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 - Mick - 12-11-2016

Fix vs. Destroy. 

The eternal question when people don't like something in their lives.  And people of power have a bias to action.  So they want to fix, the initial instinct is to fix...unless they view the problem as something not of their own.  Then, they want to hammer it out of existence.

It's a shame.  I've watched and enjoyed the band since I was a small child, in the 1960s.  For me, as an outsider, it is one of the indescribably unique defining elements of Stanford University.  It exists here like nothing else.  It's one of a hundred things that separates Stanford from Chicago and Dartmouth and Harvard and Duke and on and on.

It's too bad that the "destroy" instinct is kicking in.

Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-11-2016

Today's Editorial from the Daily. I believe we're at the cusp of an important point in Stanford's future (or future Stanford's history). Which way will we go?

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/11/editorial-board-stanford-should-not-prioritize-its-image-over-its-students/

Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-11-2016

Today's Editorial from the Daily. I believe we're at the cusp of an important point in Stanford's future (or future Stanford's history). Which way will we go?

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/11/editorial-board-stanford-should-not-prioritize-its-image-over-its-students/

Re: The Band is banned - dabigv13 - 12-11-2016

Of course another question is what exactly there is to fix. I don't have a clear idea on that. I don't think there was anything the band did that needed fixing when I was in school 10ish years ago.

Re: The Band is banned - dabigv13 - 12-11-2016

Of course another question is what exactly there is to fix. I don't have a clear idea on that. I don't think there was anything the band did that needed fixing when I was in school 10ish years ago.

Re: The Band is banned - Mick - 12-11-2016

(12-11-2016, 11:54 AM)JJJ link Wrote:Today's Editorial from the Daily. I believe we're at the cusp of an important point in Stanford's future (or future Stanford's history). Which way will we go?

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/11/editorial-board-stanford-should-not-prioritize-its-image-over-its-students/



I think Stanford prioritizes its image over everything.  The Brand is All.  Part of the brand is that you have the best of everything, particularly the best students.  The Band's transgressions conflicted with the Brand, so they tried to work with the Band, now they're on the border of the death penalty, which may kill the Band, so the Band doesn't harm the Brand.  Sexual assault conflicts with that image, but rather than involve the police (Hello, Brand damage!!), they try to deal with it inhouse, much like banks used to deal with embezzlers inhouse before the law was passed mandating the involvement of authorities.  The softball parents threatened the AD with an NCAA investigation, so the AD tried to deal with THAT inhouse.  I'm gathering that Stanford feels that ruining their 15x-NCAAs-in-a-row coach's career and hiring another Dartmouth boob was worth the two consecutive hideous seasons.

The Daily picked up on it: "Last year, the Daily’s Editorial Board called for greater transparency from the administration. But we have continued to see top-down administrative decisions and a lack of consideration for students. Instead of providing real transparency into issues and decisions that students care about, the University has chosen to be “open” about the wrong things: the results of inaccessible administrative decisions, to which students are given little opportunity to respond, and the details of the personal lives of victims of sexual assault."

Everything the University does points to the Brand.  Actually, in my business that's de facto but Stanford and the people who run it take it very seriously.  My take is that it is their first and last filter when it comes to their decision-making.  I think it eliminates some options very early and dictates the path late.

The problems that can arise, when the Brand is All, can often be ones of hubris.  Stanford is a little bit like Disney in that case.  The Disney brand lies in its creative, but its staff is almost comically underpaid (by and large).  I've dealt with the Stanford hospital administration, it's entertaining to say the least.  I've had peers who've left the employ of the University to make quadruple what they were making at Stanford.

Re: The Band is banned - Mick - 12-11-2016

(12-11-2016, 11:54 AM)JJJ link Wrote:Today's Editorial from the Daily. I believe we're at the cusp of an important point in Stanford's future (or future Stanford's history). Which way will we go?

