Eight yeas, five nays and two abstentions. It was a fitting end on Tuesday night, as the Undergraduate Senate’s oft-tabled Donald Rumsfeld bill failed by two votes to whispers of “it passed.”

The bill stated, in short, that Rumsfeld’s was a questionable appointment. It argued that his fellowship at Hoover would hurt Stanford’s reputation by association. It didn’t ask senators to judge Rumsfeld’s actions. It asked them to say he was unpopular and controversial. Since when, I might ask from the wings of a packed hall debating a seemingly separate bill, do we oppose academic appointments because they are scary?

Welcome to politics, some might say. You have to make compromises.

I’ve been here for over four years, and I doubt you could find a group of 6,000 people more turned on by the idea of compromise.

But this wasn’t compromise or even “watering down”: this was confusion and fear.

Let’s get back to a petition, frequently cited, that 4,000 people from Stanford DID sign: “We view the appointment as fundamentally incompatible with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested enquiry, respect for national and international laws, and care for the opinions, property and lives of others to which Stanford is inalienably committed.”

There’s a real statement. There’s a voice I can agree with.

The undergraduate senators I heard argue against the bill said that their body was approaching a “slippery slope;” that the Senate “isn’t the right venue;” that the Rumsfeld debate “distracted” from their important work on campus.

For a moment, one opposing senator questioned why we should oppose someone because he is politically controversial. Yet he did so with a smirk, interested more in cornering his opposition than in the content of his question. The moment was soon gone, and then it was back to “is this our role?”

A few minutes later, I heard an impassioned speech about why, yes, of course the Senate could oppose Rumsfeld. After all, what body is there other than the ASSU Undergraduate Senate to represent the voice of undergraduates at Stanford?

Unfortunately, though, the Senate reflected Stanford’s undergraduate population perfectly. Yes, Stanford undergrads oppose Rumsfeld, when they give him any thought. Yes, Stanford students have deep moral beliefs about politics. But students don’t know where to channel these passionate thoughts. No one knows the right “venue” to express his or her beliefs. Every one is wrong — email lists, rallies, sections, debates, lectures, the Undergraduate Senate — you’re either wasting people’s time or you’re being naive.

So we’re confined to our hallway discussions, and by then we’ve been practicing our impressive and impartial voices for so long that we are terrified to say what we believe. So now allow me to do so: I believe that Stanford is trying to constrain you. I believe that the school’s administration, many of your professors, and a large number of your friends are scared to hear you speak your mind. Next time you think twice about what to say and where to say it, think again.

Alex Stein ‘07 is currently a master’s student in international policy studies.