Letters to the Editor – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Thu, 26 Oct 2023 07:03:27 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Letters to the Editor – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Letter to the Editor | Rising antisemitism on your hands https://stanforddaily.com/2023/10/26/letter-to-the-editor-rising-antisemitism-on-your-hands/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/10/26/letter-to-the-editor-rising-antisemitism-on-your-hands/#respond Thu, 26 Oct 2023 07:03:16 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1234573 The Daily's recent reporting has detrimentally impacted Jewish students on campus, writes Mandelshtam.

The post Letter to the Editor | Rising antisemitism on your hands appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Yesterday, The Daily did something unfathomable. As a publication by and for Stanford students, The Daily has great responsibility when reporting on students — especially when, like now, tensions on campus are running high. So it is especially concerning that yesterday The Daily published an article with unverified information accusing a Jewish student of assaulting one Palestinian, one “visibly Arab” and one hijab-wearing student on Oct. 15. The supposed assault occurred in White Plaza as the three students were taking down signs with pictures, names and ages of some of the over 200 Israeli civilians who were kidnapped by Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization. The article and its title make it sound like ripping off posters with pictures of Hamas hostages is business as usual, implying that it is an honorable thing to do.

In a statement to The Daily, the accused student testified that, “I simply asked them to stop destroying the posters. There was no altercation and I absolutely did NOT touch anyone. I have a witness who can verify that. This is a totally false and groundless accusation.” The article refers to a video that “depicts the suspect yelling ‘Shut the fuck up’ to an alleged victim before the students walked away from each other.” But, The Daily does not allege that the video has proof of physical violence. There is no evidence of physical assault. Though The Daily article made sure to note everything as ‘alleged,’ their quote from a Department of Public Safety spokesperson was definitive, making it seem like the assault did happen. 

Yesterday’s outrageous Daily article was not an aberration. Last Wednesday, The Daily published an alternative account of the antisemitic behavior of Ameer Hassan Loggins, a lecturer in Stanford’s mandatory course for frosh. As reported in a New York Times opinion, “A lecturer in one class that day asked Jewish students to raise their hands, then took one of the Jewish student’s belongings and told him to stand apart from everyone else, saying that was what the Israelis did to the Palestinians.” Another student reported: “he turned to an Israeli student and asked how many Jews died in the Holocaust. When that student said six million, the teacher replied, many more millions died in colonization, which is what he said Israel was doing to the Palestinians. He then asked all of the students to say where they were from and depending on the answer, he told them whether they were colonized or colonizer. When a student said, ‘Israeli,’ he called the student a colonizer.”

In sharp contrast to the Times’ article on the issue, the account published in The Daily appears to be written solely to defend Loggins’s actions. The Daily article goes to great lengths to paint Loggins’s actions as over exaggerated, implicitly accusing Jewish students of dishonesty. Two Stanford Israel Association board members spoke with the students who were targeted by Loggins and communicated the pain and discomfort that Loggins caused them. Rather than taking these expressions of the Jewish students’ experiences seriously, the article immediately proceeds to cite non-Jewish students, inappropriately calling into question the Jewish students’ experiences. For example, The Daily quotes a student who said, “as a class we all really loved having him as a professor.” Similarly, a student is quoted saying, “It was to be funny, [Loggins] was laughing.” The Jewish students who reported Loggins to the University clearly didn’t agree.

Per journalistic best practices, reporters should obtain as much relevant information as possible. The Daily does feature the testimony of students in the class, but they are neither Jewish nor Israeli. Since when is it acceptable for bystanders to tell victims how they’re supposed to feel? Such journalistic incompetence is unacceptable.

Ironically, at the same time The Daily minimized Jewish accounts of antisemitism, it also published “Hundreds call for University action in protest for Palestine,” which failed to mention what is easily interpreted as a direct call during the rally to take up arms against fellow Stanford students: “On college campuses, including this one, … People’s resistance is met through doxing, harassment and intimidation campaigns which endanger Palestinian life. What is there left to do but to take up arms?” 

Journalists have power. Since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack which killed 1,400 Israeli civilians and took over 200 hostages, Jewish and Israeli students have been targeted on the basis of their identities. They continue to encounter slogans calling for the destruction of their country and the concomitant genocide of their people chalked on the ground. Jewish and Israeli students have had to sit and listen as neighbors, classmates and friends justify the brutal slaughter of their friends and family. The Daily contributes to this campus climate, and must acknowledge that irresponsible and one-sided reporting impacts Jewish students. 

We condemn what is in our view The Daily’s repeated indifference to assaults on Jews and its promotion of libelous and antisemitic accounts. 

Signed,

The Stanford Israel Association

This article was written by Andrei Mandelshtam, co-president, and other members of the Stanford Israel Association.

The post Letter to the Editor | Rising antisemitism on your hands appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/10/26/letter-to-the-editor-rising-antisemitism-on-your-hands/feed/ 0 1234573
Letter to the Editor: At the Bill Lane Center, rural studies are front and center https://stanforddaily.com/2021/06/28/letter-to-the-editor-at-the-bill-lane-center-rural-studies-are-front-and-center/ https://stanforddaily.com/2021/06/28/letter-to-the-editor-at-the-bill-lane-center-rural-studies-are-front-and-center/#respond Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:32:54 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1183745 The Bill Lane Center Staff respond to Zac Stoor's opinions article.

The post Letter to the Editor: At the Bill Lane Center, rural studies are front and center appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

All of us at the Bill Lane Center for the American West were excited to see Zac Stoor’s op-ed in The Daily last month that made a “case for rural studies at Stanford.” Stoor correctly noted that a very small number of courses in Stanford’s catalog use “rural” as a keyword. While we agree that the University’s rural course offerings must be more robust, we also wanted to offer a road map of our work on the rural West, and how rural studies may be considered more expansively.

One of our favorite programs in rural studies is the Lane Center’s annual Sophomore College, a field course that takes a group of twelve rising sophomores to various locations in the American West, many of which are rural. For example, in September 2018 Lane Center Director Bruce Cain and Buzz Thompson of the Law School co-taught “Fighting Over Our Common Heritage: Public Lands in the West,” which took students on a trip through rural Utah to meet with a variety of stakeholders, including federal agencies, tribes and nonprofit organizations. The course allowed students to explore the complicated puzzle of public lands management. In September 2017, Professor Cain, along with Professors David Freyberg (Civil and Environmental Engineering) and Sally Benson (Energy Resources Engineering) led “Water and Power in the Pacific Northwest: The Columbia River,” in which students visited urban and rural communities in the Columbia River Valley in Washington and Oregon to consider the challenges and impacts of water and energy management in the region. Although the Sophomore College program has been on hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we look forward to safe travels in the near future — expect an announcement about a Columbia River course again soon.

Outside of scheduled courses, our center also works with a number of undergraduate students on research projects. Since summer 2020, Hannah Kelley and Aja Two Crows have been producing a podcast about Native American health and the coronavirus pandemic, comparing the rural Navajo Nation with urban Seattle. Sarah Ondak embarked on a photography project in summer 2019 that considered rural mining towns in Colorado. Lila Mack recently worked on a community-based project considering how to best serve and communicate with low-income Latinx communities, including farmworkers, during crises like wildfires and COVID-19 in California. These are only a few highlights, a few of the possibilities. The Center also sponsors internships, some of which allow students to work with organizations in rural areas such as Yellowstone National Park or the Henry’s Fork Foundation in Ashton, ID. Additionally, we have worked with the Haas Center for Public Service to co-sponsor the Exploring Rural America speaker series, a student-initiated series that spotlighted various topics related to rural America — bringing a public-facing, outreach lens to rural studies.

Our Center also sponsors the annual Eccles Family Rural West Conference, in which scholars and practitioners convene in rural or rural-adjacent locations like Santa Fe, NM, and Yakima, WA. Recent conferences have focused on rural health, collaborative governance and amenity migration. Videos and recaps from these conferences are available on our website, and the first Rural West Conference, in Ogden, UT, led to the publication of an edited collection, Bridging the Distance: Common Issues of the Rural West (University of Utah Press, 2015).

Rural studies at Stanford can be discovered not just in the course catalog, but also in expansive, practical, co-curricular and extracurricular ways. We encourage any students with an interest in the rural West to email us (Stephanie Burbank, sburbank ‘at’ stanford.edu) about getting involved. The Bill Lane Center places rural studies front and center.

— Bill Lane Center for the American West Staff

The post Letter to the Editor: At the Bill Lane Center, rural studies are front and center appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/06/28/letter-to-the-editor-at-the-bill-lane-center-rural-studies-are-front-and-center/feed/ 0 1183745
Letter to the Editor: Responding to ‘Queer Cohesion’ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/31/letter-to-the-editor-responding-to-queer-cohesion/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/31/letter-to-the-editor-responding-to-queer-cohesion/#respond Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:17:30 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1155769 Dear Editor, I am Darnell Carson, and I am writing on behalf of myself and my roommate, Sarah Ondak, both current residents of Terra, known on campus colloquially as the “queer co-op.” We read the magazine article, “Queer Cohesion,” and while we felt many valid points and opinions were made and presented, we felt uncomfortable with […]

The post Letter to the Editor: Responding to ‘Queer Cohesion’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Editor,

I am Darnell Carson, and I am writing on behalf of myself and my roommate, Sarah Ondak, both current residents of Terra, known on campus colloquially as the “queer co-op.” We read the magazine article, “Queer Cohesion,” and while we felt many valid points and opinions were made and presented, we felt uncomfortable with the way Terra was characterized.

First, Darian Rice is quoted saying “Terra has its specific parties, but it doesn’t seem linked to other [communities].”  This year, our staff team has made considered efforts to facilitate conversations about the queer community, to connect with experts and activists within the queer community, and to create spaces where these conversations are possible. In addition, we have bi-weekly and quarterly events that are open to the entire campus for people of all identities to gather and socialize. This quote minimizes our efforts to foster an inclusive environment where anyone is welcomed.

In response to the Espey quote that calls political gays on campus “Terra-gays,” we want to note that students of all backgrounds reside in Terra. While this space may have historically been perceived as majority white and cis, Terra has evolved to be a diverse community of queer people from various racial, socio-economic, and cultural backgrounds. We aim to be a home for all, and quotes like this are hurtful to the students who have worked hard to make Terra a safe space.

We would like to recognize and appreciate the inclusion of the Terra resident, referred to in the article as “Basil”, who provided the perspective of someone currently living in the dorm. While we understand that the broader queer community on campus is spread out, as you’ve made note of in your article, we wanted to take this time to acknowledge that Terra actively seeks to become as inclusive as possible, and we as a house have worked hard to make that a reality. The responsibility of creating and maintaining a unified LGBTQ community does not fall solely on Terra, though we welcome the opportunity to establish any relationships we can with other LGBTQ groups on campus, and we are always open to collaboration for programming. 

This article cast us as reclusive and disconnected from other groups. We always have improvements to make in our connections to the broader queer community on campus, but we are not a lonely island in Cowell Cluster, and it is just as important for groups to reach out to us as it is for us to reach out to them.

We understand past perceptions may have deterred or discouraged individuals or groups from wanting to interact with our community, but those perceptions are not reflective of Terra as it exists today, and we encourage students to come and get to know us better, and they may find that the queer community is not as incohesive as they thought.

— Darnell Carson ’21 and Sarah Ondak ’21, current Terra residents

Contact Darnell Carson at darnellcarson ‘at’ stanford.edu and Sarah Ondak at sondak ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: Responding to ‘Queer Cohesion’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/31/letter-to-the-editor-responding-to-queer-cohesion/feed/ 0 1155769
Letter to the Editor: Economics visiting scholar https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/30/letter-to-the-editor-economics-visiting-scholar/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/30/letter-to-the-editor-economics-visiting-scholar/#respond Fri, 31 May 2019 05:34:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1155752 I am writing to register my disgust that the University and its Economics Department have determined that a registered sex offender is an appropriate visiting scholar (“Econ visiting scholar, a registered sex offender, permitted to complete term as scheduled,” from The Daily on May 29). I write you in a state of distress. Since seeing […]

The post Letter to the Editor: Economics visiting scholar appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I am writing to register my disgust that the University and its Economics Department have determined that a registered sex offender is an appropriate visiting scholar (“Econ visiting scholar, a registered sex offender, permitted to complete term as scheduled,” from The Daily on May 29).

I write you in a state of distress. Since seeing this Daily headline as I walked into my office this morning, I have been unable to think of much else, overwhelmed with feelings of disgust, anger and disappointment. With an increased heart rate and racing thoughts, I’ve struggled to focus on anything except my rage around this story and my own feelings of fear. In other words, my PTSD symptoms, hard-earned from a sexual assault my own freshman year of college, are triggered. 

