Stanford is dropping 11 sports - 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: Stanford is dropping 11 sports (/thread-20027.html)
+- 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: Stanford is dropping 11 sports (/thread-20027.html)
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Mr. Baseball - 07-08-2020
(07-08-2020, 07:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: What I find most sad about this is that it betrays the ideal that Stanford is into intercollegiate athletics because excellence is an end in itself, and that the University takes the idea that funding for athletics is like funding for the humanities. The University ought to do so, not because the funding makes economic sense, but because it is part of what makes Stanford "Stanford". What we are left with is athletics as a business decision, ever more dependent on the revenue sports to keep the whole venture going, and thus ever more beholden to taking steps to maximize revenue rather instead of maximizing students' welfare.
It is a very sad day.
BC
Agree 10,000 percent.
Not even a warning fired across the bow that there would need to be further contributions to Stanford's athletic endowment to keep this from happening. Just we're cutting and the decision is final. That's a blow to the image and prestige of the university and will forever color how I think of it.
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - OutsiderFan - 07-08-2020
The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants.
What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.
Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.
Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - martyup - 07-08-2020
I'm pretty sad for the wrestling program. They were on an upward trajectory.
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - akiddoc - 07-08-2020
(07-08-2020, 10:38 AM)Mick Wrote: I'm devastated. While I recognize financial reality, it saddens me beyond belief that Stanford can't support all of those supports. It's a genuine shame. But we don't sell enough football or MVB tickets, so something had to go.
20 national championships. 27 Olympic medals.
So they're keeping softball and eliminating men's volleyball. Makes all the sense in the world.
You can't cut too many women's sports and stay in compliance with Title IX. Football eats up all those scholarships, so Olympic men's sports get screwed.
(07-08-2020, 12:43 PM)82lsju Wrote:(07-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Of the group only Men's volleyball is a shock, and I hope it would stay since most those that play the sport are in CA. Hopefully we can have a Cal Baseball style effort to keep it going.
here's the FAQ on the actions
https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/athletics-faq/
of note
Quote:[b]6. If donors step forward, can any of these sports retain their varsity status?[/b]
The decisions to reduce our sports offerings are final, and any future philanthropic interest in these sports may be directed towards supporting them at the club level, should they establish as a club sport after their 2020-21 varsity campaign.
While Stanford Athletics has many tremendously generous donors, their support simply could not cover the escalating costs of ensuring excellence across the board in our 36-sport model.
Well, unless someone donates $200 million.
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - chrisk - 07-08-2020
(07-08-2020, 08:41 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(07-08-2020, 10:38 AM)Mick Wrote: I'm devastated. While I recognize financial reality, it saddens me beyond belief that Stanford can't support all of those supports. It's a genuine shame. But we don't sell enough football or MVB tickets, so something had to go.
20 national championships. 27 Olympic medals.
So they're keeping softball and eliminating men's volleyball. Makes all the sense in the world.
You can't cut too many women's sports and stay in compliance with Title IX. Football eats up all those scholarships, so Olympic men's sports get screwed.
(07-08-2020, 12:43 PM)82lsju Wrote:(07-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Of the group only Men's volleyball is a shock, and I hope it would stay since most those that play the sport are in CA. Hopefully we can have a Cal Baseball style effort to keep it going.
here's the FAQ on the actions
https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/athletics-faq/
of note
Quote:[b]6. If donors step forward, can any of these sports retain their varsity status?[/b]
The decisions to reduce our sports offerings are final, and any future philanthropic interest in these sports may be directed towards supporting them at the club level, should they establish as a club sport after their 2020-21 varsity campaign.
While Stanford Athletics has many tremendously generous donors, their support simply could not cover the escalating costs of ensuring excellence across the board in our 36-sport model.
Well, unless someone donates $200 million.
To me it reads as if they approve of relatively smaller donations to support more supports at the club level, but they want most increases in donations to go to support the remaining varsity sports.
