SB 1475’s primary purpose is to increase the base fines for violating the law from $20 to $50 for a first offense, and from $50 to $100 for a second offense. According to a Feb. 22 Sacramento Bee article, with the addition of fees and penalties, most violators would actually pay $255 for a first offense and $455 for a second offense, depending on the county.  The bill would also add a point to violators’ driving records, so the law still has a deterrent effect on people with a greater ability to pay the fine.

The bill’s author, State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, has already written three other laws on distracted driving: the 2006 ban on talking on cell phones while driving without a hands-free device; the 2007 ban on all minors talking on cell phones while driving with or without a hands-free device; and the 2008 ban on sending, reading, or writing text messages while driving. Simitian, a former mayor of Palo Alto, represents parts of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz Counties, including Stanford University.

A recreational cyclist himself, Simitian argued, “Cyclists are entitled to the same privileges of the road, but then the same rules need to apply. [SB 1475] is just designed to make sure the law includes bicyclists.” Simitian further pointed out that the California Bicycle Coalition was a major proponent of the original law banning cell phone use in cars, to reduce accidents between bicyclists and cars.

Asked if SB 1475 brings policy to where it should be after three existing laws, Simitian said, “I think so. I actually hear from a lot of folks who take a much tougher line… some said there ought to be jail time, the fine ought to be $1,000, they should take away their phone. I was just amazed at the vehemence.”

With so many bicyclists, not all Stanford students welcome the new legislation.  Erik Donhowe ’10 sought to raise awareness of how the bill could impact Stanford students from outside the Stanford bubble.  He sent an article on SB 1475’s introduction out on several e-mail lists, encouraging students to contact Simitian’s office with their opinions.

“Considering that the majority of bicycle traffic in Palo Alto is arguably on Stanford property, I find it appalling that an elected official would try to fine college students for such a trivial issue,” Donhowe later said. “I figured that Stanford students would be especially – and adversely – affected by the ban, so I spread the word.”

In particular, Donhowe took issue with fining bicyclists the same amount as drivers.  “I personally don’t think it makes sense to treat bikers and drivers the same, especially at Stanford where most of the traffic is bicycle traffic,” Donhowe added. “I haven’t heard any major news stories about the rise of texting while biking, so I have no idea what motivated the introduction of this particular piece of legislation.”

While not yet in SB 1475, Simitian recognized the potential for a differentiated fine for cyclists and drivers. “I’m willing to look at the fines,” Simitian said. “It’s an issue that’s come up since the bill has been introduced. This is exactly why you have the hearings… Some folks have said [the fine for bicyclists] is too high.  Others have said it’s appropriate.”

Fines aside, students have raised further concerns about the role of the government in considering such a bill.

“This is a classic example of government overstepping its authority just to appear to improve public safety, when in reality, I can’t imagine this ban having much of an impact at all,” Donhowe said. “If texting and calling while biking is rampant on campus, I have been completely oblivious to it during my four years here.”

Rahael Gupta ’12, however, does regularly talk on her phone while biking to and from class, an example of a busy Stanford student who has little free time to make phone calls. If SB 1475 became law, Gupta said, “It would be really hard for me to accept, because it’s one of the only times I have to talk to family and friends.”

“It just seems like a useless investment of government time,” Gupta added. Indeed, during the same week Simitian announced the introduction of SB 1475, Senate Democratic and Republican leaders tussled over different jobs packages designed to address California’s 12.4% unemployment rate, fifth highest in the country.

Simitian countered that since the initial ban on talking on cell phones in the car, “there have been 700 fewer fatalities every year and 75,000 to 100,000 fewer crashes. Cell phones were the number one cause of distracted driver accidents, according to [California Highway Patrol].  There’s nothing that’s a higher priority than public safety.  I think everyday a couple people will sit down for dinner with their families who wouldn’t have made it through the day.”

SB 1475 currently sits in the Senate Rules Committee, awaiting assignment to committee.

For those students with alternative health care plans, a revamped Cardinal Care will not have an impact unless it proves a viable competitor to those current plans.  There are, however, many current and new Cardinal Care users who will feel an impact.

In an open letter to the Stanford Community, Dr. Ira Friedman, Director of Vaden Health Center, outlined the changes to the health plan. Included in the changes, international students will be required to purchase Cardinal Care, whereas they previously had the option to purchase insurance from an alternative provider – an option American students will retain.  Additionally, transgender surgical treatments will be covered under the plan.

Regarding the mandate for international students to purchase Cardinal Care, Dr. Friedman’s letter reads, “Most international students are already covered by Cardinal Care. Those who are not often find themselves facing the unfortunate consequences of inadequate coverage when they need off-campus health care. This is particularly true for mental health treatment. Cardinal Care will now provide a safety net for those students.”

