The prodigal Provost stirs ire

I read Friday’s front page article, “Condi Eyes Return, But in What Role?” with growing disbelief (May 25). Have the past six years disappeared from the memory of Stanford officials? If so, here is a reminder: Condoleezza Rice has served at the highest levels of an administration many historians are calling the most disastrous in American history. She was one of the architects of a war that fractured a once-functioning society, created a training ground for terrorists and has so far cost the lives of 3,345 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Iraq now has one of the highest death rates in the world for children under five, two million Iraqis are homeless and there is no end in sight.

Rice’s record is not one of “mistakes were made” but of outright dishonesty. She was a key player in the campaign of lies Bush used to justify invading a country that posed no threat to the United States. She was a key player in the campaign of lies Bush used to justify invading a country that posed no threat to the United States. She referred to threats of a “mushroom cloud” and claimed Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes in order to make nuclear fuel, when it was known that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear program. She remained silent when President Bush repeatedly linked Iraq to the 9/11 attacks and declared “The United States does not condone torture under any circumstances,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Given Rice’s record, it seems inconceivable that she should have a place on any university campus. An academic community should make room for a wide range of policies and opinions, no matter how controversial. But integrity is an essential element of scholarship, and there should be no room for someone who is willing to lie in defense of those policies and opinions.

Rachelle Marshall

Stanford, CA

A fair solution to shuttle funding

In yesterday’s article “GSC offers only half of expected funds for airport shuttle service,” I read that the GSC chose not to allocate as much funding as undergrads hoped they would. Reasonably, the GSC figured that graduate students would not be getting half the benefit of this program, and should not suffer half the burden. The response of ASSU President Hershey Avula ‘08 (an undergraduate) as much as admitted the fact. But, he argued, success now will ensure a future where graduate students will be getting almost half of the benefit of the program. This is the kind of logic Tom Sawyer would use to get you to paint a fence/sell Amway products.

How about the GSC and the Undergraduate Senate go back and both agree to fund the program, on one condition: Drivers will ask each student boarding whether they are a grad student or an undergrad. With this simple data, we can figure out what benefit was had by each kind of student, and money can be restituted so that the payment will be in proportion to the usage. This way, everyone can be happy and at the airport.

Dan Bentley

Class of 2004, MS ‘05