Editorial Board – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:27:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Editorial Board – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Editorial Board | What is an education without honesty? https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/14/editorial-board-what-is-an-education-without-honesty/ https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/14/editorial-board-what-is-an-education-without-honesty/#respond Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:00:36 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1244761 "It’s time for us to confront the obvious: The long-standing Honor Code, Stanford’s institutional mechanism to combat academic dishonesty, has failed," writes The Daily's Editorial Board.

The post Editorial Board | What is an education without honesty? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Cheating at Stanford has become rampant in recent years. After seemingly every CS 106A exam and major assignment, students flood Fizz with posts asking how effective the CS department’s plagiarism detector is and whether they will get caught for receiving inappropriate help. Students circulate completed problem sets to copy and submit as their own work without giving credit.

It’s time for us to confront the obvious: The long-standing Honor Code, Stanford’s institutional mechanism to combat academic dishonesty, has failed. 

The Editorial Board believes that the Faculty Senate’s reinstatement of in-person proctoring is a positive step. However, proctoring alone does not address the bulk of the problem. 

The Vice Provost of Student Affairs established the Committee of 12 or “C-12” in 2022 to address the proliferation of academic dishonesty. C-12-led focus groups with students uncovered informal confessions about academic dishonesty on assignments beyond exams. Students told the committee that many violations, like plagiarism and unpermitted aid, such as unapproved cheat sheets or using the Internet — persist at Stanford.

Faculty hold the unique power to restructure courses to alleviate cheating. Upholding academic integrity is a shared responsibility between students and faculty members. Our recommendations allow faculty members to respond to cheating enabled by new technologies. 

To understand why this burden falls on faculty, we must consider how the Honor Code and student behavior have evolved. 

How did we get here? 

The Honor Code was established in 1921 and maintained its stance on proctoring until 2023. Prior to 2023, it compelled faculty to create “confidence in the honor of its students by refraining from proctoring examinations.” In turn, students assumed the responsibility to monitor and report violations by their peers. 

Students, however, have failed their side of the bargain. Out of the 720 total Honor Code violations reported between 2018-2021, only two came from students. In the past three years Honor Code violations have increased: 136 in 2018-19, 191 in 2019-20, and 393 in 2020-21. 

Largely in response to this trend, the C-12 proposed changes to the Honor Code last May to allow in-person proctoring, reversing a longstanding norm. These changes triggered a torrent of student dismay and anger. 

It is clear to us, a year after the Faculty Senate’s decision, that the proctoring policy would simply put a bandage over one wound, while more nebulous, common forms of cheating fester.

Why has cheating become such a widespread issue at Stanford? 

Certainly, there are substantial incentives to cheat; one factor is post-graduation opportunities. Whether it be graduate school or an interview at McKinsey, each seems to sport a daunting GPA cutoff, and students may feel tempted to use any means to keep those doors open — a pressure acknowledged by the C-12. 

When cheating becomes a widespread campus norm, the stigma attached to academic dishonesty erodes. Cheating becomes viewed as acceptable — or even necessary — to achieve success amid students who also cheat to stay afloat. Students may assume when exam scores are curved up, they are disadvantaged when they don’t cheat.

Furthermore, grade inflation contributes to an environment where an A is the expectation, and less is failure. 

An A should mark exceptional achievement in a course. In an academic climate where Bs are commonplace, perhaps a poor grade on one test would feel less like an outcome so bad that you should risk academic integrity to prevent it. 

The unrelenting pace in the quarter system also contributes: Seemingly never-ending midterms span weeks three to nine and the pressure to cram for several final exams and papers induce the temptation to cheat.

Stanford’s academic environment has transformed into a pressure cooker, exacerbated by technological change the University has precipitated. In our view, this enabling climate, rather than some generational increase in dishonesty, is responsible for much of Stanford’s current cheating problem. Students under pressure will cheat if given the chance, and that chance has exponentiated with the internet, ChatGPT, and workarounds to plagiarism detectors. Technologies outpace detection in many contexts, with some efforts even leading to false accusations.

How can we move forward?

The new environment around academic dishonesty needs intervention beyond codified rules, it necessitates a reimagined approach to exams, assignments, and their evaluation. In addition to proctoring exams, we recommend that faculty implement the following changes:

1) Phase out take-home examinations, especially ones graded solely on correctness, in favor of in-person exams and papers.

2) Allow for cited collaboration on homework — it happens anyway. 

3) Eliminate “reflection” assignments to assess attendance or completion of readings, as they’re easily completed by ChatGPT. If instructors believe reflection is crucial, it is most effective to evaluate through discussion sections, argumentative assignments requiring original thought or in-class assessments.

4) Emphasize why academic honesty is important, not only to avoid disciplinary action, but to realize academic learning goals. A speech from instructors early in the quarter, particularly in introductory courses, would reaffirm normative goals underlying policies designed to uphold academic honesty.

Academic dishonesty is a structural problem at Stanford, driven by new technologies and student culture. Changes that do not address this reality will fail to solve the problem.

If the honor code has broken down, it is because the trust between faculty and students has broken down. While we believe students are wrong to oppose the proctoring changes, we understand that the withdrawal of trust hurts. But faculty are justified in their desire to respond.

Academic dishonesty is immensely harmful — widespread cheating degrades the University’s purpose, community and institution. A widespread culture of cheating not only ruins the curve for honest students, but undermines a Stanford degree’s academic capital. 

We urge the faculty to seriously reimagine the responsibility to cultivate an environment supportive of academic integrity. There are no malicious professors in this regard — no one wants their students to cheat. 

We urge students to support faculty to create an academically honest classroom. Prioritizing shiny results over effort curtails students’ ability to gain a genuine education. The value of Stanford classes is the cumulative knowledge we obtain from them, not the collection of letter grades.

The post Editorial Board | What is an education without honesty? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/14/editorial-board-what-is-an-education-without-honesty/feed/ 0 1244761
Editorial Board | Picking a president: What really matters https://stanforddaily.com/2024/02/06/editorial-board-picking-a-president-what-really-matters/ https://stanforddaily.com/2024/02/06/editorial-board-picking-a-president-what-really-matters/#respond Tue, 06 Feb 2024 08:47:05 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1241851 "The immutable characteristics — gender, race, sexuality among others — of a president or candidate are often overstated by both the proponents and detractors of DEI," the Editorial Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | Picking a president: What really matters appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Stanford is on the hunt for a president. We’re not the only ones: Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania are also scrambling to find a new leader to replace a recently ousted president. 

We certainly do not envy the presidential search committee in this difficult task. University officials and their decision-making are subject to more external forces than ever, from alumni to donors to the broader public unleashing their critiques through the Internet. Specifically, the recent resignation of Harvard’s first Black president, Claudine Gay, has raised questions surrounding the role of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in the search for presidential candidates. But to examine these questions, we must first define what qualifies somebody to be the president of Stanford University. 

What is the purpose of a university president? 

To be frank, we think many Stanford students just want an uncontroversial president who will give both a decent convocation and commencement speech. However, the role of university president is critical in many additional aspects of university life, and unique from other University leadership roles. 

In brief, Stanford’s president represents our values and excellence as an institution. This person must inspire confidence in Stanford’s potential to maintain relationships with, and solicit generous donations from, organizations, alumni and donors. In addition, they should work to advance the long-term progress and knowledge-seeking mission of our university.

Conversely, some factors that may appear to be within the purview of the university president are in fact the responsibility of other administrators. The Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and other administrators directly manage student life, and faculty and graduate students largely shape the education and research environment. 

What qualifies our president?

To that end, there are only a few strictly necessary qualifications for our future president:

  1. Strong research background and academic credentials, including significant leadership of a large organization and personal experience in generating and/or advancing knowledge within an institution.
  2. Commitment to Stanford’s mission — which includes educating students for lives of leadership, advancing fundamental knowledge, cultivating creativity, leading research and accelerating solutions — through teaching or administrative leadership.
  3. Integrity, empathy, self-awareness and a willingness to listen and collaborate with various stakeholders. This includes advocacy for academic freedom and free speech within the context of a diverse institution in which its members may sometimes hold conflicting opinions. 

What do we want from a president?

To return to the discourse around DEI, being uncontroversial does not mean that the president must continue Stanford’s trend of being a white man, simply out of concern that a “minority” (including a woman) president would create discontent among anti-DEI advocates.

Of course anyone’s identity shapes their life experience, and therefore how they develop as a leader. But while a candidate’s leadership skills and qualities may be rooted in their personal background, these qualities can and should be evaluated independently from the candidate’s immutable characteristics. 

The immutable characteristics — gender, race, sexuality among others — of a president or candidate are often overstated by both the proponents and detractors of DEI. For example, when President Joe Biden stated during his campaign that he would nominate a Black woman for the Supreme Court if given the opportunity, his words stirred up debate about the approach of deciding certain desirable immutable traits before officially beginning the selection process for an influential position. People on Biden’s shortlist and eventual Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson were unfairly and harshly judged as underqualified (through no fault of their own), and discourse around the nomination became clouded. While Stanford has not made any similar public commitments, the treatment of Justice Brown Jackson exemplifies the trend wherein candidates’ significant, laudable achievements are overshadowed by discussions about identity. In reality, there are dozens of distinguished academics from minority backgrounds who are well-qualified by their merit alone to lead Stanford, just as there are dozens from non-minority backgrounds. We are asking for the presidential candidate pool to be broad, and for the bar — outlined by the three criteria above — to be high and immovable.

While we don’t believe that the future president of Stanford ought to “belong to” or “represent” any certain groups, we also believe that it is important regardless of the president’s own identity that our university environment champions a diverse student body. A commitment to a diverse campus is independent of any political movements; it is simply necessary given the realities of our highly diverse country and globalized world economy.

While representation is meaningful for many, it is not possible to make all stakeholders happy, and we should not place such a heavy burden on the Presidential Search Committee. If some Stanford community members are hoping that the Committee will choose a President who will make everyone’s identity feel represented, they may be holding the Committee to an impossibly high standard. 

Amid the noise

Stanford University’s Presidential Selection Process must pursue a balanced, nuanced approach when tackling the multidimensionality of hiring a new President. At a school whose motto is “The Wind of Freedom Blows,” the freedom of an individual, or Presidential candidate to express or maintain their cultural identity, ought not to waiver in the face of external pressure.

When a group of people have the opportunity to appoint someone to a powerful position, we believe that it is unwise to definitively settle on a narrow list of immutable characteristics as criteria before the selection process even begins in earnest. This cuts both ways across the current political foment over DEI.

Amid so much noise, the presidential search committee ought to focus on what is most important: our university principles of academic excellence and integrity, and a record of great leadership. A misplaced emphasis on the demographics of our president can distract from these core qualities and the objective evaluation of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. Only when we resist the fringe voices, who would boil this complex decision down to discrimination one way or another, can we truly make the best decision for Stanford.

The post Editorial Board | Picking a president: What really matters appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2024/02/06/editorial-board-picking-a-president-what-really-matters/feed/ 0 1241851
Editorial Board | Giving thanks at Stanford https://stanforddaily.com/2023/11/24/editorial-board-giving-thanks-at-stanford/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/11/24/editorial-board-giving-thanks-at-stanford/#respond Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:31:56 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1238073 This Thanksgiving, the Editorial Board suggests that Stanford students should reflect on and appreciate the work of service workers on campus. "Rather than focusing on the chaos of Wilbur’s long dinner lines or missing silverware, we ought to rally around what we do have and what we can be thankful for," the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | Giving thanks at Stanford appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I have three midterms this week. I slept two hours last night. Coffee doesn’t do anything for me anymore. We’ve all heard these phrases repeated ad nauseam by Stanford students — ourselves included. None of us are strangers to packed days and sleepless nights. The 10-week sprint every quarter forces us to constantly reevaluate social, academic and personal priorities to maximize utility: Do I go to bed early, or hop on my computer and apply to another internship? Or, screw it! Should I go out with my friends to KSig? 

The productivist ethos — the notion that “staying busy” is a virtue — permeates Stanford’s culture and is often equated with success. We constantly strive to make the most of every minute of our college experience, shunning all things we deem “unproductive.” Carpe diem, or “seize the moment,” quickly spirals into “seize every second.” This ceaseless pursuit of productivity, however, makes us so consumed in our own routines and aspirations that we cease to recognize the vagaries of life around us. More importantly, we can cease to appreciate the people who facilitate our education. 

When we look around campus, there are many examples of students leaving a mess in public spaces, reflecting an expectation that someone else will take care of their problems. During the move-in and move-out periods at either end of the year, the hallways are flooded with cardboard boxes and other debris from packing, even though signs clearly show where to dispose of trash and recyclables. 

Students frequently leave dorm room garbage and dirty dishes outside their doors, waiting for somebody else — custodial staff, presumably — to come pick them up. The unsanitary use of dorm showers and toilets makes one wonder whether we live with adults or toddlers. Stories abound about chefs and cleaners quitting Row houses due to lack of appreciation and disrespect of communal spaces by students (including rumors that people would urinate on the floor of the kitchen during parties at one fraternity).

The individualism of productivist culture, combined with the self-absorption required to achieve career and academic success, too often manifests in self-centered behavior. Rather than taking 20 extra seconds to hold the door for a stranger, we focus on opening doors for ourselves. In aiming to improve our own condition, we have abandoned the central Stanford call of improving the condition of others. 

At a university with a student body so ostensibly concerned with public good and moral righteousness, we must ask ourselves whether we champion the true meaning of these terms as they exist before us. Thanking the person who washes our plates, saying hello to the person keeping our hallways clean — these interactions of essential meaning can feel awkward and trite in the dog-eat-dog, fast-moving stochasticism that can be Stanford.

These considerations of our collective student behavior are distinct from the University’s relationship with workers; these are important issues that should be separately addressed. It falls on the student body to be upstanding in showing the emotional appreciation, human respect and dignity that service workers at Stanford have historically failed to receive. Rather than focusing on the chaos of Wilbur’s long dinner lines or missing silverware, we ought to rally around what we do have and what we can be thankful for.

Certainly, student frustrations about the gap between the steep price tag of our living arrangements and its sometimes subpar realities are understandable. At the same time, they should not be taken out on the chefs, dish washers, cleaners, drivers, librarians and other dedicated individuals who provide some of our university’s most essential functions. Our attitude toward services at Stanford, from employees at Tresidder to transportation, needs to respect and acknowledge the human being behind each and every one of these services on this campus. In doing so, we move beyond the often cyclical, withdrawn exercise of calling out privilege among our peers and identify and address our own “look away” privilege of passivity

As many of us spend the break away from campus, it is worth reflecting on and acknowledging the work of our entire community: How much is done for us students to have comfortable and convenient lives here, and how lucky we are to be able to focus on our own success and academic achievement. In reality, some of the most positive impact that we are able to create in the world during our time here is in making other people’s lives better. That starts with gratitude.

The post Editorial Board | Giving thanks at Stanford appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/11/24/editorial-board-giving-thanks-at-stanford/feed/ 0 1238073
Editorial Board | Revive Stanford’s student publications https://stanforddaily.com/2023/11/13/editorial-board-revive-stanfords-student-publications/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/11/13/editorial-board-revive-stanfords-student-publications/#respond Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:04:34 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1236763 The Editorial Board revisits extinct student-run publications at Stanford and calls for the revival of Stanford's media landscape. "We want the whimsical, skeptical, curious spirit of Stanford to be enabled and elevated by our student-run publications, as they always have been," they write.

The post Editorial Board | Revive Stanford’s student publications appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Imagine it’s a sunny day at Stanford in 2018. You wake up and check your phone to see the latest FoHo newsletter drop in your email inbox — a Stanford medical student poisoned their classmates with formaldehyde?! At breakfast, you might pick up a copy of the Stanford Politics magazine in a dining hall and read its latest response to The Stanford Daily’s Editorial Board’s response to Stanford Politics’ critique of The Daily. Not to mention the Stanford Sphere’s or the Stanford Review’s commentary on the inter-newspaper drama. 

Today, only The Daily and the Review remain, leaving gaping holes in Stanford’s previously multifarious news media ecosystem. What happened to these publications, and what implications does their loss have on our community?

Once upon a time …

The Fountain Hopper (or FoHo as it was more commonly known) was an irreverent student-run tabloid whose anonymous newsletters were delivered directly to thousands of subscribers’ inboxes. It was the first publication to break the Brock Turner story and delivered great continuing coverage on the case and its aftermath at Stanford. FoHo also gained national attention for revealing how Stanford students could access their admissions files. Sadly, over COVID, its scoops dwindled, and today FoHo’s website no longer exists. 

FoHo occupied a unique place in our campus media landscape; without a high bar for fact-checking and sourcing, it could turn around breaking news before any facts were confirmed. These included stories about alleged crimes on campus, alleged misconduct by Stanford administrators and faculty and anecdotes about parties and student mischief. Although we don’t condone FoHo’s methods of uncovering and disseminating information, which revolved around anonymous and often unverified tips, we mourn the loss of such a widely-read media outlet. 

FoHo’s demise coincided with the rise of the social media app Fizz, an anonymous discussion forum app at Stanford and many other college campuses where anyone with a university email can post campus commentary, memes and odd requests. 

At first glance, it may seem like FoHo has been replaced by Fizz with its bulletin board-like discourse. However, Fizz lacks several defining features that lent FoHo its particular strength as a media outlet. Fizz is a free-for-all where any user can post any content without accountability. Without editors or writers who have a vested interest in maintaining and building the reputation of a breaking-news newsletter, Fizz seems to more closely resemble a campus-wide game of “telephone,” which can sometimes become a breeding ground for misinformation. In contrast, FoHo curated, chose and developed on the stories of most interest to the Stanford community to create its digests. 

FoHo is not the only student-run media outlet at Stanford that has ceased to exist. Most prominent among the rest was Stanford Politics, which was an invaluable source of high-quality, impactful investigations that sadly petered out in 2021. Their coverage was broad and unique in focus, ranging from an investigation into sorority life on campus to commentary on the Lebanese government to think-pieces on American criminal justice reform. Stanford Politics pieces were thoughtful, well-sourced and held to high standards, fostering deep investigations into Stanford issues and providing a platform for political discourse ranging beyond Stanford’s campus.

There was also the Stanford Sphere, a lesser-read but still rigorous publication whose left-wing editorials balanced out the Stanford Review’s conservative slant. The Review remains active and is today’s most prominent student publication after The Stanford Daily. Founded in 1987 by Peter Thiel and Norman Book, the Review’s primary output is op-eds, although it dabbles in news coverage and satire

Although the Review does not have as long of a history as The Daily nor match its publishing volume, the two papers play a critical role in facilitating campus discourse. The coexistence of the Review’s and The Daily’s Opinions sections allows for more spacious commentary on campus events. For instance, the two outlets have offered unique critiques on Hoover’s institutional decisions and policies.

The Review also provides perspectives that lack on-campus representation, such as its commentary on last Spring’s Judge Duncan controversy, where students continually interrupted a guest speaker. While none of The Daily’s writers opined about the issue, we applaud the Review’s timely position when other campus publications were quieter. We believe that the Review injects an integral dose of contrarianism into predominantly-liberal campus discourse — one that challenges students to question their existing beliefs and examine issues through a new lens. While we often differ from the conclusions and rhetoric of the Review, the Review’s contribution to the ideological diversity of Stanford’s media system deserves our recognition.

Paradise lost

Before COVID, the diversity of student-run media outlets dedicated to discovering stories created a healthy symbiotic relationship in our campus news ecosystem. FoHo curated the juiciest stories by parsing through hundreds of tips from on-the-ground sources, which The Daily would often investigate and publish with accurate facts and verifiable sources. Stanford Politics published long-term investigative projects and political commentary that went beyond the Stanford bubble. The Review and the Stanford Sphere filled out the spectrum of ideas and beliefs on campus, prompting open discourse and debate. This range of styles and competition for eyes kept more Stanford community members more informed, and constantly pushed publications to a higher standard of timeliness, engagement and impact.

Without a range of options for all reading appetites, many Stanford students have simply turned to Fizz for their news and entertainment, where there is little to no authority, trusted sources, accountability, nor the ability to follow up on stories or make corrections in a uniform and transparent way. 

What now?

The Stanford Daily, the Stanford Review and even Fizz can only write, report, analyze and elicit so much. Our reach and perspectives are limited. New outlets, forming a more vibrant Stanford press environment, will provide more forums of empowerment for all to participate in campus conversations. We want to see more different publications independently going after the truth, so that as a community we obtain better facts faster and avoid bias. We want to read an array of well-developed, accountable opinions across the political spectrum. We want to see publications in conversation, holding each other accountable and achieving greater heights of student journalism through competition. Most of all, we want the whimsical, skeptical, curious spirit of Stanford to be enabled and elevated by our student-run publications, as they always have been. We look forward to seeing the ghosts of publications past resurrected – or replaced.

The post Editorial Board | Revive Stanford’s student publications appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/11/13/editorial-board-revive-stanfords-student-publications/feed/ 0 1236763
Editorial Board | Keeping Stanford’s speech free https://stanforddaily.com/2023/10/29/editorial-board-keeping-stanfords-speech-free/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/10/29/editorial-board-keeping-stanfords-speech-free/#respond Mon, 30 Oct 2023 03:47:28 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1234147 The Editorial Board argues that the Stanford community must commit to allowing campus free speech within legal limits. “If we fail to do so, instead choosing to silence the voices of our opponents out of fear that their views will overwhelm ours, we will have lost all faith in our peers — and the future of our country,” the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | Keeping Stanford’s speech free appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Stanford is again in newspaper headlines. Most notably, The New York Times recently published a column titled “The War Comes to Stanford,” highlighting students’ speech, banners and chalk messages around campus. Other universities have been under as much, if not more, scrutiny. This is not a new phenomenon; college students’ reactions to current events have long stoked heated debate.

As a Board, we are grateful to attend university in a country with the greatest free speech protections in the world. That scope of freedom includes the expression of beliefs that we may consider immoral, inflammatory or even factually incorrect, all in the shared interest of our own speech not being silenced for these very reasons.

We are also fortunate to be under the leadership of President Saller and Provost Martinez, who have come out strongly in defense of free speech within both legal limits and Stanford community guidelines — despite strong opposition from some. The alternative to ban, condemn or censor such speech would make Stanford the arbiter of acceptable speech, which is not a position that any leading research institution should take.

Vindictive retaliation to students’ political expression can dampen free speech on college campuses. To be clear, we do not believe that college students deserve any sort of special pass to speak without facing the associated consequences. However, students should not receive threats to their safety on the basis of their opinions. 

