The Graduate Student Council (GSC) made plans to work together with the Undergraduate Senate to pressure the Faculty Senate to reconsider its decision to table a series of anti-doxxing recommendations made by the Planning and Policy Board (PPB) Subcommittee on Campus Climate during its Wednesday meeting.
The subcommittee’s recommendations pushed the Faculty Senate to endorse the addition of anti-doxxing language to the Fundamental Standard in the wake of a rising tide of discrimination and harassment on campus and increasingly frequent attacks on social media against students and faculty.
The decision to table the recommendations drew outrage from faculty members on the committee, who all resigned from their posts on the Faculty Senate following the Nov. 19 meeting, as well as broader disapproval from students and other faculty.
Some GSC councilors are working with undergraduate senators to draft a joint resolution that would condemn the Senate’s decision to table the recommendations and explicitly ask the body to move forward with “explicitly including anti-doxxing language in the Fundamental Standard,” according to Brooks Benard, a fifth-year cancer biology Ph.D. student.
“It was incredibly frustrating to listen to the back and forth because it was a bunch of faculty who were just missing the mark, missing the entire point of the recommendation,” said Benard, who attended the Nov. 19 Faculty Senate meeting.
If both the GSC and Undergraduate Senate pass the bill, the Faculty Senate will be required to add the resolution to its agenda and discuss its contents. Though the Faculty Senate already said it would revisit the recommendations by the end of the academic year, Benard said that this type of resolution would ensure that the Senate seriously and comprehensively broaches the subject. The potential resolution will likely be voted on after winter break, according to Benard, who is listed as a sponsor on the bill.
The bill, which was originally spearheaded by Undergraduate senator Marion Santo ’23, was also co-written by GSC councilor Emily Schell M.A. ’18, a third-year developmental and psychological sciences Ph.D. student.
The GSC also voted unanimously to confirm Avi Gupta ’23 as a member of the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Constitutional Council. By joining the Constitutional Council, Gupta would bring its active membership back to four — one short of the expected five council members. As a member, Gupta would be charged with adjudicating cases in which the constitutionality of an action is called into question under the ASSU constitution. Gupta, who was nominated by ASSU President Christian Giadolor ’21 M.A. ’22, will face a final confirmation vote in the Undergraduate Senate before joining the Council.
Gupta said that one of his primary goals as a member will be to inform the student body about the work done by the Constitutional Council through increased transparency and communication.
“I think the vast majority of the Stanford student body doesn’t know what’s in the Constitution, and probably a lot of folks don’t even know we have a constitution,” Gupta said. He added that he is committed to “working to build communication lines through the legislative branches.”
Gupta also explained his position on the limits of the powers of punishment held by the Constitutional Council.
“The Constitution is a bit silent on the Constitutional Council’s power specifically to compel the remedy,” Gupta said. “But in general, I think the power of the Constitutional Council should be limited and circumscribed by the so called political branches to an extent that’s probably greater than the traditional separation of powers system.”
This article has been updated to clarify that the bill on the Faculty Senate is being co-authored by an undergraduate senator and GSC councilor. The Daily regrets this error.