The Daily reflects on interesting articles from Stanford’s past in our series “This Week in Stanford History,” based off The Daily’s archival collection.

 

Volume 146, Issue 17, 19 Oct. 1964: Sex Without Sorrow

It’s Homecoming week! Yay! I’m so happy to welcome all the amazing classes back to The Farm by almost hitting literally ALL of you with you my bike. But I would like to give a special shoutout to the Class of 1964, who is celebrating their 50th anniversary with Stanford! Much respect! Most students would have divorced their universities and found a pretty little liberal arts college to run away with at this point.

A big topic nowadays is, of course, sexual consent. Back in the day, they were thinking the same thing! Except it was, uh, consent with Jesus to have sex. This editorial from the Contemporary Christians on Campus wants to remind you about the danger of having “wrong” sex.

“The wrong kind of sex not only never satisfies but does lead to emotional problems, guilt and anxiety from which some people never recover.” Well, damn son.

But hey, this is 2014! You can have all the sex you want without Christians yelling at you about how sex is only beautiful within the bounds of matrimony!

Well, no, that’s not actually true. Some Christians will certainly still yell at you.

Yeah, Grandma, I don’t need your crap! And let me tell you! It was STILL very beautiful!

But yes, rejoice Class of ’64! Have all the sex you want! Just remember, consent is sexy!

 

Volume 210, Issue 22, 21 Oct. 1996: Horoscope

Yeah, I’m a capricorn, what of it? And according to my horoscope on the 21st, “Getting out and about now boosts social life and ego. People are thrilled by your presence and let you know.” Well, I mean, damn right!

And come on Libras, get it together. “Pay attention in class, your priorities are slipping. It’s time to get back on top of things.” Yeah, get back on top of things, like letting me know how thrilled you are for my presence.

And heeey, there, Leos, check this out. “You’re reinventing yourself, creating a more enigmatic image. Well, the opposite sex is unable to resist. It won’t be long before you pair off with a particularly ardent admirer.” Giiiirl, see, I’m getting out and about more, you’re reinventing yourself… I just wanna let you know I’m thrilled by your presence, and I’m sure you’ll feel the same about me. And let me know. Because you should. Please.

 

Volume 150, Issue 21, 21 Oct. 1966: Phi Delts Highjack 11,000 Dailies; Civil Suit For Damages Possible

With the controversial article calling for the end of Greek life weeks ago, it’s only fitting to look back in time and realize that the relationship between Greek life and the Daily was always a bit… strained.

An estimated $1600 worth of Dailies were stolen by members of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity. When asked for a statement, the fraternity house president said, “I think they were running a paper drive. They needed to make papier-mache for Homecoming decorations,” and later, “”it was all part of an experiment being conducted by six of our psychology majors. They were trying to measure people’s ingrained responses to being denied their Daily in the morning.”

The Daily wasn’t sure if they wanted to pursue charges, and would make a decision a week later. I don’t know what ended up happening, but hey, now’s the time to strike!

 

Volume 210, Issue 23, 22 Oct. 1996: Rankings Too Powerful

Man, even back in the day people realized that college rankings are awful.

With William Deresiewicz visiting campus this week and his slandering of the college admission systems, this article is still relevant today. This article details how the ASSU passed a unanimous vote to explicitly denounce the U.S. News & World Report “Best College” list and call for the administration to not send requested information to the U.S. News & World Report in hopes to radically change the ranking system. Students claim to want this because they believed students too often rely on college rankings for deciding on where to apply to college and U.S. News & World Report is arbitrary and really doesn’t mean anything.

Or, some speculate that Stanford students were just butt hurt because Stanford dropped from 4th to 6th that year. But don’t worry guys, in 2014, we’re back to being 4th!

Gosh, I hate myself for knowing that.

 

Volume 226, Issue 21, 22 Oct. 2004: Secularists Have Children Too!

This ad for the Humanist Community is just about as scary as the first time I saw a black squirrel on campus.

I don’t even know what to say. I’m just going to leave these gems here:

“Religion can be dangerous to your health!”

“We secular parents don’t want our offspring distracted by dreams about some other world, nor do we want them to pick up the prejudices that unfortunately contaminate so many religions.”

“An intense belief in some reward after death can lead to monstrous actions, as demonstrated by suicide bombers who have dehumanized their victims.”

I’m sure I’m only stunned because in the modern age people are worried about politically correct all the dang time, but geez. The best part about this is that it’s advertising a daycare type thing, where children can “explore a realm of values.” I don’t know, that just sounds like some scary stuff. They put their phone number in the ad, and of course, I had to call it.

Let’s just say it’s SO easy to join!

 

Volume 154, Issue 24, 23 Oct. 1968: Pro-Cleaver Sit-In At Berkeley Ends With 120 Student Arrests

Oh, Berkeley. You silly goose.

Apparently a crapton of students got upset about not receiving credit in a racism course, Social Analysis 139 X, where a Black Panther leader was a guest lecturer. This ended up in over 2,500 onlookers massed outside and lots of traffic and people throwing rocks at the deputy bus and there was a bomb threat and holy crap Berkeley was a mess.

Yeah. WAS. Mmhmm.

 

Volume 184, Issue 21, 24 Oct. 1983: New eating plan gets mixed reviews

Are Stanford students ever happy with the food?

But instead of people freaking out over how many swipes they have left, this new system relied on “points.” The Daily reported on how this new meal was doing, a plan that was intended to reduce waste, where each food item was assigned “points” and people only had a certain number of points.

And hey, guess what, PEOPLE DIDN’T LIKE IT.

And I’m so glad. Imagine a Stanford where we had to worry about point inflation. I can just imagine a world where old senior farts would be all “Oh, I remember the good old days where food only cost .25 points, but now it’s four points!”

 

Contact Jeremy Quach at jquach ‘at’ stanford.edu.