Outside Topic "The War at Stanford" - 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: Outside Topic "The War at Stanford" (/thread-24871.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: Outside Topic "The War at Stanford" (/thread-24871.html)
"The War at Stanford" - qwerty49 - 03-28-2024
Theo Baker, whom many will remember as the young man whose investigative journalism uncovered the MTL fiasco last year, has written an article for The Atlantic about the extremely contentious activism on campus surrounding the Gaza situation. I didn't know that Theo's ancestry was Jewish, and that provides a very interesting perspective.
It's theoretically behind a paywall, but I was able to open it signing in with my Google account.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/stanford-israel-gaza-hamas/677864/
Mods, I know this is "political," but I am submitting this because I, most likely like many members of the external Stanford community, was not fully aware of the depth of the turmoil on campus, and the quandary that the administration finds itself in. I hope this does not morph into negativity. Feel free to delete if you feel otherwise.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - 82lsju - 03-28-2024
(03-28-2024, 01:32 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Theo Baker, whom many will remember as the young man whose investigative journalism uncovered the MTL fiasco last year, has written an article for The Atlantic about the extremely contentious activism on campus surrounding the Gaza situation. I didn't know that Theo's ancestry was Jewish, and that provides a very interesting perspective.
It's theoretically behind a paywall, but I was able to open it signing in with my Google account.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/stanford-israel-gaza-hamas/677864/
Mods, I know this is "political," but I am submitting this because I, most likely like many members of the external Stanford community, was not fully aware of the depth of the turmoil on campus, and the quandary that the administration finds itself in. I hope this does not morph into negativity. Feel free to delete if you feel otherwise.
also appears to be here
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/03/the-war-at-stanford.html
RE: "The War at Stanford" - qwerty49 - 03-28-2024
(03-28-2024, 01:46 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-28-2024, 01:32 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Theo Baker, whom many will remember as the young man whose investigative journalism uncovered the MTL fiasco last year, has written an article for The Atlantic about the extremely contentious activism on campus surrounding the Gaza situation. I didn't know that Theo's ancestry was Jewish, and that provides a very interesting perspective.
It's theoretically behind a paywall, but I was able to open it signing in with my Google account.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/stanford-israel-gaza-hamas/677864/
Mods, I know this is "political," but I am submitting this because I, most likely like many members of the external Stanford community, was not fully aware of the depth of the turmoil on campus, and the quandary that the administration finds itself in. I hope this does not morph into negativity. Feel free to delete if you feel otherwise.
also appears to be here
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/03/the-war-at-stanford.html
82, I didn't do a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison, but the article you linked seems to have truncated Theo's Atlantic article slightly. Here's the part the taxprof article left off at the end:
At January’s anti-anti-Semitism event, I watched an exchange between a Jewish attendee and a protester from a few feet away. “Are you pro-Palestine?” the protester asked.
“Yes,” the attendee responded, and he went on to describe his disgust with the human-rights abuses Palestinians have faced for years.
“But are you a Zionist?”
“Yes.”
“Then we are enemies.”
RE: "The War at Stanford" - GK3 - 03-28-2024
(03-28-2024, 01:52 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(03-28-2024, 01:46 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-28-2024, 01:32 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Theo Baker, whom many will remember as the young man whose investigative journalism uncovered the MTL fiasco last year, has written an article for The Atlantic about the extremely contentious activism on campus surrounding the Gaza situation. I didn't know that Theo's ancestry was Jewish, and that provides a very interesting perspective.
It's theoretically behind a paywall, but I was able to open it signing in with my Google account.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/stanford-israel-gaza-hamas/677864/
Mods, I know this is "political," but I am submitting this because I, most likely like many members of the external Stanford community, was not fully aware of the depth of the turmoil on campus, and the quandary that the administration finds itself in. I hope this does not morph into negativity. Feel free to delete if you feel otherwise.
also appears to be here
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/03/the-war-at-stanford.html
82, I didn't do a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison, but the article you linked seems to have truncated Theo's Atlantic article slightly. Here's the part the taxprof article left off at the end:
At January’s anti-anti-Semitism event, I watched an exchange between a Jewish attendee and a protester from a few feet away. “Are you pro-Palestine?” the protester asked.