We believe that being held accountable means that our views may — and should — be questioned and criticized. Our ideas may be lambasted; they may be called unacceptable and disgusting. But recent years have seen targeted efforts to punish students by exposing personal information such as their email and home address, opening the gateway for online harassment and physical danger. These include doxxing trucks parading the names and faces of college students who voiced strong opinions on geopolitical issues, Turning Point USA’s “Professor Watchlist” which includes undergraduate students, harassment of student journalists and doxxing campaigns against professors and alumni. 

Such attacks do not constitute engagement with someone’s ideas, but rather an attempt to humiliate and punish those who take staunch stances on social and political issues. It is these threats — especially when issued by those who wield the power to realize them — that chill speech, as students rightfully fear for their safety and future prospects.

As a college student in this environment, is it better to be silent or to test your ideas? Either choice seems unacceptable according to social media, yet at least silence carries less risk. But our country’s educational institutions should be incubators of ideas, which requires us to engage with a diversity of interpretations. Students should be free to challenge and contradict their peers’ views, and even their own. This is how we learn about the world with nuance, change our minds and reinforce our beliefs. 

Some may say that such a view is nice in theory, but dangerous when words hold so much power to stoke hatred. It is undeniable that the modern world exists in a continual war of information and the presentation of that information. We must each acknowledge the weight of that responsibility: that our words have the real ability to harm and misinform others. Incitement that is likely to produce violence is, of course, unacceptable.

Despite these risks, the alternative of a quiet campus is far worse. As the Supreme Court has held over the ages, we must preserve a free market of ideas so that the best ones may prevail through trial and scrutiny. If we fail to do so, instead choosing to silence the voices of our opponents out of fear that their views will overwhelm ours, we will have lost all faith in our peers — and the future of our country.

The Editorial Board consists of Opinion columnists, editors and members of the Stanford community. Its views represent the collective views of members of the Editorial Board.

The post Editorial Board | Keeping Stanford’s speech free appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/10/29/editorial-board-keeping-stanfords-speech-free/feed/ 0 1234147
Editorial Board | Don’t make Stanford the next Berkeley https://stanforddaily.com/2023/06/08/editorial-board-dont-make-stanford-the-next-berkeley/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/06/08/editorial-board-dont-make-stanford-the-next-berkeley/#respond Fri, 09 Jun 2023 03:27:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1230072 The Editorial Board argues that Stanford should reveal how race is currently factored into admissions, and lay out a roadmap of how the University would respond to a Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action. "If Stanford truly prioritizes giving students “the opportunity to learn from the wonderful diversity of identities, experiences, and perspectives that exist in the world”, then it should work in advance to transparently inform students and all who will be affected by this monumental ruling," the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | Don’t make Stanford the next Berkeley appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The future of racial diversity in higher education currently hangs in the balance. Like many legal experts, we expect that the Supreme Court will declare race-based affirmative action unconstitutional with their decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and, more pertinently for Stanford, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The decisions are expected in the coming weeks. 

Some experts believe these rulings won’t change the racial composition of colleges that practice holistic admissions. We disagree. Without preparation, we already know what the outcome of this decision may look like. The enrollment of Black and Latine students at UC Berkeley and UCLA dropped by around 50% following Proposition 209, a 1996 California law banning the consideration of race in state university admissions.

We resolutely support affirmative action. The policy remains crucial to advancing two critical goals: enhancing social mobility and unlocking the academic benefits that arise from a diverse student population. 

It is well-documented that Black and Latine children do not have access to the same educational resources as their white counterparts on average, putting them at a disadvantage in the college admissions process. In nearly every state in the country, Black and Latine students are more likely than white students to attend under-resourced schools and live in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Non-holistic college admissions criteria do not take these factors into account: a disparity that affirmative action attempts to redress.

Highly-selective colleges are the gateway to the elite in the U.S., producing leaders and high-earners in politics, law, medicine, engineering, business and the arts. Affirmative action therefore serves social mobility by propelling more historically marginalized students into the social and economic elite. Moreover, by increasing representation of marginalized voices in the elite, affirmative action ensures that the concerns and perspectives of marginalized groups are better represented in society at large. This, in turn, helps to break down the existing institutional barriers that prevent marginalized individuals from succeeding. 

Affirmative action also improves the educational experience for all students, not just for those who directly benefit. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the Supreme Court’s majority opinion that using race in admissions “further[s] a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Ensuring racial and cultural diversity at universities allows students to learn not just from their lectures, but from each other in and out of the classroom. By exposing students to a diverse range of viewpoints and lived experiences, universities prepare them to become responsible and well-qualified members of a cosmopolitan society. As a research university, Stanford also strongly benefits from diversity in the laboratory; in its amicus brief for the Harvard and UNC cases, the university wrote that “diversity promotes better science,” a claim that is extensively backed in the brief.

There are, of course, imperfections in existing affirmative action policies. Asking students to describe their race — essentially, the color of their skin — obscures important details about their ethnicity. The current system of collecting racial data paints each group as a monolith, when in fact students’ experiences and socioeconomic status can vary wildly depending on their ethnicity or heritage. For example, among Black students at elite colleges, African Americans who are descendants of slaves are underrepresented compared to Black students who are first- or second- generation African immigrants. Some also argue that affirmative action policies benefit wealthy racial minorities — however, this is likely a symptom of college admissions as a whole, rather than affirmative action specifically.

Perhaps as a response to these issues, many supposedly “race-neutral” admissions policies have been floated as alternatives for race-based affirmative action. These include class-based affirmative action, ending legacy admissions, and eliminating Early Action. These policies may mitigate the effects of ending race-based affirmative action, but they are not a sufficient replacement to maintain the current level of racial diversity at selective institutions. Harvard’s 2018 Smith Report, which modeled the results of effecting these policies, concluded that the university would experience a significant decline in the enrollment of Black students in every scenario. Therefore affirmative action remains the most effective admissions policy to enhance diversity. 

With these pillars of our education at stake, we are calling for Stanford to lay out a clear roadmap in advance of the Supreme Court ruling. We want to know what could change and how the university plans to respond, even without all the details of the ruling. 

Peer institutions have already responded: Stanford could hold a panel on the upcoming decisions as Princeton recently did, with Stanford legal experts, moderated by university leadership. Stanford could create a website outlining the relevant facts and numbers of the admissions process, like Harvard did. President Marc Tessier-Lavigne could make the case for affirmative action, as Columbia’s president Lee Bollinger has repeatedly done.

Due to the ongoing Harvard lawsuit, the public has gained unprecedented insight into Harvard’s admissions process and how it factors race into the equation — for example, via its infamous personality rating, which purports to measure personal qualities like courage, leadership, kindness, and integrity. The plaintiffs argue that this subjective rating has unfairly disadvantaged Asian applicants, who receive lower personal ratings on average than other racial groups.

These conversations are crucial; hidden factors like personality ratings determine who is granted admission into the most hallowed halls of education. We want to know how Stanford does it too: we are asking Stanford to let some light into the black box of admissions.

Why do we deserve to know?

Without an understanding of the current admissions process, we cannot prepare ourselves for the scope of change that may follow the Supreme Court rulings. Even for admitted students who later read their admissions file, the process is remarkably opaque. Admissions files are typically heavily redacted and coded with abbreviations which, even when spelled out, remain vague — using terms like “intellectual vitality” (IV) and “high school rating” (HSR).

The outcome of the Supreme Court decision will deeply affect all members of our community. It is an especially great cause of anxiety for underrepresented students whose communities at Stanford may shrink. Diversity is core to the academic and personal development of Stanford students. It is very important to maintain, and also very difficult to maintain; we need to know Stanford’s plan. 

For a start, it is unclear what it means for colleges to not take race into account in admissions. Because race is a pervasive and critical component of many students’ lived experiences, students often participate in identity-based clubs and write about their familial and cultural background in required application essays. How will colleges use this information? Sometimes students’ last names can reveal their ethnic heritage — will this influence admissions officers’ assessments? 

We are asking the following:

  • If race is mostly a proxy for diverse lived experiences, then how will admissions policies adapt to maintain that diversity?
  • If racial diversity is a value separate from diversity of lived experiences, then what does Stanford want their student body to look like? 
  • Most crucially, how does Stanford currently factor race into admissions? Is it explicit, implicit, coded away in application-sorting algorithms?  

If Stanford truly prioritizes giving students “the opportunity to learn from the wonderful diversity of identities, experiences, and perspectives that exist in the world,” then it should work in advance to transparently inform students and all who will be affected by this monumental ruling. We have faith that Stanford administrators will fulfill its commitments to underrepresented students: it is now crucial to tell us how.

The post Editorial Board | Don’t make Stanford the next Berkeley appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/06/08/editorial-board-dont-make-stanford-the-next-berkeley/feed/ 0 1230072
Editorial Board | MTL is abusing the concept of Academic Freedom https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/29/editorial-board-mtl-is-abusing-the-concept-of-academic-freedom/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/29/editorial-board-mtl-is-abusing-the-concept-of-academic-freedom/#respond Tue, 30 May 2023 00:10:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1229275 The Editorial Board argues that President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Hoover Director Condoleezza Rice abused the concept of academic freedom to protect Rupert Murdoch’s position on the Hoover Institution’s Board of Overseers. “Actual malice — the knowing or reckless publication of false information — would violate the core purpose of Academic Freedom: the pursuit and dissemination of truth,” the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | MTL is abusing the concept of Academic Freedom appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
President Marc Tessier-Lavigne expressed unusual fervor about the Hoover Institution when several members of the Faculty Senate proposed a resolution earlier this month to remove Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Mercer’s positions on Stanford’s Hoover Board of Overseers. The move would be purely symbolic, since the Faculty Senate does not have the power to remove Hoover Board members.

Tessier-Lavigne said that, “For the senate to adopt this resolution would be to set itself up as a thought police.” Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State and Director of the Hoover Institution, cited academic freedom as a reason to keep Murdoch and Mercer on the Board: “The senate’s foundational statement of academic freedom holds that expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal and or external coercion,” Rice said.

However, the resolution was not a frivolous measure to be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Over 90 faculty members wrote an open letter to University leadership in March, urging it to denounce Murdoch’s membership on Hoover’s Board. By implying that these faculty members are acting as “thought police,” MTL has made a very strong accusation against his colleagues.

It is therefore worth revisiting Stanford’s own official statement on academic freedom, and evaluating whether Murdoch and Mercer’s tenures on Hoover’s Board of Overseers are protected by that statement.

The Statement on Academic Freedom from the Stanford Faculty Handbook states:

“Decisions concerning:
(1) the search for, and appointment and promotion of faculty;
(2) the assignment of teaching and other primarily academic responsibilities;
(3) the support and sponsorship of scholarly research; and
(4) any other granting or withholding of benefits or imposition of burdens

shall be made without regard to a person’s political, social, or other views not directly related to academic values or to the assumption of academic responsibilities; without regard to the conduct of a person holding an appointment at Stanford unless such conduct is directly related to academic values or to the assumption of academic responsibilities… and without regard to an individual’s race, ethnic origin, sex or religion.”

According to the Hoover Institution’s website, the Board of Overseers is responsible for “overseeing the strategic direction and financial health of the Hoover Institution and the preservation of its institutional independence within the framework of Stanford University.” It is an advisory board whose members are not considered Stanford faculty; according to their self-description, these members do not have teaching or academic responsibilities assigned by Stanford University. They do not conduct research. The only section of the University’s pledge to Academic Freedom that may apply to the Board of Overseers is the granting of “benefits:” in this case, the prestige of being a member of the Board.

Still, let’s consider that Murdoch’s membership of the Board comes under this commitment to academic freedom. The Statement on Academic Freedom clearly says that decisions should be made “without regard to a person’s political, social, or other views… unless such conduct is directly related to academic values” (emphasis added).

In his Op-Ed on the Faculty Senate motion, Professor Jonathan Berk frames the calls for Murdoch’s removal as solely about his news outlets’ publication of racist and sexist views. He argues that “tak[ing] the position that there are subjects and views that are not acceptable under academic freedom” is antithetical to academic freedom, and we agree.

But this is a mischaracterization of what Murdoch is truly responsible for: not just racism and sexism, but knowingly allowing the publication of falsehoods about the 2020 election. This is not only our opinion, but also the opinion of Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, who stated that we can infer Rupert Murdoch “either knew Dominion had not manipulated the election or at least recklessly disregarded the truth when they allegedly caused Fox News to propagate its claims about Dominion.” Murdoch had reportedly told Trump that he had lost the election a few days after the fact, in direct contradiction to the claims being made by Fox News at the time. Needless to say, actual malice — the knowing or reckless publication of false information — would violate the core purpose of Academic Freedom: the pursuit and dissemination of truth.

If the lawsuit had not been settled, a jury would have determined whether Murdoch had committed actual malice, which experts believe to have been likely. Regardless of the trial outcome, we are concerned that, given the body of evidence revealed by Dominion, Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Condoleezza Rice among others did not engage with faculty members’ very real concerns about platforming and elevating Murdoch’s position through his appointment on the Hoover Board of Overseers. Murdoch’s position on the Board is not a question of freedom of speech. Murdoch is allowed to speak freely — his ownership of multiple mass media has in fact elevated his ability to speak. Rather, it is a question of who should represent Stanford.

MTL said that a resolution that simply disapproves of Murdoch’s appointment would impose “institutional orthodoxy” and a “chilling effect.” We agree that there is no such thing as an untrue opinion, and that University policies should not restrict the expression of opinions. But even constitutional law does not protect the willful propagation of untrue facts. Why should Stanford choose to give prestige to someone who is all but proven to have done so?

The concepts of academic freedom and freedom of speech, which we all prize at Stanford, should not be mishandled in this way. The protection of academic freedom, if it even protects Murdoch, is certainly in question after the revelations of the Dominion lawsuit. At the very least, we believe that University leadership should have engaged in a good faith dialogue with faculty members, rather than Condoleezza Rice telling a professor, “You have been a problem this whole time,” and throwing around weighty accusations to invalidate dissent. If the leaders of the University, who claim to have such a strong commitment to the free interchange of ideas, cannot even demonstrate a willingness to respond to the concerns of their colleagues, what example does that set for the student body? What does that say about Stanford?

We strongly believe that University leadership — namely President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Provost Persis Drell, Jerry Yang (Chair of the Stanford Board of Trustees) and Condoleezza Rice (Director of the Hoover Institution) — should have responded to the original letter from faculty members. Those leaders should now defend their position in harboring Murdoch and Mercer specifically, rather than making illusory claims about academic freedom and free speech. If they refuse to do so, they demonstrate disdain not only towards our faculty, but the very values that they claim to protect.

The Editorial Board consists of Opinion columnists, editors and members of the Stanford community. Its views represent the collective views of members of the Editorial Board. It is separate from News.

The post Editorial Board | MTL is abusing the concept of Academic Freedom appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/29/editorial-board-mtl-is-abusing-the-concept-of-academic-freedom/feed/ 0 1229275
Editorial Board | Holding admin accountable: How the Stanford community can strike back https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/16/editorial-board-holding-admin-accountable-how-the-stanford-community-can-strike-back/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/16/editorial-board-holding-admin-accountable-how-the-stanford-community-can-strike-back/#respond Wed, 17 May 2023 06:09:23 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1227674 The Editorial Board describes Stanford's administrative overreach and gives actionable steps to the Stanford community to keep admin accountable. "Stanford stakeholders need to act collectively to hold administrators at all levels responsible to the community they serve," the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | Holding admin accountable: How the Stanford community can strike back appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This is the second article in the Editorial Board’s three-part series on revitalizing Stanford student life. This piece focuses on how the Stanford community — students, alumni, faculty, governance and administration — can work towards a more accountable future.

At long last, it appears the wind of change is blowing on Stanford’s campus. After a disastrous year for Stanford’s reputation and amid a brewing storm of student, alumni, and faculty discontent, there are signs that the University may be changing course. The Provost has unexpectedly resigned. The President may be unlikely to survive. And the newly elected ASSU Executives promise a return of fun to revive Stanford’s ailing student life.

As much as these changes in leadership are welcome, they risk being a temporary reprieve. Only when true accountability reaches across the entire Stanford administration — from middle management to those delivering front-line student services — can we fix the lasting damage to the university and students’ experiences and well-being. To achieve this, Stanford stakeholders need to act collectively to hold administrators at all levels responsible to the community they serve.

First, we must take stock of the toll that Stanford’s unchecked administrative growth has taken on student life and consequently the university’s standing. The viral Palladium article and our previous editorial have detailed how the Stanford administration’s relentless campaign to absolve itself from liability has decimated student life and made campus less safe. But the problem of administrative malfeasance extends far beyond destroying the “esoteric whimsical nature” of Stanford culture. From student groups struggling for funding while being tightly controlled by administrators, to international students despairing if they’ll receive visa assistance in time so they can stay in the country, to the anxious wait for financial aid support, to hungry students resorting to food banks since groceries on campus are extortionate, to still not having enough counselors to address the mental health crisis on campus, Stanford student services are unfit for an institution claiming to be among the best in the world. Instead of learning and developing, students find their Stanford experiences and communities wracked by inadequate services and excessive bureaucracy.

The rampant expansion in administration and regulation is actively hurting Stanford’s strategic interests. When students spend their days fighting administrative battles, they become reluctant to advocate for, or eventually donate to, an institution that seems to only want to expand the number of staff and administrators — currently 17,000 strong — who were in many cases detrimental to their experience. When it becomes harder to convince the very brightest that Stanford is the place where they’ll thrive — when current students themselves have no confidence in the university’s leadership — it hurts the well-being of the Stanford body and Stanford’s standing relative to its peers. The ongoing disillusionment of students burdened by administrative incompetence and overreach threatens to spill into the public sphere.

The fundamental problem is a lack of accountability for administrators. This has been driven by a loss of institutional knowledge and connections between students, alumni, faculty, and university governance from the pandemic that has made it harder to collectively organize. Administrators have had free rein to push through unpopular policies and expand regulations that prioritize reducing liability over enhancing opportunity.

When challenged, administrators set up “task forces,” “accelerators” and “working groups” that delay and distract from action. Often, offices dealing with students eagerly shift responsibility onto another part of Stanford’s labyrinthine network of administrators (the Office of the General Counsel and “Risk Management” are classic favorites) which makes it impossible to pin down who exactly can solve problems.

If all else fails, they simply wait students out until we are exhausted or graduated. Students feel powerless. We currently do not have the resources to resist, so individual administrators can act with impunity since there is no direct accountability or transparent feedback from those they serve.

“Administration” can be a nebulous concept. To strike back, members of the Stanford community need to understand how Stanford operates and consequently what specific levers of power we can pull to bring about change. The key is increasing transparency and collective action.

A revolutionary step would be to implement a feedback system for administrative services in a manner similar to Carta, where students anonymously share their evaluations of teaching staff. If student feedback ratings were tied to administrators’ performance reviews, this could massively drive up standards. And as recent leadership changes show, the Stanford community expressing its collective views can advance the university. This radically new system is unlikely to be adopted by the University (we would love to be proven wrong), but in its absence, how can stakeholders act to protect their interests and guide Stanford towards a better future?

Students, Alumni, and the ASSU

  • In turn, students need to engage with ASSU legislative institutions. Our responsibility does not stop with voting; staying on top of current issues being debated by the Undergraduate and Faculty Senates can help influence their decisions to prevent surprises like the proctoring change in the Honor Code or cuts to student group funding. The ASSU will continue to be toothless until student turnout (just 24.72% in 2023) and engagement increases substantially.
  • Student groups should deepen connections with their alumni networks, create advisory boards and collaborate with other student groups to enhance collective lobbying power. Using these connections to send emails to the Office of the President and other senior officials forces more transparency on individual lower-level administrators.
  • Alumni should talk directly with current students about their matters of concern. Everyone has their own unique experiences with “admin.” Think about which specific groups or issues on campus you care about and understand how the experiences you enjoyed might be under threat for future students. Get involved with student groups through alumni events, advisory boards, and mentorship, and help students when they need support through collective action campaigns.

Faculty, Governance and Administration

  • Treat students as adults and not children. We are learning, but we are also earnest, determined and smart. Rather than liabilities, we are assets that can cement Stanford’s relatively new status in the premier tier of global universities.
  • Give students and our organizations independence — nearly all Stanford student groups are closely supervised and have less money than those at our peer institutions. Allow any student group to form their own 501(c)(3) nonprofit and receive university recognition like Harvard’s Independent Student Organizations and at Yale. Give us freedom to run our own communities so that we can learn and develop without the “support” of administration.
  • The Faculty Senate and University governance should cap administrative growth and create a centralized feedback system that is directly tied to metrics of administrative performance, compensation and hiring.

An alum recently remarked to an Editorial Board member that “Stanford today has become like the government — but worse.” As a society, we have learned that it requires transparency and accountability to ensure that those in positions of power serve their constituents. While administrators may not yet be formally accountable to the student body they serve, as members of the Stanford community we have both the responsibility and ability to keep the university on the right track. Through increasing collective action and doing our part to hold the university administration to account, we can ensure that Stanford’s winds of freedom continue to blow.

The Editorial Board consists of Opinion columnists, editors and members of the Stanford community. Its views represent the collective views of members of the Editorial Board. It is separate from News.

The post Editorial Board | Holding admin accountable: How the Stanford community can strike back appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/16/editorial-board-holding-admin-accountable-how-the-stanford-community-can-strike-back/feed/ 0 1227674
Editorial Board | The Faculty Senate has broken undergraduate trust https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/30/editorial-board-the-faculty-senate-has-broken-undergraduate-trust/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/30/editorial-board-the-faculty-senate-has-broken-undergraduate-trust/#respond Sun, 30 Apr 2023 17:54:50 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1226421 The Editorial Board argues that the Faculty Senate's recent motion to change the Honor Code is undemocratic and degrades student-faculty trust. “By bypassing the Undergraduate Senate’s vote, the Faculty Senate is signaling that it no longer believes the student body deserves a voice in this decision, ending 102 years of precedent of shared governance over the Honor code,” the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | The Faculty Senate has broken undergraduate trust appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
On April 28, the Faculty Senate approved changes to the honor code to allow exam proctoring beginning next academic year. The decision overrode objections from the Undergraduate Senate and would allow proctoring at Stanford for the first time since 1921.

The Editorial Board stands against cheating, and we want to acknowledge that Stanford does face a significant problem with cheating among the undergraduate population. We are not going to debate over whether proctoring is the solution; we would need more data to reach that conclusion. Therefore we support the original Academic Integrity Working Group study proposed by the Committee of 12 (C12) that would investigate whether proctoring leads to more positive outcomes than harm.

However, we are very concerned that by bypassing the Undergraduate Senate’s vote, the Faculty Senate is signaling that it no longer believes the student body deserves a voice in this decision, ending 102 years of precedent of shared governance over the Honor Code.

We agree with ASSU Executive President Darryl Thompson that the motion shows a “lack of good faith” between faculty and students. Some faculty may feel that students broke this trust first by breaking the honor code. Even so, the actions of some students should not be an excuse for the Faculty Senate to not engage with undergraduate students whatsoever before overriding the C12’s process for revisions to the Honor Code, which all stakeholders had agreed to.

Both the Undergraduate Senate and the Faculty Senate have several meetings left before the end of the academic year, meaning that there is still plenty of time to engage in conversation. The forcing of this motion is therefore a disrespectful and manipulative attempt to force the Undergraduate Senate to adopt the C12’s Honor Code proposals, which the UGS nearly unanimously opposed.

Academic dishonesty is a deeply-rooted problem that cannot be solved by surface-level revisions. Faculty in support of the motion to override acknowledge this, yet argue that proctoring is a necessary start. Without evidence that proctoring necessarily reduces cheating, or that timed in-person exams are where the majority of cheating happens, we do not believe the need to proctor outweighs the need to incorporate student voices into the decision. The Faculty Senate must deeply reconsider this troubling break from over a century of shared trust.

Moreover, the very act of invoking what VPUE Sarah Church called the “nuclear option” degrades trust between students and faculty. The vetoing of a democratic decision made by the student body, albeit within the powers of the faculty senate, is paternalistic and sets a dangerous precedent for further illiberal decision-making.

We strongly urge the Faculty Senate to reconsider their motion to override, which has disenfranchised undergraduates. The issue of academic integrity can only be effectively addressed cohesively, and we hope that all parties will return to the table to find evidence-based, democratic solutions.

The Editorial Board consists of Opinion columnists, editors and members of the Stanford community. Its views represent the collective views of members of the Editorial Board. It is separate from News.

The post Editorial Board | The Faculty Senate has broken undergraduate trust appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/30/editorial-board-the-faculty-senate-has-broken-undergraduate-trust/feed/ 0 1226421
Editorial Board | Greek life is not the solution for Stanford’s social problem https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/25/editorial-board-greek-life-is-not-the-solution-for-stanfords-social-problem/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/25/editorial-board-greek-life-is-not-the-solution-for-stanfords-social-problem/#respond Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:41:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1226128 In the first of a three part series on sustainably reviving social life on campus, the Editorial Board argues against idealizing Greek life as the sole solution to restoring fun, and offers suggestions to create a more inclusive campus social life. "Together, we can envision a social life at Stanford where everybody feels welcome," the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | Greek life is not the solution for Stanford’s social problem appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This article is the first of a three-part series on how the Stanford community can revive social life on campus. This first piece covers Greek life, and will be followed by articles on sexual violence prevention and administrative reform.

After the slogan “Fun Strikes Back” dominated polls in the recent ASSU election, student support for the rebellious movement of “Stanford Hates Fun” has seemingly peaked — but where do we go from here?

Sophia Danielpour ‘24 and Kyle Haslett ‘25 were recently elected Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Executives, with the goal of recovering the fun that Stanford has lost. Their victory comes nearly a year after the Palladium article that started it all, “Stanford’s War on Social Life,” in which the author Ginevra Davis casts Stanford’s administration as a bulwark to the vivacity of post-pandemic campus culture.

The Palladium article’s strongest grievance is with the University’s crackdown on the “hubs of student life”: namely, “fraternities and cultural theme houses.” This, along with wistful anecdotes about fraternities of yore, erroneously implies a fundamental link between the restoration of Greek life on campus and the revival of Stanford’s formerly legendary student culture. While Greek life surely plays a part, Stanford’s social life has a great deal more to offer.

With rush wrapping up and new pledges selected, fraternities and sororities have been very active as of late. “Abolish Greek Life” (AGL), on the other hand, has had an extremely quiet year, resulting in fewer conversations about the harms of Greek life.

Hopes for Stanford’s social life have increasingly been pinned on fraternities, which host the majority of all-campus parties. Before 2021, dorm RAs often told residents that drinking in dorms was tolerated if they left their room doors open. But the Stanford Office of Student Affairs published a new alcohol policy in 2021, which put an end to Stanford’s unofficial pre-pandemic “open-door drinking policy.” Drinking culture therefore became centered on the Row, naturally leading to the perception of the Row as the only place on campus where you’ll hear bumping music and rowdy partygoers.

In addition to throwing parties, Greek life is regarded as a space where students can find and build community, especially where the neighborhood system has failed to do so. Greek life is rife with networking opportunities — that is, if you can get in. De facto systems like “dirty rushing” involve members of a Greek organization selectively recruiting (and essentially bribing) potential new members with gifts and favors — and, as you can imagine, these selected individuals likely have existing ties to the organization or other advantages.

While Greek life surely contributes to a segment of the social scene at Stanford, there are serious harms to idealizing Greek life and fraternities in particular. Although diversity statistics are not available, it is evident through observation and talking to members of Greek organizations that much of Greek life remains more white, wealthy and well-connected than the average Stanford student; the membership fees stacking up to hundreds of dollars per quarter are enough to drive some students away.

Even more pertinent is the issue of safety. In 2020, a Stanford student died from a drug overdose in TDX fraternity. In 2015, Brock Turner assaulted an unconscious woman after a party at Kappa Alpha, which led to widespread reckoning with sexual violence relating to frat parties and Stanford more generally.  In the 2019 survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct, 29% of undergrad/coterm women who experienced cases of penetration by force and 18% of undergrad/coterm women who experienced cases of sexual touching by force reported meeting their perpetrator at a fraternity house. Frat houses are therefore hubs of sexual violence on campus, compounded by the fact that all-campus Greek events are hosted exclusively at fraternity houses, since sororities are not allowed to host parties or have men in their residential area — policies that point to Greek life’s misogynistic roots.

To their credit, many fraternities are not ignoring the issue. Members of Phi Psi, Sig Ep and Sig Chi showed out to “Take Back the Night,” an annual event to raise awareness of and confront sexual violence on campus. If you want to enter a frat party, you must read out a sign that describes and agrees to adhere to the principles of consent in the house. All fraternities have introduced Violence Intervention and Prevention members, and each event is meant to be attended by sober monitors.

In good faith that these measures are sincere and not merely performative, we support the above initiatives as well as the introduction of DEI chairs in all Greek organizations and other efforts to make Greek life more inclusive. In order to promote a safer and more diverse Greek social scene, we encourage housed fraternities to additionally:

  1. Host open forums to gather feedback from the Stanford community about how parties can be made safer, and to explain current policies that fraternities have around sexual violence prevention and response. These should be mandatory for members of the fraternity to attend.
  1. Release transparency reports about the demographic breakdown of pledge classes — for example, self-reported race and socioeconomic background statistics. This would increase accountability and help Greek organizations identify areas for improvement. This should apply to all sororities and fraternities.
  1. Partner with non-Greek/cultural student organizations to host joint events that encourage a broader student turnout, especially students who are underrepresented in Greek life.

We should also create and maintain social hubs separate from Greek life to diversify the range of events on campus and reduce dependence on fraternities, thereby creating a more sustainable social ecosystem. In addition to existing discourse around how Stanford can facilitate fun, we advocate for the following changes:

  1. Neighborhood councils should advertise opportunities for students and dorms/houses to request neighborhood funds, and simplify the process for obtaining funding. There is specific neighborhood funding for substance-free events that is currently barely requested, but could be used to host concerts, game nights and other events which have been historically well-attended. By decreasing administrative barriers to access funding, a broader range of events can be hosted to cater to different interests and lifestyles.
  1. We support the recent Farm Fridays initiative: a strong start to hosting open, inclusive events on the Row. Now that theme houses have been renamed, we hope that they will regain some of their old identity, facilitating more campus-wide events which have become rare in recent years.
  1. Late Nite at Arrillaga was a highly popular destination that provided students with a safe and enjoyable late-night social environment before 2020, but it was discontinued due to budget cuts. By restoring this offering, students would have improved structural access to a community space for studying and socialization on East Campus.

These suggestions are only a start, and can only form part of the solution. Ultimately, it is our individual actions that collectively define our campus culture. Each of us, as Stanford students, can choose to be open-hearted and spontaneous; to express ourselves, to be generous to friends and strangers, and to seize small pockets of joy and create them for others. Step up in your dorm community. Host a movie night for your friends. Show up. Together, we can envision a social life at Stanford where everybody feels welcome.

The Editorial Board consists of Opinion columnists, editors and members of the Stanford community. Its views represent the collective views of members of the Editorial Board. It is separate from News.

A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that a total of 47% of undergrad/coterm women who reported sexual touching/penetration reported it happening at a fraternity house when in fact 29% and 18% of undergrad/coterm women who experienced cases of penetration and sexual touching by force, respectively, reported meeting their perpetrator at a fraternity house. The Daily regrets this error.

The post Editorial Board | Greek life is not the solution for Stanford’s social problem appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/25/editorial-board-greek-life-is-not-the-solution-for-stanfords-social-problem/feed/ 0 1226128
Editorial Board | What does Stanford stand for? https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/20/editorial-board-what-does-stanford-stand-for/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/20/editorial-board-what-does-stanford-stand-for/#respond Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:11:33 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1225591 In its inaugural article, the Editorial Board of Volume 263 urges Stanford to condemn its fraudulent alumni and initiate campus conversations around ethical abuses as they happen. "If Stanford refuses to acknowledge the wrongdoings of its recent graduates, the university is denying its role in shaping leaders who have harmed people's lives and livelihoods," the Board writes.

The post Editorial Board | What does Stanford stand for? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
On April 12, Juul agreed to pay California, New York and four other states $462 million for misleading consumers — particularly young people — about the health effects of vaping. Juul was founded by Adam Bowen and James Monsees, who met through Stanford’s Product Design Master’s program.

A day earlier, Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford dropout, lost her bid to further delay her 11-year prison sentence for fraud. Sam Bankman-Fried, son of two Stanford professors, currently remains under house arrest on Stanford’s campus as he awaits trial for 12 counts of fraud and related crimes. The former CEO of Alameda Research Caroline Ellison, who earned her undergraduate degree at Stanford, took a plea deal for similar charges.

Stanford Law School graduate Carlos Watson was indicted in February of this year for “a years-long multi-million dollar fraud scheme.” And only five months ago, Stanford professor Stan Cohen paid $29.2 million in damages after he committed “a species of actual fraud and… deceit” in misleading investors in his biotechnology startup.

These high-profile fraud cases all share a common denominator: namely, Stanford. Each trial focuses more scrutiny on the institution that produced these crooked founders. But Stanford’s response, over and over again, has been deafening silence.

When a Stanford student or alum achieves national recognition — such as being awarded a prestigious prize or fellowship, being drafted to a major sports league or making strides in research or entrepreneurship — Stanford is justifiably quick to celebrate. However, this is only true for achievements that reflect rosily onto Stanford’s own image. When Theo Baker became the youngest person ever to receive a prestigious George Polk Award in Journalism, there was no announcement in the Stanford Report, the University’s main external communications. Might this be related to the fact that Baker won the award for his investigation into claims of research fraud against Stanford’s president? Likewise, Stanford made no announcement concerning any of the verdicts or settlements mentioned above.

Yes, we have mandatory Civic, Liberal and Global Education (COLLEGE) and Embedded Ethics in Computer Science classes. Yes, we have graduation requirements in Ethical Reasoning (WAYS-ER) and Exploring Difference and Power (WAYS-EDP). If we put aside students’ concerns that the COLLEGE and Embedded Ethics programs fall short of their goals, this is all good and well.

But if Stanford refuses to acknowledge the wrongdoings of its recent graduates, the University is denying its role in shaping leaders who have harmed people’s lives and livelihoods. Stanford gave each of these founders a shiny stamp on their resume that helped them woo investors. Stanford taught them much of what they know in business and beyond. Stanford gave them invaluable networks. Two Stanford professors even helped give SBF a temporary get-out-of-jail card by co-signing his bail bond.

In the words of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Stanford was founded with the explicit purpose of “generat[ing] knowledge not for its own sake, but for the benefit of humanity.” It is impossible to meaningfully discuss and work towards benefitting humanity without understanding what leads to and causes harm. Stanford must lead these conversations even when they reflect badly on the University. Unlike its peers, Stanford does not have centuries of legacy and prestige to fall back on; these scandals threaten to undermine the university’s rapid ascension to the heights of innovation and progress. Therefore, Stanford should lead the narrative by addressing these issues head-on to restore confidence and to act as an example for other institutions.

In addition to requiring ethics courses and issuing statements, we believe that Stanford should facilitate campus-wide critical conversations in light of emerging scandals to articulate what the institution stands for — and equally importantly, what it condemns.

These discussion forums may be led by faculty or student groups, providing a platform for community members to collectively deliberate about what went wrong in a particular case and how we students, future Stanford alums, can strengthen our sense of ethical responsibility. By sanctioning such events, the University would be confronting its scandals forthrightly — as opposed to burying its head in the sand. Student deliberations would help identify the corrupting influence present within Stanford’s culture and institutions. The administration, student groups (e.g. the ASSU) and various labs could draw on the results of these deliberations to devise institutional solutions which address the issues raised by students.

Moreover, the University could utilize these events as an opportunity to recenter and reaffirm its founding telos of “promoting the welfare of people everywhere.” They would serve as an extension of Stanford’s ethics education, as students get to examine and discuss real-world issues through an ethical lens.

This proposed initiative may help reduce the number of scandalous alums and suspect businesses Stanford churns out in the future. This may salvage not only Stanford’s reputation, but potentially help prevent the suffering of millions of people.

The Editorial Board consists of Opinion columnists, editors and members of the Stanford community. Its views represent the collective views of members of the Editorial Board. It is separate from News.

The post Editorial Board | What does Stanford stand for? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/20/editorial-board-what-does-stanford-stand-for/feed/ 0 1225591
Editorial Board: Three proposals in staff selection, row staffing and resident fellow feedback https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/26/editorial-board-three-proposals-in-staff-selection-row-staffing-and-resident-fellow-feedback/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/26/editorial-board-three-proposals-in-staff-selection-row-staffing-and-resident-fellow-feedback/#respond Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:15:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1126346 SELECTION 101: The selection process, that is, the process by which residences select their staff members for the next academic year, is notoriously rigorous. The process begins in early January and extends into March, when offers are made. The weeks in between are packed with interviews and ambiguities, as houses “drop” some applicants — without […]

The post Editorial Board: Three proposals in staff selection, row staffing and resident fellow feedback appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
SELECTION 101:

The selection process, that is, the process by which residences select their staff members for the next academic year, is notoriously rigorous. The process begins in early January and extends into March, when offers are made. The weeks in between are packed with interviews and ambiguities, as houses “drop” some applicants — without their knowledge — and continue to pursue others. In Residential Education’s eyes, this system is, in large part, effective. For students, however, selection is stressful, opaque and, in some cases, unfair. What follows are the Editorial Board’s recommendations for selection reform.

Selection begins with an event dubbed Selection 101, during which applicants have the chance to meet current staff and resident fellows from a large sampling of houses. The event is marketed as optional (informational, in fact), but it’s unclear what impact conversations held at Selection 101 have on staffing decisions. Some dorms, for instance, ask staff members to provide formal comments on applicants before the interview process begins, and interactions at Selection 101, good or bad, factor into and can even define these remarks. Of course, this is open to debate. Yet, as a student it’s hard to avoid the thought that, if you make an impression at Selection 101, you’re bound to be better off in the remainder of the selection process. Our recommendation: Eliminate Selection 101, and create a more neutral program (a panel, for instance) or a program that recognizes Selection 101 for what it is, a schmooze-fest (resident fellow open houses, perhaps).

After Selection 101 concludes, students must fill out and submit their written applications. These applications include general prompts (for all dorms) and more specific prompts (for dorms that choose to ask additional questions). These “supplements” are arduous and could easily be eliminated, but they provide an early glimpse into RF mindsets. We recognize that RF autonomy is to an extent something to be respected, however. So, for the time being, we’ll leave this stone unturned.

After applications, the interview process commences. This, dear reader, is where selection gets confusing. There are, as a rule of thumb, two rounds of interviews for a large percentage of dorms. The first interview is conducted in a group setting with other applicants present (approximately an hour), and the second is a one-on-one interaction (approximately 10-15 minutes, depending on the RF). There is, however, a ridiculous amount of variation between dorms. Some only have one round of interviews. Some flip the group/individual model, conducting group interviews second. Some invite a select few applicants to first-round interviews. Some indiscriminately invite all applicants to first rounds. Some send out interview invitations in waves over the course of a few weeks. And some send them out all at once, on the first night that they can.

The common thread: None send out rejections when they no longer wish to pursue you.

The unfortunate result is that most applicants have no idea where they stand in the selection process at any given time. They ask their friends about the houses from which they’ve heard back. They compulsively check the selection website. They ask other applicants in interviews. It’s a puzzle, figuring out whether or not you still stand a chance of getting a job. And there is simply no closure until staffing decisions are finalized (a week or so after initial offers are made).

Of course, there are reasons for the smoke and mirrors: Dorms don’t send out rejections because, oftentimes, during matching (at the end of the selection process), RFs don’t fill all of their open positions. So, not having rejected anyone formally, RFs have the ability to reach out to anyone applicant with whom they had contact (even an applicant they never interviewed). As for the confusion that defines the interview process, resident fellows are busy, and refusing to standardize interviews allows them to mold the selection process to their demanding schedules. It makes sense, yes. But it is, by no means, the best model.

In order to serve applicants better (while preserving RF self-governance), the Editorial Board suggests the production of a Res-Ed fact sheet that contains information on every house’s hiring practices. These fact sheets would include information regarding the numbers of interviews offered by a house, the nature of these interviews and most importantly, the timing of these interviews (first and second round). In other words, the fact sheet might state that, on Feb. 2, Roble sends out first-round invitations. In this respect, RFs would not be forced to reject applicants before all positions have been filled, but students would at least have some idea of whether or not a given house plans to reach out to them before they rank their choices.

ROW STAFFING

The other prominent issue with the selection system is how row staff are hired (row staffing is an entirely different animal, we assure you). If you’ve been at Stanford for some time, you’ve likely heard about the gross nepotism that this system belies. Boyfriends offer girlfriends jobs. Qualified applicants are ignored for friends of the house. This happens year after year.

And it’s a difficult issue to tackle. Without the resources or the resident fellows to conduct hiring interviews in row houses, students are trusted to make the necessary decisions. And, lacking any real accountability or supervision, staff members are permitted to choose staff however they see fit. Last year, ResEd tried to get houses to agree to adhere to the match system (the system used for RF house hiring), but that, of course, did not happen, and the nepotism remained strong as ever. This issue is made worse by the fact that, if one house doesn’t follow the matching process, it impacts every house (Synergy may have ranked you first, but Casa offered you a job during interviews, so you rank Casa first. and Synergy, of course, never stands a chance).

There’s no great solution to the clusterfuck that is row staffing. Any proposal is going to devolve into “he said, she said” at some point or another. But what’s not acceptable is ResEd’s lack of public condemnation of this system and its lack of interest in developing any legitimate punishment mechanism. ResEd, we argue, must create an effective reporting structure for unjust hiring practices and must firmly and assuredly speak out against these practices. ResEd must demonstrate, in words and in actions, that any violation of the match will result in considerable disciplinary action (violations, for instance, could be treated as violations of The Fundamental Standard, or ResEd could threaten the rescinding of any mal-obtained job offer).

RF FEEDBACK

Elsewhere in this editorial, we’ve described a need to preserve RF authority and self-determination. Resident fellows are critical members of the Residential Education system, and often, RFs have families, jobs and routines that make their jobs as RFs exceedingly difficult (like their RAs, their lives are inseparable from their positions). For this reason and others, it’s critical to understand and value their perspectives.

Yet, the current system disproportionately values RF perspectives. During the alcohol policy decision-making process, RFs were consulted, and it was assumed that RA voices would be represented through them. In addition, as mentioned above, during selection, RFs are allowed to mold the system to their needs, sometimes to the detriment of applicants. And, when a conflict arises between a staff member and an RF. it is the staff member’s job that is most readily called into question. But, all of these are minor quibbles and are, perhaps, necessary evils. This Editorial Board is more concerned with ResEd’s lack of interest in collecting feedback on resident fellows.

At the present moment, students are asked to evaluate RAs once, at the end of autumn term. These surveys ask students to rate their staff on things like approachability and accessibility. These surveys, however, do not collect data on resident fellows. Moreover, at the end of the year, no additional data collection is conducted. This might make sense for RAs who are not, except for a few notable exceptions, occupying their positions again, but it makes no sense for RFs, some of whom stick around for years. The assumption on ResEd’s part is that bad seeds among the RF pool will rear their ugly heads at some point or another. But that, quite frankly, is ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to consciously avoid feedback unless you’re afraid of what that feedback might say.

On the Editorial Board we have students who have staffed and occupied houses with resident fellows. And our experiences range from overwhelmingly positive to, in some cases, downright nightmarish. For this reason: The Editorial Board encourages not only the collection of mid-year feedback on resident fellows, but also the collection of year-end feedback. We, of course, suggest ResEd treat the results of these surveys with due regard, as these individuals, RFs, have the potential to shape the Stanford experience of many students over the course of many years.

The post Editorial Board: Three proposals in staff selection, row staffing and resident fellow feedback appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/26/editorial-board-three-proposals-in-staff-selection-row-staffing-and-resident-fellow-feedback/feed/ 0 1126346
It’s time to change the PHE and RCC roles https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/14/its-time-to-change-the-phe-and-rcc-roles/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/14/its-time-to-change-the-phe-and-rcc-roles/#respond Sat, 15 Apr 2017 02:41:06 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1125865 Some traditions have been around for so long that inertia makes it difficult to significantly alter them in any meaningful way. This phenomenon has presented problems for Stanford’s residential staff roles: resident assistants (RAs), peer health educators (PHEs) and resident computer consultants (RCCs). The responsibilities and job structure in place for each of these positions […]

The post It’s time to change the PHE and RCC roles appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Some traditions have been around for so long that inertia makes it difficult to significantly alter them in any meaningful way.

