The editor-in-chief of The Fountain Hopper (FoHo) was removed from his position last month by his predecessor, Emma Johanningsmeier ’18, after she deemed him “unfit” for the role.
Yesterday, the Stanford Daily published an editorial in response to our recent article questioning its daily content and circulation. While simultaneously claiming to “welcome feedback,” the editorial dismissed certain features of our piece as “disturbing” and “problematic” and seemingly ignored or missed the article’s central message.
On Monday, Stanford Politics published a story questioning The Daily’s print circulation — and our content. As a newspaper, we welcome feedback from our readers and are committed to responsiveness and transparency in keeping with our journalistic mission. However, we found several of the claims made by the article disturbing upon reflection — not because they disparaged our paper, but because they misled readers. Here, we respond to the claims we found most problematic.
On Wednesday night, the Stanford Democrats and the Stanford College Republicans debated the Congressional Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio, the university endowment tax, and the corporate tax reduction were addressed in the debate hosted by Stanford in Government (SIG), Stanford Women in Politics (SWIP), Stanford Politics, the Stanford Review and the Stanford University Speakers Bureau (SSB).