“Yes,” the attendee responded, and he went on to describe his disgust with the human-rights abuses Palestinians have faced for years.
“But are you a Zionist?”
“Yes.”
“Then we are enemies.”
Neither side is blameless and neither side is willing to seek a solution that somehow works for both parties. So it seems for the visible future, this conflict is destined to continue. Until the various leaders are willing to reach an accommodation, the killing will not stop. It doesn't help that as a country, we don't take a stronger position on this. Enough said. At least the Ukrainians have a more honest cause.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - jacket3ree - 03-28-2024
Without wading into the conflict itself, how does a University police itself so everyone feels safe, if students can't exercise civility and self-control? Are students at Stanford and elsewhere really going to take up arms, or is it talk? Do they understand that other people might fight back physically too? I was in college a decade after the Vietnam era and divestment from South Africa was the thing in my day. That was really students v. trustees and it wasn't violent that I recall. Sashes at graduation. This is student on student. So sad that people fear for their own safety and some may be compelled to leave and find quieter campuses elsewhere to resume their studies.
Where do they all find time for this? I didn't even have time to sleep when I was in school, much less protest.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - TonyLima - 03-28-2024
G
(03-28-2024, 05:55 PM)GK3 Wrote:(03-28-2024, 01:52 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(03-28-2024, 01:46 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-28-2024, 01:32 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Theo Baker, whom many will remember as the young man whose investigative journalism uncovered the MTL fiasco last year, has written an article for The Atlantic about the extremely contentious activism on campus surrounding the Gaza situation. I didn't know that Theo's ancestry was Jewish, and that provides a very interesting perspective.
It's theoretically behind a paywall, but I was able to open it signing in with my Google account.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/stanford-israel-gaza-hamas/677864/
Mods, I know this is "political," but I am submitting this because I, most likely like many members of the external Stanford community, was not fully aware of the depth of the turmoil on campus, and the quandary that the administration finds itself in. I hope this does not morph into negativity. Feel free to delete if you feel otherwise.
also appears to be here
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/03/the-war-at-stanford.html
82, I didn't do a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison, but the article you linked seems to have truncated Theo's Atlantic article slightly. Here's the part the taxprof article left off at the end:
At January’s anti-anti-Semitism event, I watched an exchange between a Jewish attendee and a protester from a few feet away. “Are you pro-Palestine?” the protester asked.
“Yes,” the attendee responded, and he went on to describe his disgust with the human-rights abuses Palestinians have faced for years.
“But are you a Zionist?”
“Yes.”
“Then we are enemies.”
Neither side is blameless and neither side is willing to seek a solution that somehow works for both parties. So it seems for the visible future, this conflict is destined to continue. Until the various leaders are willing to reach an accommodation, the killing will not stop. It doesn't help that as a country, we don't take a stronger position on this. Enough said. At least the Ukrainians have a more honest cause.
Disagree. I’ll just leave it at that.
(03-28-2024, 06:09 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Without wading into the conflict itself, how does a University police itself so everyone feels safe, if students can't exercise civility and self-control? Are students at Stanford and elsewhere really going to take up arms, or is it talk? Do they understand that other people might fight back physically too? I was in college a decade after the Vietnam era and divestment from South Africa was the thing in my day. That was really students v. trustees and it wasn't violent that I recall. Sashes at graduation. This is student on student. So sad that people fear for their own safety and some may be compelled to leave and find quieter campuses elsewhere to resume their studies.
Where do they all find time for this? I didn't even have time to sleep when I was in school, much less protest.
You need to look at the current Stanford curriculum.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - Goose - 03-28-2024
(03-28-2024, 06:09 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Without wading into the conflict itself, how does a University police itself so everyone feels safe, if students can't exercise civility and self-control? Are students at Stanford and elsewhere really going to take up arms, or is it talk? Do they understand that other people might fight back physically too? I was in college a decade after the Vietnam era and divestment from South Africa was the thing in my day. That was really students v. trustees and it wasn't violent that I recall. Sashes at graduation. This is student on student. So sad that people fear for their own safety and some may be compelled to leave and find quieter campuses elsewhere to resume their studies.I was at Stanford during the Vietnam demonstrations/riots. In most cases this was students against the administration, but there was plenty of violence. It was also not a period of "free speech". If one didn't think shutting down the University was a good idea, it was very wise not to say so in the hearing of others. Those that doubt student on student violence is "just not going to happen" are at least historically mistaken. If you were looking for a "safe place" at Stanford, you weren't going to find it. The serious problems arise when the process of protest / counter-protest becomes an end in itself. The issues that ignited the protest no longer really matter.
