03-24-2023, 10:12 AM
I will be disappointed if an apolitical post gets shouted down so easily.
The CardBoard
/
C-House!
/
The CardBoard
/
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)
03-24-2023, 10:30 AM
Lex, thanks again for the info. Interesting quick read here:
https://www.thecoddling.com/chapter-1-antifragility
Love these quotes in particular:
"When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, expose his body to hunger, put him to poverty, place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent.
Meng Tzu (Mencius) fourth century BCE"
"Taleb opens the book with a poetic image that should speak to all parents. He notes that wind extinguishes a candle but energizes a fire. He advises us not to be like candles and not to turn our children into candles: “You want to be the fire and wish for the wind.”"
The foolishness of overprotection is apparent as soon as you understand the concept of antifragility. Given that risks and stressors are natural, unavoidable parts of life, parents and teachers should be helping kids develop their innate abilities to grow and learn from such experiences. There’s an old saying: “Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” But these days, we seem to be doing precisely the opposite: we’re trying to clear away anything that might upset children, not realizing that in doing so, we’re repeating the peanut-allergy mistake. If we protect children from various classes of potentially upsetting experiences, we make it far more likely that those children will be unable to cope with such events when they leave our protective umbrella."
I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the protective direction, though there is a point were some protective umbrellas are necessary, and I think a great example is laid out in the thread on Cal and McKeever. It's difficult to know where to draw the line on threats and protection, but as Potter Stewart mentioned in a different situation, "I know it when I see it". Unfortunately today, some see threats everywhere and others, like McKeever perhaps, not at all.
https://www.thecoddling.com/chapter-1-antifragility
Love these quotes in particular:
"When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, expose his body to hunger, put him to poverty, place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent.
Meng Tzu (Mencius) fourth century BCE"
"Taleb opens the book with a poetic image that should speak to all parents. He notes that wind extinguishes a candle but energizes a fire. He advises us not to be like candles and not to turn our children into candles: “You want to be the fire and wish for the wind.”"
The foolishness of overprotection is apparent as soon as you understand the concept of antifragility. Given that risks and stressors are natural, unavoidable parts of life, parents and teachers should be helping kids develop their innate abilities to grow and learn from such experiences. There’s an old saying: “Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” But these days, we seem to be doing precisely the opposite: we’re trying to clear away anything that might upset children, not realizing that in doing so, we’re repeating the peanut-allergy mistake. If we protect children from various classes of potentially upsetting experiences, we make it far more likely that those children will be unable to cope with such events when they leave our protective umbrella."
I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the protective direction, though there is a point were some protective umbrellas are necessary, and I think a great example is laid out in the thread on Cal and McKeever. It's difficult to know where to draw the line on threats and protection, but as Potter Stewart mentioned in a different situation, "I know it when I see it". Unfortunately today, some see threats everywhere and others, like McKeever perhaps, not at all.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Lex, thanks again for the info. Interesting quick read here:
https://www.thecoddling.com/chapter-1-antifragility
Love these quotes in particular:
"When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, expose his body to hunger, put him to poverty, place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent.
Meng Tzu (Mencius) fourth century BCE"
"Taleb opens the book with a poetic image that should speak to all parents. He notes that wind extinguishes a candle but energizes a fire. He advises us not to be like candles and not to turn our children into candles: “You want to be the fire and wish for the wind.”"
The foolishness of overprotection is apparent as soon as you understand the concept of antifragility. Given that risks and stressors are natural, unavoidable parts of life, parents and teachers should be helping kids develop their innate abilities to grow and learn from such experiences. There’s an old saying: “Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” But these days, we seem to be doing precisely the opposite: we’re trying to clear away anything that might upset children, not realizing that in doing so, we’re repeating the peanut-allergy mistake. If we protect children from various classes of potentially upsetting experiences, we make it far more likely that those children will be unable to cope with such events when they leave our protective umbrella."