But much of the international student community is actively protesting the mandate.  Immediately after Vaden published Dr. Friedman’s letter, a petition against the provision circulated the campus.  The petition currently has over 500 signatures, most of whom are graduate students. It reads, “A significant number of international students have insurance plans available to them in their home countries that provide comparable or better coverage than Cardinal Care at significantly lower rates.”

Under the new Cardinal Care plan, the 12-month annual cost will fall by $128 to $3,072.  The petition sites the potential for $2,000 in annual savings through some European health plans over Cardinal Care.

One issue concerning young adults and their health care preferences is particularly reminiscent of the larger national debate.  The petition states, “As responsible adults who have made informed choices in selecting our alternate insurance coverage, it is our strong belief that being forced to enroll in Cardinal Care instead is patronizing at best.”  On the national level and now at Stanford, individuals continue to question what level of choice they will have in selecting their health coverage.

But for the signers of the petition, the provision is simply too inconsistent.  The petitioners write, “[I]f universal coverage is really the goal, it is unclear to us why international students are being singled out with this policy, while domestic students remain free to choose whatever coverage they deem adequate.”

When asked why the provision targets only international students and not all students, all of whom could potentially be under-insured, Dr. Friedman wrote in an email, “In our experience, this problem of under-insurance occurs much more often among international students, and that has long been a source of particular concern for us.”

And in his open letter, Dr. Friedman cited another area of concern for Vaden officials – transgender surgical treatments under the plan.  He used one sentence at the end of the letter to announce that Vaden is “pleased to be able to include [transgender surgical treatment] coverage in 2010-11.”

The Cardinal Care 2010 FAQ is nearly as brief in its explanation as to why Cardinal Care will include transgender surgical treatment coverage.  It states, “Students have made a compelling argument to include a benefit for transgender surgical procedures.”

When asked what that argument was, Dr. Friedman replied, “The argument for ending the exclusion is that, in the context of other treatment, surgery can be effective and appropriate treatment for a transgender person.”  Transgender non-surgical treatments have been covered under Cardinal Care for some time.

It is doubtful that the number of students undergoing surgery will be high.  Regarding the actuarial projections used, Dr. Friedman said, “I don’t have a single number. Our actuaries did projections in terms of probabilities. Most likely the number of claims will be very small.”

South Africa is also the current center of attention for a select group of Stanford students who are pioneering the new Bing Overseas Studies Program in Cape Town. This Winter Quarter marks the first time such a program has been offered to students, and the feedback thus far has been overwhelmingly positive.

“[The Cape Town program] is especially good for those interested in Africa, but students who…want to have a very different experience than a European study abroad trip would also benefit,” comments Eva Orbuch ’11, a current participant.

The Cape Town Program aims to educate students on the political, historical, and cultural scene that is post-apartheid South Africa. This learning is facilitated through a diverse curriculum as well as group studies with students from the University of Cape Town and the University of the Western Cape. Participants also travel to relevant historical and cultural sites, ranging from urban KwaZulu-Natal to national parks across the country.

Orbuch especially appreciates the fact that all the participants are “living in a house together, in an average suburban neighborhood of Cape Town…[a feature] which gives [them] a good amount of independence.” For Orbuch and the rest of the group, the independence made available by this centrally-located house enhances the program by affording students an opportunity to forge their own unique Cape Town experiences.

“Every student is engaged in a service internship in a variety of NGO’s (non-governmental organizations),” Orbuch explains, allowing students to get a more holistic view of life in South Africa than that which books and lectures can provide. She adds that the internship program is “an important part of [the] experience, rather than just doing academics.”

Being in Cape Town in the midst of the preparations for the aforementioned 2010 FIFA World Cup has also undoubtedly made the experience that much more special for Stanford’s current group of participants. In May 2004, the FIFA Committee selected South Africa over fellow finalists Morocco and Egypt; preparations for the games have been ongoing ever since. Nevertheless, while being named host nation garnered almost unanimously positive reactions, the actual preparations for said games have elicited a more mixed response.

For instance, in July 2009, the construction workers in charge of building the required stadiums went on strike in hopes of obtaining higher wages. Subsequent rumors emerged about potentially moving the World Cup to a different location, but the worker strike eventually subsided and the stadiums are currently on schedule to be ready for the games.
Others wonder to what level the interests of native and poorer South Africans are being considered. Orbuch notes, “The [South African] government is making some interesting efforts to quickly construct formal housing in place of the informal shack settlements…[likely] because the road directly leading to the airport is surrounded by shacks, and the government wants to make it look better for the World Cup.” Likewise, forcing local merchants who typically congregate outside of stadium venues to relocate is another all too frequent occurrence.

The ability of locals to attend the games themselves is another issue. De Decker explained that a “lottery system” is being used where “there is a specific number of tickets set aside for locals and a specific number of tickets set aside for internationals, and locals had to enter the lottery to have a chance at these tickets.”