Where do they all find time for this? I didn't even have time to sleep when I was in school, much less protest.
Students can easily find plenty of time to engage in socially acceptable "mass movements", especially in spring quarter. Unfortunately these activities often attract non-Stanford actors. Invited speakers often have an agenda that includes creating an "incident" if at all possible. People from the surrounding community (many of whom do actually have an opinion on the Gaza situation) find anonymity for forcefully expressing their views on the Stanford campus.
All that said, I don't think the Gaza issue is going to generate widespread involvement by Stanford students. While many of them "care", few of them intend to become personally involved in political protest/action on campus. That however can change, particularly if the administration does something that inflames tempers.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - GK3 - 03-29-2024
(03-28-2024, 08:19 PM)Goose Wrote:I believe you are correct Goose. There are lot things one can find repugnant about the the current conflict in the Middle East. But Americans aren't coming home in body bags. I missed out on the Vietnam Protests at Stanford, I was already there in person I drank a lot of glasses of Domino Theory Cool Aid.(03-28-2024, 06:09 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Without wading into the conflict itself, how does a University police itself so everyone feels safe, if students can't exercise civility and self-control? Are students at Stanford and elsewhere really going to take up arms, or is it talk? Do they understand that other people might fight back physically too? I was in college a decade after the Vietnam era and divestment from South Africa was the thing in my day. That was really students v. trustees and it wasn't violent that I recall. Sashes at graduation. This is student on student. So sad that people fear for their own safety and some may be compelled to leave and find quieter campuses elsewhere to resume their studies.I was at Stanford during the Vietnam demonstrations/riots. In most cases this was students against the administration, but there was plenty of violence. It was also not a period of "free speech". If one didn't think shutting down the University was a good idea, it was very wise not to say so in the hearing of others. Those that doubt student on student violence is "just not going to happen" are at least historically mistaken. If you were looking for a "safe place" at Stanford, you weren't going to find it. The serious problems arise when the process of protest / counter-protest becomes an end in itself. The issues that ignited the protest no longer really matter.
Where do they all find time for this? I didn't even have time to sleep when I was in school, much less protest.
Students can easily find plenty of time to engage in socially acceptable "mass movements", especially in spring quarter. Unfortunately these activities often attract non-Stanford actors. Invited speakers often have an agenda that includes creating an "incident" if at all possible. People from the surrounding community (many of whom do actually have an opinion on the Gaza situation) find anonymity for forcefully expressing their views on the Stanford campus.
All that said, I don't think the Gaza issue is going to generate widespread involvement by Stanford students. While many of them "care", few of them intend to become personally involved in political protest/action on campus. That however can change, particularly if the administration does something that inflames tempers.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - fullmetal - 03-29-2024
I'm really disappointed that this article dragged Stanford into the whole mess. We should not be in the business of drawing more lines in the sand. No one came out of this looking better for it.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - qwerty49 - 03-29-2024
(03-28-2024, 08:19 PM)Goose Wrote:(03-28-2024, 06:09 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Without wading into the conflict itself, how does a University police itself so everyone feels safe, if students can't exercise civility and self-control? Are students at Stanford and elsewhere really going to take up arms, or is it talk? Do they understand that other people might fight back physically too? I was in college a decade after the Vietnam era and divestment from South Africa was the thing in my day. That was really students v. trustees and it wasn't violent that I recall. Sashes at graduation. This is student on student. So sad that people fear for their own safety and some may be compelled to leave and find quieter campuses elsewhere to resume their studies.I was at Stanford during the Vietnam demonstrations/riots. In most cases this was students against the administration, but there was plenty of violence. It was also not a period of "free speech". If one didn't think shutting down the University was a good idea, it was very wise not to say so in the hearing of others. Those that doubt student on student violence is "just not going to happen" are at least historically mistaken. If you were looking for a "safe place" at Stanford, you weren't going to find it. The serious problems arise when the process of protest / counter-protest becomes an end in itself. The issues that ignited the protest no longer really matter.
Where do they all find time for this? I didn't even have time to sleep when I was in school, much less protest.
Students can easily find plenty of time to engage in socially acceptable "mass movements", especially in spring quarter. Unfortunately these activities often attract non-Stanford actors. Invited speakers often have an agenda that includes creating an "incident" if at all possible. People from the surrounding community (many of whom do actually have an opinion on the Gaza situation) find anonymity for forcefully expressing their views on the Stanford campus.
All that said, I don't think the Gaza issue is going to generate widespread involvement by Stanford students. While many of them "care", few of them intend to become personally involved in political protest/action on campus. That however can change, particularly if the administration does something that inflames tempers.
I was on campus at the height of the VN turmoil, which was exacerbated by the RFK and MLK assassinations, and the general social tumult of the times. I had friends and relatives serving in-country, and friends throwing rocks at cops in White Plaza. I do think that our country is just about as polarized now as it was 55 years ago, which is a sobering thought.
I can remember when members of a certain frat grabbed David Harris and shaved his head. I can also remember when helicopters were buzzing Wilbur, Stern, and Branner and a few hundred folks lined up LSJUMB-style in the street to spell out an epithet for the searchlights scanning down (I was in the first "U" of that phrase).
But aside from the Harris incident, I don't remember personal insults or threats. It was more the whole boiling-cauldron vibe of the times that scared me.
Yes, there are some free speech principles in play, but what Theo describes in the article is concerning to me. Maybe that's just the way things have evolved in terms of behavior. And yes, the university's role is difficult to determine.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - Goose - 03-29-2024
(03-29-2024, 01:20 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I was on campus at the height of the VN turmoil, which was exacerbated by the RFK and MLK assassinations, and the general social tumult of the times. I had friends and relatives serving in-country, and friends throwing rocks at cops in White Plaza. I do think that our country is just about as polarized now as it was 55 years ago, which is a sobering thought.I can only assume you didn't have any ROTC students in your dorm. I was not one of them, but I had friends that were. It got to the point most of them wouldn't walk across campus by themselves. It would be at least groups of 2. Some actually left the University because they felt they could never be "safe" and because they felt they were definitely not wanted.
I can remember when members of a certain frat grabbed David Harris and shaved his head. I can also remember when helicopters were buzzing Wilbur, Stern, and Branner and a few hundred folks lined up LSJUMB-style in the street to spell out an epithet for the searchlights scanning down (I was in the first "U" of that phrase).
But aside from the Harris incident, I don't remember personal insults or threats.
Quote:It was more the whole boiling-cauldron vibe of the times that scared me.I know what you mean. I seldom felt literally "unsafe", but when you have students throwing rocks and armed police all over the place it is a recipe for things to happen that nobody intended. I did spend many nights in the Durand building trying to ensure that people throwing rocks wouldn't come in and trash the computers in that building. There were lots of places where it would be trivial to get in through broken windows. One night they sent exactly one San Jose police officer to "help" us. He had been on duty all day, hadn't eaten, and was told to expect "hordes" of students rushing the building. His radio wouldn't work with what the rest of the campus was using (or there were buildings in the way), so he couldn't call for help if he needed it. He was terrified. He was about our age. I could easily see him shooting somebody by mistake. We assured him we had good comms via CB and we seriously doubted we were going to be overwhelmed by "hordes" of students. Fortunately we weren't and at 0600 the SJ police bus came and got him.
During the whole period of "unrest", we only had one bad night where we did have serious numbers of students throwing rocks and trying to get into the building. Nobody got hurt and eventually the crowd moved on, but that wasn't a sure thing.
