Stacey Leyton

From KeyWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Stacey Leyton


Stacey Leyton - San Francisco, CA Partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Stanford University and Stanford Law School, where she was a Symposium Editor of the Stanford Law Review and active in the Public Interest Law Student Association. She served as a law clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Stacey Leyton and Stephen Breyer

She served as an Appellate Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference from 2010 until 2013, and currently serves as a Lawyer Representative to the Northern District of California. She has spoken and published articles on a variety of legal topics including recent Supreme Court decisions, health care reform, federal labor and ERISA preemption, and legal issues arising from workers' use of e-mail and other technologies.

She served on the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Clearinghouse from 2002 to 2009 and is currently a volunteer with the Employment Law Center's Workers' Rights Clinic. In 2011, she was named a "California Lawyer of the Year" by California Lawyer Magazine for her work in a case challenging cutbacks to the California program providing in-home care to Medicaid recipients. She has been selected to the Northern California Super Lawyers 2013-2015, as a Benchmark Plaintiff California Local Litigation Star 2012-2015, and Benchmark Plaintiff Top 150 Women in Litigation in 2013.[1]

Stacey Leyton grew up in Seattle. She is the daughter of Carol Corday Leyton.

Stacey Leyton is married to Pierre Barolette.

Stanford activism

Stacey Leyton (A.B. 1988, A.M. 1991, J.D. 1998), active in Stanford Out of South Africa and the Rainbow Agenda. [2]

She was also a co-founder of the California Alliance of Progressive Student Activists.[3]

Unity interview

In May 1985 the League of Revolutionary Struggle newspaper Unity published a supplement on the university South African divestment movement.

They profiled the activities of several campus groups involved in the campaign.

Stanford University activists interviewed were all members of Stanford Out of South Africa (SOSA).;

Rainbow Agenda

Stacey Leyton was in 1987 a member of the Rainbow Agenda at Stanford University.[4]

Members of campus gay. Jewish and women's communities met May 1987 with supporters of the Rainbow Agenda to discuss why the agenda has not included those groups' concerns in its demands. The Rainbow Agenda decided to continue to address only issues of racism — and not other forms of discrimination — but will change its name next year to avoid further confusion, said incoming BSU chair Bill King. Rainbow Agenda supporter Stacey Leyton said members of the various groups expressed interest in working together next year to transform the Peoples Platform into an ongoing organization that will articulate the concerns of all minority groups on campus. The Peoples Platform is a coalition of campus groups that makes endorsements for the ASSU elections. The two-and-a-half-hour meeting, which observers described as tense and heated, was suggested by members of the gay and lesbian community at the Rainbow Agenda's last meeting, Leyton said. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting held in the Old Firehouse.

Rainbow Agenda supporters justified the decision not to include the other minority communities on the grounds that including them would dilute the focus of their own battle against racism. "The kind of oppression people of color experience at this campus is different from the type of oppression other groups face," Leyton said. "To kind of throw things on the list . . . would dilute the focus" by making the agenda a "wish list of everyone who has problems," King added. King said the Rainbow Agenda "was always an agenda to address racism." He added that it is "not fair, after we've spent months organizing, for other groups to jump on the bandwagon." The term "Rainbow Agenda" refers to a document drafted by members of the four campus ethnic organizations — the BSU, the Asian American Student Association, MEChA and the Stanford American Indian Organization — that contains 10 demands regarding racial oppression on campus. King said. Several minority community members said the name Rainbow Agenda caused misunderstanding because it sounded like the Rainbow Coalition, a broad-based national umbrella group formed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Leyton said the Rainbow Agenda will probably change its name next year to refer specifically to racism or people of color. After the meeting, representatives of the gay and Jewish communities voiced support for the Rainbow Agenda, saying they understood why they had not been included. Larry Shorter, a member of the Stanford Organization for Gay and Lesbian Equality (SOLGE), said he read a statement at the meeting on behalf of SOLGE that "pledged support" to the Rainbow Agenda and called for mutual support in the future. Barbara Voss, a member of SOLGE and a Rainbow Agenda supporter, said SOLGE recognized that "the changes the gay community needs to get on an equal footing here are different from the changes the Rainbow Agenda is seeking."