The Daily quoted the following statement from University spokesperson E.J. Miranda on the decision to retain Kurt Mitman: “Providing a safe environment for all members of our community… is an obligation we take deeply seriously… In assessing the extent to which a person or situation poses a risk to the safety of our community, we must evaluate the full set of facts available. In addition, our objective cannot be to re-punish someone for past behavior, but rather to make an informed judgment about the actual safety threat posed to the community.”

I sit here aghast at Stanford’s continued official communication in support of rape culture on campus. I am reminded of the statement Miranda issued last year, after the University rejected quotations chosen by Emily Doe, the woman assaulted by Brock Turner, for the memorial plaque meant to commemorate and educate around her assault. In that case, The Daily wrote that “University spokesperson E.J. Miranda said that Doe’s selections ‘were inconsistent with a contemplative space,’ and that one of them was potentially triggering to sexual assault survivors.”

No, what’s potentially triggering is keeping a registered sex offender convicted of raping a 14-year-old boy on campus as a visiting professor in the Economics Department. That is the reason I had to stop teaching today to cry in the hallway. That is the reason I had to turn the lights off and cry under my desk between teaching and meeting with students. That is the reason I am writing this letter right now, instead of responding to student work. 

Just because Kurt Mitman does not rape another 14-year-old boy on this campus does not mean that his presence has no impact on our community’s safety. Mitman has one month left of an unpaid position and the University still lacks the courage to say, “Dude, you gotta go.” This cowardice is a testament to the University’s record of promoting and protecting rape culture as official policy, and a message to everyone on this campus that sexual predators are welcome here. I consider his continued welcome a Title IX violation, since Mitman’s presence creates a gender-based hostile environment for Stanford community members. I know I feel Stanford’s hostility today. 

— Tessa Brown, Ph.D. Lecturer, Program in Writing and Rhetoric

Contact Tessa Brown at tessabrown ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: Economics visiting scholar appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/30/letter-to-the-editor-economics-visiting-scholar/feed/ 0 1155752
Letter to the Editor regarding recent Daily coverage https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/15/letter-to-the-editor-regarding-recent-daily-coverage/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/15/letter-to-the-editor-regarding-recent-daily-coverage/#respond Wed, 15 May 2019 08:53:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1154892 Shame on The Stanford Daily for publicly shaming a Stanford employee, a one-time sex offender who long ago paid his debt to society and now poses no apparent threat to anyone at Stanford or anywhere else.  This is vigilante journalism of the worst kind. Theodore L. Glasser  Professor Emeritus Department of Communications 

The post Letter to the Editor regarding recent Daily coverage appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Shame on The Stanford Daily for publicly shaming a Stanford employee, a one-time sex offender who long ago paid his debt to society and now poses no apparent threat to anyone at Stanford or anywhere else.  This is vigilante journalism of the worst kind.

Theodore L. Glasser 

Professor Emeritus

Department of Communications 


The post Letter to the Editor regarding recent Daily coverage appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/15/letter-to-the-editor-regarding-recent-daily-coverage/feed/ 0 1154892
The legacy of Ken Fields https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/23/the-legacy-of-ken-fields/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/23/the-legacy-of-ken-fields/#respond Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:00:13 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1148599 Dear editors, I was very sorry to read your two recent articles, “Following accusations of insensitivity and vulgarity in class, Native American studies professor is no longer teaching course” on Jan.14 and “After ‘insensitive’ course delisted by Native American Studies program, English department chair scheduled to meet students” on Jan. 21. No doubt, your reporting […]

The post The legacy of Ken Fields appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear editors,

I was very sorry to read your two recent articles, “Following accusations of insensitivity and vulgarity in class, Native American studies professor is no longer teaching course” on Jan.14 and “After ‘insensitive’ course delisted by Native American Studies program, English department chair scheduled to meet students” on Jan. 21. No doubt, your reporting was complete and accurate. Still, I struggled to recognize any of the best qualities of my friend and colleague, Ken Fields, which I’d like to acknowledge here.

For more than 50 years, undergraduates and Stegner Fellows have left Stanford better poets, critics, and writers for their time studying with Ken. So many of the best first books of poetry published in the United States today feature Ken’s name on their acknowledgments page. He is the living institutional memory of a program, as well as a teacher and mentor who, to spin an admiring joke, has easily forgotten more about poetry than most of us have ever learned. If, in these later years, his discursive and provocative teaching style is not quite the best fit for our contemporary moment, the person is nevertheless deserving of a more complete acknowledgment than your article suggested (indeed, you might have drawn on your very admiring 2012 profile of Ken for some perspective in that regard).

I will always recommend Ken’s courses to my undergraduate and pre-major advisees. I know that, for myself, just running into Ken in the hallway remains that rare occasion to encounter a wise elder, an exceptional writer and teacher. I learned, and still learn, a great deal from him. This moment will not define his legacy to Stanford.

— John Evans, Draper Lecturer of Creative Nonfiction

The post The legacy of Ken Fields appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/23/the-legacy-of-ken-fields/feed/ 0 1148599
When one narrative stifles others https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/09/when-one-narrative-stifles-others/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/09/when-one-narrative-stifles-others/#respond Sun, 09 Dec 2018 22:22:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1147732 Claire Wang’s “Title IX doesn’t cover emotional abuse. What happens when student organizations are left to manage it on their own?” fails to productively answer the crucial question posed in its title. Instead the article neglects a broader perspective and approaches serious abuse allegations using a sensationalist, one-sided deluge of personal history; Amanda Spyropoulos details […]

The post When one narrative stifles others appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Claire Wang’s “Title IX doesn’t cover emotional abuse. What happens when student organizations are left to manage it on their own?” fails to productively answer the crucial question posed in its title. Instead the article neglects a broader perspective and approaches serious abuse allegations using a sensationalist, one-sided deluge of personal history; Amanda Spyropoulos details the dangers of this approach in “On Anonymity”. In addition, Wang’s article undermines its stated purpose and should not have been published without responsible coverage involving additional perspectives.

Wang’s title inaccurately suggests Common Origins’ leadership was “left to manage” a situation of emotional abuse. CO leadership became involved in the situation’s aftermath several months after the “relationship” ended, and leadership terms ended several weeks before the allegations involving “abuse” or “relationship violence”. These allegations clarify in hindsight that administrative guidance was needed from the outset, whereas the situation during leadership involvement was portrayed differently.

Leadership began communicating with Matthew regarding complaints from multiple team members about his interpersonal conduct. Matthew shared his story, which at the time focused on general feelings of discomfort and a fear that James would speak to him at events (James expressed no interest in approaching Matthew). Matthew deflected attempts to discuss his conduct by intensifying his demands that his story be prioritized over those of other members;
I did not feel comfortable approving such demands given the context Matthew had shared at the time. When leadership discussions concluded professional assistance was needed, Matthew (coincidentally) contacted us hours later to inform us he was visiting multiple administrators in rapid succession. I feared outreach immediately following Matthew’s could be mistaken as defensive given his negation of other stories – including his own hurtful actions toward James.

The article overlooks the difficulty experienced by James during his “relationship” with Matthew and eschews even the possibility of a two-sided narrative. That “James” did not respond with comments is unsurprising given the bias shown by the author. As a friend of both parties during their relationship, I saw the relationship become mutually unhealthy and problematic on both sides – to label one person as “the abuser” and the other as “the victim” is incorrect and encourages using serious allegations as weapons of silencing and coercion.

When I expressed my concerns to Wang after the Stanford Daily requested my comment, she reassured me, “The angle of the story centers not on the particulars of [Matthew]’s relationship, but rather on the lack of administrative oversight … in managing the conflict at hand involving [CO].” This claim is inconsistent with both the article and Wang’s previous statement that the story “pertains to alumni involvement in student groups.”

I am deeply troubled that this article was published at all, let alone in its current form. The Daily should retract the article, as a follow-up article alone would not mitigate the negligence encouraged by the original. I hope the Daily will review the proceedings leading to this tabloid-esque publication and revise its policies on reporting allegations of abuse.

– Nathan Lee, M.S. Applied Physics ’18, Ph.D. Applied Physics ‘21

Contact Nathan at nlee92 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post When one narrative stifles others appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/09/when-one-narrative-stifles-others/feed/ 0 1147732
When journalism falls short https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/09/when-journalism-falls-short/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/09/when-journalism-falls-short/#respond Sun, 09 Dec 2018 22:20:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1147731 A recent Daily article by Claire Wang describes (in lengthy and sometimes graphic detail) a situation of alleged emotional abuse, not covered by Title IX, and asks the question “What happens when student organizations are left to manage [cases like this] alone?” The focus of the article, however, seems to be less how the student […]

The post When journalism falls short appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
A recent Daily article by Claire Wang describes (in lengthy and sometimes graphic detail) a situation of alleged emotional abuse, not covered by Title IX, and asks the question “What happens when student organizations are left to manage [cases like this] alone?” The focus of the article, however, seems to be less how the student group in question handled the situation and more the personal details, beginning in 2016, of the relationship within which the alleged misconduct occurred.

This is not the only way in which Wang’s title misleads. According to the article’s timeline, Common Origins leadership was never asked to step in until many months after the allegedly abusive relationship ended. In other words, the group was never asked to manage a situation of alleged abuse, but only the aftermath of one.

Wang’s piece is lengthy, but all details about the relationship itself seem to come only from the accuser, “Matthew.” The story reads as extremely one-sided, inviting judgment from the reader into the character of “James,” the accused. After publication, the article was updated and corrected several times – a clear indication that the Daily allowed this piece to be published with severely lacking and in some cases inaccurate information. Wang seems to have fallen prey to anchoring bias, in which a person more strongly believes the first information they hear, and fails to give later information the same weight. While claims of abuse certainly should not be taken lightly, it is not and should not be the Daily’s place to cast such judgment on this situation nor to embark on what is effectively a defamation of James, on behalf of Matthew.

This could have been a thoughtful, insightful piece about what may still fall through the cracks of Title IX, how Stanford can ensure that its student leadership is equipped to handle difficult situations and to defer to appropriate authorities when needed, and what happens when one person comes forward much more vocally than another even though both may be similarly hurting. Instead, it feels like overly sensationalized gossip with a Title IX label slapped on in an attempt to lend legitimacy. As a close friend of both Matthew and James during their relationship, I can say with certainty that Wang’s article is an extremely incomplete and biased picture, and I have serious ethical concerns about the nature of this reporting.

As the recently published “On Anonymity” states, Wang’s attempts to anonymize Matthew and James are useless due to the sheer volume of personal information provided. Such a sensitive topic should be handled with far more care to truly protect the identities of those mentioned, especially since Wang herself notes that someone’s identity being revealed could lead to concerns for that person’s safety and well-being.

I am shocked and disappointed that the Daily would allow a piece like this to be published, and I feel strongly that the article should be retracted and that the Daily should seriously reconsider how it approaches situations like this going forward.

–     Vienna Harvey, B.A. Science, Technology, and Society ‘16

Contact Vienna at vwharvey ‘at’ alumni.stanford.edu.

The post When journalism falls short appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/09/when-journalism-falls-short/feed/ 0 1147731
On anonymity https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/04/on-anonymity/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/04/on-anonymity/#respond Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:48:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1147677 Claire Wang’s “Title IX doesn’t cover emotional abuse. What happens when student organizations are left to manage it on their own?” details the student organization Common Origin’s response to alleged emotional abuse between two of its members. The article’s staggering amount of detail undermines any pretense of anonymity and implicitly invites readers to judge for […]

The post On anonymity appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Claire Wang’s “Title IX doesn’t cover emotional abuse. What happens when student organizations are left to manage it on their own?” details the student organization Common Origin’s response to alleged emotional abuse between two of its members. The article’s staggering amount of detail undermines any pretense of anonymity and implicitly invites readers to judge for themselves whether the allegations constitute emotional abuse.

Wang purports to hide the identities of those involved in the alleged emotional abuse by assigning pseudonyms, Matthew for the accuser and James for the accused. However, detailing the genders, graduation years, officer status, and majors [and a flurry of other details] of both Matthew and James renders this moot. It is unethical and irresponsible for the Daily to promise anonymity but then publish extensive amounts of personally identifiable information. As the article acknowledges, revealing a source’s identity could lead to possible retaliation or safety concerns.

From the title, the focus of the article seems to be on how Common Origins handled the alleged emotional abuse. Why then, does the article include seemingly every interaction between James and Matthew from 2016 to the present day? In including details such as their first meeting at a party at Terra and the oral sex performed on James by Matthew, Wang implicitly invites the reader to cast judgement on whether the alleged actions constitute emotional abuse. Allegations of abuse should not be taken lightly and certainly should not be tabloid fodder. Unfortunately, the Title IX office does not handle incidents of emotional abuse, but it is not the Daily’s responsibility nor the responsibility of its readers to cast judgement on this situation.

I am honestly aghast that this article was published. The Stanford Daily should retract the article and revise its internal policies on reporting allegations of abuse and handling anonymous sources.

