Stanford strangely reluctant to pursue a solution to labor debates

In following the twists and turns of campus labor debates and policies, it seems that what is at stake is more fundamental than even living wages and health care benefits. Where the university so often makes forthright efforts to attain other challenging goals, in the case of labor, the approach is very different.

In manifold other ways, Stanford University has sought out faculty, staff, and student perspectives and recommendations and undertaken difficult implementation of new programs and reforms of existing ones. The strength of Residential Education, the alcohol policy, and Freshman and Sophomore Programs speak to Stanford’s past and present enthusiasm to burnish its education and reputation even when there were potentially short-term costs in finances and energy.

I know very little of the economics behind increasing the “living wage” or demanding that subcontractors provide health care for all temporary workers. Yet it seems evident that there is a dissonance between the administration’s enthusiasm for other difficult projects and its passivity toward the task of improving the lives of campus custodians, cooks, and other staff members.

The discourse on labor on campus exists not on the level of integrated action toward a unified goal, but rather between advocacy on the part of students, and either resistance to that advocacy or hard-won small steps on the part of the administration.

How is this explained? Does racism or classism play a factor? Are employees seen not as potential researchers or donors on the university’s behalf? Does Stanford truly believe increased workers’ rights will lead to financial mayhem? Does Stanford fear a backlash from other reluctant universities if it is to lead the way? Reflecting on these questions — and their potential answers — may shed light on the frustrating labor discourse and dissonance at Stanford.

Chris Vaughan

Sophomore, Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity

Ambassador supports different points of view on the Armenian genocide issue

My purpose in writing this letter is not to convey the Turkish approach to the so-called Armenian genocide. That is well known. It is rather to emphasize how disheartened I am to see that an unjust pressure is being exerted on The Daily not to let them publish what Turkish students have to say about the matter. This absolutely does not match with the spirit of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is very unfortunate that some do not even have the minimum degree of tolerance to a view not identical to theirs.

I support The Daily in its efforts to give room to both sides of the story and I have tolerance to hear the Armenian point of view.

Engin Ansay

Ambassador, Consulate General of Turkey in Los Angeles

The New York Times scoops The Daily on its own turf

Now is a delicate time for newspapers. The New York Times recently admitted (“Correcting the Record,” May 11, in that publication) to a large scandal that resulted in at least 36 falsified articles. As a result, many people have questioned their faith of not only the Times specifically but print journalism in general.

The Stanford News Readership Program can reassure us that The Daily is taking no shortcuts and is instead sticking to its century-old traditions. Take, for instance, the May 22 article “Robot helps to digitize library” as compared to the New York Times’ May 12 article “The Evelyn Wood of Digitized Book Scanners,” both dealing with the same robot at Stanford libraries. The New York Times scored an interview with the head librarian of Stanford University in an article written by John Markoff (certainly no slouch in the writing field). The Daily, on the other hand, managed to get scooped by 10 days, even with 3000 fewer miles to travel.

The Daily has been committed to promoting extraneous filler, poorly written articles, and irresponsible journalism since long before the Jayson Blair affair was even a gleam in Affirmative Action’s eye.

Daniel Bentley

Junior, English

Yelderman fails to grasp the true nature of English

In his letter to the editor, “Writers should stick to the English language” (May 22), Steve Yelderman advises that The Daily editors should stick to writing in English, complaining that “fete” is French and not English. Sorry, Steve, “fete” is indeed an English word — go check a dictionary. It’s one of the many French words adopted by our language, along with so many other words from many different languages. So, unless Steve is loco or a dumbkopf, or if he simply does not enjoy mo’ bettah lingo mix-mix, he should resign from his post as language guru and return to the ranks of the shmutzig with the rest of us peons.

Hilton Obenzinger

Associate Director for Honors Writing, Undergraduate Research Programs