David Barret, chairman of the Council of Presidents of Stanford Hillel, also presented a statement supporting the Ideals of the Rainbow Agenda. As recently as last Tuesday's forum on racism, however, members of those groups criticized the Rainbow Agenda for excluding them and ignoring their concerns. Some of those criticisms resurfaced at Sunday's meeting as one student, senior Andy Frisch, stormed out In anger. Calling the Rainbow Agenda "very Insensitive" for "consistently excluding other groups," Frisch said that "anti-Semitism and misogyny and homophobia within the Rainbow Agenda will hurt coalition-building" in the future.[5]

Stanford Undergrad Senate candidates 1987

Chris Adamson, Julie Ann Bianchini, Helen Chang, Eric Charlton, Timur Colak, John Crandon, Jason Dominguez, Bruce Elvin, Shari Fetterman, Perry Friedman, Charles Givens, Lucky Gutierrez, Gina Harrison, Lillian Hirales, Reid Hoffman, Jon Inda, Douglas Karpa, Stacey Leyton, Derrick Lin, Daniel Luna, Brett Mahoney, Jeff Marshall, Miguel Marquez, Mike Mueller, Peter Nadan, Cliff Rachlin, Michael Roark, Mychal Schwartz, Scott Southwick, James Suhre, Peter Thiel, Dinesh Vazirani, John Welner.

People's Platform endorsement of The Plan

April 7 1987, the Peoples Platform last night formally endorsed "The Plan" slate for Council of Presidents in next week's ASSU spring election. The platform, a coalition of students who support a political agenda promoting the rights and interests of minorities and other progressive issues, also made endorsements for Senior Class Presidents and candidates for ASSU Senate. If the slates and candidates accept the endorsements, each of them will be expected to uphold the tenets of the People's Platform, which include increases in funding for ethnic studies and community centers as well as support for more general Issues such as total divestment from South Africa.

For undergraduate senate, the Peoples Platform voted to endorse juniors Stacey Leyton and Brett Mahoney, sophomores Lillian Hirales, Jon Inda, Miguel Marquez and Jeff Marshall and freshmen Jason Dominguez, Gina Harrison, Derrick Lin and Daniel Luna. In the graduate race for the senate, the platform endorsed Richard Vaughan and Don Gagliardi. For the first time, slates in the Senior Class Presidents race approached the Peoples Platform for endorsement. The platform voted to endorse the "Slate of '88" made up of Maria Meier, Eric Prosnitz, Paige Mazzoni and Stuart Levy. "We were concerned (about whether we'd get the endorsement), but we really felt that we were the most qualified," said sophomore Julie Martinez, one of four members of The Plan COP slate. "I think that the support of the Peoples Platform will be helpful," added Martinez, who is joined on The Plan slate by juniors Lori Abert and Eric Allen and sophomore Ira "Tripp" Williams.

The different minority and progressive groups that make up the People's Platform have come together in the past and have achieved much through their unity, Martinez said. "The People's Platform is really growing in political power," said Felix Cuevas, a Peoples Platform campaign coordinator. "A lot more people sought endorsement this year than last year."

Different minority communities are very supportive of the People's Platform, because they know that it represents a diverse populace and that its candidates are more responsible to the students. Cuevas said. More minorities and progressive whites are running this year because the People's Platform has given them more of a sense of having potential for change, according to Cuevas. "[A Peoples Platform endorsement] makes a big difference," Cuevas said. "Out of nine people that we endorsed last year (when the group was started), seven of them were elected and five were elected to voting positions." "It's an interesting concept." graduate senator Steve Hellman, who is not a member, said of the People's Platform.[6]

Big gains

The Peoples Platform, a political coalition of student ethnic and progressive groups, scored considerable gains in last week's ASSU election by placing nine of 10 Platform candidates in the ASSU Senate and by filling the office of Council of Presidents with its own slate, A New Slate of Mind.

Junior Miguel Marquez, member of A New Slate of Mind, said he was satisfied with the success of the Platform. Marquez said the existence of an organized party made the campaign and elections more "issue-oriented" than in past years when he said "name recognition" played the major factor. Marquez said the party "puts out a real platform" that improves the election so "people know what they're voting for." Although Marquez acknowledged that the Platform has received criticism because of its progressive agenda, he said he hopes such "petty politics" do not interfere with ASSU projects in the future. "If you have that polarization, the ASSU gets nothing done," he said.

For the second year in a row, the top vote-getter for undergraduate senator was a Platform candidate. Junior Julie Martinez garnered 799 votes, 30 more than her closest competitor, Amol Doshi.