— Amanda Spyropoulos, B.S. Mechanical Engineering ’19, M.S. Computer Science ’20

Contact Amanda at aspyropo ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post On anonymity appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/12/04/on-anonymity/feed/ 0 1147677
Voter registration and beyond https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/22/me-asl-getting-students-to-vote/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/22/me-asl-getting-students-to-vote/#respond Mon, 22 Oct 2018 08:00:09 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1145291 In the past month Stanford in Government (SIG) and Stanford Votes – a faculty, student, and staff non-partisan effort – have effectively raised awareness about the low level of student voter participation (20 percent in prior mid-term elections). Thanks to their efforts, well over 1800 students have already registered to vote via https://stanford.turbovote.org/, far exceeding past election year […]

The post Voter registration and beyond appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In the past month Stanford in Government (SIG) and Stanford Votes – a faculty, student, and staff non-partisan effort – have effectively raised awareness about the low level of student voter participation (20 percent in prior mid-term elections). Thanks to their efforts, well over 1800 students have already registered to vote via https://stanford.turbovote.org/, far exceeding past election year numbers. Their final major event, Bring Your Ballot, featuring resources to inform voting on local and national issues, takes place at the Women’s Community Center this Wednesday at 5:30 p.m.

Several commentaries in the Daily last week expressed concern that student voter registration does not go far enough. While the duty to vote is more critical now than ever, it is in fact only one part of the process of becoming an engaged citizen. As speakers at several Stanford Votes events have stressed, American citizens need to be ever vigilant. That long-term work includes building a democracy movement that will protect voting rights, reform the electoral process, and hold elected officials responsible. A key step towards reaching these goals is to insure that our friends, family members, and co-workers register, have access to electoral information, and can submit absentee ballots or get to the polls on election day.

At present, voter participation nationally and on campus promises to defy the low turnout pattern for mid-term elections. Stanford students, faculty, and staff can make that promise a reality by helping to get out the vote between now and November 6. Today, October 22, is the last day that eligible California voters can register for the upcoming election. Let’s make it a day of action. Whatever our student voting rates, whatever the results of the election, I hope this campaign season offers students the opportunity to consider the kind of citizens they hope to become throughout their lifetimes.

Sincerely,

Estelle B. Freedman

Robinson Professor in U.S. History

The post Voter registration and beyond appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/22/me-asl-getting-students-to-vote/feed/ 0 1145291
Letter to the editor: A response to the Editorial Board about MATH 51 https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/11/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-editorial-board-about-math-51/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/11/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-editorial-board-about-math-51/#respond Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:24:49 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1142154 Members of the Math department respond to the Editorial Board's piece on lecture classes, saying the opinion misrepresented MATH 51.

The post Letter to the editor: A response to the Editorial Board about MATH 51 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
We read with interest the June 6 editorial concerning your perception of large introductory courses here, in particular of Math 51, which provided the title for the editorial. We wish the Editorial Board had contacted the Math department, as well as other departments mentioned, to get a broader perspective. We regret that the editorial may not contain the most accurate information about Math 51, for example, and we would like to highlight some salient facts.

Though Math 51 has several hundred students enrolled each quarter, it should not be regarded as a large lecture class. Thanks to a generous program sponsored for many years by VPUE,  Math 51 lectures have around 50 students each; this allows for closer interaction between students and the instructor. While the editorial does not make it clear, our department always eschews the use of PowerPoint slides, for exactly the reasons you noted: it is far too easy to advance quickly through slides, whereas a traditional blackboard lecture allows for a more personal and human interaction and pace.

We recognize that not every instructor has an equally polished style, and we provide oversight and training for all new instructors to make improvements. While it is a common truism that professors at Stanford are here to do research and some may be less interested in teaching, the Math department is highly conscious of the importance of good teaching. We take very seriously our role in providing instruction on material that is essential knowledge in many fields. The teaching record of everyone appointed to a faculty position in our (and every other) department is scrupulously examined.

There is no doubt that every course needs regular review and updating, and Math 51 is no exception. Indeed, the course has evolved steadily through the 20 years since it was created.  In the past few years, we have incorporated features of what is commonly called “active learning,” following advice and recommendations of top experts in education research, from our GSE and elsewhere.

In the coming academic year there will be an even more significant change. A new textbook will be rolled out starting Fall 2018, developed by a team of Math faculty over a four-year period, in consultation with colleagues from many other departments at Stanford. The new textbook will be freely available to students, and is specifically adapted to this course. We believe that this book will make the course more accessible, and more useful for Stanford students as they pursue majors in departments across all scientific and engineering fields.

This new textbook involves not only a significant reorganization of the curriculum, but also an emphasis on contemporary applications of fundamental topics such as optimization and the parts of linear algebra that are important for data science, machine learning, economics and many subjects in the social and natural sciences.  This effort has also involved evaluating the design of homework, pre-reading and exams to find the right balance so that students can most effectively learn this material amidst their busy academic schedules.

We are well aware that mathematics is a challenging subject to learn, and we make every effort to provide services for students in the form of numerous office hours and after-hours tutoring.  We would be very happy if these services were better utilized, and are always grateful for suggestions of other ways we can help students master the material. Decades of educational research have shown that nothing can replace time that a student spends thinking about the material, reading the text or other sources, and working on problems alone or in groups.

While Carta may be useful in some ways, we urge students to take what they see there with a grain of salt. Reviews and grade information there are often obsolete, and just as you would with any product review or news, consider potential biases of who wrote it. We regret that the editorial propagates the myth that Math 51 during the Winter has “a more forgiving curve,” which is completely false. Moreover, the design of Carta makes it impossible for instructors or other faculty to see comments there, so such feedback is not available to the academic departments.

We are proud of Math 51 for many reasons. This course was one of the first, perhaps the first, at this level in the country to completely integrate multivariable calculus with linear algebra. The recent explosion in data analysis has made linear algebra an ever more essential subject for every budding engineer and scientist to master. The depth in which linear algebra is treated in Math 51 makes it the wisest choice for students to help them to operate at the highest level, whatever their later field of study may be. For example, CS229 on Machine Learning and CS230 on Deep Learning specifically recommend courses resting on Math 51 for the linear algebra background.

We welcome feedback about Math 51, and indeed any of our courses, and are always looking for ways to improve what we do and make our courses more useful for Stanford students.

Sincerely,

Prof. Ralph Cohen, Prof. Brian Conrad (Math DUS), Prof. Eleny Ionel (Math Dept. Chair), Prof. Rafe Mazzeo, Prof. Andras Vasy, Prof. Akshay Venkatesh, Prof. Brian White

The post Letter to the editor: A response to the Editorial Board about MATH 51 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/11/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-editorial-board-about-math-51/feed/ 0 1142154
Letter to the editor: thank you, recall movement https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/10/letter-to-the-editor-thank-you-recall-movement/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/10/letter-to-the-editor-thank-you-recall-movement/#respond Mon, 11 Jun 2018 02:19:37 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1142152 Thank you to the women who organized the campaign to Recall Persky and the thousands of my neighbors who made the historic win possible. We have proved that just like reproductive rights, gun control and other issues, violence against women is a voting issue. Candidates who want the vote of women and our allies better […]

The post Letter to the editor: thank you, recall movement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Thank you to the women who organized the campaign to Recall Persky and the thousands of my neighbors who made the historic win possible. We have proved that just like reproductive rights, gun control and other issues, violence against women is a voting issue. Candidates who want the vote of women and our allies better take the issue seriously. If not, we’ll meet them at the polls in big numbers.

In this historical moment, when women’s rights are under attack, the women and men of this county stood our ground and I’m so proud to call this place home.

Jennie Richardson
Women’s March Bay Area, San Jose

The post Letter to the editor: thank you, recall movement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/10/letter-to-the-editor-thank-you-recall-movement/feed/ 0 1142152
Letters to the editor: against the Persky recall https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/04/letters-to-the-editor-against-the-persky-recall/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/04/letters-to-the-editor-against-the-persky-recall/#respond Mon, 04 Jun 2018 08:17:10 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1142028 A defense lawyer and a local resident weigh in against the measure to recall Judge Aaron Persky.

The post Letters to the editor: against the Persky recall appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I am writing to strongly oppose the recall of Judge Aaron Persky.
As a civil and criminal defense litigator with over 35 years of experience, I have appeared before Judge Persky in a number of cases and recognize that he is an honest jurist and has integrity.  While I don’t always agree with his decisions, I recognize them to be made with great thought to the parties, the facts presented and the application of the law.  Judge Persky always treats the parties and litigants in his courtroom with dignity and courtesy of an exemplary level.  In the case of Brock Turner, Judge Persky had the difficult task of weighing in on the recommendations argued by the Deputy District Attorney, Defense Counsel and the Probation Department and in the end, he followed the law and made the courageous decision that he did.
I hope that you will join me, Congresswomen Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo, District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Public Defender Molly O’Neal and many others in supporting this exceptional judge. Vote No on the recall.
Regards,
Calvin S. Louie
Louie & Kitsuse Law
San Jose
—-
The campaign to recall Judge Aaron Persky based on one unpopular ruling is wrong. This misguided campaign was launched by Michele Dauber, a family friend of the victim in the Brock Turner case. While Ms. Dauber is a law professor at Stanford, she has never been licensed to practice law.
Many people found Turner’s sentence to be too lenient. He was a college student without a criminal record, and there were extenuating circumstances surrounding the crime, all of which militate toward leniency. But the recall procedure is not a public referendum on the wisdom of any particular criminal sentence. Recall should be reserved for removing a judge who has been guilty of misconduct, not a poll on whether people like one of his or her decisions, without knowing all the facts of each case.
A judge should not be removed from the bench because he imposed a lawful sentence that comported with the recommendation of a female probation officer; following it cannot be grounds for a recall. The law has since been changed. There’s no reason to remove a judge who followed the law in effect at the time.
In every case, criminal and civil, one side is not happy; often both sides are not satisfied. We cannot fire the judge every time someone is unhappy with a decision. One of the bedrocks of our government is judicial independence. Judges are called upon to make decisions on controversial issues and to make rulings about unpopular parties. Many important judicial decisions on civil rights and other constitutional issues were not always popular with every community. We have a nation of laws, but that is threatened when we send a message to judges that they had better make sure their decision will be popular with the public, for fear some other rabble-rouser will petition to remove them from the bench.
A host of appellate justices and trial judges, both current and retired, and many law professors have opposed the recall. Recall proponents have made numerous false statements that Judge Persky showed a pattern of bias in cases. There is no evidence of that. The Commission on Judicial Performance and two independent organizations found these charges were not true.
I urge all of your readers not to get caught up in an emotional statement about crimes against women. Everybody is against crimes against women. Stop and think whether you want legal cases to be popularity contests or objective deliberations based on the law and the individual facts of each case. Join the many men and women who voted No on the recall.
Michael P. Quinlivan
San Jose

The post Letters to the editor: against the Persky recall appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/04/letters-to-the-editor-against-the-persky-recall/feed/ 0 1142028
Letter to the editor: ‘Fuzzy-techie’ panel misunderstood https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/letter-to-the-editor-fuzzy-techie-panel-misunderstood/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/letter-to-the-editor-fuzzy-techie-panel-misunderstood/#respond Fri, 11 May 2018 03:48:13 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140723 As the person who organized the Apr. 30 panel, "Fuzzy and Techie: A False Divide?" I would like to address some of the misunderstandings that seem to have surfaced about the purpose of this event and the composition of the panel.

The post Letter to the editor: ‘Fuzzy-techie’ panel misunderstood appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As the person who organized the Apr. 30 panel, “Fuzzy and Techie: A False Divide?” I would like to address some of the misunderstandings that seem to have surfaced about the purpose of this event and the composition of the panel. Some of these were implicit in Anat Peled’s article covering the event, and were then amplified in a letter to the editor by a faculty member a couple of days later.

Just to clarify: the purpose of the event was not to have a general discussion between “fuzzies” and “techies.” Nor was it a panel “on the uneven financial rewards for spending the undergraduate years in technological training (techie) versus devoting time to, say learning languages or studying humanity’s great literary and artistic treasures.” It was to highlight the fact that within the tech world, there is a growing need for people with a wide range of skills, intellectual interests and backgrounds. Anyone who has read Scott Hartley’s book, “The Fuzzy and the Techie: Why the Liberal Arts Will Rule the Digital World,” (and if you haven’t, I highly recommend it), knows that this is his message: the supposed divide between “fuzzies” and “techies” is misguided. In today’s world, everyone needs both sets of skills and capacities. That is why we included on the panel only people who have been successful entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley–they are best positioned to convey the message that, even in the tech world, “fuzziness” matters–a lot.