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/11/editorial-board-stanford-should-not-prioritize-its-image-over-its-students/



I think Stanford prioritizes its image over everything.  The Brand is All.  Part of the brand is that you have the best of everything, particularly the best students.  The Band's transgressions conflicted with the Brand, so they tried to work with the Band, now they're on the border of the death penalty, which may kill the Band, so the Band doesn't harm the Brand.  Sexual assault conflicts with that image, but rather than involve the police (Hello, Brand damage!!), they try to deal with it inhouse, much like banks used to deal with embezzlers inhouse before the law was passed mandating the involvement of authorities.  The softball parents threatened the AD with an NCAA investigation, so the AD tried to deal with THAT inhouse.  I'm gathering that Stanford feels that ruining their 15x-NCAAs-in-a-row coach's career and hiring another Dartmouth boob was worth the two consecutive hideous seasons.

The Daily picked up on it: "Last year, the Daily’s Editorial Board called for greater transparency from the administration. But we have continued to see top-down administrative decisions and a lack of consideration for students. Instead of providing real transparency into issues and decisions that students care about, the University has chosen to be “open” about the wrong things: the results of inaccessible administrative decisions, to which students are given little opportunity to respond, and the details of the personal lives of victims of sexual assault."

Everything the University does points to the Brand.  Actually, in my business that's de facto but Stanford and the people who run it take it very seriously.  My take is that it is their first and last filter when it comes to their decision-making.  I think it eliminates some options very early and dictates the path late.

The problems that can arise, when the Brand is All, can often be ones of hubris.  Stanford is a little bit like Disney in that case.  The Disney brand lies in its creative, but its staff is almost comically underpaid (by and large).  I've dealt with the Stanford hospital administration, it's entertaining to say the least.  I've had peers who've left the employ of the University to make quadruple what they were making at Stanford.

Re: The Band is banned - Viking_Guy - 12-11-2016

Mick--

I think you're spot on, with one addition - liability.  What was telling to me was a sentence in one of the letters, stating that they were concerned with the affects of liability and Stanford's reputation.  Not one word about students.

Another one of the most telling stories to me - someone talked about the fact that the Band was one of the only places at Stanford where you didn't have to be the BEST at something - you could just go have fun and try something new, without the constant pressure to excel that is so much a feature of the rest of the institution.

Well, with the possible exception of the administration.

VG


Re: The Band is banned - Viking_Guy - 12-11-2016

Mick--

I think you're spot on, with one addition - liability.  What was telling to me was a sentence in one of the letters, stating that they were concerned with the affects of liability and Stanford's reputation.  Not one word about students.

Another one of the most telling stories to me - someone talked about the fact that the Band was one of the only places at Stanford where you didn't have to be the BEST at something - you could just go have fun and try something new, without the constant pressure to excel that is so much a feature of the rest of the institution.

Well, with the possible exception of the administration.

VG


Re: The Band is banned - 81alum - 12-11-2016

The Administration doesn't even understand the value of the Band to the Brand!

Here is a small case in point.  The band plays in community gigs--the annual Palo Alto May fete parade, and often for elementary schools, parading through and playing for their 5th graders on their promotion days.  My kids were thrilled to have the tree show up at their school, dancing with the children.  For those of you who don't live in Palo Alto, it might be a surprise to know that Stanford is not considered a good neighbor by many people in town.  The Band has been an exception to that.

But not this spring.  The Grinch didn't steal Christmas.  He stole the Tree, the Dollies, and the whole Band.

Re: The Band is banned - 81alum - 12-11-2016

The Administration doesn't even understand the value of the Band to the Brand!

Here is a small case in point.  The band plays in community gigs--the annual Palo Alto May fete parade, and often for elementary schools, parading through and playing for their 5th graders on their promotion days.  My kids were thrilled to have the tree show up at their school, dancing with the children.  For those of you who don't live in Palo Alto, it might be a surprise to know that Stanford is not considered a good neighbor by many people in town.  The Band has been an exception to that.

But not this spring.  The Grinch didn't steal Christmas.  He stole the Tree, the Dollies, and the whole Band.

Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-11-2016

(12-11-2016, 04:25 PM)81alum link Wrote:The Administration doesn't even understand the value of the Band to the Brand!

Here is a small case in point.  The band plays in community gigs--the annual Palo Alto May fete parade, and often for elementary schools, parading through and playing for their 5th graders on their promotion days.  My kids were thrilled to have the tree show up at their school, dancing with the children.  For those of you who don't live in Palo Alto, it might be a surprise to know that Stanford is not considered a good neighbor by many people in town.  The Band has been an exception to that.

But not this spring.  The Grinch didn't steal Christmas.  He stole the Tree, the Dollies, and the whole Band.

You are absolutely right. Please see the pinned post about "What you can do to help the LSJUMB" and add your commentary. Let's overwhelm the admin with positivity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlUURCHR1B0

Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-11-2016

(12-11-2016, 04:25 PM)81alum link Wrote:The Administration doesn't even understand the value of the Band to the Brand!

Here is a small case in point.  The band plays in community gigs--the annual Palo Alto May fete parade, and often for elementary schools, parading through and playing for their 5th graders on their promotion days.  My kids were thrilled to have the tree show up at their school, dancing with the children.  For those of you who don't live in Palo Alto, it might be a surprise to know that Stanford is not considered a good neighbor by many people in town.  The Band has been an exception to that.

But not this spring.  The Grinch didn't steal Christmas.  He stole the Tree, the Dollies, and the whole Band.

You are absolutely right. Please see the pinned post about "What you can do to help the LSJUMB" and add your commentary. Let's overwhelm the admin with positivity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlUURCHR1B0

Re: The Band is banned - thunder_chik - 12-11-2016

I posted this under the White Plaza Rally thread, but it bears repeating here:

I plan to lodge a formal written complaint against the banning of the Band.  A "sanitized", under-administration-controlled Band is just not acceptable.  I want to know there is a place where Stanford students (and alumni--us "old fartz") can be irreverent, rebellious, and yes, even offensive.  Free speech (and behavior) at its rankest.  Truth be told, I enjoyed p*ssing off and getting booed by the Michigan State fans at the 2014 Rose Bowl (and cheered by the Rose Parade crowd).  Loved that the Iowa fans hated our cow.
Hey, I have a photo of my dad in his Navy uniform giving the thumb-nose-open palm sign at a building on the Stanford campus during WWII.  Crikey, he was named after Leland Stanford and had no inkling I'd become a proud alum 30+ odd years later.  Can't we lighten up and just enjoy the hijinks of our younger, less mature counterparts?  They'll have plenty of opportunities to conform and become predictable (boring?) after they graduate.

Re: The Band is banned - thunder_chik - 12-11-2016

I posted this under the White Plaza Rally thread, but it bears repeating here:

I plan to lodge a formal written complaint against the banning of the Band.  A "sanitized", under-administration-controlled Band is just not acceptable.  I want to know there is a place where Stanford students (and alumni--us "old fartz") can be irreverent, rebellious, and yes, even offensive.  Free speech (and behavior) at its rankest.  Truth be told, I enjoyed p*ssing off and getting booed by the Michigan State fans at the 2014 Rose Bowl (and cheered by the Rose Parade crowd).  Loved that the Iowa fans hated our cow.
Hey, I have a photo of my dad in his Navy uniform giving the thumb-nose-open palm sign at a building on the Stanford campus during WWII.  Crikey, he was named after Leland Stanford and had no inkling I'd become a proud alum 30+ odd years later.  Can't we lighten up and just enjoy the hijinks of our younger, less mature counterparts?  They'll have plenty of opportunities to conform and become predictable (boring?) after they graduate.

