stanford

We are sending an open letter to the President of Stanford University and its admission department, asking them to revoke Eileen Gu’s fall 2022 acceptance.  The letter is also being submitted to media for broadcasting. About us           - We are a group of people who love America, some of us are Chinese Americans, most of us are parents of prospective college students.   About Eileen Gu           - Ms. Gu is known as a 2022 Winter Olympic Gold Medalist, who was born and raised in America but competed in the Olympic Games for China. Some open-minded Americans may not regard it as a moral issue or wrongdoing; however, we strongly recommend Americans investigate how Ms. Gu is voluntarily being used by the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP is using Ms. Gu to promote its propaganda and misguide the world concerning the oppression and freedom of Chinese people, especially of women, such as Ms. Shuai Peng, a retired Chinese tennis Olympian. Why should Stanford revoke the admission to Eileen Gu? - 1) Ms. Gu ignored and failed to denounce the human rights violations imposed on Ms. Shuai Peng by the CCP. In Gu’s interview by CCP’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection the day after she won the gold medal, a CCP reporter asked her to comment on Ms. Shuai Peng, who mysteriously disappeared for a long time and re-appeared a couple of months after she exposed sexual misconduct of the CCP top official, Gaoli Zhang. Gu disregarded the worldwide concerns over Peng’s well-being and cooperated with the CCP by replying, “She is very happy and very healthy, doing her own stuff outside. I greatly appreciate all these.”  Her comment reveals how she speaks on behalf of the CCP.  https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/china/peng-shuai-public-appearance-mic-intl-hnk/index.html (CNN report on Peng) While we respect the opinions of others, we are immensely concerned how a sports star and supermodel will detrimentally influence the opinions of young people globally. Ms. Gu is setting a very bad example by supporting and advancing propaganda from the Chinese Communist Party, the world’s most powerful communist dictatorship. As one of the most prestigious universities in America and the world, we hope Stanford values our American constitution and freedom. Stanford has fostered and trained many young leaders in America and worldwide. Unfortunately, Ms. Gu’s behavior does not align with Stanford’s reputation and its motto “Die Luft der Freiheit weht” (often translated as “The wind of freedom blows”). - 2) Ms. Gu’s lack of integrity about her nationality Olympic spirit is about fair play, transparency, and pursuing excellence under a set of rules defined by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).  It is being broken by China and by athletes like Eileen Gu.  The VOA reported, “Two Olympic websites scrubbed contradictory information about Ms. Gu’s nationality shortly after she won her first gold medal of the Beijing Winter Games.”   The corrupt committee is trying to cover Gu’s dual nationalities. It is widely suspected the Chinese government offered Ms. Gu dual citizenship which is prohibited by Chinese law. Ms. Gu has repeatedly dodged the question about her current nationality. Stanford could demonstrate the highest level of transparency, integrity, and equity by finding out if Ms. Gu applied for Stanford as an international student in 2020, considering the fact that back in 2019 she announced that she would represent China. To do so, she must have already received a Chinese passport to qualify. -3) Ms. Gu lied about internet restrictions in China. Shockingly Ms. Gu also defended China’s internet restrictions with the purpose of eliminating free speech.  She denied there is internet censorship in China - “Anyone (in China) can download a VPN. its (It’s) literally free on the App Store.”  The truth is, China has the world’s largest Great Firewall to block people in China from using the internet and any Apps outside of China.  In China, it is illegal to download a VPN and access the world wide internet, and hundreds of people have been harassed, arrested, and detained by police due to their VPN usage and their visit of outside websites. Contrary to Gu, there is a L-O-N-G list of Chinese American Olympians who rejected offers of naturalization from CCP, and refused to go along with them even when being offered tremendous financial benefits. They are facing cyber violence in China because they wanted to represent their beloved America. We need to take a stand and support these brave Chinese American young people with true integrity and outstanding talents! We hope our top USA universities recognize and defend integrity, freedom, equity, and transparency as our core values. We ask Stanford University to revisit Eileen Gu’s admittance to Stanford and revoke it. Considering her connections with the CCP, she will receive an excellent education at a top Chinese university and has many privileges which others don’t have.  If you agree with us, please show your support by signing this petition, and sending it to other Americans and freedom loving people throughout the world! Thank you and God bless America. [One drawing source: rebelpepper@remonwangxt for the RFA article <Each of them has a chain locked around their necks - Eileen Gu, Shuai Peng and the confined slave mother with eight children> The other cover drawing source: unknown]

We are asking the entirety of Stanford's Undergraduate Chemistry Department to change its grading policy to Satisfactory/No Credit due to the unforeseen circumstances COVID-19 has caused. The inequitable circumstances of the Chemistry Department's undergraduate courses are placing burdens and undue stress on their students with a grading policy inconsiderate of personal, remote obstacles such as poor WiFi connection, lack of technological support, medical needs, and mental health during these unprecedented times. Other STEM Undergraduate departments such as Physics have acknowledged the difficult times and the inequities without campus resources, housing, and in-person lectures that would benefit certain undergraduates more than others. Taken directly from an explanatory decision from the Physics department, "There are many students who have completed this class with stellar grades, in an in-person Stanford situation. However, under the unusual conditions, they may be dealing with housing insecurity, food insecurity, financial insecurity, sharing technology with their siblings, being caregivers, etc. Studying for letter grades produces unfair stress on them in an unfair situation. They could, of course take the class CR/NC if we went the Letter/CR/NC option. However, they would have a CR while others with better conditions would have a strong letter grade. We decided to be fair to all our students by offering all series as S/NC." The majority of chemistry undergraduate students taking Chem31A, Chem31B, Chem31M, Chem33, Chem121, and Chem181 are pre-professional undergraduates who will be inevitably affected by the inconsiderate and inequitable grading policy heavily dependent on the option of choosing the letter grade policy for graduate schools, career plans, and future courses.  We implore you, the entirety of the Stanford's Undergraduate Chemistry Department, to recognize and alter your grading policy.