However, this lottery process is not without its biases. For locals, winning this “lottery” simply allows them the chance to purchase a ticket. Orbuch characterizes the involvement of FIFA in South Africa as “a monopoly,” in which too often the “ticket prices [are] way too expensive for most locals to attend the games.” And if De Decker’s increased plane ticket prices are any indication, seeking to make a profit may—for better or worse—override the desires of South African soccer fans.

Nevertheless, the games will provide certain benefits for Cape Town and South Africa as a whole: the widespread improvement in infrastructure and expected boost in tourism will yield dividends for the country for years to come. More importantly, the 2010 World Cup will offer the rest of the world a small glimpse of the South Africa that Stanford students are currently experiencing. Orbuch concludes that “Cape Town is much more developed and modern than many people in the world realize, so having the games [there] could shed a new light on South Africa’s ongoing economic progress.”

De Decker believes the games will speak for themselves: “It all depends on how the World Cup goes. If we pull it off flawlessly, [South Africa] is just going to be that much of a better place in the world’s eyes, which is what it deserves.”

The opening round of the World Cup is scheduled for June 11.

Kelly Marren ’12, Matt Gentry ’05, Elaine Breeden ’10, and Julia Smit ’10 share their experiences as both stellar students and Olympic athletes. Whether they rely on their families, teammates, or pure success to keep themselves motivated, Stanford student Olympians have come to adopt the reality that they simply aren’t living the life of an average college student.

Kelly Marren admits that her parents kept her from snowboarding until the age of nine because they were concerned with popular perception of the sport. However, she stated, “Their attitude that snowboarders were just dirtbags made me want to snowboard even more.”

At that point she put together a PowerPoint presentation convincing them she was mature enough to make her own decisions and has been hooked to the sport ever since; her parents have become some of her strongest supporters.

She’s placed first in the USASA Nationals in pipe in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, Marren also became a Pac Sun USASA Snowboard Team Member and continues training with the team, currently cheering on her teammates competing in the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. At only eighteen years of age, Marren barely missed passing the fifth and final qualifying round to compete, but she remains optimistic about making it to the next Winter Olympic Games.

Marren stated she puts “110% into everything,” including schoolwork, and didn’t doubt for a moment whether or not she’d make it into college. She plans on graduating from Stanford in six years, taking leaves of absence each summer and winter quarter to train with her teammates in New Zealand.

She admits, “I’ve missed out on a lot in high school, but it was a trade-off I was willing to make. Snowboarding is a major part of my life, and I’m just not willing to give it up.”

One of few on the US Olympic team to pursue higher education, Marren added: “Many of my teammates thought I was crazy for going to college, but I love academics.” Marren has always been interested in alternative energy and plans to become a resource engineer.

Matt Gentry graduated from Stanford University in 2005 and currently serves as Assistant Coach to the Men’s Wrestling Program at Stanford University. He competed in the Beijing Olympic Games and stated the most challenging part of being a student athlete was “keeping my motivation up while I was exhausted, especially in the heart of the season, when I was missing class and having to take tests on the road.”

What kept Gentry going? One word: “Success.” Gentry feels fortunate that he had great coaches and teammates with whom he competed on the Canadian Olympic wrestling team.

Although most of his friends were applying for jobs at the end of college senior year, he doesn’t regret turning down the pharmaceutical company that offered him a job in 2005. “A lot of things you can do at any age. Competing in the Olympics isn’t something like a job that people can decide to do at age sixty.” Gentry seized the opportunity to compete while he had it. However, he remains unsure of whether he’ll be competing in another Olympic competition.

Elaine Breeden ’10 joined her Stanford swim teammate Julia Smit ’10 for the 2008 Summer Olympics. Breeden won a silver medal in the 400-meter medley relay race; Smit was part of the silver medal winning team and also won a bronze medal in the 800-meter medley relay.

Breeden agreed with Gentry that the toughest part of being an Olympic student athlete is staying motivated. She had to adjust “to not having the same freedoms that other college students have.”

But the opportunity to join Michael Phelps in representing the United States National team is certainly one that most students don’t have. Smit shared, “I had dreamed about going [to the Olympics] since I was little. I couldn’t believe I was actually participating. The energy in the pool was amazing.”

Similarly, Breeden described the experience of competing in Beijing as very different from what she expected. She stated that when she arrived at the Olympics, “It was business time. I was there to compete. I don’t get too nervous – just an adrenaline rush.”

Smit believes that Breeden played a major part in keeping her spirits up, “Elaine and I are so different, but we have gone through so much together. Elaine helped me believe that I could make the Olympics.” With nearly twenty hours of practice a week, Breeden believes that her teammates and the ability “to drop even a hundredth of a second” keeps her going.

