[CTcard]

I find this idea that provosts are obscure characters to be odd. Of the names on the list in Yvonne's link, the only two unfamiliar to me are Douglas Whitaker, who left the job just a year after I was born, and James N. Rosse. (I must have been asleep that decade.) Seriously -- have you never heard of John Etchemendy, the current provost?

I guess I should clarify.

I didn't mean to imply that Provost's are obscure characters. They are certainly not obscure to faculty members (as the go to person to ask for anything), and are not obscure to folks who care about the operations of the university at a high/broad level - which tends to include alumni (and Daily writers?).

At this point I know most of the names on the Stanford provost list, though to be sure many of them I know for other reasons (several became president, I believe Hastorf was involved in founding Hum Bio as Psych Dept Head).

However, as an undergraduate student I never really though about the Provost - certainly not enough to decide whether I liked the Provost or not. They were not figure heads who tended to make public appearances and glad-hand with students (at least Hastorf and Rosse were not), they didn't appear to make decisions that affected undergrads (not true but I didn't know), and were just not discussed among students I knew.

As a graduate student that started to change. As an alum that changed moreso. I have always suspected the change was my perspective associated with my own role and relationship to Stanford. Of course it could also depend upon the personalities of presidents and provosts and particular issues that arise.  It's also possible that I was particularly unaware as an undergrad.

[CTcard]

I find this idea that provosts are obscure characters to be odd. Of the names on the list in Yvonne's link, the only two unfamiliar to me are Douglas Whitaker, who left the job just a year after I was born, and James N. Rosse. (I must have been asleep that decade.) Seriously -- have you never heard of John Etchemendy, the current provost?

I guess I should clarify.

I didn't mean to imply that Provost's are obscure characters. They are certainly not obscure to faculty members (as the go to person to ask for anything), and are not obscure to folks who care about the operations of the university at a high/broad level - which tends to include alumni (and Daily writers?).

At this point I know most of the names on the Stanford provost list, though to be sure many of them I know for other reasons (several became president, I believe Hastorf was involved in founding Hum Bio as Psych Dept Head).

However, as an undergraduate student I never really though about the Provost - certainly not enough to decide whether I liked the Provost or not. They were not figure heads who tended to make public appearances and glad-hand with students (at least Hastorf and Rosse were not), they didn't appear to make decisions that affected undergrads (not true but I didn't know), and were just not discussed among students I knew.

As a graduate student that started to change. As an alum that changed moreso. I have always suspected the change was my perspective associated with my own role and relationship to Stanford. Of course it could also depend upon the personalities of presidents and provosts and particular issues that arise.  It's also possible that I was particularly unaware as an undergrad.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12253.msg120687#msg120687 date=1434394372]
I wouldn't say you have to go out of your way to notice who the provost is; I remember that Bill Miller, a professor from the Computer Science Department, had the job when I was a student in the early 1970s. Fred Terman, I believe, was very well-known when he was provost from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s; and I'm certain Richard Lyman was well-known during his years as provost. (He was the one who called the cops to put down anti-war demonstrations.)

Anybody who was paying attention to Stanford at all in the early 1990s. She was the first Stanford provost to be black or female, and she was the youngest in University history. She came in during a financial pinch that required something on the order of $25 million in budget cuts; she made them, and took the campus heat (including a hunger strike by students when she cut some offices and jobs related to affirmitive action stuff), often playing the bad cop to Casper's good one.

The affirmitive action cuts were a prelude to other extremely contentious episodes involving what might broadly be called ethnic-minority affairs at Stanford, famously including a meeting with the Black Students Union at which Rice snapped that she didn't need anybody lecturing her on how to be black. As several others here have noted, Rice was a controversial figure on campus long before she joined the Bush White House.

By the way, those of you who are Casper-haters should know she was one of the big cheeses on the search committee that selected Casper.

I was a freshman during the hunger strike and knew those involved personally having lived in Casa Zapata that year and being well connected with others in the Mexican-American community. Here is a decent review of events:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/23/...er-strike/

I was at the strikes, but did not participate because I honestly did not understand the need nor the anger. So many said her name, "Condi", with such a distinct flavor that I would have thought it meant something repulsive if I did not know it was name. I also recall that there was idea to combine the various ethnic centers into one building which while more cost effective was not popular at all with those who maintained the ethnic centers.

This response was primarily by students trying to save the perceived voice they had with administration in Cecilia Burciaga, RA of Casa Zapata, who was being laid off from her position as assistant dean of student affairs. There was also a call to create a Chicano Studies and an Asian-America program since many felt students in these groups were being marginalized and not understood on campus given their background. I never felt like either was necessary (first generation American fyi who never felt out of place at Stanford) but others believed it to be true or were made to believe it was true. Burciaga had been there for 20 years, so she had become a fixture within the Stanford Chicano community having helped several students personally. Many students she helped felt out of place and she encouraged them to stay the course. She encouraged me to start the Mariachi program on campus and even stated publicly at the first community meeting of the year that I would bring Mexican folklore music to the campus...no pressure at all! While I liked the Burciagas personally, I just saw the move by the university as a necessary one given the budget constraints and that others would rise up to fill any void. Others did.