On January 31st, Stanford University terminated lawyer Crystal Riggins, one of six Stanford-sponsored Title IX attorneys, after she publicly criticized Stanford’s Title IX Process. On December 29th, Riggins was quoted in a New York Times article concerning a previous Stanford Title IX case: “‘It is frustrating because universities should be getting this right, and they are not, and the idea that they can keep pushing this under the rug doesn’t make the campus any safer, as we keep seeing as these incidents come to light,’ said Crystal Riggins, a lawyer who has represented accusers at Stanford. ‘The process is complex and takes a long time. It is very difficult to get a 3-0 decision from a panel, and these young women are terrified and traumatized and just want it to be done.’” Citing Riggins’ criticism of Stanford’s Title IX process, Lauren Schoenthaler, Stanford’s previous General Counsel attorney and current Stanford administrator told Riggins via email: “‘Given your stated lack of confidence… it does not make sense for the university to continue to refer our students to you.’” According to Stanford’s Title IX policy, students involved in a Title IX investigation are allowed nine free hours of counsel by a university-approved attorney. Riggins, an equity partner at Hoge Fenton, was one of these six university-approved attorneys - and the only one who exclusively represented survivors of sexual assault. Three of the five remaining lawyers on the list exclusively represent alleged perpetrators, and two are criminal defense attorneys who represent accused sex offenders in their private practices but are willing to represent both parties at Stanford. Riggins’ critique of the process was an acknowledgement of the deficiencies she witnessed while representing victims of sexual assault in the Title IX process. However, Stanford University officials deemed these comments “disappointing” and thus deemed Riggins unsuitable for university sponsorship and payment. Based on Riggins’ comments that highlighted concerns with the Title IX policy, we believe Stanford inappropriately, and in a retaliatory manner, terminated the relationship with Riggins. By censoring lawyers, Stanford is abridging freedom of speech. As an institution of higher education that encourages diversity of opinion, we the students are also “disappointed” that the university would take such an extreme measure to silence any critique of its policies or actions. However, we are not surprised by these actions based on Stanford’s history of retaliation. Stanford’s response to this situation has been disingenuous at best. Stanford spokesperson Lisa Lapin told the Stanford Daily that Stanford did not terminate Riggins in retaliation for her comments but because the university had “lost confidence in her ability to represent our students.” But Schoenthaler’s email is very clear that Riggins was terminated as a result of her public comments to the New York Times that were critical of Stanford’s process. Students are not persuaded by Lapin’s “alternative facts.” We believe that rather than being terminated, Riggins should be commended for speaking out in a way that she feels is in the interests of her clients even in the face of retaliation. Stanford University should not take actions to silence lawyers, both affiliated and not affiliated with the university. Doing so creates a silencing effect on any opinion criticizing university policy. We call for Stanford University to: Reinstate Riggins as a Stanford-sponsored Title IX attorney, effective immediately. We demand that Provost Persis Drell and President Marc Tessier Lavigne immediately reinstate Riggins as an approved attorney and continue to recommend her to victims of sexual assault. We request that Provost Drell meet with Riggins to seriously discuss and address her concerns about the Title IX process, and to work collaboratively with Riggins and all attorneys who represented Stanford students in the process. This is necessary to ensure fairness for all students. We expect Stanford to respond to these demands and take actions to reinstate Riggins in a timely manner. Retaliation has no place at Stanford University. We expect better. In Solidarity,Stanford Association of Students for Sexual Assault Prevention (ASAP)

Over the past week, the Yale College administration forced two student-created course selection websites, CourseTable and Classroulette, to shut down. Both sites were blocked using Yale’s network firewall, and the developers of both sites were threatened with disciplinary action if they did not take down the sites immediately. Yale claims that the sites violated its policy regarding “appropriate use” of data (http://policy.yale.edu/policy/1607-information-technology-appropriate-use-policy). It is unclear whether this is true, because the policy is vague, and neither site modified information on Yale IT systems. It is also unclear whether Yale has the legal right to control data usage in the ways it claims. But whether or not the sites did violate policies, what is certain is that the hostile way in which the administration handled the cases was wrong. The administration should have opened a dialog with students first--before unilaterally forcing immediate shutdowns in the middle of course selection week with threats of disciplinary action. And it should not have misused the network firewall to block access to the sites, creating a dangerous precedent of content-based censorship. Furthermore, the administration’s public response to the CourseTable incident is a non-apology which places all the blame on the students involved, and makes weak commitments like “[hearing] more about the demand for better tools and guidelines.” (http://yaledailynews.com/crosscampus/2014/01/17/miller-pens-open-letter-on-ybb/) We must let the Yale administration know that these tactics are not okay. The university has broken students' trust by acting in a hostile way towards students who were providing a beneficial service to fellow students free of charge. It has also damaged its public image, especially in the eyes of prospective STEM major students, who are comparing Yale with institutions like Stanford and MIT that have far more progressive attitudes towards course data access. Whether or not the university's tactics have been legally justifiable, we expect a higher standard of behavior from a school that is truly committed to helping its students freely innovate. The administration should apologize for its actions, and strongly commit to taking concrete steps to support student data access and innovation.