Quote:Yes, there are some free speech principles in play, but what Theo describes in the article is concerning to me. Maybe that's just the way things have evolved in terms of behavior. And yes, the university's role is difficult to determine.Agree that the university's role is a difficult one. IMO the underlying dynamic now is pretty much the same as it was back in the Vietnam era and in between. Young people often adopt causes passionately and are willing to do things that are not "socially acceptable" (or worse) to further their adopted cause. One might hope that strenuous advocacy would be the limit of what would be done, but history tells us different. I think the problems now are exacerbated by the instantaneous communication via multiple (often highly distorted) channels. Nothing just dies out because nobody knew about it. Every incident is spread widely, often with a little embellishment.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - BigJohn043 - 03-29-2024
(03-29-2024, 10:00 AM)fullmetal Wrote: I'm really disappointed that this article dragged Stanford into the whole mess. We should not be in the business of drawing more lines in the sand. No one came out of this looking better for it.
This guy seems like a really talented writer. And this is a compelling story. Proud that he is from Stanford.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - TrumpCard - 03-29-2024
Much of the article gets it right, but the title, "The War at Stanford" makes it seem like this is: (1) unique to Stanford; and (2) a two-way street. Neither is true. It happens wherever there are Palestinian student groups. Those groups instigate conflict by engaging in public protests against the existence of Israel and advocating for divestment of university endowments from Israel. Jewish students who respond that they have a right to exist are targeted. You will never see the reverse. There are no Jewish student organizations, Hillel chapters, or the like engaging in public protests in which they advocate against the existence of the Palestinian people.
Also, I don't really understand the comparison between the war in Israel and the war in Ukraine. Russia ostensibly attacked Ukraine for the purpose of occupying territory. Hamas attacked Israel for the purpose of killing Israeli civilians. There was no intention to take and hold territory. The invaders were under orders to kill and then get out. Some stayed a longer to rape.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - gailtate - 04-01-2024
I was in San Jose during the Vietnam Sixties. During the summers of 1968 and 1970 in the wake of the assassinations, invasion of Cambodia and the massacre at Kent State (not to mention campus closures sparked by the latter), the U.S of A. was far more polarized than it is today. Need I remind anyone that on the October morning of the USC/Stanford game attended by an SRO crowd of 90,000, there came a notification to then-president Lyman that a bomb had been hidden somewhere in Stanford Stadium and that it was announced pre-kickoff?
I have faith in the republic. Some of the denizens, not so much.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - StanFanFam13 - 04-01-2024
I didn't love this article, and I've spent some time wrestling with how much of that is some misplaced defensiveness on the part of my alma mater vs. actual, factual issues with its coverage and analysis. I won't pretend to be neutral here but will try to be reasonable in my criticisms.
I do give Theo Baker credit for what seems to be thorough and accurate reporting. We know from his reporting on MTL that he is an impressive and accomplished young journalist (helped, though not diminished, by being the child of two very accomplished journalists). I believe strongly that investigative journalism plays a vital role in society, and I am confident that he will go on to do important things.
I confess, though, to some frustration with his fixation on Stanford. I get it—that's his corner of the world, and it helps to report on what you know. But lately, it feels like after landing a book deal based on his MTL reporting, he is looking for his next big scandal and letting the cart drive the horse. In an October article for New York magazine, he worked hard to tie SBF (who was raised by Stanford professors but did not attend Stanford) to the University and to paint campus as a "fraud cluster," largely by repeating other people's observations about Elizabeth Homes and reaching to not only create parallels but to really implicate the school.
Now, he has secured another high profile byline by using Stanford campus as a lens through which to comment on the Israel-Hamas conflict and the polarized nature of campus culture in the U.S. As other commenters have observed, this is hardly unique to Palo Alto, but Baker tries hard to convince us that Stanford is uniquely worthy of discussion and analysis. He certainly seems to have done his homework here. I believe that he conducted the extensive interviews that he says he did, that he reported quotes faithfully, and that he represented the scenes he described as they happened.
I will note, however, that on a porous campus where outsiders often come to protest in White Plaza and where newsworthy incidents sometimes involve non-students, Baker seems either unable to verify or uninterested in verifying whether some of the more incendiary interactions he reports actually involve members of the Stanford community. Sure, it's fair to assume that a critical mass of participants in these protests/events are students, but he's not reporting quotes that represent the vast majority (i.e. pulled from a petition signed by a bunch of stanford.edu email addresses). He's going for shock value, quoting profanities and death threats in an article that invokes Stanford starting with its very title. And while his opening anecdote identifies by name a Stanford student saying some very troubling things, such attribution is noticeably absent or vague throughout the rest of the piece.