Marquez said the explanation for his slate's victory was simple. "People are looking for a change," he explained. "Both slates were capable of running the COP — we just offered a different approach," he said. The new COP members are sophomore David Brown, sophomore Canetta Ivy, senior Stacey Leyton and Marquez. Although voters approved most of the student group fee requestson the ballot, five groups were denied funding this year. In an unprecedented fee request vote, the BSU lost its request for $24,419.[7]

Peoples Platform

In 1988, Senate Deputy Chair Stacey Leyton, was a member of the Peoples Platform and Students United for Democratic Education[8]

"What bad checks has Stanford given students of color?"

Stanfordmmmfds.JPG

"What bad checks has Stanford University given to its students of color?"

"What We are Fighting For What We are Working Toward?"

Otero Lounge, Tues. Jan. 26, 6:15 a one-hour panel discussion in commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[9]

Cultures, Ideas and Values legislation

May 1988, the likely passage of an amendment to the newly passed Cultures, Ideas and Values legislation has evoked little response from students who initially pushed for the new progam. So far, the campus minority groups that lobbied strongly in favor of the legislation have not drafted any formal responses to the possibility of a change in CIV legislation concerning appointments to the committee that will oversee administration of the program. The change, prompted three weeks ago by a faculty senator, would eliminate the words "ethnicity" and "gender" from the list of factors taken into account in appointing faculty members to the committee.

The proposed modification would replace these words with the phrase, "interest in the program." The Faculty Senate is expected to pass the amendment at its next meeting May 26. Julie Martinez, member of MEChA, a Chicano student organization at Stanford, said she did not see the probable change as important. "The major issue is that the (Area One Committed follows through with the spirit of CIV." Brian Kim, next year's chair of the Asian American Student Association, sees the revision as a sign of the bureaucratic nature of such new legislation. "We're knee-deep in technicalities," he said. Some students, however, have questioned the need to change the current wording. Stacey Leyton, member-elect of the ASSU Council of Presidents, termed the proposed change "ridiculous." Although student progressive groups have not acted to prevent the change, Leyton said she believes the current wording is necessary to make sure the provost, who is responsible for appointing members of the Area One Committee, considers race and gender when making appointments.[10]

Women's Center

In November 1988 The Women's Center pushed for a move from the Toyon Eating Clubs to the Old Union because of the center's current out-of-the-way location. Women's Center coordinator Sarah Bryer said the present location near Toyon is "out of the normal traffic patterns for students." According to Bryer, part of the center's purpose is to serve as a referral center and the current location hinders student drop-ins. "We're not able to serve our constituency as well as we'd like," she said. An Old Union location would alleviate that problem, Bryer said. She noted that other community centers — like the Chicano-Latino; gay, lesbian and bisexual and black communities — are located in or near Old Union and that it is a central location for students.

Women's Center staffer Karen Bernstein said that the Women's Center programs are so important that the new area "is going to have to accomodate" all of the existing programs. According to Bryer, the impetus for the move came from a Committee on Student Space report. Since it was released, the Center has been trying "to show the administration that there is lots of (Stanford) community support" for the move and to persuade University officials. The center circulated a petition favoring the move and collected "about 1,000" signatures, according to Bernstein.

In addition, ASSU senators Kathleen Coll and Julie Martinez and COP member Stacey Leyton have drafted a resolution in support of the move.[11]

Office takeover

For sophomore Vince Ricci, one of 55 students arrested a year ago yesterday in the takeover of University President Donald Kennedy's office, punishment has been less than punishing. Ricci and most of the other protesters were each fined a total of 115 hours of public service work by the University and Santa Clara County. Senior Nadeem Hussain is one of the few protesters completely finished with his work requirement — though he was not given a University sentence.

During the takeover, Hussain collapsed inside Kennedy's office and was rushed to Cowell Student Health Center before police arrived on the scene. Busy organizing the takeover with the ASSU Committee on Democracy in Education, Hussain said he neglected to eat or sleep for two days. "My parents did things like this in the '605," Hussain said. "I expected to take over the President's Office at least once in my college years. It was a good learning experience."

