To what peculiar set of obligations, written and unwritten, have we committed ourselves by choosing to attend this university? I can imagine a variety of responses, including but not limited to donations, excellent citizenship, adherence to the charter, tuition or nothing.
If there is one thing that I walked away from my 19th Undergraduate Senate experience knowing for certain, it is that Stanford’s administration (President, Provost, Vice Provosts and their staff) requires student leaders who are willing to work collaboratively within existing systems to make change happen. This is not to say that existing systems should remain or that activism does not have a place in the ASSU, but rather that the most sustainable and lasting change comes about when students are able to bridge the gap between themselves and the administration. It is no coincidence that some of the movements that we have seen during the last years at Stanford have stalled while others, like the Serra-renaming, have moved forward. Activism is central to change on Stanford’s campus, especially as evidenced by SCOPE 2035 in the GUP process. However, the most effective models of leadership I have seen have been centered around a model in which the ASSU representatives have a different role than the activists: that of active student-administration collaboration within the university’s channels.
It was the night of Eurotrash, and I had the “misfortune” of being on-call while my residents experienced their first college party. One minute, I was ordering DoorDash in the lounge; the next, I was sprinting towards the Row with a backpack full of water. All I knew was that a resident needed help. When I arrived on the Row, I saw an unfortunately familiar sight: incredibly intoxicated, semi-conscious students, most surrounded by friends, but others completely alone. Yet familiarity is different than preparedness. At that moment, it became clear that I was not given the resources to deal with this. In fact, none of us were.
Expecting still-rising costs and poor endowment performance, Drell spoke of “cost cutting” in response to low expectations for the University’s financial prospects. The Senate also unanimously passed a resolution expressing support for need-blind admission and need-based financial aid for international undergraduate students.
Monied clusters of Greek organizations, geographically segregated ethnic houses, and nepotistic, thematically-lifeless Row houses plague Stanford’s housing system, bemoan University administrators. Stanford has consequently adopted the belief that a vast overhaul of campus housing is the cure-all for these ills: the University’s ResX Task Force — a branch of Residential Education (ResEd), has recently been discussing what they call “the ideal neighborhood concept.” Substantive details on this proposed housing restructure are scarce. Nonetheless, we believe it would be useful to infer what the consequences of such systematic changes might be.
Let’s set the scene. You are a Stanford freshman in the class of 2024, taking your first load of courses for the fall quarter. You’re undeclared, so you decide to try lots of different things: you’ll take CS 106A, of course, but you also like writing, so perhaps you’re in English 10A, a historical class in the English core.
In light of November controversies, Stanford has reaffirmed its commitment to offering resources to students who may be impacted by the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
On Wednesday, the Graduate Student Council (GSC) held a Mental Health Town Hall that addressed graduate student mental health and wellbeing on campus.
The event follows last week’s undergraduate town hall, which similarly brought together administrators and students to discuss mental health concerns and resources.