The CardBoard
The Band is banned - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Band is banned (/thread-13192.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-10-2016

(12-10-2016, 12:23 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Take a read through the two documents that Fountain Hopper posted to get more detail on the University's requirements and how the Band missed meeting them.

Letter that explains why the University denied the Band's request for a waiver that would have allowed them to go to Big Game
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B80jabH_dlvKUUc0Zjg5Qm5wMFE/view

The "long list of everything Title IX does not like about the Band"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B80jabH_dlvKano0bzZfZDIzWFk/view

Thank you for sharing these documents. I had heard reference to at least one of them, but had no idea how unreasonable the expectations were. The FoHo rant page posted initially makes even more sense now. The Band stands no chance against people determined to fail them.

Re: The Band is banned - Phogge - 12-10-2016

"Marmalard dead, Niedermeyer dead......."

Re: The Band is banned - TreesAndBirds - 12-10-2016

Aside from my frustration with how the university appears to be treating the band, I cant help wondering how much all these bureaucrats are costing the university. When I looked through the multiple people copied on these letters, and their titles and offices (most of which I dont believe existed when I was in school) I get a much better understanding of why tuition costs have increased so much.

Re: The Band is banned - HisKneeWasDown - 12-10-2016

(12-09-2016, 06:21 PM)JJJ link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16257.msg182035#msg182035 date=1481332431]
All Band activities are suspended immediately through spring 2017.

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/12/09/university-statement-stanford-band/

To whom shall we direct our outrage this time?
[/quote]

If your last name isn't Arillaga or Bing, nothing you do will matter.

I will elaborate in a new OT thread after I've cooled off... Might take a few days.

Re: The Band is banned - 81alum - 12-10-2016

Well, those documents do give me a different perspective.  I'm still digesting.

1) The Administration does not really understand the iconoclastic nature of Band culture.  They talk about "exuberance" as if that is the essence of it, but they are wrong.  The Band has always been exuberant ABOUT the breaking of conventions and symbols, and a lot of those symbols were related to drugs/alcohol and sex. 

2) In an era in which drug/alcohol related sexual violence is a much more widely recognized problem, the iconoclastic behavior of yesteryear is stirring optical problems for the university.  On the one hand, I'm not prepared to say that the Band shouldn't change in some ways--although I would like to know if there are particular people who have actually been harmed by the Band.  That would concern me--have sexual assaults been attributed to the Band?  Have Band members wound up in detox?  Have the Dollies and female band members been harassed or made to feel unwelcome in Band culture?  Have such incidents sprung from organized band activities?  Those are the sorts of questions I would have before I would feel confident in judging whether this is really about safety or whether--as I suspect--it is more about censorship for Stanford's  PR purposes. 

3) That said, some of the language in those letters is very bothersome to me--prohibiting certain words with "sex" in them, censoring a particular dance, requiring the band to produce reports about changing its culture to a "culture of respect."  Really?  For half a century the Band has been about a culture of disrespect--a healthy disrespect for all sacred symbols.  And I could not really identify the kinds of specific problems I just mentioned above when reading those documents, although there may have been veiled references. 

You know, this whole thing reminds me very much of when CBS pulled the plug on the Smothers Brothers in 1969. 

Re: The Band is banned - rudruff - 12-10-2016

When I was a student there was always a rumor that the band had a bunch of friends who were in the legal department of HP. That made disciplining them a lot harder and expensive.

Maybe the band hasn't been churning out enough attorneys lately.

Anyway, it will be interesting to what the university is going to do to a bunch of students/alums who show up outside an arena and play music without permission.

Re: The Band is banned - Leftcoast - 12-10-2016

Well the obvious response is that they will punish the band for "lack of control" or "lack of cooperation" with Title IX.

That's the truly insidious element to the administration's culture police response.  Violations don't have to break any law - they just have to upset the administration, not support the hazily defined new culture or be deemed "uncooperative".  The standard is subjective and ill-defined and results in little stupidities like singling out irreverent Band Shak signs in an attempt to give the report a fig-leaf of hard objectivity when they were never core to the administration's complaint.  They've set themselves up as adult arbiters of the band's student culture and are picking and choosing signs, incidents, rank/section names, emails and web posts that don't fit an ill defined, new standard for appropriate grown-up behavior.  In the process they are killing one of Stanford's defining student led, funky and iconoclastic institutions.  I'd further say the complaints about not being involved enough in the band's complaint response hit a petty note with more than a whiff of father knows best infantilism.

