Stanford hates fun - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford hates fun (/thread-23672.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford hates fun (/thread-23672.html)
RE: Stanford hates fun - Snorlax94 - 11-08-2022
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drell-should-resign-as-stanfords-provost-b1d1c083ea18
So this former student is arguing the provost took retribution on him by giving him a draw number of 999.
While I suppose it is possible the provost stops by the software engineering department late at night, giving secret instructions to override the software and all safeguards, to manually switch this guy’s housing draw number, then brings in an elite team of former NSA agents to “clean” all traces of the conspiracy — including deleting all log files, all paper records of his real draw number, hiding all traces of the incursion, then keeping any possible whistle blowers silent, most likely by using the provost’s personal team of assassins who “take care of” talkers.
Another possibility is that this person really did draw #999 out of 999, which, with 7,000 students, will randomly happen 7 times a year, plus whenever the provost gives the secret order.
RE: Stanford hates fun - lex24 - 11-08-2022
(11-07-2022, 11:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The question wasn’t whether it was accurate or not, the question was whether the point could have been made without using a term with political connotations. The fact that you picked it up from Ben Agapito (alas, if that wasn’t sarcastic; I don’t follow him closely enough to know) or at least can associate it with him kind of makes my point, doesn’t it.
Given that someone else was put on time out for using the term, consider it friendly advice, if not a plea.
BC
I was in the dorms at Cal in ‘76 and ‘77. We had sponsored keg parties. Most of us were underage. Marijuana was freely smoked. Coed floors and bathrooms.
No one died. No reported assaults. (Don’t think there were any, but don’t know for certain, of course, hence “reported”).
My kids have graduated from college. When looking, one was interested in Pepperdine. Unbelievably gorgeous area. Good school. Not great, but solid. Strict alcohol policy. So kids generally went off campus to party. She went elsewhere (for other reasons). I was glad. As a parent, I’d much rather have them partying on campus than off. And if you think 18-22 years olds are going to go to college and not party, well…..
I get that a University has a enormous responsibility. Finding a middle ground between allowing Animal House and trying to be Carrie Nation University is not easy, I suspect. But doable for all those smart folks.
18 year olds can enlist. Be sent to war. But they can’t legally have a beer. Ridiculous. Campus should be a safe place on that score.
College is about learning - which is not just done in class. It’s also supposed to be fun. You want to increase mental health problems - dry up the fun. That’s another Covid lesson.
RE: Stanford hates fun - Spiny_Norman - 11-08-2022
I often quote Chef from South Park - "Children, there's a time and a place for everything. And it's called college."
RE: Stanford hates fun - dabigv13 - 11-08-2022
(11-08-2022, 12:56 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drell-should-resign-as-stanfords-provost-b1d1c083ea18
So this former student is arguing the provost took retribution on him by giving him a draw number of 999.
While I suppose it is possible the provost stops by the software engineering department late at night, giving secret instructions to override the software and all safeguards, to manually switch this guy’s housing draw number, then brings in an elite team of former NSA agents to “clean” all traces of the conspiracy — including deleting all log files, all paper records of his real draw number, hiding all traces of the incursion, then keeping any possible whistle blowers silent, most likely by using the provost’s personal team of assassins who “take care of” talkers.
Another possibility is that this person really did draw #999 out of 999, which, with 7,000 students, will randomly happen 7 times a year, plus whenever the provost gives the secret order.
Possible. But even if there was no shenanigans with the draw number, the rest of the linked document is still full of egregious Stanford admin behavior.
RE: Stanford hates fun - Goose - 11-08-2022
(11-08-2022, 07:51 AM)lex24 Wrote: I get that a University has a enormous responsibility. Finding a middle ground between allowing Animal House and trying to be Carrie Nation University is not easy, I suspect. But doable for all those smart folks.IMHO the problem isn't finding an appropriate "middle ground". The problem is that the US legal system can't cope with a "reasonable best efforts" attempt at anything. We often see lawsuits filed in cases where the respondent had actually made such an effort, but the jury judged it wasn't enough. This judgement is often based on ability to pay, not whether there was actually "negligence". Stanford has great ability to pay and they are not a sympathetic "defendant". The administration is petrified by their fear of lawsuits, so they do arguably more destructive things to ensure "they can't be sued". They are far from the only organization that behaves that way.