Re: The Band is banned - 2006alum - 12-12-2016

(12-11-2016, 06:52 PM)thunder_chik link Wrote:I posted this under the White Plaza Rally thread, but it 59ers repeating here:

I plan to lodge a formal written complaint against the banning of the Band.  A "sanitized", under-administration-controlled Band is just not acceptable.  I want to know there is a place where Stanford students (and alumni--us "old fartz") can be irreverent, rebellious, and yes, even offensive.  Free speech (and behavior) at its rankest.  Truth be told, I enjoyed p*ssing off and getting booed by the Michigan State fans at the 2014 Rose Bowl (and cheered by the Rose Parade crowd).  Loved that the Iowa fans hated our cow.
Hey, I have a photo of my dad in his Navy uniform giving the thumb-nose-open palm sign at a building on the Stanford campus during WWII.  Crikey, he was named after Leland Stanford and had no inkling I'd become a proud alum 30+ odd years later.  Can't we lighten up and just enjoy the hijinks of our younger, less mature counterparts?  They'll have plenty of opportunities to conform and become predictable (boring?) after they graduate.

+1. I am a longtime donor to Stanford, I was a Vice Chair of my Class's Reunion Committee, and I am one of the class correspondents for my class year. I plan to withdraw from all of these roles going forward if the University follows through on the threat to install an outside music director and independent selection in the Tree and the Dollies. There is no way The Band will remain The Band if this happens, and I see no reason why I should volunteer my time and resources to a University so bent on crushing student freedom and creativity.

The way I see it is this: the Leland Stanford Junior University I went to valued student leadership, creativity, and exploration over control and homogeneity. Installing an outside musical director suggests that Stanford now values control and homogeneity over student leadership, creativity, and exploration. If so, then the Stanford in existence now is not the Stanford I attended, and so my substantial and lengthy volunteer engagement would be contributing to an institution and a community I no longer recognize or share an affinity with.

Re: The Band is banned - 2006alum - 12-12-2016

(12-11-2016, 06:52 PM)thunder_chik link Wrote:I posted this under the White Plaza Rally thread, but it 59ers repeating here:

I plan to lodge a formal written complaint against the banning of the Band.  A "sanitized", under-administration-controlled Band is just not acceptable.  I want to know there is a place where Stanford students (and alumni--us "old fartz") can be irreverent, rebellious, and yes, even offensive.  Free speech (and behavior) at its rankest.  Truth be told, I enjoyed p*ssing off and getting booed by the Michigan State fans at the 2014 Rose Bowl (and cheered by the Rose Parade crowd).  Loved that the Iowa fans hated our cow.
Hey, I have a photo of my dad in his Navy uniform giving the thumb-nose-open palm sign at a building on the Stanford campus during WWII.  Crikey, he was named after Leland Stanford and had no inkling I'd become a proud alum 30+ odd years later.  Can't we lighten up and just enjoy the hijinks of our younger, less mature counterparts?  They'll have plenty of opportunities to conform and become predictable (boring?) after they graduate.

+1. I am a longtime donor to Stanford, I was a Vice Chair of my Class's Reunion Committee, and I am one of the class correspondents for my class year. I plan to withdraw from all of these roles going forward if the University follows through on the threat to install an outside music director and independent selection in the Tree and the Dollies. There is no way The Band will remain The Band if this happens, and I see no reason why I should volunteer my time and resources to a University so bent on crushing student freedom and creativity.

The way I see it is this: the Leland Stanford Junior University I went to valued student leadership, creativity, and exploration over control and homogeneity. Installing an outside musical director suggests that Stanford now values control and homogeneity over student leadership, creativity, and exploration. If so, then the Stanford in existence now is not the Stanford I attended, and so my substantial and lengthy volunteer engagement would be contributing to an institution and a community I no longer recognize or share an affinity with.

Re: The Band is banned - CornFed - 12-12-2016

I'm not really familiar w/ the structure of oversight of the Band in recent years.  I presume it has departed quite substantially from the "old" days when Arthur P. Barnes had that responsibility.  Without consideration of the difficulty of finding someone who could measure up to Maestro Barnes, is that not a structure to which we might return?  Granted, if whoever assumed that oversight role was a bureaucratic potato head, it wouldn't improve the situation.  But perhaps the basis of a potential compromise would be if the two sides of the discussion could agree upon a person to fill that position.