I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the protective direction, though there is a point were some protective umbrellas are necessary, and I think a great example is laid out in the thread on Cal and McKeever. It's difficult to know where to draw the line on threats and protection, but as Potter Stewart mentioned in a different situation, "I know it when I see it". Unfortunately today, some see threats everywhere and others, like McKeever perhaps, not at all.
https://www.thecoddling.com/chapter-1-antifragility
Love these quotes in particular:
"When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, expose his body to hunger, put him to poverty, place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent.
Meng Tzu (Mencius) fourth century BCE"
"Taleb opens the book with a poetic image that should speak to all parents. He notes that wind extinguishes a candle but energizes a fire. He advises us not to be like candles and not to turn our children into candles: “You want to be the fire and wish for the wind.”"
The foolishness of overprotection is apparent as soon as you understand the concept of antifragility. Given that risks and stressors are natural, unavoidable parts of life, parents and teachers should be helping kids develop their innate abilities to grow and learn from such experiences. There’s an old saying: “Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” But these days, we seem to be doing precisely the opposite: we’re trying to clear away anything that might upset children, not realizing that in doing so, we’re repeating the peanut-allergy mistake. If we protect children from various classes of potentially upsetting experiences, we make it far more likely that those children will be unable to cope with such events when they leave our protective umbrella."
I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the protective direction, though there is a point were some protective umbrellas are necessary, and I think a great example is laid out in the thread on Cal and McKeever. It's difficult to know where to draw the line on threats and protection, but as Potter Stewart mentioned in a different situation, "I know it when I see it". Unfortunately today, some see threats everywhere and others, like McKeever perhaps, not at all.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
03-24-2023, 11:21 AM
The administrators who have no sense of Stanford's core values are only concerned with protecting the Stanford brand rather than protecting the students. I think we need to make this known to Howard Wolf...and he needs to take appropriate action.
03-24-2023, 03:23 PM
It's easy to blame the nameless and faceless administrators, but the truth is that we have met the enemy and it is us (not specifically us, but the general we). Administrators are just reacting to external forces, whether it is students themselves, parents, community members, the press, local, state, and federal government officials, the legal system, etc.: everyone has an opinion these days, and it is quite easy to gin up a controversy and demand action. I mean, how many people on this board have been dismayed, offended, or reacted badly to the Stanford Band (and I don't mean their musicianship)? Many transgressions are real, some are not, but whereas a generation or two ago, these things could be dealt with quietly and internally, now every transgression, real or imagined, demands an investigation and that those responsible be brought to rhetorical justice. The solution in any risk averse institution, but specifically at Stanford, is to operationalize and bureaucratize the problem (what are called "systems solutions").
Lex notes that it is not just Stanford and not just administrators. And while I don't share his affection for Haidt, nor his implication that the problem is relegated to America's misinstructed youth, I do broadly agree that what we see is a reaction to external forces.
BC
Lex notes that it is not just Stanford and not just administrators. And while I don't share his affection for Haidt, nor his implication that the problem is relegated to America's misinstructed youth, I do broadly agree that what we see is a reaction to external forces.
BC
It's easy to blame the nameless and faceless administrators, but the truth is that we have met the enemy and it is us (not specifically us, but the general we). Administrators are just reacting to external forces, whether it is students themselves, parents, community members, the press, local, state, and federal government officials, the legal system, etc.: everyone has an opinion these days, and it is quite easy to gin up a controversy and demand action. I mean, how many people on this board have been dismayed, offended, or reacted badly to the Stanford Band (and I don't mean their musicianship)? Many transgressions are real, some are not, but whereas a generation or two ago, these things could be dealt with quietly and internally, now every transgression, real or imagined, demands an investigation and that those responsible be brought to rhetorical justice. The solution in any risk averse institution, but specifically at Stanford, is to operationalize and bureaucratize the problem (what are called "systems solutions").
Lex notes that it is not just Stanford and not just administrators. And while I don't share his affection for Haidt, nor his implication that the problem is relegated to America's misinstructed youth, I do broadly agree that what we see is a reaction to external forces.
