As a result of the new theme housing application and review process, several theme houses will shift locations in the 2026-27 school year.
The post Sigma Chi returns to 550, Terra and Synergy combine appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
On Dec. 9, the University announced several new theme house assignments. The changes came as a result of the 2025 theme house application and review process, a new system managed by the Committee on Residential Learning (CoRL).
Next year, Kappa Kappa Gamma will move to 710 Bowdoin, replacing ZAP, while Alpha Phi will move to 702 Bowdoin. Synergy, which faced University pressure in May to close down alongside Terra, will now share its current house at 550 San Juan with Terra.
In another shift, Sigma Chi will be regaining on-campus housing status, moving back to 550 Lausen. Sigma Chi’s former ground lease for 550, which the fraternity held for 86 years, expired in 2023 after the University attempted to terminate it. Both 539 Cowell Lane (Terra) and 675 Lomita (shared by Alpha Phi and Kappa Kappa Gamma) will replace the lost self-op housing. The application period saw 30 total submissions for 24 available theme house spaces. Ethnic theme houses, which are governed by the Undergraduate Residence Governance Council, were not affected by the process.
“This was our first time, since I’ve become a member, [that we’ve] submitted the application, so we’re just very grateful,” said Sigma Chi president Mason Osborn ’26. “We’re obviously very appreciative about that.”
Michele Rasmussen, the vice provost for student affairs, emphasized the unique role faculty played in determining student housing.
“I think one of the distinctive things about Stanford’s undergraduate residential life system is that…there’d be a strong infusion of the educational part of the Stanford experience, even in the residential component of student lives,” said Rasmussen. “Faculty have long been very interested and engaged around what it’s like in the dorms, what it’s like in the residences.”
Anant Singhal ’26, a current resident at 550 Lausen, emphasized how beneficial living in the self-op has been to his Stanford experience.
“It’s been honestly such a great experience,” Singhal said. “Most people in the house are here because they want that social experience, so they also make that social experience… There’s no cliqueiness. Everybody’s friends with pretty much everybody. We socialize a lot over dinner. We hang out in the lounges. People go on trips together.”
According to the University, the application revealed a discrepancy between supply and demand in several aspects of Stanford housing. “There were more applications than we had spaces for, so there’s that shortfall right there,” said Rasmussen, who pointed to the Class of 2029 as Stanford’s largest-ever frosh and transfer class.
“The lack of quality two-room doubles or singles, I think that’s a real issue for a lot of people,” Singhal, who lives in a one-room double, said.
While Singhal chose a smaller dorm room for the social experience of 550 Lausen, he acknowledged the limitations of such a trade-off.
“The quality of existing stock is questionable… [I live in] a one-room double. It’s a small one-room double. I love it because I love my roommate. I love my community. But like, it’s definitely not [like] everybody’s going to be satisfied with that, right?” he said. Singhal emphasized the need to expand housing — both apartment style and theme housing — to give students more choice in their preferred style of living.
According to Rasmussen, constructing new housing poses a challenge due to county land ordinances.
“Stanford is somewhat constrained currently in putting up new buildings for a variety of reasons, including the GUP [General User Permit, a Santa Clara County Board restriction that limits Stanford’s transportation impact and population in exchange for freedom of property development],” she said. “But certainly looking at a longer time horizon, there’s also the possibility.”
Mason suggested the University provide increased clarity and feedback to applicants in the new system. “The one thing that would be beneficial would be possibly a rubric, or something like a specific set of guidelines,” he said. “Obviously, we were very grateful that we got [housing], but we didn’t receive any feedback. I’m not sure if the people who didn’t get houses got feedback, but it’d be nice if everyone could [get it].”
Rasmussen acknowledged the difficulties in assigning theme housing. “I do think we’re going to need to have agreement and open-mindedness about how we keep some stability and sense of tradition from year to year,” she said. Students may need to “make room [in discussions] for the potential of some houses being sunsetted and being replaced by new ones,” Rasmussen said.
At the same, Rasmussen emphasized the importance of the student perspective, which she believes will help improve the housing process. “I would say that anytime a student wants to share their input, they should just shoot me an email, or share it with vice provost of undergraduate education Jay Hamilton.” Rasmussen said. “The best source of how we can improve is coming from the students.”
This article has been corrected to accurately spell Mason Osborn’s last name.
The post Sigma Chi returns to 550, Terra and Synergy combine appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
GSC debates BCA nomination, removal of commencement speakersThe GSC moved to nominate sixth-year a student to the Board of Conduct Affairs and discussed the removal of commencement speakers from department-level ceremonies.
The post GSC debates BCA nomination, removal of commencement speakers appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
On Thursday, the Graduate Student Council (GSC) debated a nomination to the Board of Conduct Affairs (BCA), the University’s decision to bar students from speaking at Commencement and how Voluntary Student Organization (VSO) funding is distributed.
Councillors moved to vote Tom Liu, a sixth-year Ph.D. student and a member of the GSC, to the BCA. Jim Biernat, a fifth-year M.A. candidate, gave a brief presentation on the background of the BCA and Liu’s potential involvement.
GSC Diversity and Advocacy chair Artem Arzyn ’26 M.S. ’26 questioned whether chairs from the Nominations Commission (NomCom) should have been present at the meeting to approve Liu’s nomination to the board. Arzyn wanted to ensure that other candidates were given the opportunity to apply for the BCA since the GSC recommended Liu for the position, they said.
UGS chair David Sengthay ’26 said that the NomCom has the right to exercise discretion over how they solicit applications.
“If we [the UGS and GSC] were so insistent on advocating for Tom to be in this position, and then [the NomCom], in turn, only selected Tom because of our insistence, I feel like this is a fair bill,” Sengthay said.
Liu’s experience in the GSC was a factor in its advocacy for his nomination to the BCA, according to GSC chair Rory O’Dwyer, a sixth-year physics Ph.D. student. “There is a microscopic window for the OCS [Office of Community Standards] to have any sort of marginal change on the things that are very serious… I think it is quite critical to have Tom inserted in that microscopic window.”
The GSC also considered a possible future motion to change VSO funding from the current “70-30” system, in which a VSO composed of more than 70% graduate students is funded by the GSC and a VSO composed of more than 70% undergraduate students is funded by the UGS. The council considered implementing proportional funding based on the exact percentage of undergraduate and graduate students via joint grants for each VSO.
GSC treasurer Elena Vasilache, a fourth year M.A. candidate, said that the proposed joint system should be considered because the current 70-30 structure violates the ASSU constitution.
“[GSC treasurer] Brion [Ye] and I think that we should match the ASSU constitution,” said Vasilache. “If it says we should do [VSO funding] depending on percentage, then we should just judge the annual grants based on percentage instead of the 30-70 split.”
During the meeting, Sengthay also briefed the councilors on a presentation by Education and Democracy United (EDU) at Wednesday’s GSC meeting, which expressed dismay that the University will no longer allow student speakers at department-level commencement ceremonies. According to Sengthay, the policy change was announced in an American Association of University Professors (AAUP) op-ed published in The Daily in November.
“This is sort of contradictory to the fact that 56 faculty senate voted back in 2024 on a statement of freedom of expression encouraging that Stanford promote the wildest possible freedom of expression consistent with the University’s legal and moral obligations,” said Sengthay. “We believe that a blanket removal is much broader than necessary.”
The post GSC debates BCA nomination, removal of commencement speakers appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanford faculty weigh in on the use of AI tools in researchStanford faculty across disciplines are integrating AI into their research, balancing its potential to accelerate analysis against ethical concerns and interpretive limitations.
The post Stanford faculty weigh in on the use of AI tools in research appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become more widely used in academic research at Stanford, faculty across disciplines are debating how to adopt the technology without compromising scholarly rigor, ethics and human judgment.
Kathryn Olivarius, an associate professor of history, approaches AI with caution. Her research on the 19th century United States relies on archival materials, close readings and original interpretations, which often reside in physical archives that remain undigitized.
“ChatGPT or generative AI is not the archive plugged in,” Olivarius said, noting that many students assume historical sources are fully accessible online.
Olivarius shared that she has used generative AI and found it to be a “very good copy editor,” emphasizing, however, that she would not use it to generate drafts. “For most academics, your thinking and good ideas all come through this slog of writing,” Olivarius said. “I don’t see myself ever really outsourcing that part of any research I do.”
Olivarius also raised ethical concerns surrounding AI use in historical research, describing the current moment as “the Wild West.”
“There is no consensus about the ethics of this yet,” she explained. “If it’s not your idea, it’s not your idea, I think you can plausibly call it [AI] plagiarism.”
Her concerns extend into the classroom. After testing AI by having it generate an essay in her field, Olivarius said it made significant interpretive errors. “It got things wrong, major interpretive things wrong, and only I would know that,” she explained. “The problem is, when you are not an expert, you won’t be able to catch the things that it gets wrong.”
As a result, some faculty members are focused on helping researchers use these tools more effectively. Jooyeon Hahm, the head of Data Science Training and Consultation at the Center for Interdisciplinary Digital Research, helps Stanford researchers create quantitative, computational and algorithmic analyses of data.
“Consultation requests have shifted from general AI awareness to highly specific tool evaluations and technical applications,” Hahm said, highlighting a growing interest in cost-efficient application programming interface (API) usage strategies, which help organizations get the most out of AI tools while controlling costs. “This shift reflects a maturing relationship with AI technology,” Hahm said, moving “from initial experimentation toward informed, critical and ethically grounded integration into research workflows.”
According to Hahm, researchers are also seeking deeper explanations of how AI systems work, including “transformer architecture [the model design that helps AI understand and generate language efficiently] and the underlying mechanisms that power these tools alongside increased attention to ethics and best practices.
In qualitative research, Hahm said scholars are experimenting with large language models (LLMs) for tasks such as coding and data extraction — while remaining aware of “the danger of hallucinations and inaccurate outputs that could compromise research validity.”
“I don’t think AI is fundamentally reshaping the skill set researchers need,” Hahm shared. “If anything, the traditional skills of critical reading, writing and thinking have become more important, not less.”
Jef Caers, a professor of earth and planetary sciences, works in a field where AI-driven analysis is already deeply embedded. His research focuses on decision-making under uncertainty in mineral exploration and geothermal energy.
Caers said AI allows geoscientists to analyze complex datasets that humans cannot process alone, helping inform decisions across the mining value chain. He emphasized that the value of AI extends beyond efficiency.
“When people do mineral exploration, they don’t worry about the environmental impact,” Caers explained, arguing that incorporating sustainability and community considerations earlier ultimately saves time and money.
In large-scale mining projects, Caers said AI can help integrate environmental, social and economic factors, reducing waste and improving long-term outcomes. “Operations get optimized, not for productivity but for including other factors, such as sustainability,” he said.
Despite attention on generative AI, Caers agreed that its role in research is often overstated. “AI is not going to do that,” he said. “It won’t understand the complexity of the systems.”
As Stanford continues to develop norms and guidance around AI use, faculty say the challenge is not adopting the technology itself but ensuring it strengthens scholarship without eroding the intellectual rigor, accountability and collaboration that define academic research.
The post Stanford faculty weigh in on the use of AI tools in research appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
From the Community | Stanford’s decision to end land acknowledgments is wrong and troublingStanford professors Usha Iyer, David Palumbo-Liu and Rebecca Tarlau write to urge Stanford to reinstate land acknowledgments.
The post From the Community | Stanford’s decision to end land acknowledgments is wrong and troubling appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
We write as members of the Stanford faculty to strongly support the student petition and the ASSU Joint Resolution to reinstate the University land acknowledgment and commit to meeting with Indigenous students, faculty, staff and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe to co-create meaningful practices that strengthen the University’s commitment to Native people. As the students write, the decision to remove the land acknowledgement from campus-wide ceremonies “exists in opposition to the University’s stated goals of honoring relationships with Native people, genuine reflection and meaningful action.” This piece complements and amplifies the students’ letters, petitions and statements and raises concerns about the decision, the manner it was conveyed and its timing.
As highlighted in the student petition, the unsigned decision to remove land acknowledgements from campus-wide ceremonies was only conveyed to a small group of administrators. This letter offered two reasons for this decision:
“First, the primary way the University should engage with complex historical issues and their contemporary legacy is through its research and education programs, not through symbolic University statements. Second, and relatedly, these University-wide ceremonies are meant to mark the milestones of students entering and leaving the University for academic study, and thus the program should focus on the University’s mission of open inquiry and learning.“
We find these justifications unconvincing. To begin with, Stanford relies on symbols all the time, through mottos, ceremonies, building names and more. Furthermore, Stanford has historically supported symbolic actions to address anti-Indigenous racism and anti-Indigenous practices. As early as 1972, Stanford changed the name of its sports teams from the Stanford Indians to the Stanford Cardinal after community members objected to the racist tenor of “Indians.” More recently in 2018, after careful deliberation by a University committee and following sustained pressure from Native students, Stanford changed the names of several buildings and roads named after individuals who had engaged in the extermination of Native peoples (Junipero Serra) and racist eugenicists (Louis Agassiz, David Starr Jordan). These actions acknowledged historical wrongs by replacing problematic symbols with those more closely aligned with Stanford’s stated values. They demonstrated that symbols matter — struggles over meaning and values are inseparable from those over power and resources.
Moreover, symbolic statements and substantive educational engagement are not mutually exclusive; they should reinforce each other. Increased investment in Indigenous studies at Stanford would be most welcome and indeed would demonstrate that University statements go beyond symbolism and commit to action. Some concrete examples would be to include a unit or a lecture on the history of the Muwekma Ohlone people in the college orientation program and to invite the Muwekma Ohlone people to participate in public ceremonies and conferences about sovereignty, land use and traditional, ecological knowledge. This would exemplify going beyond symbolic statements to materializing responsibility to Indigenous peoples. Without such efforts, quietly removing the land acknowledgement reads less as a principled decision and more as an act of deliberate erasure.
Additionally, on the point of “symbolic statements,” while some critics of land acknowledgements describe them as performative, these statements remain so only if institutional accountability does not follow institutional rhetoric. Land acknowledgments are meant to materialize improved relationships with Indigenous peoples and non-human beings like the land, air and water. They are not fads to adopt and drop on a whim. As a University, we are especially responsible for modeling ethical conduct. The quiet removal of the land acknowledgement only serves to make visible to young people how power operates in enacting such underhanded erasures that silence, erase and depoliticize a space like Convocation that formerly acknowledged Indigenous presence.
The University’s claim that land acknowledgments fall outside the scope of “open inquiry and learning” is also misguided. Understanding history, culture and our relationship to the earth is central to academic inquiry. Engaging indigenous epistemologies and histories profoundly enriches research in environment studies, social history and contemporary politics.
The timing of this decision is equally concerning. It comes on the heels of the report to the Faculty Senate by the Task Force on Renewing Public Support for Universities, which framed its charge as understanding “sentiments toward universities among the general public and among those with particular influence on public policy.” We later heard that, according to the Task Force, the “public” was concerned about “polarization” on campuses. In this context, we fear that the timing reflects a capitulation to political pressure from the Trump administration and its allies to purge university language and programming of anything hinting at “diversity” or “wokeness.”
This decision also fits within Stanford’s broader pattern of rolling back institutional commitments to equity in response to national pressures. Recent administrative changes — including closing the Office for Inclusion & Belonging, sunsetting diversity programs such as DARE and EDGE, the scrubbing of some equity and diversity-related language from University websites and the elimination of student speakers at commencement constrict voices and initiatives that challenge exclusion and inequity within the institution. Taken together, these actions convey a troubling readiness to retreat from values of inclusion, accountability and academic freedom when they become politically inconvenient.
We agree with our students that “If Stanford University truly seeks to foster a culture of expansive inquiry, freedom of thought and meaningful action, then committing to an inclusive process of communication and discussion is non-negotiable.” When it was politically expedient, universities rushed to form DEI committees and consult with local Indigenous communities about land acknowledgements. Now, as political winds shift, the University cannot abandon its avowed commitment to equity and historical truth-telling. Removing the land acknowledgement from University events contributes to the concerted invisibilization and erasure of continued Native presence on this land. Any changes to the land acknowledgement should happen in consultation with the Muwekma Ohlone and with our Indigenous students, staff and faculty.
The Faculty Senate will soon hear a motion to support the student petition. We urge all faculty to stand with our students and the Muwekma Ohlone people and sign this petition, which will be presented at that meeting.
Usha Iyer is an associate professor in the department of Art and Art History. David Palumbo-Liu is the Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and a professor of comparative literature. Rebecca Tarlau is an associate professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education
The post From the Community | Stanford’s decision to end land acknowledgments is wrong and troubling appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Text and the City: In ‘Yellowface,’ who gets to tell the story (and get away with it)?R.F. Kuang tells the sharp tale of a blazing theft and biting jealousy in this sharp rebuke of the publishing industry, writes Guleryuz.