I will readily concede that the panel could have been better. Not every one of the speakers addressed the theme of the panel as forcefully or effectively as they might have. But to anyone who was there and listening carefully, I think the message came through quite clearly. If you weren’t able to be there, a video of the event can be found here: https://youtu.be/8cr1lA6OVCY.

I encourage you to watch it and decide for yourselves.

 

Louis Newman

Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education

Director, Undergraduate Advising and Research

 

The post Letter to the editor: ‘Fuzzy-techie’ panel misunderstood appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/letter-to-the-editor-fuzzy-techie-panel-misunderstood/feed/ 0 1140723
Letter to the editor: recall Judge Persky https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/letter-to-the-editor-persky-recall/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/letter-to-the-editor-persky-recall/#respond Thu, 10 May 2018 12:00:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140784 "We are not advocating for lengthy prison sentences, mass incarceration or mandatory minimums," the co-chair of the Committee to Recall Judge Persky says.

The post Letter to the editor: recall Judge Persky appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Following Brock Turner’s sentencing, legislators instituted a new mandatory minimum for his crime. Judge Persky so abused his discretion that the laws were changed to take that discretionary power away from judges.

But mandatory minimums are not the solution. In 2014, the National Academy of Sciences released a study exploring the causes of mass incarceration and concluded that mandatory minimums are one of its central drivers.

Neither the Recall Persky Campaign nor any members of its leadership team endorsed or lobbied for this change. There is no need to tie the hands of judges who use their judicial discretion justly.

We are not advocating for lengthy prison sentences, mass incarceration or mandatory minimums. We are asking that people in elected positions of power in our community not abuse that power to perpetuate a culture of impunity for privileged sex offenders.

On June 5, please vote to recall Judge Persky.

Sincerely,

Nicole Bratz
Co-Chair, Committee to Recall Judge Persky
San Francisco

The post Letter to the editor: recall Judge Persky appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/letter-to-the-editor-persky-recall/feed/ 0 1140784
Letter to the editor: On the Judge Persky recall https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/08/letter-to-the-editor-on-the-judge-persky-recall/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/08/letter-to-the-editor-on-the-judge-persky-recall/#respond Tue, 08 May 2018 09:53:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140578 I want judges who strive to do justice in the individual case, not judges who see their job as curing social ills or sending messages to potential offenders who are not before them.

The post Letter to the editor: On the Judge Persky recall appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In a letter published in The Daily and in the Palo Alto Daily Post on April 9, reader Dane Bratz wrote that he is a 2013 Stanford grad who is “intimately familiar” with the “recklessness and impunity” of fraternity life. He supports the recall of Judge Persky in order to do to Persky what the judge has failed to do to others: to “signal to elite men that there are consequences for their actions.”

The implied premise is that Brock Turner’s loss of his sports career, college education, reputation and several months of his freedom, the enormous financial cost to his family, and his having to stand in line to register and to be posted on the internet with child molesters and rapists (which he is not) for the rest of his life are not “consequences” enough.

I am a 1969 Stanford law graduate who has practiced criminal law in the area for almost 50 years. I am “intimately familiar” with what passes for justice in our local courts. For an example, San Mateo County judges have sent eight men to prison for 25 years to life, which three of them are still serving, including 82-year-old R.A. for failing to notify that he was leaving the state, developmentally disabled V.R. for failing to register at a homeless shelter and artist R.N. for failing to register at a campsite. Why? Not because such trivial, victimless crimes warranted such extraordinary punishment, but to “signal” to other registrants not to act with such “recklessness and impunity.”

I want judges who strive to do justice in the individual case, not judges who see their job as curing social ills or sending messages to potential offenders who are not before them.

Judge Persky saw and heard all the witnesses in the Turner case. I have read the California Attorney General’s summary of their testimony, and I invite every person who wants to cast an educated vote to do the same. Ask me to send you a copy: rsuch@fdap.org. Educated voters should also read what Judge Persky said at Turner’s sentencing, available on The Guardian’s website. In my opinion, the judge made a sound judgment as to which of the parties acted with just “recklessness” and which with “impunity” and imposed an appropriate punishment for the latter. It was not his job to clean up the drunken debauchery at the particular fraternity house that attracted all the witnesses to it.

 

Richard Such ’64 J.D. ’69
Palo Alto

The post Letter to the editor: On the Judge Persky recall appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/08/letter-to-the-editor-on-the-judge-persky-recall/feed/ 0 1140578
Letter to the editor: talking about the humanities at Stanford? https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/letter-to-the-editor-talking-about-the-humanities-at-stanford/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/letter-to-the-editor-talking-about-the-humanities-at-stanford/#respond Thu, 03 May 2018 10:04:22 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140431 A reader wonders why a panel on the so-called techie-fuzzy divide "would not include one humanist."

The post Letter to the editor: talking about the humanities at Stanford? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>

As a hard-core humanist on the Stanford faculty, I read The Stanford Daily’s report (May 1) about the tech panel, on what that panel referred to as a campus “divide” between the humanities and the technological skill building sectors of the university, with curiosity that quickly turned into dismay. The perpetuation of (minimally speaking) the distorting and (maximally speaking) insulting language of fuzzy versus techie, as per title of the article, topic of the panel and title of panelist Scott Hartley’s book is only one aspect of this dismay. But it is simply difficult to comprehend how a panel on the uneven financial rewards for spending the undergraduate years in technological training (techie) versus devoting time to, say, learning languages or studying humanity’s great literary and artistic treasures and curating them, would not include one humanist in the conversation. A venture capitalist, a former CEO and an entrepreneur who even bemoans her condescending attitude towards the humanities while having been a student at Stanford?! Imagine a panel discussion on the gender divide between (cis) men and (cis) women that included only (cis) men talking about that divide, saying that it was just too unfortunate that as students they regarded (cis) women with condescension, but luckily now “we” need and use some of them to start rethinking the divide. Of course, maybe putting a strange creature like a humanist on that panel might have raised all kinds of complicated questions. Anyhow, thankfully the article cites two M.S. students who voice surprise at such a set-up. Shout-out to them: Diego Hernandez ’17 and Amy Liu ‘18 and Anat Peled (the reporter) who cites the students’ surprise (my dismay) in her article. That constitutes Stanford’s hope for integrating serious learning in the various sectors of the campus.

— Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert

Faculty, department of religious studies

Director (returning), Taube Center for Jewish Studies

The post Letter to the editor: talking about the humanities at Stanford? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/letter-to-the-editor-talking-about-the-humanities-at-stanford/feed/ 0 1140431
Letter to the editor: recall Judge Persky https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/letter-to-the-editor-recall-judge-persky/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/letter-to-the-editor-recall-judge-persky/#respond Thu, 03 May 2018 10:03:36 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140455 A Palo Alto resident explains why she will be voting to recall Judge Persky on June 5.

The post Letter to the editor: recall Judge Persky appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In 1913, businessman Albert Hendricks was caught trying to assault two 17-year-old girls, but he skipped town after San Francisco Judge Charles Weller reduced his bail from $3000 to $1000. Local women’s clubs led the effort to recall Judge Weller for “extending undue and unreasonable leniency to persons charged with the commission of heinous and vicious offenses.”

Weller’s was the first of only two successful judicial recalls in California’s history. Note that it did not lead to an onslaught of whimsical recalls, and it did not lead to substantial enough concerns about judicial independence for our constitutional right to recall judges to be revoked. It did, however, remove an elected official who had lost the faith of voters that he could fairly preside over sexual assault cases.

In that same vein, I will be voting to recall Judge Persky on June 5. I encourage my neighbors to do the same.

— Prameela Bartholomeusz, Palo Alto

The post Letter to the editor: recall Judge Persky appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/letter-to-the-editor-recall-judge-persky/feed/ 0 1140455
Letter to the editor: a response to The Daily’s article on Stanford College Republicans’ event email https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/27/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-dailys-article-on-stanford-college-republicans-event-email/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/27/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-dailys-article-on-stanford-college-republicans-event-email/#respond Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:17:23 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140181 The article which The Stanford Daily recently published today regarding my email asking for help with the Stanford College Republicans’ party during Admit Weekend was badly misunderstood, and I would like to submit a clarifying remark.

The post Letter to the editor: a response to The Daily’s article on Stanford College Republicans’ event email appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The article which The Stanford Daily recently published today regarding my email asking for help with the Stanford College Republicans’ party during Admit Weekend was badly misunderstood, and I would like to submit a clarifying remark.

I was not in any way trying to dissuade students of color from joining College Republicans or even implying that the club doesn’t already have any. In fact, I feel safe saying that we are one of the most diverse clubs on campus, contrary to popular caricature. The friend who helped me put up posters is in fact a first-generation low-income child of Mexican immigrants, and another friend providing help is a black Muslim. I, obviously, am a woman, and the past two presidents of SCR have both been students of color.

However, just as some white students will doubtlessly wish to attend the Latinx student event, some Latinx students may not wish to attend. For instance, my many friends who are both conservative and of color almost certainly chose not to. Why? Because the official programming for minority groups at Stanford takes an approach focused on social justice and instills a victim mindset that conservatives of all nationalities do not find appealing. Thus, in my email I referred to the events very consciously as “race-based” since they speak about issues from a racial perspective distasteful to conservatives. Those in SCR know that I made the statement partially in jest: And it was funny because it was true. Conservative students, no matter their color, are not interested in such events and in fact usually feel alienated by them.

I remember being worried about discrimination against conservative beliefs when I came in as a freshman and organized this party because I wanted conservative students also to have a place to go during this time slot and meet people with similar interests. The Daily’s article, which willfully misread an email intended for a small audience, proved that such discrimination exists, but I know that students who attend the party will discover that although small, Stanford’s conservative community is close-knit, intellectually stimulating and yes, incidentally, also vibrant and racially diverse.

I hope that I’ve rectified this misunderstanding and sincerely apologize if my words taken out of context caused anyone any consternation.

Yours sincerely,

Annika Nordquist, ‘21

The post Letter to the editor: a response to The Daily’s article on Stanford College Republicans’ event email appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/27/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-dailys-article-on-stanford-college-republicans-event-email/feed/ 0 1140181
Letter to the editor: Persky recall and frat culture https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/09/letter-to-the-editor-persky-recall-and-frat-culture/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/09/letter-to-the-editor-persky-recall-and-frat-culture/#respond Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:05:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1138890 I'm intimately familiar with the cycle of recklessness and impunity that characterizes Stanford frat life.

The post Letter to the editor: Persky recall and frat culture appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the editor:
I graduated from Stanford in 2013, where I was an active leader in Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity and Stanford Greek life more broadly. As such, I’m intimately familiar with the cycle of recklessness and impunity that characterizes Stanford frat life. It is a cultural world that, through various institutional and interpersonal means, frequently signals to impressionable young men that they can do anything they want. Year after year, I watched these young men test what their privileges can allow them to get away with. And I’ve seen how this testing of limits is often carried out to the detriment of women, with reliably meager consequences.
When we vote to recall the judge in the Stanford swimmer case this June, we will do what Judge Persky has repeatedly failed to do but is so desperately needed: signal to elite men that there are consequences for their actions.
Dane Bratz ’13
 San Francisco

 

The post Letter to the editor: Persky recall and frat culture appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/09/letter-to-the-editor-persky-recall-and-frat-culture/feed/ 0 1138890
Letter to the editor: Stanford’s suspension of Russia programs https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/13/letter-to-the-editor-stanfords-suspension-of-russia-programs/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/13/letter-to-the-editor-stanfords-suspension-of-russia-programs/#respond Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:00:55 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1138217 I read with great dismay that Stanford is discontinuing its study abroad programs for undergraduates in Russia. Stanford is making a mistake, and its students will be worse off for it.

The post Letter to the editor: Stanford’s suspension of Russia programs appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I read with great dismay that Stanford is discontinuing its study abroad programs for undergraduates in Russia. Stanford is making a mistake, and its students will be worse off for it.

The university cites security concerns as listed by the U.S. State Department as the reason for suspending travel. It is admirable to follow a consistent set of guidelines in deciding where students can study abroad safely. I fully appreciate Stanford’s duty of care and responsibility to protect its students, some of whom may not be experienced travelers. But the State Department’s concerns for Russia are not dissimilar to alerts issued for many other countries that I assume Stanford students travel to regularly.

Has Stanford gone one step further and evaluated which of State’s Russia warnings are specifically relevant to traveling students? Has the university determined which risks could be mitigated by, say, pre-departure awareness training or other reasonable precautions?

And has Stanford considered that the only way to develop expertise in country studies – or nurture a true passion for a place – is to experience that place first-hand?

I am a graduate of two Russian-studies programs and now work for a risk consultancy. I know how enriching it is to travel – to Russia and beyond – and how straightforward it can be to travel safely. Stanford should reconsider its ban and allow its students to experience Russia in a way that learning from a distance will never match.