BC
Lex notes that it is not just Stanford and not just administrators. And while I don't share his affection for Haidt, nor his implication that the problem is relegated to America's misinstructed youth, I do broadly agree that what we see is a reaction to external forces.
BC
(03-24-2023, 03:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: It's easy to blame the nameless and faceless administrators, but the truth is that we have met the enemy and it is us (not specifically us, but the general we). Administrators are just reacting to external forces, whether it is students themselves, parents, community members, the press, local, state, and federal government officials, the legal system, etc.: everyone has an opinion these days, and it is quite easy to gin up a controversy and demand action. I mean, how many people on this board have been dismayed, offended, or reacted badly to the Stanford Band (and I don't mean their musicianship)? Many transgressions are real, some are not, but whereas a generation or two ago, these things could be dealt with quietly and internally, now every transgression, real or imagined, demands an investigation and that those responsible be brought to rhetorical justice. The solution in any risk averse institution, but specifically at Stanford, is to operationalize and bureaucratize the problem (what are called "systems solutions").
Lex notes that it is not just Stanford and not just administrators. And while I don't share his affection for Haidt, nor his implication that the problem is relegated to America's misinstructed youth, I do broadly agree that what we see is a reaction to external forces.
BC
Having recently taught at several top 10 universities, I'm not sure I'm fully in agreement with your view that administrators are just taking signals from other actors. At each the three universities I taught at, students often took signals from administrators in terms of what kinds of arguments they were allowed to raise, and they very much looked to administrators to validate them. Indeed, often I was powerless to say no to things because I knew the admins backed the students, not the instrucotrs.
You can basically see this by looking at how little this brand of non-sense flies at U Chicago relative to most of its peer schools. The difference? The university has put a muzzle on the administration's indulgence of certain ideas/arguments/demands, and it has resulted in a very different school culture relative to its peers. Yet U Chicago recruits from the same student applicant pool, hires from the same available professoriate, and exists in the same media/culture/legal landscape as other top universities. The only difference has just been a concerted decision to stand firm. (And, to a lesser degree, a longstanding culture "where fun goes to die," in contrast to Stanford's once-upon-a-time motto of "let the winds of freedom blow.")
Just my two cents. Thanks for everyone's interesting views.
(03-24-2023, 03:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: It's easy to blame the nameless and faceless administrators, but the truth is that we have met the enemy and it is us (not specifically us, but the general we). Administrators are just reacting to external forces, whether it is students themselves, parents, community members, the press, local, state, and federal government officials, the legal system, etc.: everyone has an opinion these days, and it is quite easy to gin up a controversy and demand action. I mean, how many people on this board have been dismayed, offended, or reacted badly to the Stanford Band (and I don't mean their musicianship)? Many transgressions are real, some are not, but whereas a generation or two ago, these things could be dealt with quietly and internally, now every transgression, real or imagined, demands an investigation and that those responsible be brought to rhetorical justice. The solution in any risk averse institution, but specifically at Stanford, is to operationalize and bureaucratize the problem (what are called "systems solutions").
Lex notes that it is not just Stanford and not just administrators. And while I don't share his affection for Haidt, nor his implication that the problem is relegated to America's misinstructed youth, I do broadly agree that what we see is a reaction to external forces.
BC
Having recently taught at several top 10 universities, I'm not sure I'm fully in agreement with your view that administrators are just taking signals from other actors. At each the three universities I taught at, students often took signals from administrators in terms of what kinds of arguments they were allowed to raise, and they very much looked to administrators to validate them. Indeed, often I was powerless to say no to things because I knew the admins backed the students, not the instrucotrs.
You can basically see this by looking at how little this brand of non-sense flies at U Chicago relative to most of its peer schools. The difference? The university has put a muzzle on the administration's indulgence of certain ideas/arguments/demands, and it has resulted in a very different school culture relative to its peers. Yet U Chicago recruits from the same student applicant pool, hires from the same available professoriate, and exists in the same media/culture/legal landscape as other top universities. The only difference has just been a concerted decision to stand firm. (And, to a lesser degree, a longstanding culture "where fun goes to die," in contrast to Stanford's once-upon-a-time motto of "let the winds of freedom blow.")
Just my two cents. Thanks for everyone's interesting views.
03-24-2023, 05:21 PM
I do think the law school protest is related to this topic. What I see is a movement away from fundamental rights that have been integral in American society. In the case of the fraternities and Katie Meyers, the right to due process has been severely impinged. In the case of the "hecklers' veto" at the law school, the right to free speech was under attack, which attack was supported by a Stanford administrator. When these fundamental rights are abridged, people lose faith in justice. This causes despair. Both the fraternity President and Katie Meyer were clearly inflicted with despair by the injustices resulting from actions by Stanford administrators. It's no fun to live in society with no justice, especially when the focus of the injustice is pointed at people just trying to have fun. It's no wonder why people are saying Stanford hates fun.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
I do think the law school protest is related to this topic. What I see is a movement away from fundamental rights that have been integral in American society. In the case of the fraternities and Katie Meyers, the right to due process has been severely impinged. In the case of the "hecklers' veto" at the law school, the right to free speech was under attack, which attack was supported by a Stanford administrator. When these fundamental rights are abridged, people lose faith in justice. This causes despair. Both the fraternity President and Katie Meyer were clearly inflicted with despair by the injustices resulting from actions by Stanford administrators. It's no fun to live in society with no justice, especially when the focus of the injustice is pointed at people just trying to have fun. It's no wonder why people are saying Stanford hates fun.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
03-24-2023, 10:50 PM
You think this is just a Stanford thing?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
You think this is just a Stanford thing?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
(03-24-2023, 10:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You think this is just a Stanford thing?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
Not unusual for companies to doggedly protect their trademark….I would think some clever marketer could figure out how to use the parody. Like “You and your best friend both deserve a nip….”
(03-24-2023, 10:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You think this is just a Stanford thing?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
Not unusual for companies to doggedly protect their trademark….I would think some clever marketer could figure out how to use the parody. Like “You and your best friend both deserve a nip….”
03-25-2023, 08:06 AM
(03-25-2023, 07:31 AM)lex24 Wrote:(03-24-2023, 10:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You think this is just a Stanford thing?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
Not unusual for companies to doggedly protect their trademark….I would think some clever marketer could figure out how to use the parody. Like “You and your best friend both deserve a nip….”
Doggedly?!? Nicely done.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(03-25-2023, 07:31 AM)lex24 Wrote:(03-24-2023, 10:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You think this is just a Stanford thing?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-daniel...mwhatsnews
Jack Daniels took a chew toy company all the way to the US Supreme Court for parodying it. Maybe not my brand of humor, but give me a break.
BC
Not unusual for companies to doggedly protect their trademark….I would think some clever marketer could figure out how to use the parody. Like “You and your best friend both deserve a nip….”
Doggedly?!? Nicely done.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
03-25-2023, 11:39 AM
Not going to pass the "likely to confuse" test. Maybe the court should rule that the cause of action is not ripe for review and needs another 10 years of barrel aging.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
There is a mish-mash of various issues going on in this thread. The theme of administrative blight at universities is a troubling one, but a fairly old one. One of the best polemics on this subject came out a dozen years ago by Ben Ginsburg, a political scientist at Hopkins.
https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Faculty-Benj...0199975434
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011...ll-faculty
I had a lot of fun reading this--partly because I recognized so much of it in my own experiences teaching at a large state university.
https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Faculty-Benj...0199975434
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011...ll-faculty
I had a lot of fun reading this--partly because I recognized so much of it in my own experiences teaching at a large state university.
