In an op-ed piece this past Wednesday, Jonathan Poto ’13 expressed frustration at Stanford’s decision to reinstate ROTC and at our Provost’s op-ed affirming his support of the transgender community at Stanford. Though I can well understand Mr. Poto’s frustration, I feel his view is not entirely fair to our leadership.
The editorial in The Stanford Daily of May 6, 2011 is correct in pointing out that alumni interviews of prospective students may not add to the information that the Admission Office already has. However, it misses the point when it states that the interviews may be detrimental to disadvantaged candidates who may not be as “poised” as those from more privileged backgrounds.
I was extremely disappointed to read Wednesday’s Editorial. Although I understand the writers’ motivation to argue that many Stanford students studying technologically-oriented majors love their fields, the piece is filled with flawed logic and a dangerously mistaken frame in which to place the argument they seek to make. I am embarrassed that people outside of the Farm could see the editorial and judge Stanford and its students by such a misguided account of Stanford academics and culture.
President Hennessy has just established an immediate, clear and reasonable standard that will undoubtedly lead to improved awareness, treatment and reduced incidence of sexual assault and violence on Stanford’s campus. At the same time, it is imperative, immediately, for ASSU to do what Viviana Arcia recommends in her op-ed (which everyone should read): make the reasonable standard of proof a Constitutional revision “priority.”
In response to last Friday’s editorial, “Freeing Tantalus — Time To Fix Entrepreneurship,” we would like to share some additional entrepreneurship-related resources that were not described in The Daily’s editorial.
I write in response to Viviana Arcia’s op-ed on President Hennessy’s recent executive order. The order lowered the standard of proof in student misconduct hearings from “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” to “Preponderance of the Evidence” in cases where the student is alleged to have committed a sexual assault. “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” is the standard used in all criminal matters in the United States. The high standard ensures against unjust convictions and reduces the risk of factual errors. The reasonable doubt standard symbolizes the significance our society attaches to personal liberty. By contrast, “Preponderance of the Evidence” is the lowest standard, typically used in civil matters, where the only punishment faced by the accused is a monetary one.