Current Senior Class Presidents member Michael Roark has also completed his work-fine hours. Roark tutored at the East Palo Alto Youth Development Center and still does. Graduate student Stacey Leyton still has about 15 hours left to complete her work-fine. She helped coordinate the You Can Make a Difference Conference, helped paint El Centro Chicano and worked at Julian Street. Leyton, a former Council of Presidents member, worked with CODE to devise the Agenda for Action, a list of demands the protesters sought to present to Kennedy.[12]

Agenda for Action

Following an emotional meeting with University President Donald Kennedy June 1 1989, Agenda for Action coalition members called the campus disruption charges issued against them a tactic to prevent the development of multicultural education at Stanford. Emerging from Kennedy's office in tears, coalition member Julie Martinez said the University's commitment to ethnic diversity was "nothing but a big lie." By relentlessly pursuing the disruption charges against students who participated in the May 15 takeover of Kennedy's office, the administration is condemning more than the students' actions, said Stacey Leyton, a member of the coalition and the outgoing Council of Presidents. "We feel like they're going after us," she said. "[They are going] after what we represent, which is the movement to make this a more multicultural institution. That's what we feel like is being threatened by these charges." Kennedy told The Daily yesterday that the judicial charges had been issued against those who occupied his office as a matter of University policy. "We're fully committed to multicultural education," he said. Formal charges of violating the University's Policy on Campus Disruption were issued Wednesday to 53 students involved in the takeover of Kennedy's office, which was organized by the Agenda for Action coalition. "(Since) the day after the takeover, we've been told by different administrators that we're guilty, that they're going to take us to the wall," said Judy Wu, a coalition member. "They don't have a fair process set up for us.

Martinez, a senior, expressed deep concern after the meeting with Kennedy that graduating seniors will not receive their diplomas until after the judicial process has been completed. "My mother and father take extra jobs so they can get money to come here [from San Antonio] and see me graduate, and they don't even know if I'm going to be able to or if I will get my diploma because this school can't decide whether me standing up for more Chicano faculty . . . was right or wrong," she said. Junior Cheryl Taylor, a coaliton member, said she had been misled by false promises of multiculturalism when she decided to attend Stanford three years ago. "I can't believe (the administration) has the gall to parade around the country with those badges of multiculturalism," she said.

Gina Hernandez, the former cochair of MEChA, a Chicano/ Latino student group, said students of color were being denied the opportunity to contribute to building a multicultural university. According to Judicial Affairs Officer Sally Cole, as of yesterday, 53 students had been charged with violating the University's policy on campus disruptions. Of these, 50 were among the 56 arrested on misdemeanor charges in the takeover of Kennedy's office. According to Cole, it is "probable" that more students will be charged within the next few days.

Jay Jay Kuo, a coalition member who did not participate in yes-terday's meeting with Kennedy, said the differentiated charges forced him to question the administration's commitment to creating a multicultural university. "How can (the administration) be for our cause when they plan to remove from the cause its strongest supporters?[13]

Supporting Louis Jackson

In an effort to show nationwide student support for junior Louis Jackson, dozens of students across the country plan to dial the Santa Clara County district attorney Oct. 31 1989, the day before Jackson's next court hearing. Jackson faces six misdemeanor charges — including battery and inciting to riot — in connection with the May 15 takeover of University President Donald Kennedy's office. Supporters of Jackson feel he has been unfairly singled out for his participation in the takeover. The board of directors of the United States Student Association last week unanimously passed a resolution supporting Jackson and agreeing to participate in a nationwide call-in to the district attorney on Jackson's behalf. Based in New York, USSA is a national student lobbying organization which draws representives from student governments and student organizations at campuses across the country. Two Stanford students, former Council of Presidents member Stacey Leyton and current COP member Aimee Allison, are members of USSA's 51-person board of directors.

At the recent board meeting, Leyton brought Jackson's case up in her report to the directors. She then yielded the floor to Allison, who relayed the specifics of Jackson's case to the board. According to USSA Vice President Julius Davis, board members were jarred by Allison's account. "People were amazed this is happening (to Jackson)," he said. "Students ought to be able to protest without the fear of being prosecuted. They have a right to speak their mind and be treated fairly." According to Allison, 35 of the board members are writing letters voicing concern about Jackson's treatment to University President Donald Kennedy. The letters should be arriving today or early next week, Allison said. Leyton said she hopes the letters, many of which are being written by student body presidents and chairs of student of color organizations, will make an impression on Kennedy.[14]

Recall!

