Student Affairs staff value ethnic student organizations

As the Student Affairs staff who worked with Sigma Theta Psi during the planning of their “Unleashed” step show and its after-party, we wish to respond to their recent Daily opinions piece regarding their concerns with our assistance (“Discrimination in Activities office,” Feb. 22).

We regret that the Sigmas were dissatisfied with efforts that were intended to ensure the success and safety of their events. In addition to “Unleashed,” there were three large student events that occurred last weekend and all of the sponsoring groups were working with the same set of expectations.

Also, Student Affairs staff routinely attend student-run activities both as a sign of support and because staff enjoy seeing the results of students’ hard work. We highly value ethnic student organizations as we do all student groups, and we are committed to making all student events successful. We will continue to strive to improve our efforts in working with Sigma Theta Psi and other student groups.

Carolus Brown

Assistant Director, Black Community Services Center

Ralph Castro

Manager, Substance Abuse Prevention Program/Interim Party Planner

Nanci Howe

Associate Dean/Director of Student Activities

Thom Massey

Interim Associate Dean for Student Affairs

Lynn Santopietro

Assistant Director of Student Activities

Bad Wound epitomizes the worst of modern liberalism

In his column (“To the Stanford Review: Oh — it’s on,” Mar. 1), Adam Bad Wound epitomizes the worst of modern liberalism. He employs the rhetoric of victimization to stifle debate on a fascinating cultural subject — Indian mascots.

He alleges that he is making a “plea for inclusiveness, dignity and respect,” but that The Stanford Review “does not do the same.” This is simply not true. Executive Editor of The Review Milton Solorzano respectfully acknowledged and even agreed with these sentiments as he wrote in his article, “I too would oppose such a poorly-drawn mascot for its egregious and offensive nature.”

It is sad that Bad Wound does not even recognize his simultaneous close-mindedness, insensitivity and intolerance.

He is close-minded and insensitive toward all the Stanford alumni who cherished and revered the Indian as their mascot. For these people, “mascot” is not a dirty word, but a symbol of the spirit of their university and a point of reference that elicits positive memories of shared cultural experiences.

He is intolerant because he is attempting to suppress alternative perspectives on campus. It is one thing to argue that you are right and the other side is wrong, but it is quite another to argue that no one should even listen to the arguments on the other side. The Review is arguably the only forum on campus where you could have an honest debate about the mascot; where multiple alternative views are presented and debated; and where people don’t become so personally offended that they cannot even listen to each other anymore.

Bad Wound mischaracterizes The Review by saying, “The Review does not represent an intellectual diversity of perspectives; it offers a one-sided conservative interpretation.” He erroneously believes that conservatism implies one point of view. Conservatism is quite intellectually diverse, but The Review includes much more than just conservative views. We present many moderate views that are also marginalized by the dogmatism of modern liberalism that suffuses this campus.

In the spirit of debate, I encourage you to read Bad Wound’s column and The Review and think about these issues for yourself.

Benjamin Guthrie

Senior, Economics

Emeritus Editor-in-Chief, The Stanford Review