Editorial Board: Full Moon on the Quad and the lack of ‘dialogue’

Nov. 1, 2016, 1:19 a.m.

Earlier this month, The Stanford Daily Editorial Board sat down to formulate an official response to the just-announced working group for the amendment of Stanford fixture Full Moon on the Quad (FMOTQ). We exchanged opinions, as journalists are wont to do, and reached a singular conclusion: We felt (and feel) that FMOTQ is an institution worth preserving.

After several editorial meetings, however, it became clear that we were discussing the issue of FMOTQ not because of the working group’s resolutions but because we were perturbed by said group’s very existence. We had, in effect, been galvanized into developing an “official opinion” by the simple announcement of a University-led conversation on FMOTQ, a topic on which 88 percent of students had already made up their minds.

To us, it seemed FMOTQ was destined to meet the same fate as hard alcohol.

This process has become established in recent years: The University administration announces its desire to “discuss” an issue and recommends a given action. The student body expresses strong disapproval. The aforementioned “discussions” take place, excluding, of course, most students. And, in the end, the initial proposal is approved, despite vocal student opposition. With the announcement of the FMOTQ working group — and the working group’s commitment to making changes — it struck us that we’re already three miles down a four-mile road.

So we decided to pen an editorial, an attempt to rally the student body before the inevitable arrival of an email titled “Template: Student Affairs” (or, in Student Affairs-speak, “Amendments to Full Moon on the Quad”).

But what, we ask, is the point?

All existing evidence suggests that there is absolutely nothing we, as students, can do to make ourselves heard. Petitions don’t work. Nor do op-eds. Public forums are just soapboxes for administrators. And internal outrage seems the least of the University’s concerns.

The administration doesn’t listen anymore, so what’s the point of “dialogue” — the University’s buzzword of choice? This doesn’t mean that students should stop voicing their opinions, and in fact, we, at The Daily, will continue to do so ourselves. But in this respect, our second editorial of the year is less of a call to action than a call to recognize the administration’s lack of regard for the very people it claims to represent.

Stanford, we’re frustrated.


— Vol.250 Editorial Board

Editorials represent the views of The Stanford Daily, an independent newspaper serving Stanford and the surrounding community. The Daily's Editorial Board consists of President and Editor-in-Chief Kylie Jue '17, Executive Editor Will Ferrer '18, Managing Editor of Opinion Michael Gioia '17, Head Copy Editor Stephanie Chen '18 and Senior Staff Writer Andrew Vogeley '17. To contact the Editorial Board chair, submit an op-ed (limited to 700 words) or submit a letter to the editor (limited to 500 words) at [email protected]

Login or create an account