Trust in the Faculty Senate

As much as it pains me to complain about a column with an economics joke as its title, I simply must in this case. Today’s “No Free Lunch” column from the Daily comments on ASSU President Angelina Cardona’s recent push to put a measure on this year’s ASSU ballot regarding ROTC.

The two econ-jokesters behind the column argue that the ROTC issue is fundamentally a conflict of rights: those of transgender people vs. those of people wishing to participate in ROTC. (As an aside, I’ll note that this is an incorrect framing of the issue, as transgender people do not stand to gain any rights in the event that ROTC remains off campus. In fact, as a Revieweditorial and recent *Daily *op-ed have argued, bringing ROTC back to campus will likely further the transgender cause in the long run).

Within this rights framework, No Free Lunch argues that a non-biased arbiter is necessary to determine whose claim is more legitimate. And, according to the authors, that non-biased arbiter is of course… the Faculty Senate?:

When there is a conflict between different groups’ rights, it is the role of a non-biased arbiter, or in our case the Faculty Senate, to decide who has the more legitimate claim.

Not sure I’m buying that the legislative body full of strong opinions on our nation’s military and that is more or less responsible for keeping ROTC off campus for 4 decades will be “non-biased.”

Perhaps the column’s authors would do best sticking to econ jokes.

Subscribe to the Stanford Review