RE: Stanford hates fun - cctop - 11-08-2022
(11-08-2022, 12:56 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: Another possibility is that this person really did draw #999 out of 999, which, with 7,000 students, will randomly happen 7 times a year, plus whenever the provost gives the secret order.
Combining "Stanford hates fun" with the draw number accusation:
It's a shame that Stanford got rid of The Draw as an event where you physically picked your number out of a hat.
When I was there in the late 80's, the campus TV station broadcast The Draw live.
Some groups really made a big deal of it, dressing up in costumes and making offerings. Watching the group reactions was fun. It was early reality TV.
One nice thing about college campuses is that it only takes four years to make a tradition. The Draw was a good tradition.
And if the guy had actually picked his own number, there would be no basis for suspicion of the provost manipulating the result.
RE: Stanford hates fun - Mick - 11-08-2022
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drell-should-resign-as-stanfords-provost-b1d1c083ea18
About 15 years ago, a friend of mine was extorted by a grad student at SU using the University's e-mail system. My friend forwarded the exchange to Stanford's GC (Debra Zumwalt, if memory serves), mentioning that it was inadvisable to allow Stanford students to use the Stanford email system to commit felonies. They never got back to him, but he didn't get any more threats.
RE: Stanford hates fun - BostonCard - 11-08-2022
(11-08-2022, 10:37 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: Possible. But even if there was no shenanigans with the draw number, the rest of the linked document is still full of egregious Stanford admin alleged behavior.
Fixed it for you. We do only have one side of the story, which is worth remembering. But if any of it is remotely true (and I didn't see anything in there that was a red flag), then I agree it is egregious behavior.
BC
RE: Stanford hates fun - Genuine Realist - 11-10-2022
(11-08-2022, 08:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-08-2022, 10:37 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: Possible. But even if there was no shenanigans with the draw number, the rest of the linked document is still full of egregious Stanford admin alleged behavior.
Fixed it for you. We do only have one side of the story, which is worth remembering. But if any of it is remotely true (and I didn't see anything in there that was a red flag), then I agree it is egregious behavior.
BC
Who on God's green earth is named Persis Drell?
And yes, that is unrepentant nameism. But I stand by my bigotry.
RE: Stanford hates fun - skip75 - 11-10-2022
[/quote]
Who on God's green earth is named Persis Drell?
[/quote]
One of Archie Bell's back-up singers?
RE: Stanford hates fun - TonyLima - 11-10-2022
Who on God's green earth is named Persis Drell?
[/quote]
One of Archie Bell's back-up singers?
[/quote]
Was just thinking that!
RE: Stanford hates fun - BostonCard - 11-10-2022
(11-10-2022, 12:25 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Who on God's green earth is named Persis Drell?
And yes, that is unrepentant nameism. But I stand by my bigotry.
I know your question was in jest, but:
https://www.thebump.com/b/persis-baby-name
Quote:Persis is a feminine name of Greek origin. The name means "from Persia" and is widely used for little girls born into the Christian faith. In the Bible, Persis was lauded by Saint Paul for her hard work and religious devotion to Christ. With a distinctive name like Persis, baby will be inspired to celebrate their beliefs and work diligently to achieve their goals in life.
Strangely, her siblings are named... Joanna and Daniel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
BC
RE: Stanford hates fun - 82lsju - 11-18-2022
Quote:“Does Stanford hate fun?” reads the first question in a new FAQ published on the Student Affairs website.
“Of course not!” affirms the University.
In the first University-wide communication since The Daily published an investigation into the so-called “War on Fun” and Stanford’s mascot was suspended for protesting the lack of social life, Stanford acknowledged concerns about campus vibrancy and laid out a plan to rebuild social opportunities in a letter and associated FAQ Thursday.
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/18/stanford-claims-its-ready-to-combat-the-war-on-fun-students-are-unsure/?utm_content=Nov-18-2022%3Futm_campaign%3Ddigest&utm_content=Nov-18-2022
because nothing is more fun than reading a FAQ, see it here
https://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/social-life-faq
RE: Stanford hates fun - lex24 - 11-18-2022
(11-08-2022, 10:42 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-08-2022, 07:51 AM)lex24 Wrote: I get that a University has a enormous responsibility. Finding a middle ground between allowing Animal House and trying to be Carrie Nation University is not easy, I suspect. But doable for all those smart folks.IMHO the problem isn't finding an appropriate "middle ground". The problem is that the US legal system can't cope with a "reasonable best efforts" attempt at anything. We often see lawsuits filed in cases where the respondent had actually made such an effort, but the jury judged it wasn't enough. This judgement is often based on ability to pay, not whether there was actually "negligence". Stanford has great ability to pay and they are not a sympathetic "defendant". The administration is petrified by their fear of lawsuits, so they do arguably more destructive things to ensure "they can't be sued". They are far from the only organization that behaves that way.
