Widgets Magazine


About Editorial Board

Editorials represent the views of The Stanford Daily, an independent newspaper serving Stanford and the surrounding community. The Daily's Editorial Board consists of President and Editor-in-Chief Victor Xu '17, Executive Editor Will Ferrer '18, Managing Editor of Opinions Michael Gioia '17, Desk Editor of Opinions Jimmy Stephens '17, Senior Staff Writer Kylie Jue '17, Senior Staff Writer Olivia Hummer '17 and Senior Staff Writer Andrew Vogeley '17. To contact the Editorial Board chair, submit an op-ed (limited to 700 words) or submit a letter to the editor (limited to 500 words) at eic@stanforddaily.com.
  • I wonder what happened to the link to the previous editorial where we were having an interesting discussion on the matter. Needless to say I stand by my previous statements: if you want a rigorous education in a hard science/engineering/professional field, Stanford and other universities of similar caliber are the way to go. If, on the contrary, you plan to major on the humanities, you might as well drop out and watch MSNBC day and night. The net educational effect will be the same but it will be considerably cheaper (like $40K/year cheaper)!

  • “faculty members should still be allowed to teach classes that promote
    social engagement, if approved by their department, these classes should
    occupy a minority rather than majority of the liberal arts curriculum…an over-emphasis on courses geared toward social engagement can diminish the quality of a liberal education.”

    So…a quality education is one that social disengagement at its core?  Is the Daily really arguing this?


    “threatens to marginalize thinkers who fail to engage in socially
    relevant questions or who present less tolerant views on women,
    minorities, and privilege.” 

    Indeed, discrimination against racists and misogynists is quite the problem is quite the problem. Has anyone actually argued that Aristotle should not be taught because of his misogynist tendencies? What are the odds that an actual man made of straw sits on the Daily editorial board?

  • Indeed, the humanities are quite worthless. And how is that life without music, art, culture, and informed political discussion working out for you?

  • I didn’t say that the humanities are worthless (I am on record saying precisely the contrary commenting on other entries). What I am saying is that majoring in the humanities at Stanford or at other ideologically driven schools is worthless. One doesn’t need to be brainwashed day and night with liberal nonsense to enjoy music, art and culture. As for informed political discussion, you must be kidding me; all you get from classes at Stanford that teach politics are left biased discussions. As I said, you could watch MSNBC all day and night and get the same thing for significantly less money, which is important if you are paying the bill :D.

  • Guest

    from our founding charter:

    “And its [i.e. the University’s] purposes, to promote the public welfare by
    exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching
    the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and
    reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the
    inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

  • Donster

     Left biased discussions?  Are you kidding me?  where else would you learn about all the philosophical benefits and ideological justification of the free-market?  where else would you get so worked up about entrepreneurship and becoming successful financially?  Or how to maximize one’s rational utility by pursuing one’s private interest without moral qualms?  Or where else do you learn poetry, arts, and history all devoid of any real political implication?     Stanford sells Capitalism far better than fox news does.  The left are people who want to win in the market just as badly, but they also like to throw a few charity events on the side and help a couple minority kids to go to college.

  • Holly Fetter

    Hold up. This isn’t about “social and political activism.” For some students at Stanford, just being present in the classroom is a political act. Students of color, queer students, low-income students, first-gen students, students with disabilities, and others are painfully underrepresented on this campus, and in educational institutions across the U.S. We take class after class that is created for and about white men, with one week in the syllabus for people of color if we’re lucky. All we’re asking is for some respect and recognition within this academic system. By calling those who are “different” (in the language of the SUES report) “activists,” you are defining us as outsiders to the supposedly apolitical academy, in the same way that having few professors and courses focused on these “different” identities signals to us that we don’t belong here. 

  • Holly Fetter

    Also, where is the list of folks on the Editorial Board? I can’t find it on the site. 

  • Kat

    Agreed that activism is getting confused with anything related to any minority in this editorial.  Teaching activism and teaching topics about minority cultures are not the same thing.  We have courses that teach activism here, we have courses that inspire students to political action, and we also have courses that study culture, politics, and identity–including those of minorities.  Sometimes those courses overlap but they don’t inherently (though the above seems to imply they do).”A view of the value of liberal arts education in which courses should become training grounds for social activism threatens to marginalize thinkers who fail to engage in socially relevant questions or who present less tolerant views on women, minorities, and privilege.” It seems the article is trying to say discussing issues relating to minorities could upset a member of the majority that is intolerant of that minority, with the buzz words “politicizing education” thrown in to justify the claim.

  • agreed

    The Stanford Daily Editorial Board is chaired by Adam Johnson ’13. He is joined by four members: Mitul Bhat ’12, Rebecca Johnson ’11, Peter Johnston ’14 and Meredith Wheeler ’14 from 

  • Peter

    What were you guys thinking?

  • Guest

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. WUT.

