[Mudhead]

The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants. 

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.

Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it.  I don’t know the answer.  But I assume  the President does.. he is there and works with faculty and students every day.  I’m on campus maybe ten days a year so how can I know?  I’ve given money ( not big money) to Stanford for many years and was never told nor had any reason to believe my money was going to an institution that was racist.  Now I know and am willing to support efforts to rectify it. But that’s really a side line to the question of cutting these sports out.  I would support  Muirs effort irrespective of the race issue.

You made the claim that racism has infected Stanford.  I asked you if you had evidence.  And you tell me "Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it. "  

Why can't I ask the question?

Mick, obviously you can ask any question you want. You in fact did. In all liklyhood you won’t get an answer . I certainly don’t have one.  Also please note it’s not me or anyone on this board who claimed racism at Stanford.  It was the President of the University who spends a lot more time on Campus and is on position to know.  I don’t spend much time on campus and did not know racism was so present that it was necessary to hire 20 professionals and put everyone through sensitivity training or I would not have been making my regular small donations to the school .( it would have survived without them , I’m pretty sure).  I’m hoping this gets cleaned up so i can renew my support.

I agree with Pete F when he observes that it is beside the point ; we don’t have any reason to know that the racism discovery had anything to do with ending the 11 sports. I only raised it to suggest that the University has many demands for its resources, some of which are more important than others. Any good leader, not just Muir , who is drawing on University funds (“deficit?”) has the obligation to weed out expenditures that are not productive. We can disagree with the decision; I was just trying to make the point that there is no free money and that if one area is in deficit some other area will be short changed.

BTW, whoever is in charge of the new profs and the sensitivity training has the duty to make sure those funds are spent effectively or else curtailed. So does everyone else in charge of a budget at Stanford. Based on his actions, Muir understands this and I applaud him for it. I hope he is not alone in being willing to make hard decisions; decisions that save money rather than use it.

Sorry if my point was poorly made or if i came across as trying to tell you what questions you can ask.  I was just trying to suggest that getting hard data to support decisions in academia is usually a fruitless task, akin to tilting at windmills .  But each of us can do so.

[Mudhead]

The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants. 

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.

Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it.  I don’t know the answer.  But I assume  the President does.. he is there and works with faculty and students every day.  I’m on campus maybe ten days a year so how can I know?  I’ve given money ( not big money) to Stanford for many years and was never told nor had any reason to believe my money was going to an institution that was racist.  Now I know and am willing to support efforts to rectify it. But that’s really a side line to the question of cutting these sports out.  I would support  Muirs effort irrespective of the race issue.

You made the claim that racism has infected Stanford.  I asked you if you had evidence.  And you tell me "Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it. "  

Why can't I ask the question?

Mick, obviously you can ask any question you want. You in fact did. In all liklyhood you won’t get an answer . I certainly don’t have one.  Also please note it’s not me or anyone on this board who claimed racism at Stanford.  It was the President of the University who spends a lot more time on Campus and is on position to know.  I don’t spend much time on campus and did not know racism was so present that it was necessary to hire 20 professionals and put everyone through sensitivity training or I would not have been making my regular small donations to the school .( it would have survived without them , I’m pretty sure).  I’m hoping this gets cleaned up so i can renew my support.

I agree with Pete F when he observes that it is beside the point ; we don’t have any reason to know that the racism discovery had anything to do with ending the 11 sports. I only raised it to suggest that the University has many demands for its resources, some of which are more important than others. Any good leader, not just Muir , who is drawing on University funds (“deficit?”) has the obligation to weed out expenditures that are not productive. We can disagree with the decision; I was just trying to make the point that there is no free money and that if one area is in deficit some other area will be short changed.

BTW, whoever is in charge of the new profs and the sensitivity training has the duty to make sure those funds are spent effectively or else curtailed. So does everyone else in charge of a budget at Stanford. Based on his actions, Muir understands this and I applaud him for it. I hope he is not alone in being willing to make hard decisions; decisions that save money rather than use it.

Sorry if my point was poorly made or if i came across as trying to tell you what questions you can ask.  I was just trying to suggest that getting hard data to support decisions in academia is usually a fruitless task, akin to tilting at windmills .  But each of us can do so.