No, it’s not based on ability to pay. Assuming there is a finding of negligence, its based on evidence of the plaintiffs damages. In a PI case , general and special. Medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering. Assets of defendants are not allowed to be put into evidence.
Now, as to who gets sued, “deep pockets” matter, of course. But in a negligence case there is no evidence presented on the defendants assets or insurance.
Punitive damages, different story. But punitves aren’t recoverable in a negligence case.
Stanford has unlimited resources to fight lawsuits. Certainly not “disadvantaged” on that score. I doubt very much Administration is “petrified” of lawsuits. If so, they should find other jobs.
RE: Stanford hates fun - 81alum - 11-18-2022
(11-18-2022, 08:35 AM)lex24 Wrote: Stanford has unlimited resources to fight lawsuits. Certainly not “disadvantaged” on that score. I doubt very much Administration is “petrified” of lawsuits. If so, they should find other jobs.I think it is much bigger than Stanford. Higher education over the last generation of time has become extremely fearful of litigation--often irrationally so. Many managers act in ways that they think will reduce liability even if the actual threat of a lawsuit is minimal. It is a financially conservative approach that now colors the thinking of most administrators most of the time--and is especially strong in student affairs divisions. I've witnessed this personally at several other universities. Paradoxically, the main problem is that the managers making these decisions are frequently NOT lawyers and so they misunderstand and often exaggerate the risks.
Example: For me to walk my class from my campus 4 blocks down the street to a downtown art museum now requires liability waivers signed by each student. The "Risk Management" team is now a ubiquitous feature at most universities and they promulgate these kinds of rules with no specialized understanding of students or faculty. They cut their teeth managing construction projects which needed copious amounts of liability insurance, hardhats, safety training, etc., and they apply that model to all aspects of university life.
RE: Stanford hates fun - Goose - 11-18-2022
(11-18-2022, 08:35 AM)lex24 Wrote:And of course the jury is completely unaware of the fact that Stanford's (or Monsanto's or Bayer's) assets are orders of magnitude greater than some "average person" making a negligence case against Stanford. Right!(11-08-2022, 10:42 AM)Goose Wrote:No, it’s not based on ability to pay. Assuming there is a finding of negligence, its based on evidence of the plaintiffs damages. In a PI case , general and special. Medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering. Assets of defendants are not allowed to be put into evidence.(11-08-2022, 07:51 AM)lex24 Wrote: I get that a University has a enormous responsibility. Finding a middle ground between allowing Animal House and trying to be Carrie Nation University is not easy, I suspect. But doable for all those smart folks.IMHO the problem isn't finding an appropriate "middle ground". The problem is that the US legal system can't cope with a "reasonable best efforts" attempt at anything. We often see lawsuits filed in cases where the respondent had actually made such an effort, but the jury judged it wasn't enough. This judgement is often based on ability to pay, not whether there was actually "negligence". Stanford has great ability to pay and they are not a sympathetic "defendant". The administration is petrified by their fear of lawsuits, so they do arguably more destructive things to ensure "they can't be sued". They are far from the only organization that behaves that way.
Quote:Stanford has unlimited resources to fight lawsuits. Certainly not “disadvantaged” on that score. I doubt very much Administration is “petrified” of lawsuits. If so, they should find other jobs.The unlimited resources matter not a wit if 12 regular citizens decide that Stanford "did wrong", and that decision isn't necessarily based on any objective facts, but rather the juries sympathy for the plaintiffs. The loss function isn't just the probability of losing, it is the product of the probability of losing times the size of the award. Pain and suffering awards can be quite large, as I am sure you know. You can win 9 out of 10 similar cases and still lose big financially.
