[BostonCard]

On trees:
Burlingame High School was on lockdown last week because of the threat of trees.  Nobody was hurt, thankfully.

Driving south on El Camino, there is a black pick-up truck (yours, jacketree?) that was totaled because a tree fell on it.

Two sections of our fence were blown clean into the neighbors yard.

We had a tremendous storm last week after a generational wet season that left the ground saturated.  In some ways, I'm surprised that there weren't more injuries and damage.  A death due to the storm is tragic, but I think we would have a hard time ascribing that to any institution's negligence.  I certainly wasn't thinking that BHS would have been negligent had any damage or injury occurred from the storms' impact on BHS' trees.

BC

---

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.

This isn't about politics. This is about abhorrent behavior toward an invited guest. Steinbach should have been fired immediately, the students should have faced disciplinary actions, and the dean's/president's apology should have been much more forceful about the University's support for free speech and civil discourse (see University of Chicago for how it's done).

Like I said, this was the last straw. There's a long list.

It's weird that in the very same thread, some people decry the lack of due process to the fraternities and Katie Meyer (though I am struggling to see where Meyer wasn't given due process, since as best I can tell, she was just given a notification that there was a hearing, and the "process", due or not, had just barely begun), while other people are demanding the immediate dismissal of a faculty member, and calling for students to face disciplinary action (hopefully with due process, right)?

How often are we demanding justice and due process for ourselves, people like us, and people we agree with, while denying it to others, especially people we disagree with?

A logically consistent thread (and I am cognizant that we are talking about different people here) would demand that the people involved be accorded due process:

• disciplinary actions be taken according to established rules and procedures
  
• that those accused have the right to a defense, including representation
  
• that those accused know what they are accused of
  
• that those accused have a right to confront their accusers
  
• that those accused have a right to examine the evidence against them and be able to present exculpatory evidence
  
• that the accused have a right to a fair trial
  
• that all these protections be applied fairly, regardless of who the accused is or what they believe in
  

The principles should apply to student discipline, to fraternities, to faculty members, and even to the University President (who, I believe, in another thread, a substantial number of people have suggested should be relieved of his duties)

BC

[BostonCard]

On trees:
Burlingame High School was on lockdown last week because of the threat of trees.  Nobody was hurt, thankfully.

Driving south on El Camino, there is a black pick-up truck (yours, jacketree?) that was totaled because a tree fell on it.

Two sections of our fence were blown clean into the neighbors yard.

We had a tremendous storm last week after a generational wet season that left the ground saturated.  In some ways, I'm surprised that there weren't more injuries and damage.  A death due to the storm is tragic, but I think we would have a hard time ascribing that to any institution's negligence.  I certainly wasn't thinking that BHS would have been negligent had any damage or injury occurred from the storms' impact on BHS' trees.

BC

---

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.

This isn't about politics. This is about abhorrent behavior toward an invited guest. Steinbach should have been fired immediately, the students should have faced disciplinary actions, and the dean's/president's apology should have been much more forceful about the University's support for free speech and civil discourse (see University of Chicago for how it's done).

Like I said, this was the last straw. There's a long list.

It's weird that in the very same thread, some people decry the lack of due process to the fraternities and Katie Meyer (though I am struggling to see where Meyer wasn't given due process, since as best I can tell, she was just given a notification that there was a hearing, and the "process", due or not, had just barely begun), while other people are demanding the immediate dismissal of a faculty member, and calling for students to face disciplinary action (hopefully with due process, right)?

How often are we demanding justice and due process for ourselves, people like us, and people we agree with, while denying it to others, especially people we disagree with?

A logically consistent thread (and I am cognizant that we are talking about different people here) would demand that the people involved be accorded due process:

• disciplinary actions be taken according to established rules and procedures
  
• that those accused have the right to a defense, including representation
  
• that those accused know what they are accused of
  
• that those accused have a right to confront their accusers
  
• that those accused have a right to examine the evidence against them and be able to present exculpatory evidence
  
• that the accused have a right to a fair trial
  
• that all these protections be applied fairly, regardless of who the accused is or what they believe in
  

The principles should apply to student discipline, to fraternities, to faculty members, and even to the University President (who, I believe, in another thread, a substantial number of people have suggested should be relieved of his duties)

BC