COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	stanfo[e88,jmc]		Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
stanfo[e88,jmc]		Stanford and the candlelight protest

∂15-Jul-88  1324	usenet@labrea.stanford.edu 	Social Honor Code at Princeton  
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jul 88  13:24:38 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Fri, 15 Jul 88 13:22:43 PDT
Date: 15 Jul 88 19:35:39 GMT
From: ramsey@portia.stanford.edu (ramsey haddad)
Organization: Stanford University
Subject: Social Honor Code at Princeton
Message-Id: <3102@Portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: usenet@labrea.stanford.edu
To: su-etc@labrea.stanford.edu


JMC's comments and the ensuing flurry reminded me of something I'd
just read about.  An article I recently read quoted the `Princeton
Alumni Weekly' as saying:

>"In addition to appointing new counselors, the administration is
>considering the implementation of a social honor code to complement
>the existing academic honor code.  Focusing on respect for individual
>rights, the proposed honor code would concentrate on specific
>violations of these rights, including incidents of sexism, racism,
>class discrimination, and homophobia.  As with the academic honor
>code, students would be obligated to report any violations of the
>social honor code, and incoming freshman would be required to sign the
>code before matriculating.  If approved, the new social code could be
>in place by the fall of next year."

Why does invoke in me images of Soviet children ratting on their
parent's religious practices to Stalin's goon squads?  If the offenses
being reported on were "Unamerican Activities" instead of "Causing
someone to be offended", the ACLU would have a fit over this sort of
thought control.  Anyone care to defend this instance of left-wing
fascist crap?

**** Need to phone Princeton to verify and update this.

In order to hold together The Coalition for Free Speech at Stanford,
its spokesmen must be careful to not presume their personal political
positions in statements by the coalition.  It might be best if the
spokesmen were not otherwise making public statements, this is not
essential.  Here are some points.

1. A rightist should not identify the Stanford behavior we object
to as leftist in origin even if he thinks it is.

2. A spokesman whose own position on the left should be careful
in responding to accusations of rightism not to ascribe to the
Coalition statements that he might make in order to establish
his personal credentials as "a man of the left".

3. When interviewed, spokesmen should refuse to be drawn out in the
specific interview about their views on other subjects than the
matter at hand.  It is ok to say, "Ask me about this in a week on
another occasion and I'll tell you my personal opinion?"

4. Above all, the issue should be kept separate from the Presidential
election.

msg.msg[1,jmc]/78p contains a message from Anthony Siegman