Editorial
Review Censored
by Editorial Board

An assault on student freedom is beginning. Two years ago a policy banning door-to-door distribution of publications was formed at the behest of Residential Education. At the time of its conception, this policy faced little organized resistance for a simple reason: no one enforced it. Now this policy is being awakened from its two year hibernation by a small group of offended students who wish to silence the voices of dissent.

Let there be no misunderstandings. The main reason that this policy may become enforceable is because of the "controversy" the Review stirred up publishing an investigative piece on MEChA. An un-enforced law is not a law at all. It doesn't matter if this policy was put on the books two years ago or two hundred years ago; this policy of censorship effectively didn't exist until a few weeks ago. So let us not skirt around this issue by pretending the debate is centered upon issues of excess publications outside people's doors or any other meager excuse meant to deceive. The effect of this policy is censorship and the cause undeniably came from the Review.

So what exactly did the Review do to warrant such a strong response? The Review published an article condemning racist statements that MEChA put forth years ago. It made a plea for them to distance themselves further from racist literature they still link to on their website.

The current distribution problem began when Roble Hall banned door-to-door distribution as a direct result of the MEChA pieces in the Review. After distribution of our next issue, university officials held a meeting concerning door-to-door distribution of the Review as a result of several complaints they had received, after which all university publications were informed that door-to-door distribution was not allowed in the dormatories without the posted consent of each Resident Fellow. While many Resident Fellows have granted publications the right to distribute door-to-door in their respective dorms, a majority have simply not yet made a policy, meaning door-to-door is still banned in most dorms.

While the Review has complied with the newly enforced policy, the Progressive, a liberal student publication, chose to defy ResEd and distributed their most recent issue door-to-door. However, university officials have said that the violation will only have ramfications if someone lodges a complaint. As of yet, no one has filed a complaint against the Progressive, whereas there were several filed against the Review the last time we distributed door-to-door. What does that say about the tolerance of liberals vs. the tolerance of conservatives? Stanford University boasts perhaps the most diverse campus in the world in terms of student programs, cultures, ethnicities, thoughts, and ideas. We have community centers for many cultural groups, houses with themes ranging from Hippie to Native American to HumBio, and a diversity of student opinion which makes Stanford a cultural epicenter to the entire world. Diversity is one of the guiding visions used to shape our community. Starting freshmen year we are taught the many virtues of accepting those with which we disagree rather than dismissing them.

Yet many of those who claim to treasure diversity are the same people who are now actively working to quash what was already one of Stanford's most marginalized student groups, the Review, even at the expense of other publications.

Whether you enjoy reading the Review or not, one statement everyone can agree on is the Review always has something unique to add to the current campus debate. Is accepting differing opinions not at core of the ideals of tolerance and acceptance?

The Review was founded in 1987 because many frustrated students felt their voice wasn't being represented. The Review's presence is a testament to just how tolerant our community is to a wide range of ideas. Our recent articles are no different than what we have published for years. They are no more inflaming or provocative. So what grievous crime have we committed now that justifies cutting down our primary means to reach our to the student body?

If you don't like the Review throw it away. If you find it under your door and you don't want to read it, make it into a paper airplane or a sailor's cap. But whatever you do, do not quash the expression of ideas it represents simply because you don't agree with them.

The Review has no weapons. The Review holds no protests. The only thing the Review does is print words. When printing words becomes so dangerous it warrants censorship, we, as a community, must ask ourselves "How tolerant have we become?"

Page last modified on Thursday, 02-Mar-2006 00:26:20 MST.