No institution wants to take that risk, and if put in such a situation will often settle cases that may have little real merit but plenty of sympathy risk. It consumes less of the "unlimited resources" than fighting the case will, without the large downside risk. Not much you can do in those types of cases, so yes, the administration does justifiably fear them. This fear is compounded by the bad public relations that often accompanies such lawsuits. This is often helped along by the plaintiff's representatives. On top of that, when one such case is decided for the plaintiff with a "large" award, the number of copycat cases will often explode because others see a higher likelihood of prevailing or getting a settlement. It is a "lose-lose" proposition for Stanford, so doing everything possible to avoid such cases may be viewed as quite reasonable.
RE: Stanford hates fun - lex24 - 11-18-2022
(11-18-2022, 12:24 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-18-2022, 08:35 AM)lex24 Wrote:And of course the jury is completely unaware of the fact that Stanford's (or Monsanto's or Bayer's) assets are orders of magnitude greater than some "average person" making a negligence case against Stanford. Right!(11-08-2022, 10:42 AM)Goose Wrote:No, it’s not based on ability to pay. Assuming there is a finding of negligence, its based on evidence of the plaintiffs damages. In a PI case , general and special. Medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering. Assets of defendants are not allowed to be put into evidence.(11-08-2022, 07:51 AM)lex24 Wrote: I get that a University has a enormous responsibility. Finding a middle ground between allowing Animal House and trying to be Carrie Nation University is not easy, I suspect. But doable for all those smart folks.IMHO the problem isn't finding an appropriate "middle ground". The problem is that the US legal system can't cope with a "reasonable best efforts" attempt at anything. We often see lawsuits filed in cases where the respondent had actually made such an effort, but the jury judged it wasn't enough. This judgement is often based on ability to pay, not whether there was actually "negligence". Stanford has great ability to pay and they are not a sympathetic "defendant". The administration is petrified by their fear of lawsuits, so they do arguably more destructive things to ensure "they can't be sued". They are far from the only organization that behaves that way.
Quote:Stanford has unlimited resources to fight lawsuits. Certainly not “disadvantaged” on that score. I doubt very much Administration is “petrified” of lawsuits. If so, they should find other jobs.The unlimited resources matter not a wit if 12 regular citizens decide that Stanford "did wrong", and that decision isn't necessarily based on any objective facts, but rather the juries sympathy for the plaintiffs. The loss function isn't just the probability of losing, it is the product of the probability of losing times the size of the award. Pain and suffering awards can be quite large, as I am sure you know. You can win 9 out of 10 similar cases and still lose big financially.
No institution wants to take that risk, and if put in such a situation will often settle cases that may have little real merit but plenty of sympathy risk. It consumes less of the "unlimited resources" than fighting the case will, without the large downside risk. Not much you can do in those types of cases, so yes, the administration does justifiably fear them. This fear is compounded by the bad public relations that often accompanies such lawsuits. This is often helped along by the plaintiff's representatives. On top of that, when one such case is decided for the plaintiff with a "large" award, the number of copycat cases will often explode because others see a higher likelihood of prevailing or getting a settlement. It is a "lose-lose" proposition for Stanford, so doing everything possible to avoid such cases may be viewed as quite reasonable.
Stanford is not Monsanto. It’s a highly respected University. Santa Clara County is a nice place for it to have cases heard.
Obviously there has to be policies and procedures that are reasonable. But that includes the realization that College students are not going to sit in their rooms studying 12 hours a day.
Sorry, but given Stanfords resources and standing in the community I don’t view them as the underdog in any litigation…. Far from it.
RE: Stanford hates fun - Phogge - 11-18-2022
In the Social Network the Winkelvi get an audience with the college president. He is the epitome of smug. The kind of guy who got smoked a ton in youth. Now he's making up for it. Not that the Winklevi are paragons. It's a movie about smugness.
May be the same problem in your ivory tower.
RE: Stanford hates fun - BostonCard - 11-18-2022
(11-18-2022, 06:28 PM)Phogge Wrote: Not that the Winklevi are paragons. It's a movie about smugness.
No, they are not, and we can now merge this thread with the FTX thread:
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/17/crypto-dominoes-ftx-collapse-winklevoss-gemini-blockfi
Quote:The latest: On Wednesday, the crisis touched a high-profile crypto lender run by the billionaire twins Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, forcing them to halt withdrawals from their Gemini Earn crypto lending program.
Who could have possibly predicted that a pair of a-holes who were offering 8% returns "will not be able to meet customer redemptions" when people ask for their money back.
BC
RE: Stanford hates fun - Phogge - 11-18-2022
Row, row, row your boat rapidly away.