Second, while my anecdotal experience doesn't at all negate Baker's observations and reporting, I will add here that as a Palo Alto resident who spends significant time on Stanford's campus, I have not experienced it as a war zone. Of course I saw the tents. I walked past them multiple times a week on my way from the Tresidder parking lot to the Coupa Cafe outside of Green Library. While there have no doubt been flare-ups, I observed students sitting in their respective encampments, scrolling on phones, occasionally trying to engage passers-by, but being respectful when those people (myself included) chose not to engage with them. Like I said, Baker's reports of conflict are surely also accurate—both can be true! But he has written an article that, to me, painted campus as constantly warlike, which I found borderline misleading in its omissions.
Speaking of omissions, standard journalistic practice is for a writer to disclose at the earliest possible opportunity any personal affiliation that might either impact their reporting or create the perception of impacting their reporting. Theo Baker's Jewish identity surely falls into this category. He does address it—but waits until 75% of the way through the article, which feels irresponsible (though some fault lies with the editors who didn't more that paragraph higher in the story).
Finally, if I could ask Baker anything, it would be what he hoped to accomplish with this story. Perhaps the response is that, as a journalist, his job is to simply tell the truth of what he sees and experiences. That his job is simply to report out. That he is not in charge of what happens next. Of course, the result of his investigation into MTL is a case study in journalistic impact. He can't be insensible to it, but there is an argument to be made that he's not responsible for it.
That said, at the college level in particular (where resources are more scarce and there are a finite number of directions one can shine journalism's spotlight), it feels worth interrogating what the point of it all might be. And I'd argue that one point could be to make a place and an institution better. I don't believe this article does that. When Stanford—and particularly Stanford students—have been in the national spotlight these past few years, the scrutiny and trolling from the outside world always seem to amp up tensions in ways that make it impossible to resolve conflict. Last year, when student protestors and an administrator at the law school clashed with a federal judge, students were doxxed and harassed online. Trucks drove around campus toting screens that displayed their name, pictures, and contact information. It made those involved feel more unsafe and more entrenched. In short, it made everything worse. While Theo Baker's article bemoans the state of Stanford campus, he had to know what the result would be. At this point, it's hard for me not to see him as part of the problem.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - TrumpCard - 04-01-2024
I think we're expecting a lot from a college sophomore. As I read the article, he's blending reporting and op-ed a bit. If I were to speculate on the author's motive for writing the article, it might be calling out a phenomenon on campus that makes the author, and other people the author knows who share his ethnicity, feel attacked and unwelcome. In the context of writing for the Stanford Daily, I think it's more clearly appropriate to call that out and say that it's unacceptable. I think the problem you identify is with the platform. It's unusual for a college sophomore to get ~5,000 words in The Atlantic! I can understand a view that the author had a responsibility to decline the platform or to adjust the article to reflect the platform, but I think that's asking a lot of a 19 year old.
With that said, as I noted in my comment above, I agree with you that it's misleading to suggest that Stanford's campus is unique. Jewish people in the U.S. feel attacked and unwelcome in many contexts these days. But it's probably fair for the author, and The Atlantic, to imply that the phenomenon is worse on college campuses than in the rest of society.
You also make the argument that the author had an obligation to disclose his religion at the top of the article. As a lay person without significant training in journalism, I don't know whether that's a valid criticism. I see a lot of articles that address hot button issues where the author never discloses a connection to the issue when the only connection is gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. But maybe that practice is as bad as it is frequent. My instinct tells me, however, that there are pros and cons to requiring immediate disclosure of such immutable characteristcis. In my area of expertise (litigation), a judge need not disclose gender identity, religion, national origin etc., even if that characteristic might be expected by some to influence the judge's decision. My understanding is that it would be considered more problematic to call out such characteristics, potentially disqualifying judicial officers on impermissible grounds. I can see an analogous argument here, which is that the audience would be more likely to stop reading the article if it perceived the article as coming from a biased source. Acknowledging that there are downsides as well, I think there's value in reading the article as if it were coming from a disembodied author, and then evaluating whether the author's identity is material.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - lex24 - 04-02-2024
I’m a little stunned that no one has questioned whether a student publically calling for the assassination of President Biden should be expelled.
