Outside Topic Stanford's War Against Its Own Students (and ironically, Its Trees)

Outside Topic Stanford's War Against Its Own Students (and ironically, Its Trees) - 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: Outside Topic Stanford's War Against Its Own Students (and ironically, Its Trees) (/thread-24127.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Stanford's War Against Its Own Students (and ironically, Its Trees) - cardcrimson - 03-23-2023

Posted elsewhere, thought it worthy to post here as well. Whole scale changes are needed desperately.

https://www.thefp.com/p/stanfords-war-against-its-own-students

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - Leftcoast - 03-23-2023

Let the winds of freedom blow!

Sigh ... The rules and bureaucracy cited in this article make the modern campus sound almost unrecognizable.

I sometimes thought resident affairs was slow to act in our time (early 80s) but the pendulum has swung way too far if this article is remotely accurate. Reducing the administration by about 50% might help but it sure seems Stanford wants to control student life. In our day Resident Education felt their job was to establish guidelines and guard rails against the most dangerous behaviors but left the rest to the students. Bringing together the brightest, most creative young achievers and then tamping them down HARD when they do something unexpected seems a bad way to run a university.

RIP Band Run, Fountain Hopping, Eating Clubs, Lake Lag Yacht Club, Student Run Band, Splendor on the Grass, KA Nooners, many Frats, Dorm Parties with Beer, Stanford Duck Syndrome, Full Moon, and the breakfast of champions. May your replacements for this generation rise soon and may they be as fun or better than their predecessors.

(Hopefully the above is non-political - I certainly am! Mods, feel free to delete if conversation veers off course.)

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - GK3 - 03-23-2023

(03-23-2023, 05:37 PM)Leftcoast Wrote: Let the winds of freedom blow!

Sigh ... The rules and bureaucracy cited in this article make the modern campus sound almost unrecognizable.

I sometimes thought resident affairs was slow to act in our time (early 80s) but the pendulum has swung way too far if this article is remotely accurate. Reducing the administration by about 50% might help but it sure seems Stanford wants to control student life. In our day Resident Education felt their job was to establish guidelines and guard rails against the most dangerous behaviors but left the rest to the students. Bringing together the brightest, most creative young achievers and then tamping them down HARD when they do something unexpected seems a bad way to run a university.

RIP Band Run, Fountain Hopping, Eating Clubs, Lake Lag Yacht Club, Student Run Band, Splendor on the Grass, KA Nooners, many Frats, Dorm Parties with Beer, Stanford Duck Syndrome, Full Moon, and the breakfast of champions. May your replacements for this generation rise soon and may they be as fun or better than their predecessors.

(Hopefully the above is non-political - I certainly am! Mods, feel free to delete if conversation veers off course.)

For myself, who matriculated at Stanford in the mid 1950's this kind of stuff seems very hard to believe. I have to wonder what has happened to my University.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - cardcrimson - 03-23-2023

(03-23-2023, 06:19 PM)GK3 Wrote: I have to wonder what has happened to my University.

There's your mistake. It's no longer your university. Stanford belongs neither to the alumni nor the students. The university now belongs to the administration. And therein lies the problem.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - BostonCard - 03-23-2023

I wonder if we could kill two birds with one stone by getting OCS to investigate MTL?

BTW, I am going to take this on a tangent, because the piece talks about the unintended consequences in the school of the Brock Turner incident.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/did-recalling-the-judge-in-an-infamous-sexual-assault-case-lead-to-justice/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020230323%20(1)

Tons of unintended consequences all around, including in the effort to recall the judge sentenced him.

Quote:what happened was that sentences across the state of California increased by 30% in the six weeks following the announcement of the recall

There's more at the link, some of which might violate the no politics guidelines, so I truncated the quote.

BC

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - Genuine Realist - 03-23-2023

(03-23-2023, 06:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I wonder if we could kill two birds with one stone by getting OCS to investigate MTL?

