Who’s more obnoxious: SOCC or Stanford Says No to War?

The SOCC and Stanford Says No to War are once again vying for the title as the most obnoxious group on campus. On one hand, the SSNW put on a tasteless burlesque of torture on Friday, decrying Condoleezza Rice as a war criminal and hijacking conservative pseudo-group names for the event (e.g. Stanford College Conservatives, Stanford Students for Democracy, Republicans at Stanford, Campus Review). I’m not quite sure if they found it funny, because if so, they are simply undermining their own movement. If they find “torture” such a grave issue, then the certainly shouldn’t be parodying it. Their “Condival” would be akin to pro-lifers putting on a festival “celebrating” aborted fetuses.

On the other hand, the SOCC is once again protesting against the budget cuts to the centers. After complaining about the Provost’s lack of transparency (which is ironic, because the community centers directors had information on the cuts…why didn’t the SOCC protest their directors?), they’re now complaining about the inequity of the budget cuts. Center staff are slated to receive a reduction in pay and benefits…but this reduction is proportionate to their reduction in their hours.  They will now only be working part-time over the summer. But one must wonder why they were ever working full-time during the summer considering most students aren’t on campus then. It seems like a fiscally irresponsible oversight that had them working full-time when they were likely not needed full-time (the SOCC, of course, would beg to differ.) The fact is that hours and salaries are being cut for workers in various units (e.g. Vaden, food services, housing), and the centers’ staff should not be immune. The centers should be thankful that professional staff cuts were minimized to 0.5 staff.

The Native Americans are complaining that they are facing a “permanent” cut of .5 staff members. But they’ll still be better off than the rest of the centers, as they have 2.5 staff compared to the other centers, which have only 2. Additionally, the NACC services much fewer students than any of the other centers, so realistically it should probably only have 1 staff member. The problem is that the NACC is probably one of the most vocal, vehement groups on campus that likes to cry foul about discrimination and oppression—which puts the administration in an awkward situation of having to appease a group of students that is probably the least academically prepared/qualified on campus (see NCAA retention statistics).  The Daily article on the cuts states that “Simms [the NACC director] feared that the budget cuts may take a toll on her center’s goal of retention to graduation.” It’s unclear why cutting summer hours and .5 positions would affect retention rates.

Here’s some insight that will obviously infuriate many minorities and uber-liberals: if Native Americans are so unqualified and unprepared that the summer cut in hours and .5 reduction in staff affects their retention, maybe they shouldn’t be at Stanford. Maybe they should attend another college for which they are more prepared and qualified.

Go ahead. Fill up the comment boards disparaging me as ignorant, bigoted, and friendless.

Subscribe to the Stanford Review