Etch emails

From: Chelsey Sveinsson <svein@stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Provost Etchemendy on Dialogue, the Senate's Role, Elections, and Other Recent Community Issues
To: Manny Thompson <mannyt@stanford.edu>
Cc: John Etchemendy <etch@stanford.edu>, the_diaspora <the_diaspora@lists.stanford.edu>


Don't want to cut off the thread, so I am copying and pasting below what I sent earlier:

For what it is worth, I would like to show my support of Manny's perspective of the University. Based on the University's response to communities on campus, it seems clear to me that only some, not all, lives matter to the administration. It is hypocritical for the university on one hand to say that it will not consider further an issue supported by the student government and then on the other hand call for more dialogue on campus.

Coming to Stanford, I had hoped that The Farm would become my home but the past 8 or so months have confirmed that that expectation was foolish. Initially I believed in the propaganda that Stanford was selling, that this place cared about all of its students, including me. But now I see this place for what it truly is: a mirage fooling me and others into believing that this school equally values all of its students no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political views, socioeconomic status or nationality. But I and others will be fooled no longer.

For those who don't see what Manny mentioned in his email, wake up.

And for those who do, stay woke.

Blessings,
Chelsey


On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Manny Thompson <mannyt@stanford.edu> wrote:
I know for a fact that you gave a serial rapist a degree within the last year. Prove me wrong. Revoke his degree. Until then I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone who condones rape.

No justice, no dialogue!

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 7:35 PM, John Etchemendy <etch@stanford.edu> wrote:
Manny,

I’m sorry you feel that way.  I’d like to talk because there are a lot of assumptions in your message that are simply incorrect, and I’m sure there are there are just as many faulty assumptions that I have which you could help me understand.  Talking to one another is the only way I know to clarify misunderstandings and make forward progress.

I see no reason to apologize for or change my statement.  It was not directed at SOCC (we had several reports of other groups using similar methods), and I stand by every word.  Without talking to one another, we will never solve anything.

No dialogue, no understanding!

John

On Apr 19, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Manny Thompson <mannyt@stanford.edu> wrote:

I'm afraid you've missed the entire point of my message.

I said I'd rather commit to violent resistance before participating in dialogue that's just a diversionary tactic. The university advocates for dialogue not as a means to solve injustice but in the hopes of normalizing it. Empty calls for dialogue have just become the university's method of ignoring issues brought forth by students of color and other marginalized identities. But dialogue merely for the sake of dialogue isn't some magic remedy.

You say you want to meet to understand my perspective but you already know my thoughts on these issues. The demands from our communities have been highly visible, and I'm not interested in meeting with you as long as Stanford continues perpetrating violence against us.

Apologize for your statement, which legitimates the false allegations against SOCC and insinuates that people of color are close-minded for voting for candidates that actually care about us.

Have the Board review its investments to check if they're killing Palestinians. If they are, then stop investing in ethnic cleansing. Divisiveness is not a good excuse. Slavery and segregation were divisive. Hire Black CAPS counselors, increase faculty diversity, and stop giving rapists degrees.

I fully expect inaction from you. Trust that won't be true of me.

No justice no peace,
Manny


On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, John Etchemendy <etch@stanford.edu> wrote:
Manny, I’d really like to understand your perspective on these issues, but email is not a good way to do that.  I’d like to sit down and talk, if you’d be interested.  I could meet this afternoon or some time tomorrow.

Would you like to do that?

John

On Apr 18, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Manny Thompson <mannyt@stanford.edu> wrote:

I disagree, Jessica. What I hate about the real world politics you are referring to is that institutions of power are vestiges of white supremacy.

Sexual assault, police brutality against black and brown bodies, Israeli apartheid, and unfounded attacks against SOCC perpetrated by the Review have been going on for years and Etchemendy and the university have remained silent. The administration didn't create space for dialogue on their own because they've never really been interested in dialogue. They're interested in Stanford's brand because that's what fills their pockets. They're interested in perpetuating the status quo. But their apathy hasn't gone unnoticed.