Although most of Breeden’s friends will be working for investment banking firms and entering the business sector after graduating, Breeden believes she will be “enjoying [her] job a lot more than [her] friends will.” In other words, she doesn’t have any regrets about sticking with the sport and putting an alternate career on pause.

Both Breeden and Smit plan to compete in the 2012 Summer Olympics. They’ll be training with the Stanford team and will likely graduate after winter quarter of 2010. Although their lives may be somewhat different from that of an average senior in college, Breeden and Smit expressed a desire to continue studying, practicing, racing, and winning. Perhaps they’ll get a change catch their breath!

Many elite institutions create spending limits to prevent out of control expenses during campaigns.  The University of Pennsylvania adheres to a $50 spending limit while universities like the University of California-Berkeley offer a more lenient budget of $1,000. Undergraduate senators agree that Stanford needs a new method for creating equal opportunity in executive elections, yet difficulties arise when struggling to create a concrete plan to solve this issue.

Inspired by spending limits at other institutions, Andy Parker, ASSU Vice President, authored a bill that would place a $2,000 spending cap on executive elections.  In an email, Parker expressed that the cost of an election hinders interested students from participating in campus politics.  “The position of ASSU Executive should be open to anyone who is qualified, regardless of financial status,” stated Parker.

Parker’s proposed bill involves placing a limit on “campaign spending” and the ASSU’s Financial Manager, along with campaign monitors, will supervise election spending and oversee the enforcement process.

This proposition has left many questioning the plan’s constitutionality, as well as wondering how logistical and efficient the bill will be in practice.  In Article 1, Section 3.2, the ASSU Constitution explicitly states, “The Association shall enact no legislation respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”

ASSU Senator Shelley Gao ’11 said, “As a legislator, I am very concerned about the possibility of passing a bill that could be unconstitutional.” Parker stated he saw no conflict with the ASSU Constitution, but that a challenge to the Constitutional Council will be submitted if the bill is passed.

In 1999, the Constitutional Council rejected campaign-spending limits in a run-off election because of the ASSU Constitution’s protection of free speech.  Unfortunately, this case does not provide clear guide to the constitutionality of general campaign spending limits.

According to Elections Commissioner Quinn Slack ’11, “[the] constitutional doctrine is unclear…There is not a whole lot of case law behind it.  Because the doctrine is so unclear, we cannot say the constitution prohibits or allows this.”

In addition to the debate over its constitutionality, many worry that Parker’s bill holds logistical and enforcement issues.  Gao worries, “You can never define what [campaign spending] is.”   This bill, if passed, will not be enacted until next year and the current bill continues to evolve in order to correct senators’ concerns.

As a temporary solution, Parker also proposed an increase in public financing, which has the support of the majority of the ASSU Senate.  Public financing would allow candidates to receive up to $1,000 in funding.  The ASSU previously budgeted $4,500 for public funding and this bill simply increases the amount a slate can ask for, not the total amount budgeted to public funding.

Additionally, this money comes directly from the ASSU Executive’s budget, meaning that student funds are unaffected.  Slack believes, “[Public financing] is an existing structure that works,” but he implied that this solution was merely short term.  By lessening out of pocket expenses, Gao argues, “Public financing is just a better option of giving people more opportunities to enter the race.”

Although Gao and Slack point out flaws in Parker’s bill, they acknowledge that campaign spending at Stanford is “crazy” and “absurd.”  Both Gao and Slack believe that the Stanford political scene is in desperate need of a cultural shift and view this shift as better means of achieving equal opportunity in elections.

According to Gao, “Voters need to express their own opinions and to do that we need publications on campus to do a more watchdog style [of reporting].”  Gao hopes that student media will highlight exorbitant spending in executive elections, allowing students to become aware of candidates’ fiscal responsibility.

Slack agrees that a cultural shift is necessary but hopes that the ASSU can “do a better job of telling [the voters] why the ASSU matters.”  The ASSU is anxious to hear student opinions because “students do care about [elections] if they are asked.”  Slack hopes that communication between the ASSU and the student body can be improved.  Slack also encourages prospective candidates to use innovative ideas to limit spending, like “not buy t-shirts and be the ‘shirtless’ campaign.”

Despite a huge disparity in potential solutions, the ASSU clearly recognizes that campaign spending is an issue in need of reform.  “[The ASSU’s] reputation is one filled with scandals,” says Gao.  The ASSU is in need for reform towards more fiscal responsibility, yet it cannot come to a consensus if that reform should stem from.  While some senators hope to enact legislation that limits campaign spending in executive elections, others hope that voters will voice their opinion this coming spring in the executive election.

According to ASSU policies, all groups receiving Special Fee funding must offer their services free to all undergraduate students, unless explicitly given an exception by the Senate Appropriation Committee. The Green Store and the Airport Shuttle Bus programs, however, both offer their services to students at a price.