The post Text and the City: In ‘Yellowface,’ who gets to tell the story (and get away with it)? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
R.F. Kuang’s “Yellowface” reads like a slow, relentless spiral — the kind where you keep telling yourself, “this can’t get worse,” and then it does, because the point is that it absolutely can. It is a satire, yes, but it’s also a horror story about publishing, whiteness, envy and how easily theft disguises itself as opportunity when the right person is doing it. “Yellowface” is about what happens when someone else steals the pen and insists they deserve it more.
Kuang’s 2023 satire centers on June Hayward, a struggling white author who witnesses the accidental death of her wildly successful Asian American friend (and fellow author) Athena Liu. June does not plan to steal Athena’s unfinished manuscript… until she does. June tells herself she’s honoring Athena. She tells herself she’s fixing the book. She tells herself that publishing is unfair anyway. In June’s words, “The truth is fluid. There is always another way to spin the story.” This sentence could be the epigraph for the entire novel because “Yellowface” is less interested in a single lie than it is in the ecosystem that allows lies to thrive.
Kuang is merciless in her portrayal of jealousy. That’s part of what makes the book so unsettling. June doesn’t hate Athena because Athena is cruel or undeserving — she hates her because she is brilliant, beloved and successful.
“It’s hard, after all, to be friends with someone who outshines you at every turn,” June admits, a sentiment that lands with uncomfortable honesty. This isn’t cartoon villainy. It’s envy that festers quietly in workshops, in group chats, in Twitter timelines. Before Athena’s death, June tracks her friend’s success obsessively: “Jealousy is the spike in my heart rate when I glimpse news of Athena’s success on Twitter — another book contract, awards nominations, special editions, foreign rights deals.” Here, Kuang captures something painfully familiar: how social media turns other people’s wins into a personal referendum on your worth.
But “Yellowface” isn’t just about one jealous woman. It’s also about systems — publishing, academia, media — that reward theft when it comes wrapped in the right body. One of the most devastating parts of the novel is how Athena herself is treated while she’s alive. June reflects on how Athena’s publishers boxed her in for her racial identity.
“Every time she tried to branch out to new projects, they kept insisting that Asian was her brand, was what her audience expected,” June narrates. Athena’s trauma was commodified, flattened, turned into spectacle. “Racial trauma sells, right? They treated her like a museum.” Kuang skewers the industry’s hunger for pain — especially pain that can be marketed as authentic, educational, consumable.
And then there’s the grotesque irony: Athena is constrained, surveilled and reduced, while June — rebranded with an ambiguously Asian-sounding author photo and a carefully curated narrative — is celebrated for telling “her” story.
The final act of “Yellowface” plunges headfirst into online discourse, where Kuang’s satire sharpens into something closer to prophecy. June becomes both persecuted and protected by the internet, where outrage is entertainment and truth is optional. “These people love to have a target, and they’ll tear apart anything you put in front of them,” Kuang writes. It’s a brutal indictment of callout culture’s emptiness, not because harm isn’t real, but because spectacle so often replaces justice.
What makes “Yellowface” so effective, and so uncomfortable, is that Kuang never lets June fully collapse into caricature. June is awful, but she is also disturbingly realistic. She is what happens when entitlement meets insecurity, when ambition meets structural inequality, when someone believes that proximity to marginalized stories entitles them to ownership. Kuang doesn’t ask us to forgive June. She asks us to recognize her.
Kuang’s “Yellowface” is viciously funny, deeply unsettling and impossible to ignore. It asks a question that every reader, and especially every writer, must sit with. When you tell a story, whose voice are you amplifying, and whose are you erasing? And more importantly: If the system rewards you for doing harm, are you brave enough to stop?
The post Text and the City: In ‘Yellowface,’ who gets to tell the story (and get away with it)? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Okorie leads late-game magic as Stanford men’s basketball steals win over HokiesStanford men's basketball remained undefeated on the road after Ebuka Okorie secured a comeback win with a three-pointer in the final seconds of the game.
The post Okorie leads late-game magic as Stanford men’s basketball steals win over Hokies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
It is official: the Cardinal (13-3, 2-1 ACC) are on a roll, and it is largely thanks to their freshman star.
Freshman guard Ebuka Okorie held the ball with Stanford down by two, saw his defender drift backward and rose up for a deep shot. The step-back three-pointer dropped with 3.3 seconds left, lifting Stanford to a 69-68 road win over Virginia Tech (12-4, 1-2 ACC) on Wednesday night and capping a frantic rally that turned Cassell Coliseum quiet in its final moments.
Stanford trailed by as many as 13 late and was still down 12 with 2:18 to play before ripping off a 14-1 burst to steal it. Okorie scored 11 of Stanford’s final 14 points in that span, with the other three points coming from a three-pointer by sophomore forward Donavin Young, which was assisted by Okorie.
“I saw I had enough space to get a shot off, and I just took it with confidence,” Okorie said about the game-winner.
Stanford head coach Kyle Smith called it “a great win for our program,” crediting his team for “just kind of hanging around” through a rugged road night that featured rebounding issues and too many fouls early. Wednesday’s contest was Stanford’s first road conference game of the season.
Virginia Tech carried a 31-24 lead into halftime and spent much of the night living at the free-throw line while controlling the flow with physicality. Stanford kept searching for a way to get back in the game, and Okorie said the key late was simply defending without giving the Hokies extra points.
“The main thing was just defending without fouling,” Okorie said. “They were getting a lot of free throws… and once we started doing that, we just kept chipping away.”
Stanford finally found its punch in the final minutes after a lineup tweak and an emphasis on spacing. Smith said sophomore forward Cameron Grant gave the Cardinal a jolt with “fresh legs,” and Young knocked down timely three-pointers to tighten the game late. Okorie did the rest by attacking the seams.
“I felt like I was seeing bigger gaps in the defense,” Okorie said. “Maybe they were a little tired, but I was just seeing bigger gaps, more opportunities to get downhill and score or play-make for my teammates.”
The comeback happened in a flash: Senior guard Benny Gealer hit a three-pointer to start the closing sprint, and Okorie followed by carving out points in the lane and at the arc as Virginia Tech’s offense stalled.
With the Hokies clinging to a two-point lead in the final seconds, Stanford ran a high pick-and-pop to force a switch, and Okorie briefly considered driving before noticing the defender sag.
“I was about to go downhill,” Okorie said. “But then I saw he was backed up a little bit, so I just took the open shot.”
Virginia Tech never got a clean look to respond. Freshman center Oskar Giltay jumped the ensuing inbounds play for a steal to secure Stanford’s rally.
Okorie finished with 31 points and six assists as Stanford improved to 13-3 overall on the season. Young scored 11 points, and Giltay had eight points and 13 rebounds. Virginia Tech was led by freshman Neoklis Avdalas with 21 points.
Smith said the closing sequence felt like “a flurry,” but he believed the Cardinal still had a chance once the momentum shifted.
“There was no magic in there, other than [the] guys just kept competing,” Smith said.
Stanford will aim to remain undefeated on the road this Saturday, traveling to face No. 23 Virginia (13-2, 2-1, ACC). Tip-off is set for 11:15 a.m.
The post Okorie leads late-game magic as Stanford men’s basketball steals win over Hokies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Venezuela is yet another reckless interventionJustin Ahn responds to an earlier opinion on America's capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, criticizing the intervention and questioning its outcomes.
The post Venezuela is yet another reckless intervention appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Tell me how this ends.
In an opinion piece published Tuesday in The Daily, Adam Langshaw ’29 cautiously endorsed the Trump administration’s recent capture of Nicolás Maduro, the longtime dictator of Venezuela. I understand Langshaw’s sympathy for Venezuelans who have suffered far too long from repression, corruption and economic collapse. But I fiercely disagree that a humanitarian crisis is sufficient cause for a U.S. military response.
As Langshaw acknowledges, catastrophes in recent U.S. expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq have shifted American public opinion to train a skeptical eye on foreign interventions. In both instances, humanitarian-minded people, Democratic and Republican alike, supposed: what could be worse than the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, these brutal, inhumane rulers? These public servants led their country into war with plans that were, as it turned out, ineffective. American strategists underestimated their adversaries, especially guerrilla forces. They mistakenly assumed that once they created a power vacuum, it would be filled by a democratic government, not anarchy.
These lessons should inform the way we think about Venezuela today. There will be no watershed moment. Because the Venezuelan opposition has no military forces of its own, any future government will rely on collaboration with elements of the Maduro regime. While lower ranks of the military are not all supporters of the regime, the military leadership will undoubtedly prop it up as long as possible to hold onto their social status, genuine convictions and even personal safety. The armed forces, combined with colectivos (paramilitary groups), the National Intelligence Service (secret police) and the Ministry of the Interior can and will fiercely resist any attempt to strip them of power, and as long as they remain intact any concessions they might make are but empty promises.
One proposal published in Foreign Affairs suggested that the U.S. should pressure the regime to negotiate with the opposition, but it is difficult to imagine that such pressure could be applied without even greater U.S. involvement, even assuming that the opposition, led by the hardliner María Corina Machado who has (for understandable reasons) repudiated all negotiations with what she sees as a criminal regime, would come to the table. For a true transition to democracy, these authoritarian groups that have long reaped the rewards of allegiance to Maduro must lose their privileges.
Those who want democracy in Venezuela should not celebrate the Trump administration’s actions. To create a path to liberalization, the U.S. would have had to invade Venezuela and destroy its security apparatus on its way to capturing Maduro, as it did in Panama in 1989. The Venezuelan opposition recognizes this uncomfortable truth, which is why they have embraced greater U.S. intervention every step of the way. Of course, that would exacerbate dangerous possibilities for civil war, as remnants of the Maduro regime would likely sabotage the newly created democratic government, and drug cartels and insurgent groups such as the ELN (National Liberation Army) near the Colombian border would exploit the precarious situation to expand their activities.
Given the constraints, the U.S. should approach Venezuela as a risk to be mitigated, not an opportunity to be seized. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is correct to have scaled back his rhetoric on regime change and to place stabilization and recovery as first-order objectives, not transition.
What frustrates me about perspectives such as one that Political Science Professor Michael McFaul posted on Substack is the lack of strategy: a specific mechanism to connect means to ends. They state that the Trump administration should promote democracy in Venezuela, and they state that the seizure of Maduro is a step toward democracy, but they fail to articulate the intermediate steps that would take a Maduro-less Venezuela and produce a transition to democracy. In the absence of dramatic escalation, that pathway does not exist. We are flying blind.
Ultimately, Venezuela hawks commit the cardinal analytical sin of emotive thinking. Langshaw writes, “The world must choose between imperfect action and the quiet comfort of doing nothing.” However, I would contend that Langshaw pursues the comfort of having done something, regardless of whether or not it turns out to help. We feel guilty if we are bystanders to someone else’s oppression, and we want to prove our righteousness to ourselves by taking bold actions that prove we care.
When it comes to policy, we should be guided by impact, not intent. No matter how much we want democracy, if we take actions that make no difference even as they undermine important international norms on sovereignty, we are promoters of instability, not democracy.
I would like to conclude with an interrogation of what Langshaw might mean by “imperfect action.” If we accept damage to our global reputation created by a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter to successfully bring democracy to Venezuela, I might agree. If, by contrast, we take bold steps in the vague hope that some viable path forward will emerge, then what Langshaw calls “decisive” I instead label “reckless,” and what he denigrates as “inaction” I endorse as “restraint.”
President Donald Trump has a democratic mandate to pursue an “America First” foreign policy that keeps Americans out of foreign entanglements, a mandate that was reaffirmed by a congressional resolution with respect to Venezuela. I do not contend that all military actions are impermissible, but the burden of proof for an intervention should be high — there must be a precise, realistic plan to accomplish precise, realistic objectives, something that did not exist, no matter how much Secretary Marco Rubio tries to improvise one. Only when American policymakers internalize this important lesson will they be able to avoid wars like Vietnam and Iraq, fueled by utopian dreams that clouded out clear-eyed strategy. I will renounce all my qualms if and only if supporters of intervention can answer one request, a dare if you will:
Tell me how this ends.
The post Venezuela is yet another reckless intervention appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Senior Scaries: Friends we ‘knew in college’In this installment of her column, Ye predicts the fate of her friendships after graduation and reflects on the constant fear of losing touch.
The post Senior Scaries: Friends we ‘knew in college’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
In each installment of “Senior Scaries,” Erin Ye ’26 confronts the senior-year fears of her final quarters at Stanford. You’ll hear about the triumphs and tribulations of tackling the Senior Bucket List
and hopefully feel less alone in the never-ending soul search that comes with growing up.
As I return to Stanford for winter quarter, it occurs to me that the next time I go home, I’ll be going to “my parents’ house” before moving into “my apartment” in New York City. The thought is sickening.
When I graduated from high school, my biggest fear was that I would never see my friends again. I was going to California, and they were staying on the East Coast; I started school a month after them and would end school a month after them, too. Our previously shared schedule of over 10 years was dead and buried, and I was worried that with it, so were our friendships.
Thankfully, that hasn’t been true. I still talk to my closest friends from home all the time in our very active group chats. Over breaks, we make a point to keep up our traditions, like hosting Friendsgiving and eating grapes under the table on New Year’s Eve (going on three years in a row, none of us have boyfriends, so the TikTok superstition might not work, but it still makes for excellent home video footage). The same girls I used to cry over AP exams and prom dates with are the ones I now talk to about Roth IRAs and grad school applications. We’ve all changed, but there’s something about shared history that makes it feel like we’ll never really outgrow each other.
It’s not the same as before, but in some ways it’s better: there’s more stories to share, more people to invite into the folds of our lives. I’ve been lucky enough to meet the college friends of my high school friends, and it’s cool to see how the people we love are shaped by other people who love them.
Six months out from college graduation, my biggest fear is, once more, never seeing my friends again. This time, the challenges feel greater: my college friends don’t have a shared hometown that we return to during breaks, and in the real world, breaks are far less frequent and standardized. Sure, a lot of people will be in New York, and sure, it will be fun to explore other cities using my PTO, but it is certainly not the same as waking up every day knowing that I’ll eat my meals and study with friends, that they’re always within walking distance.
The cynical part of me says that growing up means accepting distance from people who used to be central to your life. We’re all going to get older and meet new people; we’ll get married and our weddings will be like college reunions for the next 10 to 15 years. We’ll start families and our kids will be “family friends” who see each other every now and then if we’re lucky. Some friends might just be people we tell stories about, people we “knew in college” but haven’t seen since. As priorities shift and as we age, the idea of friendship becomes less tied to time commitment and more to the abstract feeling of affection toward someone, regardless of how often you see them. I don’t think the world will turn upside down the moment I graduate, but sometimes that’s how it feels, and I don’t know if I’m ready.
The summer after I graduated from high school was the best summer of my life. Free from academic anxiety, my friends and I spent every waking moment together. My days consisted of beach lounging, countless trips to the frozen yogurt store, night swimming in Mary Grace’s pool and weekend brunches at Munday’s diner. I quit my job at Rite Aid, hugged everybody tight at grad parties and promised myself I wouldn’t blink. I think it was the anxiety of limited hours, knowing that the first person to leave for college was leaving in X amount of days, that made us treat every moment like the last. I’ll always look back on that time fondly and remember how it felt to be 17 with the whole world at my fingertips.
I think I ought to treat the next two quarters in the same way. There’s a million things I’ve been meaning to get to on my bucket list but haven’t yet, from hiking in the Pinnacles to playing trivia at the Rose and Crown. There’s no more time to say, “We can do it next quarter.” In fact, there is no next quarter. The time is now.
I’ll miss the “nothing moments” of going with a friend to run an errand or sitting together in joint laziness. That just means I’ll have to do more of that while I can. Change is scary, but I’ll see my friends again —maybe not as often, but each time will feel more precious, so that the substance of our relationships, though different in composition, are always filled with meaning.
The post Senior Scaries: Friends we ‘knew in college’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Daily Diminutive #105 (Jan. 9, 2026)Click to play today's 5x5 mini crossword. The Daily produces mini crosswords three times a week and a full-size crossword biweekly.
The post Daily Diminutive #105 (Jan. 9, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The post Daily Diminutive #105 (Jan. 9, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanfordle #055 (Jan. 9, 2026)Enjoy The Daily's Stanfordle, the newest part of our Games section. The Daily produces Stanfordles on weekdays.
The post Stanfordle #055 (Jan. 9, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The post Stanfordle #055 (Jan. 9, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
UGS hears presentation on Stanford’s removal of student speakers from department commencement ceremoniesThe Undergraduate Senate also passed a bill calling for Residential Education to address Resident Assistant vacancies at its Jan. 7 meeting.
