Two autumns ago, I joined The Daily because I wanted to make my Stanford experience into something with purpose. It will forever be my honor to have covered issues like Title IX advocacy, religious life, the Shopping Express, affirmative action, leadership transitions and university governance.
The journey, certainly a challenging one, taught me that journalism for the greater good is journalism at its best. It gives a voice to the voiceless. It is the best safeguard against closed-door decisionmaking. When journalism thrives, our democratic society thrives with it.
This matters more than ever at Stanford. Our community is confronting citizenship, democracy and diversity in unprecedented ways — during a presidential election year, no less. As Stanford plays a vital role in cultivating the leaders of tomorrow, we have the duty to ask ourselves the following question: How can we remain a democratic society if we let authorities remain unchallenged?
Our university’s democracy was put to the test last month. Stanford administrators have voiced their full support for criminal and disciplinary proceedings against a Daily reporter that diligently covered the Building 10 occupation. His presence was vital to provide an independent account of the actions of rioters and law enforcement, but Stanford’s top decision makers acted punitively against him even though he identified himself and complied with law enforcement directives.
The University is endangering the future of independent student journalism on campus. I am scared for my fellow Daily writers who are to pursue coverage of campus politics. I also fear that students who might have otherwise gladly joined the paper now would not.
In a May Faculty Senate meeting, President Saller claimed he only holds authority to suspend or expel students who directly threaten public safety. But the University supports criminal proceedings against a Daily reporter who does not present an “immediate threat to the health and safety of campus,” as the University itself acknowledged. In addition, using an office as untransparent as the Office of Community Standards (OCS) against the reporter for doing his First Amendment duty is nothing short of ironic. A reporter’s duty is to shed light on institutional processes, but the University is now using those processes to punish him.
The University is scaring students away from The Daily. This deprives the Stanford community of the robust journalism they need on issues like low pay and discrimination in our financial aid and admissions offices, the horrific conditions of UG2’s subcontracted workers and the University’s appalling inaction on campus Islamophobia and antisemitism.
A university that truly stands by its policy record would never shy away from transparency and independent scrutiny.
As a student, I find that Stanford’s punitive measures against the Daily reporter are fundamentally at odds with the very democratic values it preaches to us.
Stanford claims a commitment to helping us develop the skills necessary to engage with one another in a democratic society through the Civic, Liberal and General Education (COLLEGE) courses that all freshmen are required to take.
The designation of Democracy Day as an academic holiday tells us that the University values student engagement in the political process.
The Faculty Senate formed the free speech committee (which lacks student representation) to send us the message that professors are making serious attempts at clarifying the policies meant to foster “free inquiry and the open exchange of ideas on campus.”
Stanford reminds us that our civic engagement is of the utmost importance, but at the same time deprives us of the journalism that makes us a properly informed campus citizenry.
Stanford should be a place where the winds of freedom blow, and that occurs only if it stops putting the community’s premier, student-run publication on the chopping block. Our very democratic way of life calls for asking difficult questions and having even more difficult conversations. Rigorous inquiry and debate, evidently, cannot proceed if the citizenry is kept in the dark about how their lives are governed.
Stanford must live up to its democratic promises. The University must acknowledge that, as 26 free press organizations have stressed, the reporter was “acting in good faith to serve the public’s interest in timely coverage of newsworthy events.” Criminal charges would set a disastrous precedent for campus discourse. Now would be the time for the University to support amnesty for the Daily reporter. The University needs to earn back its democratic standing.