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - 2006alum - 07-08-2020
Really sad but in my view eventually inevitable. For all the talk of student-athletes being exploited, 99+% of D1 scholarship athletes generate less in revenue than they cost. Lean times are coming from universities all the way down the food chain...
...and speaking of which, I wonder whether Stanford was motivated in part to send a signal: I was catching up with a former boss today whose colleague is on the Harvard University Board of Overseers. The colleague said that when they were deciding to go all-online for 20-21 and also not reduce tuition, they were cognizant of the fact that they would be the first mover and that while Harvard's endowment could support taking the revenue hit of lowering tuition, they knew many universities could not, so Harvard could take the brunt of the criticism and create space for others to follow without (as much) incident.
I wonder if Stanford decisionmakers had that in mind as well. If $$$tanford "can't" support these sports, how can others? But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency. Instead, Stanford comes off looking a bit cheap - just like Harvard did when they announced Zoom University 2020-21 without the tuition reduction.
I hope that's the case, because otherwise the mismatch between the claimed revenue hole and the university's overall financial footprint is hard to square. As many others have cogently noted, Stanford has for 40+ years been a academic+athletic excellence institution regardless of whether every unit of the university is bringing in $$$.
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - BostonCard - 07-08-2020
(07-08-2020, 09:15 PM)2006alum Wrote: But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency.
Didn't Cal cut a bunch of varsity sports a while back?
BC
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - teejers1 - 07-08-2020
(07-08-2020, 09:15 PM)2006alum Wrote: Really sad but in my view eventually inevitable. For all the talk of student-athletes being exploited, 99+% of D1 scholarship athletes generate less in revenue than they cost. Lean times are coming from universities all the way down the food chain...
...and speaking of which, I wonder whether Stanford was motivated in part to send a signal: I was catching up with a former boss today whose colleague is on the Harvard University Board of Overseers. The colleague said that when they were deciding to go all-online for 20-21 and also not reduce tuition, they were cognizant of the fact that they would be the first mover and that while Harvard's endowment could support taking the revenue hit of lowering tuition, they knew many universities could not, so Harvard could take the brunt of the criticism and create space for others to follow without (as much) incident.
I wonder if Stanford decisionmakers had that in mind as well. If $$$tanford "can't" support these sports, how can others? But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency. Instead, Stanford comes off looking a bit cheap - just like Harvard did when they announced Zoom University 2020-21 without the tuition reduction.
I hope that's the case, because otherwise the mismatch between the claimed revenue hole and the university's overall financial footprint is hard to square. As many others have cogently noted, Stanford has for 40+ years been a academic+athletic excellence institution regardless of whether every unit of the university is bringing in $$$.
It's so reassuring to know that Harvard - which has the status and reputation to go solely on-line and still be assured that families will line up to attend and pay full-boat - is looking out for the little guys on the American college landscape. If Harvard, Stanford, the Ivies, some other privates and the best publics really wanted to help out their less-fortunate brethren, they should have insisted on no-deferrals for admission. You're either in or your out. THAT would have set a helpful precedent (and would help boost the caliber of the average student at these other institutions).
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - BigJohn043 - 07-09-2020
Let me say something controversial. The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly. We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.
Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent. With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.
The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports. The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.
Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors. I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.
MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010. The issue is that it is a very fringe sport. Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team: UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.
Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9. Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball
Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - 82lsju - 07-09-2020
(07-08-2020, 09:15 PM)2006alum Wrote: I wonder if Stanford decision makers had that in mind as well. If $$$tanford "can't" support these sports, how can others? But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency. Instead, Stanford comes off looking a bit cheap - just like Harvard did when they announced Zoom University 2020-21 without the tuition reduction.
here's a list of D1 varsity sports programs that have been eliminated (list last updated 08 July 2020), mostly by "mid-tier" universities
Quote:DIVISION I (51)
Baseball (3): Boise State, Chicago State, Furman.
Coed sailing (1): y-Stanford.
Field hockey (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s cross country (2): Akron, y-Connecticut.
