The faculty of the Senate voted on Thursday to approve the recommendations of the Campus Climate Subcommittee on Planning and Policy Board (PPB) and re-discuss the issue before the end of the school year.
The recommendations focus on resolving disputes over personal issues, which the subcommittee said in a report “undermined and undermined freedom of expression.”
“We are deeply concerned that ethnic politics is becoming increasingly polarized and militarized,” the report said. We fear this will only get worse as we approach the 2022 midterm elections and the 2024 presidential election. Since the end of the civil war, our country has never been so radically divided, and racial and diversity issues are at the heart of this deep conflict, both nationally and at Stanford.
The issue of freedom of expression and academic freedom was discussed at length by senators in the fall quarter before a vote was taken on the issue.
At the meeting, senators also heard about the new school’s climate and sustainability improvements, and Provost Persis Drell commented on the results of an extensive campus diversity, equity, and inclusion survey released to the Senate this week.
Disagreements and criticisms are a sign of a “strong campus climate” and are “intended to harass or intimidate other students from the university in the event of harassment, intimidation and harassment,” the PPB sub-committee said in a statement. When you engage in behavior, you are violating Stanford’s core principles. “
Commenting on the report of the two-year-old PBb sub-committee, subcommittee chairman David Palumbo-Lee said: “These attacks are intended to use our energy. They are designed to arrest administrators, to make scholars afraid to say anything because anything can be distorted and devastating effects can be placed on the web. Palumbo-Liu is a professor of Louis Heulet Nixon and a professor of comparative literature and, politely, English.
The PPB subcommittee report includes four recommendations that the faculty requested to support.
- That Stanford should establish an anti-dosing policy to feed any Stanford student, faculty member or faculty member with intent to harm, harass or defame. Staff Member.
- Stanford should interpret the basic standard for any malicious attack on anyone, especially if the perpetrator registers others in the attack.
- Stanford should involve committee members and other campus teams working on these matters to develop standards that are in line with Stanford values and in accordance with the law. The Stanford administration has been asked to submit a final report to the Faculty Senate and a final report within one year.
- He also called on the Stanford administration to provide “clear, strong and unequivocal statements regarding the actions we have taken against you and to actively protect all victims of such acts.”
Some senators, such as Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State and current director of the Tad and Hoover Institute, say some conservative students or teachers do not feel they can see themselves in the report.
However, he emphasized that Palumbo-Liu was not a matter of conservatism or liberalism, but of behavior.
Why not use it as a guide to bring all interested parties into a harmless consensus? he said.
A similar incident took place at Stanford in the late 1980s, when the university chose to separate its curriculum and make progress in tackling sexual harassment. Today, some are responding to social and cultural changes and committing suicide, but the report says they are now using well-developed networks and media, making it even more dangerous.
Stanford’s commitment to diversity must include protecting and supporting a person from all forms of harassment, assault and abuse during his or her stay at Stanford.
Debra Sats, Vernon R., and Warren Anderson Dean, a professor at the School of Humanities and Sciences, expressed concern about the need to protect campus members, but expressed concern that their recommendations were “malicious” and that they were unclear. It means “to be vigilant to all who are affected.”
Subcommittee Richard Ford, a professor of law at George E. Osborne School of Law, said the subcommittee was not prosecuting, and that words such as “malicious” and “harmful” were often used in legal proceedings.
The senators, who supported the motion, stressed that he would return to the Senate after further work. “It’s not because I don’t want this to happen,” said David Miller, a professor at WM Keck Foundation in Electrical Engineering. I want to fix it and I think it will be more harmful than wrong. ”And it may have negative consequences.
“This is a really difficult time and learning to be able to have this discussion seems to be a very important situation for me and a model for our society,” said Senate President Ruth O’Hara, LowwW and Josephine Kberi. , Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Senior Dean of Research at the School of Medicine. “There are disagreements here and I firmly believe we will reach an agreement.
The faculty Senate also heard from Katherine “Cam” Moller, dean of Provost and research dean, and Stefan Graham, Chester Naramore dean (Stanford Land) School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences, on the development of the new school, which will begin in September 2022 on climate and sustainability.
Initially, the new school will be joined by Stanford Hort, Stanford Woods Environmental Protection Agency, Precort Institute for Energy, Hopkins Marine Station facilities, and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (in partnership with the School of Engineering). Expands new scholarships to emerging disciplines, including faculty and new employees from the University.
Mለርller and Graham, who are leading efforts to improve the school, said they are working to create a two-teacher school based on the July 2021 design. Including the Stanford Woods Environment Institute, the Court of First Instance Energy and the New Sustainable Communities Institute.