Having said that I still think an informal protest band is a great idea especially if done with a little humor.  But then my idea of funny is a little warped - I laughed when the Deltas decided to break up the Homecoming day parade.

I guess in this 2016 version of Stanford sometimes the winds of freedom are snuffed out .





Re: The Band is banned - 82lsju - 12-10-2016

(12-10-2016, 10:23 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Having said that I still think an informal protest band is a great idea especially if done with a little humor.  But then my idea of funny is a little warped - I laughed when the Deltas decided to break up the Homecoming day parade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX71mALOPKs

Re: The Band is banned - BobK - 12-10-2016

Today's Daily story

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/10/band-suspended-through-spring-to-face-drastic-institutional-changes/

Re: The Band is banned - 81alum - 12-10-2016

Are the Dollies officially part of the Band?  I presume so, so I presume they have been disbanded too.

Probably just as well if so.  It would look surreal to see them out dancing to recorded music, smiling as if nothing had happened.

So, is the playing of the Band's recorded music also banned?  Which Musac'd version of "All Right Now" are we going to hear for the next nine months?

Finally, why can't the solution be to appoint a Music Director like Barnes, give him/her some power, and let the Director change things that may need to be changed?  Not only is this a sad moment for the Stanford community, I see this as being counterproductive and likely to inspire a backlash and an unwillingness to compromise.  I would certainly feel that way if I were a current Band member.

Re: The Band is banned - BobK - 12-10-2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFORx8uO8

Re: The Band is banned - TreesAndBirds - 12-10-2016

And the Stanford Review's take.

http://stanfordreview.org/article/all-right-now-stanford-band-silenced/

Re: The Band is banned - 81alum - 12-10-2016

It has made the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stanford-band-suspended-20161209-story.html

And here is the nub of it:
Quote:"We are concerned about the risk and liability to the university community, and to Stanford’s reputation, if Band’s conduct and behaviors continue,” the panel wrote.

Notice that the emphasis on "liability" and "reputation." 

While I seldom agree with the Stanford Review, its piece seemed powerful, particularly as it pointed out the disparity between the way the Band has been treated and the alcohol soaked frat parties that continue apace.  It is becoming obvious that this is selective enforcement.



Re: The Band is banned - rudruff - 12-10-2016

This has the potential to make the administration look really bad while also being highly entertaining.

I look forward to videos of campus security chasing people with musical instruments around sporting events.



Re: The Band is banned - 82lsju - 12-10-2016

or those interested there is now a "Friends of LSJUMB" Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/344976432539385/?notif_t=group_added_to_group&notif_id=1481396070671656

Re: The Band is banned - winflop - 12-10-2016

(12-10-2016, 12:52 PM)81alum link Wrote:And here is the nub of it:
Quote:"We are concerned about the risk and liability to the university community, and to Stanford’s reputation, if Band’s conduct and behaviors continue,” the panel wrote.

If only they could look at how they have handled sexual assault & rape on camps through the same lens...I don't know if the very recent lawsuit has any merit but Stanford has not been doing well on that front either.

Re: The Band is banned - Stymie - 12-10-2016

All Wrong Now.......... :(

Re: The Band is banned - TreesAndBirds - 12-10-2016

I hope this is not indicative of what we can expect from the new Stanford admin. I recognize that this has been brewing for awhile, but this just seems to be tone deaf as to Stanford history and culture.

Re: The Band is banned - Leftcoast - 12-10-2016

Looks like someone is organizing a rally at White Plaza today.  The rally is organized by students but according to Friends of the Band alum and fan support encouraged ... not sure what to expect but I'm probably going to drop by.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1471839469511291??ti=ia

Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-10-2016

And yet the university is happy to continue raking in all the profit from sales of Tree-related paraphernalia. (How many people own a FEAR THE TREE t-shirt?) The Tree belongs to the LSJUMB (or at least, it was invented by the Band)--do they get any royalties? Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the university trademarked the Tree for themselves.