President John Hennessy’s column in Stanford Magazine last fall advocating an increase in undergraduate students seemed poised to start a healthy debate within the University. Since then, however, there’s been no new information or discussion about the proposal from either the administration or The Daily.

This is not to say that I’m opposed to the class-size increase — there’s not enough information out there to argue one way or the other. But having reported on the University before, I know that they are P.R. wizards. They have no qualms using Bush Administration-levels of secrecy to fast-track major changes, all without a substantive debate.

In fact, we have no idea what is really motivating this proposal. Hennessy’s column cited the number of “deserving” students who must be turned away each year.

“I have been president for seven years and it is still one of the most difficult parts of the job to explain to parents with gifted children why a son or daughter was denied admission,” Hennessy wrote, sounding like a doctor facing the anguished relatives of a patient who “didn’t make it.”

But Hennessy’s core argument has huge flaws. First, it wrongly suggests that Stanford has a responsibility to peg enrollment levels to the rising number of qualified students. Second, it perpetuates the myth that a dozen or so top-ranked schools hold the monopoly on a great education.

(By the way, are we to think that the president of a major university actually justifies individual admission decisions?)

What else might be driving the proposal? Obviously there is a fundraising angle here, as larger enrollment would increase the chance that a Sergey Brin or a Larry Page will invent some new technology in their dormroom. Moreover, Hennessy’s rhetoric about a “more global outlook” seems to corroborate the rumor that the administration wants to boost the number of international students. How many of the extra admissions spots would go to these targeted demographics?

Additionally, Stanford has had a habit of piggy-backing on the proposals of other schools, especially Yale. We followed Yale’s increase in financial aid for lower income families; we followed their launch of a gigantic new capital campaign (“The Stanford Challenge”); and now we are aping their proposal to admit more students, which was broached by Yale President Richard Levin several months before Hennessy’s column.

At least Yale has been slightly less stingy with details. Early in the expansion discussion, Levin floated a specific figure for the number of additional students, around 10 percent, and explained how they would be accommodated, by building two super-expensive residential colleges.

By contrast, the only new development at Stanford since Hennessy’s column was the establishment of a closed-door task force that met for the first time on Jan. 28. Task force members include such well-known donors as Peter Bing ‘55 and Wendy Munger ‘72. The only student on the task force is ASSU President Hershey Avula ‘08. Leaving aside the question of Avula’s judgment, of which I know nothing, is anyone naive enough to think that an ASSU president, whose job essentially makes him a part of the administration, can fully represent student concerns?

When I asked about the Jan. 28 meeting, Avula said it was “strictly confidential” and directed me to Jeff Wachtel, Hennessy’s right-hand man, who is also a task force member. When I emailed Wachtel to inquire about innocuous details like a schedule of task force dates, he was annoyed at having been contacted by two separate people from The Daily within a week. He suggested I was wasting his time.

Needless to say, this is not an auspicious start on the public relations front.

If I have learned anything about how decisions are made here, it’s that the word “preliminary” always means “pretty much decided.” So, when the task force releases its “preliminary” report this fall, I would not be surprised if Stanford already has donors lined up for new dorms, faculty and other campus resources, making it impossible to slow the momentum for the project.

Indeed, that’s exactly what is happening at Yale, where administrators managed to create an illusion of dialogue by hosting a series of “town-hall meetings” and “debates.” Yale released its own “viability” report on Monday. Thing is, on the same day the report was released, Yale also announced that a construction budget and fundraising plan are in the works — Stanford will try to do the same.

Aside from the demographics question, there are real issues at stake for future students. Chief among them is the problem of space, particularly housing. It’s hard to imagine an expansion without the construction of more ugly, antiseptic housing like the Manzanita dorms, which severely detract from the unique character of Stanford Housing.

Now is the time to start asking tougher questions about this proposal. Later will almost certainly be too late.

For a vision of the near future, Brendan invites students to look at the Yale Daily News Web site this week. Email your “expansive” comments to bselb "at" stanford.edu.