[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16290.msg182710#msg182710 date=1481912015]- The Stanford bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, is actually a lot of individual people making lots of individual decisions. Almost by definition there is a wide range of sincerity and competency among those people. Some acting poorly is not an indication that all act poorly, and I guess some acting earnestly and properly is not an indication that all will. In my own encounters with the Stanford bureaucracy I have certainly encountered both.

I don't believe this is true. I institutions have cultures, and I think Stanford's administration's culture has evolved to be overly cautious and out of touch. Keep in mind that my experiences are going to be significantly more recent than yours, unless you have some reason to be in contact with them well after graduation and not living in the area.
[/quote]

The two quotes are not necessarily incompatible with one another.  Most bureaucracies are (on balance) overly cautious.  When I was at the school, and Gerhart Casper/Condi Rice were our president and provost, respectively, the consensus is that they were out of touch and overly cautious. To be honest, Hennessy/Etchemendy seem less so.  But the fact of the matter, is that the administration has multiple stakeholders (student, faculty, alums, etc.) that it has to be responsive to, and so to any one group, the administration will of course appear aloof.  But even though the bureaucracy as a whole evolves to be cautious and out of touch, it is still composed of individuals, with varying agendas and interest in advancing them.

That would surprise me. The administration had to know this was explosive news and for it to be handled only at low levels would be insane. Though, seeing my comment above, maybe they really are that out of touch.

I wouldn't characterize Greg Boardman as a "low level" staffer; he is Vice Provost for Student Affairs, and probably the appropriate person for dealing with this, reserving Etchemendy as the person to appeal the decision to.  I have to believe it has been discussed with Etch, but more along a "keep me in the loop" rather than as an integrated decision maker.

His only intent is to mollify angry alums. He could have actually revealed the details, or said "yeah buying a pitcher of beer [so far the only sin that's been disclosed] doesn't justify this". Or promised to actually disclose what the transgressions were, why the band didn't meet the university's expectations, what those expectations are, basically anything. Maybe I couldn't have expected any better from someone in his position, but this letter was useless and meaningless.

It may or may not have been relevant to the letter, but I agree that this is my biggest gripe about the situation.  It is hard for me to formulate an opinion about the severity of the infractions and appropriateness of the sanctions if I don't really have a good sense of the severity of what the band did or how it responded to it.  Surely there is a way to better communicate what happened and the response without violating the confidentiality of Title IX procedures.  As to whether that belongs in the letter, I'm not sure.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16290.msg182710#msg182710 date=1481912015]- The Stanford bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, is actually a lot of individual people making lots of individual decisions. Almost by definition there is a wide range of sincerity and competency among those people. Some acting poorly is not an indication that all act poorly, and I guess some acting earnestly and properly is not an indication that all will. In my own encounters with the Stanford bureaucracy I have certainly encountered both.

I don't believe this is true. I institutions have cultures, and I think Stanford's administration's culture has evolved to be overly cautious and out of touch. Keep in mind that my experiences are going to be significantly more recent than yours, unless you have some reason to be in contact with them well after graduation and not living in the area.
[/quote]

The two quotes are not necessarily incompatible with one another.  Most bureaucracies are (on balance) overly cautious.  When I was at the school, and Gerhart Casper/Condi Rice were our president and provost, respectively, the consensus is that they were out of touch and overly cautious. To be honest, Hennessy/Etchemendy seem less so.  But the fact of the matter, is that the administration has multiple stakeholders (student, faculty, alums, etc.) that it has to be responsive to, and so to any one group, the administration will of course appear aloof.  But even though the bureaucracy as a whole evolves to be cautious and out of touch, it is still composed of individuals, with varying agendas and interest in advancing them.

That would surprise me. The administration had to know this was explosive news and for it to be handled only at low levels would be insane. Though, seeing my comment above, maybe they really are that out of touch.

I wouldn't characterize Greg Boardman as a "low level" staffer; he is Vice Provost for Student Affairs, and probably the appropriate person for dealing with this, reserving Etchemendy as the person to appeal the decision to.  I have to believe it has been discussed with Etch, but more along a "keep me in the loop" rather than as an integrated decision maker.

His only intent is to mollify angry alums. He could have actually revealed the details, or said "yeah buying a pitcher of beer [so far the only sin that's been disclosed] doesn't justify this". Or promised to actually disclose what the transgressions were, why the band didn't meet the university's expectations, what those expectations are, basically anything. Maybe I couldn't have expected any better from someone in his position, but this letter was useless and meaningless.

It may or may not have been relevant to the letter, but I agree that this is my biggest gripe about the situation.  It is hard for me to formulate an opinion about the severity of the infractions and appropriateness of the sanctions if I don't really have a good sense of the severity of what the band did or how it responded to it.  Surely there is a way to better communicate what happened and the response without violating the confidentiality of Title IX procedures.  As to whether that belongs in the letter, I'm not sure.

BC