Debates over potential solutions to combat graduate student food insecurity dominated the Graduate Student Council (GSC) meeting on Wednesday night.
The three bills request Hoover’s inclusion in the University’s IDEAL survey, restructure ASSU joint committees and implement the amendments passed by the student body in the spring election.
The 22nd Undergraduate Senate passed its first bill to reform Senate’s standing committees’ bylaws. Senators also discussed a new bill introduced by Senator Jonathan Lipman ’21 which would request that the Hoover Institution be included in the Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access in a Learning Community (IDEAL) dashboard.
The final meeting of the 2018-2019 Graduate Student Council (GSC) reflected on the past year while keeping an eye to the future. The Council approved a non-binding resolution on graduate student healthcare affordability, continuing year-long advocacy efforts to improve graduate student health and mental health, as well as discussed the role of the Stanford University…
Advocates for Stanford’s full divestment from fossil fuels marched on Friday afternoon to deliver their proposal to Vice Provost for Student Affairs Susie Brubaker-Cole.
Scott ’20 and Drummond ’20 won by a narrow margin of 19 votes. They sat down with The Daily to discuss their interest in politics, priorities as executives, and election controversy
This past week, the ASSU debated a bill authored by the Director of Academic Freedom, Zintis Inde, that would force every student club to include a mandatory 120-word statement on all advertisements for their event. A paragraph-long statement may have to be included in every email, flyer and Facebook post regarding a speaker your club brings in the future, if this bill passes. If a club forgets to include the statement just four times over the span of two years, it could receive a “one year ban on funding,” according to an early draft of the bill. The statement itself is pretty basic: it notes that the ASSU does not necessarily endorse the speakers it funds, while simultaneously supports the value of free speech in campus dialogue. Even if we set aside for the moment the ethics of compelling groups to include this lengthy statement, one must question the necessity of the requirement itself.
I voted in the recent ASSU election, and on many questions, the ballot prevented me from abstaining. For example, I only wanted to rank two of the Executive slates, but I was forced to rank all five. This led to my third, fourth, and fifth choices defaulting to the ballot’s random ordering. On the Annual Grants, I had to choose either “yes” and “no” for organizations I barely recognized. That can’t be the best way to allocate thousands of dollars.