The Green Store acts as a business, selling cups, eco-friendly laundry detergent, and power strips to the student body.  The Green Store began selling its eco-friendly products in 2008. Since then it has grown in both the number of costumers and number of products sold. Customers can order products online and the Green Store will deliver the products to the customer’s door.

While much of the Green Store’s expenses are covered by revenues from selling these products, the store still requests funding for its operations, largely because it subsidizes its cup sales to incentivize students to use the cups.  Several senators, however, have voiced concern over the business model of the store.

In the past two years, the store’s subsidy has been appropriated by the ASSU Senate from the General Fee Reserve Fund.  Last year, the Green Store’s expenses were significantly less than its revenue, meaning that it only used $1,354.65 of the $5,000 subsidy it received from the General Fee Reserve. At the end of the year, the extra funds were returned to the Reserve to be dispersed by the Senate.

After learning about the store’s business practices, Undergraduate Senator and Review Executive Editor Alex Katz stated, “It doesn’t make a lot of sense to charge people twice.” He also raised concerns over the Green Store buying their products before they had costumers for them.

“I don’t fully understand the business practice,” stated Katz.  “It sounds like a smaller subsidy would be sufficient for the Green Store to continue to operate.” This would require that the Green Store use revenue from sales to purchase their products, rather than investing in products at the beginning of the year with student fee money.

Green Store Director Susie Choi explained the store’s practice by saying, “We have to spend money on new products as well as materials and equipment.”  The store “needs to invest in product stock before it can begin selling,” she said.

The store’s request for $7,665 for next year comes as an increase to the $6,365.98 the store received for this year. Choi explained that the increase this year comes from the need to have enough money set aside to subsidize bulk cup orders, which have been increasing.

Choi stated that “becoming economically sustainable is not the goal of Green Store.” The goal is to “encourage sustainable living on campus by providing eco-friendly products at the lowest prices we can and by making these green alternatives accessible to students.”

Senator Anton Zietsman, chair of the Appropriations Committee, was skeptical of the store’s business plan as well. He stated, “The Green Store provides a valuable service, but I definitely don’t think the way its run now is sustainable in the long term.”

Next year, if SSD receives their requested Special Fees, any extra funds will not go back into the General Fee Reserve at the end of the year; they will be put into an SSD-specific Special Fee reserve fund.

ASSU President David Gobaud believed that any left over funds put into a SSD reserve fund would be reused by the Green Store in subsequent years. He stated, “My guess would be that in future years instead of requesting the money from the student body you would pull it from the reserves.”

It will be possible, however, for left over funds to be used in an SSD division other than the Green Store in future years.  Zietsman explained that if the Senate approves a budget modification proposal by the SSD Financial Officer, then excess funds that were initially voted by students to fund the Green Store in 2010 could be appropriated to another SSD venture like the Airport Shuttle Bus program or the Wellness Room.

Choi certainly believes that the Green Store is important to Stanford. She cited the 40,000 cups sold last year as evidence, saying, “it has established a presence on campus.”

Ultimately, the student body will determine what is more important to them, promoting environmentally sustainable lifestyles or requiring sustainable business practices. Zietsman reminded readers, “It’s up to the students, it’s going to be students’ money if it goes on Special Fees.”

“As a university, we are in line with the spirit of what [Santa Clara County] is trying to do,” said Ralph Castro, director of the University’s Substance Abuse Prevention Project. “Our own policies already act as a sort of social host liability law and they’ve been in place since the mid-1990s.”

An Educational Approach

Stanford’s alcohol-related policies are not explicitly “zero tolerance,” as might be expected of a university with a mostly under-age student population. “At Stanford, we take a educational approach to dealing with alcohol, and we assume that all students will make smart decisions.”

The educational approach Castro refers to consists of a three-hour, online Alcohol Edu course completed by all incoming freshmen prior to their campus arrival. Additionally, the University has taken new, stricter measures to help reduce alcohol abuse on campus such as increasing campus security on nights when parties are scheduled, requiring all student groups and fraternities to register and seek approval by administration before hosting any social gathering, with or without alcohol, and requiring that any individual attending an on-campus party must present valid student ID.

The Open Door

Despite these measures, the University respectfully does not employ tactics such as random room searches or the breathalyzing of students, which other campuses do. Many believe Stanford to have an “open-door” policy, as goes the speech most Residential Advisors (RAs) give freshmen upon arrival to campus.

“This is a colloquial term that students use to describe our educational approach given that RAs and other staff talk frankly with students about substance abuse,” said Castro. He further emphasized that this frankness in no way translates as promoting or allowing under-aged drinking. Instead, “We promote safety and good decision making practices.”

ASSU Senator Adam Creasman agrees with the University’s approach stating, “I believe that Stanford students are responsible adults, fully capable of moderating their own drinking with the right support.”