At a time when expertise in Russia should be highly prized, Stanford should be supplying the world with graduates who can at least use the phrase “When I studied in Russia…”

Charles Hecker

BA Penn ’85

MA Harvard ’87

The post Letter to the editor: Stanford’s suspension of Russia programs appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/13/letter-to-the-editor-stanfords-suspension-of-russia-programs/feed/ 0 1138217
Letter to the editor: Administrators respond to article on offshore investments https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/27/letter-to-the-editor-administrators-respond-to-article-on-offshore-investments/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/27/letter-to-the-editor-administrators-respond-to-article-on-offshore-investments/#respond Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:19:07 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137400 Dear Daily Editors, We read with concern your Feb. 20 article on endowment investments. While we understand that these financial topics are complex, your article was inaccurate and misleading, and we believe it is important to set the record straight on a number of points. Stanford’s endowment is invested through various very common legal entities. […]

The post Letter to the editor: Administrators respond to article on offshore investments appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Daily Editors,

We read with concern your Feb. 20 article on endowment investments. While we understand that these financial topics are complex, your article was inaccurate and misleading, and we believe it is important to set the record straight on a number of points.

Stanford’s endowment is invested through various very common legal entities. The domicile, or legal establishment, of these common vehicles does not indicate the location of the investments they hold. For example, most of the U.S. vehicles used by the University are domiciled in Delaware, a typical jurisdiction for onshore investments. However, Delaware represents no larger a portion of Stanford’s U.S. investment portfolio than any other state.  The same is true for offshore jurisdictions. Stanford’s international investments, which comprise less than 30 percent of its entire investment portfolio, are spread around the world, rather than concentrated in the Caribbean as you incorrectly suggest. In fact, Asia and Western Europe collectively represent the substantial majority of the University’s foreign investments. Using the domicile of the vehicle to ascertain investment exposure is highly misleading to your readers and, if applied to any other institutional investment portfolio, would lead to similarly large errors.

Stanford uses offshore vehicles for a variety of purposes. Often, they are employed when there is no alternative way to access foreign investments. Importantly, Stanford’s offshore vehicles have been, and continue to be, reported to the Internal Revenue Service and are taxed in accordance with U.S. and foreign law. We take our tax reporting responsibilities seriously and disagree with your inference that we have hidden offshore investments from the authorities. Your article leaves a false impression, when in fact Stanford discloses these investments to both U.S. and foreign tax authorities. Your article also incorrectly states that offshore vehicles are not subject to U.S. tax; they do pay U.S. tax, such as dividend withholding tax and tax on effectively connected income.

Recent tax legislation will tax Stanford and about 30 of its peers selectively. Contrary to your claim, the new Excise Tax will be levied on both onshore and offshore investment income without distinction. As we always do, Stanford will comply with this new law and pay taxes due. We are also bound by state and federal laws governing the fiduciaries of trusts, which make clear that fiduciaries must take into account, in addition to prudent investment strategies, the tax implications of their investment decisions. That is, in making investments, the university should take reasonable steps to minimize taxes in order to maximize the amount of funds available to support its academic mission. We will continue to observe these fiduciary obligations with discipline and within the law.

It is important to remember the purpose of our endowment, which is to help support the university’s research and education mission in perpetuity, as well as make possible our generous financial aid program. That program is the reason more than 80 percent of Stanford undergraduates complete their degrees without debt, and why we can waive tuition for families with incomes up to $125,000. Over the years, thousands of donors — generations of alumni, parents and friends — have established endowed funds for scholarships, fellowships, professorships and many other purposes in support of our academic mission. Today, Stanford’s endowment comprises nearly 8,000 individual funds, each one named and used in accordance with the donor’s wishes and all in service to Stanford’s core mission of teaching and research.

Stanford’s investment program strives to enable this stable support for current and future generations of Stanford students and scholars while observing both the letter and the spirit of the law.

 

Rob Wallace
Chief Executive Officer, Stanford Management Company

Randy Livingston
Vice President for Business Affairs and Chief Financial Officer

 

Editor’s note: 

The Daily appreciates University administrators’ response to our article on Stanford’s offshore investments published last week. We want to address several points made.

First, to the point that the location (“domicile”) of a partner organization does not indicate where the held money is invested: The Daily article discussed the University’s relationship with Caribbean tax havens, not where money vested in tax haven-based corporations is allocated. We drew information directly from Stanford’s FY16 Form 990, the tax return for 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Where investments in the Caribbean are identified in this document, they are referred to (under Schedule F, Part 1, Section 3, Column d.) as “Activities conducted in region (by type).”  We updated our article to clarify that money is invested through partner organizations based in the regions cited rather than invested wholly in the region.

Second, the original article did not claim that Stanford’s offshore investment practices are illegal and quoted IRS documentation and a University spokesperson on the legality of the practices.

Third, the article has been updated to state that much money invested through corporations based in places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands is not subject to full taxation, rather than not subject to taxation in general.  Various sources such as The New York Times and the Center for Economic and Policy Research agree that taxes on unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) can be avoided by collecting this income in low-tax countries.

The post Letter to the editor: Administrators respond to article on offshore investments appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/27/letter-to-the-editor-administrators-respond-to-article-on-offshore-investments/feed/ 0 1137400
Letter to the editor: In response to article regarding Emanuele Castano https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/19/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-article-regarding-emanuele-castano/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/19/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-article-regarding-emanuele-castano/#respond Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:00:15 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1134600 Editor’s note: This letter was originally posted as a comment here and is republished as a letter to the editor at the author’s request. Dear Stanford Daily editor: It is always upsetting to be alerted to the publication of negative news about a colleague and friend. But when I received word that an article had just […]

The post Letter to the editor: In response to article regarding Emanuele Castano appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Editor’s note: This letter was originally posted as a comment here and is republished as a letter to the editor at the author’s request.

Dear Stanford Daily editor:

It is always upsetting to be alerted to the publication of negative news about a colleague and friend.

But when I received word that an article had just appeared on The Stanford Daily about Prof. Emanuele Castano, I thought it was a joke. I knew that Prof. Castano’s life had been wrecked by an investigation into alleged sexual harassment, but why would The Stanford Daily publish something on Prof. Castano, who lives in New York and was employed at The New School? When I read the article I understood: Having found no venue in New York that would publish their one-sided account, Prof. Castano’s accusers had seen an opportunity in his rather innocuous appointment as an affiliate without salary or teaching responsibilities at the Stanford Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE) and reached out to The Stanford Daily in the hope of finding a welcoming ear.

I don’t blame them for doing so. They have their own reasons for being frustrated by the byzantine meanderings of Title IX investigations. But it was very disappointing to read accounts of very serious allegations in articles such as the one published by The Stanford Daily. The current climate of public exposure of a pervasive culture of sexual assault and harassment in many sectors of this society should invite extreme caution in public reporting, precisely because so much is at stake. Constructing an article on the basis of anonymous sources is legitimate, but reporting lurid details about alleged sexual encounters and nonchalantly referring to them as “consensual and nonconsensual” is irresponsible and inflammatory. Did the article author inquire if the student in question had filed a police report against Prof. Castano for having been raped (i.e. nonconsensual sex)? And if not, why not?

Given the seriousness of the allegations, one would expect this case to be in the hands of the criminal justice system. If it is not, could it also be the case that the story being offered to The Stanford Daily in so many enticing details was at least seasoned by the motive of revenge? Why would the student in question not have found anyone in New York to publish her story if it were all so well corroborated, as it appears to be in this article? The rest of the article is based on one Ph.D. student’s allegations regarding the liaison between Prof. Castano and postdoc Namata Goyal, who is describes as both “victim” and scheming accomplice.

It is probable that Prof. Castano could not comment on any of this due to the Title IX gag provisions regarding cases such as this one, and I can imagine that after the publication of this article, he might have to break his silence risking severe legal consequences. I just wish that campus press editors and journalists displayed a bit more restrain in reporting and, rather than become the mouthpieces for anyone’s allegations (or counter-allegations), focused on issues of general concern for all involved.

There is clearly a lot more than meets the eye in the story of Prof. Castano and the student who accused him. But one thing is certain from this article — and should have been worth highlighting: Title IX investigations, and provisions about transparency of procedures, settlements and gag orders are in severe need to be revised and discussed. They are unfair both towards alleged victims and perpetrators, and they ultimately seem to only work to feed an unhealthy editorial passion for attracting readers through spicy revelations about sordid academic relations.

Sincerely,

Claudio Fogu
Associate Professor, Italian Studies and Vice Chair, French and Italian Studies, UCSB

 

Contact Claudio Fogu at claudiofogu ‘at’ ucsb.edu.

The post Letter to the editor: In response to article regarding Emanuele Castano appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/19/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-article-regarding-emanuele-castano/feed/ 0 1134600
Letter to the editor: An eloquent statement by Stanford students https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/22/letter-to-the-editor-an-eloquent-statement-by-stanford-students/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/22/letter-to-the-editor-an-eloquent-statement-by-stanford-students/#respond Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:00:45 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133833 To the editor: The student protest of “hate speech” disguised as free speech was indeed an eloquent statement and void of shouting and/or disruptive behavior, the latter of which was the response some desired. Their direct action expressed in “shoe leather” was a both sophisticated and eloquent statement to Mr. Spencer and those who invited […]

The post Letter to the editor: An eloquent statement by Stanford students appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the editor:

The student protest of “hate speech” disguised as free speech was indeed an eloquent statement and void of shouting and/or disruptive behavior, the latter of which was the response some desired.

Their direct action expressed in “shoe leather” was a both sophisticated and eloquent statement to Mr. Spencer and those who invited him of their opposition to his views.

The student protest was a celebratory statement of “We the people” in our Constitution. The protest reminded me of the first student sit-in at the F.W. Woolworth lunch counter, when we “stood up” by sitting down.

Go Stanford!

— Larry Fewell, San Jose

The post Letter to the editor: An eloquent statement by Stanford students appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/22/letter-to-the-editor-an-eloquent-statement-by-stanford-students/feed/ 0 1133833
Letter to the editor: In response to ‘Stanford’s rebels’ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/20/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-stanfords-rebels-2/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/20/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-stanfords-rebels-2/#respond Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:00:14 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133776 To the editor: I was a graduate student at Stanford during the Vietnam War years and, like H. Bruce Franklin, was active in the antiwar movement for much of that time. Anna-Sofia Lesiv’s story on Franklin (“Stanford’s rebels,” Nov. 15) is troubling for its inaccuracies, but not for its conclusion: If our era’s activism is to […]

The post Letter to the editor: In response to ‘Stanford’s rebels’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the editor:

I was a graduate student at Stanford during the Vietnam War years and, like H. Bruce Franklin, was active in the antiwar movement for much of that time.

Anna-Sofia Lesiv’s story on Franklin (“Stanford’s rebels,” Nov. 15) is troubling for its inaccuracies, but not for its conclusion:

If our era’s activism is to have impact, perhaps remembering the legacy of leaders like H. Bruce Franklin can challenge us to engage with challenging ideas and work to construct answers to social injustices, instead of falling back on our era’s lethargic, easy, “no.”

At Stanford in the ‘60s, we could see the need to stand up against deadly, profiteering U.S. imperialism, some of the practitioners of which were Stanford trustees. Our opposition to the war went hand-in-hand with support for women’s rights, civil rights and the burgeoning ecology movement. We were part of a national — no, international — student movement.

Besides demonstrating, we did our homework and published our findings. Over time, we won the hearts and minds of the majority of students. Our 1969 sit-in — nine days at the Applied Electronics Lab (it was plotting bomb runs on North Vietnam) — had wide and deep support.

Imperialism was our “elephant in the room” — the new thought paradigm that the post-WWII generation, brought up to believe that the U.S. was the beacon of democracy, had to struggle with to learn. That many of us became revolutionaries should come as no surprise.

Today the elephant in the room is different. The rapid advance of technology is making human labor redundant, while the economic system still distributes the necessities of life based on wages. That contradiction, consolidating wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands, pits class against class and causes misery in a world of plenty.

Making work unnecessary is humanity’s dream, but to realize it the system of distribution has to change. That’s revolutionary — and, as Ms Lesiv calls for, “a challenging idea to construct answers to social injustices.” We rose to the challenge 50 years ago. Stanford students can do so now.

— Dave Ransom M.A. ’68

The post Letter to the editor: In response to ‘Stanford’s rebels’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/20/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-stanfords-rebels-2/feed/ 0 1133776
Letter to the Editor: On the Robert Spencer protests https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/letter-to-the-editor-on-the-robert-spencer-protests/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/letter-to-the-editor-on-the-robert-spencer-protests/#respond Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:00:40 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133536 To the Editor: Those of us who came to see and hear Robert Spencer’s ideas and were disallowed into the auditorium were shocked and repelled by the actions of Stanford’s self-elected thought police. This was a demonstration of the most selfish and narrow-minded bigotry – worthy of a fascist state – that has no place […]

The post Letter to the Editor: On the Robert Spencer protests appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

Those of us who came to see and hear Robert Spencer’s ideas and were disallowed into the auditorium were shocked and repelled by the actions of Stanford’s self-elected thought police.

This was a demonstration of the most selfish and narrow-minded bigotry – worthy of a fascist state – that has no place in an American academy.

The Stanford faculty who signed the “Letter from faculty and others regarding Robert Spencer” are, in my opinion, sorely misguided by their prejudgments and uninformed attitudes. As someone who has both studied and lived in Islamic countries and who encounters refugees from “Islamic conditions” daily, I encourage these academics to consider their own plea: “For us, this means taking seriously the lived experience of the people most impacted by racism, bigotry, hate speech and xenophobia.”

This “lived experience” perfectly describes the millions of hostage peoples living under “Islamic conditions,” of which Americans are barely aware. The empathy and advocacy for freedom of these Stanford academics, instead of preventing free speech and shared ideas in the academy, should extend to those enslaved by a totalitarian ideology in the form of state-sponsored theocratic oppression.

– James Dinwiddie

Adjunct Professor, Menlo College

 

Contact James Dinwiddie at james.dinwiddie ‘at’ menlo.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: On the Robert Spencer protests appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/letter-to-the-editor-on-the-robert-spencer-protests/feed/ 0 1133536
Letter to the Editor: In response to ‘Stanford’s rebels’ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-stanfords-rebels/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-stanfords-rebels/#respond Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:00:08 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133537 To the Editor: What purports to be “the story of H. Bruce Franklin,” written by Anna-Sofia Lesiv and published in the Nov. 15 issue of The Stanford Daily is so full of errors and false statements (including a wildly erroneous chronology) that correcting it would require an essay. Readers interested in some truth that can easily […]

The post Letter to the Editor: In response to ‘Stanford’s rebels’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

What purports to be “the story of H. Bruce Franklin,” written by Anna-Sofia Lesiv and published in the Nov. 15 issue of The Stanford Daily is so full of errors and false statements (including a wildly erroneous chronology) that correcting it would require an essay. Readers interested in some truth that can easily consult my homepage (hbrucefranklin.com) or the Wikipedia article about me (which I had nothing to do with writing).

I do want to point out that the claim that, “Franklin himself acted in complete contradiction to the spirit of academic freedom by threatening the speech of those he disagreed with,” is utterly false. The claim is based on Stanford’s charge that I interfered with the speech of Henry Cabot Lodge, the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam who orchestrated the overthrow and murder of South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem (a fact verified in secret correspondence reprinted in “Vietnam and America: The Document History,” a volume I co-edited). Ms. Lesiv omits the inconvenient fact that the Stanford panel acquitted of this false charge. Also, Alan Dershowitz never represented me in the hearing of my case, during which my only legal aid came for a law student (while Stanford’s case was presented by a prestigious Los Angeles law firm.)

Readers interested in my deeper exploration of the real issues Ms. Lesiv is trying to explore can delve into my forthcoming book, “Crash Course: From the Good War to the Forever War,” to be published by Rutgers University Press in 2018.

– H. Bruce Franklin

Ph.D. ’61

 

Contact H. Bruce Franklin at hbf ‘at’ scarletmail.rutgers.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: In response to ‘Stanford’s rebels’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-stanfords-rebels/feed/ 0 1133537
Letter to the Editor: On removing the Serra name https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/10/letter-to-the-editor-on-removing-the-serra-name/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/10/letter-to-the-editor-on-removing-the-serra-name/#respond Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:00:34 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133148 Dear Daily Editor: I praise the choice of written resolution of the ASSU Undergraduate Senate and Graduate Student Council, as opposed to, for instance, vandalism, but my response aimed at them is: “Don’t erase what you don’t like.” Whether you prefer the words of George Santayana or Winston Churchill, don’t forget history, and don’t try to […]

The post Letter to the Editor: On removing the Serra name appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Daily Editor:

I praise the choice of written resolution of the ASSU Undergraduate Senate and Graduate Student Council, as opposed to, for instance, vandalism, but my response aimed at them is: “Don’t erase what you don’t like.” Whether you prefer the words of George Santayana or Winston Churchill, don’t forget history, and don’t try to erase it.

I happen to like seeing the name Junipero Serra on statues, streets and buildings. I was born and raised in San Diego, site of the first mission in the California chain of missions, and have visited the Serra Museum in Presidio Park over the last 70 years, along with thousands of others. To me, Friar Serra is as much a part of California history as are Leland Stanford and Stanford University. Friar Serra was not perfect, but he is a saint! He did what he did, and you can’t change history by erasing his name from a street sign or building, or by covering his hands on a statue with red paint.

— Gary Anderson, B.S. ’67 M.S. ’68

The post Letter to the Editor: On removing the Serra name appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/10/letter-to-the-editor-on-removing-the-serra-name/feed/ 0 1133148
Letter to the Editor: In response to Gülin Ustabas’ piece on democracy https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-gulin-ustabas-piece-on-democracy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-gulin-ustabas-piece-on-democracy/#respond Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:00:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1132047 Dear Editor: This refers to the opinion piece of Gülin Ustabas, in which she deplores the democratic practice of governing according to the vote of the majority. If she did a little more research, she would find that the U.S. Constitution was fashioned only after a lengthy debate over minorities and factions. As discussed in “The Federalist” and […]

The post Letter to the Editor: In response to Gülin Ustabas’ piece on democracy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Editor:

This refers to the opinion piece of Gülin Ustabas, in which she deplores the democratic practice of governing according to the vote of the majority. If she did a little more research, she would find that the U.S. Constitution was fashioned only after a lengthy debate over minorities and factions. As discussed in “The Federalist” and in later debates, minorities of citizens would be protected by checks and balances.

Proof that minorities with ideas get plenty of recognition sits right on my desk.  On my work calendar, I see more religious holidays of a minority that came late to this country and totals only 2 percent of its population than the holidays of the majority, who founded the republic, who total some 80 percent.

Or look at the curriculum of the Stanford History Department, which, under pressure, replaced its celebrated course on the History of Western Civilization with courses on the history of minorities and women.

— Richard M. Jennings ’48

The post Letter to the Editor: In response to Gülin Ustabas’ piece on democracy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-gulin-ustabas-piece-on-democracy/feed/ 0 1132047
Letter to the Editor: In response to the op-ed by Jewish Voice for Peace https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-the-op-ed-by-jewish-voice-for-peace/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-the-op-ed-by-jewish-voice-for-peace/#respond Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:00:15 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1132050 Dear Editor: The Oct. 26 op-ed by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) but unsigned by its authors (in violation of The Daily’s own submission guidelines) is inflammatory and biased, and does a disservice to Stanford as a community that values the respectful exchange of diverse perspectives. Along with approximately 30 others — about half of […]

The post Letter to the Editor: In response to the op-ed by Jewish Voice for Peace appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Editor:

The Oct. 26 op-ed by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) but unsigned by its authors (in violation of The Daily’s own submission guidelines) is inflammatory and biased, and does a disservice to Stanford as a community that values the respectful exchange of diverse perspectives.

Along with approximately 30 others — about half of them students — I attended the Reservists on Duty (RoD) presentation at Chabad at Stanford on the evening of Monday, Oct. 16. The speakers — a Muslim, a Druze, a Christian and a Bedouin who serve in the Israel Defense Forces — came from Israel to share their own experiences as Israeli citizens from ethnic and religious minorities. There was no vitriol. Only those categorically opposed to hearing anything positive about the State of Israel could have found anything objectionable.

JVP’s opposition to the group’s proposed presentation on campus seemed to stem from a one-dimensional interpretation of an event at the University of California, Irvine a year ago. Based on event synopses and links to Electronic Intifada, a biased media outlet known to be anti-Semitic, JVP alleged that RoD disrupted Anti-Zionism Week at UC Irvine last spring.

But a UC Irvine investigation of the events determined that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) — a frequent partner organization of JVP — was the most problematic actor in the conflict. UC Irvine imposed a two-year suspension on SJP and is requiring the group to meet 12 times with the dean of students to attain a better understanding of the meaning of free speech, which governs campus discourse. Video of the event in question can be seen here.

In our own Stanford community, where free speech is a hallmark, civil voices offer a valuable perspective on diversity in a democracy. Student groups and community centers who bully others into cancelling events — or moving them off-campus — are violating Stanford’s fundamental standard, which states: “Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.”

It is my sincere hope that the double standard too frequently accepted when it comes to Zionism, Israel and Jewish life becomes as indefensible as a double standard applied to any other form of bigotry would be. As Stanford, we can do better.

— Susan Wolfe, ’81, Palo Alto, CA

The post Letter to the Editor: In response to the op-ed by Jewish Voice for Peace appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-the-op-ed-by-jewish-voice-for-peace/feed/ 0 1132050
Letter to the Editor: Board’s response to SU Prison Divest https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/19/letter-to-the-editor-boards-response-to-su-prison-divest/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/19/letter-to-the-editor-boards-response-to-su-prison-divest/#respond Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:00:49 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1131351 Dear Editor: Last week, the Board of Trustees provided its response to the request by SU Prison Divest to review investments in private prisons and related companies. Given some of the dialogue that has occurred since then, I’d like to provide the community with information about the Board’s response. SU Prison Divest requested divestment of […]

The post Letter to the Editor: Board’s response to SU Prison Divest appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Editor:

Last week, the Board of Trustees provided its response to the request by SU Prison Divest to review investments in private prisons and related companies. Given some of the dialogue that has occurred since then, I’d like to provide the community with information about the Board’s response.

SU Prison Divest requested divestment of two companies that directly operate private prisons. The Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing reviewed the issues under the University’s existing Statement on Investment Responsibility (SIR) and agreed, recommending divestment.

What the Board then reported back to SU Prison Divest is that Stanford has no direct holdings in these private prison operators, and that the Stanford Management Company (SMC) has confirmed it would not invest in them unless any concerns under our policy were allayed.

SU Prison Divest also requested Board action – initially shareholder engagement rather than divestment – on several other categories of companies that do not directly operate private prisons but have business or investment relationships with private prison operators. We looked at these issues extensively and concluded that, under our current SIR, these other companies didn’t meet the threshold of “direct social injury” that is required for Board action. As a result, no further inquiry was required regarding whether or not SMC directly holds any of the companies in question.

The Board’s decision on these companies was based on the existing Statement on Investment Responsibility. In delivering its decision to SU Prison Divest, the Board announced that it will conduct a full review of the SIR and associated procedures this year and will be soliciting community input. This will provide those who favor a different approach to investment responsibility standards an opportunity to share their views.

Importantly, in its letter to SU Prison Divest, the Board made a point of stating that the fairness of the criminal justice system has been brought into question on many occasions in recent years and that this troubling issue deserves serious national discussion. The Board also noted that, through its research and teaching, Stanford is actively involved in this national discussion and in exploring solutions. The Board takes seriously the concerns raised about private prisons and the criminal justice system and respects the desire of students to shine a light on a pressing issue facing society.

Later this fall, we will be announcing more details about the community input process on the SIR review, and we’ll welcome thoughts from across the university community on the principles that should guide these important decisions going forward. We look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,

Gail B. Harris

Chair, Special Committee on Investment Responsibility

Board of Trustees

The post Letter to the Editor: Board’s response to SU Prison Divest appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/19/letter-to-the-editor-boards-response-to-su-prison-divest/feed/ 0 1131351
Letter to the Editor: in response to the newly installed ‘scenic spot’ at the Turner site https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/17/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-the-newly-installed-scenic-spot-at-turner-site/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/17/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-the-newly-installed-scenic-spot-at-turner-site/#respond Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:00:20 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1131152 Dear Editor, I write in response to a recent article regarding the installment of a landmark in the space where Brock Turner sexually assaulted a woman two years ago. This decision is insensitive to survivors of sexual violence and lacks ownership of the role Stanford University played in this appalling incident. The construction of a […]

The post Letter to the Editor: in response to the newly installed ‘scenic spot’ at the Turner site appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Editor,

I write in response to a recent article regarding the installment of a landmark in the space where Brock Turner sexually assaulted a woman two years ago. This decision is insensitive to survivors of sexual violence and lacks ownership of the role Stanford University played in this appalling incident.

The construction of a supposedly scenic spot in the exact area where Turner raped an unconscious woman, who has since remained anonymous, is difficult to be seen as anything but a way to divert the University’s funds and effort into masking the true underlying issues behind university-based sexual assault. Turning this tragic event into a simple monument fails to denote any real progress made by the University towards ending sexual assault on campus. Instead, the installment mainly serves as a constant reminder of what is now considered an epidemic on college campuses nationwide and the lack of change being enacted to combat this.

Michele Dauber, the Stanford law professor who proposed the park, stated herself that “more is to be done.” In that same statement, she purported that the University deserves “substantial credit” for its agreement to create the park. However, the University deserves no credit for its present efforts to end sexual assault.

