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.
In reading Brenda Barnes’ statements on the Stanford Daily on April 14 (“CPRN responds to radio sale concerns”), I realized something very important to keep in mind and that is: in this messy fight between the entertainment community, its corporate rivals and the FCC, it is easy for misinformed statements to be made.
Instead of putting forth a reasonable argument to change ASSU funding policies (“Something that Actually Needs Saving,” April 4, 2011), Zack Hoberg and Dave Grundfest chose to mislead and denigrate fellow Stanford students. Zack and Dave blame “90 graduate students” and the “ridiculous policy that one population can dictate the other’s funding decision” for the rejection of joint Special Fees for FLiCKS. Let’s examine two facts, one conveniently omitted, the other completely glossed over.
The Office of Judicial Affairs (OJA) is currently undergoing its first major review since 1997, when Stanford’s Judicial Charter was created. Fourteen years have passed since then, and we are investigating what is working, what is not working and what needs to work differently — and we want your input in answering those questions.
My 9-year-old son and I were just turned away from Stanford baseball game yesterday because we brought a youth football. Ironically, we were there to meet with a visiting star quarterback prospect from Seattle and his family with whom we are deep friends.
As an Asian American alum, former co-chair of the Asian American Students’ Association (AASA), staff member of the Asian American Community Center (A3C), Ethnic Theme Associate for Okada and member of Lambda Phi Epsilon, I am disappointed in the ignorance and oversimplification displayed by Mr. Matsuura in his op-ed.
Keith Sudheimer’s recent Op-Ed regarding the potential return of ROTC to the Stanford campus (“Darth Vader Says ‘Yes’ To the ROTC”) illustrates an ideologically extreme and unproductive understanding of military service. Sudheimer argues that since soldiers in the field are obliged to follow orders regardless of their moral positions, military service is antithetical to the intellectual goals of the university. In so doing he misunderstands the nature of the ROTC program and disregards the structure of government through which military decisions are made.