While trusting students to this extent may seem risky, Creasman believes there is more to be gained from this approach rather than implementing a police state. “The open-door policy discourages certain unhealthy and dangerous drinking patterns, like intense pre-gaming behind locked doors, while allowing students to seek the help of RAs in those rare instances that a policy change would result in more instances of alcohol poisoning does occur.”

Why We’re Exempt

While Stanford is under the oversight of both state and municipal governance, in regards to alcohol regulation the university follows its own policy, which in no way violates or circumvents Santa Clara County’s ordinance. Rather, the ordinance has inspired Stanford to crack down harder on offenders; certain houses or fraternities have been put on probation for alcohol-related offenses, and an increasing police force has insured that citations will issued appropriately.

Castro explained, “We told the county, ‘we support what you’re doing and we’ve been doing it too, and we’ve had policies in place that directly do this.’”

Having evaluated Stanford’s situation and the way the university deals with and punishes reckless drinking habits, Santa Clara County exempted Stanford from the ordinance in 2008 for a full year’s trial period. This year, county officials reexamined Stanford’s policy and programs, deeming it worthy of permanent exemption from the ordinance on the basis that it already addresses the issue in a constructive manner, in no way promoting under-aged substance abuse.

Stanford, however, is not entirely free from all county oversight. “We will be working with Santa Clara’s Department of Alcohol and Drug Services, presenting reports to prove to them that what we’re doing is effective and reason enough to continue our exemption,” added Castro.

That said, Creasman believes that Stanford’s implicit, open-door policy has always been perfectly legal from the start. “RAs are not police officers—they’re just like you or me, and they do not have a legal responsibility to report violations of the law.” He further argues that while deputies of the Stanford Department of Public Safety are required to enforce the law, “…[they] are not allowed to enter student residences to investigate possible violations of the law without probable cause (under the 5^th amendment).”

The University holds to the assumption that their methods are more valuable than excessive punishment or strict supervision. “We want students to be safe and to look out for each other,” said Castro. He further explained, “The type of work that I do is to get students to make good decisions, not to promote under-aged drinking—and it’s a fine line when you do this sort of education.”

How did this unique event get started? Taylor Ray ’10 said, “I took the spearheading position in reaching out to student groups and getting sponsorships and various elements that came together, which ultimately shaped up to be this one night event. We had support and funding from the Stanford Concert Network, and a few other organizations came in to donate money to Support for International Change. It was the perfect alliance of student groups so that we could have this event that was free and open to anyone who wanted to come, but also raise money for charity and awareness in a very exciting, dynamic way.”

Ray has been the Community Service Chair in Sigma Nu for the past year. Immediately after his election to that position, he brought together the rest of team and began to brainstorm. He said, “We batted around a bunch of ideas, and one of them was that we would like to throw a charity concert. I knew that SIC would be a perfect beneficiary. The amount of money we could raise would make a huge impact but SIC also has a presence on campus and gives students the opportunity to actually get involved in the cause rather than just donating their money.”

Originally, Ray wanted to use the resources that Sigma Nu already had, from connections with sororities and other student organizations on campus. The concert initially intended to charge for tickets and then donate the proceeds to Support for International Change.

However, the Stanford Concert Network became involved in the planning of the event and changed the whole dynamic. The Stanford Concert Network receives special fees funding, so the student body has already paid to support the event. As a result, as Ray put it, “They only really like to throw free and open concerts.” With the funding from SCN, the concert could be both free and raise money for charity. As a bonus, more people would attend the event if it were free.

Ray and Lucas Moller ’10 from the Stanford Concert Network thought that this would give them more flexibility and make the concert more successful. As Ray said, “They brought the idea to the table that this should be a free concert and that Sigma Nu and Kappa Kappa Gamma would be in charge of soliciting donations.”

In the next stage of the planning process, the organizers had to find exciting performers. Over 25 different acts were considered for Snowchella. Sigma Nu looked through hyphy, East Bay rappers, electronica and indie groups, but eventually boiled the list down to Chiddy Bang, a Philadelphia-based hip-hop duo, and Designer Drugs, DJs from New York.

Ray explained, “We needed to get someone who was exciting, relevant to the college community and draw a crowd. I contacted potential artists to play and negotiating prices and Lucas Moller from Stanford Concert Network provided a lot of input. He was incredibly instrumental in getting Snowchella off the ground. The concert opened with Young the Giant, a group founded by Sameer Gadhia, a Stanford student currently on a leave of absence pursuing his music career.”

The event was also a success because of the helpfulness and supportiveness of Greek Advising and SAL to make Stanford’s campus fun. While ‘red tape’ has stifled many events on campus, these organizations, according to the Snowchella organizers, were very helpful in helping to get this charity effort off the ground.

Despite all this, security for Snowchella proved to be a stumbling block. Three weeks before the event, Ray met with Amanda Rodriguez of Greek Advising, the Fire Marshal’s office and the Department of Public Safety and conducted a walk through. They went through all of the details much in advance to better coordinate the event.