The post UGS hears presentation on Stanford’s removal of student speakers from department commencement ceremonies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
At its Wednesday meeting, the Undergraduate Senate (UGS) heard a presentation from Stanford Education and Democracy United (EDU) on the recent removal of student speakers from Stanford’s department commencement ceremonies.
This policy change was announced in an email to department heads, according to the presenters. The only public mention of the University’s policy change is in an op-ed from the American Association of University Professors published in The Daily in November.
EDU founder Turner Van Slyke ’28 said in the presentation that Stanford hasn’t publicly explained why they removed student speakers, but that many students and families had complained about pro-Palestine statements at departmental commencements last year. Van Slyke called the statements a “pointed piece of political speech,” but “not unique from other pieces of political speech.”
Van Slyke added that he believes the school’s decision to remove student speakers reflects their desire to minimize public pressure or other disruptions, demonstrating a climate of fear due to the federal government’s recent involvement in higher education.
“We believe that no student at Stanford deserves to feel harassed or unsafe; however, we also believe that disagreement is not violence, and political speech does not equal harassment,” Owen Rowe ’28, another EDU presenter, said during the meeting.
Rowe said that the blanket ban on student speakers is a much more stringent measure than other schools have taken towards student speech during commencements, citing examples at New York University (NYU) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where issues were addressed case-by-case and after speeches were made. Rowe also noted that Stanford already has existing policies against incitement, harassment and disruption at commencement ceremonies, which EDU believes are sufficient.
“It sends a troubling message about whose voices Stanford values and how students should be able to shape the future of our school,” Van Slyke said. He added that he believes that the reinstatement of student speakers is important to reaffirm academic freedom and to maintain trust between the administration and the student body.
“Commencement is for students – it’s a reflection of the achievements and experiences that students have gone through during their years at Stanford, so it only makes sense that students can speak on those experiences that comprise their time at this institution,” EDU presenter Georgia Allen ’28 said.
The Daily has reached out to the University for comment.
Following this presentation, the UGS introduced a bill calling for the reinstatement of student speakers, which will be voted on by the UGS at next week’s meeting.
The UGS also unanimously passed the Joint Resolution Calling for the Reinstatement of the ZAP RA and Immediate Action to Address Student Leader Staffing Vacancies. This bill calls for the reinstatement of former Zeta Alpha Phi (ZAP) RA, Emmanuel Angel Corona-Moreno ’26, who was fired for missing training while positive for COVID-19, as well as a public report from ResEd on RA vacancies and updates on RA employment practices.
Dawn Ariel Royster ’26, an RA for Branner Hall and a former contributor to The Daily, said that there may be a number of changes to the RA system next year, namely a decrease in the length of RA training to a week and a significant decrease in the number of RAs.
“In FloMo specifically, they’re going from 14 to nine [RAs],” Royster said.
This bill has already been passed unanimously by the Graduate Student Council (GSC).
The UGS also introduced the Joint Bill to Recommend a Nominee to Serve on the Board of Conduct Affairs (BCA).
This bill would recommend Tom Liu, sixth-year physics Ph.D. student and GSC member, to serve on the BCA, which oversees the Office of Community Standards (OCS) and helps interpret Stanford’s Honor Code. Liu has previously called for OCS reform; he was one of the authors on a bill which stated that the UGS and the GSC would only continue to collaborate with the OCS and BCA if meaningful progress towards OCS reform was made this year.
The post UGS hears presentation on Stanford’s removal of student speakers from department commencement ceremonies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanford scholar warns aid–diplomacy mergers carry hidden costsStanford scholar Rachel A. George presented research showing mergers between foreign aid and diplomacy agencies often reduce aid spending and erode development expertise, offering cautionary lessons as the U.S. moves to fold USAID into the State Department.
The post Stanford scholar warns aid–diplomacy mergers carry hidden costs appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
International relations lecturer Rachel George presented her research on aid and diplomacy agency mergers at an event sponsored by the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) on Tuesday.
Her study found that such mergers have destabilizing effects in countries worldwide as the Trump administration shuts down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and merges its remaining operations into the Department of State.
“Generally, if agencies merge their aid apparatus into a Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aid spending reduces.” George said.
The merger of aid and diplomacy agencies is not a new idea but an ongoing pattern outside the U.S. Countries such as the U.K., Australia and Canada have been on track to developing a more integrated aid-diplomacy system. Except for a few outliers, George observes that most of the sample countries struggled to maintain their commitment to provide 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) to support developing nations in accordance with a U.N. goal.
According to George, mergers also tend to erode development expertise inside governments. Specialized staff are often replaced by generalist diplomats, senior development posts are cut and long-standing relationships with local partners weaken. In the case of Australia, she said, 13 of 16 senior officials who left their position after the merger came from the aid side.
The mergers have not been without benefits. George pointed to cases in Canada and the U.K. where co-locating diplomats and development officials improved coordination and fostered mutual understanding.
“In the UK, the Ebola response in Uganda was seen as some form of merger success,” George said. “The FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office), at the time, was able to deploy an integrated humanitarian, political and technical response…and people were sort of all working on the same team.”
George said despite her research focus on mergers in non-U.S. countries, her findings might help make sense of the implications of the USAID closure and its merger with the State Department.
Emily Tallo, a post doc fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), probed the scope of George’s research question after the presentation.
“Maybe the question shouldn’t be are mergers good or bad, but when are mergers good and when are mergers bad?” Tallo said in an interview with The Daily. “Understanding whether I find the problem to be with the policy or with the people running the policy is important.”
Political science professor and Freeman Spogli Institute director Michael McFaul, attended the presentation and expressed his dismay at the closure of USAID.
“I believe it has been absolutely devastating for the American national interest to shut down USAID,” McFaul said to The Daily after the presentation. “To think that America can compete with China in the 21st-century without USAID is naïve and extremely dangerous.”
The post Stanford scholar warns aid–diplomacy mergers carry hidden costs appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Seniors reflect on the future of Stanford athletics after Big Game winAfter finally experiencing their first Big Game win, seniors find themselves excited about the future of Stanford football and this spring slate of sports.
The post Seniors reflect on the future of Stanford athletics after Big Game win appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Before this season, Stanford seniors had never witnessed a Big Game win. Stanford football changed that last November with an impressive 31-10 win over Cal.
Seniors Graham Johnstone, Liza Mikacich and Jacob Rubenstein previously spoke with The Daily, on behalf of the senior class, on what a Big Game win could mean for them. Now, they reflect on the record after finally winning The Axe back, and what it means for Stanford athletics entering 2026.
“It was just so full circle,” Mikacich said. “The goal of every year has been to win Big Game since we haven’t been bowl game eligible or anything like that. But I feel like since we finally won the game, and we waited so long for the win, it just felt very rewarding.”
“It’s always slightly depressing when the day is so hyped up, and then at the end of it, you’re just standing in the cold, all depressed,” Rubenstein said. “And I think ending the day on a positive note will genuinely be a lot of our best memories of this whole year.”
Johnstone provided some more big-picture thoughts on the long-awaited win.
“It’s ideal when we’re thinking about the direction of Stanford football,” Johnstone said about the victory. “[We] want to get Stanford football back to its glory days, want to make a bowl game, go to the playoffs, stuff like that. It finally feels like we’re on the right track.”
Seeing The Axe return home has made Stanford seniors even more excited for the rest of the year in Stanford Athletics.
“I think we have a lot of amazing teams that have done really well already, including football. They kind of exceeded expectations, but also, men’s and women’s soccer,” Rubenstein said.
Mikacich and Johnstone are particularly looking forward to the success of men’s basketball.
“We just upset Louisville, so I really hope the men’s basketball team can maybe make the tournament this year,” Mikacich said. “Maybe make March Madness. That would be really exciting.”
Johnstone is sure The Farm would be “lit” if the men’s team made “The Big Dance.”
“I hope it’s not too much to ask for,” Johnstone said. “Ebuka Okorie’s been hooping. Benny Gealer’s been hooping. I mean, really, Chisom Okpara’s been hooping. So I think it’s actually possible. I feel like if we make it to the NCAA tournament in basketball, I don’t even know what would happen at Stanford. I think we’d be lit again, quite frankly.”
Beyond basketball, students were also excited to see how other sports do.
“I’m really looking forward to watching men’s baseball and women’s softball, which are two teams that have been really good over the past few years,” Rubenstein said. “I always like watching when either of our baseball teams or softball teams play against Cal because there’s always a little bit more school spirit then.”
Mikacich echoed Rubenstein’s thoughts.
“My friends and I always like watching baseball in the spring, just because it’s in the sun and you can kind of just hang out and chat, since the games move a little bit slower,” Mikacich said.
Johnstone is anticipating an exciting baseball season from the Cardinal, as well.
“Rintaro Sasakii is, like, the guy. So I’m just excited to see what we do,” he said.
As seniors, students have had the last four years to make lasting connections with their student-athlete peers, something that has contributed highly to their Stanford experience.
“I’ve been able to meet so many of these athletes myself. So it’s become a lot more of a personal relationship, in a way,” Rubenstein said. “It’s more than just names and numbers and people, it’s now actual people who I can put stories and personalities behind their faces.”
Watching classmates compete in Stanford’s athletic programs can be just as motivating as cheering from the stands. These seniors took a moment to shout out the athletes and teams that have inspired them throughout their time on campus.
Mikacich gave a shoutout to her freshman-year roommate, who plays for the Stanford water polo team.
“Her name is Jenna Flynn,” Mikacich said. “She took a gap year her sophomore year to train for the Olympic team. And then my family all flew out to watch her play in Paris. So she’s always been really inspiring to me.”
Johnstone had a similar shoutout to one of his friends.
“I gotta shout out my boy Theo Snoey, he’s on the volleyball team,” Johnstone said. “He just inspires me so much with his outside hitting and everything he really does. He’s a great leadership voice.”
In their final remarks, Stanford seniors have some advice for younger Stanford football fans.
“Never give up on Stanford football, because we finally got the Big Game win out of them our senior year,” Mikacich said.
“What they should expect? Continued dominance, to be honest,” said Johnstone. “You know Stanford’s gonna be good. I have faith in Andrew Luck. Let’s prepare ourselves for some good, good years of Stanford football.”
The post Seniors reflect on the future of Stanford athletics after Big Game win appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Celebrating a polymath in an age that has nearly forgotten the wordThe late Bahram Beyzai, former Bita Daryabari Visiting Professor of Iranian Studies, left a lasting cultural legacy as an writer, director and playwright.
The post Celebrating a polymath in an age that has nearly forgotten the word appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
On Saturday, Jan. 3, atop the Santa Cruz Mountains overlooking Stanford, the heavens mourned. Rain and wind bent the trees like the wind-swept cypress of Persian poetry, that ancient symbol of resilience and grief. Hundreds gathered on the hillside, while thousands more across the world wept in their own solitude. They had come to honor Bahram Beyzai: writer, director, playwright, poet, scholar, teacher, father, brother, husband. He was a polymath in every sense, demanding a breadth of talent rarely seen today.
I myself had the privilege of witnessing how he could seemingly manipulate time: in one unforgettable lecture at Stanford, Beyzai distilled 3,000 years of Persian literary and moral history into a single hour, and it felt as if everything beyond that room simply ceased to exist. Even in casual conversation, his deep-set, intense blue eyes projected wisdom and passion. After his passing, his wife Mojdeh Shamsaie movingly wrote that the sky itself seemed “colorless” without the light of Beyzai’s sky-colored eyes.
Widely recognized as one of the greatest Iranian cultural figures of our time by scholars and artists alike, Beyzai’s name belongs alongside legendary figures like Ferdowsi and Dehkhoda, titans who preserved Persian across centuries. Like Ferdowsi, who rescued the language through his epic Shahnameh, and Dehkhoda, who catalogued its vast lexicon in a 200-volume dictionary, Beyzai devoted his life to safeguarding Iran’s cultural soul. But he understood that culture survives not through archiving alone but through constant reimagining, through making the ancient speak urgently to the present.
As a pioneering filmmaker, Beyzai revolutionized Iranian cinema by weaving ancient mythology into modern narratives. A leading figure of the Iranian New Wave, he used cinema as a modern extension of classical storytelling. His masterworks — Downpour (1972), Ballad of Tara (1979), Bashu, the Little Stranger (1986) — intertwined Iranian history and contemporary social issues. Bashu, a poignant story of a war-displaced boy, was later voted the greatest Iranian film of all time by 150 Iranian movie critics. But these were more than films, they were acts of cultural archaeology, excavating Iran’s pre-Islamic consciousness and demonstrating how buried stories could illuminate modernity’s moral crises.
In the theater, Beyzai was both innovator and resurrector. He delved into Iran’s pre-Islamic and folk performance heritage, researching traditional forms of passion plays to formulate a boldly non-Western identity for modern Iranian theater. His plays, including The Death of Yazdgerd, bridged ancient ritual and contemporary stagecraft. Some critics regarded him as the greatest playwright in Persian, earning him the sobriquet “the Shakespeare of Persia.” Yet this comparison, while flattering, obscures what made Beyzai unique: where Shakespeare invented modern psychological interiority, Beyzai recovered an older form of dramatic consciousness, one that was rooted in ritual, myth, and collective memory rather than individual subjectivity. His theater performed the work of cultural continuity itself.
Beyzai’s academic work was inseparable from his art. Namayesh dar Iran (A Study on Iranian Theatre), published in the mid-1960s, remains the definitive text on the history of Iranian theater. Over his career, he authored nearly 70 books and 14 stage plays, an astonishing output that attests to his prolific intellect. Perhaps most remarkably, he was a master of Persian prose itself. His writings demonstrated the language’s extraordinary expressive range, moving effortlessly from archaic epic diction to colloquial speech with unmatched eloquence. This linguistic virtuosity embodied Beyzai’s deeper conviction that within the layers and registers of the Persian language lay compressed the entire history of Iranian thought and feeling.
Despite his towering status, Beyzai faced incessant censorship after the 1979 Revolution. Many of his films and plays were banned or hampered by authorities, and in 2010, after decades of such pressures, he departed Iran. The irony was bitter: a man who dedicated his life to preserving Iranian culture was forced into exile by those who shamelessly claimed to be its guardians. He accepted an invitation from the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University and became the Bita Daryabari Visiting Professor of Iranian Studies. For the next 15 years, he devoted himself to teaching and mentorship in exile, introducing students and global audiences to the riches of Persian culture. His courses on the history of Iranian performing arts were legendary, and those who experienced his presence understood that they were encountering a conduit to something far older, a living link in an unbroken chain stretching back through millennia.
The timing of his death carried its own symbolic poetry. He passed away in California on Dec. 26, 2025, on his 87th birthday. By the Iranian calendar this date is the 5th of Dey, a day officially designated as Playwrights’ Day in Iran in honor of his birth. In leaving this world on the very day it celebrates him, Beyzai gave one last, poignant performance. Perhaps it was fitting that a man who spent his life collapsing temporal distance, making the ancient contemporary and the contemporary eternal, should exit precisely when past and present aligned.
As the rain fell that Saturday and the memorial gathering dispersed, one could sense that an era had closed. Yet Bahram Beyzai’s influence lives on in every story, play and film that bears his imprint, and in every student who walks inspired in his path. His true legacy may be this: in an age of cultural amnesia and accelerating fragmentation, he demonstrated that depth of memory is not a luxury but a necessity, that a people disconnected from their cultural wellspring risk becoming strangers to themselves.
The post Celebrating a polymath in an age that has nearly forgotten the word appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Students pick their anthems for 2026The Daily staffers reflect on the songs that will be the soundtrack for their 2026.
The post Students pick their anthems for 2026 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
This is the first song on my morning playlist, starting my day — and hopefully also my 2026 — on a bright note. I also always envision the iconic scene this song features in, from one of my all-time favorite shows, “Ted Lasso,” which, correspondingly, is also one of the most joy-filled, optimistic stories that I would love my 2026 to resonate with.
Long before “Wicked” crashed onto the big screen in a flurry of pink, green, glitter and meme-able moments (and “Wicked: For Good” followed with much of the same), this duet held the power to bring me to tears with just the sound of its opening chords. As I face 2026 — and the simultaneous elation and horror that comes with writing my graduation year every time I write the date, now — I can’t help but feel intensely grateful for those I met along the way.
Whether it be the people I latched ahold of during the first days of freshman year, the deep friendships that emerged in just the last year or the countless friendly faces I’ve come to appreciate in my daily commute, the best thing about being human is being shaped by every single person I come in contact with. And as I navigate the road ahead, I hope to appreciate that, remember all Stanford has taught me — and ensure it was all “For Good.”
A$AP Rocky’s new single for his upcoming album “Don’t Be Dumb” has me excited for the new year. It’s weird and different, but that’s why it’s so good. Similar to Teezo Touchdown’s work on his album “How Do You Sleep At Night?” this song from Rocky is more punk and gritty than his previous work or the singles he’s been coming out with since his last album, “TESTING,” from 2018. But that’s what gets me so excited about this new album — and this new year. It’s a chance to do things in innovative ways with no strings attached, because 2026 is a time of reinvention.
Los Temerarios’ 1993 release is an emotional goodbye to a love that is fading, a relationship that never came to complete fruition. You can feel the emotion in the singer’s voice as they try to not remember the past and forget the person they once loved. I think this is a perfect anthem for 2026 because it reminds me to feel intensely and deeply. It reminds us that when bad things happen and we are at our lowest lows, we must remember to be happier than those who have harmed us. Remember to continue our trek in life no matter what lows we have — because the highs make this life worth living.
Embracing my inner Sabrina sass, I want 2026 to be the year I bid farewell to the things that hold me back. Many people have resolutions to “be more positive,” yet I think happiness also lies in actively distancing from negativity, just like Sabrina’s ex in the song. 2025 helped me realize that trusting myself opens the door to new opportunities, so I’m hoping to be even more empowered and self-confident in the new year.
“Goodbye” isn’t a sad song for a reason. To me, it represents a fresh start for the better.
I have the privilege and misfortune of working on my dissertation this year. My New Year’s resolution is to go beyond data collection and analysis and spend at least 15 minutes a day writing. I have had difficulty with this goal because every time I open the current draft, all the words I know fly out of my head, or I become unable to use words in a way that confers meaning. I am in a duel of sorts with my dissertation, and I’m losing.
In order to fight back, Zebra Katz’s “Ima Read” featuring Njena Reddd Foxxx will be my anthem this year. The expletive-laden track is about vanquishing a competitor at a drag ball. While writing a dissertation is less glamorous than walking a ball, it requires the same degree of finesse and vigor — a fact that Katz calls out in the first verse: “Schools in I’ma read that bitch / I’ma write a dissertation to excuse my shit.” On days when I cannot muster the strength to meet my minimum writing goal, Foxxx’s plaintive delivery of “It’s gonna be cohesive / It’s gonna be my thesis” will be a reminder to bring my dissertation into existence and make it make sense at some point in the future.
Over winter break, I saw Halou in concert. The band’s lead singer, Rebecca Coseboom, was clearly a child of the ‘90s; I could picture her 20 years earlier performing exactly the same set, draped in white and gold. Under the spotlight, her bangles and tattoos shone and made her look like a being made of stardust. This all came after a freshman fall that was simultaneously the best time of my life and the most confusing. It was 10 weeks of questioning everything about myself: Am I a valuable friend? Do I even have a place at this school? How can I pin myself down when I’m constantly changing? In the swell of the music, I felt like I’d found an answer I couldn’t name.
One of my favorite songs from Halou’s set was “It Will All Make Sense In The Morning.” Coseboom’s girlish voice sticks to gritty industrial guitars like a rainbow on an oil slick. Fans of Portishead and Slowdive might recognize trip-hop and shoegaze influences. The title becomes a repeating refrain, a promise of self-realization. I’m manifesting 2026 as a period of clarity, like the moment after waking up from a dream. I’ll figure out my major and choose a direction in life. I’ll take better care of myself, finding a balance between school and fun that works for me. Everything will begin to make sense.
This quarter, I am producing Ram’s Head’s Spring Show, “Grease!”, and I want to carry the energy of the famed ditty, “Hand Jive” into the rest of the year. I want 2026 to feel lively, collaborative and full of movement, even when things get stressful. Producing this show reminds me that creating something with other people can be joyful, chaotic and fulfilling all at once. This year, I want to lean into that feeling. I want to say yes to creativity, community and moments that make life feel brighter.
I think the best thing 2026 could be is a year that is yet unwritten. Instead of having wild expectations about what 2026 should be, I think it is time we take a step back. I feel at peace knowing that I can let 2026 play out one day at a time, rather than focusing on what might go wrong. There is so much opportunity for 2026, and I hope to make the most of every day.
The post Students pick their anthems for 2026 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Phillip Tran ’23 named Forbes 30 Under 30 Honoree for caffeinated potato chip brandTran, who holds degrees in MS&E and economics from Stanford, reflects on his journey to Forbes 30 Under 30 recognition.
The post Phillip Tran ’23 named Forbes 30 Under 30 Honoree for caffeinated potato chip brand appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Phillip Tran ’23 was recently named on the Forbes 30 Under 30 Food & Drink list for his company, Bangers Snacks, also known as “BANGERS!” In July of 2025, Bangers Snacks launched the first-ever caffeinated potato chips, containing two coffees’ worth of caffeine in one bag.
Born and raised in Los Angeles, Tran said he developed an early habit of applying ideas to real-world problems.
Tran credits his Stanford education with driving his entrepreneurial spirit.
“Being at Stanford and immersed in the broader Silicon Valley ecosystem pushed me toward the work that ultimately led to Bangers and Forbes 30 Under 30 recognition,” Tran wrote to The Daily.
Building on that foundation, Tran also emphasized how his ambitions for Bangers Snacks extend far beyond its initial product launch.
“We’re starting with potato chips, but the long-term vision is to grow into new flavors, new caffeinated formats and adjacent functional products,” Tran wrote. “At the same time, I want to build Bangers into a vertically integrated platform.”
Tran’s long-term vision is reflected in how Bangers Snacks has already begun to differentiate itself within the snack industry, bringing innovation and functionality to an otherwise traditional snack.
According to Prepared Foods, Banger Snacks are “priced around $2.99 per bag [and they] deliver the same caffeine as energy drinks — in a crunchy, portable form — aiming to offer a functional boost for travelers, workers and students through the holiday season.”
During Tran’s educational journey majoring in economics and coterming in management science & engineering (MS&E) at Stanford, he was immersed in Silicon Valley’s innovation in software, artificial intelligence and technology. However, he later noticed that consumer packaged goods (CPGs), especially food and beverage, had seen little to no innovation for decades.
“That gap stood out to me, particularly because [food and beverage] sits at the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,” Tran wrote. “I saw an opportunity to bring the same level of creativity, speed and ambition that defines Silicon Valley into CPG, and that realization became the catalyst for building a category-defining brand.”
Looking to the future, Tran hopes to scale Bangers Snacks from a national brand into a global one. They’re already selling through major retailers including Chevron ExtraMile, Circle K and 7-Eleven.
Bell Lee ’29, who hopes to create a startup of his own while at Stanford, expressed concern at the possibility of the product’s younger customer base. “I think the caffeinated chips may introduce people to caffeine earlier in their lives,” Lee wrote to The Daily.
Tran emphasized how the classes, mentorship and peer networks he had at Stanford reinforces the idea that sustainable growth comes from solving real problems with lasting impact and aligning long-term goals. The idea carries beyond campus and helps founders build companies that last, not just companies that grow quickly.
“Stanford is uniquely positioned to teach you how to take theoretical concepts, apply data and technology to real-world industries and disrupt categories that haven’t changed in decades,” Tran wrote. “The biggest opportunities often sit in overlooked spaces where tech hasn’t been fully applied yet.”
This article has been updated to accurately reflect Tran’s coterm degree. The Daily regrets this error.
The post Phillip Tran ’23 named Forbes 30 Under 30 Honoree for caffeinated potato chip brand appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
From the Community | Don’t ask voters to set faith asideIn response to a November opinion piece, Alex Mescher ’25 M.S. ’26 argues that voters should not leave religion at the door when voting.
The post From the Community | Don’t ask voters to set faith aside appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
In a recent Daily piece “Faith and the ballot box,” Paul Fertig lays out a case for how religious people should approach voting in the United States, advocating that religious people should not vote to pass legislation to restrict the choice of others who do not share their beliefs. “I only hope that I, and countless others, should not be made to live according to how one God or another asks us,” he wrote. He uses several examples throughout his essay such as physician-assisted suicide and same-sex marriage to illustrate how religious people have exercised their right to vote to try to restrict the personal choices of all Americans.
I want to clarify that the purpose of my response is not to debate specific political issues mentioned in the essay, and I acknowledge that there have been times in recent history where religious overreach has occurred in the government. Poignant examples include the recent attempts by several state governments to mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, clearly crossing the line separating church and state in our country. However, voting in accordance with your religious beliefs, contrary to what Fertig argues, is not an example of religious overreach. I would like to address Fertig’s primary argument: that religious people should not vote in accordance with their religious beliefs if they restrict the choices of people that do not share their beliefs.
My initial reaction to this position was that it stems from a misunderstanding of religious people and what it means to live in a democracy like the U.S. For religious people, what you believe affects every aspect of your life: how you spend your time, interact with others and conceive of our collective purpose on Earth. Asking someone to set aside their religious beliefs when they vote is asking them to disregard a crucial aspect of their identity. Imagine telling a mother that she could not consider policies through the lens of how they would affect her children. After all, not everyone has children and therefore should not be subjected to policies simply because a mother chooses to vote in line with what is best for her child.
As Abraham Lincoln eloquently put it, democracy is, at its heart, a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” How can democracy be “of the people” if the people are forced to suppress their identities when exercising their democratic right to vote? How can it be “by the people” if people cannot select leaders that support the causes and values they believe in? And, most importantly, how can a government be “for the people” if it does not work to implement the vision that the people see for their country as expressed through votes cast in free and fair elections?
Fertig wants voters to maximize the choices of others, even if the voter believes that having this choice hurts society. This position in and of itself is a moral stance that the author presumably believes is best for society. He might defend his views as being based in logic or science, but to reach a conclusion about one’s moral view on an issue, one must start from some initial set of moral beliefs. For religious people, these morals come from God. Secular people may derive their beliefs from a similar moral principle, such as Kant’s Categorical Imperative which holds that you should act only in ways you would be willing to see everyone act if they were in the same circumstances. Or they may adhere to Utilitarianism which states that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest overall good (or “utility”) for the greatest number of people. From a secular point of view, both religious and secular frameworks are based on interpretations of reality, not objective truth.
It is important to point out here that religious people are not a monolithic group. Even within Christianity there are wide-ranging views on different political issues. While religious leaders often voice their opinions on political issues, it is still up to each individual religious person to vote according to their conscience, especially when beliefs do not map directly onto party lines. In the most recent presidential election, Pope Francis illustratively urged Catholics to pick the “lesser evil” between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. He left the decision up to each individual Catholic because both candidates had a mix of views, some in alignment with Catholic beliefs and others that ran contrary to doctrine.
Fertig is approaching this issue with his own moral beliefs just like any rational person would, religious or otherwise. This is human nature. It is not only our prerogative to vote for what we believe is best for our fellow citizens and for our country; rather, it is our duty. This is how a functioning democracy works. To my fellow Stanford students: I encourage you to have strong beliefs, to stand behind them, to respect the beliefs of others and to vote with the conviction of a citizen who cares about their fellow citizens, whatever that means to you.
Alex Mescher ’25 M.S. ’26 is studying aeronautics and astronautics.
The post From the Community | Don’t ask voters to set faith aside appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Meet Stanford’s most influential AI figures of 2025The Daily recounts the contributions of five individuals who helped push the frontiers of AI in new ways.
The post Meet Stanford’s most influential AI figures of 2025 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
From its abundance of computer science majors to its world-class laboratories, Stanford has been a hub for artificial intelligence (AI) innovation for many years.
2025 marked a year of profound technological growth, and several Stanford alumni and researchers were leaders in the AI revolution.
Yejin Choi
Choi, an advocate for efficient AI use, joined the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI) in January to explore small language models (SLM). In a recent talk at NeurIPS, the premier annual conference for machine learning, Choi said she hopes to defy the thinking that “more is more” and enhance SLM reasoning capabilities to match those of larger models.
Choi’s main interests in the field are constructing general, adaptable models for molecular discovery and pluralistic alignment, which aims to use democratic values to integrate diverse viewpoints in AI. Choi is a MacArthur Fellow. In 2025, she was featured on the Time100 AI list.
Carlos Guestrin
Guestrin, a computer science professor, was named the new director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL) last year. He has helped lead joint efforts with the HAI. His personal research focuses on interpretability, or figuring out how AI models work, and verifying AI outputs to build trust.
Guestrin is best known for his contributions to the popular machine learning library XGBoost and the GraphLab project for scalable machine learning. Guestrin has also served as a Chief Scientist at Visual Layer and Virtue AI.
Fei-Fei Li
Li, nicknamed the “Godmother of AI,” is co-director of the HAI. She led a research report on generative AI governance proposals for California Governor Gavin Newsom in June. The report was incorporated in the “Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act” (SB53) in September. She also helped publish the 2025 AI Index Report. A startup she founded, World Labs, is currently pushing the frontiers of spatial intelligence to build models that interact with the 3D world.
Last year, Li was recognized with the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering and the Time100 AI award.
Jensen Huang ’92
Huang founded Nvidia, which produces advanced chips to help power a growing AI field. Under Huang’s leadership, Nvidia became the first company to reach a market value of over $5 trillion in October. Huang is now the eighth richest man in the world.
Last year, Huang continued to emphasize the importance of AI in national infrastructure and global GDP. He was named one of the “Architects of AI” for TIME magazine’s Person of the Year award.
Dario Amodei ’06
Amodei was also recognized by TIME as one of the “Architects of AI.” He is the co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, the company behind AI assistant Claude. Last year, Amodei led the company through one of its fastest periods of growth, including the release of new popular foundational tools with improved reasoning abilities such as Claude Opus and Claude Code. He also publicly advocated for enhanced AI regulation, especially after Anthropic disrupted a Chinese-sponsored cyberattack in November.
The post Meet Stanford’s most influential AI figures of 2025 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Football faces changes in coaching staff and rosterStanford football announced Tuesday five returns and two additions to the coaching staff as transfer portal activity ramps up.
The post Football faces changes in coaching staff and roster appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
After a 4-8 season (3-5 ACC), Stanford football enters 2026 with major structural changes under new head coach Tavita Pritchard, former Stanford quarterback and quarterback coach for the Washington Commanders. The Cardinal return five coaches and add two new faces to the coaching staff, signaling both continuity and a refreshed direction.
Running backs coach Malcolm Agnew and tight ends coach Nate Byham return to the offensive staff for the fourth consecutive season. Agnew led sophomore running back Micah Ford to 643 yards during the 2025 season, Stanford’s highest running back single-season total since 2019. He was named to the 2026 American Football Coaches Association 35 Under 35 class.
Byham helped senior wide receiver CJ Williams to an honorable mention All-ACC season and coached the offense to its highest home scoring output since 2018. Under Byham’s guidance, senior tight end Sam Roush was named to the second team All-ACC for the 2025 season.
Inside linebackers coach Andy Thompson and safeties coach Kodi Whitfield return to the defensive staff for their second seasons. Thompson led Matt Rose to the Cardinal’s first defensive Second Team All-ACC honors. Stanford’s defense reached its highest national rank in over a decade at 28th, allowing just 119.8 yards per game.
Whitfield brought redshirt junior safety Jay Green from an ACL tear in the 2024 season to an All-ACC honorable mention in 2025. His unit held opponents to fewest passing touchdowns since 2021 and fewest points per game since 2018.
Ryan Deatrick also returns for his fourth season as Kissick Family Director of Sports Performance.
Two new additions join the staff for 2026. Stanford hired former Virginia offensive line coach and run-game coordinator Terry Heffernan as offensive coordinator. Heffernan led the Cavaliers to 2,502 rushing yards in 2025 — their highest total since 2004 — and previously served as Stanford’s offensive line coach in the 2021 and 2022 seasons.
The Cardinal also will welcome former NFL assistant Nate Kaczor as special teams coordinator. Kaczor spent the past two seasons as special teams analyst for Kansas State, but previously served as special teams coordinator for the Tennessee Titans, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Washington Commanders, where he worked alongside Pritchard.
According to reporting from The Atlantic’s Bruce Feldman, Pete Kwiatkwotski is a leading candidate for Stanford’s open defensive coordinator role. Kwiatkwotski led Texas’s defense to a No. 3 defensive SEC rank in 2025 and a No. 1 defensive SEC rank in 2024.
Stanford football currently has 23 commits for the upcoming season, seven of which will be joining the program this month as early enrollees.
On the roster movement front, redshirt freshman running back Cole Tabb has entered the transfer portal and will head to Cincinnati to play for the Bearcats. Despite standing at only five-foot-eight, Tabb played a significant role in Stanford’s offense, rushing for 118 yards in Stanford’s upset win against Florida State and finishing his redshirt freshman season with 445 yards and three touchdowns.
Heading to Cincinnati, Tabb is looking to become an integral starter for their running game. The Bearcats are losing their starting back, Tawee Walker, and their head rusher and quarterback, Brendan Sorsby, leaving Tabb the opportunity to become crucial to offensive success.
Incoming transfer Aidan Kilstrom, a six-foot-three, 300-pound offensive lineman from Harvard will bolster Stanford’s offensive line after only allowing one sack in his Crimson career.
With the transfer portal open until Jan. 16 and coaching vacancies still to be filled, more changes may be on the way. But Pritchard’s early moves already signal a transformative offseason as Stanford looks to reset ahead of the 2026 campaign.
The post Football faces changes in coaching staff and roster appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanfordle #054 (Jan. 8, 2026)Enjoy The Daily's Stanfordle, the newest part of our Games section. The Daily produces Stanfordles on weekdays.
The post Stanfordle #054 (Jan. 8, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The post Stanfordle #054 (Jan. 8, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Vicki Veenker and Greer Stone voted Palo Alto mayor, vice mayorOn Jan. 5, Veekner was selected unanimously as mayor, while Stone narrowly won the vice mayoral race over fellow councilmember Keith Reckdahl M.D. ’89 Ph.D. ’96, with four out of seven total votes.
The post Vicki Veenker and Greer Stone voted Palo Alto mayor, vice mayor appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Vicki Veenker and Greer Stone will step into the roles of mayor and vice mayor respectively for the year 2026. Following dual city council votes on Monday, Veekner was selected unanimously, while Stone narrowly won the vice mayoral race, with four out of seven total votes, over fellow councilmember Keith Reckdahl M.D. ’89 Ph.D. ’96.
In her inaugural address given Mayor on Monday, Veenker outlined key goals for city policy in the upcoming year. In particular, she stressed the importance of climate action and improving access to housing. “I will undertake this office with as much effort, skill and integrity that I can summon,” she said.
Veenker founded the Palo Alto-based law practices Veenker Law Offices and Veenker Dispute Resolution in 2013. She has served as a member of the Palo Alto City Council in 2023, becoming vice mayor in 2025.
Stone previously worked as an attorney for Flicker, Kerin, Kruger & Bissada LLP, later pivoting to work as both a teacher and director at Palo Alto High School and Gunn High School. He has been on the City Council since 2021. This year is Stone’s second nonconsecutive term as vice mayor, having previously held the office in 2023 and worked as mayor in 2024.
In his nomination of Veenker during Monday’s vote, outgoing mayor Ed Lauing commended her “great people skills, critical skills, very good judgment… and off the charts Midwestern work ethic.” According to Lauing, the critical determinant of a mayor’s success is their leadership experience, something that he believes Veenker has consistently displayed.
Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims ’89 pointed to Veenker’s prior work in city council projects as evidence for Veenker’s suitability for the mayoral role. “I won’t forget that as the Cubberley real estate negotiations were struggling to reach the finish line, you [Veenker] were the one that ran the ball at the end,” Lythcott-Haims said, referring to an agreement the council made with the Palo Alto Unified School District last year to purchase land for the redesign of Cubberley Community Center.
In his nomination of Stone, city councilmember George Lu ’14 noted that the vice mayoral selection is significant because “our norm is that the vice mayor becomes mayor in the following year.” Lu highlighted Stone’s leadership in mental health, as well as his work on water and environmental issues. “[Stone has] demonstrated that he can find compromise under pressure,” Lu said.
The other nomination for vice mayor was Reckdahl, an engineer for Lockheed Martin Space Systems who has served on the city council since last year. According to Lythcott-Haims, his previous experience in other aspects of local politics, notably on the Planning & Transportation Commission as well as the Parks & Recreation Commission, make Reckdahl well equipped for vice mayorship. However, Reckdahl ultimately lost the race with three votes compared to Stone’s four.
The post Vicki Veenker and Greer Stone voted Palo Alto mayor, vice mayor appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Counterpoints: Craft, art and AIIn an era where algorithms could compose symphonies in seconds, Stanford students and professors are redefining how music and technology can coexist. The Stanford music community weighs in on how tradition and technology can be reconciled in the search for something more human and sublime.
The post Counterpoints: Craft, art and AI appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
“Counterpoints” explores the diverse intersections between music and other disciplines, from technology and AI, to medicine, sports and the arts. Through conversations with individuals and features on projects and events across Stanford’s campus, Feng explores how music fuses with unexpected fields to create new forms of expression and innovation.
A year ago, I was glaring down at my computer at two in the morning, wondering how on Earth I was going to determine the most significant challenge society faced within Stanford’s 50 word limit.
Essentially, the question was asking what keeps us up in the middle of the night — other than college applications, of course. As a lifelong pianist, there was only one way I could answer: artificial intelligence’s destruction of artistry. We live in a world where AI composition software and computer-mediated instrumentalists threaten to replace original creators. The human touch and meaning we crave in art are gradually ceasing to exist.
Ge Wang, associate professor of music, senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence and associate professor of computer science, offered a compelling perspective on what it means to create in a technological world.
“It’s too automatic to think that the role of technology is to make everything easier,” Wang said. “What makes life interesting are the hard things.”
In his article “Gen AI: Art’s Least Imaginative Use of AI Manageable,” he made an analogy between mountain climbing and creating art. As a backpacker, Wang knows that the process is everything. “All things worthwhile are mountains to climb. The arduous path is the only path.”
Art, too, is more process than result. The more you play the piano, the more you discover yourself. In that sense, technology shouldn’t skip the hard steps, but give us more meaningful work to do. According to Wang, the tools we build shouldn’t be just for the sake of labor-saving. He said there are kinds of “virtuous labor” that are vital to undertake, like knowing what it means to “suffer for your art.”
Stanford music students echoed this idea of grounding innovation with tradition. As Anliese Bancroft ’25 put it: “When used well, technology can help us express emotion; I see people in Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) use AI only as a tool to enhance humanity; however, we have to return to musical foundations like old manuscripts, composers, counterpoint and voice to understand why things resonate.”
So technology shouldn’t remove the difficulty of climbing the mountain. But what if it made us want to climb it? CCRMA, where Wang teaches, is where this technology is realized. His programming language, ChucK, allows his students to learn to write code, work with sound and build instruments, as seen in his work with the Stanford Laptop Orchestra.
“Building tools shouldn’t be about making things easier,” Wang said. “A good tool asks something of you — time, practice, patience — with the faith that what you get out of it doesn’t come from the tool itself, but from you.”
In every way, it’s like a musician’s relation to their instrument. The instrument itself doesn’t move you or the audience. It’s the relationship you’ve built through years of practice. Every note carries the artist’s effort, their family’s support and the memories that make up our music.
In a way, the piano is a technology, but it’s a technology that demands something of you. You have to put in the time. Anyone can ask AI to generate piano music. “But it’s not the same; it doesn’t have you, your history or your memories,” Wang said.
Musicians who grew up immersed in both classical training and digital tools see this divide; as Stanford Philharmonia pianist Tom Liu ’29 said, “AI has the potential to fix many inefficiencies in piano learning so we can focus on the humanistic parts. However, the goal of music is also to communicate. AI can harmonize, but we must create the melody”.
What Wang emphasized is the importance of the moment when you’re finally on the top of the mountain (or for a musician, on stage). After months, years of work, you’re no longer thinking about the technical elements, but how to express the phrase and the meaning of each measure. Wang said, “your body becomes a translator for emotion. The world falls away. That’s the sublime, something that makes us still. It’s that contemplative moment where you can look back on the journey, how difficult it was, and ask yourself, why does this feel so good? Because I made this. I created this.”
Wang has recently begun a new endeavor: writing a “hidden design book” about education and the “sublime” in life. It all started with his grandmother, whom he grew up with in Beijing. He reminisced about her zhajiangmian, a traditional Chinese black-bean noodle dish. “When my grandmother made me zhajiangmian, it wasn’t just food. It was love, memory and family, encoded in every bowl. When I eat those noodles, I taste my entire history. That’s the feeling — the sublime — that I’m chasing in my work.”
In his search for humanness in an ever evolving world, Wang reminisced on how his grandmother guided him as a mentor. “She was the greatest teacher.” She didn’t just try to get me to the answer, Wang described, “she gave me the tools to find answers myself.” Wang said he believes being your authentic self “is the act of rebellion”. He said his grandmother, who lived to 103 and endured hardships from poverty to political upheaval, was the best sleeper — nothing kept her up at night. She would say, “you gotta learn to cry with the world, and you also gotta learn to laugh with it.”
So despite society’s many issues keeping us up at night, that’s how Wang learned how to fall asleep: by holding on to the authenticity of himself. The tension and crisis remain, but that’s the work. What Wang hopes is to build tools that help people become more themselves. So, the journey continues. Wang described CCRMA as the “rebel alliance”: A hub of resistance making room for everyone and everything, including AI in music, without letting it dictate anyone.
As Wang said, “It’s only when you stop thinking about what everything is for when you begin to live free.”
The post Counterpoints: Craft, art and AI appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The art of discussion: ‘Democracy and Disagreement’ aims to model difficult dialogue for studentsEvery week, Debra Satz and Paul Brest will host a conversation on potentially controversial topics between experts with opposing opinions. They will look to positively change the Stanford culture to welcome similar conversations.
The post The art of discussion: ‘Democracy and Disagreement’ aims to model difficult dialogue for students appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The class “Democracy and Disagreement” is back for its third iteration this winter quarter, featuring contentious topics such as “Israel-Palestine” and “Gender-Affirming Care.” The goal of the course is not to change the minds of speakers on stage or students in the audience or to create a “winnable” debate. Rather, the class aims to serve as an example of how students can look to deal with inevitable differences in opinion, ones that may have even been suppressed in the classroom.
Two experts with differing opinions will take the stage each Tuesday at 3 p.m. at CEMEX Auditorium. They will present their case to enrolled Stanford students and community members, demonstrating how to effectively disagree.
Paul Brest, former dean and professor emeritus at Stanford Law School and co-professor of the class, said he’s noticed that students aren’t currently speaking up in class in a way that reflects their actual opinions. According to Brest, programs like this class are trying to change that by encouraging respectful disagreements and vulnerability in classrooms and beyond.
The class is a part of a group of programs at Stanford aimed at facilitating discussions. This includes the freshman requirement “Civic, Liberal and Global Education” (COLLEGE) and the campus-wide initiative ePluribus Stanford.
“[COLLEGE] is also trying to get students to think about big debates in America and also world history and how to approach them and to be open minded,” said Debra Satz, dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences and co-professor of the class.
According to Satz, “Democracy and Disagreement” emerged from “a culture and a society where nobody seems to be able to have reasonable conversations.”
“I think a lot of students are afraid. They’re afraid of their peers. They’re sometimes afraid of what they think the professor wants to hear,” Brest said. Hence, he hopes that through this course, they could fundamentally change Stanford’s culture around difficult discussions.
Kaisa Goodman JD candidate ’26, a Teaching Assistant (TA) for the course last quarter and this quarter, said the structure of the class opposes the style of most traditional instruction. According to Goodman, it instead focuses on demonstrating an effective form of communication as an alternative to debates.
“We’re often taught to win arguments and to convince others of our point of view, to find the ‘right answer.’ And I think a lot of our interactions with others and the way we’re taught sort of reinforce those approaches, but that those are often not the most effective way to solve problems or interact with others,” Goodman said.
In the structure of the course, attendees are polled before and after the presentation on their opinions of the topic. Sometimes opinions of students are quite homogeneous going into the talk.
“[Speakers] who are coming are experts who have taken positions in writing, and they’re unlikely to change it on the stage, but indicating a genuine understanding of the other people’s positions, that’s the goal,” Brest said.
Selecting speakers and topics for the class is a complex calculus. Satz says she and Brest look to choose speakers who have the ability to engage students rather than getting bogged down in the complexities of their work. They also must be exemplary models of the skills of discussion that Satz and Brest are hoping to impart on students with topics that have room for “reasonable disagreement,” on impactful current events, Satz said.
“One of my biggest takeaways from the class was just how engaged the students were,” said JD candidate Gabe Malek, another TA for the class this year.
This quarter, Satz and Brest hope to see even more attendance at all of the talks from students as well as meaningful participation from them, both in sections and during the events, to help work towards these essential and potentially groundbreaking discussions.
The upcoming event on Jan. 13 will cover “Israel-Palestine: The Future of Palestine” with Dennis Ross, former U.S. Special Middle East Coordinator, William Davidson Distinguished Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland.
Other colleges have followed suit with similar programs to promote civic education. And in recent years, there has been an increase in student groups on campus that look to start effective conversations, like the Stanford Political Union (SPU).
“Approaching disagreement or even just different perspectives with just open-mindedness and humility and critical thinking can go such a long way,” said Goodman.
The post The art of discussion: ‘Democracy and Disagreement’ aims to model difficult dialogue for students appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Winter Police Blotter Roundup: Attempted extortion, identity theft and possession of controlled substancesThis report covers incidents from Dec. 5 to Jan. 6 as recorded in the Stanford University Department of Public Safety bulletin.
The post Winter Police Blotter Roundup: Attempted extortion, identity theft and possession of controlled substances appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
This report covers incidents from Dec. 5 to Jan. 6 as recorded in the Stanford University Department of Public Safety (SUDPS) bulletin. Learn more about the Clery Act and how The Daily approaches reporting on crime and safety here.
The Daily has reached out to SUDPS for more information regarding the report of forgery and mail theft at Potter House.
The Daily has reached out to SUDPS for more information regarding the report of vandalism at Hundred Block.
The Daily has reached out to SUDPS for more information regarding the report of possession of a controlled substance and possession of unlawful paraphernalia at Escondido Village Graduate Residences Building D.
The Daily has reached out to SUDPS for more information regarding the report of disorderly conduct of alcohol at Hundred Block, the appropriation of lost property at Hundred Block, the report of burglary at The Oval and the report of aggravated battery at Encina Hall East.
The Daily has reached out to SUDPS for more information regarding the report of petty theft from a building at Old Union.
The post Winter Police Blotter Roundup: Attempted extortion, identity theft and possession of controlled substances appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanford squash look to defend its conference crownStanford squash dominated in its home opener Tuesday afternoon, sweeping Hamilton 9-0 as they hope to defend their Mid-Atlantic conference title.
The post Stanford squash look to defend its conference crown appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The Stanford squash team is back on the courts with familiar goals: defend its Mid-Atlantic Squash Conference crown, make noise in March and keep building on one of the program’s best seasons in recent history. The No. 4 Cardinal opened the second portion of its schedule Tuesday afternoon with a 9-0 sweep of No. 23 Hamilton in its home opener, a clean restart after a three-match East Coast swing in November.
That November trip offered an early measuring stick for the team. Stanford opened the season Nov. 21 with an 8-1 win at No. 9 Drexel, then fell 8-1 to No. 3 Penn the next day before rebounding with a 6-3 victory at No. 2 Princeton on Nov. 23. The 2-1 weekend underscored both Stanford’s depth — freshmen contributed immediately — and the thin margins that will define a winter packed with ranked opponents and postseason events.
Even before that opening weekend, Stanford’s baseline for success was clear. The Cardinal went 10-5 a year ago, won the MASC title for a second straight season and placed sixth at the College Squash Association team national championships. Stanford’s 10 wins were its most in a season since 2017-18, and the team logged a handful of marquee victories, including a January home win over No. 6 Virginia that showcased the team’s ability to beat top-tier competition despite being a program with a majority of underclassmen.
With last year’s team being led by many freshmen and sophomores, the core of last season’s run returns, starting at the top of the order. Sophomore Riya Navani and junior Madison Ho, both All-Americans a season ago, are back after anchoring the lineup and collecting conference hardware — Navani was the 2025 MASC player and rookie of the year, while Ho has earned All-America honors in each of her first two collegiate seasons. Stanford head coach Mark Talbott, the two-time defending MASC coach of the year, again leads a roster that mixes proven veterans with young options.
That blend showed up right away in Philadelphia. Freshman Zhi-Xuan Goh and freshman Avery Park both won in their collegiate debuts against Drexel, helping Stanford jump out to an early-season road win in a difficult environment. Stanford then bounced back from the Penn loss by taking six courts against Princeton — with wins coming from multiple spots in the order — a promising sign for a team that will need to score points in a variety of ways against the nation’s best.
The roster has experience beyond its headliners, too. Senior Khushi Kukadia, junior Maeve Baker, junior Yuvna Gupta and senior Mariana Narvaez Dardon give Stanford veteran options throughout the ladder, while sophomores Valerie Huang, Amelie Haworth, Riya Navani and Tiana Parasrampuria add a young group that already has meaningful match experience at the college level. Freshmen Riya Shankaran and Gracia Chua are also part of the first-year class that could provide depth as the season progresses.
After Tuesday’s home sweep of Hamilton, Stanford’s next test comes quickly: a home match Wednesday against No. 5 Trinity (CT). From there, the calendar shifts toward the events that shape the postseason picture. Stanford will face Harvard on Jan. 22 in New York before heading into the CSA individual championships from Jan. 23-25, also in New York — an important stretch for players chasing individual runs and for the team to establish a steady lineup.
February brings a road-heavy gauntlet: matches at Columbia on Feb. 6, at Yale on Feb. 7 and at Cornell on Feb. 8. Those three dates funnel into the MASC championships in Charlottesville, Virginia, from Feb. 14-15, where Stanford will try to secure a third straight conference title.
Right after teams vie for the conference championship, the national title takes focus. The CSA national championships are set for March 5-8 in Philadelphia, the same city where Stanford opened its season in November and where the Cardinal will return, aiming to climb higher than last season’s sixth-place finish. The home opener was an excellent step towards the national title. The rest of the winter will decide how far the Cardinal can push the envelope this season.
The post Stanford squash look to defend its conference crown appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
On the capture of Nicolás MaduroAdam Langshaw '29 argues that the recent capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro should be cautiously supported, and the role the rest of the world plays in helping a country in turmoil will be important in the coming months.
The post On the capture of Nicolás Maduro appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
I grew up in Weston, Florida, often called “Westonzuela” because it has one of the largest concentrations of Venezuelans outside of Venezuela. Two of my closest friends are Venezuelan, and through them I saw, up close, what the collapse of a country looks like not in headlines, but in families. That experience shapes how I view junctures, such as the recent capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, when the world must choose between imperfect action and the quiet comfort of doing nothing.
Venezuela’s story is not abstract. Within a generation, one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America was reduced to mass emigration, chronic shortages, political repression and the hollowing out of ordinary life. Professionals fled. Savings evaporated. Basic stability disappeared. This was not an accident of history. It was the result of sustained authoritarian misrule that destroyed institutions and foreclosed peaceful change. Yet for years, much of the international response amounted to condemnation without meaningful consequence, a posture that allowed this collapse to deepen.
That context matters when evaluating the global events headlining every major newspaper. In the early hours of Jan. 3, U.S. special forces conducted an operation that resulted in Maduro’s detention, citing a longstanding indictment alleging his involvement in a cocaine-trafficking conspiracy and ties between senior members of the Venezuelan government and transnational criminal networks. The operation marked a dramatic escalation after years of sanctions, diplomatic pressure and failed efforts to induce political change through negotiated means.
Supporting this action does not require pretending it is legally clean, nor does it require blind trust in the U.S. government. The U.S. has made serious, sometimes disastrous, mistakes abroad. In Afghanistan, a twenty-year military effort ended with a chaotic withdrawal and the rapid collapse of the very institutions the intervention was meant to sustain. In Iraq, flawed intelligence and post-invasion mismanagement contributed to prolonged instability, widespread civilian suffering and the erosion of regional security. These precedents underscore a real risk that, without discipline and a clear post-action strategy, Venezuela could follow a similarly destabilizing trajectory rather than a path toward durable recovery. It would be dishonest to ignore secondary interests, including oil and regional influence, especially given Venezuela’s vast reserves and the geopolitical leverage energy access continues to confer. And any use of force, direct or indirect, carries real human cost.
But acknowledging these realities does not mean paralysis is the moral high ground.
There are moments when decisive action, even imperfect action, is preferable to endless condemnation paired with inaction. For years, Venezuelans have paid the price for international hesitation. Broad sanctions were imposed without a credible pathway for political transition, allowing the regime to shift the burden onto ordinary citizens while insulating its inner circle. Diplomatic efforts, including repeated rounds of negotiations and dialogue, produced statements and temporary concessions but failed to meaningfully constrain repression or restore democratic accountability, a failure laid bare by Maduro’s most recent electoral “victory.” In the absence of enforcement or sustained leverage, these measures functioned less as pressure than as delay, giving an entrenched regime time to consolidate power, sidestep isolation and outlast international outrage.
Supporting this action is not celebrating power. It is recognizing that prolonged authoritarian collapse is itself a form of violence, one that destroys lives slowly, predictably and at scale. If the alternative is allowing that reality to continue indefinitely, then refusing to act is not morally neutral.
None of this absolves the United States of responsibility. Any intervention must be followed by restraint, accountability and a serious commitment to Venezuelan self determination, not exploitation. That standard, however, does not necessitate inaction. The fact that an action is imperfect does not make it unjustified.
For the people I grew up with, who watched their country unravel while the world debated, real change matters. Supporting this moment, cautiously but clearly, is not cynicism. It is recognition that sometimes history does not offer clean options, only necessary ones.
The post On the capture of Nicolás Maduro appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Week 18: Stanford in the NFLWith the NFL regular season coming to an end this past weekend, a handful of former Cardinal prepare for the playoffs while others begin the off-season journey.
The post Week 18: Stanford in the NFL appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Week 18 marked the close of the regular season for the NFL, bringing milestone performances, playoff clinches and the end of the road for several teams. As postseason matchups came into focus, former Cardinal made their final regular-season statements on both sides of the ball.
Michael Wilson ’22 M.A. ’22 (WR, Arizona Cardinals) — Wilson capped off a career-best season with five receptions for 99 yards and a touchdown in Arizona’s Week 18 loss. The second-year wideout finished the year with over 1,000 receiving yards, the best season of his young NFL career, and closed the final five weeks with a receiving touchdown in every game, firmly establishing himself as a cornerstone of the Cardinals’ offense despite Arizona finishing outside the playoff picture.
Colby Parkinson ’19 (TE, Los Angeles Rams) — Parkinson delivered a two-touchdown performance, hauling in four receptions on seven targets for 36 yards and two scores in the Rams’ regular-season finale. Los Angeles secured the No. 5 seed in the NFC and will travel to North Carolina for a Wild Card matchup against the Panthers.
Elijah Higgins ’23 (AZ) — Three receptions on three targets for 28 yards in Arizona’s Week 18 loss. The Cardinals closed the season with just three wins and will not advance to the postseason.
Brycen Tremayne ’23 (CAR) — Two receptions for 27 yards in Carolina’s 16–14 loss to Tampa Bay. Despite the defeat, the Panthers claimed the division title and will host the Rams in the Wild Card round.
Drew Dalmen ’20 (CHI) — Continued anchoring Chicago’s offensive line as the Bears locked up the No. 2 seed, setting up a home playoff matchup against division rival Green Bay.
Solomon Thomas ’18 (DAL) — Recorded an assisted tackle as Dallas finished the season at 7–9–1 and fell short of a playoff berth.
Davis Mills ’22 (HOU) — Completed three of nine pass attempts in Houston’s finale. The Texans earned the No. 5 seed in the AFC and will head into the playoffs next week.
Dalton Schultz ’18 (HOU) — Caught all four of his targets for 73 yards, continuing his steady presence in Houston’s passing game as the Texans prepare for postseason play.
Walker Little ’21 (JAX) — Contributed on the offensive line as Jacksonville secured the No. 3 seed in the AFC and will host Buffalo in the Wild Card round.
Foster Sarell ’21 (LAC) — Helped protect up front as the Chargers clinched the No. 7 seed, setting up a road playoff matchup against New England.
Thomas Booker IV ’22 (LV) — Logged a solo tackle in Las Vegas’ Week 18 win over Kansas City, a bright finish to an otherwise difficult season for the Raiders.
Jake Bailey ’19 (MIA) — Punted six times for a 40.8-yard average in Miami’s loss to New England. The Dolphins closed the season outside the playoff field.
Austin Hooper ’17 (NE) — Recorded a five-yard reception as New England secured the No. 2 seed in the AFC and will host the Chargers next week.
Justin Reid ’18 (NO) — Finished with an assisted tackle in New Orleans’ finale. After three consecutive Super Bowl appearances with the Kansas City Chiefs, Reid and the Saints will miss the postseason this year.
Paulson Adebo ’19 (NYG) — Tallied three total tackles as the Giants wrapped up a 4–13 season.
Bobby Okereke ’18 (NYG) — Posted six tackles (three solo, three assist) in New York’s season finale.
Harrison Phillips ’18 (NYJ) — Recorded four tackles and a special teams stop as the Jets closed the year at 3–14.
Tanner McKee ’23 (PHI) — Completed 21 of 40 passes with a touchdown and an interception in Philadelphia’s finale. The Eagles earned the No. 3 seed in the NFC and will host San Francisco in the Wild Card round.
Christian McCaffrey ’18 (SF) — Finished with eight carries for 23 yards and added six receptions for 34 yards in San Francisco’s loss to Seattle. The defeat dropped the 49ers from having the playoffs go through San Francisco, to the No. 6 seed, setting up a playoff trip to Philadelphia.
Elic Ayomanor ’26 (TEN) — Caught three passes for 50 yards on 10 targets as Tennessee closed its season with a loss to Jacksonville.
In Week 18, Stanford alumni combined for multiple receiving touchdowns, over 300 yards through the air and key defensive contributions as playoff seeding came into focus. Several former Cardinal secured postseason spots across both conferences, while others closed out breakout individual seasons, headlined by Michael Wilson’s 1,000-yard campaign and Colby Parkinson’s two-touchdown performance.
With the regular season officially in the books, the spotlight now shifts to playoff football. Tune back next week for Stanford in the NFL: Playoffs, beginning with Super Wild Card Weekend and a slate of postseason matchups featuring Cardinal alumni on the game’s biggest stage.
The post Week 18: Stanford in the NFL appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Tell me, how would you like me to reject you?In conversation with Stanford students involved with civic engagement, Hwang explores how to approach political disagreement in different contexts.
The post Tell me, how would you like me to reject you? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Ideologically? Socially? Romantically? No one wants to be rejected, but inevitably we all do our fair share of rejecting. Admittedly, I have never asked myself how I would want to be rebuffed, such that I would still feel mutual respect and a desire to move forwards together. That requires a confidence found only when we feel unthreatened by others and by our own hurt. But we can’t avoid conflict forever. If we’re going to reject and be rejected for the rest of our lives, we should talk about how it should happen.
Let’s start with ideological rejection. Gone are the days when Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of Americans working with each other’s differences through “the art of association.” Now, our differences are left unresolved. Instead of telling a friend their jokes are offensive, we stop hanging out. Instead of confronting protesters, we walk past them. Just thinking about politics is exhausting. But keeping the peace in the short term comes at a steep cost in the long run. Now, we can’t even agree on basic facts, let alone ideas. Perhaps it’s time for us to re-learn how to work through our disagreements.
So tell me, how would you like me to disagree with you?
This is what I asked Jadon Urogdy ’27 and Nathan Kuczmarski ’26. Both study political science and serve as leaders in civic engagement on campus. So I’m not surprised that some of their answers, though profound and powerful, initially feel too visionary for me to apply to my everyday conflicts. Urogdy advises me to “signal that you’re willing to break down barriers,” while Kuczmarski asks me to “have intellectual humility.” But if it were that easy, I wouldn’t be writing this piece. Jake Matlof ’28, studying English, offers a simpler heuristic: “You can be extremely direct so long as you aren’t insulting.” He pauses. “Even if you are insulting, I would still debate you.” All three agree that we need to see more civil disagreement.
Both Urogdy and Kuczmarski got involved in civic engagement at Stanford because of experiences with unconstructive dialogue back home. Growing up in rural Michigan, Urogdy saw how quickly political conversations would shut down because classmates dismissed differing views. That experience now motivates his work as the vice-chair of Democracy Day and the senior advisor of StanfordVotes. Kuczmarski had similar experiences over the dinner table back home in Ohio. His parents would “talk past each other” when debating politics, choosing to disagree on values they normally would have agreed on. It had been his role to serve as a conduit, and at Stanford Political Union (SPU), he found a familiar role facilitating dialogue on campus. He now serves as its president.
In contrast to Urogdy and Kuczmarski’s experiences with political confrontation, Matlof saw people silently disengage instead. Last year, when taking COLLEGE 102: “Citizenship in the 21st Century“, Matlof was disappointed to see that while “the premise of the class… [was to] foster safe spaces for disagreement and discussion… there wasn’t a whole lot of that.”
When asked where he finds opportunity for discourse now, Matlof wryly answers, “I’m friends with some poli sci majors.” This resonates with me: I, too, curate when and how I expose myself to confrontation. Frankly, conflict is scary. In Kuczmarski’s words, “rocking the boat of what we believe isn’t just throwing off one piece of cargo and replacing it with another. It’s replacing the paneling of the boat itself while you’re in the middle of the ocean.” Few would want this terrifying experience, so we naturally avoid subjecting others to it, if only to avoid inviting others to rock our own boat. We tell ourselves it’s more considerate to just keep the peace, except in certain spaces deemed safe.
But there’s a fine line between keeping the peace and neglecting a problem. At some point, agreeing to disagree became not a strategy for coexistence, but a fatalistic attitude towards conflict resolution in a polarized world. Of course, the necessity of tough conversations doesn’t make it any easier. When was the last time you walked up to a classmate and said, “I really disagreed with your comments in class yesterday?”
Ironically, my original example was going to be: “I disagree, I believe we should invest more money into oil and gas.” But I instinctively rewrote it after imagining how you, the reader, may react. I want to make my point without repelling you, lest you do the same to me. But perhaps if we both prepare for this hurdle of perceived rejection, we can get through it together.
How should we prepare? Leaning on Urogdy and Kuczmarski’s experiences with civil dialogue, here are a few principles to follow:
The list continues, but what strikes me is how applicable this advice is to both the disagree-er and to the one being disagreed with. That’s just proof that in a truly constructive dialogue, those roles are fluid. When we confront others, we’re really confronting our own world views. So the next time you need to have a tough conversation, remember to prepare for more than just rejecting them kindly. Prepare to reject your current self too.
“Disagreeing well is what our democracy demands of us,” Kuczmarski explains. “Democracies are… [slow] because they move at the speed of people’s beliefs. That slowness can be frustrating, but by consistently practicing constructive disagreement, we can slowly move toward a better world that we’ve all worked together to create.”
The post Tell me, how would you like me to reject you? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
New study finds a majority of Stanford students still believe in SantaDo you believe in Santa? Studies show you probably do. Weirdo.
The post New study finds a majority of Stanford students still believe in Santa appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Editor’s Note: This article is purely satirical and fictitious. All attributions in this article are not genuine, and this story should be read in the context of pure entertainment only.
In a recent study done by the Stanford Department of Sociology, the Stanford student population was surveyed on a variety of metrics regarding religious and spiritual beliefs. In response to the question, “Do you believe in Santa Claus?” 64% of respondents selected “yes,” 17% “no” and 11% “unsure/prefer not to answer.” In comparison, the study showed that 23% of respondents believed in the tooth fairy, 15% in the Easter Bunny and only 10% believed in the Stanford football team making a bowl game in 2026.
“This is an unprecedented shift,” researcher Carol Li said. “Pre-pandemic numbers of Santa-believers was around 43%, and once COVID hit this dropped to 10-15%. Since the return to in-person learning in 2021, this number has been steadily increasing and it doesn’t show signs of stopping.” Li attributed high concentrations of holly in the dining hall chicken and reported sightings of reindeer around campus as potential causes for this recent increase.
“I actually didn’t believe in Santa before coming to campus,” said Declan Newton ’28, “but when I dozed off during Sleep and Dreams, I started to have visions of sugarplums, and knew something must be up.” Following this experience, Newton began to explore their belief in Santa through caroling on the Row and attending community workshops on stocking stuffing.
Max Christianson ’29, another believer, said “I think he [Santa] certainly was a historical figure, and there’s a lot of evidence to back that up, but years of retranslating and the influence of modern media have obscured his original character. Like, the original St. Nick was almost certainly absolutely jacked. Like you should be leaving protein shakes and hard-boiled eggs under the tree. Think like Nicholas St. North from Rise of the Guardians. Now that’s a Santa I can believe in.”
Others remain skeptical: “It just doesn’t make sense, making all those toys for free. There’s no market incentive whatsoever. And how does he even get that sleigh to fly? Magic isn’t real. Santa isn’t real.” Gavin Rinch M.B.A. ’26 said. When asked about the presents that appeared under his Christmas tree, he suggested that this was “the work of the invisible hand of the free market.” Dani Neyer ’28, who we found curled up in a ball in the basement of Huang, simply said: “It’s finals week, I don’t believe in anything anymore.”
The fierce debate has led believers and deniers alike to call for an official university statement on the matter. Soon after the study was published, the Office of the President released a statement: “Our position on the existence of Santa Claus remains neutral and impartial, but we are committed to the diversity of ideas which makes our community great. We hope that as an institution we engage in productive and civil discussion of the spirit of the holiday season across different backgrounds and beliefs.”
The post New study finds a majority of Stanford students still believe in Santa appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanford Tree forgoes traditional ornaments, remains non-denominationalReports indicate the Tree was decking the halls with nondenominational boughs of holly. Fa la la la la, la la la la.
The post Stanford Tree forgoes traditional ornaments, remains non-denominational appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Editor’s Note: This article is purely satirical and fictitious. All attributions in this article are not genuine and this story should be read in the context of pure entertainment only.
The Stanford Tree is at the center of a holiday related administrative debacle after publicly refusing to wear traditional Christmas ornaments, aiming to remain nondenominational.
The controversy began at a recent press conference to celebrate Stanford’s new hire for head coach, Tavita Pritchard. While Coach Pritchard was discussing the role of student spirit in his new coaching regime, General Manager Captain Andrew Luck aggressively yanked the microphone from Pritchard and said, “We need to talk more about the reason for the season: Holiday Spirit.” Luck then proceeded to show detailed re-designs of the Tree that involved ornaments, lights and an angel tree-topper, remarking, “This is what we need to play good football.”
He further elaborated that he was visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future, who presented him with the idea. “I try to bring as many talented people together as I can to make a strong team. The people behind the scenes are so important to success on the field,” he said. “That’s why I’m so thankful we have people like head coach Tavita Pritchard and The Christmas Ghosts. Coach Pritchard has a long history here with Stanford football, and the Christmas Ghosts inspire so many of us in the Cardinal family with terrifying nighttime visits. Everyone on this team benefits when one of us has a vivid image of our impending death due to bad spirit.”
The Stanford Tree disagreed, announcing in a recent press statement that “as the symbol of Stanford spirit, I have taken many forms throughout my lifetime. From a palm tree with arms to a fir tree with sunglasses, I have always sought to embody the wacky nature of student life on The Farm. However, a recently pitched design has sparked some conversation, and I feel compelled to speak out. As a Tree for all seasons/students, I believe it is incumbent upon me to remain nondenominational out of a spirit of inclusivity and welcomeness. Therefore, I think I should remain ornament-less this holiday season.”
After prolonged negotiations, the Tree agreed to the proposed design, but with a few tweaks to ensure that the tree remained truly non-denominational. The colorful ornaments would be replaced with beige garland, while the tree topper would be switched out for a pale gray advertisement for Stanford Cardinal Football season tickets. In an interview, the Tree repeatedly stressed the desire to appeal to everyone and remain non-denominational in an effort to ”respect the separation between church and mascot.”
The Tree debuted the new look at the Jingle Bell Jingle Bowl Winter Invitational against non-ranked Whoville State. During the Stanford Band’s halftime performance of Pentatonix Christmas covers, the freshly-decorated tree took the field brandishing a large banner reading, “Merry Holidays.” The design was met by many with positive reception, with one attending student remarking, “I like how it really represents Stanford. It has this bleak corporate aesthetic that I quite enjoy.”
However, not everyone was on board with the changes. On Fizz, a student with the handle G.Rinch2007 commented, “The new tree design sucks. They tried to tone it down from a full blown Rockefeller Center getup, but it’s still oozing with that dreaded holiday hullabaloo. Stanford needs to grow up and get a real non-denominational mascot, like an orange, or an Irish guy. #NotMyMascot #woke #LetsGoBrandon.”
Despite an increase in school holiday spirit, the team lost 56-13. “The team didn’t get the Christmas miracle we wanted against Whoville,” Luck said in a post-game press conference. “But it seemed like the new Tree design was successful in bringing our fans and players together. I think it should stay year round.”
Moreover, the success did attract the attention of many illustrious donors, including a $50 million from Ebeneezer Scrooge.
The post Stanford Tree forgoes traditional ornaments, remains non-denominational appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Daily Diminutive #104 (Jan. 7, 2026)Click to play today's 5x5 mini crossword. The Daily produces mini crosswords three times a week and a full-size crossword biweekly.
The post Daily Diminutive #104 (Jan. 7, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The post Daily Diminutive #104 (Jan. 7, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanfordle #053 (Jan. 7, 2026)Enjoy The Daily's Stanfordle, the newest part of our Games section. The Daily produces Stanfordles on weekdays.
The post Stanfordle #053 (Jan. 7, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The post Stanfordle #053 (Jan. 7, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
First day of winter quarter sees steady, moderate rainsAfter a three week respite from classes, students experienced a rainy first day of winter quarter as Palo Alto received nearly 0.6 inches of rain.
The post First day of winter quarter sees steady, moderate rains appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
On Monday, moderate to heavy rains stormed campus as students began the first day of classes for the winter quarter.
According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Palo Alto saw nearly .6 inches of rain over the course of the day. The South Bay experienced less, with San Jose seeing about .4 inches of rain. The North Bay saw heavy storms, with San Francisco recording close to an inch of rain.
On average, winter quarter tends to be a rainier season than any other at Stanford, with the months of January, February and March usually receiving 3.3”, 3.7” and 2.7” of rain respectively, while the fall quarter months of September to December receive about 0.2”, 0.9”, 2.2” and 3.3” of rain. April, May and June average rainfalls of 1.2”, 0.5” and 0.1” in Palo Alto.
Students said that the rain was a hindrance to a busy start to the quarter. “It was a bit frustrating to navigate all of the rain. Even though I only had one class, I still had several errands to run, and I just felt like I was in a constant state of damp all day long,” said Lucy Hiller ’28.
With a steady, moderate rain throughout the day, some described the experience as a downpour. “I’d say it’s pouring cats and dogs out there, but it’s more like jaguars and hyenas,” Carter Staggs ’27 said.
For Ezra Steinberg ’26, the rain was an uncomfortable experience. “I dislike the rain. I had to bike and my pants got wet. It also sprayed mud on my sweatshirt,” Steinberg said.
The rain also marked a hopeful sign, evoking memories of winter 2023 when Lake Lagunita filled with water due to a particularly rainy season. “I like the rain. I hope that the lake gets filled,” said Sohrab Hassibi ’26.
Nonetheless, some wished that the rain would cease for the duration of the quarter. “The rain definitely affected the mood on campus today … I’m hoping that the rain doesn’t last too much longer because I’m not sure how many days of wet biking I can take!” Hiller said.
Showers are expected to continue overnight and into Tuesday.
The post First day of winter quarter sees steady, moderate rains appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
From the Community | AI teaches us another bitter lessonBen Gao '25 asks us to reconsider how we can use AI effectively, arguing that human-centered design needs to be prioritized.
The post From the Community | AI teaches us another bitter lesson appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
When GPT-4 first topped benchmark leaderboards, the AI community celebrated a new milestone in capability. Yet, people seemed to keep using base GPT-3.5 to triple check their emails for typos. When Claude 3 Opus launched as the most capable model, Wall Street soared at the promise of future productivity gains. But students everywhere seemed to stick with Claude’s cheaper, faster Sonnet to panic study before their tests.
Time and time again, we see that the “best” model on paper isn’t always the most widely adopted by everyday people, nor able to deliver the transformative value its benchmark performance would otherwise suggest.
This observation points to a fundamental tension in how we think about progress in AI. In 2019, Rich Sutton, the godfather of reinforcement learning, wrote “The Bitter Lesson.” He argued that general methods leveraging compute and data ultimately outperform approaches built on human comprehension and judgement. He was right, and modern scaling laws prove scale alone can yield incredible qualitative results. But, there’s another bitter lesson emerging: those same human qualities that lost to computation and data in developing such capable AI models are precisely what’s needed to drive lasting adoption and meaningful change in the real world.
We tend to think of foundation models as something new, but history offers surprising lessons about which foundational frameworks have actually stuck around. In broad terms, a foundation model is a coherent explanatory framework that guides how people understand the world and act within it. The Greek geometric cosmos, ancient religious doctrine, Galenic medicine: these were all the top foundation models of their time, offering systematic ways for entire societies to run inference on reality and supposedly make informed decisions.
Take the ancient Greeks and their view of the cosmos. They famously embraced geocentricism, the idea that the Earth sits at the center of the universe with planets and stars rotating around it, because the model made intuitive sense. Look up: the sun rises, crosses overhead, and sets. The stars wheel around us. Of course we’re at the center. Who would think otherwise?
Aristarchus of Samos, who around 270 BCE proposed heliocentricism, the idea that Earth and other planets orbit the sun. In modern terms, his model leveraged better data, used more compute and claimed top benchmark performance. Yet, it didn’t stick. For nearly 2,000 years, heliocentrism remained largely a footnote, a silly hypothesis overshadowed by the unquestionable geocentric foundation model, the GPT (Geocentric Planetary Theory) of its time.
Galenic medicine too, with its questionable practices of bloodletting and purging remained standard well into the 1800s, far after William Harvey’s 1628 discovery of blood circulation undermined its theoretical foundations. In fact, President George Washington died in 1799 from extreme bloodletting, decades after evidence began mounting against it.
In both cases, the more accurate foundation model built on better data and more rigorous methods, ultimately lost to those that were more comprehensible to everyday people.
Here’s how this relates to modern AI: we may have already crossed the capability threshold where further optimizing for accuracy matters less than optimizing for use and adoption.
Transformative technologies like the internet and iPhone haven’t fundamentally changed in their core functionality since their introduction. The internet still moves packets. The iPhone still makes calls and runs apps. What made them so essential to life today was relentless iteration on the application layer: the interfaces, the integrations and the thousands of small decisions that made them delightful and indispensable, even in the face of “better” alternatives.
Modern foundation models are already very good. GPT-5, Claude 4, Gemini 3: they can write coherently, reason thoughtfully, generate code and understand nuanced instructions. For most real world applications, the difference between two models that score, for example, 75% vs 80% on some obscure technical benchmark is imperceptible to everyday people. What they actually notice is much more fundamental: Is it reliable? Is it easy to use? Is it actually solving my problems?
This is the crucial shift we’re witnessing in AI: from the quantifiable compute and data race for top benchmark performance that delivered today’s impressively capable AI models, to the amorphous human centered mission for real, lasting impact to determine tomorrow’s winners.
We’re likely still in the early innings of AI development and adoption, much like the early dot-com era. Back then, “[insert service] but on the internet” filled pitch decks, and about 50% of those startups failed. Today, “[insert service] but with AI” fills YC batches, and over 95% of enterprise AI pilots have failed to deliver return on investment. As the internet did, AI may take years to develop and go from wrapping around existing processes to transforming entire domains in the way that AI evangelists promise on X.
The mode of thinking and research that got us to modern AI (Sutton’s insight that computation and data outperform human judgement in building capable models) answered a key question: how do we build capable foundation models? But this same mode of inquiry has led us to new questions we can’t answer in the same way: what makes a foundation model good for everyday people? How do we integrate AI in our lives that actually stick? These aren’t problems that more data reliably solves.
The distinction between building with AI and building for AI matters enormously. Foundation models are improving rapidly, but capability doesn’t automatically translate to real world value. In the case of the internet, success didn’t come from simply putting existing businesses online, but from fundamentally rethinking how value could be created in a connected world. The same will be true for AI. The most impactful applications of AI won’t be those that just wrap around what already exists, but from fundamentally rethinking how value could be created in a world where cognition is cheap, fast and accessible. What matters now is understanding people deeply, designing thoughtful human centered experiences, and iterating relentlessly.
Ben Gao ’25 M.S. ’25 studied math and Management Science & Engineering. He is a Bay Area native.
The post From the Community | AI teaches us another bitter lesson appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Her POV: ‘Sorry, Baby’ hits hard, apologizes for nothingEva Victor’s feature film debut, “Sorry, Baby” is a touching, humorous film depicting the power of friendship and the before and after of a traumatic event.
The post Her POV: ‘Sorry, Baby’ hits hard, apologizes for nothing appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Content warning: This article contains references to sexual violence and suicide.
Editor’s Note: This article is a review and includes subjective thoughts, opinions and critiques.
There are two extended scenes in Eva Victor’s “Sorry, Baby” (2025) that depict the immediate before and after of a traumatic event. What makes these gut-wrenching episodes so striking is that though they encapsulate the heart of the film — the difficulty of moving on after a tragedy — they are two of the only scenes that aren’t riotously funny.
The film follows Agnes, an English professor whose life has been affected by a bad thing that happened to her during graduate school. Through a series of flashbacks, the viewer is shown key moments when Agnes learns to grapple with the aftermath. It is a touching, nuanced portrayal of resilience in the face of harm — and of Agnes learning that being harmed does not mean she is damaged.
“Sorry, Baby” marks Victor’s feature film debut. She wrote the screenplay, directed the film and stars as Agnes. Victor honed her comedy chops as a standup comedian and writing for “Reductress,” a feminist satirical news site. Making a comedic film about trauma is no easy feat, and yet Victor’s wry sensibility is on letter-perfect display through her trenchant use of observational humor and physical comedy.
When we first meet Agnes, she is awaiting a visit from Lydie, her best friend who has since moved away from their New England university town to New York City. The long-distance friendship is challenging, but it does not interrupt their epic platonic romance. They have the type of relationship where they can share their innermost thoughts with one another. For example, Agnes asks if Lydie has ever noticed that when one is in flagrante delicto and a man asks how enjoyable “it” is, is the referent his genitals, or the quality of the lovemaking? Whatever “it” means, the women cackle at the absurdity of an impromptu short-form survey during sex.
In addition to giving Agnes a much-needed dose of sunshine, Lydie announces that she and her wife are expecting a baby. Agnes immediately understands that it means the three of them will become parents. Even as adult friendships are often eclipsed by romantic relationships, Lydie and Agnes remain as emotionally tethered as they were during graduate school. This is evident as Lydie begins to question whether it’s hard to still live in the town where they survived graduate school. Lydie senses her friend may still be somewhat fragile and leaves with a request: “Please don’t die.” Agnes replies that if she were to die by suicide, she would have done so in the past few years.
As the story travels back through time, we learn that the bad thing that happened to Agnes was an episode of sexual violence. The choice to give Agnes a background in literature is instructive: she deals with language and narrative for a living, but words fail her when she tries to name the event. She also learns about the importance of the bureaucratic “order of operations” after a sexual assault. In a chilling vignette, a middle-aged male doctor tells her she should have treated her body like a crime scene and headed directly to an emergency room for forensics. Lydie, who has tagged along for emotional support, coolly and hilariously tells the doctor to watch his tone.
Crucially, Victor chooses to have Agnes tell Lydie immediately after the assault, but not show it. Instead, a wide shot of the building where it occurred and prolonged silence for several minutes creates a slow bloom of dread. As Agnes recounts being attacked, she describes her attempts to communicate her disinterest and negotiate with the attacker — who happens to be a man she once admired. That she extends sympathy to him even as he harms her underscores the profound violation of trust.
The assault rattles Agnes, yet she manages to finish her degree and achieve professional success. Her resilience is real but knotted with emotional strain. Throughout the film, there are several instances when Agnes declares that she cannot picture herself growing older. This is a shorthand way for her to admit that many aspects of life are unbearable, that picturing the future is unfathomable when the present feels unlivable.
Still, Agnes’s pathway to feeling okay is punctuated with moments of strange vitality. In one of the film’s funniest scenes, Agnes attempts to mercifully kill a mouse. As she runs through her home looking for a weapon to end the creature’s suffering, she chooses a hardcover novel and lifts it over head as if she is chopping wood. It’s the most ridiculous (and therefore funniest) way to put a creature out of its misery.
“Sorry, Baby” is an outstanding debut. It proceeds with the kind of confident wit that makes it an enjoyable film about a heavy subject without downplaying the severity of the assault. Nor does it make the mistake of suggesting everything happens for a reason. It is a great film about a bad thing.
The post Her POV: ‘Sorry, Baby’ hits hard, apologizes for nothing appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Stanfordle #052 (Jan. 6, 2026)Enjoy The Daily's Stanfordle, the newest part of our Games section. The Daily produces Stanfordles on weekdays.
The post Stanfordle #052 (Jan. 6, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
The post Stanfordle #052 (Jan. 6, 2026) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Against Forgetting: Why we write, why I writeBaroudi examines how writing transforms the fear of forgetting into a way of inhabiting time, rather than simply enduring it.
The post Against Forgetting: Why we write, why I write appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
I write because I am terrified of forgetting. Not the mundane forgetting of where I placed my keys or what I ate for breakfast, but something more profound — the forgetting of who I was at a particular moment, what mattered to me then. Memory betrays us. It smoothes out the rough edges, turns the chaotic texture of lived experience into a neat narrative. The fear of forgetting, however, lives at the heart of what it means to be human — to be aware of our own impermanence and desperate to leave some trace. We write to resist the erosion of time. Yet writing is far more than an archive of what was.
Forgetting is as fundamental to human existence as breathing, as inevitable as death itself. Every moment lived immediately begins its dissolution into nothingness. What feels vivid and essential now will fade to impression, then vapor, then nothing at all. People we love die and over time, even they become stories we tell ourselves, simplified until the person themselves is lost beneath our telling of them, until we’re only repeating the myth we made from their bones.
Even our own past selves vanish. I can scarcely conjure who I was at ten — not just what I did but how I inhabited the world, what it felt like to be that particular configuration of hope and fear and wonder. At ten, I believed that if I closed my eyes tight enough during thunderstorms, I could make the lightning stop. I believed this with absolute certainty, the kind of magical thinking that feels like power when you’re small and the world is large and incomprehensible. That child is gone. Without deliberate preservation, she might as well never have existed.
This is the abyss that haunts us. If everything we are and everyone we love ultimately dissolves into forgetting, what was the point? If no trace endures, did any of it matter? The fear of forgetting is finally a fear about meaning itself. What is completely forgotten cannot signify to anyone.
At first glance, writing appears to be preservation in its purest form. There are experiences from my adolescence that survive only because I wrote about them when they were fresh. Reading old journals, I encounter a stranger who is nevertheless undeniably me — not just what I did but how I thought, what seemed earth-shatteringly important then but would have vanished entirely without the written trace. Whole years of my life would be reduced to three or four disconnected images, the rich fabric of daily existence completely lost, if not for those pages.
Yet preservation alone cannot explain why we continue to write. When I sit down to write about an experience, I do not yet understand that experience fully. The page teaches me what I think.
There is a painting that haunts me when I think about forgetting: Vermeer’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring.” A young woman turns to look over her shoulder, her lips slightly parted as if about to speak, a pearl hanging from her ear. The painting captures a moment so fleeting it barely qualifies as a moment, just the instant before speech, a turning, a glance. Everyone who ever knew this girl is dead. We do not even know her name. The room in which she posed no longer exists. Yet here she is, alive in paint, her gaze meeting ours across four centuries.
What moves me is not the fact that Vermeer preserved her but how he transformed her. The painting is not documentation. It is interpretation, emphasis, a way of seeing. The dramatic lighting, the mysterious darkness behind her, the intimacy of her direct gaze — these are choices that create meaning. The girl’s expression suggests she’s just been called, just turned, is just about to respond – she’s caught in that split second of connection before self-consciousness sets in. The darkness behind her isolates her, makes her the only thing that matters in the world. Vermeer looked at an unknown girl and saw something worth preserving — perhaps the way it felt to be seen by her, to have that particular consciousness acknowledge his — then created something that allows us, centuries later, to feel the presence of another consciousness, to sense what it might have been like to be seen by those eyes.
This is what writing does. We do not simply record experience; we discover within it patterns and meanings that were invisible in the living of it. Joan Didion writes, “We tell ourselves stories in order to live” — the narratives we construct about our experience are not luxuries but necessities.
All of this is true, and yet none of it quite captures why I write.
I write because I must. Not in some romantic, tortured-artist sense, but in the simple sense that not writing makes me feel half-alive. When I go too long without writing, experience begins to pile up unprocessed. For better or worse, it has become how I metabolize life.
I write because I am afraid of living in a blur. So much of life passes in a semi-conscious state — we go through motions, we let days dissolve into each other.
I write because I am lonely in the way all humans are lonely — trapped inside a single consciousness, unable to fully convey what it is like to be me. Writing is my way of reaching across the void to say: this is what I see, does anyone else see it too?
I write because there is beauty in the act itself. Not just in beautiful subjects but in the work of finding the right word, shaping a sentence until it has rhythm and force. There is deep pleasure in this, a satisfaction that has nothing to do with whether anyone else reads what I have written.
But mostly, I write because I am mortal, and writing is how I resist — not death itself, but the passivity of simply letting life happen to me. This is not about achieving immortality through great literature. It is about the simple human desire to imprint some evidence that I existed and that my existence meant something, even if only to myself. We make our marks knowing they will fade. We write anyway. Not because we believe in permanence but because the act of witnessing our own lives, of transforming experience into language, is how we inhabit time rather than simply endure it.
The post Against Forgetting: Why we write, why I write appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Weeks 14-17: Stanford in the NFLStanford alumni balled out in the last few weeks of the NFL regular season, highlighted by Arizona's Michael Wilson showing potential as a future star.
The post Weeks 14-17: Stanford in the NFL appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
With the regular season winding down, Weeks 14 through 17 featured a wide range of performances from Stanford alumni across the league — from explosive offensive stretches to steady defensive contributions, even as several teams navigated difficult late-season slates. Here is a look at how Cardinal players closed out 2025.
Michael Wilson ’22 M.A. ’22 (WR, Arizona Cardinals)
Wilson capped off a breakout second half of the season with four productive outings, totaling 23 receptions for 337 yards and five receiving touchdowns across Weeks 14–17. His Week 14 performance, 11 catches for 142 yards and two scores, set the tone, and he followed it with a touchdown in each of the final three games. Despite Arizona going winless during the stretch, Wilson remained the focal point of the Cardinals’ passing attack. Wilson eclipsed 1,000 yards on the season for the first time in his three-year career, a feat particularly impressive after having just eight catches for 52 yards through the first five games of the season.
Christian McCaffrey ’18 (RB, San Francisco 49ers)
McCaffrey continued to play in dominant fashion, combining rushing efficiency with consistent receiving production. Over Weeks 15–17, he logged 66 carries for 330 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns, while adding 11 receptions for 84 yards and two receiving scores. His ability to control games from scrimmage remained central to San Francisco’s late-season success. It will not be shocking if the Colorado native earns a few league-MVP votes.
Colby Parkinson ’19 (TE, Los Angeles Rams)
Parkinson delivered a strong four-game stretch, recording 16 receptions for 181 yards and three touchdowns between Weeks 14 and 17. His two-touchdown performance in Week 15 highlighted his red-zone reliability as the Rams went 2–2 over that span.
Elijah Higgins ’23 (AZ) — Finished the stretch with a breakout Week 16, hauling in seven receptions for 91 yards after limited involvement earlier in the run, as Arizona went winless during the period.
Solomon Thomas ’18 (DAL) — Recorded three total tackles across Weeks 16 and 17, contributing defensively as Dallas closed the regular season.
Dalton Schultz ’18 (HOU) — Played a key role in Houston’s perfect 4–0 stretch, tallying 19 receptions and three touchdowns across four games.
Foster Sarell ’22 (LAC) — Anchored the offensive line during the Chargers’ late-season push, including a Week 14 win over Philadelphia.
Kendall Williamson ’23 (LAC) — Posted consistent defensive output with five total tackles over three games as Los Angeles went 3–1.
Thomas Booker IV ’22 (LV) — Logged double-digit total tackles across four games, providing steady interior defense despite Las Vegas going winless.
Jake Bailey ’17 (MIA) — Punted in all four contests, averaging solid yardage each week as Miami finished 2–2 over the stretch.
Austin Hooper ’17 (NE) — Contributed late with receptions in Weeks 16 and 17, including a touchdown in the season finale.
Justin Reid ’18 (NO) — Returned to action late, posting 11 total tackles over Weeks 16 and 17.
Paulson Adebo ’20 (NYG) — Recorded 12 total tackles across three games, maintaining a steady presence in the Giants’ secondary.
Harrison Phillips ’18 (NYJ) — Finished strong with 15 total tackles from Weeks 14–17, despite New York going winless during that stretch.
Elic Ayomanor ’26 (TEN) — Closed the season with consistent involvement, totaling 10 receptions for 113 yards and a touchdown over four games as Tennessee went 2–2.
Unfortunately, Weeks 14–17 also brought season-ending injuries for multiple Stanford alumni. Kyu Blu Kelly ’23 (LV) suffered a ruptured patella tendon in Week 14, while Zach Ertz ’13 (WSH) tore his ACL in the same week and was lost for the remainder of the season.
Across Weeks 14–17, Stanford alumni combined for over 1,100 receiving yards, nine receiving touchdowns, multiple rushing scores and well over 70 total tackles. Several Cardinal players served as primary contributors for playoff-contending teams, while others remained productive despite difficult team outcomes. As the regular season comes to a close, Stanford’s presence across the NFL once again reflected the program’s depth and versatility at the professional level.
The post Weeks 14-17: Stanford in the NFL appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Marriage Pact sends cease and desist to Date DropIn November, matchmaking start-up Marriage Pact sent a cease-and-desist to the recently founded Date Drop, claiming similarities in websites, marketing copy and parts of the matching questionnaire.
The post Marriage Pact sends cease and desist to Date Drop appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Looking for love? Luckily for Stanford students hunting for the “one,” two student-founded platforms have answered the call.
However, in November, matchmaking start-up Marriage Pact sent a cease-and-desist letter to the recently-founded Date Drop, alleging similarities in website, marketing copy and parts of the matching questionnaire.
Marriage Pact, founded in 2019 by Liam McGregor ’20 and Sophia Sterling-Angus ’19, uses a ranking algorithm to pair students with a “backup spouse” each year. Students answer questions about topics ranging from dating preferences to political opinions, with the website offering them a potential partner based on their responses.
Meanwhile, Date Drop, founded by Henry Weng ’25 M.S. ’26 in the fall, matches participants on a weekly basis. After filling in a questionnaire a single time, users can opt in every Tuesday to receive a match in their inbox.
According to exhibits sent to The Daily by Marriage Pact, Weng reopened dozens of Marriage Pact emails from August to September 2025 before the launch of his product.
In an email to The Daily, Marriage Pact claimed that Date Drop copied several marketing materials, including the “secret admirer” mechanism, the phrasing of the “match results” email and elements of their website.
Marriage Pact also alleged that around 25% of the Date Drop questionnaire was copied.
“We can’t say much, pending litigation,” wrote McGregor in an email to the Daily. “But [Weng] looked at Marriage Pact emails going back all four years before launching.”
Weng believes the two projects should be able to coexist. “Marriage Pact is a beloved campus tradition. Date Drop is designed to help students find meaningful connections on an ongoing basis. We believe there is room for both,” Weng wrote in an email to the Daily.
According to Weng, questions in the Date Drop questionnaire are not uncommon among matchmaking tools. However, “as a good-faith gesture to address the concerns raised, [Date Drop has] made some voluntary product updates,” he wrote. Weng noted that Date Drop has since retained outside counsel.
Intellectual property scholar Mark Lemley ’88, a professor at Stanford Law School, believes the case is one of ordinary competition. “There’s nothing actually illegal about copying a business model,” he said. “People do that all the time.”
As for the claim that parts of the questionnaire were copied, “I don’t think that’s the sort of thing that’s going to be copyrightable,” Lemley said.
In his work as an intellectual property lawyer, Lemley said that he frequently sees similar cases. According to Lemley, the cases typically have one of two outcomes: either the defendant is unable to fight the accusation, in which case they acquiesce, or — as in the case of Date Drop — the battle may go to court. “I think if they fight, they’d have a good chance,” Lemley said.
Another possibility is that the parties reach a compromise, he said. Date Drop’s recent changes to some of its questions may constitute part of such a solution.
To show a trademark violation, “the plaintiff [Marriage Pact] would have to prove that the design of the website or the brand name are sufficiently similar” to the extent that “people would be confused and think that this actually came from the plaintiff,” Lemley said. However, he believes that to be unlikely in the case of Marriage Pact and Date Drop.
Meanwhile, to show copyright infringement, “the plaintiff would have to show that the defendant took their creative expression” beyond standard elements of website design and marketing. Plaintiffs would also be eligible to seek damages if they could demonstrate that the company suffered a financial loss due to the similar materials, Lemley said.
“There [are] a lot of great things worth doing to create meaningful relationships on campus,” McGregor wrote. “We’d just prefer everyone do their own thing.”
As for Date Drop, Weng and his colleagues have no plans to cease operations. “We’re here to help people connect, and that’s what we’ll keep on doing,” he wrote.
The post Marriage Pact sends cease and desist to Date Drop appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Kepler’s Books remains hub for literature and activism in the BayKepler’s Books, an iconic bookstore in the Bay, revamped itself 12 years ago, adopted a hybrid nonprofit model to bolster its goals of access to literature and livable wages for booksellers.
The post Kepler’s Books remains hub for literature and activism in the Bay appeared first on The Stanford Daily.
Between the bookshelves of Menlo Park’s Kepler’s Books, handwritten writing prompts invite Post-it Note responses from readers. Each sign has over 25 Post-its underneath it, the words all scribbled in the distinct handwriting of the bookstore’s many visitors.
One sign reads, “OUR KEPLER’S MEMORIES: favorite memory at Kepler.” The responses: “My love surprising me and bringing me here.” Another: “Seeing [author] Richard Ford! Thank you Kepler’s. Resist!”
That word (“Resist!”) is fitting for Kepler’s. Founded in 1955 by activist Roy Kepler, the bookstore has long been known in the Bay as a community hub with a loyal customer base. The store was reimagined 12 years ago under the management of CEO Praveen Madan. Madan guided Kepler’s through a shift to a “hybrid business model, where generally the retail part of the business works as a for-profit organization, but there is an adjacent nonprofit organization that’s doing the mission-oriented work,” Madan said.
It’s a model that around 40 bookstores have adopted across the country. In the coming years, Madan hopes to convert Kepler’s into a full nonprofit.
The nonprofit side of the bookstore is known as Kepler’s Literary Foundation. The foundation’s work primarily consists of author events, both on and offsite depending on audience size, as well as workshops and panels. Events highlight both local and world-renowned authors, including Stanford faculty like classics professor Ian Morris and figures such as John Green or Ann Patchett.
Kepler’s Literary Foundation looks to continue the bookstore’s legacy of activism, which started with the paperback revolution in the 50s. Back then, Kepler’s fought to expand access to books through the production of cheaper paperbacks, alongside City Lights in San Francisco and Cody’s Books in Berkeley.
“Very quickly in the years that followed [Kepler’s opening], a lot of the Stanford people, the beat intellectuals, people like Joan Baez and Grateful Dead, started hanging out at Kepler’s, playing at Kepler’s, having salons at Kepler’s,” Madan said. “It just very rapidly evolved from not just being a retail bookstore, but turning into this place where people were gathering to exchange ideas and have intellectual conversations.”
Now, activism for the bookstore means promoting wide-ranging and active conversations through literature. To Madan, promoting “the freedom to read and carry books that convey a variety of diversity of ideas” is activism in of itself.
Collectively, Kepler’s events attract around 8,000 attendees per year, according to event manager Heather Birchall. Birchall noted these events help community members forge personal connections.
“I’m at the top of the [book signing] line every time,” said Birchall. “So, I hear these little conversations [between readers and authors] that are happening. I think that’s where the inspiration comes, that’s when that sort of personal moment comes, and it’s exciting.”
Kepler’s future mission is to provide all its booksellers a livable wage (approximately $35 per hour in San Mateo). Currently, this isn’t financially feasible for the business, according to Madan. However, shifting to a full nonprofit model would enable Kepler’s to allocate funds from community fundraising to offer higher wages. Doing so would mean emphasizing the complexity and importance of the role. Madan wants the job to be recognized financially as much more than a side hustle.
“[Booksellers] look at it as a career, which means we have to compensate them fairly,” Madan said.
The handcrafted decor of Kepler’s, from the twisted streamers hanging over aisles to the staff recommendations sticking out from shelves, gives the bookstore a homey atmosphere. The existence of these small independent bookstores has been threatened by Amazon and Kindles, not to mention a nationwide decline in reading. Nonetheless, Kepler’s reputation remains strong.
The bookstore serves a wide range of patrons from the surrounding area and beyond. Young or old, well-read or not, Kepler’s serves all types of customers.
“I went [to Kepler’s] as an undergraduate in the 90s, and I loved coming back as an author in the 2020s,” Nicholas Thompson ’97, CEO of the Atlantic, wrote to The Daily. In November, Thompson spoke at an author event hosted at Kepler’s to promote his novel “The Running Ground.”
“We’ll all be lucky if [the bookstore] keeps thriving another 30 years,” Thompson said.
“When [an author] gives a reading on the peninsula, it is Kepler’s. It is the go-to bookstore,” said Adam Johnson, English professor and author of “The Wayfinder.” According to Johnson, who also participated in an author event at Kepler’s in November, authors are drawn to the bookstore because “they want the readership, the very sophisticated readers that a bookstore cultivates over decades.”
As a site of first dates, Christmas card photo-ops, weddings and even memorials for the loss of a loved one, Kepler’s continues to touch patrons’ hearts in irreplaceable and wide-ranging ways. And as it has for decades, the bookstore welcomes it all.
“[These] everyday interactions where we realize how much [Kepler’s] means to people, how much joy it brings into their life, [they’re] very gratifying,” Madan said.
The post Kepler’s Books remains hub for literature and activism in the Bay appeared first on The Stanford Daily.