There is a mish-mash of various issues going on in this thread. The theme of administrative blight at universities is a troubling one, but a fairly old one. One of the best polemics on this subject came out a dozen years ago by Ben Ginsburg, a political scientist at Hopkins.
https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Faculty-Benj...0199975434
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011...ll-faculty
I had a lot of fun reading this--partly because I recognized so much of it in my own experiences teaching at a large state university.
https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Faculty-Benj...0199975434
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011...ll-faculty
I had a lot of fun reading this--partly because I recognized so much of it in my own experiences teaching at a large state university.
03-26-2023, 05:34 PM
Noam Chomsky spoke out against administrative bloat in 2014:
https://chomsky.info/20140228/
It's a good read for anyone.
I think the non-"Stanford people" adminstrators are reacting to their own individual incentives: don't get sued, enforce the rules as written. I think "Stanford family" administrators would understand where the lines are drawn and where the gray areas of competing values exist. Administrators are part of the in loco parentis authority figures that continue to guide student behavior as young adults mature into fully autonomous adults, and the administrators would do well to understand the role they play in refining student behavior.
https://chomsky.info/20140228/
It's a good read for anyone.
I think the non-"Stanford people" adminstrators are reacting to their own individual incentives: don't get sued, enforce the rules as written. I think "Stanford family" administrators would understand where the lines are drawn and where the gray areas of competing values exist. Administrators are part of the in loco parentis authority figures that continue to guide student behavior as young adults mature into fully autonomous adults, and the administrators would do well to understand the role they play in refining student behavior.
Noam Chomsky spoke out against administrative bloat in 2014:
https://chomsky.info/20140228/
It's a good read for anyone.
I think the non-"Stanford people" adminstrators are reacting to their own individual incentives: don't get sued, enforce the rules as written. I think "Stanford family" administrators would understand where the lines are drawn and where the gray areas of competing values exist. Administrators are part of the in loco parentis authority figures that continue to guide student behavior as young adults mature into fully autonomous adults, and the administrators would do well to understand the role they play in refining student behavior.
https://chomsky.info/20140228/
It's a good read for anyone.
I think the non-"Stanford people" adminstrators are reacting to their own individual incentives: don't get sued, enforce the rules as written. I think "Stanford family" administrators would understand where the lines are drawn and where the gray areas of competing values exist. Administrators are part of the in loco parentis authority figures that continue to guide student behavior as young adults mature into fully autonomous adults, and the administrators would do well to understand the role they play in refining student behavior.
03-26-2023, 08:10 PM
(03-26-2023, 05:34 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Noam Chomsky spoke out against administrative bloat in 2014:
https://chomsky.info/20140228/
It's a good read for anyone.
I think the non-"Stanford people" adminstrators are reacting to their own individual incentives: don't get sued, enforce the rules as written. I think "Stanford family" administrators would understand where the lines are drawn and where the gray areas of competing values exist. Administrators are part of the in loco parentis authority figures that continue to guide student behavior as young adults mature into fully autonomous adults, and the administrators would do well to understand the role they play in refining student behavior.
wonderful article! thanks so much for the link.
(03-26-2023, 05:34 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Noam Chomsky spoke out against administrative bloat in 2014:
https://chomsky.info/20140228/
It's a good read for anyone.
I think the non-"Stanford people" adminstrators are reacting to their own individual incentives: don't get sued, enforce the rules as written. I think "Stanford family" administrators would understand where the lines are drawn and where the gray areas of competing values exist. Administrators are part of the in loco parentis authority figures that continue to guide student behavior as young adults mature into fully autonomous adults, and the administrators would do well to understand the role they play in refining student behavior.
wonderful article! thanks so much for the link.