This phenomenon has presented problems for Stanford’s residential staff roles: resident assistants (RAs), peer health educators (PHEs) and resident computer consultants (RCCs). The responsibilities and job structure in place for each of these positions have been in place for many decades. The RCC role, for instance, was instituted in 1987, when computers were, for many students, still a foreign concept. In the 1980s, it made sense to have a dorm staffer specialize in troubleshooting technical problems and providing basic computer literacy to residents.

Not so much in 2017. Now, students arrive at the University likely having used computers for most of their lives, and the official responsibility of RCCs doesn’t extend much beyond refilling printer paper and rubber-stamping wireless network connections.

The PHE program has been around for almost as long, and parts of the role are similarly irrelevant today. With a wealth of health knowledge at our fingertips via the Internet, there isn’t a clear need for a fully specialized, health-themed staff position.

This, along with equity and efficiency concerns, brings us to a necessary and overdue change to the residential staff positions present at most dorms on campus: Remove the specialist roles of RCC and PHE, and replace them with computer- and health-focused RAs.

In making this recommendation, we have to acknowledge that today, especially in freshman dorms, RCCs and PHEs perform many of the same duties that RAs do, ranging from monitoring the well-being of residents to providing advice and referrals. Many of us can likely recall a PHE or RCC who helped us through a personal trauma, guided us through a mental crisis or otherwise made a difference in our lives. If PHEs and RCCs in practice have many of the same responsibilities as RAs, the official distinction between roles serves little purpose and can even serve to create an unhealthy hierarchy between positions, where some opinions are valued less than others in residential staff discussions and residents respect certain staff positions more.

This also raises the issue of pay equality, a controversial subject that led to some dorms not hiring PHEs this school year. Although Vaden announced it would give PHEs a pay raise starting in the 2017-18 academic year, the promised $3,075 stipend still pales in comparison to the $10,000 figure RAs receive and the $7,000 figure RCCs receive. People should be paid less only if they produce less or lower quality work. For PHEs, neither of these seems to be true. The ASSU’s mental health survey from 2015 found that about three-quarters of students said that they or a friend had talked to a PHE for counseling in regard to stress, academic pressures, depression or anxiety. And, in many dorms, PHEs are treated and viewed like RAs already. “The residents generally don’t distinguish between PHEs and RAs or RCCs when they are looking for someone to talk to,” one resident fellow told The Daily in February.

Viewing the situation from the other end, there are many responsibilities currently delegated to RCCs and PHEs that would be better off shared among all residential staff. Refilling printer paper, approving network connections, providing care for minor ailments and advising residents on sexual health are all tasks that RAs can and should be trained to do. Shifts in responsibility like this among all staffers would be more efficient, and it makes sense. Your RCC won’t be in the dorm all day and all night, and another staff member can probably refill the printer paper more quickly.

This isn’t to say that PHEs and RCCs offer no specialized function. Each of these roles also features unique responsibilities – just not enough to warrant a separate role, especially given the aforementioned shortcomings of complete specialization. This is why the Editorial Board believes that replacing the positions with two additional RAs who, in addition to RA functions like being on call and building dorm communities, choose to take on the more dedicated duties of the former PHE and RCC positions. The health-focused RA in each dorm, for example, would take the Vaden PHE training class, manage messages from the current PHE email list and organize health-related events and campaigns for the dorm. The computer-focused RA would take the current mandated RCC course, keep inventory for the computer clusters and monitor internet connectivity. This RA would also put on classes or events relating to more complex technical skills like UNIX tricks, graphic design or multimedia.

The RAs taking on these additional responsibilities would be paid an additional stipend for their efforts. Vaden could use its freed funds from the PHE program to pay the health-focused RA stipend, whereas the Office of the Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning (VPTL) could do the same for the computer-focused RA. The difference is that duties which should be undertaken by all (refilling printer paper) versus those which should be undertaken by a specialist (teaching Photoshop in a dorm class) would be more efficiently divided.

There’s evidence that the RA-plus-specialization role would work. Due to the PHE boycott, Cedro, Junipero, Arroyo, Trancos, Twain and Larkin each hired an additional RA in place of the foregone PHE. In Cedro, one RA took on the responsibilities a PHE would normally have, and the resident fellows indicated that they were satisfied with the arrangement.

One potential issue that could impede a transition to this system is the current distribution of funding for each residential staff role. Vaden handles payment of PHEs, VPTL disburses the RCC stipend, and ResEd funds the RA position. Since the proposed RA-plus-specialization structure would eliminate a separate PHE and RCC role, the University would have to shift funding between Vaden, VPTL and ResEd to achieve the desired effect. Funding to ResEd would likely have to increase in any case, given the higher stipend for RAs versus that for PHEs and RCCs. Still, our school has deep coffers, and, bureaucratic friction notwithstanding, we believe it’s within the University’s financial capabilities to navigate such a shift.

We can’t let our attachment to institutions that have worked in many prior instances cloud our judgment as to how effective the roles themselves are and could be under a different structure.

Times have changed, and there is no longer a compelling reason to keep isolated specialist roles in the PHE and RCC.

Will Ferrer abstained from this editorial.

The post It’s time to change the PHE and RCC roles appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/14/its-time-to-change-the-phe-and-rcc-roles/feed/ 0 1125865
Editorial Board endorses Executive slate and 12 Senate candidates https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/11/editorial-board-endorses-exec-slate-and-12-senate-candidates/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/11/editorial-board-endorses-exec-slate-and-12-senate-candidates/#respond Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:36:51 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1125679 The Editorial Board is pleased to announce the endorsement of the Justice & Vicki slate for Executive and 12 candidates for Senate. Please see below for our reasoning behind each decision. [ubergrid id=1125793] (Photos by SHERIDAN REA/The Stanford Daily)   Executive endorsement: Justice Tention ’18 and Vicki Niu ’18 Proposing to enact important but achievable measures in […]

The post Editorial Board endorses Executive slate and 12 Senate candidates appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Editorial Board is pleased to announce the endorsement of the Justice & Vicki slate for Executive and 12 candidates for Senate. Please see below for our reasoning behind each decision.

[ubergrid id=1125793]

(Photos by SHERIDAN REA/The Stanford Daily)

 

Executive endorsement: Justice Tention ’18 and Vicki Niu ’18

Proposing to enact important but achievable measures in the areas of sexual assault, mental health and accessibility to low-income students, Justice Tention and Vicki Niu show they’re attuned to the needs of students across campus. Among their goals are restoring cultural community center funds, pushing for quality of life changes to parts of the Title IX process and connecting marginalized communities to mental health treatment resources. However, equally important is what’s not in the slate’s platform. Goals are a first step, of course, but what truly matters is the follow through. Together, Tention and Niu have significant experience navigating a University bureaucracy and can tap preexisting relationships with administrators and faculty in pursuing their policy objectives. The deterioration of dialogue with the administration has limited the success of prior Executive teams, and we’re confident Tention and Niu won’t let that happen if they are elected. As such, among all of the ASSU Executive slates, Tention and Niu are the most likely to enact meaningful change at Stanford through the Exec role.

 

Senate endorsements

Matthew Cohen ’18

A veteran of the ASSU Senate, Matthew Cohen brings experience and levelheadedness to the table. Reelections are rare in the ASSU Undergraduate Senate, and Cohen would be the only senator next year who has already served two terms, bringing a much-needed sense of practicality to a legislative body that often attracts senators who can’t yet differentiate between what’s feasible and what’s not.

 

Lark Wang ’20

Wang is well-attuned to the issues facing marginalized communities on campus, but, importantly, she is realistic about what problems can be effectively tackled by the ASSU Senate. Wang demonstrates a strong grasp of the current issues facing the Title IX Pilot Process and is equipped to operate within the framework of the Senate to improve upon past work like Callisto and Not Alone while also pursuing new initiatives to support sexual assault survivors.

 

Michael Marsh ’20

Michael Marsh impressed us with his commitment to dialogue and belief in the “marketplace of ideas.” His emphasis on the free exchange and the importance of evaluating ideas on their merits gives him the tools to succeed on a campus that has become increasingly polarized.

 

Gabe Rosen ’19

The Daily didn’t endorse Gabe Rosen last year – we now realize that was a mistake. Rosen shows a keen understanding of the role of the Senate, helping to co-author the successful Full House Fund. His ability to bring key stakeholders to the table will give him the ability to purse further legislation that will help FLI students on things like course fees.

 

Kimiko Hirota ’20

A participant in the Senate Associates program, Hirota demonstrated a solid understanding of how the Senate functions, and was also knowledgeable on the University’s current sexual assault policies. Hirota showed an enthusiasm for addressing food security on campus and course fees, areas in which the ASSU could realistically have an impact.

 

Joseph Hanson ’20

Hanson had a clear commitment to Senate accountability, and has proposed holding more events where students can discuss their concerns with senators. Hanson has also advocated more transparency on why the Senate is not able to approve some funding requests, which should be a key part of that body’s work.

 

Chapman Caddell ’20

A self-proclaimed “policy wonk,” Caddell boasts a creative platform ranging from a voucher system for legal work in Title IX cases to an internal university-wide carbon tax. As the financial officer of Stanford in Government, Caddell understands the complexities of the Senate funding process and the challenges it can pose to smaller student groups.

 

Lizzie Ford ’20

An advocate for diversity with a strong interest in immigration issues, Ford is dedicated to serving first-generation and low-income students, seeking the expansion of programs such as the Full House Fund, while acknowledging the limitations of the Undergraduate Senate. She is involved in supporting immigrant community – made up of both students and workers – and her commitment to advocacy and awareness for underprivileged members of the Stanford community is clear.

 

Erica Scott ’20

Scott clearly identified a toxic national environment as one of the most severe challenges facing Stanford today, but she also recognizes that the ASSU Senate’s prime responsibilities are in appropriations. Among her chief goals are the provision of financial aid for class fees, in the vein of the Full House Fund, and creating a funding framework for VSOs involving an international travel component, which is currently nonexistent.

 

Katie Hufker ’18

Through her work with LSJUMB, Hufker has gained experience working with administration to reach solutions supported by students. Hufker also showed a highly impressive understanding of the Senate’s funding system and the responsibility this requires, as well as a nuanced perspective on sexual assault issues. Hufker would be an exceptional choice for the next Senate’s Appropriations Chair.

 

Dory Rodriguez ’20

With a background in high school activism, Rodriguez has a proven track record of not only showing up, but getting results. Modest, Rodriguez admits that she doesn’t know everything there is to know about the Senate or its operations, but describes herself as willing to learn, confident enough to listen when she doesn’t have the answers.

 

Cole McFaul ’20

Though his 10-point platform is rather ambitious, McFaul’s concrete vision represents a refreshing departure from the vague platitudes typical of these sorts of campaigns. Moreover, McFaul embodies an interest in issues facing Stanford students of all backgrounds. His desire for a facilitated textbook exchange program, for instance, reveals a demonstrable interest in affordability and accessibility concerns.

Contact The Stanford Daily Editorial Board at eic’at’stanforddaily.com.

The post Editorial Board endorses Executive slate and 12 Senate candidates appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/11/editorial-board-endorses-exec-slate-and-12-senate-candidates/feed/ 0 1125679
Editorial Board: On the FoHo’s letter to the editor https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/08/editorial-board-on-the-fohos-letter-to-the-editor/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/08/editorial-board-on-the-fohos-letter-to-the-editor/#respond Wed, 08 Mar 2017 20:50:55 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1124518 The Editorial Board respond to today's letter to the editor from the Fountain Hopper.

The post Editorial Board: On the FoHo’s letter to the editor appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
On Tuesday, The Fountain Hopper submitted a letter responding to a piece by our editorial board titled “FoHo and the paradox of accountability reporting by an unaccountable press.” Needless to say, the editorial board believes the FoHo’s characterization of our reporting on various issues and the training of our staff is at best unjustifiably dismissive and at worst willfully ignorant of good journalism. Furthermore, the FoHo continues to misconstrue The Daily’s business operations. By the end of its 1,300-word letter, the FoHo still fails to answer one central question: Why remain anonymous? Protected by press laws and the tide of student opinion, there should be no real harm in revealing the identity of FoHo staff given how confident they are in the veracity and righteousness of their reporting.

In the end, a back-and-forth between the FoHo and The Daily would serve little purpose for the student body. Instead, we at The Daily will let readers judge for themselves which sources of news they trust and which models of reporting they prefer. As it has since 1892, The Daily will continue to do its best to cover stories at Stanford objectively and accurately.

The post Editorial Board: On the FoHo’s letter to the editor appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/08/editorial-board-on-the-fohos-letter-to-the-editor/feed/ 0 1124518
You should go to those on-campus talks https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/02/you-should-go-to-those-on-campus-talks/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/02/you-should-go-to-those-on-campus-talks/#respond Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:46:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1124059 Taking a class outside of your major may seem like a big commitment, but going to a talk isn’t. On-campus talks present fantastic opportunities to get a taste of fields of study other than your own.

The post You should go to those on-campus talks appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As a typically overzealous freshman at the Major Fair, I put my email down for every major that sounded interesting, several majors I’d never even heard of and one major I really had no interest in but its booth had a cute guy. At the activities fair, I did pretty much the same thing. So, not surprisingly, I soon began receiving upwards of 50 emails every day.

Eager to take advantage of all opportunities, I dutifully began putting all the events I was emailed about into my calendar and attending them whenever I could.

In the past six months, I’ve been to book groups, talks with visiting writers and scholars, panels on the election, lectures on cultured meat and colloquiums on the Arctic. Not every event is amazing, but most of them are great, and some are truly phenomenal.

However, I’ve noticed that most of the talks, especially the humanities-based ones, have relatively small turnouts. At many events I’ve looked around and discovered that I’m one of the only undergrads — everyone else looks like graduate students, professors or Palo Alto locals. I couldn’t help but wonder why more undergraduates don’t go to these panels.

At first I thought it was because everyone is so busy, but people find time to see Trevor Noah and Solange. Ultimately, we make time for the things we prioritize. Stanford students may find time to go to one or two large events per quarter, but they seem to pass up almost everything that is not directly within their field of interest.

Taking a class outside of your major may seem like a big commitment, but going to a talk isn’t. On-campus talks present fantastic opportunities to get a taste of fields of study other than your own, yet most Stanford students attend only very large events or events targeted at their major. This seems like a shame. Isn’t the point of a liberal arts education to gain insight into many different fields?

Next time you get an email about an upcoming event that sounds interesting to you, put it in your calendar. And when the day rolls around, consider stopping by! A lot of the talks are fantastic. And if self-edification isn’t enough motivation for you, I’ve found that professors and TAs from within the department of the event often attend, which can earn you a lot of respect if they happen to be your TAs or professors. If not for yourself, do it for the extra credit! And who knows, you may even learn something along the way.

 

The post You should go to those on-campus talks appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/02/you-should-go-to-those-on-campus-talks/feed/ 0 1124059
Editorial Board: FoHo and the paradox of accountability reporting by an unaccountable press https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/21/foho-the-problem-of-accountability-reporting-by-an-unaccountable-press/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/21/foho-the-problem-of-accountability-reporting-by-an-unaccountable-press/#respond Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:30:20 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1123393 The FoHo represents a journalistic paradox: accountability reporting by an unaccountable press.

The post Editorial Board: FoHo and the paradox of accountability reporting by an unaccountable press appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
On Friday morning, the latest edition of the Fountain Hopper (FoHo), a tabloid-esque, semi-regular email digest, went out to the publication’s subscribers. The FoHo has frequently taken aim at our journalistic methods, and in its latest “FAKE (real) NEWS SPECIAL EDITION,” it levelled several charges of implied malpractice at our writers and editors. In the following editorial, we respond to these claims and explore how the FoHo’s disturbing modus operandi, as characterized by its recent attacks, should be of great concern to all students.

 

An accountable press

A responsible press is an accountable press. This has been a central tenet of media ethics for a long time. Yet, the FoHo is as unaccountable as they come. FoHo stories are never ascribed to authors, reporters or editors, and, when sourcing, the FoHo frequently utilizes an unattributed email (FoHo@gmail.com), so sources haven’t the slightest idea with whom they may be speaking. This means that a given story could be affected by significant bias. A known opponent of a professor, for instance, could slander her in a mass email and remain hidden behind a blanket of safe, anonymous snark.

Moreover, should you be slandered by the FoHo, as in the above example, the FoHo does not provide right of response. The FoHo does not print corrections. This isn’t because the FoHo is never wrong. Everyone in journalism errs at one time or another (even the New York Times has a dedicated corrections page). What this means is that there is no forum for you to contest a claim made by the FoHo or its reporters. No corrections. No addendums. No Letters to the Editor.

The FoHo therefore represents a paradox: accountability reporting by an unaccountable press.

In Friday’s “FoHo #40 Mega Edition,” the Fountain Hopper suggested the following:

  • That Daily reporters fail to fact-check their pieces, specifically with regard to our article on the University’s firing of a sexual assault lawyer, Crystal Riggins, who criticized Stanford’s Title IX process.
  • That The Daily deliberately removed an article about the University’s handling of a sexual harassment case (in the FoHo, the article’s disappearance was characterized as “mysterious”), not because of technical issues but because of “something more relevant” according to a sourcing email sent to a Daily writer.
  • And, most ominously, that The Daily’s use of “$100K a year from the University” makes us puppets of the Stanford administration.

If the FoHo did, in fact, provide right of response (i.e. printed corrections), we at The Daily would currently be clarifying that:

  • The Daily spoke to both Crystal Riggins and the administration regarding the case. Because each source presented contrasting narratives, we included all received facts and quotes in order to provide readers with a complete account of what transpired. Our article on Riggins’ firing was scrupulously edited and fact-checked.
  • The link to the sexual harassment article was broken during updates to our website – as were a number of others. It was not taken down, nor were we ever asked to take it down.
  • Marc Tessier-Lavigne doesn’t just float $100K our way in a secret Main Quad briefcase hand-off to keep us in his pocket. We receive $100K in special fees from the ASSU each year because the student body elects to subscribe to our print product. And the “quiet little 501(c)(3)” referenced by the FoHo is in fact a subsidiary of The Daily meant specifically for fundraising through our alumni (more on our financials below).

Add to this the fact that FoHo reporters rarely make their accusations explicit, but instead omit facts and write in a condescending, if-you-don’t-agree-you’re-an-imbecile tone to imply their points. For example, in its last issue, the FoHo did not directly accuse The Daily of taking down the aforementioned article pertaining to sexual harassment, but instead stated “Mysteriously, when we went to press, the article had vanished from The Daily … [insert emojis here].” If brought to task for the insinuation, the FoHo can simply dodge accountability by saying it didn’t outright make the contested claim.

As a final example, take the FoHo’s subscribers, who are signed up for the digest without their express consent. They are then coerced into remaining subscribers by an unsubscribe warning that informs them that, should they choose to cut the cord, they will never be able to subscribe again. And here we thought, after the FERPA fiasco, the FoHo would be a champion of open access to information.

 

Objective reporting

This brings us to the broader problem with FoHo’s brand of reporting: the selective use of information that ignores the routines of objective reporting.

The FoHo did in fact reach out to The Daily for quotes on our financials. However, it failed to include most of the information we provided over email (for example, that ASSU funds are only used for printing costs). Instead of relaying the complete story – which the reporters had received – it chose facts that furthered its point, which, in this case, portrayed The Daily in a negative light.

Further, in calling the quotes in our article regarding the firing of Crystal Riggins “fake news,” the FoHo misses the importance of balanced reporting. Printing a quote does not imply that we endorse that perspective but rather that we believe it’s important for students to hear – we don’t pass judgment on how sources choose to justify their words.

Unlike the FoHo, The Daily has a relationship with administrators, and we are proud of this relationship. It is not that of blackmailer and blackmailed as the FoHo might have you believe, but is instead one of mutual respect. Good journalism is premised on objective reporting. And objective reporting is premised on the hearing of oppositional voices. Every student deserves to hear multiple perspectives, to synthesize this information and to develop their own opinions, free of wanton and excessive mediation. Part of our job as a news organization is to keep the administration accountable, and we have a duty to hear and attempt to understand the University’s account – to include direct quotes from Stanford officials in our articles.

So, yes. We talk to administrators. The FoHo, on the other hand, does not. For those interested, it is University policy not to comment on FoHo stories because the FoHo is not an official student organization. This means, at any given time, the FoHo is only privy to one perspective (its side, or the side of its sources). You may agree with this perspective, but you should nonetheless be concerned. This means that if you take everything written in the FoHo at face value, your understanding will only ever be half-complete.

 

On The Daily’s financials

We’d like to end this article by responding to FoHo’s questioning of our financials (or, in its own words, “why The Daily’s kowtowing to Stanford’s admin”). Yes, The Daily does receive money from the University. But we’re not hiding anything, nor have we ever.

The FoHo continues to promulgate the narrative of the University’s influence over what we cover. Here’s how we imagine the FoHo pictures the typical Daily meeting:

Marc Tessier-Lavigne: [twirls mustache] Don’t write that or you don’t get this $161K.

Victor Xu, Editor-in-Chief: [salivating noticeably] Fuck, OK.

[MTL tosses a wad of cash onto the floor and Victor pounces, slurping it up like spaghetti or, IDK, coffee]

This, of course, is not the case.

Take a look at this breakdown of our revenue from the University; our financials are and always have been publicly available. In fiscal year 2015, we received $161K to cover the cost of printing and delivering our print publications — $100K of this comes from special fees voted upon by students, and the remainder is provided by the University to cover the cost of distribution on behalf of students. This $161K is not an open fund we can deplete at our leisure. Special fees are only provided upon the direct submission of receipts from our printers to the ASSU, while the distribution fee is solely used for the salaries of our professional distributors and the cost/maintenance of their equipment.

This is not, by any means, unprecedented or shocking. Consider that the San Francisco Chronicle expects readers to pay for its paper. The Chronicle would not exist without charging its customers, and likewise it’s a nonsensical expectation for The Daily to print 8,000 papers a day, every weekday, without some sort of compensation from our readers. The fact that we charge a subscription and delivery fee does not mean we’re beholden to the administration.

With regard to the “quiet little 501(c)(3)” mentioned in the FoHo, the Friends of The Daily is a subsidiary of The Daily that serves as our unofficial alumni association. It operates events, funds scholarships, helps with our archiving expenses and serves broadly as our graduate fundraising arm. The assets of the Friends come from alumni donations solicited over time. We have never deposited student fees into Friends accounts. Far from being a conflict of interest, the accounts of the Friends actually help us maintain our editorial independence, as they ensure we have a financial reserve in case the University ever violated our agreements and threatened to use our student fees as leverage.

And, to further ensure our editorial independence, The Daily has negotiated multiple contracts with the University that ensure our freedom of expression. In 1978, we even took a case to the Supreme Court to defend this freedom.

If, after reading this, you still take issue with The Daily’s financials, we invite you to talk with us or reach out (our names and email addresses are public knowledge). But, as the Editorial Board of The Daily, we can assure you that the $161K in fees that can be traced to Stanford has never had an impact on our content. Never has a writer or editor been threatened with the revocation of these fees. That would be patently absurd and would be a significant cause for alarm.

***

We don’t mean to suggest that the FoHo doesn’t serve a purpose. It does. Despite its questionable journalistic ethics, the FoHo pushes buttons, and that is vital to progress. Its demand for accountability should be applauded, and in some respects, the FoHo has even forced us to evaluate the way we develop our stories.

Our concern, however, is that the FoHo exists in an obscure echo chamber where there is only room for one voice: its own.

We know The Daily is flawed, and we are always working to improve our writing and our reporting. Printing a daily paper is hard, and at times we fail to stir up shit and ask the tough questions. But even when we’re not disrupting the status quo, the journalism we do is of consequence.

Unlike the FoHo, we don’t just arise from the ether when someone does something that might make for an entertaining read. We are out there every morning and every night, printing the news. You may not care when a new building has been commissioned or that Dance Marathon is partnering with Lucille Packard this year, but it’s important that these objective facts are made accessible. Because, chances are, somebody cares. Like, for instance, the FoHo. Have you ever noticed how the FoHo, in emails decrying our practices, continues to cite our reporting (48 times this academic year, to be exact)?

We hope that the next time you’re reading some sarcastic yarn spun by the anonymous reporters over at FoHo, you’ll take a moment to reflect on what they stand for and to consider the very real possibility that you’re not getting the entire picture.

The post Editorial Board: FoHo and the paradox of accountability reporting by an unaccountable press appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/21/foho-the-problem-of-accountability-reporting-by-an-unaccountable-press/feed/ 0 1123393
Reflecting on the Hennessy tenure https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/30/hennessy-ed-board-piece-title-to-come/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/30/hennessy-ed-board-piece-title-to-come/#comments Tue, 31 May 2016 06:59:19 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1115927 With the end of the school year comes the end of President John Hennessy’s tenure as president of Stanford. In spite of criticism he’s faced over the years, most would agree that his 15 years at the helm of the University have made Stanford a trend-setter for the rest of higher education. To get a […]

The post Reflecting on the Hennessy tenure appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
With the end of the school year comes the end of President John Hennessy’s tenure as president of Stanford. In spite of criticism he’s faced over the years, most would agree that his 15 years at the helm of the University have made Stanford a trend-setter for the rest of higher education.

To get a better sense of what Hennessy has accomplished, let’s go back to October 2000. Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, 9/11 had not happened and neither had the economic crisis of 2008. The iPhone had not been invented, and Google was only two years old. In short, much has changed.

Much has also changed at Stanford in that time, and Hennessy will be leaving Stanford in a very different place from where he found it. During his presidency, Stanford rose from a top-tier university to the most selective school in America — a school that has risen from a good school to a premier institution — and Hennessy is, in many ways, directly responsible for that.

Since Hennessy’s predecessor Gerhard Casper left Hennessy a world-class institution, it can be tempting to underrate Hennessy’s impact. But Hennessy has done far more than avoid crashing the Tesla. Hennessy has helped push Stanford to new heights as an international brand.

The class of 2004, which arrived to Stanford with Hennessy, saw 17,919 undergraduate applicants with an acceptance rate of 17 percent. The school’s endowment was a lowly $6.2 billion, which — like its acceptance rate — was impressive but still well behind those of other elite institutions around the country.

This year, Stanford accepted 4.69 percent of its 43,997 applicants. Its endowment has nearly quadrupled to $21.5 billion (though it still lags behind Harvard’s and Yale’s). Over the past 16 years, the school’s yield rate has jumped by 15 percent, equalling that of Harvard’s. Stanford’s budget has more than doubled since Hennessy took office, and his fundraising efforts brought in $13 billion — leading the country every year but one. As a result, Stanford has been able to expand its financial aid system: 70 percent of Stanford students receive some sort of financial aid, and the University announced last year that it would cover tuition for students whose parents’ income is below $125,000.

But looking beyond statistics reveals the full extent of Hennessy’s impact.

In his time on The Farm, Hennessy has utilized his personal ties to Silicon Valley to strengthen Stanford’s connections to the tech industry: a relationship that has allowed Stanford to thrive with the growth of Silicon Valley. Stanford’s institutional emphasis has shifted similarly — to engineering and science, data and research, economics and, above all, graduate studies. At the same time, Hennessy’s focus on interdisciplinary education has allowed the institution to maintain its appeal of a strong, diverse academic base.

Hennessy and Etchemendy’s shifts in academic philosophy have been complemented by a transformed physical campus. Under Hennessy, Stanford has undertaken over 70 building projects (Bing Concert Hall, the Engineering Quad, the Graduate School of Business, to name a few) and adopted spaces for innovative use, something that has allowed Stanford to attract the best students and faculty.

In spite of these successes, Hennessy’s tenure has not been without criticism. Some of these criticisms can be more readily attributed to Hennessy than others.

When Hennessy assumed office in 2000, there were already calls to bridge the divide between techies and fuzzies. Some students were concerned about Stanford’s growing reputation as a tech school, and some even advocated for the next president of the University to be a humanities president.

These tensions have not substantially subsided since those initial issues were raised 15 years ago. Yet, while many have attributed this shift to Hennessy’s focus on tying Silicon Valley to Stanford’s image, in reality, the rising enrollment in STEM majors is likely the result of a rising demand for technical skills in the job market. Funding and support for the humanities have not appreciably decreased during Hennessy’s tenure, and enrollment in humanities majors has stayed roughly constant. But with this naturally exacerbated techie-fuzzie divide, some students have argued that the University should be doing more to combat it.

While Hennessy has made notable contributions to the arts — most notably the opening of the Anderson Collection, McMurtry Building and Bing Concert Hall — many argue that Hennessy’s commitment to the arts has been limited to buildings and not substance.

Similarly, while Stanford has made some progress in the diversity of its academic content, many believe its faculty diversity remains underwhelming. Diversity at Stanford was one of the central controversies when Hennessy entered the University administration. The level of undergraduate diversity at Stanford, at best, has not significantly changed since 2000. Since then, faculty diversity, where racial disparities are far greater, has become the focal point of student criticism. Members of the recent Who’s Teaching Us? movement are still dissatisfied that Hennessy has not made a larger push for faculty diversity in his 15 years at Stanford. For his own part, Hennessy has publicly acknowledged that Stanford has not done enough, but contended that he is not in a position to effect significant change on this issue.

Hennessy and his administration have also recently been criticized for their lack of transparency and dialogue with the student body, an issue that appears to have been present from the beginning of his tenure. With many social and political issues dominating students’ concerns, and a student body that has growing expectations for the role of a university president in the public sphere, the administration’s failure to communicate with students has heightened mistrust and frustration.

Ultimately, Hennessy’s legacy will be measured by the impact his actions have on future generations of Stanford students. And in this regard, we believe his tenure has been successful. Despite the legitimate concerns still facing the University, Hennessy has established Stanford as one of the world’s premier institutions. It’s in the hands of next year’s leadership where we go from here.

 

Contact the Editorial Board at opinions ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Reflecting on the Hennessy tenure appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/30/hennessy-ed-board-piece-title-to-come/feed/ 1 1115927
A call for transparency from Stanford’s administration https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/08/me-ay-a-call-for-transparency-from-stanfords-administration/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/08/me-ay-a-call-for-transparency-from-stanfords-administration/#respond Mon, 09 May 2016 06:59:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1114782 Stanford can sometimes seem more like a carefully constructed political system than an institution for higher learning. Its choice of leadership is only indirectly guided by student preferences. There’s a constant balancing act between guaranteeing the financial health of the institution and reflecting the beliefs and interests of its people. And indirect communication has fostered […]

The post A call for transparency from Stanford’s administration appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Stanford can sometimes seem more like a carefully constructed political system than an institution for higher learning.

Its choice of leadership is only indirectly guided by student preferences. There’s a constant balancing act between guaranteeing the financial health of the institution and reflecting the beliefs and interests of its people. And indirect communication has fostered mistrust and miscommunications between leadership and the students, even in cases in which everyone was on the same side.

The Stanford administration has a transparency problem when it comes to its students. And while that may not alter its intentions, it certainly makes it much harder for listeners to believe their stake in these issues matters.

All of this is not to dismiss the efforts of the administration to communicate meaningfully with the student body, or to say that this barrier in communications is entirely their fault. The administration has made countless efforts — through OpenXChange, talks by President Hennessy to groups of the student body, meetings between him and individual student groups expressing concerns through movements like WTU and Fossil Free.

The administration has even taken steps to give students a concrete voice, such as bringing in a student to serve on the Presidential Search committee that recommended Marc Tessier-Lavigne earlier this year. It has tried to encourage accountability on issues like sexual assault by carrying out a wide-ranging student survey to get a better sense of its performance as an administration in protecting student interests. All of those were important steps that deserve to be acknowledged. But it’s equally important to highlight a critical shortcoming that has been the barrier to real progress both within and outside these well-intended efforts: effective and meaningful communication that backs them up.

Among the many examples of failed communication was the fossil fuel divestment issue. Last year, Fossil Free Stanford saw an opportunity to pressure Stanford into divesting from environmentally damaging industries, and its students protested with a sit-in in Main Quad to make the group’s preferences known. But cries for change seemed to fall on deaf ears. For many students, Stanford’s attitude towards FFS was encapsulated by President John Hennessy getting a public haircut at the on-campus Stanford Hair salon, while students protested for hours outside his office.

We understand that at Stanford, the president is asked to focus more on big-picture items like fundraising and less on engaging with the undergraduate student body, than at most schools. But the reality is that such a show of indifference should not have occurred. Ultimately, although Hennessy did meet with students at the end of the week, his action passed almost entirely unnoticed because he did not do so when campus scrutiny was at its peak.

Currently, the intentions of the administration are often difficult to ascertain. On most decisions, explanations are not given and the information we do receive via community emails and speeches to small crowds about campus issues is often so cloaked in vagueness that it’s not even clear what the subject is.

For example, a week after The Stanford Review’s controversial April Fool’s publication, the administration sent out an email referencing the importance of engaging in “respectful conversations with each other.” It also referenced the role of “humor” in “undermin[ing] the climate of respectful dialogue.”

But if their intent was to discourage painful humor in response to a particular issue, what good is a reprimand without pointing directly to the issue that needs correcting?

In addition, the perception among students is that efforts to address mental health on campus have taken a backseat this year. The reality, though, is quite the opposite. In a recent open letter in The Daily, CAPS director Ronald Albucher detailed a myriad of transformations CAPS has undergone recently that tell a very different story. But these changes will be ineffective if only a small group of students and the administration are aware of them.

Most recently, the administration suggested they want to ban hard alcohol in dorms. The sheer unpopularity of this measure among University staff and students has triggered much speculation as to why the administration would have proposed such a radical change. While no one on campus promotes alcohol transports and sexual assault, a complete alcohol ban demands explanation and transparency. And yet, there has been virtually no meaningful communication from the administration, either to students or to residential staff about the reasoning or intentions behind the ban. The only information we have so far is that some members of Residential Education and the student body are adamantly opposed to its implementation.

Stanford does a lot of work to make sure that students can freely express their views, but expressing views is not the same as having input. The Daily Editorial Board does not propose that students be given a veto, or even a larger share of the vote, in key University decisions. But if the administration does something, we believe that students ought to know that the action is being taken and why the administration is doing it. Stanford is accountable for things much bigger than the contentment of the current students residing on campus. But the fact remains that it is first and foremost a university with students who want nothing more than to understand their leadership.

In the long run, something needs to change. There are far too many intelligent, articulate people in the Stanford administration for communication on clearly student-related issues like dorm rules and mental health to be so woefully inadequate. Moreover, these are issues that absolutely demand student cooperation for the administration to properly move forward. We believe that those in administration are generally well-intentioned — but we also believe they’d be more effective if we knew why they do what they do.

– The Stanford Daily Editorial Board

 

Contact the Editorial Board at opinions@stanforddaily.com.

The post A call for transparency from Stanford’s administration appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/08/me-ay-a-call-for-transparency-from-stanfords-administration/feed/ 0 1114782
Editorial Board endorses Beard/Edelman for ASSU Executive https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/03/me-ay-editorial-board-endorses-beardedelman-for-executive-slate/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/03/me-ay-editorial-board-endorses-beardedelman-for-executive-slate/#respond Mon, 04 Apr 2016 06:59:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1112908 Jackson Beard ’17 and Amanda Edelman ’17 are a pair of very strong candidates for the ASSU leadership and would have been competitive in any other year. While they are the only serious ticket for ASSU Executive this year, The Daily has no obligation to endorse any candidate — and we appreciated that while Beard/Edelman […]

The post Editorial Board endorses Beard/Edelman for ASSU Executive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Jackson Beard '17 and Amanda Edelman '17
Jackson Beard ’17 and Amanda Edelman ’17

Jackson Beard ’17 and Amanda Edelman ’17 are a pair of very strong candidates for the ASSU leadership and would have been competitive in any other year. While they are the only serious ticket for ASSU Executive this year, The Daily has no obligation to endorse any candidate — and we appreciated that while Beard/Edelman did not have any competition, they prepared as though the leadership was contested. They showed an impressive command of detail in their endorsements and their platform, and we are confident that they will be able to hit the ground running.

Realistically, the success of an Exec slate rests on the ticket’s ability to connect student groups, the Senate and the Stanford administration, rather than any of the many other factors that typically define electability. We believe that Jackson and Amanda will be able to make these connections, given their wealth of experiences across different areas of campus.

In their interview with us, Jackson and Amanda showed that they will take the right approach with administrators and the Faculty Senate. We are glad that they will be ready to work with incoming President Marc Tessier-Lavigne as he transitions into the Stanford community. The role of ASSU Executive is one mainly of interacting with administrators — Jackson and Amanda will be good representatives for the student body.

The slate has extensive experience in student government and has shown an ability to learn lessons from past student executives, particularly in how they plan to harness their student resources and staff. They will build a cabinet that is small and responsive. Moreover, one of the benefits of being the only major slate is that they have gained valuable lead time in finding the best candidates to staff their administration.

Jackson, in particular, shows a strong understanding of funding — she spent her sophomore year as the chair of the Appropriations Committee of the Undergraduate Senate. Her understanding of SSE could prove useful in providing oversight of the financial branch of the ASSU in the wake of SSE’s recent scandal.

At a time when the safety of women on campus is one of the most notable issues on campus, the slate promises to be stronger supporters of continued sexual assault reform, working to implement mandatory sexual assault education for freshmen, among other initiatives.

They also have connections to many of the students on campus — both are in Greek life, while Jackson has been involved in Stanford in Government and Amanda has worked for the Bridge. If they can continue to further these connections by holding more town halls and office hours to interact with the community, they will be even more effective.

Ultimately, the Editorial Board believes that Jackson and Amanda will provide solid representation and make a good pair to lead the ASSU.

 

Contact the Editorial Board at opinions ‘at’ stanforddaily.com.

The post Editorial Board endorses Beard/Edelman for ASSU Executive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/03/me-ay-editorial-board-endorses-beardedelman-for-executive-slate/feed/ 0 1112908
Editorial Board Senate endorsements https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/03/editorial-board-senate-endorsements/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/03/editorial-board-senate-endorsements/#respond Mon, 04 Apr 2016 06:59:05 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1112910 We are excited to announce ten exceptional candidates that The Editorial Board has chosen to endorse. Please see below for the reasoning behind our choices. [ubergrid id=1113041] Mylan Gray ’19 The Editorial Board was impressed with Mylan — his realistic understanding of what the Senate can and cannot do, as well as his understanding of the […]

The post Editorial Board Senate endorsements appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
We are excited to announce ten exceptional candidates that The Editorial Board has chosen to endorse. Please see below for the reasoning behind our choices.

[ubergrid id=1113041]

Mylan Gray ’19

The Editorial Board was impressed with Mylan — his realistic understanding of what the Senate can and cannot do, as well as his understanding of the Senate’s most important job (funding student groups), all point to the fact that Mylan has done his homework, an impressive feat for someone that’s been on campus for less than a year. Mylan has already developed relationships with several student communities, as well as certain members of the Board of Trustees. The Editorial Board believes that these relationships will allow him to effectively support diversity programming, both from an appropriations perspective and as a representative to administrators.

 

Elliot Kaufman ’18

Elliot might not be your traditional Senate candidate — he believes in a Senate that “stays out of the lives of students,” a Ron Paul approach to student government not typically found in most candidates. The Editorial Board believes strongly in the free exchange of ideas and we think Elliot’s presence on the Senate will ensure that the legislative body is home to lively debate.

The Editorial Board also supports Elliot’s desire for ASSU electoral reform — he suggests that the Senate could be a more representative body in a variety of ways, arguing that its slate-heavy voting system means that certain groups of students are underrepresented.

 

Jayaram Ravi ’19

Jayaram’s intellectual humility and self-awareness impressed the Editorial Board. It’s a trait that not many candidates, much less freshmen candidates, possess.

We think Jayaram’s desire for the Senate to be a vessel of conversation (something we anticipate him working on with fellow candidate Ali Sarilgan), and his realistic understanding of how to the Senate can best achieve meaningful conversation (through funding and microgrants), will make him an important member of the 18th Undergraduate Senate.

We also envision Jayaram pushing the University towards reexamining the report produced by the Mental Health Task Force in 2008 and working with the University to ensure student mental health concerns are met.

 

Ali Sarilgan ’19

The Editorial Board liked Ali for two reasons: his desire to push the administration on increasing financial aid of international students, and his perspective on the importance of conversation and the free exchange of ideas. A key theme in our endorsements this year was our desire to find candidates that would improve links between the different communities on campus. Coming from Turkey — a country on the brink of civil war — Ali is uniquely qualified to promote conversation and dialogue, having already done that type of work in Turkey prior to coming to Stanford. Ali believes that Senate’s main job shouldn’t be to politicize itself, but rather to be the main medium through which the Stanford community can discuss political topics. And Ali has already demonstrated commitment to his own word — he has already met with several different groups to better understand their perspectives, and the Editorial Board believes he can be a key facilitator in discussion on campus next year.

Editor’s Note: Ali is a columnist for the Daily’s Opinions Section.

 

Matthew Cohen ’18

The Daily does not give blanket endorsements to incumbents, or to Senators it endorsed last year. But as our endorsements show, the Editorial Board is focused on finding candidates who can make a difference. Matthew’s experience as a Senator running for re-election has given him an impressive understanding of how the ASSU and the Senate operate and how to get things done. As a Senator, he has a strong track record of encouraging civil discourse and debate. He was one of the few students to point out that certain academic disciplines are extremely underrepresented, particularly in the STEM fields. Finally, he was very frank in his interview about where he needs to improve, and he’s very knowledgeable about where the Senate can improve as well.

Re-election campaigns are a rare occurrence in a legislative body that is more known for its rapid turnover than its continuity, and we are excited that Matthew chose to throw his hat in the ring again and give the Senate some much-needed institutional memory.

Editor’s Note: Matthew serves as a desk editor for the Daily’s Opinions Section. He has no affiliation with the Editorial Board.

 

Junwon Park ’19

Current ASSU Executives John Lancaster-Finley ’16 and Brandon Hill ’16 have done a good job of using email and social media to reach out to the undergraduate student body. But the Senate has not been as open to the general public. Junwon has many concrete ideas to improve the Senate’s communication with student and allow them to have a greater role in shaping the Senate debate, such as his proposal to require the Senate to consider the key issues of the day, as determined by a student vote. We were also impressed with how, like some of the other candidates we are endorsing this year, he came to our interview having already reached out to other student groups and was ready to talk cogently and insightfully about many of their key issues and concerns. Finally, as an international student like Ali, Junwon will be able to better represent a growing portion of the student body — one that has traditionally punched below its weight on the campus political scene.

 

Hattie Gawande ’18

Hattie approaches her reelection campaign with a year’s experience as a Senator. She not only gained a strong understanding of how the Senate functions, but also worked closely on sexual assault initiatives that address the understaffing and underfunding of the SARA office. In addition, she and fellow senator Matthew Cohen met with Provost Etchemendy to encourage the university to release additional data pertaining to sexual assault or re-administer the controversial survey taken a few months ago.

Out of all the candidates the Editorial Board interviewed, Hattie exhibited the deepest understanding of how the ASSU actually works: in particular, the intricacies of the programming and special fees budgets. She also had the most detailed plans for how the ASSU can alleviate the strain these two budgets face, which would address the needs of student groups who seek funding from the ASSU.

 

Jasmin Espinosa ’18

Jasmin’s experience with the Senate speaks for itself. As a Senator, she has proven a conscientious, passionate community representative with a sincere interest in ensuring everyone has an equal voice at the table. She highlighted the importance of the Senate being “a magnifier of student voices” rather than dictators. Her personal understanding of the student experience at the intersection of many identities, and her incorporation of that understanding in her representation of other communities, is one we believe many could benefit from.

We would look forward to seeing how Jasmin uses her existing experience to build a platform for communal voices to be uplifted through town halls or forums and broader discussions that we hope will contribute significantly to positive change on campus.

 

Carson Smith ’19

Carson demonstrates an impressive passion for community development and betterment, stating that her priority above simply being in the Senate is finding the place on campus where she can most effectively enact positive change. In addition to being extremely aware of issues on campus, and the functionality and limitations of the Senate, she brings an important set of priorities, striving to “represent areas of Stanford that have been overlooked in the past.” This goal includes speaking on behalf of underrepresented communities and working towards resolving longstanding issues with institutional memory in the senate and restoring the faith of communities in its ability to act swiftly, effectively and consistently in its best interests. She also recognizes that, while the ASSU should have a role in encouraging dialogue, its real power lies in appropriations, and that reliable and well-managed funding is a necessity for a well-functioning community.

We look forward to seeing how Carson’s unique set of experiences, including being a member of the Muwekma community, enable her to contribute to the betterment of our broader campus, and believe she is exceptionally qualified to carry out that work as a member of next year’s Senate.

 

Editor’s Note: In light of Tuesday night’s Senate meeting, The Daily has decided to rescind its endorsement of current Senator and Senate candidate Gabriel Knight ’17. The role of a Senator is to represent the Stanford student body, and part of that job requires being able to navigate the different, and sometimes unfamiliar, experiences of various student communities. We appreciate Knight’s willingness to personally explain his intentions to the Board on Wednesday night. However, we feel that regardless of his intentions, the statements he made during the Senate meeting were insensitive and unacceptable for an elected representative of the Stanford community.

Editor-in-chief Andrew Vogeley had recused himself from the Editorial Board’s prior decision to endorse Knight, due to their friendship. He was also not involved in the Board’s decision to rescind Knight’s endorsement.

Contact The Editorial Board at opinions ‘at’ stanforddaily.com.

 

The post Editorial Board Senate endorsements appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/03/editorial-board-senate-endorsements/feed/ 0 1112910
Editorial Board: Reforming the college admissions process https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/28/editorial-board-reforming-the-college-admissions-process/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/28/editorial-board-reforming-the-college-admissions-process/#respond Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:59:23 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1111741 You can’t get 50 people in this country to agree on most issues, but it seems that you can get them to agree that college admissions reform is necessary. It is not surprising therefore that the initial report of Harvard’s Making Caring Common project had a star-studded list of endorsements — representatives from a whole host of […]

The post Editorial Board: Reforming the college admissions process appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
You can’t get 50 people in this country to agree on most issues, but it seems that you can get them to agree that college admissions reform is necessary. It is not surprising therefore that the initial report of Harvard’s Making Caring Common project had a star-studded list of endorsements — representatives from a whole host of top colleges, as well as undergraduate admissions heads from the entire Ivy League and even administrators at college prep schools, like Milton and Horace Mann. Although the Stanford and UC Berkeley administrations declined to co-sign the report, it is nonetheless the closest the educational community has ever gotten to an elite consensus.

As the Editorial Board, we are interested in what the report has to offer. We are concerned that, to a large extent, the Harvard report has only received the extensive support it has because its recommendations are sufficiently vague to elicit broad agreement. The general goals of the report are promising. But we are not convinced that the requirements are explicit enough to be institutionalized across the country, and therefore doubt that the report will encourage real change.

The report made its biggest splash by arguing that college admissions officers should de-emphasize grades, test scores and course difficulty. It declared that colleges should focus more on evaluating their applicants’ commitment to community service and ethical thoughtfulness. But it also places these reforms within a larger framework that prioritizes diversity of student experiences over activities that are no more than resume boosters. The report justifies the necessity of this change by highlighting the currently inadequate levels of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity, and thus seeks to “level the playing field” for underprivileged applicants.

The first set of reforms — focusing less on tangible achievements — appears laudable, in the sense that people from underprivileged backgrounds have lower grades and test scores on average, and less access to the same academic privileges. So, at first glance, it seems a lower prioritization of academic achievement would be a promising first step towards leveling the playing field. But we wonder if it would be more appropriate to simply emphasize existing diversity initiatives, like affirmative action or outreach trips to areas that the college admissions industry doesn’t always serve. If there are already systems in place to increase diversity and student representation, it seems to make more sense to work within these systems than to go entirely against the grain, unless the current systems can’t be improved to achieve the same goals.

The second set of reforms — emphasizing personal development and growth — are also well-founded. We want our colleges to educate the next Neil Armstrong, not the next Bernie Madoff, and we want to empower these graduates to do good in the world. The report’s call for displaying a commitment to sustained and meaningful community service seems aligned with this goal.

But if we shift the emphasis of college admissions from AP classes to community services, we’re just going to see the commodification of community services as an extracurricular activity. Stanford applicants will simply put insane hours into community service. Soup kitchens will become the new AP Chemistry, and the concerns the report expresses about stress levels for middle- and upper-class applicants will not be solved, just reappropriated.

We also wonder what problems this report’s suggested changes are really solving. If these reforms seek to balance the playing field through a more holistic process, what criteria will be used to evaluate “lived” experiences and the value they contribute? If essays become the most important part of an application, it still places underprivileged students at a disadvantage, since writing skills are even more localized to private schools than AP courses, and emphasizing written responses only serves to shift the admissions process focus from one of private school’s greatest strengths to another.

Prioritizing experience over test scores is something colleges could be doing right now and simply don’t, and we are not sure how the new proposals will encourage this shift in the evaluation process. Given the current college application process, we are concerned that these recommendations may not be effective when a great deal of colleges’ prestige is tied to their matriculating students’ high GPAs and test scores. It is difficult to imagine colleges, which compete heavily for students and funding, willingly doing something that would probably lower those numbers that contributed to their prestige in the first place.

If we want to change that system (and it’s not entirely sure whether we should), the commitment must be wholesale. Right now, colleges are all terrified to enact the report’s reforms unilaterally, likely because they fear that being the first to do so would hurt their reputations and their rankings.

The appeal of the Harvard report is that so many schools signed on to it. The report seeks to make its recommendations a national norm that everybody will sign on to, and we think that’s a good idea. We believe that there needs to be a stronger commitment to ethnic and economic diversity, because of inequities long-rooted in the past. But we are doubtful if this set of reforms is the best way to achieve that goal.

The report’s website declares that the report is “the first step in a two-year campaign that seeks to substantially reshape the existing college admissions process.” We are very interested in seeing what the next two years will have in store. Without a major commitment to change, though, we believe that the promise of the report won’t amount to much.

Contact the Editorial Board at opinions ‘at’ stanforddaily.com.

 

The post Editorial Board: Reforming the college admissions process appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/28/editorial-board-reforming-the-college-admissions-process/feed/ 0 1111741
Editorial Board: Stepping aside to move forward https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/25/editorial-board-stepping-aside-to-move-forward/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/25/editorial-board-stepping-aside-to-move-forward/#comments Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:59:30 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1111591 This past Monday, the Stanford Review released a petition calling for the reform of the humanities curriculum through the reintroduction of a uniform two-quarter Western Civilization (Western Civ) requirement to replace the menu of one-quarter “Thinking Matters” courses in freshman year. The petition was, to say the least, controversial. The ensuing conversations attacked the Review […]

The post Editorial Board: Stepping aside to move forward appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This past Monday, the Stanford Review released a petition calling for the reform of the humanities curriculum through the reintroduction of a uniform two-quarter Western Civilization (Western Civ) requirement to replace the menu of one-quarter “Thinking Matters” courses in freshman year. The petition was, to say the least, controversial.

The ensuing conversations attacked the Review for the tone of its proposal and its claims of Western superiority. The arguments quickly became heated, but neither the proposal’s most vocal proponents nor its opponents have encouraged productive dialogue. Attackers of the requirement have channeled their concerns into sarcasm and personal attacks at the Review writers’ politics. In response, the Review and its supporters have continued to reply with the rhetorical hyperbole that sparked the argument in the first place.

The most unfortunate part of the Review’s proposal was that it could have presented its ideas in a reasonable manner; it simply chose not to. The Review offered two pieces in support of the Western Civilization requirement: an extended manifesto and a short proposal. Throughout the controversy, it has been criticized for attempting to whitewash “Western civilization” and limit the Western canon to its mainstream.

But the manifesto, unlike the petition, does show a willingness to critically address both historical and modern shortcomings of Western civilization. Unfortunately, the petition’s pontificating tone and oversimplified arguments have stifled productive conversation. By offering two clashing perspectives, the Review ensured that neither would be taken seriously.

We believe, nonetheless, that the Review’s proposal raised questions worth asking: How can Stanford best prepare its students to have a positive impact on their global community, and how can we make sure the humanities requirement is a first step in that direction?

First and foremost, any reform to the humanities curriculum must acknowledge student individuality by giving us freedom to choose what we learn. We aren’t cookie-cutter individuals; we shouldn’t strive for a cookie-cutter education. Instead, we should embrace our diversity of backgrounds and interests through courses that allow us to grow in unique and unexpected ways. A blanket humanities requirement simply can’t achieve that.

We agree wholeheartedly that to be effective citizens of the world, Stanford graduates must be able to place their innovations and social choices in a global context. We also agree that, for better or for worse, ideas generated by the West dominate the world in which we live. But we don’t agree that a Western Civilization requirement is the best way to give students that context.

If “our Stanford education fails to prepare us,” it’s not because we have an insufficient understanding of a Western timeline. It’s because humanities requirements as they stand can’t ensure that students will expand their critical thinking to areas directly related to their prospective fields. We don’t want Stanford to force students to study key moral questions in ways that don’t speak to what they do on a day-to-day basis.

A more suitable solution would be to give students the opportunity to learn about the national and international contexts associated with their disciplines. Students need a strong frame of reference for the field they’ve chosen, be it computer science or sociology. The Editorial Board proposes a departmental requirement for each major that places learning in a historical and societal context.

In an effort to highlight the issues with a specifically Western Civ requirement, the conversation seems to have lost sight of the question the Review set out to answer in the first place. If we really want a productive conversation around how to better our education, the first step will undoubtedly be shifting our focus from the first attempted answer, to the broader conversation the Stanford community deserves. Allowing the Review’s initial proposition to dominate the conversation is the educational equivalent of reading the syllabus without taking the course. You can do it, but you’ll miss most of the point.

 

Contact the Editorial Board at opinions@stanforddaily.com 

 

The post Editorial Board: Stepping aside to move forward appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/25/editorial-board-stepping-aside-to-move-forward/feed/ 1 1111591
Anita Richard: Thanksgiving https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/26/anita-richard-thanksgiving/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/26/anita-richard-thanksgiving/#respond Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:34:41 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1108257 Poor Thanksgiving – always outshone by the exaggerated festivities of All Hallow’s Eve and the quick-to-follow preparation for Christmas. Thanksgiving is often overlooked, simply a place-holder for the jolly jubilee that is to come. I, however, want to take the time to express my appreciation for all that Thanksgiving has to offer. Like any good […]

The post Anita Richard: Thanksgiving appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Poor Thanksgiving – always outshone by the exaggerated festivities of All Hallow’s Eve and the quick-to-follow preparation for Christmas. Thanksgiving is often overlooked, simply a place-holder for the jolly jubilee that is to come. I, however, want to take the time to express my appreciation for all that Thanksgiving has to offer.

Like any good relationship, this holiday is rich with a dramatic history. After a long and hard journey, the Puritans finally made it to Plymouth Rock, where they would join hands with the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Native Americans in a celebration of the bountiful harvest. Although Governor Winthrop had reason to be concerned about the clash of the non-Separatist Puritans at Plymouth and the Separatist Pilgrims at Massachusetts Bay … does anyone even care? The important thing to remember is that even in the face of conflict, one meal can really bring people together. Let’s put it this way: the table was not the only thing getting laid on this historic day. And you have to admire the dedicated curiosity of those who came to explore this New World. This year, I’m looking to follow their lead by stealing your land and claiming it as my own.

Since this first recorded Thanksgiving in 1623, the holiday has evolved to include more than just a meal. Perhaps you prefer to celebrate by catching a few rivalry football games, or fighting off the crowds on your early morning shopping spree, but I like to focus on the food and the people you enjoy the food with.

To satisfy your heightened appetite, I have something for you to gobble on. But before you jump into the first course, you’ll need to give me your full attention–the most tasty dishes require quite some time to prepare. I can help, but it has to be a joint effort. You mash my potatoes; I cream your corn; you stuff my turkey. You get the point. So long as we end with a piece of pumpkin pie with some whipped cream–especially if it’s whipped by hand–we will have made something beautiful.

But beyond the food, the shopping, and the football, this holiday is ultimately about giving thanks. This year, I will give thanks for my family, my friends, and a week away from the hustle and bustle of the classroom. I will give thanks for my one night stands, for my memories made and forgotten, and show my appreciation to everyone who has touched my life.

On this Thanksgiving, get stuffed on more than just dinner. And don’t be afraid to go back for seconds, even if they are a little sloppy. Give this holiday a chance. Join me in giving thanks for what we have been given. Let’s give it to each other.

 

Find Anita Richard at The Daily’s office.

The post Anita Richard: Thanksgiving appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/26/anita-richard-thanksgiving/feed/ 0 1108257
Anita Richard: Getting that (Special) D https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/12/getting-that-special-d/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/12/getting-that-special-d/#respond Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:59:33 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1106702 I feel as if it has been an eternity since I last wrote. What can I say? I’ve been busy. There were affairs to tend to, memories to be made and lost. Endless midterms have made these past few weeks long and hard, but the weekends have provided me with a much needed release. This […]

The post Anita Richard: Getting that (Special) D appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I feel as if it has been an eternity since I last wrote. What can I say? I’ve been busy. There were affairs to tend to, memories to be made and lost.

Endless midterms have made these past few weeks long and hard, but the weekends have provided me with a much needed release. This past weekend, it seemed as if every fraternity, sorority and upperclass house planned their special dinners. As I’m sure you have figured out, I’m a multitasker with more than just my school work and extracurriculars, so fortunately, I was able to make the rounds.

The dinner themes gave me the perfect opportunity to access my creative side and really get into the festivities. To my delight, Terra’s theme was sex-related. My costume? A reverse cowgirl. In the early evening I wore a cowboy hat and a backwards flannel. After hours, I shed the clothes but not the character. Let’s just say I really made my date feel like he had a special D.

If you didn’t get the chance to attend a special dinner this fall, don’t fret. Next weekend, contact a few of your best friends, dress up, go out and have a good time. If you’re not feeling like spending money on a nice dinner, you can still get the full effect. It’s not so much about the food but the atmosphere: grab a couple of foot-longs from Subway or a quickie from In-N-Out. You can even plan a potluck to split up the responsibility — I can provide the bread if you want to butter it for me. Wash it all down with a bottle or two of wine, dance with your best friend or your lover, take a photo for Instagram and call it an evening. The key is to never walk away stuffed. I always make sure to save room for the last course: dessert. Want to satisfy me? Bananas with whipped cream on the tips. No need to chew — just swallow.

 

Anita Richard is still hungover from her last Special D.

The post Anita Richard: Getting that (Special) D appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/12/getting-that-special-d/feed/ 0 1106702
OpenXChange, we’ll take what we can get https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/04/openxchange-well-take-what-we-can-get/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/04/openxchange-well-take-what-we-can-get/#respond Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:59:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1106378 Last year was tumultuous. From reforming Stanford’s sexual assault policies to Black Lives Matter and from divestment to diversity, Stanford students spoke their minds on a variety of issues. In response, the University has introduced OpenXChange, a program intended to “introduce and promote community conversations on issues of national and global concern as well as […]

The post OpenXChange, we’ll take what we can get appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Last year was tumultuous. From reforming Stanford’s sexual assault policies to Black Lives Matter and from divestment to diversity, Stanford students spoke their minds on a variety of issues. In response, the University has introduced OpenXChange, a program intended to “introduce and promote community conversations on issues of national and global concern as well as those closer to home,” according to the email President Hennessy and Provost Etchemendy sent to the Stanford community over the summer.

The Editorial Board is cautiously hopeful about what OpenXChange can offer, but remains worried about the implementation of the program. There are many areas in which the University’s efforts can be improved: Stanford’s environmental efforts, campus diversity, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, sexual assault and support for low-income students, to name a few of the key ones. On some of these issues, the education and dialogue OpenXChange aims to provide is what is needed. On others, however, dialogue has gone on for too long. We believe that OpenXChange will be most successful if the administration in charge is able to distinguish between topics where more discussion will help and areas where action is needed. However, it is important the University implement this program through a bottom-up approach and not a top-down system.

Of initial concern is that many students are still confused about what OpenXChange entails. So far, Vice Provost Harry Elam’s community outreach has been promising. He has gone to dining halls and met with people from student government to discuss student goals and hopes for OpenXChange. Last Monday’s Listening Dinner reached 200 students and staff, an impressive first step. But it is disconcerting that, despite a fancy website, the goals of what has been presented as a communication initiative have not been clearly articulated and widely distributed.

From what has been revealed so far, we know that OpenXChange aims to facilitate discussions between members of the community, including students and the administration. Some events hosted by OpenXChange will be more educational in their nature and offer a panel discussion that offers a variety of points of view; others will focus on getting student input on University policies. A few will revolve around discussion where high-ranking University officials explain to students the reasons behind contentious University decisions.

These community conversations should have the proper balance of Education, Listening and Action.

In early November, OpenXChange is having its first Open Office Hours in response to climate change. This is an issue that could in fact benefit from additional discussion. The vast majority of the Stanford community acknowledges the severity of climate change, but there is less consensus about how to combat it. Last year, a student vote to divest from fossil fuels passed by a large margin, but the University decided to divest only from coal.

For decisions like these, providing an explanation would help educate and engage the student body. Administrative officials could have town halls and take student questions about their decision to not fully divest from fossil fuels. The reality is that there are economic tradeoffs to divestment. Additionally, the University is taking strong actions to dramatically reduce its carbon footprint, an effort that will arguably have more impact than divestment would. Students are certainly entitled to reject this rationale and demand further divestment, but there is a reasonable conversation to be had about what is the best way for Stanford to devote its resources to protect the environment.

On an issue like support for minority groups on campus, there is less room for debate. It’s time for action. For example, students have long been concerned over the woefully low number of minority faculty members, and it is frankly disappointing that this is still an unresolved issue. Students have made their needs clear, and University administrators should listen and take action now. This is not something that should require educating students about the importance of diversity, or holding listening tours so administrators can hear once again how difficult it can be to never have a professor who looks like you. In this case, more dialogue is not the remedy.

If, as students, we are going to make demands of the administration, however, we must also do our part. So far, a lot of the campus reaction has ranged from disinterest to disgust about what OpenXChange purports to offer. We would like to caution students from overreacting and being too quick to judge OpenXChange. To succeed in college and the world, having an open mind is critical. It is ironic that some students are viciously attacking what others argue is one of their best avenues to pursue change in the University. Don’t get mad, get even — push OpenXChange to give you what you need.

OpenXChange has the potential to heal, or at least address, the wounds from last year. It is now incumbent on both the students and administrators to make this program. As members of the Stanford family, we are capable of achieving extraordinary feats. If we put our minds to making OpenXChange work, it will.

The post OpenXChange, we’ll take what we can get appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/04/openxchange-well-take-what-we-can-get/feed/ 0 1106378
Anita Richard: Halloween https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/02/anita-richard-halloween/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/02/anita-richard-halloween/#respond Tue, 03 Nov 2015 05:56:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1106174 [pullquote] “In the real world, Halloween is when kids dress up in costumes and beg for candy. In Girl World, Halloween is the one day a year when a girl can dress up like a total slut and no other girl can say anything about it.” — Cady Heron, “Mean Girls” [/pullquote] I am Anita […]

The post Anita Richard: Halloween appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
[pullquote]

“In the real world, Halloween is when kids dress up in costumes and beg for candy. In Girl World, Halloween is the one day a year when a girl can dress up like a total slut and no other girl can say anything about it.”

— Cady Heron, “Mean Girls”

[/pullquote]

I am Anita Richard, and I approve of this message.

Trick-or-treat! There’s something I’ve always enjoyed about Halloween. Maybe it’s getting my bag stuffed full of goodies. Maybe it’s unwrapping your sweet delights. Or maybe it’s because Halloween is the one night of the year that I’m encouraged to hop on a broomstick and ride it all night long. There are many reasons why I have always loved this spooky, portentous night. This year, let’s make you one of them.

Just because we outgrew many of Halloween’s festivities years ago doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy some of this sacred holiday’s most esteemed traditions. And admit it: Some of you will still Uber to neighborhoods in Palo Alto to go door-to-door for a little something in the sack. Don’t be too picky. Stick your hand in and tell me what you’re feeling. And don’t forget to have your mom check it before you put it in your mouth.

You can always spice up your night without leaving campus or compromising the spirit of the day. Try some good old-fashioned partner pumpkin carving. Don’t be afraid to dig in and make a night of it. Not ready to get your hands dirty? Pop in a scary movie and makes moves on that sexy bunny.

I know that the 31st is fast approaching and midterms have kept you busy. If you’re looking for last-minute costume ideas, ditch the cat ears, because I have you covered:

•Ghost: Get under a sheet, and start moaning and groaning.

•Mummy: Wrap it up tight. You’ll scare them stiff.

•Vampire: Use your fangs to suck them dry.

•Zombie: Come back from the dead for round two … or three … or four.

On Halloween, one piece is not enough. If you aren’t willing to satisfy my desires, I can always go next door for more.

The post Anita Richard: Halloween appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/02/anita-richard-halloween/feed/ 0 1106174
Anita Richard: Midterm season https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/26/anita-richard-midterm-season/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/26/anita-richard-midterm-season/#respond Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:57:19 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1105644 It’s Week 5, which means midterms are upon us, and just like you, I’ve been procrastinating. Tonight, I’ll really be trying to cram it all in… I’m talking about my textbook, of course. Since I know that this time of the year is especially stressful, I want to be here for you. I’ve included three […]

The post Anita Richard: Midterm season appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
It’s Week 5, which means midterms are upon us, and just like you, I’ve been procrastinating. Tonight, I’ll really be trying to cram it all in… I’m talking about my textbook, of course. Since I know that this time of the year is especially stressful, I want to be here for you. I’ve included three important tips to help you push through. It’ll be a tight squeeze, but don’t worry. This article won’t be too long, and as we’ve learned, it’s not always about size — it’s about how you use it.

I hope you have been making use of office hours in these past couple of weeks. It’s both satisfying and rewarding to put in the extra effort to get close and personal with your professors and TAs, so don’t shy away from this opportunity. However, if you didn’t have time to go the extra mile, come together with a few study buddies the nights leading up to the midterm. See if you can benefit from group work.

It doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone that Stanford midterms are not easy; they’re long and hard. Tested subject matters are firm and well-rounded, and it’s important to learn more than just the ins-and-outs of a topic. Penetrate deep into the affairs by applying what you know.

From numerators to denominators, let’s reduce success to its simplest form:

  1. Work it out and get a good night’s sleep. (The night… and even the morning… before a midterm, I enjoy participating in strenuous exercise.) Research has shown that a bit of aerobic exercise can improve your brain’s processing speed. Get hot and sweaty as you get stronger and smarter. My favorite exercise is called “Six Inches.” You can do it in your dorm room, at the Arrillaga gyms, or even in the Gates Building. Try it out. If you want to feel a deeper burn, raise it to seven or eight inches. And don’t forget: be rested and risen before you go in.
  2. When you get that midterm in your hands, don’t hold anything back. Let it all out. And when studying, don’t just stick to just one topic. Explore each problem from a different angle. Creativity matters. For example, if you’re taking a test on the Great American West, pretend you’re a cowboy or cowgirl. Be on top of your work. It’s all about variety.
  3. Come prepared. Don’t be afraid to get comfortable. Wrap your hand around the pencil with a firm grip. Personally, I enjoy using some type of lubricant, like lotion, to reduce the friction because I like how it feels. And if one hand gets cramped up, switch it up and use the other.

That’s all for now. We’re more than halfway through the quarter. Grind on.

 

Anita doesn’t really want to talk to you, but stop by The Daily’s office if you want to say hi.

The post Anita Richard: Midterm season appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/26/anita-richard-midterm-season/feed/ 0 1105644
Fly around the world on the weekends https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/14/fly-around-the-world-on-the-weekends/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/14/fly-around-the-world-on-the-weekends/#respond Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:15:22 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1104809 It’s me again, and I’m worn out. I don’t know about you, but I have been getting around. Flying from the sandy beaches of KAbo to the hot spot of the Volcano Party, I’ve been working hard to earn my frequent flyer miles. For those of you who aren’t able to squeeze in a quarter […]

The post Fly around the world on the weekends appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
It’s me again, and I’m worn out. I don’t know about you, but I have been getting around. Flying from the sandy beaches of KAbo to the hot spot of the Volcano Party, I’ve been working hard to earn my frequent flyer miles.

For those of you who aren’t able to squeeze in a quarter abroad, don’t fret… There’s no need to go across the globe to experience a different culture when you can get it in your own backyard. These past few weeks, I’ve been feeling enlightened in more ways than one. Every Friday and Saturday bring new destinations; this weekend, maybe you’ll touchdown on my landing strip.

Buckle up as we recap these past few weekends — it’s been a bumpy ride.

Get ready for takeoff. When it comes to frats, it’s come one, come all. We started off the year in Europe where the legal age is 16. Kappa Sigma’s Eurotrash allowed our friends from across the Atlantic to bring their French kissing skills all the way home. Ménage à trois, anyone?

Captain, direct your joystick to the southern border. Even though Mexico’s recent victory over the U.S. soccer team leaves a salty taste in our mouths, we only have fond memories of KAbo. As for Phi Psi’s Volcano Party? Let’s hope you reached the peak before the premature explosion.

Week 3 probably had you feeling down, but luckily, our boys on the Row provide a good getaway. Typically your flight attendants will be quick to remind you that you should assist yourself before you assist others, but this past weekend when you traveled to Sigma Nu Orleans, I’m sure you didn’t hesitate to practice more selflessness. My last known position was in the cockpit. And after that? The rest was history.

Next time, travel with me. Let’s join the Mile High Club.

Reminder that when it comes to frats, consent is sexy.

SUID to feel the turbulence.

21+ to change the cabin pressure.

 

You can try to contact Anita, but she’s both too cool and too busy to talk to you. Anita and the Grind want to remind you that asking for consent is both the law and the only right thing to do.

The post Fly around the world on the weekends appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/14/fly-around-the-world-on-the-weekends/feed/ 0 1104809
Anita Richard: Fall, football and other things that start with ‘F’ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/08/anita-richard-fall-football-and-other-things-that-start-with-f/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/08/anita-richard-fall-football-and-other-things-that-start-with-f/#respond Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:38:35 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1104532 Anita here! I know it’s only been a week, but I’m back for more. I’m sure you’ve noticed the mornings getting colder and the days getting shorter. No matter how bad you want to hold on to the long, hot days and even longer, steamy nights, summer is leaving us. It’s time to prepare for […]

The post Anita Richard: Fall, football and other things that start with ‘F’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Anita here! I know it’s only been a week, but I’m back for more. I’m sure you’ve noticed the mornings getting colder and the days getting shorter. No matter how bad you want to hold on to the long, hot days and even longer, steamy nights, summer is leaving us. It’s time to prepare for the coming of autumn… and the leaves aren’t the only things about to be blown.

If you’re like me at all, staying fashion forward in the fall is harder than it looks — you’re probably always asking yourself: is it in? On these cool California nights, there are more than a few ways to stay warm. Don’t forget, the best way to conserve your body heat is to get up close and personal to your special someone… or anyone. Turn that chilly brisk into a late night frisk.

As we discussed last week, fall is full of new beginnings. However, there are some aspects to autumn that we welcome back time and time again. As usual, Starbucks will reintroduce a classic favorite: pumpkin spice… up my sex life. In addition, football continues to bring us all together.

But let’s take a moment to appreciate the sculpted glutes of our hard-working football team. In this weekend’s game against Arizona, our boys really made us proud by pounding the Cats. Although I love seeing the running-backs shove it in there, I know how to appreciate the strong, gentle touch of our wide receivers too. You know, they say that our receivers have the best hands in all of college football. At the end of the day, though, my favorite position is tight end. And my favorite number? 69 of course. But that is reserved strictly for off-the-field play.

As the Wildcats were desperately looking to score, Stanford continually went all the way — touchdown after touchdown. But don’t let the party end on the field, boys. I’d love to see you “go long” in more ways than one. Our ranking moves up to 16 for the next week, and my spirits are remaining high. This season, I’m starting to dream of finishing on top.

As we go deep into this fall, take time to appreciate the little things because the best things in life just come — sometimes prematurely when we don’t expect them. When your studies begin to take advantage of you, take a breath and keep dancing to LSJUMB’s “All Right Now” because we are going to do this all night now.

If you have comments about the article, you can find Anita either at The Daily office or on the row.

The post Anita Richard: Fall, football and other things that start with ‘F’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/08/anita-richard-fall-football-and-other-things-that-start-with-f/feed/ 0 1104532
Anita Richard: Pilot https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/27/anita-richard-pilot/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/27/anita-richard-pilot/#comments Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:26:24 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1103906 Anita here, and I’m going deep into what we all think about, what some (and the list is shorter than you think) of us do and what not enough of us talk about. Let’s go all the way down and get our hands (and maybe more) dirty. After all, we are on the Farm. Maybe you’re […]

The post Anita Richard: Pilot appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Anita here, and I’m going deep into what we all think about, what some (and the list is shorter than you think) of us do and what not enough of us talk about. Let’s go all the way down and get our hands (and maybe more) dirty. After all, we are on the Farm.

Maybe you’re wondering who I am. I’m a needy girl — I have a lot of needs, and I know you do, too. I need a friend. I need a 4.0. I need a hook-up. I need a summer internship. I need a plaything. I need a lover. I need a cup of coffee. Anita Richard.

Let’s face it; in this drought the environment is not the only thing thirsting for some action. Luckily for me, it’s a new year. New me, new you, new classmates. Take a look around, upperclassmen. As America’s most vegan-friendly campus (and this doesn’t mean we are afraid to eat meat), we are all about anything fresh. I’m talking about you, Class of 2019. (Side note: Can someone please get me the address of that one freshman who decided to f*ck with Fetty’s prophecy?)

Frosh, all of us have been through this before, but most of you are diving headfirst into virgin territory. You came early for New Student Orientation, but I doubt that the several days of activities such as BROC party and Band Run taught you the necessary techniques needed to penetrate the ins and outs of being an active member of Nerd Nation. Like Timon and Pumbaa sing in “The Lion King”: Hakuna your tatas. Don’t worry; I’m here for you. Wrap your head and hands around these tips that will leave you wanting more.

Dil-DOs

  • DO go all the way when it comes to extracurricular activities. Whether you prefer a team effort in an intramural sport or individual pursuits that allow you to do it by yourself, don’t be afraid to get in and go hard. If you have an activity that you are especially passionate about, reach out to a staff member to be your sponsor — lay out your idea and really hammer it home. Or maybe all the extra time you put into your already-established special interests could one day make you a master debater or a champion wrestler.
  • DO get to know as many people as you can. We are surrounded by the foremost thinkers of this generation. We are at Stanford, and we are big fans of double-teaming — it’s all about collaboration, people. At the end of the day, it’s like we’re taking this four-year ride on a tandem bike (you know, one of those two-seater bikes): me in the front, and you in the rear. Let’s take it slow.

Dil-DON’Ts

  • DON’T feel the pressure to overload yourself with 20 units. Sure, ExploreCourses has a lot to offer, but you will thank me later if you spend time exploring some of the more rewarding aspects of college life. And don’t underestimate the recommended fall quarter workload; 12-15 units will seriously get ahead of you if you don’t stay on top. Make your to-do list, and don’t leave me off.
  • DON’T overlook the breathtaking beauty of this campus. By day, the bustling birds and bees, the magnificently erect Hoover Tower and the stacks in Green create an atmosphere that cannot be replicated elsewhere. By night, the sloppy dance floors in the frats, the still magnificently erect Hoover Tower and the steamy moments after sharing a breakfast burrito at Arrillaga (or Lag if you want to walk that far) late night are all worth leaving the 24/7 lounge. Besides, you have all weekend to get over your short affairs.

The ride is going to be rough whether you intend it to be or not, but I can assure you that the climax of this year will not be the Three Books discussion. If it’s something else involving the number three, count me in.

The post Anita Richard: Pilot appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/27/anita-richard-pilot/feed/ 1 1103906
Vote Miller/Saba for ASSU Executive https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/09/vote-millersaba-for-assu-executive/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/09/vote-millersaba-for-assu-executive/#comments Wed, 09 Apr 2014 10:14:27 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1084255 For the 2014-15 ASSU Executive, The Stanford Daily’s Editorial Board unanimously endorses Lauren Miller '15 and Geo Saba '15.

The post Vote Miller/Saba for ASSU Executive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
For the 2014-15 ASSU Executive, The Stanford Daily’s Editorial Board unanimously endorses Lauren Miller ’15 and Geo Saba ’15, the slate that we feel will best serve the student body over the upcoming year through a combination of focused and measurable policies and a firm grasp on the nuances and appropriate role of the ASSU.

Throughout the interview process and Monday’s Executive slate debate, the Board found both of this year’s credible slates to possess remarkable qualities. Both Miller/Saba and Woodson/Richard demonstrated clear leadership ability, a passion for serving the student body in its entirety and platforms that combine ambition and attention to detail. Given the ASSU’s recent struggles in attracting a credible set of candidates at all levels of the ballot, both slates represent an opportunity for the rejuvenation of Stanford’s student government – and, through their shared support for initiatives like increasing the ASSU’s engagement with freshmen, we think highly of both slates’ ability to leave a constructive legacy. Nevertheless, given that institutional decay and the limitations of time and scope imposed on any ASSU Executive, we feel most confident in Miller/Saba’s ability to make the most of their term in office.

In recent years, the ASSU has worked best when it has sought to improve on existing processes and resources, or to better support Stanford’s abundance of thriving student organizations. Conversely, it has historically struggled when seeking to assume too much responsibility or to function as a centralized body for a student population that is both decentralized and largely apathetic towards the ASSU. Miller and Saba – a former Senator and the current Chair of the Constitutional Council, respectively – have a unique familiarity with the ASSU and how best to operate within the institution’s framework, allowing them to seek to impact campus life from the very start of their term and effectively respond to unforeseen and contentious issues as they emerge.

Equally importantly, Miller/Saba demonstrated a greater degree of realism with regards to the ASSU’s limitations, the importance of prioritizing between various legislative initiatives and the value of emphasizing initiatives – like increasing the availability of meeting and practice spaces – that can be accomplished within a year, rather than dashing between divergent efforts, imposing on the work of student groups and administrators with more experience in a given field and ultimately becoming overwhelmed by an overly ambitious workload.

This familiarity with how best to serve the student body from within the ASSU will benefit the Miller/Saba slate most clearly with regards to the implementation of the SAFE Reform proposal, should it win approval from the student body at the end of this week. A comprehensive overhaul of Stanford’s student activities funding system is a necessary and critical measure, and one that both slates have professed support for. Given, however, the importance of a smooth transition, we retain more confidence in the more experienced slate’s ability to effectively manage the changeover.

A successful Executive should also be able to effectively represent the student body in its entirety, including possessing the ability to forge connections with segments of the student body that have been historically neglected. Miller has demonstrated the ability to build relationships with divergent groups across campus, a trait that will prove valuable over the upcoming year. Saba’s status as a student-athlete, meanwhile, represents an opportunity to not only engage with a significant and often distant part of the Stanford community but also to draw on the lessons and resources that the student-athlete community has successfully made use of.

We commend Woodson and Richard for their planned engagement with the student-athlete community, and we are enthusiastic about their idea of implementing the Athletic Department’s popular mentorship program across the broader student body, but we view the Miller/Saba slate as better positioned to implement it.

Woodson and Richard’s strengths as a slate and as candidates remain significant. The slate demonstrated a remarkable enthusiasm for establishing relationships with students, faculty and administrators that would stand any ASSU Executive in good stead. They moreover produced a platform that stood apart in its comprehensive nature and attention to detail, and we encourage Miller and Saba to adopt measures like an emphasis on improved advising. We remain concerned, however, that the slate appears to have adopted somewhat of a scattershot approach to its legislative priorities, some of which seem unattainable within just a year, and feel that it would benefit from the focus and attention to feasibility – if not the slightly more cursory approach to details – demonstrated by the Miller/Saba slate.

This endorsement is an affirmative one. The Stanford community would ultimately be well served by either slate, and we encourage the successful slate to draw on the better ideas of its rival. Nevertheless, the Miller/Saba slate offers a combination of more experienced leadership, the intent of combining realistic and pragmatic short- and long-term measures into a comprehensive and successful legacy and the ability to broaden the appeal of the ASSU to an alarmingly apathetic community. For those reasons, this Board extends our full support to the Miller/Saba slate in this year’s ASSU election.

The Stanford Daily’s Editorial Board is chaired by President and Editor in Chief George Chen ’15. He is joined by Executive Editor Marshall Watkins ’15, Managing Editor of Sports Do-Hyoung Park ’16 and Managing Editor of Opinions Winston Shi ’16.

Contact the Editorial Board at eic@stanforddaily.com, or email opinions@stanforddaily.com to submit op-eds.

The post Vote Miller/Saba for ASSU Executive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/09/vote-millersaba-for-assu-executive/feed/ 1 1084255
Editorial: Ashton-Gallagher for ASSU Executive https://stanforddaily.com/2013/04/10/editorial-ashton-gallagher-for-assu-executive/ https://stanforddaily.com/2013/04/10/editorial-ashton-gallagher-for-assu-executive/#comments Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:39:57 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1076320 For the 2013-14 ASSU Executive, The Stanford Daily Editorial Committee unanimously endorses Dan Ashton '14 and Billy Gallagher '14, the slate that we feel will be best able to represent the student body and effectively utilize the ASSU to further student interests in the upcoming year.

The post Editorial: Ashton-Gallagher for ASSU Executive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
For the 2013-14 ASSU Executive, The Stanford Daily Editorial Committee unanimously endorses Dan Ashton ’14 and Billy Gallagher ’14, the slate that we feel will be best able to represent the student body and effectively utilize the ASSU to further student interests in the upcoming year. Throughout interviews with the two sincere candidate slates, Tuesday’s Executive slate debate and extensive internal deliberation, several things remained clear: while both slates have a true passion for the student body as a whole, both slates fall short — in different ways — of combining a well-rounded, detailed and ambitious platform with the leadership and judgement to realistically advance that platform within the ASSU’s limited framework. Nevertheless, we applaud Ashton-Gallagher’s undoubted ability to lead and manage the ASSU, and feel confident in their capacity and willingness to expand the scope and detail of their agenda to most effectively serve the student body.

This is a critical time for student government on this campus. From the ever-present stigma surrounding mental health and sexual assault issues to the recent spate of concerns over student autonomy on the Farm, the ASSU is in search of an Executive who can do more than quietly tinker — at best — with the periphery of those issues, or — neglecting them altogether — leave them to be taken up by someone else. The student body needs leaders who have experience representing, furthering and leading a genuinely diverse range of student organizations, and moreover conveying the interests of those students to administrators. As Ashton and Gallagher emphasized repeatedly, the ASSU has lost nearly all influence and credibility in the eyes of administrators and students alike. Their slate is the best choice to restore that credibility and influence by offering steady and astute guidance, and by building off existing lines of communication with the administration.

The Executive is also — and equally importantly — faced with a legislative body riddled with systemic shortcomings. Ashton and Gallagher have already shown the wherewithal, initiative and savvy to tackle the Senate’s structural woes head on, putting forward two constitutional amendments to resolve a lack of upperclassmen representation among Senators and the vast accumulation of unused special fees requests. Even as the latter amendment was withdrawn, their efforts demonstrate both purpose and ability. We encourage them to continue such efforts, albeit with a greater range of consultation, in restoring the ASSU’s ability to govern effectively, and we applaud their intent to do so in a practical and realistic manner.

However, the Ashton-Gallagher slate is not without shortcomings and ambiguities. While the candidates emphasize the importance of giving the student body a stronger and more relevant voice and bridging gaps with administrators, they failed to outline the details necessary. Furthermore, Ashton-Gallagher’s proposal to increase funding for short-term events such as Frost Revival and football tailgate viewing parties may not only be an inaccurate representation of the wishes of the general student body, but may also come in conflict with furthering long-term reform goals. The candidates themselves admit that the student body’s needs will constantly be changing; as such, they have disappointingly not provided a concrete way to measure their progress or offered finite objectives for which they are accountable should they win the election.

Gomez and Patiño’s strengths — and they are not insignificant — lie in areas of advocacy for students and student groups, in addition to a proven ability to organize students effectively towards advocacy goals. As such, we feel that the stagnancy and relative irrelevance of the ASSU recently may diminish their ability to effect change on this campus. Nevertheless, at a time when the ASSU is by all accounts a limited body, envisioning it as a focal point for student advocacy seems to retain little grounding in reality or student desires. Moreover, we lack confidence that Gomez and Patino could effectively balance and legislate an overly ambitious agenda, or approach issues such as divestment in a manner that best represents both the ASSU’s abilities and limitations and the interests of the student body in its entirety.

A key point in the Gomez-Patiño platform addresses the need to diversify the ranks of our faculty. We agree wholeheartedly with this goal. However, we disagree that the office of ASSU Executive is the best means of accomplishing this goal. We urge them to agitate for deans to pay more attention towards the demographics in their tenure tracks. Create a petition on the ASSU’s website. Speak to departments that are lagging in diversity. Mobilize the student body. All things that can be accomplished — and perhaps best accomplished — from outside the confines of the ASSU.

This endorsement remains a cautious one. Ashton-Gallagher offers the Stanford community the most effective and focused leadership among the options presented, with a minimal learning curve and the technical savvy to make realistic and effective changes to a broken ASSU. Their platform would benefit from the ambition of the Gomez-Patino slate, but we are fully confident that they will meet the current and future demands of the student body in conjunction with implementing the first steps on the path to a rehabilitated, reinvigorated and responsible student government.

The print edition of this article included the following note, which was omitted from the online edition. The Daily regrets the error. Gallagher is a former editor in chief of The Daily and Ashton is currently serving in the role of student at large on The Daily’s Board of Directors.

The Stanford Daily Editorial Committee is a subset of The Daily’s Editorial Board and is chaired by Miles Bennett-Smith ’13. He is joined by Alice Phillips ’15, Marshall Watkins ’15 and George Chen ’15.

 

The post Editorial: Ashton-Gallagher for ASSU Executive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2013/04/10/editorial-ashton-gallagher-for-assu-executive/feed/ 9 1076320
Editorial: Dissolve the ASSU Senate https://stanforddaily.com/2012/11/11/editorial-dissolve-the-assu-senate/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/11/11/editorial-dissolve-the-assu-senate/#comments Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:24:25 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1072947 The real work of the Undergraduate Senate, namely funding and representation, can be accomplished more effectively and equally transparently by the ASSU Executive.

The post Editorial: Dissolve the ASSU Senate appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The ASSU Undergraduate Senate is an abject failure. It should be immediately dissolved and what little authority it has should be transferred in full to the ASSU Executive.

The Senate fails to fairly and accurately represent the student body. Senators run, mostly as freshmen, for an organization they know close to nothing about, and quickly realize they’ve inherited an impossible set of rules and regulations. And, for whatever reason, the institutional inertia of this organization and shortcomings of its members preclude the possibility of any reform from within. We are now convinced that our best, indeed our only, chance at serious reform is complete dissolution.

Any regular attendee of Senate meetings can describe how obtuse parliamentary procedures delay the passage of meaningless bills that are ignored by students and administrators equally. Discussion either goes on for far too long or far too short and real issues are avoided in favor of routine funding bills or, occasionally, abstract declarations about international affairs.

The problem has compounded itself year after year, as senators do not seek reelection and the Senate makeup shifts even more exclusively towards rising sophomores. The 13th Undergraduate Senate struggled to pass meaningful legislation, wasting its time on seemingly endless bills and initiatives that had zero impact on the student body. No members of the 13th Undergraduate Senate sought reelection.

At many schools, student government senate elections are hotly contested. During our 2012 election, by contrast, only 18 students — less than .003 percent of the undergraduate population — ran for 15 spots. Thirteen of the 15 elected senators were freshmen. It was the first time in seven years that less than 30 students sought election and voter turnout in 2012 was the lowest it has been in at least five years. When these figures are compared to the hundreds of students who try out for a cappella groups, publications and any number of student groups that often require a larger time commitment than the ASSU Senate, it is difficult to comprehend how the Senate pretends to represent the entire student body.

We’re less than one-fifth of the way through the school year, and already we are seeing the boredom, complacency and frustration we have come to expect from our student representatives in the Senate. Attendance problems plague the Senate, with one senator stepping down for medical reasons and another missing enough meetings to automatically trigger a bill to expel them from the Senate.

Why does all this matter? There’s the obvious answer of money — senators are paid $400 a year and manage discretionary accounts worth several thousand more. But more importantly, despite the lack of student interest, government representation remains a crucial function of life at Stanford. As the University administration continues to expand its bureaucracy and the decision-makers who affect student life are increasingly removed from students, the ability to speak and act as a unified student body becomes more important.

The Senate is currently responsible, for example, for approving the new Alternative Review Process, which determines Stanford’s policy regarding sexual assault, on behalf of the undergraduate student body. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has given Stanford a “yellow light” warning, listing four administrative policies that “too easily encourage administrative abuse and arbitrary application.” Compounded with the revocation of Chi Theta Chi’s lease and its larger implications for student housing and overall independence, as well as a harsher, ominous crackdown on underage drinking and the gradual shift away from residential dining programs, it is clear there are real challenges to be addressed at this university.

