[2006alum]

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.

[2006alum]

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.