In 1969, three students began SWOPSI because they believed, as many students do today, that Stanford defines education far too narrowly. The idea evolved in part from the Student Center for Innovation in Research and Education, which had been established just a few years prior. As the name suggests, the purpose of SWOPSI was to address immediate social and political issues, but this was not all. SWOPSI's format was as important as its content -- and in the end, just as threatening to the administration. SWOPSI's broke down the traditional hierarchical structure of higher education as well as the barriers between Stanford and the surrounding communities.
The designer of each course created a reading list, a timeline, and a set of guidelines for the group's final project, all of which had to be approved by a professor as well as the SWOPSI staff. The class meetings themselves were led by each of the students in turn, also incorporating relevant community members and professors. SWOPSI's were open to students (who received 3 P/NC units), faculty and community members, and each had a significant action component as well as a tangible outcome beneficial to the community. The products of SWOPSI comprise an impressive list: two volumes on Department of Defense-funded research at Stanford, underground newspapers, Synergy, a bay area transportation guide, The Bridge, courses on investment responsibility, disability, the environment, and ethnic and feminist studies... and the list continues.
After SWOPSI's initial year of struggle,, Stanford supported the program with a secretary and a small budget. SWOPSI went on to survive administrative review in both 1974 and 1984, though it suffered budget cuts in both rounds. Then, in 1992, the Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences killed SWOPSI. In an attempt to save the program, students drafted a proposal to opeerate SWOPSI on $30,000 a year, rather than the $150,000 annual budget in 1991. However, the administration refused to retain SWOPSI under any circumstances. The official arguments against SWOPSI made reference to "academic rigor" (identical to the arguments against studies in race and ethnicity) as well as to the university-wide budget cuts of the era. (It is, of course, interesting to note which programs the administration deemed "non-essential.")
The need for SWOPSI still exists, and last year, a group of students (the Progressive Student Network) attempted to revive the program. While we were unsuccessful, that first attempt has left us with more determination and a better idea of how to actually re-establish SWOPSI. This is our university and our education -- we need to claim it!