I appreciate the comparisons from those of you who were on campus during the Vietnam war days. I went to Berkeley but it was in the late 70s. Very different.
Nonetheless, I’m not sure you can compare those days to what is going on now. The Internet and social media are game changers to a degree that I’m not sure we fathom. And, I truly hope I’m wrong on this – but I see an infinitely more fractured society today. One in which the extremes drive the bus. Helped considerably by the Internet, social media and the unending ability to feed confirmation bias.
(04-01-2024, 12:39 PM)gailtate Wrote: I was in San Jose during the Vietnam Sixties. During the summers of 1968 and 1970 in the wake of the assassinations, invasion of Cambodia and the massacre at Kent State (not to mention campus closures sparked by the latter), the U.S of A. was far more polarized than it is today. Need I remind anyone that on the October morning of the USC/Stanford game attended by an SRO crowd of 90,000, there came a notification to then-president Lyman that a bomb had been hidden somewhere in Stanford Stadium and that it was announced pre-kickoff?
I have faith in the republic. Some of the denizens, not so much.
Forgot about that bomb threat. Just remembered that “Plunkett Keeps His Promise.”
RE: "The War at Stanford" - gocard14 - 04-02-2024
Quote:
lex24 dateline='[url=tel:1712062870' Wrote: 1712062870[/url]']
I’m a little stunned that no one has questioned whether a student publically calling for the assassination of President Biden should be expelled.
I appreciate the comparisons from those of you who were on campus during the Vietnam war days. I went to Berkeley but it was in the late 70s. Very different.
Nonetheless, I’m not sure you can compare those days to what is going on now. The Internet and social media are game changers to a degree that I’m not sure we fathom. And, I truly hope I’m wrong on this – but I see an infinitely more fractured society today. One in which the extremes drive the bus. Helped considerably by the Internet, social media and the unending ability to feed confirmation bias.
gailtate dateline='[url=tel:1712000379' Wrote: 1712000379[/url]']
I was in San Jose during the Vietnam Sixties. During the summers of 1968 and 1970 in the wake of the assassinations, invasion of Cambodia and the massacre at Kent State (not to mention campus closures sparked by the latter), the U.S of A. was far more polarized than it is today. Need I remind anyone that on the October morning of the USC/Stanford game attended by an SRO crowd of 90,000, there came a notification to then-president Lyman that a bomb had been hidden somewhere in Stanford Stadium and that it was announced pre-kickoff?
I have faith in the republic. Some of the denizens, not so much.
Forgot about that bomb threat. Just remembered that “Plunkett Keeps His Promise.”
Agreed. People too often forget that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. I'm no expert regarding current Stanford policy or student code of conduct, but would be surprised if calling for violence against others was not a violation in some way.
I fully support Stanford students non violently protesting. I also support the university's right to deal with protesting students in accordance with the law. Being a Stanford student protesting a cause does not mean laws regarding trespass, harassment, property destruction, or assault no longer apply, and they should be enforced by campus police.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - cctop - 04-02-2024
(04-02-2024, 10:38 AM)gocard14 Wrote: Being a Stanford student protesting a cause does not mean laws regarding trespass, harassment, property destruction, or assault no longer apply, and they should be enforced by campus police.
When I was an undergrad in the late 1980's, there was a quote in the Daily from a protester saying charges should be dropped against the students arrested while occupying the president's office because it might affect their law school admissions.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - cardcrimson - 04-02-2024
(04-02-2024, 05:46 PM)cctop Wrote:(04-02-2024, 10:38 AM)gocard14 Wrote: Being a Stanford student protesting a cause does not mean laws regarding trespass, harassment, property destruction, or assault no longer apply, and they should be enforced by campus police.
When I was an undergrad in the late 1980's, there was a quote in the Daily from a protester saying charges should be dropped against the students arrested while occupying the president's office because it might affect their law school admissions.
Funny stuff and perfectly on point.
The late 80's were fairly benign, so I'm almost afraid to ask, what were they protesting that required occupying the president's office? Yachts bedsheets and weddings to grad students?