BTW, I am going to take this on a tangent, because the piece talks about the unintended consequences in the school of the Brock Turner incident.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/did-recalling-the-judge-in-an-infamous-sexual-assault-case-lead-to-justice/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020230323%20(1)

Tons of unintended consequences all around, including in the effort to recall the judge sentenced him.

Quote:what happened was that sentences across the state of California increased by 30% in the six weeks following the announcement of the recall

There's more at the link, some of which might violate the no politics guidelines, so I truncated the quote.

BC

Brock Turner is one of the great apples-and-oranges cases of the last few years. Turner's pled-and-proven conduct is a prosaic violation of general criminal law, Penal C. Section 261 (a)(3), if you want chapter-and-verse. It no more belongs in a student disciplinary setting than robbery or homicide. A student who takes advantage of a coed who is slightly the worse for drink, somewhat disinhibited, may have done something ungentlemanly that is a proper subject for university discipline. A student who does the same thing to someone unconscious has committed a major felony.

I mention this because I've read a couple of accounts over the years (one from a Harvard undergrad) of female students who were violated when they were dead to the world. Someone victimized like that should not call the dorm resident. She should call the police.

As to the article, the one statistic that stuck with me was 10,000 administrators. Are you kidding? More administrators than students and faculty combined. Apparently what they mostly do is create work for themselves.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - cardcrimson - 03-23-2023

(03-23-2023, 06:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I wonder if we could kill two birds with one stone by getting OCS to investigate MTL?

BTW, I am going to take this on a tangent, because the piece talks about the unintended consequences in the school of the Brock Turner incident.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/did-recalling-the-judge-in-an-infamous-sexual-assault-case-lead-to-justice/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020230323%20(1)

Tons of unintended consequences all around, including in the effort to recall the judge sentenced him.

Quote:what happened was that sentences across the state of California increased by 30% in the six weeks following the announcement of the recall

There's more at the link, some of which might violate the no politics guidelines, so I truncated the quote.

BC

Yes, I would agree. The words following what you quoted are incredibly political, aren't they. . . .

I hope that this thread doesn't go down the political rabbit hole that another did elsewhere. Stanford has an image problem right now. Some folks think the issue is much more "systemic" than just image, and it needs to be fixed. I hope the discussion can remain there.

I do though, like the thought of OCS investigating MTL.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - Goose - 03-23-2023

(03-23-2023, 08:00 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I do though, like the thought of OCS investigating MTL.

While that thought does have some appeal, I really wish MTL or somebody would "investigate" OCS right out the door.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - BostonCard - 03-23-2023

(03-23-2023, 07:57 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Brock Turner is one of the great apples-and-oranges cases of the last few years. Turner's pled-and-proven conduct is a prosaic violation of general criminal law, Penal C. Section 261 (a)(3), if you want chapter-and-verse. It no more belongs in a student disciplinary setting than robbery or homicide. A student who takes advantage of a coed who is slightly the worse for drink, somewhat disinhibited, may have done something ungentlemanly that is a proper subject for university discipline. A student who does the same thing to someone unconscious has committed a major felony.

I mention this because I've read a couple of accounts over the years (one from a Harvard undergrad) of female students who were violated when they were dead to the world. Someone victimized like that should not call the dorm resident. She should call the police.

As to the article, the one statistic that stuck with me was 10,000 administrators. Are you kidding? More administrators than students and faculty combined. Apparently what they mostly do is create work for themselves.

Great to see you in these parts again, GR. Hope all is well.

Obviously, it is clear that the Turner case itself should have (and was) dealt with by the legal system. I wonder whether the school's reaction to the dishonor brought to it by the Turner case resulted in a ratcheting up of enforcement against the other example you provided "A student who takes advantage of a coed who is slightly the worse for drink, somewhat disinhibited, may have done something ungentlemanly that is a proper subject for university discipline". I can see the logic behind thinking that such cases, if left unchecked, lead to students thinking that it is ok to do the latter? I could also believe that there is no association, and that the offenses are not differences in degree, but differences in kind. There is likely data out there, but I don't know of it.

