Stanford's 990 for 2019 - 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's 990 for 2019 (/thread-22134.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's 990 for 2019 (/thread-22134.html)
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 10-27-2021
(10-27-2021, 11:06 PM)teejers1 Wrote: My Translation: Stanford's attempt at a "meaningful response" to the DoF ("Death of Floyd").
Maybe, but I don't think so. First off, I don't think it would have made a meaningful difference. Student athletes made up 12% of the undergraduate student population; I think the cuts would have brought that down to like 9%. So we are only talking about 3% of the undergraduate population, and it's not like 100% of the students in the cut sports were white or that they would be replaced 100% by minorities. Thus, you are talking about a difference of maybe 1% in the minority population, probably less than that. Secondly, I think the "re-balancing" is broader than a re-balancing of the racial make-up of the class. I think it spoke to the administration's view of the relative priorities for Stanford. MTL and PD simply don't care as much about Stanford being good at sports than did the two John's. Lastly, the announcement of the cuts happened on July 8, 2020, a mere six weeks after George Floyd was killed. It probably took that long just to get the language on the press release approved. The decision was probably made months before Floyd was killed, the proposal probably way before COVID-19, and the first discussions probably happened a year or two into the Tressider-Levign/Drell tenure (Drell ascended to Provost in 2017), so I am guessing the imagined conversation probably happened in 2018.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 10-28-2021
(10-27-2021, 11:35 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-27-2021, 11:06 PM)teejers1 Wrote: My Translation: Stanford's attempt at a "meaningful response" to the DoF ("Death of Floyd").
Maybe, but I don't think so. First off, I don't think it would have made a meaningful difference. Student athletes made up 12% of the undergraduate student population; I think the cuts would have brought that down to like 9%. So we are only talking about 3% of the undergraduate population, and it's not like 100% of the students in the cut sports were white or that they would be replaced 100% by minorities. Thus, you are talking about a difference of maybe 1% in the minority population, probably less than that. Secondly, I think the "re-balancing" is broader than a re-balancing of the racial make-up of the class. I think it spoke to the administration's view of the relative priorities for Stanford. MTL and PD simply don't care as much about Stanford being good at sports than did the two John's. Lastly, the announcement of the cuts happened on July 8, 2020, a mere six weeks after George Floyd was killed. It probably took that long just to get the language on the press release approved. The decision was probably made months before Floyd was killed, the proposal probably way before COVID-19, and the first discussions probably happened a year or two into the Tressider-Levign/Drell tenure (Drell ascended to Provost in 2017), so I am guessing the imagined conversation probably happened in 2018.
BC
We can agree to disagree. And whether you think the proposal was an idea prior to DoF or not, I think the timing can easily support the notion that the Floyd homicide was what spurred Stanford to act to reduce number of well-heeled suburban Whites and Asians participating in these country club-ish sports in favor of less-well-heeled "underrepresented" communities. (Though I agree it wouldn't be a 1:1 replacement of groups - there would be some variations from "the purpose of the reshuffle").
And a 200+ kid reshuffle is not insignificant. Certainly not for those affected (or those who would have been affected).
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - 82lsju - 10-28-2021
(10-28-2021, 02:51 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-27-2021, 11:35 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-27-2021, 11:06 PM)teejers1 Wrote: My Translation: Stanford's attempt at a "meaningful response" to the DoF ("Death of Floyd").
Maybe, but I don't think so. First off, I don't think it would have made a meaningful difference. Student athletes made up 12% of the undergraduate student population; I think the cuts would have brought that down to like 9%. So we are only talking about 3% of the undergraduate population, and it's not like 100% of the students in the cut sports were white or that they would be replaced 100% by minorities. Thus, you are talking about a difference of maybe 1% in the minority population, probably less than that. Secondly, I think the "re-balancing" is broader than a re-balancing of the racial make-up of the class. I think it spoke to the administration's view of the relative priorities for Stanford. MTL and PD simply don't care as much about Stanford being good at sports than did the two John's. Lastly, the announcement of the cuts happened on July 8, 2020, a mere six weeks after George Floyd was killed. It probably took that long just to get the language on the press release approved. The decision was probably made months before Floyd was killed, the proposal probably way before COVID-19, and the first discussions probably happened a year or two into the Tressider-Levign/Drell tenure (Drell ascended to Provost in 2017), so I am guessing the imagined conversation probably happened in 2018.
BC
We can agree to disagree. And whether you think the proposal was an idea prior to DoF or not, I think the timing can easily support the notion that the Floyd homicide was what spurred Stanford to act to reduce number of well-heeled suburban Whites and Asians participating in these country club-ish sports in favor of less-well-heeled "underrepresented" communities. (Though I agree it wouldn't be a 1:1 replacement of groups - there would be some variations from "the purpose of the reshuffle").
And a 200+ kid reshuffle is not insignificant. Certainly not for those affected (or those who would have been affected).
I would also expect the date of the announced cuts (July 8) was picked well in advance, and I suspect they picked a week in the summer so there would be fewer students paying close attention as classes were not in session, and picking the week of the 4th of July Holiday when many might have other events going on, I'm a little surprised it was not announced on Friday July 9 to try and minimize coverage
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - 2006alum - 10-28-2021
I'd have to imagine varsity blues played a role too, given the sports involved in both the scandal and the cuts...
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 10-28-2021
(10-28-2021, 08:26 AM)2006alum Wrote: I'd have to imagine varsity blues played a role too, given the sports involved in both the scandal and the cuts...
I think it played a large role.
BC
(10-28-2021, 02:51 AM)teejers1 Wrote: We can agree to disagree. And whether you think the proposal was an idea prior to DoF or not, I think the timing can easily support the notion that the Floyd homicide was what spurred Stanford to act to reduce number of well-heeled suburban Whites and Asians participating in these country club-ish sports in favor of less-well-heeled "underrepresented" communities. (Though I agree it wouldn't be a 1:1 replacement of groups - there would be some variations from "the purpose of the reshuffle").
And a 200+ kid reshuffle is not insignificant. Certainly not for those affected (or those who would have been affected).
I am very surprised that you think a bureaucratic organization, especially one like Stanford, could possibly be so nimble as to make a multi-million dollar decision in six weeks. To be fair, the idea did seem very half-baked, as subsequent events demonstrated, but still, I have never thought of Stanford as a quick decision maker.
BC