Re: The Band is banned - CornFed - 12-12-2016

I'm not really familiar w/ the structure of oversight of the Band in recent years.  I presume it has departed quite substantially from the "old" days when Arthur P. Barnes had that responsibility.  Without consideration of the difficulty of finding someone who could measure up to Maestro Barnes, is that not a structure to which we might return?  Granted, if whoever assumed that oversight role was a bureaucratic potato head, it wouldn't improve the situation.  But perhaps the basis of a potential compromise would be if the two sides of the discussion could agree upon a person to fill that position.

Re: The Band is banned - CTcard - 12-12-2016

(12-12-2016, 02:55 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I'm not really familiar w/ the structure of oversight of the Band in recent years.  I presume it has departed quite substantially from the "old" days when Arthur P. Barnes had that responsibility.  Without consideration of the difficulty of finding someone who could measure up to Maestro Barnes, is that not a structure to which we might return?  Granted, if whoever assumed that oversight role was a bureaucratic potato head, it wouldn't improve the situation.  But perhaps the basis of a potential compromise would be if the two sides of the discussion could agree upon a person to fill that position.

I haven't really chimed in on the band threads so far because I have been trying to figure out what I think. But, this seems like a place I can contribute and start working through my own thoughts.

I am a former band member, from the mid-80s. Like all of us, I know best what was going on while I was there and some years on either side. I don't have a clear understanding as to what has been happening lately and don't know what were these mysterious violations in 2011-12 that seem to be the root of the current blow-up.

Arthur P. Barnes was a remarkable guy in a very laid-back, let-it-be kind of way. Dr. Barnes was the Director of the LSJUMB, but he didn't "run" the band. It was a student run organization, and the students developed the shows, cared for instruments and uniforms, scheduled appearances, managed travel, handled auditions, managed at least most of the funding, etc. Dr. Barnes would do some conducting and some musical arranging, would teach drum majors to conduct, and would mentor several students in arranging music. He'd also run interference with administrators when necessary, which was pretty often.

Now, in the letter to the band, Greg Boardman claims he wants to go back to that model, apparently not actually knowing what that model was,
Quote:During Winter Quarter, I will charge a committee, jointly convened by Student Affairs and Athletics, to develop a reconstituted Band governance model to replace the current student-managed structure. In particular, the reconstituted governance model will include a professional Music Director with significant control over Band membership and operations.  A model of this sort was in place for more than 30 years, without stifling the Band’s unique character, under the direction of Art Barnes. Our goal will be to recreate a model in which there is collaborative leadership between the Music Director and Band membership, but importantly, in which the Music Director retains final control. 


I can't quite figure out how much that passage heartens me or appalls me.

On the one hand, I do think that was a fairly good mode of operation for the band. There was just enough adult supervision to keep things from getting completely out of control and little enough supervision that the band could develop as they would and do things that official employees cannot quite countenance. If they could really find an Arthur P. Barnes II, I think that would be great.

On the other hand, this doesn't really read to me as if Mr. Boardman actually has any interest in an Arthur P. Barnes II. It seems more a flimsy cover story for wanting something very different, for wanting control. I also wonder who they could hire. Being the Director of the LSJUMB does not seem like a full time job. For Dr. Barnes, it was something he did on the side of his real job as a Professor in the Music Department. My guess is that any current professors would run screaming away from this task. If they do hire somebody full time, somebody will have to figure out what to do with all that time - which generically seems to be the source of an awful lot of administrative overreach.

Finally, I wonder what happened to the last director. Back around 2000 or so the band raised a bunch of money to endow a Director of Bands position. Somebody was in the position at least for awhile. Does anybody here know what happened to him, or what happened to this endowment money?