Men’s fencing (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s golf (2): Akron, Hampton.
Men’s lacrosse (1): Furman.
Men’s rowing (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s soccer (2): Appalachian State, Cincinnati.
Men’s swimming (3): y-Connecticut, East Carolina, Western Illinois.
Men’s tennis (9): Appalachian State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, y-Connecticut, East Carolina, Green Bay, Northern Colorado, Southern Utah, Winthrop, Wright State.
Men’s track (3): Appalachian State indoor only, Central Michigan, Florida International indoor only.
Men’s volleyball (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s wrestling (2): Old Dominion, y-Stanford.
Softball (1): Wright State.
Synchronized sailing (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s fencing (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s golf (1): Hampton.
Women’s rowing (2): y-Connecticut, y-Stanford.
Women’s sailing (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s squash (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s swimming (3): Boise State, East Carolina, Western Illinois.
Women’s tennis (8): Akron, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, East Carolina, Green Bay, Northern Colorado, Southern Utah, Winthrop, Wright State.
(x-denotes school closure; y-effective in 2021) :
https://apnews.com/fd7075343269ea7e08bb2965b78bbbc5
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - JJJ - 07-09-2020
(07-09-2020, 07:55 AM)82lsju Wrote:I have to admit I’m ok with letting synchronized sailing go. :)(07-08-2020, 09:15 PM)2006alum Wrote: I wonder if Stanford decision makers had that in mind as well. If $$$tanford "can't" support these sports, how can others? But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency. Instead, Stanford comes off looking a bit cheap - just like Harvard did when they announced Zoom University 2020-21 without the tuition reduction.
here's a list of D1 varsity sports programs that have been eliminated (list last updated 08 July 2020), mostly by "mid-tier" universities
Quote:DIVISION I (51)
Baseball (3): Boise State, Chicago State, Furman.
Coed sailing (1): y-Stanford.
Field hockey (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s cross country (2): Akron, y-Connecticut.
Men’s fencing (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s golf (2): Akron, Hampton.
Men’s lacrosse (1): Furman.
Men’s rowing (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s soccer (2): Appalachian State, Cincinnati.
Men’s swimming (3): y-Connecticut, East Carolina, Western Illinois.
Men’s tennis (9): Appalachian State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, y-Connecticut, East Carolina, Green Bay, Northern Colorado, Southern Utah, Winthrop, Wright State.
Men’s track (3): Appalachian State indoor only, Central Michigan, Florida International indoor only.
Men’s volleyball (1): y-Stanford.
Men’s wrestling (2): Old Dominion, y-Stanford.
Softball (1): Wright State.
Synchronized sailing (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s fencing (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s golf (1): Hampton.
Women’s rowing (2): y-Connecticut, y-Stanford.
Women’s sailing (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s squash (1): y-Stanford.
Women’s swimming (3): Boise State, East Carolina, Western Illinois.
Women’s tennis (8): Akron, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, East Carolina, Green Bay, Northern Colorado, Southern Utah, Winthrop, Wright State.
(x-denotes school closure; y-effective in 2021) :
https://apnews.com/fd7075343269ea7e08bb2965b78bbbc5
(Not poking fun at 82lsju; the error was in the AP article.)
(07-08-2020, 12:38 PM)Canalejas Wrote:Ohio State is the correct answer. Give Troy Clardy’s latest TreeCast a listen for some insight.(07-08-2020, 12:28 PM)81alum Wrote: The message indicated that only one other university fielded more teams than Stanford, but it did not say who it was. Does anyone know?
One of the disadvantages of Stanford being a private school is that we fans have no access to the athletics budget. Using the USA Today public database it is possible to know, for example, just how much money 10 of the 12 Pac 12 schools are losing, and why they are losing it. But for schools like Stanford and USC we fans really have no idea. That makes this more of a surprise than if we had been aware that the ICA budget had been underwater for years.
I believe it's Ohio State. Wikipedia lists them as having 37 varsity sports. Harvard has 42, but as they are non-scholarship I'm not sure we ever compared our numbers to theirs.
