I appreciate your position, and agree with Dean Steinbach when she said: "We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people—that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you."

In my own legal career, I have made a point to defend free speech, even when I may not agree with it. See, e.g., Slauson Partnership v. Ochoa (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1021, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 668. But too often, as here, the original issues which should have been debated become lost.

I also wanted to point out to you a bit of Stanford history, what has been termed Stanford’s “first academic freedom controversy.” Lucile Eaves, one of the first women admitted to Stanford, was fired as a professor by Jane Stanford herself, for expressing both pro-labor and anti-Chinese views. (Ironically, my own alma-mater recently dropped the name "Boalt" because of those same anti-Chinese views of its namesake). There is no defense for Eaves' racism, but it must be explored, rather than silenced. So at Stanford today - I agree with you that we need more, not less, speech.

https://medium.com/the-shadow/the-paradox-of-lucile-eaves-5e59b825608b