The Students of Color Coalition (SOCC) released a copy of the contract its Senate candidates signed. A copy can be found here.
Assuming the contract has not been altered in any way since it was distributed and signed, the contract contains no references to Jewish groups. We will likely never know if the Jewish groups were discussed verbally, as some of our sources alleged. We also requested signed copies but have not received them as of this writing. Even after seeing the contract, *The Stanford Review *stands by its decision to file a Freedom of Information request with SOCC under the ASSU Constitution because multiple independent sources had mentioned the contracts. Nevertheless, we had doubts, as expressed explicitly in the articleThe Review published last night:
“There are other allegations against SOCC as well. Multiple sources have reported that SOCC made its selected candidates sign contracts barring them from associating with specific student groups and campus communities. Some sources indicated Jewish groups were explicitly listed on the contract while others maintained the Jewish groups were stated verbally. SOCC’s leadership allegedly collected the contracts after the candidates signed them.”
“While multiple sources informed *The Review *about these clauses in the SOCC contract, there are multiple Senate candidates that are endorsed by both SOCC and by the Jewish Students Association (JSA). Additionally, we have heard from a SOCC-endorsed candidate that the contracts did not target Jewish groups. To resolve this question, The Review has requested that SOCC release the contracts (more on this below).”
We applaud SOCC for taking this first step toward complying with our Freedom of Information request by releasing the contracts. This contract is an important first step in allowing the student body to understand how SOCC selects candidates.
What is in the contract SOCC released?
The entire contract can be read here. Here are some interesting takeaways:
- SOCC makes its candidates pledge to support community centers by pushing for full funding and to meet regularly with SOCC leadership if elected.
- If elected, candidates are required to meet once a quarter with SOCC leadership and provide updates on all Senate committees.
Finally, candidates had to agree to a confidentiality provision:
“Information given to the Candidate, regardless of election results and standing status as a SOCC-endorsed Candidate, will never go beyond that which is established by the SOCC Leadership Board. Specifically, all campaign materials must be kept confidential and out of the hands of non-SOCC-endorsed candidates and general public, including the Candidate’s own campaign managers and supporters who although may participate in the process, shall not be privy to the documents. The proliferation of such information inadvertently, indirectly, or anonymously will result in the immediate withdrawal of the SOCC endorsement from said Candidate failing to uphold the demands of this last section and the Candidate will be publicly disclaimed by the SOCC Leadership Board as well as other potential consequences.”
This final clause references some documents, the nature of which are not made clear by the contract. We are confident that The Review’sConstitutional Council case will allow The Review to examine these documents and provide more transparency to how SOCC selects candidates.