The number of administrators does seem excessive, but I would be interested to know what the definition of an "administrator" is in this context. I don't believe that this refers to academic administrators, since the number exceeds the number of faculty, and academic administrators (up to and including MTL) are also faculty. I suspect, in this context, administrators reflects a bunch of white collar workers who make the University work behind the scenes: contracts and grants specialists, communications folks, the bulk of the athletics department, house counsel, all the budgeting people, etc. Again, 10,000 seems like a lot, but Stanford revenue is about $14 billion, and the total number of Stanford employees is 24,000; $580,000 of revenue per employee, which is within the range of what private companies in many industries do.

BC

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - qwerty49 - 03-24-2023

There’s a vicious cycle here:

Litigation ==> CYA draconian “standards” ==> Less margin for “behavioral error” ==> More “transgressions” ==> stricter “enforcement consequences” ==> Increased stress and related litigation

Pick your starting point.

Bottom line: LSJU feels it has to be a prescriptive nanny state to reduce its exposure to litigation.

10,000 administrators? FFS, what a clown car.

This is just totally disgusting. I have 2 degrees from LSJU and this only reinforces my decision to never give another dime to the place, must less encourage any young family members to apply if this is what they’re getting into. This is how you fall out of love.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - Langdude - 03-24-2023

I am a faculty member at a smallish liberal arts college (read: expensive), and I have also noted the increase in administrators over the fifteen years I have been there. Not coincidentally, I have also noted their salaries increase at an accelerated pace in comparison to faculty (who make, on average, maybe one-half to one-third what administrators do).

I have my own ideas as to why this has occurred but, on a macro level, I am curious to hear the opinions of the thoughtful and informed populace here regarding the reasons for this phenomenon that, by all accounts, appears to be happening at all institutions of higher ed.

I will say that it has, over the course of my experience, changed the nature and work of the educational community - in the classroom, in the lab, and in the study - and not for the better.

-m

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - Maple Leaf - 03-24-2023

(03-24-2023, 02:45 AM)Langdude Wrote: I am a faculty member at a smallish liberal arts college (read: expensive), and I have also noted the increase in administrators over the fifteen years I have been there. Not coincidentally, I have also noted their salaries increase at an accelerated pace in comparison to faculty (who make, on average, maybe one-half to one-third what administrators do).

I have my own ideas as to why this has occurred but, on a macro level, I am curious to hear the opinions of the thoughtful and informed populace here regarding the reasons for this phenomenon that, by all accounts, appears to be happening at all institutions of higher ed.

I will say that it has, over the course of my experience, changed the nature and work of the educational community - in the classroom, in the lab, and in the study - and not for the better.

-m

I have a relatively who spent 25 years at a small public university who had the exact same experience and same questions.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - needle - 03-24-2023

The monster is money. You may think a college is about teaching, service and research. It is, but the bread-and-butter stuff is courting donors, finagling money to pay for amenities in hopes they will attract paying customers (i. e. students), leveraging partnerships with other schools to reduce costs, shaping curricula to serve industry and hopefully get money from them to do so, etc.

These are jobs that don’t belong to faculty, but are, rightly or wrongly, viewed as essential.

I guarantee you that MTL thinks he has done real good because he was in charge when Stanford got the $1.1 billion Doerr gift, when it is obvious to all that what it mainly does is help profs in the fields of sustainability at other institutions get some leverage when it comes to negotiating their pay.

Fundamentally, colleges would need to ditch a romantic view of themselves as dynamic enterprises capable of being big players in societal change, at least on the level of their city/state. Adopt more of a middle school mentality—here to serve an important group and prepare them for their next stage in life—and the need for administrators drops down quite a bit. But very few dare to think small.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - lex24 - 03-24-2023

This is not just Stanford. And it’s not just administrators. It’s societal. Jonathan Haidt has written extensively on this. If interested, read “The Coddling of the American Mind”. Haidt talks about “the three great untruths” that we are preaching to our youths:

1. The untruth of fragility: what does not kill us makes us weaker
2. The untruth of emotional reasoning: Always trust your feelings.
3. The untruth of Us vs Them: life is a battle between good and evil people.