A 2016 survey of Stanford students showed that only 2.7 percent of victims reported their sexual assaults. In 2014, a male student was found guilty of assaulting Leah Francis, and the University punished him with a “forced gap year” before his Stanford graduate program, delaying his suspension and community service until after his graduation. Brock Turner is just another figure in the long pattern of Stanford’s refusal to acknowledge that its culture of sexual assault begins with the University. Sure, Stanford made steps in the right direction with Turner’s case by expelling him and banning him from the campus, a sentence unprecedented in prior sexual assault cases in the University’s history, but a park is not a step forward.

In Stanford’s statement regarding Turner’s case, the University attempted to eschew all culpability through stating it “did everything within its power.” Even though multiple student groups have pushed for Stanford to apologize for its horrifically insensitive history of sexual assault on its campus, no apology has ever been issued. No sexual assault program for survivors can do as much as if Stanford were to recognize the role that it plays in preventing victims from speaking out and in perpetuating its culture of sexual assault. Making a public park is not an apology. Stanford must do better to provide its students with an environment that allows survivors to come forward and with more resources to prevent all forms of sexual assault in the future.

— Adria Stauber, UC Berkeley ’18

 

Contact Adria Stauber at astauber ‘at’ berkeley.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: in response to the newly installed ‘scenic spot’ at the Turner site appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/17/letter-to-the-editor-in-response-to-the-newly-installed-scenic-spot-at-turner-site/feed/ 0 1131152
Letter to the Editor: Alumnus responds to ASSU statement on DeVos, Title IX https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/15/letter-to-the-editor-alumnus-responds-to-assu-statement-on-devos-title-ix/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/15/letter-to-the-editor-alumnus-responds-to-assu-statement-on-devos-title-ix/#respond Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:00:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1130059 Dear Editor, I write in response to an article written by three current and former ASSU members last week regarding Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s recent comments on Title IX enforcement on college campuses. It is disappointing that these students, who ostensibly represent the entire undergraduate population, have chosen to entrench themselves on one side […]

The post Letter to the Editor: Alumnus responds to ASSU statement on DeVos, Title IX appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear Editor,

I write in response to an article written by three current and former ASSU members last week regarding Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s recent comments on Title IX enforcement on college campuses. It is disappointing that these students, who ostensibly represent the entire undergraduate population, have chosen to entrench themselves on one side of the debate over the proper adjudication of campus sexual assault.

These student leaders proclaim that they “stand with survivors,” as all of us should. Students who have truly been sexually victimized and violated deserve our sympathy and support, and their attackers deserve whatever punishment the school deems just.

But that is only half of the equation. What the ASSU members miss completely is that for each and every alleged victim, there is an accused student who deserves robust due process protections before they are subjected to life-altering punishment.

Unfortunately, Stanford’s student Title IX process fails to provide certain, important aspects of due process to accused students. For instance, Stanford’s procedures do not explicitly permit accused students to challenge any “interim measures” imposed by the University, including indefinite suspensions; do not permit accused students’ attorneys to “speak or advocate” on their behalf in campus proceedings; allow only limited use of expert witnesses; give accused students very little time (24 hours) to challenge the participation of hearing panel members; do not allow direct cross-examination; do not allow accused students to directly confront adverse witnesses and do not guarantee that all of the accused student’s questions for the alleged victim or witnesses will be asked.

This lack of basic due process safeguards creates a fundamentally unfair disciplinary system that is ripe for legal challenges, which often leads alleged victims to feel re-victimized and colleges to expend significant resources defending themselves in court. That’s a no-win situation for all parties.

Incredibly, the ASSU members imply that these due process protections — which the DeVos-led Department of Education may strengthen in the coming years — “[provide a] voice to those who shame and silence survivors.” Such a statement not only reveals the ASSU members’ blind support of alleged victims but also completely mischaracterizes the efforts of accused students and their advocates. The accused and their supporters aim to protect their fundamental right to a fair and impartial disciplinary process and decision, not shame victims into silence.

More centrally, however, the ASSU members’ article errors in this critical way: Standing with survivors and for the rights of accused students are not mutually exclusive. We can, simultaneously, continue working towards the complete eradication of sexual assault on Stanford’s campus while strengthening the due process protections afforded to accused students. There is nothing inherently contradictory about those two goals — something that is all too often lost in the fierce debate on campus sexual assaults.

The ASSU members should be applauded for standing with survivors, but they should also endeavor to represent the entire student body by advocating for stronger procedural and substantive due process for all involved parties.

— Cameron Miller ‘16

 

Contact Cameron Miller at ccmiller94 ‘at’ alumni.stanford.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: Alumnus responds to ASSU statement on DeVos, Title IX appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/15/letter-to-the-editor-alumnus-responds-to-assu-statement-on-devos-title-ix/feed/ 0 1130059
Letter to the Editor: Alum responds to ASSU and administration letters on sexual assault https://stanforddaily.com/2017/07/31/letter-to-the-editor-alum-responds-to-assu-and-administration-letters-on-sexual-assault/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/07/31/letter-to-the-editor-alum-responds-to-assu-and-administration-letters-on-sexual-assault/#respond Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:00:45 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1129651 To the Editor: I write regarding two recent articles in The Daily: An open letter to Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Persis Drell from current and former members of ASSU regarding campus sexual assaults, and the administrators’ response to the letter. While sexual crimes are amongst the most heinous crimes in our society and should be punished […]

The post Letter to the Editor: Alum responds to ASSU and administration letters on sexual assault appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

I write regarding two recent articles in The Daily: An open letter to Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Persis Drell from current and former members of ASSU regarding campus sexual assaults, and the administrators’ response to the letter. While sexual crimes are amongst the most heinous crimes in our society and should be punished accordingly, it is my hope that the “stand with survivors” mantra does not distract from the University’s obligation to provide due process of law to all parties involved in sexual assault cases.

As noted by the open letter from the ASSU, the 2011 Dear Colleague letter essentially mandated the implementation of a lower burden of proof – preponderance of the evidence – in sexual assault proceedings. The bare minimum for civil or criminal liability, this using this standard means that hearing officers need only feel that is ever-so-slightly more likely than not that respondents committed the alleged offense to find him/her guilty. In numerical terms, this corresponds to a 50.1 percent burden.

That seems remarkably low when dealing with charges as weighty as sexual misconduct. For both complainants and respondents, charges of sexual assault can be life-altering. For a sobering look at how these situations can impact complainants, read Brock Turner’s victim’s impact statement.

For respondents, accusations of and subsequent violation determinations of sexual assault can be equally devastating. Branded as sexual predators for their entire lives, these individuals often have their educational and career goals shattered as the result of campus judicial processes that are infamous for failing to provide the due process that most accused persons enjoy. These failures are chronicled in The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, which I encourage President Tessier-Lavigne, Provost Drell, and authors of the open letter to read.

At many campuses around the country, respondents are not entitled to a formal hearing prior to disciplinary determinations, and even if they are, are hamstrung in their defense. Contrary to the demands of due process, respondents cannot directly cross-examine complainants, are not entitled to have a voice in the selection of hearing officers, and oftentimes cannot use a lawyer in the same manner as they could in a court of law. At Stanford, training for student hearing officers included guidance that respondents “act[ing] persuasive and logical” is indicative of guilt.

Basic due process protections are all the more necessary in sexual assault proceedings, whose outcome often turns on the credibility of the parties and the biases of the hearing officers. If the consequences for sexual misconduct continue to be expulsion or lengthy suspensions – as they should – then the protections and rights afforded to all parties in the adjudication process should be commensurately high. Lower burdens of proof and diminished due process protections not only place respondents’ personal and professional futures at greater risk, but also leave complainants’ accusations vulnerable to re-litigation and possible reversal.

In addition to “standing with survivors,” I encourage the Stanford administration and ASSU to stand also for the rights of respondents, and more importantly, the truth.

 

-Cameron Miller ’16

The post Letter to the Editor: Alum responds to ASSU and administration letters on sexual assault appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/07/31/letter-to-the-editor-alum-responds-to-assu-and-administration-letters-on-sexual-assault/feed/ 0 1129651
Letter to the Editor: Haas Center responds to “Hypocrisy at Haas” https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/02/letter-to-the-editor-haas-center-responds-to-hypocrisy-at-haas/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/02/letter-to-the-editor-haas-center-responds-to-hypocrisy-at-haas/#respond Fri, 02 Jun 2017 07:15:10 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1128828 Our goal is to develop ethical and effective practices in whatever approach students take to contribute to the social good and to promote dialogue across differences.

The post Letter to the Editor: Haas Center responds to “Hypocrisy at Haas” appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

The Haas Center encourages activism and community organizing as one of many pathways for social change. Our goal is to develop ethical and effective practices in whatever approach students take to contribute to the social good and to promote dialogue across differences. As was noted in a recent column, Stanford Sanctuary Now (SSN) representatives took over the stage at our recent year-end celebration event and presented their concerns to President Marc Tessier-Lavigne. 

Unfortunately, because their speech was both unexpected and long, it put the Haas Center leadership in a difficult position. We could have allowed the SSN students to continue, or we could have intervened to enable the president and students on the agenda to share what they had prepared. Choosing the former, we show disrespect to the president, students and staff who carefully planned and prepared for the event. Choosing the latter, we silence students who care deeply about their cause. Our response may not have been perfect, but given the competing values at stake, no perfect choice existed. In the end, our response provided Stanford Sanctuary Now students a substantial amount of time to express their concerns but precluded them from entirely taking over the event.

We appreciate the group’s passion and commitment, and we welcome ideas about how the Haas Center can play a productive role in helping activists on campus engage in the kind of principled and effective advocacy our world sorely needs.

-Deborah Stipek, Faculty Director; Tom Schnaubelt, Executive Director
Haas Center for Public Service

The post Letter to the Editor: Haas Center responds to “Hypocrisy at Haas” appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/02/letter-to-the-editor-haas-center-responds-to-hypocrisy-at-haas/feed/ 0 1128828
Letter to the Editor: Mental health: We know the problems, we need help fixing them https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/02/letter-to-the-editor-mental-health-we-know-the-problems-we-need-help-fixing-them/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/02/letter-to-the-editor-mental-health-we-know-the-problems-we-need-help-fixing-them/#respond Fri, 02 Jun 2017 07:09:08 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1128825 It is true that patients are not satisfied, but neither are we (and as you pointed out, we can have issues with job retention as a result).

The post Letter to the Editor: Mental health: We know the problems, we need help fixing them appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

I had a dream last night that the mental health system was perfect.

Everybody that wanted care received it, no one stigmatized it and there were enough diverse and available practitioners to serve each and every community across the country. There was no such thing as physician burnout or suicide, and there were no patients who felt dissatisfied. Money was available from all sources (the government, schools and insurance companies), and patients never had to pay for something they could not afford; insurance companies, meanwhile, still reimbursed for what a provider’s time is actually worth. Parity was not just a vocabulary word, but a truth.

It was one of those dreams where I felt physically happy simply being in it.

The problem was, when my alarm went off to go to work as a psychiatry resident, the smile quickly faded and I realized it was just that, a dream.

I remembered quickly that I chose to enter a profession that is anything but ideally structured to serve those who need it. Countless conversations with friends, family and patients detailing the woes of connecting to a therapist or psychiatrist were etched in my brain. Hours spent arguing with insurance companies to cover a patient’s medication; calling providers looking for post-hospital follow-up appointments with no success; scheduling patients into my lunch breaks and evenings and attempting with frustration and disheartenment to explain these limitations to families and patients heavily weighed on me. Despite the years of training (four years of medical school and then four in psychiatry residency) and my seemingly good intentions, some days I do not want to go to work. Other days, I just want to scream “HOW CAN I DO MY JOB IN THESE CONDITIONS?” while storming out in true Hollywood dramatic fashion. But something stops me.

Perhaps I take one step back towards my chair because I love my job. Or, maybe the promise of helping even one person feel better stops me. Or, better yet, maybe I am a hopeless romantic (or even slightly narcissistic?) and believe that if I choose to stay, I can be an advocate for change. Maybe I am naïve, but I do believe that someday we will fix what is clearly broken.

The issue, however, is that we need to be partners in change, patients with practitioners and not against them. It is true that patients are not satisfied, but neither are we (and as you pointed out, we can have issues with job retention as a result). The list of grievances in your article entitled “CAPS grapples with wait times and serving underrepresented communities” reads like a laundry wish list for mental health practitioners everywhere across the country. The issues you have noticed at Stanford (wait lists, lack of diversity of providers, cost) are really a microcosm of the problems in the mental health system at large. You may not believe me, but we are on your side.

Consider this a call to arms of sorts. Let’s start fighting it together.

-Jessica Gold
Psychiatry Resident, Stanford

 

Writer’s note: The opinions expressed herein are solely my own as a psychiatry trainee and mental health advocate. 

The post Letter to the Editor: Mental health: We know the problems, we need help fixing them appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/02/letter-to-the-editor-mental-health-we-know-the-problems-we-need-help-fixing-them/feed/ 0 1128825
Letter to the Editor: Equal prize money, a triumph of ethics https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/31/letter-to-the-editor-equal-prize-money-a-triumph-of-ethics/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/31/letter-to-the-editor-equal-prize-money-a-triumph-of-ethics/#respond Wed, 31 May 2017 07:05:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1128689 Unfortunately, Grant Avalon’s recent op-ed seems to have forgotten, and in fact intentionally ignores, the impact that women’s tennis has had on the game and in the sporting theater as a whole.

The post Letter to the Editor: Equal prize money, a triumph of ethics appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

In 2006, tennis icon Venus Williams wrote an essay in The Times, in which she publicly and bravely accused Wimbledon of “being on the wrong side of history” due to the tournament’s refusal to pay men and women equally. Branding herself as a “second-class champion,” Venus sent shockwaves around the world, especially given that she had won the singles title three times in five years, and had competed in the singles final every year from 2000-2005, with the sole exception of 2004. Wimbledon eventually caved into growing public and private pressure, and the French Open famously followed suit; new hope for equality was born.

Unfortunately, Grant Avalon’s recent op-ed seems to have forgotten – and in fact intentionally ignores – the impact that women’s tennis has had on the game and in the sporting theater as a whole. The 2001 U.S. Open Final between Venus and her sister Serena was actually one of the highest-rated tennis events this century (based on TV viewers), and surpassed the amount of viewers who watched the men’s final that year. Furthermore, the 2015 U.S. Open Women’s Singles Final sold out before the men’s, primarily because of the enormous public interest in seeing Serena try to complete the calendar-year Grand Slam, one of professional tennis’s most daunting feats. In fact, the last person to achieve the calendar-year Grand Slam was Steffi Graf, a feat she achieved in 1988; no man has completed the calendar-year Grand Slam since Rod Laver, almost 50 years ago. Serena ultimately lost in the semifinals of the U.S. Open, but she inspired the world with her resilience and skill that have deservedly crowned her as one of the world’s best athletes, male or female.

Avalon’s article in The Daily also claimed that male tennis players are more marketable than their female counterparts. This argument is specious. Forbes has frequently had Maria Sharapova ranked higher than contemporary male athletes, including top five players like Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka, in terms of marketability and salary. Recently, Serena and Venus were respectively ranked fourth and sixth in Forbes’  list of the top 10 most marketable athletes of 2016, 20 years since they first debuted on the tennis scene. As a direct response to Avalon’s claim that, “Unbiased indicators indicate that men’s tennis is simply a more popular and marketable game,” I would note that there is not a single male tennis player on this list. Major corporations – including Gatorade, Nike and IBM – and the tennis majors themselves – the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open – have not only been ethically correct in endorsing the equality and strength of women’s tennis, but have also been objectively smart in endorsing women and awarding equal prize money, respectively.

Furthermore, Avalon’s point that, “it is simply unconscionable to justify the same level of pay for a different level of work” is cruelly ironic. Isn’t it equally “unconscionable” to justify different levels of pay for the same amount of work, as evidenced by the majority of other tour events in which both genders play best-of-three-set matches? For example, the Italian Open, located in Rome, is an important event for both the ATP and WTA, and is held a short two weeks before the French Open. In Rome, both men and women play in the best-of-three-sets format, and this is the standard for all annual tennis tournaments with the exception of the Grand Slams and the international Davis Cup competition. However, given the similarities between the men’s and women’s tournaments, the disparity in prize money is perplexing; the men’s singles champion earns almost twice as much as the women’s singles champion. Clearly, equality is not yet fully integrated into the tennis world. Thus, it is even more important for spectators and commentators to praise the Grand Slams for their commitment to equal prize money, rather than discourage it.

Avalon speaks disrespectfully and incorrectly about Serena Williams. He claims that, “If [Serena] were paid based on her talent level instead of her gender, she wouldn’t make a livable wage,” a statement which I, among others, perceive as an irredeemably sexist and blatantly false statement about one of sport’s greatest icons. I am more than confident that Serena’s talent level would allow her to not only “make a livable wage,” but also allow her to live very comfortably.

Female tennis champions like Venus, Serena and Billie Jean King have worked too hard and too long to see their efforts be negated by men trying to discount their accomplishments. Equal prize money is not “an experiment in political correctness,” but rather a triumph of ethics. Instead of trying to tear down a sport that has actively attempted to counteract gender inequality, it is incumbent on us to continue to support women’s tennis, as well as all those who advocate for equal prize money and equal pay.

– Ben Schwartz ’18

 

Contact Ben Schwartz at ben4 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: Equal prize money, a triumph of ethics appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/31/letter-to-the-editor-equal-prize-money-a-triumph-of-ethics/feed/ 0 1128689
Letter to the Editor: Cantonese at Stanford https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/26/letter-to-the-editor-cantonese-at-stanford-2/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/26/letter-to-the-editor-cantonese-at-stanford-2/#respond Fri, 26 May 2017 07:15:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1128066 To the Editor: I’m writing regarding the “Letter to the Editor: Cantonese at Stanford” written by the director of the Language Center in response to Samantha’s Wong article of May 5, 2017. The status of Cantonese is a complicated issue. As a concerned alum and the Cantonese instructor at Stanford, I feel obligated to respond […]

The post Letter to the Editor: Cantonese at Stanford appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

I’m writing regarding the “Letter to the Editor: Cantonese at Stanford” written by the director of the Language Center in response to Samantha’s Wong article of May 5, 2017.

The status of Cantonese is a complicated issue. As a concerned alum and the Cantonese instructor at Stanford, I feel obligated to respond to the Director’s statement in which she says: “To claim that Stanford refuses ‘to allow Cantonese to meet the foreign language requirement’ is false.”

In recent years, this is what I have experienced regarding Cantonese and the foreign language requirement:

  • In September 2013, I tested a freshman and was told by the associate director of the Language Center that no more students would be allowed to use Cantonese for the requirement.  
  • In June 2014, Samantha Wong emailed the Language Center about using Cantonese to place out of the requirement. The Language Center told her that only placement testing in Mandarin was offered. I didn’t know about her case until last April, when she came to interview me for her article about Cantonese at Stanford.
  • In September 2016, another student’s request was brought to my attention by a new Student Services officer.  I tried to make a case for the student and this is the response that I got from the same associate director who spoke to me in 2013: “This has come up before. We offer placement testing only in Standard Modern Chinese as a language to fulfill the university requirement.”

The director states in her letter: “A student met the Stanford language requirement with Cantonese proficiency just three days ago.”  The student was Samantha Wong, and this is Samantha’s version of how that happened in her article: “After writing this article, the Stanford Language Center offered to proctor the Stanford Chinese placement test for me, customized for Cantonese.”

I am grateful that the director has spelled out the current Language Center’s policy in her letter and Cantonese is now allowed for the foreign language requirement. I sincerely hope we can all move forward from that basis.

– Sik Lee Dennig Ph.D. ’92
Cantonese Instructor

The post Letter to the Editor: Cantonese at Stanford appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/26/letter-to-the-editor-cantonese-at-stanford-2/feed/ 0 1128066
Letter to the Editor: A response to ‘The problem with debates’ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/26/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-problem-with-debates/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/26/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-problem-with-debates/#respond Fri, 26 May 2017 07:06:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1128064 To the Editor: I found this article to be immensely flawed, not only in its use of intentionally misleading, out-of-date statistics, but also in its disingenuous monopoly-on-truth manner, attempting to be didactic regarding proper debate format. Like many at Stanford, I debated in high school and led my team senior year, but I have never […]

The post Letter to the Editor: A response to ‘The problem with debates’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

I found this article to be immensely flawed, not only in its use of intentionally misleading, out-of-date statistics, but also in its disingenuous monopoly-on-truth manner, attempting to be didactic regarding proper debate format. Like many at Stanford, I debated in high school and led my team senior year, but I have never heard the line, “But does this position really deserve half the stage? Does it really deserve any part of the stage?” I wish I had added the italics to show the disdain in the writer’s voice, but the writer did that on his own. The crux of the May 24 piece was to explain why the Stanford Political Union’s decision to hold the debate, “Should We Repeal Obamacare,” was wrong, because “at the time of this event, only 17 percent of Americans support the [repeal].” First off, I didn’t believe this. After Googling “polling replace Obamacare” while considering my rebuttal, the first result was an ABC News/WaPo poll released on April 25 that said 37 percent of Americans were in favor of replacing and 80 percent of Trump voters were in favor. But, as with any poll, let’s look at the sampling methodology – very easy to find – to better understand the poll: Running April 17-20; in English and Spanish; among a random 1,004 adults; “partisan divisions are 31-24-36 percent, Democrats-Republicans-Independents.” So, clearly, this poll, which states that 37 percent are in favor of repeal/replace with 80 percent of Trump voters favoring, under-represents Republicans. Good to know.

But, let’s take a look at the poll the author used on May 24, getting around using the most relevant data by stating, “at the time of this event,” a mere throwaway line that should raise flags in any reader’s mind. It was administered by Quinnipiac from March 16-21, interviewing 1,056 adults, with a partisan division of 31-24-37 percent, Democrats-Republicans-Independents. To find the author’s fabled 17 figure, one must go to the fourth similarly phrased question on healthcare. The first question asked on healthcare, “As president, do you think Donald Trump should support efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, or not?” has 45 percent affirmative with 82 percent of Republicans supporting. This figure has hovered around 46 percent since January.

So where can I find this 17 percent figure? To the question, “There is a Republican healthcare plan to replace Obamacare, known as the American Healthcare Act. Do you approve or disapprove of this Republican healthcare plan?” 41 percent of Republicans approved, with an overall percentage of 17 percent. Yet Republicans were heavily underrepresented in this poll, and when asked in a different way, respondents answered affirmatively at much higher rates. The author’s selective use of a single question in an outdated poll is a classic case of data manipulation to find a specific phrase or poll that fits one’s already decided viewpoint. This type of “debate” is not productive; it’s actually closer to “fake news” and is certainly disingenuous.

The author’s self-righteous tirade against SPU for “legitimizing” a “fringe idea” reveals more about the author’s biases and his own closed views than it does about a debate between our own Mark Duggan, a fair and intelligent economist who co-authored Obamacare, and an eloquent and informed conservative opponent and the student on either side. I actually attended this debate, and it was well-run with a fluid question-and-answer session. A skeptic of large programs that continually grow without balancing expenses, I asked Dr. Duggan, with whom I took a class related to this topic in the fall, a question on this, and he responded that the goal for healthcare costs today is to merely reduce the rate of growth – a fair viewpoint.

To conclude, this article proved to be a mere caricature of the hard left, pretending that ideas they don’t agree with are “fringe” and that speaking about them “legitimizes” them. I simply don’t care if this idea has 10 percent of the vote in your specifically selected poll. If so, debate it and change minds. Don’t pretend with moral certitude — and while using incorrect data — that because you and all of your stated “85 percent of undergrads [who] voted for Hillary” friends don’t like it, our college campus can’t have the debate at all.

– Russell Clarida ’20

The post Letter to the Editor: A response to ‘The problem with debates’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/26/letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-problem-with-debates/feed/ 0 1128064
Letter to the editor: Cantonese at Stanford https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/15/letter-to-the-editor-cantonese-at-stanford/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/15/letter-to-the-editor-cantonese-at-stanford/#respond Mon, 15 May 2017 07:05:31 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1127452 To the Editor: I write regarding the recent Daily article, “Where is Cantonese at Stanford“? The author repeatedly misrepresents the facts. As I stated in my interview: “All foreign languages meet the language requirement, with some caveats. Students must demonstrate proficiency in reading, listening, speaking and writing, which is usually fulfilled with a one-year sequence […]

The post Letter to the editor: Cantonese at Stanford appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To the Editor:

I write regarding the recent Daily article, “Where is Cantonese at Stanford“?

The author repeatedly misrepresents the facts. As I stated in my interview: “All foreign languages meet the language requirement, with some caveats. Students must demonstrate proficiency in reading, listening, speaking and writing, which is usually fulfilled with a one-year sequence in the language. There is no prohibition against any language.”

This statement reflects the policy of the Stanford Language Center. To claim that Stanford refuses “to allow Cantonese to meet the foreign language requirement” is false. Ironically, a student met the Stanford language requirement with Cantonese proficiency just three days ago.

— Elizabeth Bernhardt
John Roberts Hale Director of the Stanford Language Center
Professor, German Studies

The post Letter to the editor: Cantonese at Stanford appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/15/letter-to-the-editor-cantonese-at-stanford/feed/ 0 1127452