The Graduate Student Council (GSC) voted to reopen a joint bill to create a committee for ethical spending and return it to the Undergraduate Senate (UGS) to consider the membership and voting power of the committee at Monday’s meeting. 

The proposed committee would examine the ethical and social implications of Stanford-affiliated groups’ investments and purchases, providing advisory recommendations to the GSC, UGS and Stanford Student Enterprises (SSE).

The bill, authored by UGS senator Lizbeth Hernandez Rios ’25, aims to address concerns about university groups purchasing from and investing in unethical sources, including those tied to apartheid, genocide and human trafficking. The proposed committee would be include the ASSU president, representatives from the UGS and the GSC as well as professionals from SSE. 

GSC members raised concerns about representation in the committee. Chris West MBA ’25, the Benefits and Affordability councilor, questioned the decision to limit committee membership to GSC and UGS representatives. He argued that opening the committee to the larger student body would draw in more diverse opinions. 

“If we can instead draw in many people from the larger student body, we can have a true body of our peers who also have more time and ability to spend on dealing with committee issues,” West said. 

ASSU President Diego Kagurabadza ’25 said there will be many opportunities for the public to voice their concerns by submitting investment review requests. Kagurabadza said including more members from the larger student body would “make the committee inoperative.” 

The inclusion of outside professionals as committee members drew in more debate. Sephora Ruppert, a third-year physics Ph.D. student and representative of the Nominations Committee, doubted the committee’s capacity for outside professionals. Hernandez Rios reassured the GSC that the SSE professionals had already been consulted.

Zev Granowitz, a fourth-year Ph.D. student in mechanical engineering and GSC Treasurer, voiced his doubts on granting outside professionals voting power on matters pertaining to the student body as well as potential conflicts of interest.

“They were not elected to represent the undergraduate or graduate students, so giving them voting power makes me uncomfortable,” Granowitz said. “They should have more of an advisory power than a voting power.”