Labor action coalition should be applauded, not demonized

The Daily’s editorial “Hennessy takes positive step on labor” (Feb. 16) rightfully applauds the Stanford Labor Action Coalition, or SLAC, for its important efforts and successes, but wrongfully criticizes it for its perceived “radicalism,” which the editorial suggests is part of SLAC’s history of “burning bridges.” This is absurd and demonstrates a poor understanding of what it has taken for SLAC to fight for change on this campus. While I am not a member of SLAC, I am both sympathetic to and appreciative of its efforts to call for fair labor practices.

It is SLAC’s “characteristically extreme” activities that have gotten this campus to a stage where a code of conduct, living wage, equal pay, educational opportunities and other improvements are being considered by University President John Hennessy. It shouldn’t take a week-long hunger strike by six students to get the president of a wealthy and prestigious institution like Stanford to think about its labor practices and set up a clear code of conduct.

Quite frankly, that is embarrassing. Despite The Daily’s criticism of “too much radicalism,” SLAC has had to fight resistance, delays, a systematic effort by Hennessy to ignore the issue, underhanded efforts to avoid committing to fair labor practices and a disinterested student body. So, given the history of this conflict, it is understandable that SLAC be a bit skeptical of a vague commitment to general principles in Hennessy’s response.

Hennessy’s report in response to the committee’s recommendations was released weeks late and only after SLAC launched a blitz campaign to demand Hennessy’s response. The Daily should be joining SLAC in demanding transparency and fair labor policies, rather than undermining its efforts. The members of SLAC have sacrificed a lot to restore morality to the labor policies of this school. They should be applauded, not demonized.

Seth Silverman

Freshman, Undeclared

Housing plan needed more

student input

Last week, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Eduction John Bravman unveiled a proposal for major changes in undergraduate housing. In planning for these changes, the University has not shown respect for student input and student needs. The University needs to get student input before announcing a proposal for major changes in undergraduate housing.

Before announcing this proposal, the University needed to do extensive research to find out how students really want to live. Many students I know do not or did not enjoy living in all-freshman dorms. Changing the housing system to accommodate more all-freshman dorms may hurt the students who do not want to live in them. All-freshman dorms may alienate freshmen who do not want to live in a heavy-drinking environment. These dorms may also hurt freshmen who may benefit from the day-to-day peer mentorship of upperclass students who have had more experience at Stanford. All-freshman dorms take away the choice that students would otherwise have. In drawing up the housing proposal, the university has not shown evidence of obtaining or incorporating the views of these students.

Ultimately, it is students who live in University residences, and it is they who should be deciding how and where to live. Bravman mentioned the importance of thinking about the University as a whole. More important is thinking about students as individuals with needs — and valuing these needs in all stages of university decision-making processes.

Jin Xu

Senior, Biological Sciences