Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Daily Editorials SUCK

This is not news.

But this is a great example of how stupid the Stanford Daily Editorial Board is. Here's the thing: I sort of agree with them. I hate some of ResEd's policies - they're a little overbearing and sometimes it's just not worth it to have something for everyone because a) people don't care and don't show up and b) people should get used to disappointment and with being challenged by people who are different from them. I think ResEd should focus more on dialogue and information than programprogramprogram of non heteronormative blandness. But I was also an RA and as such I have great respect for the community that ResEd does build. True, it's most successful because the people they hire (RFs, RAs, etc) are naturally good community builders who manage to create welcoming living spaces and smooth over (or at least deal with) conflicts and differences. But complaints like this:

if two freshman roommates have incompatible living habits, they still have to jump through ResEd’s administrative hoops to change rooms, even if they have come up with a solution themselves. Why can’t freshmen have a greater say in their own situation?

are completely off base. If freshmen were to have a greater say, then half of entering freshmen would be living in singles, because from Day 1 freshmen are angry about being stuck with this or that roommate or in this or that dorm or this or that part of campus. Letting them switch rooms whenever they feel like it is a recipe for disaster and prevents learning how to compromise and deal with other people on a mature (collegiate) level. Sometimes switching rooms is necessary, but in those cases ResEd is actually very good about cooperating. But if your roommate is too quiet or too loud, you should be learning to deal, and if that is an administrative hoop I'm sorry.

I have strained against my fair share of ResEd handcuffs. For example, the Red Light policy. However, I allow that such a policy should exist (although the new rules that RAs/HPACs/RCCs etc cannot date a single frosh on campus, even one of their own, is pretty damn stupid). I resent enforced community - I think the ideal dorm is one in which the RAs and other staff guide residents just long enough that they want to lead the dorm themselves, provide a safe community in which people can experiment with new activities and hobbies and social groups, and then let your froshies fly on their own (this usually happens late fall quarter, maybe early winter). Bottom-up community, not top-down. So yes, sometimes the panels on date rape are annoying, but their ultimate purpose isn't to be vapid and pointless, but to make sure people know those issues are there and that people (RAs, etc) are prepared to deal with them. Much of the programming ("formal teaching") drops off once you no longer live in a freshman dorm and no longer need your "hand held" (and besides, who is to say that seniors don't sometimes need a little support from their RAs, past and present?). And overall, the "little people" of ResEd are doing an excellent job, even if they do fudge the rules now and then. The Daily just makes the fundamental mistake of always going too far because they aren't smart enough to work with subtle nuances. (This is something I often did in my column as well and I'm working on changing it - let me know if it's working.)

I personally liked the comeback in today's letter to the editor:

Finally, consider that without programming and dorm food, students would have fewer neutral issues to complain about socially. Who hasn’t made a new friend during orientation by decrying a lame dorm event or the sub-par pad thai? The Editorial Board shouldn’t forget that if Stanford students didn’t love bonding over mediocre university institutions, they’d have no readership.

Do you think Daily Editorials are actually written purposefully to piss off their public and lure letters to the editor? I actually don't. I think they are just a disaster.

God I hate sub-par pad thai.

No comments: