# data[].attributes.headline
Doesn't Stanford asking students to assume unlawful responsibility for our on-campus partners' movements (including forbidding them from seeing their family or forbidding them from doing required work out of Northern California), encourage relationship abuse?

# data[].attributes.subject
Doesn't Stanford asking students to assume unlawful responsibility for our on-campus partners' movements (including forbidding them from seeing their family or forbidding them from doing required work out of Northern California), encourage relationship abuse?

# data[].attributes.body
It seems like this has largely been overlooked by the University and student representation, but it is one of my biggest concerns with the compact. I'm not a psychologist, but assuming control of our partners' movements, especially around their decisions to see their own family, is a sign of relationship abuse--that the university is requiring me to sign a compact that says I'll agree to do just this (or get out, lose my funding, enrollment, whatever) is dangerous I think. I get that these are unique times, and on-campus partners are coming up with their own agreements to keep one another and the community safe, but I would never tell my partner they flat *can't* see their family, and I'm not willing to sign a compact that says I will bring that kind of toxicity into my partnership just to retain my housing.

# data[].attributes.body
The Stanford website reads: "Face coverings are required outside when unable to maintain 6 feet of physical distancing." However, administration officials have told us you cannot eat and drink with fellow students, even while outside and more than 6 ft apart, because that would require removing your mask. The administration promised not to be more restrictive than the state and county, which currently only mandates masks outdoors if being 6 ft apart is not possible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Overbroad restrictions for students not even in university housing

# data[].attributes.subject
Overbroad restrictions for students not even in university housing

# data[].attributes.body
Administration has repeatedly defended their regulations, which go beyond federal, state, and local law (e.g. exceptionally strict limits on social interactions; forced two-week quarantine), by appealing to the fact that these are mandated by guidelines for university living. However, at points the compact seems to say that *all* grad students who at any point come to campus are required to abide by *all* of these restrictions, even if they have fled the mess that is Stanford housing and now live in their own private housing. This needs to be clarified, since the administration's logic does not justify imposing the many restrictions, going well beyond the government's, on adults living in their own private residences outside of university property.

# data[].attributes.headline
Coercive and damaging to community health

# data[].attributes.subject
Coercive and damaging to community health

# data[].attributes.body
The compact, with its sweeping demands and threatening language, has been presented to students as a set of norms that they can, in the language of the compact, "agree to abide by". In fact, any "agreement" to sign this compact has been compelled by the University. Given that continued enrollment and access to housing is contingent on signing, international students and students who have already signed a campus housing contract (which is the vast majority of graduate students) are being coerced into signing under the threat of deportation or eviction. If the University chooses to change its policy, it would do well to take responsibility and phrase such a change as what it is: a directive backed by force, rather than hide behind the false and cowardly rhetoric of mutual consent.

The text of the compact makes it clear that students were left out of the drafting entirely, as issues of mental health that loom large in the life of every student are not so much as acknowledged. The University has failed to recognize that the mental health of graduate students, most of whom now live alone and apart from their families, is damaged much more seriously by quarantine and isolation than the mental health of the general population (and indeed of the University administrators), who continue to reside with their loved ones. It is therefore inevitable that, for the sake of their own health, students will continue to seek the company of their friends, families and significant others. By refusing to acknowledge this reality and instead imposing harsh punishments for violation of the compact, the University has adopted a policy of criminalization rather than harm minimization. As always, such a policy will most hurt marginalized students and those most in need of the University's support. After all, I fail to see how the threat of eviction fulfills the "individual and collective responsibility to act in ways that protect the members of our Stanford community" outlined in the compact itself. Or does the University administration consider itself to be above such responsibility?

On June 14, 2019 in the wake of another death among the Stanford student body, president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and provost Persis Drell wrote in an email to the whole Stanford community:

"A deep, sustained conversation is needed about how the university can best provide the resources and necessary support for the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of all members of our campus community."

Having drafted this unjust compact without student input and compelled students to sign it, the University has admirably demonstrated the extent of its commitment to these values.

# data[].attributes.body
What type of nasal swab testing will stanford be doing? The 3-4 inch one that goes all the way back to your sinuses? or the 1 inch one that only swabs the inside of your nostril?

What have people experienced with testing on campus so far?

# data[].attributes.body
Why is Stanford using the painful nasal swab test when there is the saliva test available, which is noninvasive and painless? Stanford clearly does not have graduate student comfort or happiness in mind. To subject all graduate students to this painful test on a weekly basis when there is a painless alternative is cruel.

# data[].attributes.body
I get the significant other argument for the guest policy in student housing being cray, but I don't see why you absolutely have to hang out with your friends inside your apartment. The compact says it's okay to hangout with friends outside with given precautions. Stanford air right now is crap but once the heatwave and fires pass, outside will be fine to hang out. Am I missing something? Not trying to be insensitive here I'm just trying to understand why my colleagues are so focused on hanging out indoors. Maybe explaining to me + admins reading it will help the admins understand too.

# data[].attributes.headline
Many of us have been living on campus in quarantine for almost 6 months already

# data[].attributes.subject
Many of us have been living on campus in quarantine for almost 6 months already

# data[].attributes.body
And things have been difficult but they've gone more or less fine. Why does the start of a new school year mean everything needs to be overhauled

# data[].attributes.headline
Requirement to receive a weekly test if living on campus is a sneaky way to prevent out of state travel

# data[].attributes.subject
Requirement to receive a weekly test if living on campus is a sneaky way to prevent out of state travel

# data[].attributes.body
I work all online so can easily and safely work from anywhere. If they don't change this I'll probably just terminate my housing and leave the state until there's a reason to come back

# data[].attributes.headline
Allow everyone to continue remotely if they wish, no questions asked. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Allow everyone to continue remotely if they wish, no questions asked. 

# data[].attributes.body
Why is Stanford not allowing graduate students to continue their studies remotely without extenuating circumstances. It is obvious from the campus compact and the new requirement of weekly testing (for graduate students only), that Stanford views graduate students as a threat to public health on campus. Advisors are basically forcing their students to move back, when many would do anything to be able to continue even a portion of their studies remotely. Since Stanford is so concerned about public health on campus and is restricting even the most basic necessities of graduate student life (like seeing a significant other or friend in their own home), Stanford must give all graduate students the option to continue whatever portion of their studies is possible remotely, no questions asked.

# data[].attributes.headline
Only students are required to get tested????

# data[].attributes.subject
Only students are required to get tested????

# data[].attributes.body
Why is the group that is generally at lowest risk for covid the group that is required to get regular testing? Excluding faculty and staff from this testing policy is ridiculous. Either require regular testing of everyone, or require it of no one.

Also, 10000+ tests a week seems impractical. This testing requirement is not even feasible.

Why isn't Stanford exempting students who have previously had covid (verified with a previous positive test) or have a prior positive antibody test? If Stanford really wants the capacity for rigorous testing, they need to be smart about who needs to get regularly tested, and exempt people who have a previous positive test (PCR or serology).

# data[].attributes.body
This is just not realistic. There is going to be a COVID outbreak.

# data[].attributes.body
This compact - the inability to go to dinner with individuals outside our apartment or interact with individuals in indoor areas - is more restrictive than living anywhere else, and is completely isolating in a way that creates no value to the GSB experience. You are asking us to be a prisoner in our own home. There becomes no reason for being on campus since classes are now outdoor/online most likely but you are giving us only a week to find off campus housing. We have also been told all summer that the experience would be completely different and understand requirements must align with a changing environment, but this is way too strict and there are small changes that would completely adjust the experience that are allowed if you are living off campus and in any other cities.

# data[].attributes.body
Isn't this going to be terrible for student body culture if the system requires students to tattle on their classmates for not following the compact

# data[].attributes.headline
Even having grad students come to campus - why not just make a blanket decision to have it online? We are all worried about losing the experience and are coming to campus due to groupthink/fomo, but releasing the compact so late is making many of us question our plans. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Even having grad students come to campus - why not just make a blanket decision to have it online? We are all worried about losing the experience and are coming to campus due to groupthink/fomo, but releasing the compact so late is making many of us question our plans. 

# data[].attributes.headline
This compact is very similar to other documents that are being forced upon incoming students at universities that are re-opening.  All read much like liability waivers.  The purpose of this compact is to absolve the university of wrong-doing in the case of an outbreak.  In this way it is difficult to sue the university for responsibility in the case of adverse health conditions.  This is within their right to force us to sign, but we should feel comfortable with the conditions and their commitment to our safety.  It is clear that admin did not consult epidemiologists or doctors, instead recruiting Stanford's legal and financial teams to inform decision making.  If admin cares about student health, punitive measures are less than effective; they encourage students to delay the search for testing or treatment.  This inevitably means faster spread of the disease through our community.  Meanwhile, the university makes no commitments of its own to adequately test or provide support to isolate infected individuals.  Clearly this document is about the bottom line far more than it is about keeping our community safe. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This compact is very similar to other documents that are being forced upon incoming students at universities that are re-opening.  All read much like liability waivers.  The purpose of this compact is to absolve the university of wrong-doing in the case of an outbreak.  In this way it is difficult to sue the university for responsibility in the case of adverse health conditions.  This is within their right to force us to sign, but we should feel comfortable with the conditions and their commitment to our safety.  It is clear that admin did not consult epidemiologists or doctors, instead recruiting Stanford's legal and financial teams to inform decision making.  If admin cares about student health, punitive measures are less than effective; they encourage students to delay the search for testing or treatment.  This inevitably means faster spread of the disease through our community.  Meanwhile, the university makes no commitments of its own to adequately test or provide support to isolate infected individuals.  Clearly this document is about the bottom line far more than it is about keeping our community safe. 

# data[].attributes.body
1. The guest policy is overly draconian and restrictive. Expressly forbidding visitors is a very conservative reading of the CA state guidelines, which states to "restrict building access ..." rather than ban it altogether. My partner does not live with me but we are essential to each other's mental health. The visitor ban essentially stops us from having sex in private altogether. Which means we shall resort to workarounds, because we WILL still see each other, the Compact merely introduces an inconvenience. It does nothing to stop the spread and does everything to increase our fear and distrust of the University.
2. The members, procedures and standards of the Compact Review Panel are opaque, and decisions by the panel are final. Since the Review panel is allowed to take drastic action like remove students from university housing, it MUST have more transparency and accountability. There MUST be an appeal process for decisions made by the Panel, and any offenders must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I agree wholeheartedly with https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/13/an-appeal-for-appeals-in-covid-19-disciplinary-proceedings/
3. Allowing people to submit anonymous concerns creates a culture of fear and snitching on campus, not to mention it allows for false, vindictive allegations. Combined with the fact that the compact review panel is so opaque, this allows for exploitative and racist behavior. Concerns submitted to the compact must be deanonymized.
4. The FAQ response released on Monday did not address any of my seious concerns above. The compact, which seeks to regulate students, shows a glaring lack of student voices. I call for a new, less punatative compact to be drawn which takes into account the needs and concerns of graduate students, who are competent adults and have complex family and life situations.
4. The timing of the release of the Compact and the enrollment hold placed on student accounts is coersive. We were not given suffcient opportunity to give feedback before its release, and also were not given enough time to review the compact terms before we need to sign it to sign up for classes. The enrollment hold should be removed while a new compact is drafted.

Overall, the compact pushes all of the responsibility of a potential outbreak on individual students, and removes all liability from University administration. This is unacceptable and unethical. I am ashamed to be a student of an institution so blatantly ignoring the voices of its graduate students, who thanklessly contribute to its reputation of research excellence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dangerous mix of general moral commitments with severe judicial processes

# data[].attributes.subject
Dangerous mix of general moral commitments with severe judicial processes

# data[].attributes.body
The Compact is written as if it started out as a statement of moral commitment, and then had an enforcement mechanism tacked on at the last minute. The Compact Review Panel isn't well-defined: it's not clear what its investigative powers are or even how it's composed, just its punitive powers and that its decisions are "final". It's ridiculous to require anyone to commit to judicial procedures that aren't even defined. Its powers to "restrict access to Stanford facilities" and impose "removal from campus, including housing" are very substantial: they can effectively put a stop to academic progress. Yet some of the commitments listed in the Compact are extremely restrictive, others are vague, and others yet are duplicates of existing procedures.

Either the Compact should list broad moral commitments, or it should be written as a set of rules with clear jursidictional scope and causes for exception. Right now, it tries to do both, and backing up broad personal commitments with severe judicial teeth is dangerous and distressing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Philosophical and ethical reasons to refuse a vaccine

# data[].attributes.subject
Philosophical and ethical reasons to refuse a vaccine

# data[].attributes.body
Stanford already has an existing policy for students who belong to a religious or philosophical tradition that refuses vaccines (https://vaden.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj10461/f/religiousorphilosophicalexemptionfromrequiredimmunizations.pdf).

The current compact allows exemptions on medical grounds. However, there may be students who are medically healthy, but cannot in a clear conscience receive certain vaccines. For example: several of the COVID-19 vaccines are being developed using aborted human fetal cells. A student should not be asked to pause their education because their only option to continue their study to receive a vaccine that violates their faith tradition's belief on the sanctity of an unborn human life.

Note, that most mainstream religions have no problem with vaccines. The number of students on Stanford's campus that belong to a philosophical/faith tradition that has a blanket prohibition on all vaccines is small (small enough that herd immunity can still be achieved). In order to provide for the larger demographic of students whose tradition does not prohibit vaccines altogether, Vaden should consider procuring vaccines that are developed without the use of aborted fetal cells.

# data[].attributes.body
Returns None if the struct is fully opaque, meaning it has no definition in the Project.

# data[].attributes.body
Returns None if the struct is fully opaque, meaning it has no definition in the Project.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are we even allowed to evacuate or do we have to breathe toxic air to be able to get our degrees/get paid too?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are we even allowed to evacuate or do we have to breathe toxic air to be able to get our degrees/get paid too?

# data[].attributes.body
it's 90F indoor and Stanford told us that it's fine to not have A/C because we can open windows at night...

# data[].attributes.headline
Hypocrisy and 'Research At All Cost' Policy

# data[].attributes.subject
Hypocrisy and 'Research At All Cost' Policy

# data[].attributes.body
The most galling thing about the FAQ response they put out (which used fluffy language and did not respond to the concerns in the petition) was the clear language where "the compact restrictions ... do not apply to classes and/or ... research". While making progress on our degrees is all well and good, it is clear that Stanford is willing to compromise its safety concerns for the sake of research and grants. Either the situation is bad enough that we need to go to full lockdown like early spring (no research, no visitors, just sheltering in place), or the situation is calm enough that students go to work and have limited social interactions in small groups outside following CDC/county guidelines. Having the compact apply only in aspects of graduate student life where Stanford does not have a financial incentive (ie. outside of research) goes to show that the University only has a 'research at all cost' attitude.

# data[].attributes.body
My parents want to help with move-in and we have been self-isolated and practicing social distancing protocols. How will this be affected given the new compact? Does this mean that family members cannot visit campus even for a limited number of time for move-in purposes?

# data[].attributes.body
I understand that official business travel sponsored by the university is not allowed at the moment. However, restricting non-business travel for various reasons seems a violation of students' rights to mobility. It should be sufficient to get tested upon return and self-isolate until receiving negative results.

# data[].attributes.body
is this allowed?

# data[].attributes.body
Is it allowed to travel within Norther California?

# data[].attributes.body
Details on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/events/3450516045006952/?active_tab=about.

We do ask that everyone respect social distancing, as we don't want to give the university administration any reason to dismiss us as being crazy or reckless.  The more people who come, the better!  Let's make our voices heard!

# data[].attributes.body
Hey everyone - I'm Jean, an undergrad student and the new host of a news podcast by Stanford's student radio KZSU (first episode set to debut 9/1). The first will be about COVID-19 and the university's fall 2020 reopening, and I would love to hear from students regarding the compact and housing. Please contact me (jeanyi at stanford dot edu) if you would like to share how this affects you. Since I understand the sensitive issue of being a current student interviews can be off-the-record, anonymous, or taped depending on preference.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stanford must address mental health concerns

# data[].attributes.subject
Stanford must address mental health concerns

# data[].attributes.body
I am extremely concerned about graduate student mental health. The compact does not address anything about this, and puts further stressors on graduate student mental health including threatening students with eviction with no appeal and prohibiting students from hosting even their partners in their on campus residence. The CDC has completed a study showing an alarming percentage of people, particularly young adults, struggling with mental health during covid. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm

# data[].attributes.body
I find it insulting that Stanford plans to restrict graduate students and postdocs from inviting visitors to campus, yet the university remains open to tourists and locals for sightseeing and exercise. If they truly cared about enforcing the state guidelines ("Limit, to the greatest extent permitted by law, external community
members from entering the site and using campus resources"), they would close the campus to visitors. Yet every day, I bike through groups taking photos in the quad. Stanford either needs to enforce this rule fully, or not enforce it at all. It shows how little the university values its students and postdocs, relative to its adoring tourists. It's unbelievable to me that any random individual can walk through campus without invitation, but an individual invited by a Stanford graduate student cannot visit the campus.

# data[].attributes.headline
Students should be allowed to work remotely if they want to. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Students should be allowed to work remotely if they want to. 

# data[].attributes.body
Stanford should allow all students the option to continue whatever portion of their studies is possible remotely. Many advisors are asking students to return to campus. Through the constantly fluctuating policies and slow response, Stanford has demonstrated that it is not equipped to manage this crisis. Rather than let advisors force students to either return to campus or take a leave of absence, Stanford should allow all students to continue their studies remotely if they wish, no questions asked.

# data[].attributes.body
The compact effectively bans sexual activity between people not already living together. In addition to being psychologically unreasonable, this creates unsafe situations. Students at schools like BYU and Liberty have cited school policies against consensual sex as barriers to reporting assault. Sexual assault is just one way things can go wrong. How is contact tracking supposed to work if people have to admit to breaking the compact? Conversations about sexual health? Safety concerns that just happen to arise when a visitor is in the apartment?

Visitation should be limited and negotiated between roommates. Making us sign a chastity pledge and dressing it up in fancy language is truly absurd.

# data[].attributes.body
I already "signed" this because I was told we have no choice but I consider my signature to be morally and legally null. I had already signed a housing contract. It was literally impossible to review the terms ahead of time or after the fact; you could only read them as you were clicking through. You could not invent a more coercive "compact" if you tried.

# data[].attributes.headline
this is the ca guidelines for reopening schools, which admins used to justify the compact. 

# data[].attributes.subject
this is the ca guidelines for reopening schools, which admins used to justify the compact. 

# data[].attributes.headline
SUBMIT PADLET CONCERNS HERE SO ADMINS SEE THEM

# data[].attributes.subject
SUBMIT PADLET CONCERNS HERE SO ADMINS SEE THEM

# data[].attributes.body
it has recently come to my attention that the admins created their own form for collecting concerns. please forward existing concerns to this form that admins sent out late last night! https://stanforduniversity.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5yI2ri8rl3jdN4h

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Online Survey Software | Qualtrics Survey Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Qualtrics makes sophisticated research simple and empowers users to capture customer, product, brand & employee experience insights in one place.

# data[].attributes.body
The Compact makes us agree to any future changes in the Compact and Stanford directives which is massively vague and restrictive. The Panel has no appeal process and no clear outline of offenses to punishments. Departments were not consulted which means requirements were not checked for feasibility and timing which affects enrollment and stipends. The Compact says to refrain from travel, but if we do travel for an emergency, what happens if the panel decides that our definition of an emergency doesn’t match theirs? Do they want us to heath check everyday even if not on campus? The Compact expects us to report on other students as if we are under oath at a court. Why not just test all on campus students every week?

# data[].attributes.headline
Travel policy remains unclear for winter break

# data[].attributes.subject
Travel policy remains unclear for winter break

# data[].attributes.body
Even with the recent email, the travel policy remains unclear. What is “Stanford-sponsored travel”? Are we allowed to travel home once classes are over and return for winter quarter without risking eviction? If not, why end before Thanksgiving? Will students living in shared apartments and leaving during break for non-emergencies have to pay to quarantine in Palo Alto for 14 days while simultaneously paying rent to Stanford? A blanket ban on such travel is a harsh way to avoid crafting a thorough plan for testing and quarantine upon return, especially when travel bans are not in place outside of the university. If this does not apply once classes end, that information needs to be made clear. Even after the release of a compact (which I would hope was vetted) and a follow-up email on it, we are still running off of rumors from what various departments have told their students and individual interpretation of the policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dining hall access for off-campus students

# data[].attributes.subject
Dining hall access for off-campus students

# data[].attributes.body
The compact states that students living off-campus will not be allowed to access the dining halls. Why are students living off-campus not allowed to access dining halls? Are the dining halls different than libraries or gyms?

# data[].attributes.body
In the frequently asked questions, it states that reports of concerns can be anonymous. In light of the fact that such reports have the potential to revoke housing, reports must only be made via a de-anonymized channel. As we have been reminded so painfully in the last few months, the power to report others to punitive authorities has and will be utilized by racists. Allowing non-anonymous tips places all students at risk, but especially students of color. Stanford claims to be proactive in its antiracism work, but failing to demand reporters' identity will not allow Stanford to identify and counteract misuse of reporting. Beyond more individual harms, anonymous reports sow suspicion among our community. If a student is reported for anything in violation of the compact (or worse, falsely reported), they may no longer trust their neighbors.

# data[].attributes.body
What happened to the post about GLO? I thought it was valuable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Compact is unmindful of graduate students’ lives as adults

# data[].attributes.subject
Compact is unmindful of graduate students’ lives as adults

# data[].attributes.body
I would hope that faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduates all would be held to similar standards when it comes to social distancing. I don’t expect that the University will be threatening faculty members with disciplinary action for entering one another’s homes. Like faculty and staff, graduate students are adults. Many of us have family lives, financial concerns, emotional needs, health issues, and other considerations that are just as complex as those of any adult and deserve just as much respect. Yes, we all must adhere to common-sense health policies to protect the health of our community, but draconian and unenforceable measures, backed by opaque threats of punishment, will only lead to distrust and noncompliance, at a time when we need transparency and cooperation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Compact neglects complex situations for couples and families

# data[].attributes.subject
Compact neglects complex situations for couples and families

# data[].attributes.body
Although the Compact must be enforceable, it is unwise to attempt to closely police people's private behavior. Yes, unnecessary gatherings obviously should be banned, and use of indoor spaces should be limited. However, outright forbidding people from entering others’ apartments is unreasonable. As the petition points out, this may create substantial problems for those who rely on one another for informal childcare and other services. And does the Compact really expect couples who live separately to avoid spending time together indoors? From a practical standpoint, I expect rampant noncompliance with this part of the Compact, and I also expect that the University will scarcely enforce it. As a result, unless this part of the Compact is revised and clarified, its only effect will be to create fear and stress among students who, in the course of entirely reasonable daily activities, will nevertheless fear potentially severe punishment by the University. Some common-sense approaches to revising this part of the Compact include allowing indoor gatherings of up to a certain number of people (perhaps 3 or 4) from different households, or better yet, allowing people to form small “bubbles” as has been common practice.

# data[].attributes.headline
We should be free to leave California in an emergency.

# data[].attributes.subject
We should be free to leave California in an emergency.

# data[].attributes.body
Rather than banning travel outside of Northern California, it should be sufficient to require isolation and testing upon one's return to Stanford. My greatest fear is that one or both of my parents, who live on the East Coast, will become severely ill. I do not want bureaucratic barriers or the fear of disciplinary action to interfere with my ability to rush home and attend to a family emergency. That should be up to me.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stanford needs to recognize we are social beings

# data[].attributes.subject
Stanford needs to recognize we are social beings

# data[].attributes.body
We are social beings, and we need a way to interact with one another. If they outlaw all inter-apartment interactions, we will be forced to risk our housing or our mental health.

# data[].attributes.headline
Travel policy is unreasonable for students in long distance relationships

# data[].attributes.subject
Travel policy is unreasonable for students in long distance relationships

# data[].attributes.body
I am in a long distance relationship.  My partner resides in the Los Angeles Area.  We are responsible adults and we take this pandemic seriously.  We travel often between our residences via car and we practice cautious social distancing as we do so. I understand and abide by Stanford's Policy of 14-day quarantine before visiting campus after leaving Northern California.

I will not sign anything that requires me to separate from my partner for months at a time. My travel is central to my personal life and it is not subject to monitoring or approval by Stanford University.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why not set useful, implementable guidelines on forming social bubbles?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why not set useful, implementable guidelines on forming social bubbles?

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly most of the compact seems more or less fine, the main issues I see are
a) the wording of the 'we can evict you' statement ("If you travel needlessly and refuse to undergo quarantine we reserve the right to kick you out" is very different from "If you travel home for a family emergency, take as many precautions as possible, and self isolate on your return, we still can kick you out if we feel like it". The wording should be much more careful and explicit in what is/isn't allowed/reasonable.
b) they seem to have forgotten how many grad students live alone in studios or in a 2 bedroom apartment with a roommate they have no relationship with. A hard line of no interaction with anyone outside your household for a whole year is way harsher on these students than those living in groups. I think the university should set a fixed 'bubble' size and explicit guidelines of how to form 'social bubbles' (groups of students living alone who mutually agree to hang out only with each other and NOONE ELSE indoors), with a bubble size of e.g. 3-5. I think explicit guidance along these lines is going to have a much more positive safety impact than just not acknowledging these isolated students at all, leading them to make their own decisions of what reasonable risk is and ultimately resulting in much wider social nets forming of students deciding to spend time with small-ish groups in various contexts.

# data[].attributes.body
(In addition to the many substantive problems that have been pointed out – ) If GLO has any sort of oversight in this (e.g. complete authority over directives in case of travel), absolutely not. GLO is a toxic office with a culture of arbitrary and capricious decision-making and deans who will gaslight you without thinking twice.

# data[].attributes.body
The permitted travel zone seems pretty arbitrary. We should be able to travel within the state of California.

# data[].attributes.body
The compact requires us to comply with the university's policies, but Stanford hasn't made it clear what these entail. For example, the compact says "if I test positive for COVID-19 or learn that I have come in contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, I will...comply with Stanford and County public health quarantine and isolation requirements." Where will students with COVID be relocated? When will they be released? Will we be allowed to reside elsewhere than the campus-assigned location (i.e. a relative's house, a hotel?) What are the testing requirements we have to comply with? I hope the university will clarify these points before requiring students to agree to them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Concerns from an incoming graduate student

# data[].attributes.subject
Concerns from an incoming graduate student

# data[].attributes.body
1 - I am very concerned that there is no allowance for "pods" or any responsible indoor gathering, even with a very small number of people who mutually agree to have no other social contacts. Suggesting total isolation from close friends and supporters will be deeply harmful for the mental health of graduate students.

2 - I am very concerned that the threat of punishment will incentivize students to not honestly report symptoms or contacts, hindering public health measures in an effort to protect the livelihoods of close friends or family members.

3 - I am saddened that the compact restricts even very responsible outdoor gatherings with non-Stanford individuals. For example, my parents will be helping me move to Stanford, and the current rules prohibit me from showing them campus--even if the three of us wear masks, stay outdoors, and maintain a more than six-foot distance from others. We would pose no risk whatsoever to the community. I am also upset that my parents will not be able to help move me into my apartment, even though we have been in close contact for the past 6 months, we will all wear masks in the common spaces, I have been in contact with my roommate, and my roommate will not be present when I am moving in.

4 - I am very concerned that the compact reserves the right to evict students from their housing as a result of essential, emergency travel outside of Northern California.

5 - I am generally disappointed that this compact compromises the rights of students and post-docs to make safe and responsible decisions surrounding their private actions. It seems that this compact was written to provide legal protection to the university, not support and safety to the students, and this is wrong. As a prospective student this spring, one of the things that most excited me about Stanford was the positive relationship I heard about and observed between graduate students and university administration. It's a tremendous letdown to see the administration taking positions like this that appear to disregard the well-being and agency of its graduate students and undermine that positive relationship.

# data[].attributes.body
rency of reporting confirmed cases in our OWN RESEARCH BUILDINGS in a timely manner to the community. In addition to that, the people that I personally have 

# data[].attributes.headline
The problems with the compact are not new

# data[].attributes.subject
The problems with the compact are not new

# data[].attributes.body
People living in R&DE housing have already been subordinate to many of the same rules present in the compact (absolutely no visitors, risk of eviction and possibly disciplinary consequences for any violations). So even if you don't sign the compact, as long as you live on campus you are bound by pretty much the same rules. Campus housing has already been exploitative and arbitrary.  Even before Covid, visitors were limited to 5 overnight stays per quarter, and the new housing being built supposedly consists only of luxury apartments, raising housing prices by USD 300 across the board. I'm happy to see people finally get upset about this kind of treatment.

# data[].attributes.headline
dont forget to schedule your shits if you want to stay 

# data[].attributes.subject
dont forget to schedule your shits if you want to stay 

# data[].attributes.body
While it obviously wouldn't be enforceable/practical, don't forget that Stanford has asked graduate students in  shared apartments we "to practice physical distancing and staggered use of essential spaces." which given the overly broad language of the compact, could be basis for kicking us out

# data[].attributes.body
I've been living alone since the start of quarantine-times, and the experience has been so detrimental to my mental health that much of my research has come to a complete halt. One of the few things that has gotten me through this has been the development of a pod of friends who share a closed loop of apartments and contacts. While I know it will be especially hard for students with non-live in partners, this policy would force a miserable quarter for all students without roomates/in-person close friends.

# data[].attributes.headline
many incoming grad students in Stanford housing wouldn't know who they'd be forced to quarantine with

# data[].attributes.subject
many incoming grad students in Stanford housing wouldn't know who they'd be forced to quarantine with

# data[].attributes.body
Many incoming students living in Stanford housing still do not know who they will be living with. Forced

# data[].attributes.headline
At minimum, University should clarify circumstances that would lead to eviction from university housing.

# data[].attributes.subject
At minimum, University should clarify circumstances that would lead to eviction from university housing.

# data[].attributes.body
"I understand that such travel [outside the Bay Area] may result in me being required to quarantine or vacate University housing."

# data[].attributes.body
This compact should be publicly available on the university website. Why all the secrecy?

# data[].attributes.body
Some regulations seem to be written for office spaces - but are not defined as such.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with all the complaints in the petition going around, but the demands are creating more problems. More rules are not the answer. We should not be required to sign away our rights to continue living in Stanford housing. Stanford should be like other landlords and not spy on who is in our apartment or when we leave the county.

# data[].attributes.headline
Misplaced priorities and no transparency

# data[].attributes.subject
Misplaced priorities and no transparency

# data[].attributes.body
It seems like my previous comment was taken down for whatever reason so I'm gonna say it louder for the folks in the back...

There is a severe lack of transparency of reporting confirmed cases in our OWN RESEARCH BUILDINGS in a timely manner to the community. In addition to that, the people that I personally have seen not following health guidelines are NOT STUDENTS. Do faculty, post-docs, and staff have their own compact, or are graduate students expected to take full blame? Research buildings are also being kept open despite these positive cases and putting pressure on students to continue doing in-person research. Wouldn't that make Stanford liable for forcing students to potentially violate their own compact? Stanford's priority should be to protect the health of ALL of the people working on campus, and not pinning the responsibility on their graduate students and punishing them if something goes awry.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm in favor of establishing recommended guidelines for graduate students in order to maximize the safety of everyone on campus. That being said, I think punishment should be avoided and should generally consist only of a warning. Stronger punishments such as eviction should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as if a student throws a 100-person party after already having received a warning due to a prior infraction. Moreover, I think the Compact guidelines should be more flexible. Perhaps everyone in Stanford housing should be allowed a definite number (perhaps 1? 2?) of registered guests who have signed an (unenforced) agreement that they will abide by certain rules such as wearing masks in common spaces and staying home when experiencing Covid symptoms.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guest Policy Goes Too Far, Prevents me and many other students from seeing our romantic partners.

# data[].attributes.subject
Guest Policy Goes Too Far, Prevents me and many other students from seeing our romantic partners.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the policy as it stands (and personal/ financial situation that I should not have to detail), I will not be permitted to see my partner, who is an integral and important part of my life, mental health support system, and who I have been living with for the past 4 months as a member of my "household." We have been taking every precaution to prevent ourselves from contracting COVID-19, including getting tested on a regular basis. We are adults capable of making responsible decisions regarding COVID-19. It is frankly offensive and irresponsible for Stanford to tell us how we can use our personal spaces. Graduate students, including those living in Stanford housing and Stanford subsidized housing, should at the very least be permitted to see romantic partners in their apartments. Even more ridiculous, I will not be attending any on campus labs or classes, so I will literally be spending all my time in my apartment, so I have almost no risk of infecting others were I to contract COVID (which, is highly unlikely given my and my partner's very safe and precautious behaviors).

# data[].attributes.headline
I understand the desire for zero cases on campus - but this is NOT a realistic goal unless the administration SHUTS DOWN THE UNIVERSITY. The goal should be to have MASS TESTING readily available, and to have everyone feel SAFE TO REPORT ALL SYMPTOMS AND EXPOSURES so that EARLY CONTACT TRACING becomes a reality and not a fantasy. See examples from South Korea and others.