The salient difference this year is that the voices of survivors, people of color, and Palestinians - as well as their respective allies - have been uplifted like they haven't in recent Stanford history and this is seen as a threat. When those with marginalized identities begin to fight back against the onslaught of oppression that we face, the oppressor always responds with empty words like Etchemendy's in an attempt to silence us. He attempts to look reasonable and caring when in actuality he only cares about those individuals that look like him, are educated like him, have his class background and share his other privileges. Etchemendy knows the truth about our school. Stanford NEEDS us. We're their diversity, the pretty faces they put on their brochures and in their videos to appeal to the world and look progressive. But when we don't assimilate into whiteness, even as we're bombarded with the rhetoric of the ruling class, they get very concerned. They want us to be successful only so they can boast of our accomplishments. When we make demands for justice they tremble because they are the people committing injustice. They tremble because if today all the people on campus that find this university oppressive were to drop out, there would be a media frenzy and Stanford's brand would be threatened. If we highlighted the discrimination we feel here they would piss themselves and sew holes into their pockets to prevent any more money from escaping.

Why hasn't he made a statement about hostilities against communities of color every other year? Why didn't the university take sexual assault cases seriously until now? If they really cared, should it really have been necessary that students shut down the 101 highway before the school released a statement that black lives matter? Why won't the board of trustees even look to see if their investments are killing Palestinians after 19 student groups, almost 2000 signatures of support, and student senate passing a divestment resolution? The answer is easy. They are beneficiaries of an unjust system and addressing that system threatens their profit. We go to a school that is highly likely invested in: the prison industrial complex which profits off of black and brown bodies, Palestinian suffering, and the higher education of rapists who they let get away with sexual assault with impunity. Yet the statement Etchemendy decides to release is about maintaining dialogue. Pitiful... but just what I'd expect from a university that only exists because its founders profited from the genocide of the indigenous population and exploitation of migrant Chinese rail workers.

We attend a university that has almost every material comfort one can imagine - and the officials here are only committed to making sure those in support of the oppressive status quo stay comfortable. Dialogue. They wanna talk about dialogue. I'd boycott dialogue and commit to violent resistance before I engage with such evil.

Black power matters,
Manny

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Jessica Ellen Spicer <jespicer@stanford.edu> wrote:
Snaps to Victoria. Why are we emulating everything we hate about the "real world" politics in our own campus? To some extent, yes, the issues here should mimic those being discussed world wide. But that doesn't mean that the tone and our methods can't reflect the same processes that we expect (and have not received lol) from our own government. Discourse requires listening. Even though I personally don't like a lot of the higher ups at the university (sorry, ran out of fucks to give on that one), this article has a point. Help me help you by helping each other (Eh this may need some rewording). Best of luck to everyone, let's try to stay positive!

Lots of Love

J


On Friday, April 17, 2015, Victoria Kalumbi <vkalumbi@stanford.edu> wrote:
From the following link:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/april/facsen-april-meeting-041715.html

Essential feature of dialogue is listening
Provost John Etchemendy read a statement he had prepared for the meeting:

"In recent months, I have, as I'm sure many of you have, been increasingly distressed by the tenor of discourse on campus. Two meetings ago, the president made a statement calling for more civility in the campus discussion of one particular issue. But I'm sure it has not escaped members of the senate that the same turmoil that continues to surround that issue also infects the campus discussion of many others.

"Whether the issue is Israel and Palestine, sexual assault and due process, investment in fossil fuels, marriage and gay rights, black lives, or increasing disparities in wealth, we seem to have lost the ability to engage in true dialogue. Dialogue is not monologue times two. The essential feature of dialogue is not speaking but listening; listening with respect and then expressing, in turn, one's own view with clarity, rather than volume.

"Recent events surrounding the ASSU election have again brought these issues to the fore. It has become increasingly common for student groups to exchange candidate endorsements for what are, in effect, loyalty oaths. Here, I am not singling out any one group; although press coverage has focused on one, others do the same.

"I am deeply concerned about the outcome of this approach. I would like to ask our students which they would prefer: a senate composed of thoughtful, open-minded students representing the full range of student opinion, or a senate preselected to represent a filtered set of beliefs. If the answer is the latter, then I fear we have failed as a university. Our mission is to open minds through dialogue, not to close them by muffling opposition."

Sent from my phone

--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
the_diaspora mailing list
the_diaspora@lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/the_diaspora