The Daily’s special-fee endorsements

are partisan, lack objectivity

I am continually shocked at how The Daily — a group that is requesting a special fee — can use its media power to influence how students vote for special fees. No one ever questions the irony and lack of objectivity of The Daily’s coverage of the special fees process. Journalistic integrity would seem to demand objective polling or a campus wide review committee to assess all special fee groups, including The Daily.

The partisan political beliefs of the Daily editorial staff have been reflected in every election review process. It is not strange that when you have a conservative editorial staff all special-fee groups that reflect anything beyond the mainstream are frowned upon. Likewise, when there is staff that is pro-technology or pro-community service, the special-fee groups who reflect these preferences are given high praise. If The Daily is a student newspaper then this type of biased, partisan lobbying should not be allowed to continue. The funny part is that most of this biased reporting is financed by many of the students that The Daily unfairly assess.

I am saddened by this fact and appalled that organizations who have historically contributed to the vitality and advancement of the University are judged by an ever-shifting political machine. It would appear that those groups have earned a special fee for numerous years are doing something beneficial for the campus — otherwise our intelligent student body would not continue to support them. The Daily owes us a more objective election review process and the truth about how they themselves have managed to operate in the red despite receiving a lofty special fee last year.

Jamal Watkins

Class of 2002

World Refugee Leadership Program

provides education to

Botswanan refugees

In light of The Daily’s failure to endorse the World Refugee Leadership Program’s special-fee request, we wanted to provide students with the following clarification.

WRLP is a diverse and growing (currently there are 40 members) student group working to provide support for the academic education of refugee students in the Dukwi Refugee Camp in Botswana.

Over spring break, members of our group went to this refugee camp to talk with the students, learn about their goals and needs and to find concrete ways of how to address them. Specifically, the students in this camp strive to go to universities, which will allow them to live a life supporting themselves and pursuing their own passions. We will assist them in reaching their goals by setting up an online tutoring program through which Stanford students will tutor refugee students in subjects such as English and math (which count towards their university admission exams) and will help them set up an online store to sell their art in order to fundraise university scholarships.

Kujtese “Tesa” Bejtulahu

Co-Director, World Refugee Leadership Program

The Daily’s endorsements of Solar Car and SURJ reflect ‘ignorance’

and ‘misunderstanding’

I am writing in response to The Stanford Daily’s special-fee endorsements. I am writing this article to appear after elections have finished, as I am unable to speak with great authority on most of the student groups campaigning for special fees. However, in the case of two groups to which I belong — the Stanford Solar Car Project and the Stanford Undergraduate Research Journal — I can say that The Daily’s statements reflect an ignorance of the groups represented as well as a misunderstanding of the purpose and usefulness of ASSU special fees. While The Daily was obviously well-intentioned in publishing recommendations and the idea of furthering campus dialogue on the elections is a good one, the endorsements do the student body a disservice when they are not adequately researched.

The Daily suggests in its descriptions of the Stanford Solar Car and Stanford Undergraduate Research Journal that both groups look elsewhere for funding. If The Daily’s editorial board had bothered to familiarize itself at all with either group’s budget, it would realize that both have looked into as many alternative sources of funding as possible. The Solar Car’s costs are far more than the $36,000 we request from special fees; in fact, building the car costs up to half a million dollars. Almost all of its funding comes from the corporate sponsors like the ones The Daily recommends.

Similarly, The Daily recommends that SURJ look into funding from the Undergraduate Research Programs office. The Daily is apparently unaware that we are seeking funds from that office as well as individual departments and other sources. The Daily’s endorsements reflect a lack of knowledge of the costs of making a competitive solar car or high-quality research journal and indicate no effort to find out what separate efforts these groups make to find funding.

The endorsements also indicate a misunderstanding of why groups apply for and should receive special fees. The Daily explained that it only endorsed groups that “are open to and benefit a large portion of the student body,” which perhaps explains why most of their endorsements were publications and cultural groups. SURJ is a publication that is distributed on campus and directly benefits its readers and published authors. While the Solar Car project may not directly benefit many students, it (and similar student groups not endorsed by the Daily like Mock Trial and Stanford Archery Club) provide invaluable indirect benefits to the student body.

The availability of many specialized groups like this allows students the opportunity to gain valuable hands-on experience in a particular field. These groups complement the classroom experience at Stanford and are one of the major strengths of the University. If they vanish, future engineers will be unable to work on the engineering of the Solar Car, future lawyers will not gain the courtroom experience of Mock Trial and those who have pursued — and found national success at — archery will be unable to continue this sport. Stanford’s student groups are an essential part of the University’s effort to have not just ethnic and racial diversity but also diversity of student interests and accomplishments.

Robert McConnell

Sophomore, Physics

The Daily’s special-fee endorsements unclear, biased

Though I do not have any affiliation with any of the special fee-groups, I write this letter because there serious issues with The Daily’s endorsements of some of the groups.

For example, when giving a “no” vote to the Stanford Community Farm, The Daily says that “the need for outside management is unconvincing.” This description begs the question,, “Unconvincing to whom?” To members of The Daily’s editorial board or to the needs of Stanford students?

What does “unconvincing” tell a reader like me about the quality of the special-fee request? Apparently, The Daily expects the reader to take its word for it. I’d like to see at least some explanation for the judgments made, especially when The Daily makes strong criticisms.

In addition, The Daily has huge biases against any type of travel. The Daily’s comments about Stanford Mock Trial, Volunteers in Latin America and Stanford Jazz Orchestra are particularly ignorant. When The Daily asserts that it doesn’t “believe [Stanford] students should spend their money to send only a few peers to tournaments across the nation” for Mock Trial, The Daily indicates a huge lack of research into exactly why such travel is necessary. Mock Trial is a competition that is local and national, and travel is an essential part of what the group does. The same goes for VILA. The Daily asserts that “the student body should not fund the study-abroad experiences of a few students.” To call what the students in VILA do as “studying abroad” is not only ignorant but downright unethical. The Daily makes it sound like these students are going to be taking classes. These students go to Latin America to do community service work.

Finally, the special-fee articles never warrant assertions about raising prices of tickets or finding alternative sources of funding and how such conclusions were made. It appears arbitrary when The Daily gives a group glowing remarks but then decides that it should “find other sources” of funding. This is particularly true in cases like the Stanford Axe Committee’s request where all The Daily says is “How could you vote no to them? Might as well leave Stanford and go to Cal?” But yet, The Daily makes no commentary about alternative funding.

The suggestions about demands for alternative sources of funding and the biases against travel are unwarranted, unexplained and arbitrary. It appears that The Daily could choose which groups it personally likes the most and say nothing about them while for others, it could just throw around meaningless rhetoric like “alternative sources of funding.” I urge The Daily to do a better job informing its readers and being less biased in future special-fee endorsements.

Anthony Berryhill

Junior, Political Science and Ethics in Society