# data[].attributes.subject
I understand the desire for zero cases on campus - but this is NOT a realistic goal unless the administration SHUTS DOWN THE UNIVERSITY. The goal should be to have MASS TESTING readily available, and to have everyone feel SAFE TO REPORT ALL SYMPTOMS AND EXPOSURES so that EARLY CONTACT TRACING becomes a reality and not a fantasy. See examples from South Korea and others.

# data[].attributes.body
As much as you'd want to discourage 'risky' behaviors by negative enforcement, unfortunately you can't have it both ways. YOU NEED WILLING COOPERATION FROM EVERYONE; otherwise this will not work. You need to incentivize people to share information by (1) LOWERING BARRIERS TO TESTING, (2) HAVING ZERO ACADEMIC/FINANCIAL REPERCUSSIONS for exposure/infection, and (3) SUPPORTING, NOT PUNISHING, THOSE WHO ARE INFECTED/EXPOSED by providing safe places for quarantine and access to early treatment as needed.  The ONLY behaviors that warrant sanctions should be truly reckless ones, e.g. knowingly breaking quarantine (after being exposed/infected), throwing big parties, telling others to forego PPE, etc. You need to scrap the whole idea of an eviction review pane, PERIOD, for SO many reasons, see below. THERE WILL BE CASES. HAVE PEOPLE'S BACK instead of punishing them, because you will need their full, willing cooperation to KEEP THE # OF CASES LOW. This also happens to be the COMPASSIONATE, MORAL, AND HUMANE OPTION, which others have so eloquently explained.

# data[].attributes.body
all of its big money and medical superiority, can't be bothered to do some simple testing and tracing and inform their student population of these things, t

# data[].attributes.body
Does Stanford really expect graduate students not to get within 6 feet of their established romantic partner, or ever have them over to their apartment?  While state orders require Californians not to gather with people outside their own household, Stanford defining a household to be just you and your roommate I find upsetting.  If I had a roommate who was uncomfortable with me seeing my boyfriend during the pandemic, I would work with her to see if there is a way I could see him in a social distanced way.  But to take away our ability to negotiate a "household" bubble with our roommates and loved ones increases social isolation with limited benefits.

# data[].attributes.body
So with this petition: I’m totally onboard until the part where we don’t have to follow SCC guidelines with quarantine bubble for 10 people/changing the northern Cali travel ban. I think we lose some credibility if we push that.

# data[].attributes.body
I for one am happy about the new found power of MTL. Maybe we can start having checkpoints located at all the entrances to campus.  Individuals will be required to show identification as well as paperwork indicating their travel has been approved by The Panel. Perhaps members of the Biosciences can wear a patch on their sleeves to indicate they are graduate students.  Also I think roving bands of Stanford PD are warranted to ensure that citizens are adhering to the continuously updated rules of The Panel. Please inform The Panel of my continued support and my recommendations.

# data[].attributes.body
While many of us acutely understand the global consequences of an infectious pandemic, this compact is disconcerting to the student and trainee populations on campus. While we understand the need to curb spread and minimize the environmental liability conferred to our community, leveraging our financial, mental, and emotional livelihoods is egregiously unethical and fails basic conceptions of decency. The compact’s demands far overstep the medical and epidemiological guidance provided by our scientific institutions and governments. We cannot operate under the guise of pseudoscience conjecture—especially as it aims to obviate all reasonable protections to our health information and directly endangers the wellbeing of our community.

This isn’t rocket surgery folks. I would highly encourage those responsible for crafting this myopic compact to resign. Our institution cannot have leaders and offices operating in the absence of ethical principles and rationality.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do not mix quarantining students with those not in quarantine--temporarily use undergrad housing instead

# data[].attributes.subject
Do not mix quarantining students with those not in quarantine--temporarily use undergrad housing instead

# data[].attributes.body
Commit to quarantining individuals such that individuals not in quarantine do not share bathrooms or common spaces with those in quarantine. In the case of newly-arriving grad students from outside California, this can be accomplished by temporarily placing individuals in Undergraduate housing for 7-14 days as they await COVID-19 test results. Only following a negative test result should individuals be moved out of quarantine to existing households.

# data[].attributes.headline
Better than compact: Encourage off-campus

# data[].attributes.subject
Better than compact: Encourage off-campus

# data[].attributes.body
I think there is a strong disconnect between our requirement to stay in the Bay Area and this compact. First, Stanford lets all departments announce that they require students to be in the Bay Area and that we need approval to not be there. Then, when we are on campus, we are basically seen as a huge thread to campus safety because of our basic human social needs.

Wouldn’t it be easier to encourage students, whose research or class schedule allows, to stay off campus and thus, make the campus a safer space? This would

(i) reduce crowding in on campus apartments (a house with 2 people has half the risk of a house with 4 people),

(ii) increase productivity because of less noise,

(iii) reduce testing burden on Stanford,

(iv) reduce risk due to inter-state moving during a pandemic,

(v) reduce the risk of people Stanford has to worry about (e.g. vaccinations etc),

(vi) make campus safer for students, who have to be here,

(vii) reduce any burden of move-in procedures

(viii) reduce the amount of space needed, if a large outbreak occurs [likely fewer people sick, thus less quarantining spaces needed],

(ix) reduce virus exposure risks at shared spaces such as elevators and laundry rooms

(x) reduce the exposure to staff/other employees

(xi) allows students the freedom to arrange their own apartments to live with likeminded people

.. (I’m sure there are more..)

All I can see are advantages and I cannot see any disadvantage other than Stanford loosing rent money (which is minor compared to reduced productivity and the costs of containing an actual outbreak). So the most pertinent question is, why is Stanford currently encouraging the opposite (i.e. coming back to campus)?