This played out recently at Stanford law school. With an eventual outcome that is a credit to the law school.

Stanford’s Federalist Society (a conservative law group) invited a conservative Justice from the 5th Circuit Court to speak. 100 or so law students came to shout him down, Swearing at him. Calling him names. He asked for an administrator to help. The associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was there. She supported the protesters. Gave a six minute speech entitled “Is it worth the juice”. Essentially, is the “pain” he inflicts on the students by simply being there given his opinions worth letting him speak.

After the episode the Law School Dean wrote a 10 page letter. She made it abundantly clear that this should not have happened and will not happen again. These are law students. They should be protecting speech. This was a violation of Stanfords codes. The administrator that assisted the students is on administrative leave. She made it clear that diversity included the diversity of opinions. A terrific and powerful response. One any Stanford law school grad should be proud of.

The “protestors” fit directly into Haidt’s three great untruths. And therein lies part of the problem. Many students on the one hand, demand safe spaces, talk of trigger warnings, engage in call out culture. Yet on the other are distressed when the University reacts by imposing draconian rules on social activities. Because the administrators either agree with or are cowed by these attitudes.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand to be coddled on the one hand and then react when you in fact, are.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - Mick - 03-24-2023

It's definitely happening at the public schools, certainly at the UNC system: Administrative Bloat Harms Teaching and Learning — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (jamesgmartin.center)

I was a high school senior in 1979, and in that year, two things happened vis-a-vis my school of choice: (1) a men's magazine rated SCU as the #8 party college in the country because they didn't have class on Wednesdays (the Jesuits intended it to be a day of quiet reflection, not nursing hangovers) and (2) The son of a prominent donor got drunk, climbed up on top of our athletic facility, slipped off, landed on his head and died.

SCU's leadership reacted immediately. The result was that many of the restrictions that happened over the past few decades at Stanford happened at SCU in 1980. Fundamentally, it became a dry campus. Because of that policy, there were three resulting effects:

1) It drove drinking and drug use into the students' dorm rooms, where students were more -- not less -- likely to overindulge. Public social gatherings became much more rare, and the safety of public association gave way to whatever happened behind closed doors. The "safety effect" of the herd effectively vanished.

2) It drove the partying and related behaviors off-campus to nearby houses where the university couldn't control it at all. High school kids would show up. The number of calls to local police forces skyrocketed. SCU didn't have a public crime report until 1980/81, the year they eliminated kegs from the campus. Coincidence?

3) As a freshman in 1980, SCU only had one fraternity, and frankly, it wasn't very popular. By my senior year, there were five fraternities, all off-campus, all with the associated hazing and hard partying. Today, SCU admits to six fraternities -- there are actually 11. Five who were disciplined and just went underground.

It would be great if 18-21 year olds on their own for the first time could behave themselves, and most do. Most aren't criminals, and most learn to comport themselves well. At the same time, there was a time when universities would allow that growth to happen with a light touch.

When I was a senior, I made a mistake that affected no one but me, and that I rectified as soon as I was aware of the mistake. An over-the-top classmate of mine demanded that I be dragged in front of the Dean, and the two of us met with him. We both explained what happened -- we didn't disagree on the details at all. The Dean asked how I rectified the mistake, and we both agreed on that as well. He had a pained look and said "I don't see a problem here. Why are you wasting my time?" She said, "Well don't you think he should be expelled, or suspended at least?" The Dean rolled his eyes and said "get out of here."

The problem was that the other student didn't care for me, and wanted to cause me some trouble -- which she did -- and the Dean refused to be a party to it. Today, it would have been a much bigger issue. It reminded me of the comments that the President of Harvard made about the Winklevoss twins when they complained about Zuckerberg: "If a student shows up to your office wearing a suit, they are either looking for a job or they're an asshole. This was the latter."

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - Goose - 03-24-2023

(03-24-2023, 12:52 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: There’s a vicious cycle here:

Litigation ==> CYA draconian “standards” ==> Less margin for “behavioral error” ==> More “transgressions” ==> stricter “enforcement consequences” ==> Increased stress and related litigation

Pick your starting point.