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.'[15]

"New Slate"

Because we believe that one group offers a forceful, unified, effective voice to work for change in the bureaucracy of the ASSU and throughout the campus, The Daily endorses A New Slate of Mind for Council of Presidents in the Spring Election to be held Wednesday and Thursday. Senior Stacey Leyton, junior Miguel Marquez and sophomores David Brown and Canetta Ivy have an ambitious agenda. Their goal is to revamp the traditional role of the COP, transforming it from a primarily functional, administrative group to a conduit and facilitator of discussion on political issues that affect the educational climate of the University.[16]

Colluding to defend USSA connection

May 2 1991, Stanford students voted on the referendum to create an ASSU financial-aid office But several senators raised questions about the ASSU's connection with a national student lobby organization United States Student Association.

To lobby effectively, the senate will "maintain a membership in the United States Student Association and participate specifically on financial aid issues." Although the ASSU has been a member for several years, many students say they have never heard of the association and wonder why it and the lobby office have become big issues now.

But supporters said the financial-aid office is the only way for Stanford students to have an impact on the federal debate on the reauthorization of government funding for financial aid. The United States Student Association is fighting to "increase access to highe education on the federal level," said Pierre Barolette, the membership service coordinato for the Washington, D.C.-based association. "Our main objective is to improve federa financial aid," Barolette added. "We spend ove 90 percent of our time working solely on financial-aid issues." As the only student advocacy group with i full-time Washington lobbyist, the organiza tion also plans to open a regional office in Sacramento to lobby the California Legislature next year. It now represents more than 300 community and four-year colleges, including man} state college associations, Barolette said. The association has worked on other campus-related issues, including supporting the passage of the Disability Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Violence Against Women Act. The group also actively lobbied against the Persian Gulf war.

Leytono.JPG

The ASSU has been involved with the association for five years, said senator Naomi Onaga, a sponsor of the financial-aid office referendum. The ASSU currently pays $1,000 per year in dues to the national organization, and supporters here hope to double that amount next year to support the Sacramento office. Onaga and freshman Danny Ruderman are currently two of 60 voting members on the association's national board of directors, and former Council of Presidents member Stacey Leyton is the West Coast representative of the organization. Leyton completed her masters degree in history last October.

The association organized a joint congressional hearing on the reauthorization of federal financial aid during its March legislative conference in Washington, D.C. Five Stanford students participated in the conference, and junior Brian Hooker testified at the hearing. The association held a regional hearing at UCLA last weekend on the reauthorization of financial aid, and another meeting is scheduled for UC-Davis on May 11. The organization's efforts on financial aid have generally received widespread support, from Sen. Edward Kennedy, DMass., to Robert Huff, Stanford's director of financial aid.

The association also refuses to make a list of member schools available because "it might be used as a mailing list," according to Alicia Ybarra, an association staff member and 1990 Stanford graduate.

Students First COP slate member John Overdeck, at a recent senate meeting questioned a trip Leyton made to Cuba in December. While in Havana, Leyton attended a meeting of the International Union of Students and the Federation of University Students in Cuba and heard a three-hour speech by Fidel Castro. Leyton said she went as an "American university student" and Davis said the association did not send her or pay for her trip. The association's constitution prevents membership in any international student organization. At a separate public meeting with Leyton and Ybarra, Bone questioned the involvement of association leaders in the now defunct League of Revolutionary Struggle, a Marxist-Leninist organization, and the Unity Organizing Committee. Leyton said the Unity committee is a national multiracial organization working for democracy and progressive change. Ybarra and Leyton said some leaders of the association are members of these groups but "there are no ties in any way between these organizations," and "individuals' private political beliefs are not part of the election process."

'Is it important to have a national representative to lobby on issues such as financial aid? If it is, then Stanford must work with USSA.' said Leyton.[17]

"Justice and Hope"

Steven Phillips wrote Justice and Hope: Past Reflections and Future Visions of the Stanford Black Student Union 1967-1989, in 1990.

Writing Justice and Hope has been a humbling and daunting exercise. Many, many people helped, and this is indeed a collective work. I am grateful to the many Black faculty and staff members who provided valuable advice, support and direction: James L. Gibbs, St. Clair Drake, Kennell Jackson, Clay Carson, Keith Archuleta, Michael Jackson, Michael Britt, Dandre Desandies, Hank Organ, and Rachel Bagby.
I also made extensive use of the Stanford Libraries. At the various stages of production, a whole host of peeple contributed. I hope I don't leave anybody out, but here goes. My thanks go out to the following people: Lisa Fitts, Audrey Jawando, Bacardi Jackson, and Drew Dixon helped give shape to Justice and Hope when it was still a vague and unformed idea. Toni Long demonstrated for me the true power of PageMaker. David Porter clarified important facts and provided historical information. Frederick Sparks helped with fundraising and monitoring the budget. Lyzettc Settle added critical comments and an extremely thorough and detailed revision of the text. Danzy Senna, Joy St. John, Stacey Leyton, Raoul Mowatt, Valerie Mih, Hillary Skillings, Judy Wu, Quynh Tran, and Cheryl Taylor meticulously proofread the final drafts. Elsa Tsutaoka gave advice on design, layout and cutting photos. MEChA loaned us its layout equipment The staff in the ASSU Business Office always cheerfully facilitated financial transactions and questions.[18]