I think that Stanford should offer on-campus housing to anyone possible to ensure that everyone who needs it due to their backgrounds has access to it. But the leadership should make it as easy as possible/encourage students to stay off-campus. Students, who can afford/manage this, would further support the students needing to be on campus. This is a time where the high living costs in the Bay Area could come in handy for the university, since the same stipend gets students far in other places.

Encouraging to live off campus can be done easily by simply stating that Stanford encourages it (and ask faculty members to do so). Moreover, for students already in campus housing who could move away and are willing to do so, they could allow them to put a hold on their lease and not pay, but be allowed to keep their stuff and right to their apartment spot upon return. There could be requirements of quarantining and communication with Stanford upon return. However, I think that students would be much more willing to agree, if this is something they choose for themselves. In essence, Stanford could just rely on their students being mature adults that can organize a place to stay.

TL;DR: Stanford could save itself A LOT of trouble, if they would encourage students to avoid campus if possible.

# data[].attributes.body
We are all adults capable of following safety precautions and caring for our neighbors. We do not need a draconian “compact” blocking us from spending time with our partners or friends. Has every Stanford administrator and panel member avoided being in the same room as a non-housemate since COVID began? Have they refrained from interacting with their friends or family whom they don’t live with? Human contact is a necessary aspect of a full life and essential to human health, and Stanford is delusional if they try to keep people from doing that at the level this compact suggests.

# data[].attributes.headline
Feels like something out of a dystopian novel

# data[].attributes.subject
Feels like something out of a dystopian novel

# data[].attributes.body
This is a horrifying overreach of an employer's authority.  I do not live in Stanford's subsidized housing (I actually live in San Mateo), but I would still be forced to sign this to be paid for the quarter, even if I never set foot on campus.  The university should not try to control what its students do while we are not on campus.  I absolutely will not sign this.  If the university tries to expel me, let them.  My advisor and others in my department will likely try to defend me, but I will fight this thing or die trying.

# data[].attributes.body
Does anyone think it would be worth contacting the district supervisor? I feel like the county would not be huge fans of the possibility of Stanford evicting students who may be infectious (or forcing them to quarantine) out into the surrounding communities and airports. Particularly since Stanford is bringing students in from across the country and world, it seems like Stanford is not only neglecting its responsibilities to students, but also to the surrounding communities.

# data[].attributes.body
Can someone clarify if the compact  applies to all grad students working on campus or only those living in Stanford-affiliated housing? Original letter from the Vice Provosts states "We are calling this commitment a “Campus Compact”, which we will ask all graduate students who are living in on or off-campus Stanford housing or coming to campus this autumn to sign via Axess" but I read some replies here that seem to contradict that. I live in non-Stanford housing and don't see the compact on Axess but I could easily be missing it in all the tabs. Does anyone have insight into this?

# data[].attributes.headline
Forced to move onto campus, and now threatened to be evicted

# data[].attributes.subject
Forced to move onto campus, and now threatened to be evicted

# data[].attributes.body
First year medical students were forced to move onto campus. Those that were from outside the Bay Area were notified only 1.5 months away from move-in that they would now need to move in 2 weeks earlier. Now that we are here, we are now being forced to sign a compact that essentially threatens our eviction if we are infected, even though we are expected to train as student doctors and attend in-person sessions. I left everything behind to move to California. There is too much focus on liability and power over us students. Instead, worry about our livelihood, and protect us. Introduce rapid and widespread testing for every student. Have no repercussions for infection, and instead promise us help if we, especially student doctors, are infected due to our training activities. This is the only way to regain the trust between the administration and all graduate students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some suggestions of how this might be done better. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Some suggestions of how this might be done better. 

# data[].attributes.body
I would echo a lot of the concerns here, but also wanted to share a resource that shows A) how Stanford could have approached coming up with this compact (actually working with/talking to students), and B) some examples of more realistic, compassionate approaches:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College students return to campus in a few weeks. We wanted to know their thoughts about quarantine, symptom tracking, contact tracing, and mask wearing on campus, so my grad student @laurie_groshon and I did focus groups to find out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thread by @DrSherryPagoto: College students return to campus in a few weeks. We wanted to know their thoughts about quarantine, symptom tracking, contact tracing, and...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thread by @DrSherryPagoto: College students return to campus in a few weeks. We wanted to know their thoughts about quarantine, symptom tracktracing, and mask wearing on campus, so my grad student @laurie_groshon and I did focus groups to find out. Here'...

# data[].attributes.headline
What’s next? Is this a concentration camp?

# data[].attributes.subject
What’s next? Is this a concentration camp?

# data[].attributes.body
First they installed cameras in the previous blind spots on campus to closely monitor who enters and leaves buildings (e.g. Lucas Center).
Then they “upgraded” some of the badge readers.
And now this!
What’s next? Are they going to decide whom we can sleep with?
What come across as a blatant ignorance is Stanford’s lack of respect and appreciation for the work we do; nobody is begging Stanford to let us go into the labs for them to send out a snobbish compact like this. We are going because we have to. And as a result, we expect sympathy and support, not a threatening edict.
I will not sign this nonsense. Let this be the reason Stanford expels me from my PhD program; future applicants will take note.
Great work to all those who were involved in drafting this pathetic unilateral contract. You should all be very proud of yourselves, while our peer institutions are laughing at us.

# data[].attributes.body
The worst part of this is the Panel that can evict you from housing, expel you, or do anything on their own judgment. Besides the bigger issue that threatening people with eviction is an awful way to get people to cooperate with public health orders, it's beyond galling that there aren't even clear punishments for infractions. An institution that forces people to sign a compact under threat of starvation or eviction can't be trusted to dole out reasonable punishments.