“The Buckley conference encouraged students to consider what it means to be challenged—consider what it means to get the most out of their Yale education. Should students take action, speaker after speaker pointed to a promising future: one where ideological friction in the classroom actually makes students sharper. A future where embracing the free speech principles laid out in the Woodward Report will give students an edge in life and, in turn, make Yale degrees more valuable.”
Fiona Bultonsheen
Staff Writer, The Beacon
In December of 1974, a group of free speech advocates and administrators at Yale put together the Woodward Report, which contains lines that 81% of the student body support, according to the Buckley Insitute annual survey on free speech: “the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” Some of the original authors returned to Yale for the Buckley Institute’s Annual Conference on November 8th commemorating the report’s 50-year milestone; while they admitted Yale is a far cry from what they had hoped in the decades since the report, they pointed to a path forward with a normative question: How should students shape their education for maximum growth? They suggested that by embracing the principles of the Woodward Report, students can multiply the value of their Yale education, enabling them to be more prepared for the wider world.
While the report was intended to provide a playbook for university administration, former secretary of Yale, Henry “Sam” Chauncey, Jr., noted that “the problem [now] is the university doesn’t understand itself. Universities have lost what their goals are – [for students] to get a good job, or to learn to think clearly?” Chauncey held the office of secretary of Yale when the Woodward report was drafted, a time when the Vietnam War raged and odious speaker requests coupled with tense race relations led to frequent uproars on campus. Contrasting the campus milieu of the 70s to today, Chauncey believes the report is more important than ever. More than a decades-old document, the Woodward Report defends something Yale students should care about: the free exchange of ideas.
Speakers in subsequent sessions reaffirmed a resounding need to restructure Yale’s free speech climate, highlighting the benefits of adding dynamism to an otherwise monolithic echo chamber. Vivek Ramaswamy in his keynote speech likened this dynamic to that of sheep and lions: those who blindly follow the status quo and those who dare to challenge it. He claimed that progress on this front can supercharge Yale’s intellectual vigor and give students an advantage post-graduation.
If a supermajority of faculty and student body hold the same ideological stance, is Yale still a beacon of liberal arts education? Panelist Steven Benner, one of two undergraduate signatories to the Woodward Report, thinks not. Self-censorship, cancel culture, and quick dismissal of conservative narratives present today are symptoms of a larger issue: a lack of civil discourse with contrarians. Benner stated that during their time at Yale, students should “take the dialectic—take the exact opposite position [of what they believe] and defend it.” Students should wrestle with the tension of differing viewpoints and give credence and merit to those who disagree, establishing habits that will pay dividends long after Yale.
In a subsequent talk, panelist Charles C. W. Cooke, senior editor for National Review, supported Benner’s point. Cooke shared how being challenged and falling short in a debate provided a tremendous opportunity to grow. He said, “I needed to go and think through my positions and learn why I couldn’t persuade him and even persuade myself. Losing an argument is a beneficial thing! That’s how you learn.” Without environments for truth-seeking, investigative excellence suffers.
In a panel on Yale’s free speech crisis, one speaker, Professor Nicholas Christakis, argued that Yale’s reputation is on the line. “Yale is falling nationally in rankings year after year. We cannot just rely on our legacy,” he said. Perhaps he is right, and the decline is worth pondering; perhaps students will be more equipped to handle the ideological spectrum found in society if that diversity is better reflected in the Yale bubble.
Robert Doar of the American Enterprise Institute argued that the great universities need to undergo reform to reevaluate the qualities sought after in a candidate for admission. “It’s not because all the conservatives aren’t smart enough,” he said; market factors are in play such that increasing the demand for divergent thinkers will meet supply. In a country where Ivy League students are considered ideologically sheltered and out of touch with half the country, he argued, Yale can regain credence by welcoming honest engagement with what are now considered “undesirable” viewpoints on campus.
Keynote speaker Vivek Ramaswamy shared his thoughts on how he benefitted from his time at Yale: engaging in difficult conversations and defending beliefs amidst contestation reaps rewards. The visit to his alma mater took place just days after the 2024 election and days before being nominated as co-director of the Department of Government Efficiency.
“The fact that I was challenged more allowed me to get more of my money’s worth out of the education. And 1% of the time, you can change your mind, and 99% of the time, you come out with a deeper understanding of why you believe what you do,” Ramaswamy said.
The Buckley conference encouraged students to consider what it means to be challenged—consider what it means to get the most out of their Yale education. Should students take action, speaker after speaker pointed to a promising future: one where ideological friction in the classroom actually makes students sharper. A future where embracing the free speech principles laid out in the Woodward Report will give students an edge in life and, in turn, make Yale degrees more valuable.