By allowing a small group that completely changes every year to ineffectively represent our interests, the student body is allowing the University administration to ignore a kangaroo court as the “student representation,” rather than listening to individual students, well-organized student groups and student staff for feedback. We must stop this.

This is not about individual senators. As the journalists who go to ASSU meetings and who have read the hundreds of pages of their governing documents, the organization’s bylaws and a convoluted institutional structure are more to blame for the chaos than the actions of any specific representatives.

Dissolving the Senate has been suggested before. To quote from a victorious 1985 Chaparral slate for ASSU Executive: “The time has come to change, even to replace, this government that once at least pretended to serve the student interest. No longer. Even that pretense is a thing of the past.”  The Daily endorsed that Senate-destroying Chappie slate in 1985, and we’d like to endorse the same action again.

The real work of the Undergraduate Senate, namely funding and representation, can be accomplished more effectively and equally transparently by the ASSU Executive. We strongly encourage the ASSU Executive to write a short and clear Constitutional amendment transferring all powers of the Undergraduate Senate to the executive branch, obtain the required signatures of 15 percent of the undergraduate population and submit their petition to the ASSU Elections commission, forcing a vote on the issue.

We need a system of student representation that doesn’t suffer from the same gridlock and absurdity with which the ASSU Senate has been plagued for several years now. Understanding the hand the senators have been dealt, we can’t blame them for accomplishing so little. But we can work toward fixing the problem, and we can transfer authority to positions that aren’t drowning in their own bureaucracy. Tell ASSU Executives Robbie Zimbroff (rmz@stanford.edu) and William Wagstaff (wagstaff@stanford.edu) to propose an amendment dissolving the ASSU Undergraduate Senate and assume its responsibilities. The ASSU Executive has proven itself competent and responsive so far this year, and we think they’ve earned the chance to fix this mess.

All they need to do now is ask for it.

The post Editorial: Dissolve the ASSU Senate appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/11/11/editorial-dissolve-the-assu-senate/feed/ 20 1072947
What do we want from our Honor Code? https://stanforddaily.com/2012/10/08/what-do-we-want-from-our-honor-code/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/10/08/what-do-we-want-from-our-honor-code/#comments Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:48:56 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1071599 If we want complete trust from the University and want to rely on the self-control of students to prevent cheating, we should start demanding the Honor Code be more strictly adhered to.

The post What do we want from our Honor Code? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Stanford Honor Code, written by the student body in 1921, governs standards of academic integrity at this school. It is fairly moderate as far as university honor codes go — neither as open and trusting as Harvey Mudd’s, which has almost exclusively take-home finals and 24-hour building access for all students, nor as stringent and unforgiving as the University of Virginia’s, which requires automatic expulsion for any violation of the code.

By now, most of us are familiar with the Honor Code’s most well-known tenets. It is the reason, for instance, that examinations are not directly proctored by professors or TAs; the Code states that the faculty “manifests its confidence in the honor of its students by refraining from proctoring examinations and from taking unusual and unreasonable precautions to prevent [academic dishonesty].”

We, the students, are theoretically trusted (and expected) to be our own academic police force. The original spirit of the Honor Code is not being fully embodied in its current practice. This is particularly evident in the overly rigid structure of some university examinations, which exhibit neither trust nor confidence in the honor of the students.

While we realize that there are administrative and logistical benefits to requiring students to take end-of-term exams all at the same time and in the same room, this can have detrimental effects for certain groups of students. Athletes at away games or tournaments, for instance, are often forced to take rushed final exams in between games, races, or matches merely because the exam is being administered at Stanford at the same time. The same holds true for scientists presenting their work, artists performing or presenting a piece, or aspiring businessmen and businesswomen away interviewing for jobs around the country and the world.

Many classes require a sit-down, end-of-quarter final exam in a rigid time slot; syllabi note that students may not take the class if they cannot make this time. Undergraduates are familiar with the shortcomings of this rigid structure: multiple exams in a compressed window of time, exams later or earlier than students’ optimal test-taking hours, conflicts with other commitments and other issues affect students’ abilities to take classes they want and perform well on their exams.

A true interpretation of the Honor Code would account for these special burdens by trusting these students to take examinations on and at their own time. Many professors have adopted this approach already, which we wholeheartedly applaud. But we would like to see, as we believe many students would as well, this policy adopted at an institutional level.

Even for students not required to be away from school during exams, however, the current interpretation of the Honor Code needs to be re-envisioned. There is no reason under the current Code that examinations should not be universally in take-home format. Many students perform best when they work on their own schedule and in their own style — early, late, with music or without, in a dorm room or in the library. The only explanation for why this is not allowed would seem to be that students are not currently fully trusted not to cheat.

Maybe we shouldn’t be. According to the Office of Judicial Affairs, there were 82 Honor Code violations in 2008-09, the most recent year for which detailed statistics are available. A more open policy on examinations would certainly encourage more cheating, especially given the pressures students currently face to succeed. It may be that the cost of opening up examinations outweighs the benefits.

In all likelihood, more than 82 violations of the Code occur in any given year solely on exams, and the figure is probably increasing as smartphones become more sophisticated, more discreet and more widespread. Cheating on take-home exams, a difficult task to detect, has likely plateaued, but this is a figure no one could possibly determine with accuracy.

The real question to ask is what we, the students of the University who have the responsibility to amend the honor code, want to do. If we want complete trust from the University and want to rely on the self-control of students to prevent cheating, we should start demanding the Honor Code be more strictly adhered to.

On the other hand, if we wish to continue the policies in place today that seek to prevent cheating at the institutional level, we should amend the Honor Code to reflect that reality. There are pros and cons to both decisions, but the conversation should be happening.

The post What do we want from our Honor Code? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/10/08/what-do-we-want-from-our-honor-code/feed/ 3 1071599
Editorial: Shared responsibility starts with you https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/28/editorial-shared-responsibility-starts-with-you/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/28/editorial-shared-responsibility-starts-with-you/#comments Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:28:19 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1071234 If you decide to drink, please drink responsibly. If not for your own sake, then for ours.

The post Editorial: Shared responsibility starts with you appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear frosh,

Welcome to the Farm. You’ve sat through NSO, met your dormmates, had a week of classes and now it’s finally your first real weekend at Stanford.

In past years, you might have enjoyed an all-campus frat party on your first post-NSO Monday night, a raucous rollout by older students who used to live in your dorm on Wednesday and numerous all-campus parties this weekend.

As you may have noticed, things are different now, and you should know why.

Alcohol-related hospital transports have been rising year after year, and the University has taken an increasingly strict stance toward alcohol, going so far as to ban hard alcohol for students–even students over the age of 21–during this year’s summer session.

We remember being freshmen. And, for the most part, we remember all the stupid things we’ve done, with alcohol and without. But it’s important to understand that ultimately, when it comes to your drinking, the consequences of your actions extend far beyond yourself and your liver.

The University, your RFs, your RAs, fraternities and row houses: these people can all do everything they can to help you, for your own sake and for theirs. But in the end, it’s your responsibility to watch after yourself and know your limits–or know that you don’t know your limit and err on the side of caution.

You don’t want to be the person on the stretcher. You don’t want to be the person in the crowd, watching your roommate being carted away, wishing you had done something earlier in the night. You don’t want to be the person egging your friends on to take more shots, not knowing their tolerance or what will happen.

You have four full years left to drink, and plenty of opportunities to do so. It isn’t worth going overboard on your first night, or week, or even month at college. It will have deleterious effects on you, your dorm and our campus social scene.

This University has long granted its students a great deal of personal freedom. That freedom, however, is predicated upon our ability to use it responsibly.

So go out this weekend, hang out with friends and introduce yourself to the Stanford social scene. This is an incredibly fun, largely safe campus, and the main danger to your personal safety will be yourself. If you decide to drink, please drink responsibly. If not for your own sake, then for ours.

The post Editorial: Shared responsibility starts with you appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/28/editorial-shared-responsibility-starts-with-you/feed/ 1 1071234
Editorial: When the ‘wind of freedom’ falters https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/27/editorial-when-the-wind-of-freedom-falters/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/27/editorial-when-the-wind-of-freedom-falters/#comments Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:36:45 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1071156 The larger effort behind the University's revocation of Chi Theta Chi's lease undermines this University's long-standing traditions of student independence.

The post Editorial: When the ‘wind of freedom’ falters appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
We share the disappointment of the Chi Theta Chi Alumni Board, expressed in a clear and compelling op-ed, in the University’s decision to not renew XOX’s ground lease, effective this year.

Moreover, we feel that the decision is part of a broader, systematic effort by Residential & Dining Enterprises and the Office of the Vice-Provost for Student Affairs to bring Stanford’s many and diverse housing and dining options under increasing levels of centralized control. This is an effort that threatens to permanently undermine this University’s long-standing traditions of student independence.

Student self-reliance has always been a hallmark of a complete Stanford education. Leland and Jane Stanford explicitly endowed a university grounded in the freewheeling spirit of the West, intended not simply to mold its students into fine thinkers but into men and women of action and vigor — in their words, “to qualify students for personal success and direct usefulness in life.”

From the days when students served as ushers at football games to help pay their way through school to the age-old custom of student hashing in the kitchens, independence and hard work have animated generations of Stanford students.

This is an independence that continues to manifest itself in the high levels of trust this University has long vested in us, the student body. From campus alcohol policy, which has effectively allowed students to drink while underage as long as they do so responsibly, to the wide latitude granted students searching for a major (you can choose from interdisciplinary majors offered nowhere else, and even make up your own), to its pioneering approach to coed living arrangements, David Starr Jordan’s “College of the West” has long trusted us to make responsible decisions and handle our personal lives with minimal interference from above.

This is changing.

In 2011, R&DE began to clamp down on the Row, citing a desire “to bring the Row program closer in line with the rest of the University” and an intent  to “increase oversight of all operational and financial activities in ResEd.” House dues were standardized, social dues were rerouted through students’ University bills rather than house financial managers, and vendors began to be paid through the University-administered Row Central Office rather than by individual FMs.

Also in 2011, R&DE began to exert increasing levels of control over the Suites Dining Societies on West Campus, flying in the face of 25 years of competent student management. Administrators threatened  to replace experienced student-elected management with expensive outside vendors (including a contracting company headed by the brother-in-law of ResEd assistant director Zac Sargeant), acquired control of Suites residents’ board bills and their distribution, forced cuts in pay to student hashers and placed the jobs of long-serving chefs in jeopardy. These changes significantly raised overhead costs for student management and created unnecessary inefficiencies for both Suites residents and staff.

So far this year, in addition to the XOX debacle, the University has threatened to paint over the community murals at Columbae and imposed an authoritarian ban ban on hard alcohol — even for students over 21 — during the summer session.

We could go on at some length, but the story is the same everywhere: more standardization, more centralization, more homogeneity. XOX is only the latest casualty of what appears to be a comprehensive plan to mitigate University risk at the expense of the student experience.

We believe this is a larger problem than Chi Theta Chi. We encourage anyone who is concerned about maintaining diversity and independence in student housing and dining to support XOX.

But we also encourage XOX residents and supporters to recognize that their problems with University administration are not unique; they are part of a broader pattern that requires broader solutions. And some of this communication failure must lie on their shoulders. The residents of XOX have failed to show the broader community that their situation is merely a fiber in a larger cloth. They have alienated many of the very groups they should be reaching out to for support.

Comments on stories featured on this website decry a Stanford where students, “work on startups that we’re only interested in because they could make us rich, and justify it all as hip Bay Area individualism and have wet dreams about becoming the next Mark Zuckerfuck.” They label R&DE’s decision as a, “chimeric triumph of capitalism, a debilitating and isolating overemphasis on sticking it alone, which is precisely at odds with the cooperative spirit of Chi Theta Chi.”

Another comment reads, “Our administration won’t be happy until every student is a fucking start-up obsessed facebooking premed drone who quietly finishes their degree with all A’s and then goes on to pour their corporate paychecks into the alumni donation coffers.”

And another, written by former XOX resident Peter McDonald, reads, “Yeah bro, who needs community when you’re making THIS MUCH MONEY, amirite business school? Econ majors? Startup bros? I mean seriously, have you seen how much money Stanford is making? I’d gladly spend all four years in a sensory deprivation chamber if it meant I got to make THAT MUCH MONEY coming out. Money is so awesome!”

XOX’s most vocal supporters deride and alienate anyone who is interested in starting his or her own company, other co-ops that promote alternative cultures, students who want to get all As on their transcripts and anyone who doesn’t inherently dislike money and capitalism. That’s too large a chunk of the student body to chew out, especially when you should be building bridges instead of burning them.

Whether we are econ majors or dedicated artists, residents of Chi Theta Chi or Crothers, we all have an interest in defending the diversity and independence that have long made the Stanford experience unique. On this issue we stand and fall together, and we should work together to solve what has now become everyone’s problem.

It may be too late to save Chi Theta Chi. But this will not be the last erosion of student independence. Whether you are a member of a Greek community increasingly restricted by unfair policies, a freshman who can no longer bring alcohol to your friends’ dorms or part of a student government that must increasingly fight the University bureaucracy, we must all speak out against infringements on student independence, wherever they are found

The post Editorial: When the ‘wind of freedom’ falters appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/27/editorial-when-the-wind-of-freedom-falters/feed/ 12 1071156
Introducing the new Editorial Board https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/24/introducing-the-new-editorial-board/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/24/introducing-the-new-editorial-board/#comments Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:55:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1071033 The Daily Editorial Board will now be comprised of a few select Daily staffers, though its meetings will be open to the entire staff and its opinions will represent those of the entire staff.

The post Introducing the new Editorial Board appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Stanford Daily Editorial Board represents the collective opinion of this newspaper. Our job is to weigh in on issues of pressing campus importance and to contribute a thoughtful, reasoned voice to current debates and discussions about Stanford life, politics and culture.

This year, the Board is undergoing significant changes, and we’d like to take the space below to explain them. In the past, the editor-in-chief selected a student to be the chair of the Editorial Board, who then selected other students to sit on the board. The entire Editorial Board was independent of The Daily’s staff. The Daily Editorial Board will now be comprised of a few select Daily staffers, though its meetings will be open to the entire staff and its opinions will represent those of the entire staff.

We feel that this shift in the Board’s composition will add clarity and coherence to our opinions and more effectively convey the sentiments of this paper. Our reporters and editors have unique access to University administrators, student government leaders, professors and others. We hope to leverage that access, along with the knowledge and experience of our reporters and editors, to present you with accountable and informed opinions.

The Editorial Board will consist of Daily executive editor Brendan O’Byrne, managing editor of opinions Miles Unterreiner, our managing editor of news Marwa Farag, managing editor of sports Miles Bennett-Smith, and the chair of the Editorial Board, editor in chief Billy Gallagher.

As we implement these changes, we shall seek to protect and maintain a few core values that countless Boards before us have shared. We will uphold this paper’s commitment to honest reporting, to fair and decent argument, and to thoughtful analysis of the issues that most affect our readers. We will fully research and vet our arguments. And we will present any opposing convictions in a charitable and balanced manner. The opinions we present in this space should be the start of conversations, not the definitive statement on a subject. We welcome opposing op-eds at opinions@stanforddaily.com.

When our work fails to meet these high standards, we expect you to let us know. The Stanford Daily is a student-run organization that is wholly independent from the University. This independence is crucial to our mission and though it gives us the ability to write and reason freely, it also makes us beholden to you, our readers. We expect you to let us know when we fail to meet the high editorial standards you expect from this newspaper, and we look forward to having conversations about the issues that most challenge Stanford and its students.

The post Introducing the new Editorial Board appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/09/24/introducing-the-new-editorial-board/feed/ 3 1071033
Editorial: Dismantling the Stanford summer hierarchy https://stanforddaily.com/2012/06/07/editorial-dismantling-the-stanford-summer-hierarchy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/06/07/editorial-dismantling-the-stanford-summer-hierarchy/#respond Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:02:24 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1068202 We owe it to each other to be more invested in the current experiences of our peers, rather than placing arbitrary value on summer plans.

The post Editorial: Dismantling the Stanford summer hierarchy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As spring quarter progresses, a familiar refrain is repeated with increasing frequency, reaching a fever pitch as May turns to June. From dining halls to IHUM sections, students, faculty, and well-meaning strangers raise the inevitable question: “So what are you doing this summer?” The inquiry itself is innocuous enough, yet it often carries with it implicit assumptions about what a Stanford student’s summer should entail. Students who brightly chirp about their plans for international research, consulting internships or Silicon Valley start-up work are met with approving nods, while students whose plans are uncertain, or who plan to go home and find a summer job, may encounter confusion, condescending sympathy or even derision. While the diverse pursuits undertaken by undergraduates are impressive, the Editorial Board advocates a broader understanding of what summer undertakings are considered valuable and important. The current culture of the Stanford summer is at best elitist and at worst classist, and Stanford students may be reluctant to pursue unconventional summer paths due to the mentality that the question “So what are you doing this summer?” consistently reinforces.

Students are asked about summer plans as early as January, when the gauntlet of interviews and applications begins in earnest. Summer, a time that was once occupied by recreational pursuits or creating memories with friends and family, is now a precious and pressing opportunity for career advancement. This, in turn, has a negative impact on campus mental health, as summer plans – and the social pressures that are associated with them – can be enormous sources of stress. If a student accepts an internship or research position that ultimately proves dull, will she view the experience as a summer wasted? Even travel or volunteer work is often discussed in terms of the instrumental value of the experience or perspective it can provide, as another tally toward personal development. Ask yourselves this: When was the last time you had a summer that didn’t have to “count” for anything?

The ramifications of this problem extend far beyond the realm of which students land a coveted internship and which do not. Indeed, our attitude toward summers strikes at the heart of what is both extraordinary and stifling about being at Stanford. Opportunities are numerous, but the sea of possibilities can sometimes drown out endeavors that don’t fit the prevailing wisdom of what a Stanford student should be doing. For example, the hierarchy of summertime activities may alienate our peers who work during their summers to support their families. Furthermore, the high value placed on internships often obscures the fact that many students simply cannot afford to accept unpaid positions.

Imagine a Stanford community in which every impulse to ask “What are you doing this summer?” was instead replaced by “What’s the most interesting thing you learned this week?”

We owe it to each other to be more invested in the current experiences of our peers, rather than placing arbitrary value on summer plans. Summer, besides offering an opportunity for career advancement, is a chance for rejuvenation, an escape from the predictable schedule of papers and midterms around which we organize our lives, and in doing so occasionally forsake or forget our passions. It also presents an opportunity to live away from the norm of instrumentality that is so often overly present on campus. The Editorial Board hopes that each of you finds a space for critical engagement, from urban boardrooms to rural ranches. Until the fall, we wish you three months of discovery and inquiry, wherever your divergent paths may lead you.

The post Editorial: Dismantling the Stanford summer hierarchy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/06/07/editorial-dismantling-the-stanford-summer-hierarchy/feed/ 0 1068202
Choice for Three “Books” disappointing https://stanforddaily.com/2012/06/01/choice-for-three-books-disappointing/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/06/01/choice-for-three-books-disappointing/#comments Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:00:27 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1068011 his is the Class of 2016’s first exposure to Stanford intellectual life, and the Three Books organizers should do everything in their power to make sure this opportunity is not wasted.

The post Choice for Three “Books” disappointing appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As announced recently, the Three Books Discussion for incoming freshmen will feature Chuck Klosterman’s memoir “Fargo Rock City: A Heavy Metal Odyssey in Rural North Dakota,” the DVD documentary “My Kid Could Paint That,” and the suite of “Smule” smartphone applications. Associate professor of music Mark Applebaum, who selected the works, said these “texts” are intended to motivate students “to ask broader questions about where art is made, what art is important and who should decide.” While we at the Editorial Board believe that encouraging students to think critically about art is a fine goal, we are disappointed with the selection of a smartphone application suite: not only does it alienate a significant fraction of the incoming freshmen, it strays too far from the purpose of the Three Books program.

Three Books is designed to introduce students to the intellectual atmosphere found at Stanford. Yet we wonder if the inclusion of an app suite will prompt this desired effect. This is not to say that tactile learning is not useful under any circumstances. Rather, we have trouble pinpointing the intellectual potential of a set of apps that lets you autotune your voice or play an Ocarina. Even if the smartphone apps do showcase an intellectual component, will incoming students draw the appropriate conclusions? With three physical books, readers have considerably more time and space to reflect on various themes, drawing broader conclusions that link the texts. With one book, one movie, and one application suite, we doubt that the intertext connections will be as deep, particularly given that students are unlikely to spend more than 20 minutes with the apps and that the app suite will not be distributed until the chaos of New Student Orientation (NSO). At most, then, we believe the application suite should have been included as a fourth selection, perhaps as a supplement to a text drawn from the literature on “prosumers,” defined as average consumers who also produce high-quality art, often through the use of digital software.

Most of all, owning a smartphone should not be a prerequisite to participate in the Three “Books” program. Even if Undergraduate Advising and Research (UAR) works out the logistics of creating a website that hosts the apps over the summer, five of the seven apps make prominent use of a touchscreen, a feature on only a few laptops and personal computers. Anyone relying on this website will therefore have an inferior experience. Even though UAR promises to make smartphone devices available for checkout during NSO, the organizers have nevertheless implicitly created a classist norm for incoming students – that of owning a smartphone. This is a troubling standard, as there is a sizeable portion of incoming students that will not own such a device for financial, personal or other reasons. These students will be made to instantly feel different (and likely inferior) for not owning what amounts to a luxury device that few Stanford students truly need. Despite UAR’s best intentions, the message this selection sends will inevitably lead to feelings of exclusion during a time when the administration should be focused on smoothing the college transition for students from all socioeconomic classes.

In short, we hope that Applebaum and UAR will make the smartphone application suite an optional fourth “text” and in its place send students a text – which need not be literary – that offers more opportunity for intellectual engagement. This is the Class of 2016’s first exposure to Stanford intellectual life, and the Three Books organizers should do everything in their power to make sure this opportunity is not wasted. In addition, this replacement text should be something that all incoming students can fully appreciate. One of the points of pride of the Three Books program is providing the texts free of charge so that students from all financial backgrounds can equally participate. Including the smartphone application suite breaks from this ideal, and we hope UAR does everything in its power to promptly remedy the situation and send a more inclusive message to incoming students.

The post Choice for Three “Books” disappointing appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/06/01/choice-for-three-books-disappointing/feed/ 27 1068011