Stanford requires the use of police for security during major events. Stanford police are trained professionals but are expensive for student groups to hire, which can make events like Snowchella financially impossible. However, Sigma Nu’s great working relationship with the less expensive private security provider Delta Special Services allowed the fraternity to save money by not having to hire Stanford Police.

Taylor realized that alcohol and Snowchella being portrayed as just a regular concert could be problematic. “A lot of why this particular concert worked so well was because it had a charity aspect to it,” he said. “From the beginning, we knew we weren’t dealing with alcohol, so that was a really big thing in establishing credibility with the university. The relationships that I had established with our advisors in row housing and SAL knew that our number one objective was to raise awareness and money for this cause. The charity angle helped, and I think there is a lot of room for overlap between fun social campus events that raise money and awareness for causes and I think the university is more willing to work with student groups that have these kinds of ends in mind.”

Snowchella was a financial success, raising between $4,000 and $5,000, which, according to SIC, can be used to offer about five more years of life to a suffering AIDS patient. However, SIC also accomplished its larger and more important goal: creating awareness in the Stanford community. Ray’s main goal in planning the event was for Stanford students to understand that this was a concert for charity and that it was designed to encourage service in the Stanford community.

The Special Fees process enables student groups to levy the student body, and have been the subject of much controversy over the past three months. Recent reforms aimed at repairing this flawed system deserve support, but our student representatives should be encouraged to continue to innovate and ensure that the system remains sustainable.

The Process

A brief explanation of this rather convoluted process is in order: late in Winter Quarter, students groups who wish to appear on the Special Fees ballot in the spring create applications and submit them to their respective legislative body (graduate or undergraduate). The legislative body decides whether or not to approve this budget; depending on their decision and whether the group had been voted “Yes”  the previous year, it may need to petition the 10-15% of their respective population.

If a group meets the criteria for appearing on the ballot, the student body votes on the proposed fee in the spring. If the fee receives >50% support by at least 15% of the student population, then the fee is levied upon the entire student body each quarter the following year.

For full disclosure, there is an alternative funding process known as the General Fee (also levied upon every student), which can be applied to throughout the year; a group cannot subscribe to both sources of funding, and the General Fee limits a group to $7,000 per year.

The Problems

The first problem is that Special Fees (particularly for undergraduates) have skyrocketed over the past 5 years, over X%. There are multiple reasons for this: first, student groups previously have been able to increase their budget up to 10% + inflation over the previous year’s amount, without re-petitioning the student body for ballot placement.

The vast increase in Special Fees has partly contributed to an increased refund rate, which came to a head this Winter Quarter, with 1132 refunds requested (an increase from 408 the previous winter). This has been problematic, because historically the ASSU has provided the full budgeted amount to student groups, regardless of the refund rate (a buffer fund helps it accomplish this, but winter quarter made a large dent in this fund), resulting in quite a dilemma.

Lastly, as an observational note: nearly every undergraduate Special Fee is passed, year after year.  While not troubling by itself, it raises the possibility that students are blindly voting “Yes” on every fee, without devoting adequate attention to the proposed budget amount. Furthermore, this trend has caused some groups who provide services to both undergraduates and graduates to petition undergraduate Special Fees, because undergrads are more likely to pass the levy. This trend effectively increases undergraduate special fees, and works against reforms to bring the fees down to a more reasonable, sustainable level.

The Solutions

The system has been modified significantly to deal with the increase in refund rates and astronomical growth of Special Fees. Namely, budgets are only allowed to expand by inflation, year over year. Any further increase requires re-petitioning. This ends the era of “easy money” where student budgets were inflating nearly 10% per year, a welcome development.

Furthermore, a rediscovered clause in the ASSU constitution now is in effect; if the refund rate on a particular student group exceeds 10%, instead of covering the discrepancy, the ASSU will now deduct the amount from a student group’s quarterly Special Fees payout.  This will ensure the financial stability of the ASSU, and also will effectively punish student groups whose agendas are controversial or unpopular enough to exceed 10% refunds.

Lastly, the ASSU is working with the University to ensure that refund checks are returned to the party that pays tuition, as opposed to the students themselves; this will decrease incentives for students to make socially irresponsible decisions for a quick $130, as it is likely the refund would be cut to their parents.

Next Steps

Ultimately, Special Fees should be a mechanism to empower students to make informed decisions about the endeavors they support. While we applaud the reforms undertaken this year, we think the efficacy of system should be closely followed through these spring elections and next year.

If it seems that the system is consistently failing to meet this stated objective (ever increasing refunds, skyrocketing special fees, despite nearly universal “Yes” passage on the poor turnout ballot), then alternatives to Special Fees should be explored.