So much of the activism on campuses are due to professors or others in positions of power with relatively radical or extreme views who are able to incite intelligent, yet very impressionable minds. Is it really education at that point when all ideas are not presented to our youth for them to decide the best choice within their understanding or is it simply indoctrination so that any other choice is to be dismissed or destroyed before it even has a chance to become viable? I remember asking questions and then being skewered for simply asking them. Not my cup of tea if you cannot explain why or what goes into the cup convincingly...just my opinions without intention to offend.
[/quote]

Thank you for sharing your personal experience and perspective.  It is much appreciated.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12253.msg120687#msg120687 date=1434394372]
I wouldn't say you have to go out of your way to notice who the provost is; I remember that Bill Miller, a professor from the Computer Science Department, had the job when I was a student in the early 1970s. Fred Terman, I believe, was very well-known when he was provost from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s; and I'm certain Richard Lyman was well-known during his years as provost. (He was the one who called the cops to put down anti-war demonstrations.)

Anybody who was paying attention to Stanford at all in the early 1990s. She was the first Stanford provost to be black or female, and she was the youngest in University history. She came in during a financial pinch that required something on the order of $25 million in budget cuts; she made them, and took the campus heat (including a hunger strike by students when she cut some offices and jobs related to affirmitive action stuff), often playing the bad cop to Casper's good one.

The affirmitive action cuts were a prelude to other extremely contentious episodes involving what might broadly be called ethnic-minority affairs at Stanford, famously including a meeting with the Black Students Union at which Rice snapped that she didn't need anybody lecturing her on how to be black. As several others here have noted, Rice was a controversial figure on campus long before she joined the Bush White House.

By the way, those of you who are Casper-haters should know she was one of the big cheeses on the search committee that selected Casper.

I was a freshman during the hunger strike and knew those involved personally having lived in Casa Zapata that year and being well connected with others in the Mexican-American community. Here is a decent review of events:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/23/...er-strike/

I was at the strikes, but did not participate because I honestly did not understand the need nor the anger. So many said her name, "Condi", with such a distinct flavor that I would have thought it meant something repulsive if I did not know it was name. I also recall that there was idea to combine the various ethnic centers into one building which while more cost effective was not popular at all with those who maintained the ethnic centers.

This response was primarily by students trying to save the perceived voice they had with administration in Cecilia Burciaga, RA of Casa Zapata, who was being laid off from her position as assistant dean of student affairs. There was also a call to create a Chicano Studies and an Asian-America program since many felt students in these groups were being marginalized and not understood on campus given their background. I never felt like either was necessary (first generation American fyi who never felt out of place at Stanford) but others believed it to be true or were made to believe it was true. Burciaga had been there for 20 years, so she had become a fixture within the Stanford Chicano community having helped several students personally. Many students she helped felt out of place and she encouraged them to stay the course. She encouraged me to start the Mariachi program on campus and even stated publicly at the first community meeting of the year that I would bring Mexican folklore music to the campus...no pressure at all! While I liked the Burciagas personally, I just saw the move by the university as a necessary one given the budget constraints and that others would rise up to fill any void. Others did.

So much of the activism on campuses are due to professors or others in positions of power with relatively radical or extreme views who are able to incite intelligent, yet very impressionable minds. Is it really education at that point when all ideas are not presented to our youth for them to decide the best choice within their understanding or is it simply indoctrination so that any other choice is to be dismissed or destroyed before it even has a chance to become viable? I remember asking questions and then being skewered for simply asking them. Not my cup of tea if you cannot explain why or what goes into the cup convincingly...just my opinions without intention to offend.
[/quote]

Thank you for sharing your personal experience and perspective.  It is much appreciated.

BC

[Mick]

...I definitely knew who the university President was at SCU, and had some interesting encounters with him.  Had no idea who the provost was.

[Mick]

...I definitely knew who the university President was at SCU, and had some interesting encounters with him.  Had no idea who the provost was.

[Rally]

I thank you, too, PrinceLightfoot.  Your post and the responses to it highlight one of the strengths of this forum.  Rarely are members attacked for stating an opinion.  There have been (ahem!) exceptions, but few.  I shared an article that discussed the Calif. drought and ascribed at least some blame to environmentalists.  My only personal comment was, "what do you think?"  That I was attacked by wackos didn't surprise me, but when several Stanford friends did I was shocked.  One asked, "how could you have graduated from Stanford and be this stupid.  Look outside.  It is NOT RAINING!"  This for asking, with no other comment, "what do you think?"  Here I think I would have gotten informed discussion of the article, not my question.

[Rally]

I thank you, too, PrinceLightfoot.  Your post and the responses to it highlight one of the strengths of this forum.  Rarely are members attacked for stating an opinion.  There have been (ahem!) exceptions, but few.  I shared an article that discussed the Calif. drought and ascribed at least some blame to environmentalists.  My only personal comment was, "what do you think?"  That I was attacked by wackos didn't surprise me, but when several Stanford friends did I was shocked.  One asked, "how could you have graduated from Stanford and be this stupid.  Look outside.  It is NOT RAINING!"  This for asking, with no other comment, "what do you think?"  Here I think I would have gotten informed discussion of the article, not my question.