USSA

In 1992 Stacey Leyton was vice president of the United States Student Association.[19]

Old comrades

Comradesaxa.JPG

Steve Phillips October 1, 2017,

So it turns out Oaktown, its lake and especially its sunsets are pretty cool. And lifelong friendships are especially cool. — with Stacey Leyton, Pierre Barolette, Gina Moreno-John and Michael Schmitz at Lake Merritt.

Fagoes.JPG

Steve Phillips May 17, 2015.

Old friends (and, sadly, old ain't inaccurate). 30 years of friendship. #whatmatters — with Pierre Barolette, Michael Schmitz, Alejandro Sweet-Cordero, Stacey Leyton and Kathleen Coll at Bocanova - Oakland.

Caroldsacx.JPG

Steve Phillips February 9, 2014 near San Francisco, CA ·

Throwback Sunday!! Truly old skool, long-term, lifetime friends. #comrades — with Pierre Barolette, Stacey Leyton, Kathleen Coll, Cheryl Taylor, Amanda Kemp, Michael Jamanis and Georgina Hernandez-Clarke.

Radical friends

Strevephillips.PNG

Steven Phillips has youthful connections to Stacey Leyton and Elsa Tsutaoka.

LRS membership accusation

According to an article in the May 23 1990 Stanford Daily, six prominent campus activists were members of the League of Revolutionary Struggle.

Nhytreiu.PNG

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 ...

Office occupation

A steering committee which was comprised of at least two members of the League of Revolutionary Struggle and several others who were being actively recruited at the time were behind much of the planning for the May 15, 1989, takeover of University President Donald Kennedy’s office. The protest was staged to demand an Asian-American tenured professor position, a fulltime Chicano dean and a director for the African and AfroAmerican Studies Program among other goals. Although these goals were widely accepted in the color communities that sponsored the action, it was the tactics of the takeover planned by the committee that alienated many students.

“It was the tactics and not the goals (of the takeover) that were planned” by members of the League who sat on the committee, according to a student arrested for involvement in the takeover who knew of the League’s influence. “When specific decisions are made about what tactics to use, such as whether or not to do a takeover for example, these people have a lot of influence, because they’re the ones who are leaders.”

The steering committee met in complete secrecy, deciding that a physical takeover of the building would be necessary to achieve its goals. Gina Hernandez from MEChA and Stacey Leyton from CODE, who sat on the steering committee, are League members, according to a number of sources. Leyton denied having any connections with the League. Hernandez said she had never heard of the League.[20]

Agenda for Action

Following an emotional meeting with University President Donald Kennedy June 1 1989, Agenda for Action coalition members called the campus disruption charges issued against them a tactic to prevent the development of multicultural education at Stanford. Emerging from Kennedy's office in tears, coalition member Julie Martinez said the University's commitment to ethnic diversity was "nothing but a big lie." By relentlessly pursuing the disruption charges against students who participated in the May 15 takeover of Kennedy's office, the administration is condemning more than the students' actions, said Stacey Leyton, a member of the coalition and the outgoing Council of Presidents. "We feel like they're going after us," she said. "[They are going] after what we represent, which is the movement to make this a more multicultural institution. That's what we feel like is being threatened by these charges." Kennedy told The Daily yesterday that the judicial charges had been issued against those who occupied his office as a matter of University policy. "We're fully committed to multicultural education," he said. Formal charges of violating the University's Policy on Campus Disruption were issued Wednesday to 53 students involved in the takeover of Kennedy's office, which was organized by the Agenda for Action coalition. "(Since) the day after the takeover, we've been told by different administrators that we're guilty, that they're going to take us to the wall," said Judy Wu, a coalition member. "They don't have a fair process set up for us.

Martinez, a senior, expressed deep concern after the meeting with Kennedy that graduating seniors will not receive their diplomas until after the judicial process has been completed. "My mother and father take extra jobs so they can get money to come here [from San Antonio] and see me graduate, and they don't even know if I'm going to be able to or if I will get my diploma because this school can't decide whether me standing up for more Chicano faculty . . . was right or wrong," she said. Junior Cheryl Taylor, a coaliton member, said she had been misled by false promises of multiculturalism when she decided to attend Stanford three years ago. "I can't believe (the administration) has the gall to parade around the country with those badges of multiculturalism," she said.

Gina Hernandez, the former cochair of MEChA, a Chicano/ Latino student group, said students of color were being denied the opportunity to contribute to building a multicultural university. According to Judicial Affairs Officer Sally Cole, as of yesterday, 53 students had been charged with violating the University's policy on campus disruptions. Of these, 50 were among the 56 arrested on misdemeanor charges in the takeover of Kennedy's office. According to Cole, it is "probable" that more students will be charged within the next few days.

Jay Jay Kuo, a coalition member who did not participate in yes-terday's meeting with Kennedy, said the differentiated charges forced him to question the administration's commitment to creating a multicultural university. "How can (the administration) be for our cause when they plan to remove from the cause its strongest supporters?[21]

Unity staff writers/researchers

In 1990 staff writers/researchers for Unity, newspaper of the League of Revolutionary Struggle included Wilma Chan, Anthony Cody, Karega Hart, Denise Imura, Amanda Kemp, Stacey Leyton, Eva Martinez, John Martyn, Yuri Miyagawa, Frank Ogletree, Nic Paget-Clarke, Peter Saltzman, Peter Shapiro, Andy Wong, Bernice Wuethrich.

Denial

Council of Presidents member David Brown and former COP member Stacey Leyton are both believed to be members of the League, according to a number of sources. Brown refused to comment. Leyton denied that she was a member or that she had any knowledge of the League’s membership at Stanford.[22]

SUN

In 1990 Cheryl Taylor, Stacey Leyton, and Andy Wong, Student Unity Network, contributed to the November 26 issue of Unity, newspaper of the League of Revolutionary Struggle.

"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.

This group was a split in the League of Revolutionary Struggle which soon became the Unity Organizing Committee.

Those listed as supporters of the call included Stacey Leyton, West Coast organizer USSA. .

Student supplement editor

In 1991 Deborah Clark, Stacey Leyton, and Gina Hernandez, were editors of Unity's Spring student supplement.

Unity

In 1992 the listed Student Unity Network contacts League of Revolutionary Struggles' Unity were Stacey Leyton, Ingrid Nava.

Unity guest editors

Layto.PNG

Guest editors of Unity, newspaper of the Unity Organizing Committee, May 1992, were Stacey Leyton, Andy Wong and Ingrid Nava.

PowerPac+ Board of Directors

PowerPAC+ Board of Directors, as of 2014 included Stacey Leyton - San Francisco, CA Partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP.[23]

References

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [Unity,April 1992]
  4. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 191, Issue 70, 3 June 1987 ]
  5. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 191, Issue 70, 3 June 1987]
  6. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 191, Issue 33, 8 April 1987]
  7. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 193, Issue 41, 19 April 1988 ]
  8. [.The Stanford Daily, Volume 193, Issue 30, 1 April 1988 ]
  9. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 192, Issue 65, 26 January 1988 ]
  10. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 193, Issue 63, 19 May 1988]
  11. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 194, Issue 39, 17 November 1988]
  12. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 197, Issue 58, 16 May 1990]
  13. The Stanford Daily, Volume 195, Issue 72, 2 June 1989]
  14. [ The Stanford Daily, Volume 196, Issue 20, 20 October 1989 ]
  15. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 197, Issue 71, 6 June 1990]
  16. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 193, Issue 35, 11 April 1988]
  17. [The Stanford Daily, Volume 199, Issue 49, 2 May 1991]
  18. [3]
  19. [Unity June 1992]
  20. [ Michael Friedly League has played little-known role in campus politics First Published: The Stanford Daily, Volume 197, Issue 63, 23 May 1990.]
  21. The Stanford Daily, Volume 195, Issue 72, 2 June 1989]
  22. [ Michael Friedly League has played little-known role in campus politics First Published: The Stanford Daily, Volume 197, Issue 63, 23 May 1990.]
  23. PowerPAC+ Board of Directors, accessed Dec. 1, 2014.