional neutrality and empowering dissenting views. Compared to other elite institutions, the Israel-Palestine protests here have been far less volatile, and the school has reaffirmed the importance of free speech after embarrassing incidents such as the administration-supported shutdown of Judge Kyle Duncan at the law school.
Thus, it should be no surprise that a new vanguard of America’s conservative leaders has emerged from the ideological depths of America’s most liberal colleges. At Yale, classmates J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy have become overnight icons of the conservative movement, and both are known for their distinctive political outlooks shaped by their time in New Haven. Similarly, Stanford has produced Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, Donald Trump’s crypto and AI czar David Sacks, and Arizona politician Blake Masters.
As conservative students at Stanford, we find ourselves at a unique juncture. While significant barriers remain open to conservative discourse, recent victories—such as administrative changes and ongoing efforts to counter liberal hegemony—offer an opportunity to move forward.
Unlike at Harvard, where groups like The Salient feel compelled to remain anonymous, Stanford conservatives benefit from a more apolitical and tech-focused social environment. We can and should use this moment to speak openly and confidently about their beliefs. We should take advantage of our platform and engage with others, even those who disagree, to foster intellectual diversity and challenge the dominance of groupthink. By embracing dialogue and contributing to the broader campus discourse, we not only strengthen our arguments but also contribute to the restoration of true academic freedom and intellectual rigor.
