[JustAnotherFan]

Let me say something controversial.  The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly.  We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.

Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent.  With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.

The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports.  The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.

Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors.  I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.

MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010.  The issue is that it is a very fringe sport.  Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team:  UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.

Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9.  Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball

Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

Excellent point. By the way, I'd be nervous if I were Stanford men's gymnastics. While they are the defending national champs, and they have won 6 titles, it is worth noting that there are only 16 schools in the nation that field a Division I team. Of those teams, Cal is the only other team in the Pacific time zone, and only Air Force is in the Mountain time zone.

---

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?

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

Interesting observation.  Evidence?  I have none either way, your comments indicates that you know that "Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution" and you also stated "racism that has infected Stanford."  Again, I ask you , can you cite evidence?

I didn't say racism has infected Stanford. That was someone else. Racism has always been a part of Stanford as it has been with nearly every college and university. 

But other universities have moved with regards to their inherently racist and classist admissions policies. Stanford could have been a leader, for example, in striking standardized tests in the admissions process. They haven't. Haven't even gone test optional (except during pandemic times I suppose). Yet over 1000 other colleges have. 

Also, the Hoover Institute. Heather MacDonald for goodness sake. If cancel culture ever needed to hit someone it is her.

Just two examples. Stanford might send out a nicely worded email from Deans and the President about how they believe Black Lives Matter but it seems they have as much eagerness to actually combat their own racism as Princeton does (and Princeton does not). Just my two cents. To be fair, no university is actually anti-racist. So Stanford is just worse in degrees of apathy or inaction. I would love for Stanford to prove me wrong some day.

[JustAnotherFan]

Let me say something controversial.  The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly.  We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.

Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent.  With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.

The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports.  The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.

Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors.  I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.

MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010.  The issue is that it is a very fringe sport.  Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team:  UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.

Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9.  Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball

Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

Excellent point. By the way, I'd be nervous if I were Stanford men's gymnastics. While they are the defending national champs, and they have won 6 titles, it is worth noting that there are only 16 schools in the nation that field a Division I team. Of those teams, Cal is the only other team in the Pacific time zone, and only Air Force is in the Mountain time zone.

---

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?

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

Interesting observation.  Evidence?  I have none either way, your comments indicates that you know that "Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution" and you also stated "racism that has infected Stanford."  Again, I ask you , can you cite evidence?

I didn't say racism has infected Stanford. That was someone else. Racism has always been a part of Stanford as it has been with nearly every college and university. 

But other universities have moved with regards to their inherently racist and classist admissions policies. Stanford could have been a leader, for example, in striking standardized tests in the admissions process. They haven't. Haven't even gone test optional (except during pandemic times I suppose). Yet over 1000 other colleges have. 

Also, the Hoover Institute. Heather MacDonald for goodness sake. If cancel culture ever needed to hit someone it is her.

Just two examples. Stanford might send out a nicely worded email from Deans and the President about how they believe Black Lives Matter but it seems they have as much eagerness to actually combat their own racism as Princeton does (and Princeton does not). Just my two cents. To be fair, no university is actually anti-racist. So Stanford is just worse in degrees of apathy or inaction. I would love for Stanford to prove me wrong some day.