Last week, the 20th Undergraduate Senate and the Graduate Student Council (GSC) voted to confirm Jayaram Ravi ’19 and Carson Smith ’19 to the Constitutional Council, the judicial branch of the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU).
Community centers’ push for increased resources – a perennial issue raised by student groups and representatives – has a long history. Challenges over the years range from a lack of professional staff and space for student groups to the threat of budget cuts affecting hours of operation and programming. This has led to a cycle of activism among students who hope to maintain and grow the community centers.
In the wake of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSD) in Parkland, Florida that left 17 students and faculty members dead, survivors of the shooting galvanized a national movement demanding gun reform. Exactly one month later, on Wednesday March 14, students at Stanford and in Palo Alto joined others around the country in a nationwide walkout for gun control.
In early February, the ASSU Undergraduate Senate passed a resolution requesting that the University rename all places on campus that bear the name of Junípero Serra, a Catholic missionary who colonized California for Spain in the 18th century and created the California mission system. Both the Graduate Student Council (GSC) and the Faculty Senate have since passed the resolution, officially supporting the effort for renaming. Ultimately, the decision now rests with the administration.
Although it is perhaps more known to Stanford students for its countdown to Big Game each fall, the current countdown in White Plaza reads “Days until Paris: 60, demand climate action.” In addition to this countdown, Students for a Sustainable Stanford (SSS) and a coalition of other student groups on campus have been organizing to increase climate change awareness.
The problem, of course, is that FoHo could have just as easily framed this event as an instance of stunning insensitivity on the part of ATF, and that nobody but the FoHo staff itself oversees the editorial direction it takes when interpreting an episode on campus. It’s that the FoHo’s slant (like that of any source) inevitably shapes public opinion on a given issue, making the fact that it includes one at all a serious problem. The news is for reporting, and Opinion pages are for editorializing.
“We were really hoping to find a way to do the show in a way that would promote dialogue and not hurt people, but it would not be possible. None of us wanted to feel responsible for hurting other students or making them feel attacked in a place that’s supposed to be their home.”
The discussion question posed to the attendees were the following: How should Senate prioritize events to fund? Is it fair for groups to be able to build up reserves? Should Stanford try to lower activities fees?