For now, we look forward to the spring elections and refund numbers; the new reforms should rectify many of the problems facing Special Fees and will hopefully result in a system more closely representing the will of the student body.

— Editorial Board

Unsigned editorials represent the views of The Stanford Review’s Editorial Board and do not necessarily reflect opinions of The Stanford Review or its staff. The Editorial Board consists of the Opinion Editor, the Executive Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. Executive Editor Alex Katz did not participate in the writing of this editorial due to his role as an Undergraduate Senator. To submit a letter to the editor or guest op-ed, please e-mail our Opinion Editor, Matt Sprague, at mattfs@stanford.edu.

U.N. Ambassador Robert Aisi provided opening remarks on Friday, March 26 and will also participate in the Civil Society and the Rule of Law panel on Saturday, March 27. Referring to the progress that PNG has made since its independence from Australia in 1975, Aisi stated, “We have to accept that development doesn’t happen in thirty years, or even fifty years. If you look at basic aspects of development in terms of factors such as health, education, and human rights, these things don’t just happen overnight. I think PNG’s challenge is to focus on evolution as a process.”

The conference will feature a total of four panel events in developmental education, environment, health, and civil society. Stanford volunteer student organizations, such as Future Social Innovators Network, Initiative Against Malaria, and Society for International Affairs at Stanford, will be attending the event. Workshops and informal networking sessions will also be held for Stanford students, faculty, and the Bay Area community to engage with PNG students and faculty. Hon. James Marape, PNG Minister of Education, and Ambassador Evan Paki and will also provide opening and closing remarks.

James Laki, Director of Peace in Melanasia, participated in the Civil Society panel with Aisi. Laki hopes those who attend the conference will gain insight into “the diverse nature of PNG that has become perhaps an impediment for social capital investment.” He looks forward to gaining “perspective on what outsiders or international partners and helpers think of PNG” and also to establishing “a network with like minded people.”

Teng Waninga, head of the Department of Curriculum & Development at Goroka University in PNG since 2006, spoke at the Sunday panel on development and education. Goroka University is PNG’s only teaching training institution, offering both two-and four-year programs for teachers of primary, secondary, and tertiary education levels. Waninga expressed his desire to create a globally competitive teaching culture in PNG, which he admits is much constrained by governmental policy and control.

According to Waninga, this conference holds the key to transforming an educational system that faces numerous problems. Waninga stated that he strives to change the PNG standard of a passive education in which “students come to class to sit and listen for hours.” He plans to gather feedback from University faculty on how to construct a curriculum that encourages students to raise questions.

How exactly will this conference provide the answers that PNG seeks? With over six million people and 850 distinct indigenous languages, PNG faces the major barrier of keeping its main language of instruction consistent throughout the country. This problem is compounded by an agriculturally dominant society, one of the fastest growing AIDS epidemics in the word, and an unemployment rate that hovers at around 80 percent. PNG’s abundant natural resources are at great risk to exploitation by foreign companies.

The sentiment of Papua New Guineans, according to Waninga, is that Australians have forced many incorrect ideas onto PNG’s educational system. He stated: “We want to learn from developed countries such as America, England, and Canada how to change the mindset of teachers so that a more relevant educational curriculum can extend its roots throughout the country.”

He looks to Stanford University for answers but emphasized that PNG had a lot to offer Stanford University as well. “Education is not a right, but a privilege, that not many can afford. I want conference attendants to recognize our cultural richness.”

Christa Morris ‘10, co-founder of Panango, expressed her belief that PNG serves an “ideal case study” in which students can “apply the abstract ideas they learn in class to a country at its tipping point.” According to Morris, PNG’s unique traditions, such as wantok – literally literally translated to a “one-talk” system that connotes strong community support – are at the verge of becoming destroyed and exploited by foreign and domestic interests.
Morris first participated in Panango during her freshman year and has been “obsessed with the country ever since.” Although she initially traveled to PNG in search of complete remoteness, she reaffirmed her belief in the importance of development within the country.

How to promote such development without spoiling the culture of PNG remains a great challenge for the country within upcoming years. While the education, health, civil society, and environment panels will present PNG with a variety of resources throughout this three-day affair, Morris stated that it would be difficult to foster continual dialogue with PNG.

Benavides, on the other hand, claimed that the biggest challenge the coalition faces is a matter of Americans’ life priorities. He questioned emphatically: “Is what we really need a Rolls Royce or a walk in the woods?”
Morris’ ultimate goal is to get people “involved not necessarily as volunteers, but interested in the country of PNG.” Similarly, Ambassador Aisi hoped the conference would encourage students to pursue research opportunities in PNG.

Rick Ramirez ’11, also a Panango volunteer in 2008, taught English to fifth and sixth graders in PNG and believes that the experience made him realize “these people were real people. The problems they are coping with are not too unlike the problems we deal with ourselves.”