Stanford University is under scrutiny for its approach to required writing courses that veer into social issues rather than focusing on essential communication skills. Critics are highlighting a curriculum that includes anti-ICE perspectives, racial identity topics, and even references to all-male drag performances. This shift raises questions about the educational motives and priorities within one of America’s most respected institutions.
One such course, “Language, Identity, and Power,” asks students to analyze the connections among politics, education, and media in the context of globalization and immigration. While the intent may be to explore important societal issues, critics argue that this brand of discourse distracts from fundamental academic skills. The university claims the course aims to teach critical thinking and engagement, but skepticism abounds regarding the effectiveness of these methods in adequately preparing students for their future careers.
Another course titled “Our Future is Each Other: Collaborative Rhetorics” features an essay on the Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo, an all-male drag troupe. The promotion of this course implies that exploring diverse cultural practices is valued over traditional rhetoric. However, such themes can be viewed as fostering a routine of social experimentation rather than serious academic inquiry.
Education watchdog Defending Education emphasizes these concerns. Sarah Parshall Perry notes that the focus on identity politics represents a troubling trend in higher education. She states, “It seems Stanford is joining many of its sister Ivies in taking the dumb way out: swapping rigorous pedagogy for social experimentation.” This sentiment reflects a growing frustration with educational institutions that seem to prioritize social narratives over rigorous learning.
In addition, the course “The Rhetoric of Bearing Witness” addresses sensitive subjects like the murder of George Floyd and the implications of ICE raids. While raising awareness about these issues may have its merits, critics assert that the emphasis on storytelling over technical writing skills detracts from students’ ability to communicate effectively in diverse settings.
Reagan Dugan from Defending Education voiced her discontent clearly: “Stanford’s insistence on prioritizing race, sexuality, and other nonsense over the nuts and bolts of communication in their Writing and Rhetoric requirements only serves to harm their students.” She argues that the university is doing its students a disservice by neglecting foundational writing and speaking skills in favor of trendy social subjects.
The mixed reaction to these course offerings indicates a divide in educational philosophy. Supporters of the current approach may argue for the relevance of these classes in today’s societal climate, while detractors see them as a degradation of rigorous academic standards. Stanford, as a pillar of higher education, carries the responsibility of guiding students through critical thinking and persuasive skills—qualities that are increasingly necessary in a world filled with competing narratives and complex issues.
Despite attempts to engage with various topics, the fundamental question remains: Are these courses preparing students for the real challenges they will face after graduation? Observers are left to wonder if, in pursuing these progressive narratives, Stanford has lost sight of a comprehensive educational vision that prioritizes effective communication and critical analysis above all.
"*" indicates required fields