Bottom line: LSJU feels it has to be a prescriptive nanny state to reduce its exposure to litigation.

I do agree that exposure to litigation is part of the "justification" for the nanny state at Stanford, but I think the real driver is that the administrators involved see the nanny state as a desired goal in itself. Litigation is the excuse, but "helping young people make good life choices" is the real driver. It greatly helps that this goal increases the size of the respective empires involved. It also helps that the definition of "good" is the administrator's, and nobody else gets a vote. This current of thought was always present at Stanford,even back in the 60s when I was there. Fortunately, both the faculty and the students had enough clout (and cared enough about the issue) to generally slap it down. That is no longer the case, and the virus has spread unchecked.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - 82lsju - 03-24-2023

(03-24-2023, 06:41 AM)lex24 Wrote: After the episode the Law School Dean wrote a 10 page letter. She made it abundantly clear that this should not have happened and will not happen again. These are law students. They should be protecting speech. This was a violation of Stanfords codes. The administrator that assisted the students is on administrative leave. She made it clear that diversity included the diversity of opinions. A terrific and powerful response. One any Stanford law school grad should be proud of.

you can read the letter here

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-school-dean-jenny-martinez-campus-community-march-22-2023

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - burger - 03-24-2023

(03-24-2023, 06:41 AM)lex24 Wrote: This is not just Stanford. And it’s not just administrators. It’s societal. Jonathan Haidt has written extensively on this. If interested, read “The Coddling of the American Mind”. Haidt talks about “the three great untruths” that we are preaching to our youths:

1. The untruth of fragility: what does not kill us makes us weaker

2. The untruth of emotional reasoning: Always trust your feelings.

3. The untruth of Us vs Them: life is a battle between good and evil people.

This played out recently at Stanford law school. With an eventual outcome that is a credit to the law school.

Stanford’s Federalist Society (a conservative law group) invited a conservative Justice from the 5th Circuit Court to speak. 100 or so law students came to shout him down, Swearing at him. Calling him names. He asked for an administrator to help. The associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was there. She supported the protesters. Gave a six minute speech entitled “Is it worth the juice”. Essentially, is the “pain” he inflicts on the students by simply being there given his opinions worth letting him speak.

After the episode the Law School Dean wrote a 10 page letter. She made it abundantly clear that this should not have happened and will not happen again. These are law students. They should be protecting speech. This was a violation of Stanfords codes. The administrator that assisted the students is on administrative leave. She made it clear that diversity included the diversity of opinions. A terrific and powerful response. One any Stanford law school grad should be proud of.

The “protestors” fit directly into Haidt’s three great untruths. And therein lies part of the problem. Many students on the one hand, demand safe spaces, talk of trigger warnings, engage in call out culture. Yet on the other are distressed when the University reacts by imposing draconian rules on social activities. Because the administrators either agree with or are cowed by these attitudes.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand to be coddled on the one hand and then react when you in fact, are.

You're conflating two completely different things here for tendentious purposes (as usual). Students DID NOT ask for the administration to put the hammer down on parties. There is no relationship between the protests at the speech and the partying situation. It's apples and something not fruit-related at all.

Also the speech stuff has nothing to do with the war on fun and is 100% political. Mods, can put the kibosh on discussion of the speech. Because if not, then I'm going to start defending the students, and I don't think we want to go there.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - lex24 - 03-24-2023

I’ll take down my post. Last thing I wanna do is stop discussion on the topic.

Edit - can’t really do that it’s been quoted, etc. But I won’t respond further on this topic. I was not trying to get into a political discussion.

RE: Stanford's War Against Its Own Students - cardcrimson - 03-24-2023

(03-24-2023, 09:27 AM)lex24 Wrote: I’ll take down my post. Last thing I wanna do is stop discussion on the topic.

Edit - can’t really do that it’s been quoted, etc. But I won’t respond further on this topic. I was not trying to get into a political discussion.

Didn't think your post was political at all, and I followed the logic behind it. Even though we don't often share similar political views, I find your opinions valuable.