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - oldalum - 07-09-2020
(07-09-2020, 07:55 AM)82lsju Wrote: here's a list of D1 varsity sports programs that have been eliminated (list last updated 08 July 2020), mostly by "mid-tier" universitiesyou can see that men's and women's tennis are the biggest losers
https://apnews.com/fd7075343269ea7e08bb2965b78bbbc5
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Mick - 07-09-2020
(07-08-2020, 10:46 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Fortunately, he doesn't command a big salar . . . um . . . never mind.
Since Stanford has eliminated 30.55% of its sports, perhaps our AD should take a 30.55% haircut on his compensation.
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Bampa - 07-09-2020
(07-09-2020, 11:35 AM)Mick Wrote:(07-08-2020, 10:46 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Fortunately, he doesn't command a big salar . . . um . . . never mind.
Since Stanford has eliminated 30.55% of its sports, perhaps our AD should take a 30.55% haircut on his compensation.
Works for me!
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - BostonCard - 07-09-2020
I don't know if this includes the athletics director, and I have no idea the magnitude or duration of the cut, but from the letter:
Quote:Over the past several months, Stanford Athletics has undertaken significant cost-saving measures. Our entire Athletics executive team and a number of our head coaches, including our head football and basketball coaches, have taken voluntary pay reductions.
BC
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Goose - 07-09-2020
While seeing any sport go, for me it is men's crew that hurts the most. This sport has always struggled. It almost always seemed to be hanging by a thread, yet year after year guys got up at 4 am to go row. Nobody cared but them and a very few others. When I was at Stanford, Washington was totally dominant. We weren't going to defeat them. The goal was to beat Kal and to be representative in all our meets. A very few cared a whole lot about that. The thought that the last power ten has been called for and delivered (because of COVID-19) is really, really sad.
Richard@agnich.com - Mudhead - 07-09-2020
(07-08-2020, 07:55 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants.
What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.
Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.
Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?
I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however. Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts. The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.
Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.
I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all. I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.
The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most. Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities. Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.
RE: Richard@agnich.com - Mick - 07-09-2020
(07-09-2020, 01:49 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(07-08-2020, 07:55 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants.
What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.
Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.
Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?
I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however. Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts. The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.
Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.
I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all. I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.
The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most. Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities. Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.
Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago? Have they gathered evidence?
RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - JustAnotherFan - 07-09-2020
(07-09-2020, 06:22 AM)BigJohn043 Wrote: Let me say something controversial. The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly. We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.
Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent. With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.
The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports. The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.
Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors. I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.
MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010. The issue is that it is a very fringe sport. Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team: UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.
Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9. Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball
Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo
Excellent point. By the way, I'd be nervous if I were Stanford men's gymnastics. While they are the defending national champs, and they have won 6 titles, it is worth noting that there are only 16 schools in the nation that field a Division I team. Of those teams, Cal is the only other team in the Pacific time zone, and only Air Force is in the Mountain time zone.
(07-09-2020, 03:21 PM)Mick Wrote:(07-09-2020, 01:49 PM)Mudhead Wrote: I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however. Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts. The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.
Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.
I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all. I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.
The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most. Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities. Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.
Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago? Have they gathered evidence?
It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.
Richard@agnich.com - Mudhead - 07-09-2020
(07-09-2020, 03:21 PM)Mick Wrote:(07-09-2020, 01:49 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(07-08-2020, 07:55 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants.
What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.
Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.
Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?
I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however. Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts. The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.
Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.
I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all. I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.
The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most. Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities. Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.
Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago? Have they gathered evidence?
Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed to ask it. I don’t know the answer. But I assume the President does.. he is there and works with faculty and students every day. I’m on campus maybe ten days a year so how can I know? I’ve given money ( not big money) to Stanford for many years and was never told nor had any reason to believe my money was going to an institution that was racist. Now I know and am willing to support efforts to rectify it. But that’s really a side line to the question of cutting these sports out. I would support Muirs effort irrespective of the race issue.