Letter from Provost Etchemendy - 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: Letter from Provost Etchemendy (/thread-13222.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: Letter from Provost Etchemendy (/thread-13222.html)
Re: Letter from Provost Etchemendy - Leftcoast - 12-16-2016
There is NO way an assistant level Dean threatened the existence of the largest student group on campus, well known and beloved by 40 years of alums and donors without support at the highest levels of the university.
As much as I enjoyed the message in the Etchemendy letter I can't help but see Machiavelli's advice to ambitious Prince's in the way this is playing out. Let Boardman take a strong position to scare the Band and drive them to the negotiating table ready to concede. Then the Prince (or in this case, Proctor Etchemendy) can offer less hard terms that are quickly accepted while he is publicly credited with saving the Band.
Too cynical?
For my part I'd take that deal. If the band can remain student ran by accepting an administrative advisor with a to-be-negotiated level of input then both sides can move forward.
Re: Letter from Provost Etchemendy - Leftcoast - 12-16-2016
There is NO way an assistant level Dean threatened the existence of the largest student group on campus, well known and beloved by 40 years of alums and donors without support at the highest levels of the university.
As much as I enjoyed the message in the Etchemendy letter I can't help but see Machiavelli's advice to ambitious Prince's in the way this is playing out. Let Boardman take a strong position to scare the Band and drive them to the negotiating table ready to concede. Then the Prince (or in this case, Proctor Etchemendy) can offer less hard terms that are quickly accepted while he is publicly credited with saving the Band.
Too cynical?
For my part I'd take that deal. If the band can remain student ran by accepting an administrative advisor with a to-be-negotiated level of input then both sides can move forward.
Re: Letter from Provost Etchemendy - 82lsju - 12-16-2016
(12-16-2016, 10:41 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:There is NO way an assistant level Dean threatened the existence of the largest student group on campus, well known and beloved by 40 years of alums and donors without support at the highest levels of the university.
As much as I enjoyed the message in the Etchemendy letter I can't help but see Machiavelli's advice to ambitious Prince's in the way this is playing out. Let Boardman take a strong position to scare the Band and drive them to the negotiating table ready to concede. Then the Prince (or in this case, Proctor Etchemendy) can offer less hard terms that are quickly accepted while he is publicly credited with saving the Band.
Too cynical?
For my part I'd take that deal. If the band can remain student ran by accepting an administrative advisor with a to-be-negotiated level of input then both sides can move forward.
Boardman already seems to be trying to take on the "good cop" role shortening the recommended sanction from the end of the 2017-18 academic year to potentially the end of the 2016-17 academic year, from the letter to the band:
-----------------
Accordingly, the OCB panel recommended the following sanctions:
Suspension and loss of recognition as a registered student organization through the end of
the academic year 2017-18. This includes loss of access to the Band Shak, Band funds
and all benefits, rights and privileges afforded Band members.
The suspension and loss of recognition as a student organization is only imposed when it is clear
that all other previous measures have been ineffective. In the case of the allegations before the
OCB, three of the four were found to be violations of existing sanctions (alcohol suspension and
travel ban). The fact that the Band demonstrated unwillingness, inability or conscious disregard
for the existing sanctions, while engaging in new inappropriate conduct, is especially problematic.
I concur with the findings of the OCB panel and agree that the Bands continued misbehavior is
certainly deserving of the most severe response. However, a suspension and loss of recognition
of the length recommended by the panel would effectively end all aspects of the Band. Indeed, it
is likely that the Band would be unable to recover and reconstitute itself following such a long
hiatus. This would effectively punish not only members of the band who engaged in the
misbehavior, but new and future Band members, Band alumni, and most regrettably, the Stanford
community at large. Under the circumstances I do not consider this resolution, though perhaps
fully deserved, an acceptable outcome.
Accordingly, I have decided to impose a different outcome, one that I hope will preserve the
essential features of the Band - including its irreverence and exuberance - but address the
leadership deficits that have led to constant and repeated violations of policy and a total lack of
accountability and responsibility.
In lieu of the panels recommendation that the Band be suspended and lose recognition for the
better part of two academic years, I am imposing a temporary suspension of all Band activities
effective immediately through Spring Quarter, 2017. This action requires cessation of all Band
activities both on and off-campus.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/stanford.ucomm.newsms.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/09145952/letter_to_band.pdf
Re: Letter from Provost Etchemendy - 82lsju - 12-16-2016
(12-16-2016, 10:41 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:There is NO way an assistant level Dean threatened the existence of the largest student group on campus, well known and beloved by 40 years of alums and donors without support at the highest levels of the university.
As much as I enjoyed the message in the Etchemendy letter I can't help but see Machiavelli's advice to ambitious Prince's in the way this is playing out. Let Boardman take a strong position to scare the Band and drive them to the negotiating table ready to concede. Then the Prince (or in this case, Proctor Etchemendy) can offer less hard terms that are quickly accepted while he is publicly credited with saving the Band.
Too cynical?
For my part I'd take that deal. If the band can remain student ran by accepting an administrative advisor with a to-be-negotiated level of input then both sides can move forward.
Boardman already seems to be trying to take on the "good cop" role shortening the recommended sanction from the end of the 2017-18 academic year to potentially the end of the 2016-17 academic year, from the letter to the band:
-----------------
Accordingly, the OCB panel recommended the following sanctions:
Suspension and loss of recognition as a registered student organization through the end of
the academic year 2017-18. This includes loss of access to the Band Shak, Band funds
and all benefits, rights and privileges afforded Band members.
The suspension and loss of recognition as a student organization is only imposed when it is clear
that all other previous measures have been ineffective. In the case of the allegations before the
OCB, three of the four were found to be violations of existing sanctions (alcohol suspension and
travel ban). The fact that the Band demonstrated unwillingness, inability or conscious disregard
for the existing sanctions, while engaging in new inappropriate conduct, is especially problematic.
I concur with the findings of the OCB panel and agree that the Bands continued misbehavior is
certainly deserving of the most severe response. However, a suspension and loss of recognition
of the length recommended by the panel would effectively end all aspects of the Band. Indeed, it
is likely that the Band would be unable to recover and reconstitute itself following such a long
hiatus. This would effectively punish not only members of the band who engaged in the
misbehavior, but new and future Band members, Band alumni, and most regrettably, the Stanford
community at large. Under the circumstances I do not consider this resolution, though perhaps
fully deserved, an acceptable outcome.
Accordingly, I have decided to impose a different outcome, one that I hope will preserve the
essential features of the Band - including its irreverence and exuberance - but address the
leadership deficits that have led to constant and repeated violations of policy and a total lack of
accountability and responsibility.
In lieu of the panels recommendation that the Band be suspended and lose recognition for the
better part of two academic years, I am imposing a temporary suspension of all Band activities
effective immediately through Spring Quarter, 2017. This action requires cessation of all Band
activities both on and off-campus.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/stanford.ucomm.newsms.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/09145952/letter_to_band.pdf
Re: Letter from Provost Etchemendy - JJJ - 12-17-2016
I sent an email in response to the mass email and was surprised to receive a short individualized reply at 7:37pm his time.
Quote:I will make sure that the band survives this in one piece.I would encourage others to continue to let your feelings be known.
Re: Letter from Provost Etchemendy - JJJ - 12-17-2016
I sent an email in response to the mass email and was surprised to receive a short individualized reply at 7:37pm his time.
Quote:I will make sure that the band survives this in one piece.I would encourage others to continue to let your feelings be known.