  • gu


  • You learn the free market stuff outside the classroom -which is part of the Stanford experience-, from hearing stories about Stanford alumni that are successful or, if you will, in a microeconomics course. Alas, microeconomics is not ideological, if you take a class to learn the workings of the free market, it’s normal to expect to hear about the free market. What else you’d expect to learn from in a microeconomics class, communism economics?
    The humanities classes at Stanford are simply a propaganda tool for the left. If you want to spend $40K/year to be indoctrinated by hard core leftists, I have nothing against; all I am saying is that that money is better spent majoring in the hard sciences or engineering where ideology plays no role.
    As to the question about the intersection of poetry, arts, and history and politics. You might find it hard to believe but it is possible to enjoy the arts without looking at the politics of the artist. Take music for example. I love all kinds of music; yet, if I were to discard works by artists whose politics I disagree with, I might throw away 90% of the pop music I listen to :D. Oh, and the idea that to learn history you need to learn it from a political point of view is preposterous. I give you that political activists love to manipulate history to their advantage, however, I think that the true study of history transcends politics. One can read good books outside the classroom and make up his own mind. Again, do I need to pay $40K/year to have some nut liberal professor indoctrinate me about history politics? Nope!!!

  • Jireh

    If you think that an economics class is non-ideological, you must not know very much economics. Like any other social science, economics is a system of belief propagated by power.

  • Liz

    fee fi fo fum i smell the stench of unexamined privilege…

  •  Please read well what I wrote. Microeconomics is a branch of economics interested in using mathematics to describe economic  phenomena and outcomes (as many thing economics, it is less good at prediction). I am not talking about “economics” at large.  Microeconomics is not the kind of stuff you could learn from watching Fox News Channel or any other media.

  • barbarian

    “I give you that political activists love to manipulate history to their advantage, however, I think that the true study of history transcends politics.”

    Please tell me, how can you study history without studying politics? Politics is power and oppression manifesting itself. How can you study history without the political oppression of “man over woman”? 

    get real, dude.

  • Again, somebody accusing me of saying what I didn’t say. I said, “Oh, and the idea that to learn history you need to learn it from a political point of view is preposterous”. I didn’t say that you don’t need to take politics into consideration, I said that if you only take one point of view into consideration, you are missing stuff. The best American examples that come to mind about how liberal professors usually distort things are the Civil War and the Civil Rights struggle. Both periods were turning points for America. And yet they are usually manipulated to promote ideological points of view. Slavery was a big issue in the Civil War, maybe it was even “the issue” but it wasn’t certainly the “only issue”. Take the events that led to the approval of the 1964 civil rights act. Liberal professors like to narrow the complex issues to “Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat ended racism in America” and so much so that 90% of African Americans vote Democrat to this day. The actual picture is way more complex; the act would not have passed without decisive support by Republicans who were successful in blocking a white Democrat-led filibuster to the law. I could go on and on. It is very clear to me that the version you get at Stanford of these events is very biased. Certainly not worth paying $40K/year to  be brainwashed with leftist ideology. Bonus question: the KKK was born out of the base of the Democratic Party during Reconstruction. Even the successors of the first Klan were mainly Democratic grass root movements. How many liberal students know that?

  • ’11

    preaching intolerance and spewing hate is not only “Politically Incorrect”, but ignorant and revealing of your own self-consciousness. spread love.

  •  I am not preaching anything. I am just pointing out the type of misinformation that, in my experience, is being spread by liberal professors in schools such as Stanford. To my surprise, very few Stanford students know that the KKK was, in its different incarnations, a grassroot movement inside the Democratic Party.

  • Anna

     In early American history (pre-Gilded Age), the Democratic and Republican party were ideologically the opposite of what they believe now. So your comment about the kkk, in addition to being irrelevant, shows nothing about liberals now. In addition, your comments about the various subjects you could “learn” from watching news programs like Fox or MSNBC (both of which are wildly biased) indicate a lack of understanding in the nuances, depth, and interdisciplinary connections between economics, history, political science, sociology, and any sort of study of people.

  • What was I saying about some supposed “learned” students being clueless about American history? It’s not the first time that I hear about this myth that the parties had interchanged ideologies long time ago and thus that accusing the Democratic Party of racism is untrue. The problem with the myth is that it is a lie, probably created by current day Democrats to feel better with the history of their party. The current Republican Party is the only third party that has been successful. It emerged out of the ashes of the Whig Party in 1854.  The current Democratic Party emerged in 1824 out of the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, in 1791. And yes, it’s the grassroots of the Democratic Party who founded the different incarnations of the KKK (Democrats going as far as to oppose the civil rights act of 1871 designed to protect Blacks from the KKK). Just as it is true that it is the racist Democratic senators of the South who tried to filibuster the civil rights act of 1964. It was also a Democratic president, FDR, who interned Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. The racist history of the Democratic Party from 1791 to the 1960s is well documented, http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/3554.html , however I am afraid that you will learn little of that in your history classes at Stanford.

    You last sentence is particularly laughable,

    “a lack of understanding in the nuances, depth, and
    interdisciplinary connections between economics, history, political
    science, sociology, and any sort of study of people.”

    In an ideal humanities class you might be exposed to that. In the real humanities classes at Stanford you are exposed to a political brainwashing that is no different than what you get from watching MSNBC day and night, even though your professors tell you that your are being elevated intellectually with nuances and subtleties :D.

  • Snoopy

    “If you want a rigorous education in a hard science/engineering/professional field, Stanford and other universities of similar caliber are the way to go”

    The last time I checked, the atomic chart had the same number of elements and gravity still had an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 in most community colleges and less “caliber” state schools across the country/globe.

    If you want to waste $200,000 of your parent’s money getting a technical degree you could get virtually anywhere else in the world JUST so you can have the Stanford name attached to your CV, you are wasting everyone’s time — but mostly your own.

    HOOVER INSTITUTE, PLEASE DO US A FAVOR AND LEAVE EDUCATION TO QUALIFIED TEACHERS and people who actually care about transferring vital cultural and scientific knowledge to their students! You are an activist-conservative think tank and you are calling a non-existent kettle black.

  • It is patently obvious that you have never taken a history class at Stanford and thus have no idea what you are talking about. You will no longer be fed. Please go back to your home under your local bridge.

  • Snoopy

    Upon reflection and discussion with a friend about my previous (yea, somewhat incendiary) comment:

    I need to emphasize that I am talking about the triviality of what too many have come to believe is the “elite” Stanford undergraduate technical degree. I do not want to undercut its research and post-doc work.


    furthermore, (for all of you Stanford students who might be reading this – whether you attend with or without the help of your parent’s money) I am merely trying to challenge you to challenge yourself to go after a more courageous, risk-taking, fulfilling college degree!! Sorry for the strong language and do your best to enjoy some classes outside of Hum-Bio and Econ. My advice… double major in CSRE!!!

  •  Oh!!! You broke my heart. As I said, I am an engineering major (my dollars were well spent :D). I have friends who majored in the humanities, thus who were officially brainwashed by their professors, and they tell stories similar to this Anna. The Democratic Party has a racist history that goes back to the very founding of that party as the Democratic-Republican Party. This idea that the parties have switched ideologies in the present day is as preposterous as they come. Yet, as I said, it is not the first time that I hear it; probably because the establishment of the DNC cannot believe its party once promoted things such as,


    Talk about guilt! With such history no wonder the white elites of the Democratic Party were so interested in electing an empty suit called Obama to appease their white guilt. But now the guy has a record and it has proven himself to be an incompetent who should have never been elected :D.  The white guilt of the Democratic Party gave us Obama. The Republican Party, which was proudly founded by Lincoln, the guy who freed the slaves owned mostly by Democrats, gave us Colin Powell and Condi Rice.  Pick your choice as to which one is more pro-individual rights and merit :D.

  • You corrected yourself, so… While it is true that most engineering departments focus on graduate education, undergrads majoring in engineering benefit from having professors doing cutting edge work. In addition, the School of Engineering sponsors a program tailored to undergraduates so they can benefit from doing research with top notch professors,


    What differentiates a Stanford education (or MIT/UC Berkeley, Caltech, etc for that matter) in engineering from the education at a more average school is not the fact that they teach you that g = 9.8m/s^2; it’s that you learn from the experts who, in many cases wrote the textbooks you are using for the class or made breakthrough contributions to the field. Being challenged by these professors, in addition of competing with very bright fellow students for grades, sharpens your thinking and your problem solving abilities making you a better engineer. It’s no surprise that Stanford engineers go on to create technologies, such as Google’s, that end up transforming the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    You are an envious creature, ranting because you couldn’t get into Stanford (or a similar caliber school). Be aware however, that you are better off because of the Googles of the world; you should be thankful that there exist schools like Stanford.

  •  You can get a sense of the Stanford faculty here,



    Your average school doesn’t have 150 members of  the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences and 94 members of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Engineering .

    So yeah, being exposed to these giants is definitely an experience like no other :D.

  • Holly Fetter

    Also, I’d like to point out the lack of objectivity of the research the authors cite. This study was conducted by the National Association of Scholars, which is a non-profit organization that takes issue with a variety of trends it sees in contemporary U.S. institutions of higher learning – “politicization of the classroom,” “overemphasis on issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation,” “sex discrimination [and] ethnic preferences in admissions and hiring,” and the “partying and hook-up culture,” just to name a few. This organization’s ideals are as overtly political as any other, and it seems impossible to take their research as a neutral indicator of the “quality” of American higher education.

  • Kyle V

    How many humanities classes at Stanford have you actually taken? Where are you getting all of your opinions on this?

  • anon

    lol you clearly haven’t met many liberal history professors if you think they’d tell you Lyndon Johnson ended racism. I once had a history teacher so liberal she would only let us refer to Native American’s as “indigenous peoples of the lands.” then again, i did grow up in san francisco