- 1 Education
- 2 Stanford
- 3 LRS membership accusation
- 4 Recruited by Steve Phillips
- 5 "A call to build an organization for the 1990s and beyond"
- 6 Unity Organizing Committee
- 7 Unity
- 8 Unity guest editors
- 9 PowerPac+ Board of Directors
- 10 Race Will Win the Race conference
- 11 References
Political duty, personal convictions
Ingrid Nava made both a personal decision and a political decision. Her resolution to participate in the May 15 1989 takeover of University President Donald Kennedy's office was based both on personal conviction and on her commitment to representing those who recently elected her as a member of the Council of Presidents. "I had personal reasons — my connection to MEChA and their struggle," she said, "but I also felt like the Students of Color Coalition is the origin of the Peoples Platform, and I felt responsible to them and also to the student body at large."
Nava, a junior, said she had been involved in the early planning stages of the Agenda for Action as a member of MEChA, a Chicano/Latino student group and one of the groups in the coalition. "If I had not been a COP member, I probably would have gone in [Kennedy's office] anyway, because of my involvement with MEChA," she said. "What pushed me over to feeling like I had todo it was being a COP member." Nava said her involvement in the May 15 protest was a reflection of the commitment voiced by her slate during the COP campaign. "I think during the campaign we made a decision that we were committed to the goals which we thought most of the student body supported us on," she said. "We decided we were going to be very clear about what we thought we should be doing." Nevertheless, Nava said, prior to the occupation of Kennedy's office, she knew some people would not endorse the takeover tactic used by the coalition. "I knew most people would agree with the things we were going in for," she said, "but I felt like in the end, especially if we won things, most people would come around to support us." As an individual, Nava said, she did have second thoughts about getting arrested. "It's a pretty scary thing," she said. "I knew my mom would be freaked out."
During the week following the takeover, Nava said, she began to doubt the effectiveness of the takeover as plans to set up an immediate meeting with Kennedy did not materialize. Nava said she had hoped Kennedy would immediately attend to some of the coalition's concerns. "We didn't really start to get any results until about seven days later, and during that week all we kept hearing was, 'You're going to get charged with the Fundamental Standard.' " Nava said her doubts were shared by many members of the coalition. "During that week when I was the most demoralized, everybody was," she said. "Usually, with the group of people that we're with it's very uplifting and supportive. . . . But during that time everybody was so upset." But, following the coalition's meetings Monday with Kennedy and Dean of Student Affairs James Lyons, most doubts had evaporated, Nava said. For her personally, Lyons' approval of the democratic selection process for El Centro Chicano was uplifting, Nava said. She said she views the approval "very much of a direct response" to the takeover. Relations between students and the administration have been quite positive since the takeover, Nava said. "They are listening to students now."
Slate of the Times
In 1989 Aimee Allison, served on the Stanford Council of Presidents, with Chin-Chin Chen, David Brown, Ingrid Nava. All were elected on the Slate of the Times ticket, which was supported by the Peoples Platform.
November 5 1990 about 100 Stanford students attended a noon rally = in White Plaza that encouraged voting for environmental propositions and pro-choice candidates in today's elections. Congressional candidate Robert Palmer, who supports the propositions and abortion rights, was present to rally support for his bid for the 12th district seat. Palmer, who challenges incumbent Republican Tom Campbell, shook hands and spoke to students during the rally. Organized by the Pro-Choice Alliance, environmental groups and the Stanford Democrats, the event was meant to "get everybody psyched" the day before the election, said sophomore Flora Lu, head of Stanford's chapter of the Student Environmental Action Coalition, a national organization. She said students may place voting low on their priority lists because of midterms and other day-to-day worries, but that they must become aware of important issues and voice their concerns. Rally speakers encouraged students to vote for prochoice candidates and for California environmental Propositions 128, 130 and
Guest speaker Fred Miller, a community activist from Richmond, reminded students there is "not an academic solution" to the environmental problem. "The fight against pollution has many fronts... The electoral front has come to the fore," he said. In discussions after his speech, Miller said Propositions 135 and 138, which are sponsored by the agriculture and logging industries, are intended to "confuse voters." Miller also said he was pleased by young people's interest in protecting the environment and fighting "the people who are polluting." Speakers advocated Propositions 128 and 130, nicknamed "Big Green" and "Forests Forever," as well as Proposition 132. These would set limits on harmful pesticides, emissions, logging and fishing. Some speakers endorsed Palmer, gubernatorial candidate Dianne Feinstein and lieutenant general candidate Leo McCarthy, all of whom support the environmental propositions and abortion rights, according to Stanford Democrat Kevin Hartz, a junior. Council of Presidents member Ingrid Nava said students together can have a "big impact" if they show they are not apathetic. Maria Peters, co-chair of MEChA, a Chicano/Latino organiztion, said the Chicano/Latino community should "explode the myth" that minorities do not care about voting, especially because blacks and Latinos are the most affected by pesticides and other environmental hazards. Peters said farm workers walk into the fields every day, not knowing whether the land has been sprayed with pesticides or whether pregnant women will be infected with carcinogens. "I support 'Big Green' to save my people," she said. "We do care," said environmental coalition member Karen Plautt to enthusiastic applause of people who stopped to listen to the program and read literature. "I came because I want to vote and I want to find out what to vote for," said sophomore Ryan Fitzpatrick. Senior Leila Wice said she was was unconvinced by the rally and needs to do more reading. She observed that the rally focused less on details of specific issues and more on motivating people to be concerned. Students who are not registered to vote in California read the pamphlets and listened, too. "People across the country are looking to California" for the future of environmental initiatives, Lu explained. Although organizers were disappointed by the low turnout, junior Jen Pearson of the Pro-Choice Alliance took advantage of the crowd's enthusiasm by asking them for a "vocal commitment" to talk to three more people about voting before the polls close.
Rebecca King of the Stanford Pro-Choice Alliance passes out election pamphlets to Jamie Green and Dylan Mackay yesterday during a rally for environmental and abortion rights Issues on today's ballot.
The results are in, and "Four Our Future" C.O.P. has been recalled from office by a student vote of 1012 to 532. A new election will be held next fall to determine the 1990-91 ASSU Council of Presents. Elections Commissioner Steve Krauss was pleased with the voter turnout, but was disappointed that new elections will have to be run, at a cost to the Association of over $8,000.
"It's an outrage!" charged Vince Ricci, former Peoples Platform senator. "I can't believe the students went and did this. The question on the ballot must have been misleading." Louis Jackson, another former Peoples Platform senator, agreed. "There's no way the Senate will certify the results".
Members ofthe "Four Our Future" slate are understandably dismayed. "This just isn't fair," says Jay Tucker, one of the removed C.O.P. "Now I have got go and change my resume." Perhaps the most outspoken about the results was Ingrid Nava, former and ex-current C.O.P. member. "This is completely unfair -- we didn't even get a chance to serve. You would think I was caught embezzling funds or something." When asked if her alleged membership in the secret Marxist-Leninist League of Revolutionary Struggle may have contributed to tne C.O.P.'s defeat, Nava stated emphatically, "Absolutely not! Everyone knows the League is no big secret. Why should it be? Besides, I never even heard of it." Stacey Leyton, a former Peoples Platform C.O.P. member, senator, and Dean's Service Award recipient, was equally furious. "This is all the doing of that conservitive with a mohawk, Perry Friedman. I hope he's happy.'
LRS membership accusation
The group was defended, in a letter to the paper two days later by a group of eight other campus activist;
- Richard Suh says, in the May 23 Daily, that League of Revolutionary Struggle members "are leading progressive politics on campus . . . because they are the best and the hardest workers." He and others "who asked not to be identified" then "charge" that Elsa Tsutaoka, Stacey Leyton, David Brown, Gina Hernandez, Steven Phillips and Ingrid Nava are members of this League (presumably because they are some of the best and hardest workers on campus). All six deny being members of such a group, which the author then uses to imply that they must in fact be members, since the organization is supposedly secretive. The absurdity of such reasoning is apparent, but what concerns us is that irresponsible charges that have serious and detrimental implications for individuals' lives are being published on the basis of rumor and innuendo. Those "accused" by this article deserve our respect and support because of their being the "best and hardest workers."
- The "infiltration" of Stanford by these six hard workers has given us the leaders of Stanford's anti-Apartheid and pro-CIV movements, the coordinator of the 1987 You Can Make A Difference Conference, three student body presidents, a Phi Beta Kappa in history, fighters for the expansion of the Asian American Activities Center and El Centro Chicano, key volunteers and speakers on the 1987 and 1990 YCMAD Conferences, an RA, members of the varsity track and swim teams, a dancer in Ballet Folklorico and much much more. The Daily has come right out and said that Stanford students are too stupid to think for themselves. The League of Revolutionary Struggle has been running things all along, using students for its own ends. But we, those who should know, assert that Stanford students are not dupes and that progressive student politics on campus are decidedly democratic. When a particular plan of action is proposed by any student, others weigh their options and then agree on a path of action.
- It is ironic that the six community members you name have themselves been some of the staunchest advocates of democratic processes. Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with being a Marxist-Leninist? Last time we checked, it was still legal in this country to hold any political beliefs or belong to any organization without alerting the media. Stanford should ask itself why radicals feel the need to avoid explicit mention of their politics. It is easy to get tagged as a radical at this university and have one's ideas and actions written off. To avoid censure you keep your head down and keep your criticism in the mainstream. The odd thing is that many of us are in agreement with Marxists and even that blacks, Latinos, women, homosexuals and many others are oppressed or at least suffer the effects of past oppression? We may disagree with the League's ultimate goals or projects, but is it impossible to work with them where we do agree? (If indeed we could really find them.) The need to avoid this kind of red-baiting will lead student groups to ask radical members to leave in order to avoid trouble. This process can only lead to the stifling of discussion and the weakening of student groups by throwing out "the best and hardest workers." How long before we start hearing that familiar old question before we can participate in student politics: Are you now or have you ever been ...
- Sharon Beaulaurier Sophomore, history
- James Couture Senior, history
- Paul Gager Senior, American studies
- Jason Lewis Co-chair, Stanford American Indian Organization
- Ana Mata Sophomore, undeclared
- Vince Ricci Sophomore, history
- Quynh Tran Senior, human biology
- Cliff Wong Freshman, undeclared
Recruited by Steve Phillips
COP member Ingrid Nava, who was recently re-elected to a second term, was heavily recruited by the League of Revolutionary Struggle, beginning at the end of last summer, according to a number of students. Nava refused to return numerous phone calls.
At the end of last summer, Nava lived briefly at a house on Bryant Street in Palo Alto known sarcastically by some progressive students as the “Revolutionary Hotel,” where recruitment for the League has occurred, according to sources who say they have been recruited.
Elsa Tsutaoka and Steven Phillips, a former BSU chair and current Daily multicultural editor who has allegedly recruited for the League, currently live in the house. Phillips recruited Nava beginning in September, according to a student who was also recruited by the League.
Phillips said he had no knowledge of the League’s involvement at Stanford and has not recruited for the organization. 
"A call to build an organization for the 1990s and beyond"
Unity, January 28 1991, issued a statement "A call to build an organization for the 1990s and beyond" on pages 4 to 6.
Those listed as supporters of the call included Ingrid Nava, student body co-president Stanford University. .
Unity Organizing Committee
According to the The Stanford Daily, Volume 199, Issue 9, 14 February 1991, a group of Stanford students, faculty and staff are in the process of organizing a local committee as part of a new national coalition dedicated to progressive change in the United States.
Martinez said Unity values “true multiculturalism” – minority groups working together with mainstream white people who favor progressive change.
Among the more than 100 people who signed the article are several affiliated with Stanford, including Black Community Service Center Director Keith Archuleta, ASSU senators David Brown and Mae Lee and Council of Presidents member Ingrid Nava.
Brown has been a Stanford distributor of Unity newspaper for the past three years. Recently, he said he has played an active role getting students involved in the local committee.
About 35 Stanford students are now forming the local committee, which is intended to focus primarily on educational rights issues. Local Unity groups at other California campuses have initiated a lobbying effort against planned 40 percent to 60 percent tuition increases at University of California schools, Martinez said.
Unity guest editors
PowerPac+ Board of Directors
Race Will Win the Race conference
PowerPAC+ June 25, 2014;
Today's the day! #WINin2014 Race Will Win the Race conference is finally here. Check out what's to come and join us on Twitter @PowerPAC_Plus using #WINin2014. — with Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, Trey Martinez Fischer, Representative Marcia Fudge and Mark Takano in Washington, District of Columbia.
- [The Stanford Daily, Volume 195, Issue 69, 30 May 1989]
- [The Stanford Daily, Volume 198, Issue 32, 6 November 1990]
- [The Stanford Daily, Volume 197, Issue 71, 6 June 1990]
- [The Stanford Daily, Volume 198, Issue 51, 8 January 1991]
- [ Michael Friedly League has played little-known role in campus politics First Published: The Stanford Daily, Volume 197, Issue 63, 23 May 1990.]
- [The Stanford Daily, Volume 199, Issue 9, 14 February 1991]
- PowerPAC+ Board of Directors, accessed Dec. 1, 2014.