We, as representatives of our communities, insist that you explain in full why you find it acceptable to, in the name of our university, renege on Stanford’s promise to Chanel Miller and ignore three elected bodies plus 2,200 members of the Stanford community who have made a reasoned and informed request that you honor that agreement.
I fear that Stanford is at risk of becoming a moral credentialer. Most of the good they have been doing lately seems to be more symbolic that substantive. As a student, I have been receiving a lot of emails purveying good news, in which Stanford administrators have condemned what is wrong on campus — whether that be racist comments or sexual assault — but I have yet to see action.
To breaking the silence that the world’s Emily Doe’s require, we must look to culture, not law. Authority figures at Stanford — residential advisors and deans, in particular — should serve students first, and the institution second — a distant second.
Thinking the way our administration does has dangerous consequences for our education. They clearly believe that a warning is insufficient, that the words must be omitted in the first place. These forms of learning should not be restricted; instead, a simple fix would be to introduce warnings without erasing the original words.
The Stanford community has already made its stance on the issue clear. As The Daily’s Editorial Board, we affirm it. We believe Chanel Miller deserves to have her voice etched into the architecture of the University, and to have her experiences given due respect in her own words. It is the least Stanford can do.
The first incident occurred on Friday at 1:30 a.m. at an undisclosed location. The second occurred on Saturday at 10 a.m. at a frosh dorm in Wilbur Hall.
14.2% of respondents reported experiencing at least one incident of nonconsensual sexual contact since entering Stanford, according to results from a campus climate survey on sexual violence released Tuesday.
Stanford said that she could use language from the Statement, but not the words she wanted. It proposed other words. What’s wrong with that? What is wrong is that the “uplifting” words Stanford prefers are wrenched out of their context in order to make them say something they do not say at all.