COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\magnification=\magstep 1
C00016 ENDMK
C⊗;
\magnification=\magstep 1
\parskip 8pt plus 1pt
\centerline{\bf Masked Student Incident at Otero}
\centerline{\bf Sparks University Probe}

\centerline{Campus Report - 25 May 1988}
\bigskip
This statement from James Lyons, dean of student affairs, was received
as Campus Report went to press Tuesday, May 24

In the very early morning hours of Tuesday, May 24, an incident occurred at
Otero house that has generated a lot of reaction among students and others.

The event transpired shortly after the conclusion of a house meeting called
to discuss the recent removal from the residence of a student for conduct in
violation of the Residence Agreement.  The student had verbally attacked the
Resident Fellow and a Resident Assistant, had done vandalism in the dorm, and has
repeatedly engaged in behavior which insulted and violated the rights of others.

According to the information I have at the moment, the following is what
happened next.

Not long after the house meeting ended, a small group of students (about a half
dozen) appeared in front of the dorm, wearing masks and carrying lighted
candles.  To at least one observer, it appeared at first that they were
wearing sheets, but that proved not to be the case.  Someone called a member
of the Black Students Union, who contacted other members.  Some 30 BSU members
arrived at the dorm shortly thereafter, as curious residents gathered at the
front of the dorm to see what was going on.

After some questioning, the masked individuals explained that they were holding
a silent vigil in support of the evicted student's First Amendment right to free
speech.  A conversation ensued, eventually the individuals removed their masks,
and the talk continued for some time.  Ultimately, everyone dispersed.

Some extremely important issues have been raised in this event, and in what
led up to it.  Perhaps the most crucial is the question of the extent to which
behavior that seeks to abridge the rights of others is protected by the
right to free speech.  Central to what has gone on at Otero are the sentiments of
a small group of residents that they should not be expected to tolerate the presence
of homosexual students on the residence staff.

Stanford has stated as a matter of policy that the University

{\narrower\parskip 4pt\parindent 0pt
\dots admits students of either sex and any race, color, religion, sexual
orientation, or national and ethnic origin to all the rights, privileges,
programs, and activities generally accorded or made available to students at
the University.  It does not discriminate against students on the basis of
sex, race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, or national and
ethnic origin in the administration of its educational policies, admissions
policies, scholarships and loan programs, and athletic and other 
University-administered programs.\par}

Stanford University Information Bulletin, 1988, p.24.  

Clearly, among the University-administered programs is the presence in the
residences of Resident Fellows and Resident Assistants.  Indeed, that program is
and must be open to all students who apply and are chosen to fill the RA positions
in the residences.  Out of a commitment to the educational merit of plurality,
the University actively seeks to foster diversity in the residence staff.

Based on preliminary reports of what transpired early Tuesday morning, one
is faced with the inescapable interpretation that the actions of some few
residents of the dorm and of the members of the masked group represent support
for the position that some Stanford students don't belong here as much as
others do, or should not enjoy the same rights as others do.

The symbolism of the group's members choosing to mask their identities and
approach silently in the dead of night bearing small ``torches'' cannot 
escape the notice of anyone who is at all aware of the history of black people 
in the United States.  Indeed, a member of the BSU was one of the first people
contacted when the group showed up at the dorm.

Consequently, actions aimed at supporting the behavior of a student who has
repeatedly directed hurtful remarks, epithets, and actions at a homosexual
student had the effect of harming racial minority students as well.

According to some witnesses, the masked group members expressed sincere surprise
that their ``simple vigil'' had symbolized anything other than support for a
fellow student's freedom of speech.  Accepting that their surprise was
sincere, I ask whether ignorance can be an excuse in an instance like this.
The event serves to remind us all of the necessity of thinking through
potential outcomes of our actions and not just intended outcomes.

The response of the members of the BSU was remarkable for its self-restraint
and calmness in the face of provocation, and for that I want to thank them.  A
situation that was volatile in the extreme was turned into a rational and 
thoughtful exchange by the efforts of BSU leaders and members.

I have to wonder, though, whether the day will ever come when the responsibility
for that kind of restraint and that kind of teaching will not fall only to
black students.  Will the day come in our lifetimes when all students, whatever
their color or background, will step forward and challenge those who, out of
ignorance and insensitivity or out of pure malice, would deny full participation
in the life of this University to some of their fellow students?

I have heard that the students who wore the masks did so because they
feared reprisals.  Assuming that is true, I must wonder
what we need to do to foster the sharing and discussion of unpopular opinions
in an atmosphere of mutual respect.  There are in fact sensitive and respectful
ways for people who disagree with each other to talk to each other.  We
have to work to make that form of communication more prevalent, especially
in areas where misunderstanding can happen so easily.

For the past several years the Office of Residential Education and various
student groups have sought, in RF and RA training and in programs in the
residences, to help students learn how to talk more comfortably and openly 
about race, sex, sexual preference and other matters that are highly charged
with feeling and opinion.  Clearly, there's more work to do.

Some students have charged that the University, and especially Residential
Education, has a particular political agenda.  In a sense that is true---the
University is not morally neutral.  The sentiments expressed in the foregoing
quote from the Information Bulletin reflect carefully thought out and deeply
held values of the institution, as well as expectations for the behavior of
the members of this community.

This is not a place that values intimidation tactics; this is a place that
values learning, and the rational and thoughtful discourse that leads to
learning.  This is a place that finds cloaked secrecy at odds with our commitment
to the open exchange of ideas.  This is a place that values the feelings of
members of the community, and that finds repugnant acts of viciousness or even
ignorant insensitivity.  In other words, yes, Stanford does have certain values.

I have responded like this---quickly, and with only a preliminary report to go
on---because the issues raised by the events of Tuesday morning demand an immediate
response.  However, this is not the end of it.

I have asked Diana Conklin, director of residential deans, to conduct a full
investigation into the incident and the events that led up to it.  Although
I hope to have received her report before the end of the school year, that will
not be the end of the matter either.  We will use what we learn from this
experience not only in deciding how best to respond to the students who were 
involved but also in developing plans for community discussion next year
of the context in which these events occurred, of what gave rise to what
happened.

For now, though, let me put it as simply and directly as I can: members of the
Stanford community must know that conduct which seeks to or has the effect of
discouraging the full participation in the life of this University by any
student on account of his or her sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation,
or national and ethnic origin is in violation of University principle and policy.

Such conduct cannot and will not be tolerated.
\end