03-26-2023, 08:42 PM
978-1-5275-5358-3-sample.pdf (cambridgescholars.com)
and
Amazon.com: Bullshit Jobs: A Theory: 9781501143311: Graeber, David: Books
and
Amazon.com: Bullshit Jobs: A Theory: 9781501143311: Graeber, David: Books
Audaces fortuna iuvat
03-26-2023, 08:53 PM
(03-26-2023, 08:42 PM)Mick Wrote: 978-1-5275-5358-3-sample.pdf (cambridgescholars.com)"If the full story of corruption, sweetheart deals, and rewards for bureaucratic parasites was known, the public and students (who increasingly bear the direct costs) support for universities would be liable to further precipitous declines." What a great quote.
and
Amazon.com: Bullshit Jobs: A Theory: 9781501143311: Graeber, David: Books
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(03-26-2023, 08:42 PM)Mick Wrote: 978-1-5275-5358-3-sample.pdf (cambridgescholars.com)"If the full story of corruption, sweetheart deals, and rewards for bureaucratic parasites was known, the public and students (who increasingly bear the direct costs) support for universities would be liable to further precipitous declines." What a great quote.
and
Amazon.com: Bullshit Jobs: A Theory: 9781501143311: Graeber, David: Books
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
03-27-2023, 05:03 PM
I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.
03-27-2023, 05:30 PM
This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.
Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.
Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.
This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.
Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.
Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.
03-27-2023, 05:43 PM
(03-27-2023, 05:03 PM)winflop Wrote: I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.
Steinbach has been placed on administrative leave.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/...eans-leave
There are, of course, plenty of other straws to chose from.
BC
(03-27-2023, 05:03 PM)winflop Wrote: I've removed Stanford from my estate plans. What happened at the law school, especially the lack of any consequences for ringleader Dean Steinbach, was the last straw for me.
Steinbach has been placed on administrative leave.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/...eans-leave
There are, of course, plenty of other straws to chose from.
BC
03-27-2023, 06:20 PM
(03-27-2023, 05:30 PM)Goose Wrote: This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.
Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.
I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land? Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation? Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.
People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous. I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.) No - that's why I have a chainsaw. And some luck on my side.
(03-27-2023, 05:30 PM)Goose Wrote: This is possibly tangential, but IMO it is illustrative of the larger "administration" issue. The trees that fell on Alpine road were growing on Stanford land. Another one fell today and blocked a lane. I would imagine the family of the man who was killed will file a major lawsuit. How many people does Stanford have in the facilities department? Plenty. Somebody was undoubtedly responsible for making sure things like this didn't happen by examining the trees and removing those that were even a potential danger. They failed. Worse still, IMO, after four trees fell and one caused a death, Stanford didn't do anything. Another tree fell today, fortunately killing nobody, but that is just luck. Obviously there is a major issue there that should have been addressed, even if belatedly. Is anybody going to get fired? I doubt it.
Hiring a bunch of people that don't actually do anything is a typical bureaucratic method to increase you power, prestige, and salary. If nobody evaluates the performance of these organizations and makes them justify their existence with something other than verbiage, this is what you get. Then people wonder why nobody trusts Stanford when they propose some construction project. There is no possible excuse for this situation.
I don't want to read in to what you are saying here, but if you are accusing Stanford Facilities of general incompetence because some trees fell, I take exception. There is a reasonableness test that would apply to alleged negligence. How many trees do you think are on Stanford land? Is it reasonable to expect none of them to fall during a cyclonic storm with 70 mph winds? What do you mean by no possible excuse for this situation? Sure, if there were an arborist's report from five or ten years ago indicating specific trees that should be removed due to potential hazard and that report was ignored, and those trees indeed fell, that's one thing. Frankly I would be surprised if it is possible to have arborist reports for the sheer number of trees on Stanford land and keep those reports current.
People file lawsuits over all sorts of things both real and ridiculous. I'd need to see specific evidence before making a blanket statement of negligence like I think you made here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Should I sue my neighbor because a gigantic tree branch fell on our side of the fence and dinged some stuff? Or should I have sued when his tall, mature Laurel tree fell in my backyard on a blue sky day, splitting the uprights between bedroom and detached garage right onto my pickup, because he had raised grade around the trunk, thereby leading to girdling? (That's a big no-no.) No - that's why I have a chainsaw. And some luck on my side.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »