COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\magnification=\magstep 1
C00028 ENDMK
C⊗;
\magnification=\magstep 1
\parskip 8pt plus 1pt
\centerline{\bf CONKLIN: OTERO VIGIL DEMONSTRATES NEED}
\centerline{\bf FOR MORE EDUCATION}
\bigskip
This is the final report on the vigil at Otero House May 24, 1988.  It was
prepared June 1 by Diana Conklin, assistant dean of student affairs and director
of residential deans, who edited and added material June 7.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf INTRODUCTION}

Following events of the early-morning hours of May 24 at Otero House, Wilbur
Hall, Dean of Student Affairs James W. Lyons requested that the director of
residential deans conduct an investigation.  This report contains the results
of that inquiry.

\noindent{\bf INTERVIEWS}

Thirty individuals were interviewed over the course of five days beginning on
May 24.  Interviews were conducted by Michael Jackson, associate dean for
campus affairs; Joe Pisano, fraternal affairs Adviser; Juan Yniquez, residential
dean for Stern and Wilbur halls; and Diana Conklin, director of residential
deans.  Interview subjects were Otero residence staff members; other Otero
residents; students who came to Otero that night to witness the vigil; police;
the past and present Phi Delta Theta fraternity presidents; and the seven
vigil participants, all members of Phi Delta Theta.

\noindent{\bf CHRONOLOGY}

On Monday, May 23, an article in the {\it Stanford Daily} related the eviction
from Otero house of Kenneth Ehrman, a freshman, for conduct in violation of the
residence agreement.  Specifically, Mr. Ehrman had verbally attacked
the resident fellow and a resident assistant, had done vandalism in the dorm, and 
had repeatedly insulted others and violated their rights.  A central theme in
the young man's actions was the apparent belief that he should not be expected
to live in a residence which had a homosexual as a staff member.  Mr. Ehrman
had been cautioned in December that his conduct was out of line and that if it
persisted, his residence privilege would be in jeopardy.

The {\it Daily} article was the subject of considerable discussion at the Phi
Delt house before and during lunch on Monday.  A group of members decided that
they should do something to protest the University's action as reported in the
paper.  Some number of them discussed the issue further during the afternoon,
and late that evening, seven members proceeded to carry out the vigil.  The
Phi Delts involved were seniors Scott Lindus, David Look, John Naporano, and
John Romero; juniors David Filgas and Tim Walters; and sophomore Kirk
Ferguson.  Mr. Look telephoned the {\it Daily} during the afternoon to say
that a protest was planned that night at Otero.  Mr. Lindus was chosen to be
the group's spokesman.  Although Mr. Ehrman had rushed Phi Delts, he is not a
Phi Delt pledge and there is no evidence that he knew what the group planned
for the night in question.

Shortly before midnight, the seven donned masks of various kinds (e.g., a
motorcycle helmet, a hockey mask, goggles, shirts, scarves) and went with
candles to Otero House.  Their original intention had been to enter the dorm;
however, once there, they instead formed a semi-circle in front of the door,
and stood and then sat on the patio outside the house's lounge.  A lengthy
house meeting on the subject of Mr. Ehrman's eviction, the {\it Daily} coverage
of it, and tensions in the house had just ended.  Consequently, a large number
of house residents were up and about, and saw the gathering just outside their
lounge.  Many residents' reactions were great shock and fear.  At least one
resident reported seeing men in sheets bearing lighted candles.  The image of
the Ku Klux Klan was perceived by most if not all of the residents, and many
became extremely agitated.

Otero residents calfindthe police.  A resident of a nearby house---a student
who had heard earlier in the evening that a candlelight vigil was planned
at Otero at midnight---telephoned a well-known member and past president of the
Black Student Union (BSU).  Three police cars arrived at 12:26 a.m., and officers
questioned Mr. Lindus.  He declined to identify himself but assured police that 
what was under way was a nonviolent protest.  Police cautioned the vigil
participants not to be disorderly, explained to those present that since no
laws were being violated vigil participants were not subject to arrest, 
contacted the resident fellow to relay the same information to him, and then
departed.  One officer remained nearby, at a vantage point from which he could
observe any developments.  An officer checked back in with the students at
12:52, and another did so at 1:17, leaving again at 1:30.

Not long after midnight, a group of some 20 to 30 students from various parts of
campus, many of them members of the BSU and other interested student groups,
arrived on the scene.  (Over the next several minutes, the crowd grew to 
number about 50 to 60 students.)  Group members initially gathered in the Otero 
lobby to check on the well-being of the dorm's few black residents (two of whom 
were particularly upset by what was going on) and decide what to do.  They
also had been directed into the lounge by an Otero resident.

The group then went outside to talk directly to the men in the vigil.  The editor
of the {\it Daily}, who had been present at the Otero house meeting, remained
on the scene and was joined by two {\it Daily} photographers.  Most of the
Otero residents remained inside the dorm, although one resident assistant went
out to talk to vigil participants and the other students.  At that point, no
one knew for sure whether the men were Stanford students or off-campus people.
However, the fact that their appearance evoked images of the KKK was obvious
to Otero residents and to the students who had come from other residences.

Over the next several minutes, students sought to learn the purpose of the
vigil, the reason for its participants' refusal to speak or to take off their
masks, and the identities of the seven men.  One of the participants whispered
to a student standing nearby that this was a silent vigil, and that the
participants were members of ``BOICA'' (a false acronym that apparently is a
slang term familiar to surfers).  When the student provided him with paper, the
vigil participant wrote that the vigil was not a racist protest, that the vigil
participants did not intend to antagonize anyone, and that they were present
at Otero to protest the University's unfair and unjust eviction of Kenny
Ehrman.  He added that it was a silent, non-violent vigil and that its
participants applauded first amendment rights.   (In fact, earlier one of the
vigil participants had asked for Mr. Ehrman, and had been told that he no longer
lived at Otero.)  The student who had provided the paper read the note to the
group of onlookers.

Several members of the group of students who had gathered at the vigil site
challenged the men to remove their masks, take responsibility for their views,
and realize the symbolic impact of their appearance.  Although many witnesses 
were increasingly angry, BSU members present were instrumental in calming
them.  The vigil participants at first were offended that their intentions had
been misunderstood, and then became nervous and fearful for their safety
because some members of the assembled group were making verbal threats toward them.

When they were interviewed the next day, vigil participants expressed surprise
and dismay that what they had intended to be a protest against the University's
unfair treatment of Mr. Ehrman was perceived as a racist display.  They 
reported that they wore masks because they did not want to be recognized as
members of Phi Delta Theta and dismissed as ``fraternity guys'', they did not
want their actions to reflect on the fraternity as a whole, they did not want to
be perceived as individuals who supported the particulars of what Mr. Ehrman had 
said and done, and they feared public exposure in the {\it Daily}, since
photographers were present.  They wanted the focus of the event to be on what
they perceived as unfair treatment of Mr. Ehrman by the University.  They
explained further that none of them had any experience with protesting, and they
had carried candles because they thought that was how protests were done.

Approximately 45 minutes to an hour after the start of the event, the vigil
participants' candles had burned out and they all rose to leave.  The witnesses,
many of whom had sat down all around the seven men and had sought to engage them
in a discussion of the meaning of what they were doing, rose too.  Two of the
seven ran away from the group and hid in a nearby area until they could return
to their house unobserved.  The others split up into small groups moving in
various directions.  Two of the small groups were accompanied by a number of
witnesses as they walked.

In each contingent, witnesses continued to try to convince the vigil participants
to remove their masks and to answer the questions about the form and meaning
of their protest.  Ultimately, some did remove their masks and talk with the
students who were walking with them.  They explained that they had not intended
their action to be racist; they had only meant to hold a vigil in support of 
free speech.  One man who removed his mask also told the students walking with
him that he felt intimidated by their actions.  At some time around 1:45 a.m.,
the two contingents dispersed and everybody went home.

The next day, after talking with fellow house members, the vigil participants, in
the company of former Phi Delt president Vinton Frost, asked to meet with
Fraternal Affairs Adviser Pisano.  He and Dean Jackson then interviewed the 
seven individually.  The vigil participants also requested (of the resident
fellow) and were given (by house vote) consent to speak to Otero residents that 
evening, to clarify their intentions and to apologize for the unforeseen 
consequences.  Members of the Stanford Organization for Lesbian and Gay Equality
also attended the meeting, which according to one Otero resident seemed to 
surprise the vigil participants.

On Wednesday, the men went to the Black Community Services Center, again to
explain their actions and to apologize for the consequences.  Also on
Wednesday, Phi Delta Theta fraternity published a letter disavowing the manner
in which its members had chosen to protest the eviction of Mr. Ehrman 
and apologizing to ``members of minority groups, particularly the Black
Student Union, [and] members of the Stanford community''.  On Friday, May 27, a
letter of apology from the vigil participants appeared in the {\it Daily}.

The effect of the event on residents of Otero was extreme stress.  The house, by 
all accounts, has been polarized and uncomfortable most of this school year.
The vigil and its consequences have caused some residents to feel that their
home has been violated and their security breached.  During the night in
question, many residents found themselves in a tumult of fear and confusion.
Many also felt that there was no one in control of the situation, which seemed
deeply volatile.  A fair amount of sleep has been lost by Oterans, vigil 
participants, witnesses from other residences, and others involved in the
event or its aftermath.

\noindent{\bf OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS}

\item{$\bullet$}
Disagreement exists among witnesses about whether the vigil participants really
did or did not understand, before the fact, the symbolic impact of the style in
which they staged their protest.  There are those who argue that no one raised
in this country could not know what it means to appear silently in the middle
of the night bearing fire and concealing one's identity.  Others believe that
such profound unconsciousness and insensitivity are indeed possible, and
that evidence of that abounds on the Stanford campus as in society in general.
That may be the only explanation for why no one at the Phi Delt house,
apparently, thought to raise the question of how the form of the vigil might be
perceived by others.

\item{$\bullet$}
Assuming that the KKK-evocative style of the protest was a matter of ignorance
or insensitivity, does that excuse the participants for the damage done?  Is not
ignorance of such important issues---especially here and especially now---in
effect a kind of passive malice?

\item{$\bullet$}
Even if the vigil participants started their demonstration not understanding
the imagery of its form and timing, they were clearly and immediately informed
by students who confronted them that their actions were in the style of the
KKK.  They could also see for themselves the severe emotional upset that they
were causing a large number of Otero residents.  Why then did the vigil continue,
unaltered, for most of an hour?  Vigil participants have offered in explanation
a) that those conducting the vigil were sitting and could not see into Otero
and b) that the crowd of onlookers massed very quickly and the situation
seemed increasingly frightening and volatile, despite the note explaining
the vigil's purpose and despite several small conversations that went on
between vigil participants and onlookers who sat down close to them.  When
the seven men realized that their explanations were not having the effect of 
calming the situation, and that it would be even worse to stay than to go,
they left.

\item{$\bullet$}
Many students and others have remarked on the distinction drawn by at least
one of the vigil participants---and, it has been noted, by a great many
Stanford students---between racism and homophobia.  It appears that to the
thinking of many people, racism, as well as its accompanying vocabulary, is
recognized as wrong (in its most overt manifestations, anyway), whereas
homophobia and sexism, as well as their vocabularies, are still somehow
acceptable.  Speaking during the night in question, Amanda Kemp made it clear
that all of these forms of bigotry are unacceptable.  However, the question
remains: How many at Stanford agree with her, and behave accordingly?

\item{$\bullet$}
One wonders how the events of that night would have unfolded had not a large
number of black and other minority students appeared to challenge what was
going on.  How many others would have stepped forward?  And, to echo Dean
Lyons' question of May 24, will the day come when all students (indeed, all
members of this community), whatever their color or background, will step
forward and challenge those who, out of ignorance and insensitivity or out of
pure malice, would deny or cast a chill on full participation in the life of 
this University by some of their fellow students?

\item{$\bullet$}
Several students remarked that the fear generated during the vigil was
exacerbated by the absence of any institutional ``presence''---the president, a
dean, anyone in a position of authority who might have exercised it to keep
matters from escalating into violence.  Although police were nearby, even they
were not observed by students, who assumed that police had checked in and left
the area entirely.  As it turns out, of course, students on their own did keep
matters from becoming violent; however, the presence of someone from the
University administration would have been a comfort to many.

\item{$\bullet$}
Education at Stanford needs to include more formal and informal courses that
will combat ignorance and insensitivity in matters of racial, sexual, and 
sexual-orientation differences as well as other differences.  More must be done
to realize, at every level of functioning at the University, the values stated
in Stanford's nondiscriminatory policy.  As long as the dignity of the
individual goes unrecognized and unrespected by any member of this community,
an important piece of the work of the University has not been accomplished.

\item{$\bullet$}
As disruptive and unpleasant as this event has been to a great many people, it
also provided the community with an opportunity to witness directly what many
have only heard about before.  The event has fueled, and will continue to
fuel, crucial conversations throughout the University.  It has given us all 
much to ponder, and much to improve.
\end