Larry Scott has Covid - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Larry Scott has Covid (/thread-20058.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Larry Scott has Covid (/thread-20058.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Larry Scott has Covid - teejers1 - 07-13-2020
(07-12-2020, 04:42 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Mick, your yardstick for diversity is misplaced. The student body racial demographic alone is not the only metric for diversity, and if that's all you can see, again, we're done here. Furthermore, I don't think the remaining 20+ sports that were retained pass your "fewer than 32% white athletes" standard, by which maybe you think that Stanford should drop the whole athletic department. I'm not holding Stanford to that logic, and neither should you.
And as mentioned, there were ten factors given in total. There's no reason to decide the ninth factor listed out of ten is some secretly overriding element. This is not a virtue signalling play from Stanford, and even if it was, it's wrong-headed because some of those programs are diverse relative to the sports themselves nationally -- and that's important. Stanford is a standard-bearer for women's sports, and it is generally considered a leader in athletic and academic excellence. High school BIPOC athletes come to Stanford to get away from the staid east coast culture; Stanford is on the west coast and progressive. We should be the place where minority athletes come to study and compete.
But anyway, I don't think you particularly care for the sports eliminated, right? In which case, why does it matter to you why the sports were cut?
Once again, the relatively shrill responses here to anyone offering an un-PC opinion is interesting.
Look, I take Stanford's cuts at face value, with the decisions being made per some balancing of the factors mentioned in the FAQs. But having said that, I believe Mick's speculation about it being a way to increase diversity on Stanford's campus is a plausible theory, given (i) the current heightened BLM environment we're in, (ii) President T-L's statement that Stanford has to do better on addressing racial inequities on campus, and (iii) the demographics of the sports being eliminated.
Why are you so adamantly opposed to even entertaining Mick's possible explanation of why those sports were axed?
RE: Larry Scott has Covid - needle - 07-13-2020
(07-13-2020, 12:10 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(07-12-2020, 04:42 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Mick, your yardstick for diversity is misplaced. The student body racial demographic alone is not the only metric for diversity, and if that's all you can see, again, we're done here. Furthermore, I don't think the remaining 20+ sports that were retained pass your "fewer than 32% white athletes" standard, by which maybe you think that Stanford should drop the whole athletic department. I'm not holding Stanford to that logic, and neither should you.
And as mentioned, there were ten factors given in total. There's no reason to decide the ninth factor listed out of ten is some secretly overriding element. This is not a virtue signalling play from Stanford, and even if it was, it's wrong-headed because some of those programs are diverse relative to the sports themselves nationally -- and that's important. Stanford is a standard-bearer for women's sports, and it is generally considered a leader in athletic and academic excellence. High school BIPOC athletes come to Stanford to get away from the staid east coast culture; Stanford is on the west coast and progressive. We should be the place where minority athletes come to study and compete.
But anyway, I don't think you particularly care for the sports eliminated, right? In which case, why does it matter to you why the sports were cut?
Once again, the relatively shrill responses here to anyone offering an un-PC opinion is interesting.
Look, I take Stanford's cuts at face value, with the decisions being made per some balancing of the factors mentioned in the FAQs. But having said that, I believe Mick's speculation about it being a way to increase diversity on Stanford's campus is a plausible theory, given (i) the current heightened BLM environment we're in, (ii) President T-L's statement that Stanford has to do better on addressing racial inequities on campus, and (iii) the demographics of the sports being eliminated.
Why are you so adamantly opposed to even entertaining Mick's possible explanation of why those sports were axed?
I feel like the larger point is that many feel like they aren't getting the full story about why these sports are being eliminated. One reason for this is that Stanford is not being fully transparent about revenue trends in DAPER.
We'll see over the next few months and possibly even years how big of a wound this will end up being for the university.
RE: Larry Scott has Covid - BostonCard - 07-13-2020
I'm belatedly noticing that it seems this thread has long since gone off into Terry rule territory. I'm not locking the thread (I don't do that), but I'm hoping we can redirect this towards Larry Scott having COVID and away from whether or not the cuts to the Stanford teams are due to diversity, which don't seem to be tied to COVID-19.
BC