[CTcard]

I said this in another post, but I feel it should be repeated here.  I believe that this administration has decided that the LSJUMB is too offensive for today's society.  The tradition of poking fun at opponents' fans, traditions, and communities does not align with the current move on college campuses to ban anything that might offend anyone.  IMO, the administration is using alcohol and other incidents to reach their goal of culling this "offensive" organization from our school.

I have thought about this a bit, and I think that is probably not quite what most concerns the people making these decisions.

There are many, including many fans and posters here and on other boards, that do not like the overall style of the LSJUMB and their almost miraculous ability to offend people. I am sure there are many people in Stanford's administration who would like for all that to go away. However, I think they are also resigned to this aspect. For example, my memory of the Rose Bowl aftermath is that the administration issued a pretty bland response that amounted to something like, "we regret that some Iowans were offended by misunderstanding the show" and then left it at that.

Rather, I think there is a sincere feeling that the band is violating tenets of Title IX. And maybe they are, I am not there so I cannot know. However, it does appear that the officials in this case are falling into two traps on the issue. The first is confusing which word in the phrase "sexual assault" is the real problem. That was eloquently addressed by the female band alums in their letter to the Daily - I won't say more. The other is buying into the rather common argument by those accused of sexual assault, most recently by Brock Turner, that the alcohol made them do it; that they themselves were just victims of a "campus alcohol culture".  There are problems with binge drinking and alcoholism on campuses (and generally among 18-22 year olds) but people like Mr. Turner were not in trouble because they got drunk.

[CTcard]

I said this in another post, but I feel it should be repeated here.  I believe that this administration has decided that the LSJUMB is too offensive for today's society.  The tradition of poking fun at opponents' fans, traditions, and communities does not align with the current move on college campuses to ban anything that might offend anyone.  IMO, the administration is using alcohol and other incidents to reach their goal of culling this "offensive" organization from our school.

I have thought about this a bit, and I think that is probably not quite what most concerns the people making these decisions.

There are many, including many fans and posters here and on other boards, that do not like the overall style of the LSJUMB and their almost miraculous ability to offend people. I am sure there are many people in Stanford's administration who would like for all that to go away. However, I think they are also resigned to this aspect. For example, my memory of the Rose Bowl aftermath is that the administration issued a pretty bland response that amounted to something like, "we regret that some Iowans were offended by misunderstanding the show" and then left it at that.

Rather, I think there is a sincere feeling that the band is violating tenets of Title IX. And maybe they are, I am not there so I cannot know. However, it does appear that the officials in this case are falling into two traps on the issue. The first is confusing which word in the phrase "sexual assault" is the real problem. That was eloquently addressed by the female band alums in their letter to the Daily - I won't say more. The other is buying into the rather common argument by those accused of sexual assault, most recently by Brock Turner, that the alcohol made them do it; that they themselves were just victims of a "campus alcohol culture".  There are problems with binge drinking and alcoholism on campuses (and generally among 18-22 year olds) but people like Mr. Turner were not in trouble because they got drunk.

[CTcard]

I said this in another post, but I feel it should be repeated here.  I believe that this administration has decided that the LSJUMB is too offensive for today's society.  The tradition of poking fun at opponents' fans, traditions, and communities does not align with the current move on college campuses to ban anything that might offend anyone.  IMO, the administration is using alcohol and other incidents to reach their goal of culling this "offensive" organization from our school.

I have thought about this a bit, and I think that is probably not quite what most concerns the people making these decisions.

There are many, including many fans and posters here and on other boards, that do not like the overall style of the LSJUMB and their almost miraculous ability to offend people. I am sure there are many people in Stanford's administration who would like for all that to go away. However, I think they are also resigned to this aspect. For example, my memory of the Rose Bowl aftermath is that the administration issued a pretty bland response that amounted to something like, "we regret that some Iowans were offended by misunderstanding the show" and then left it at that.

Rather, I think there is a sincere feeling that the band is violating tenets of Title IX. And maybe they are, I am not there so I cannot know. However, it does appear that the officials in this case are falling into two traps on the issue. The first is confusing which word in the phrase "sexual assault" is the real problem. That was eloquently addressed by the female band alums in their letter to the Daily - I won't say more. The other is buying into the rather common argument by those accused of sexual assault, most recently by Brock Turner, that the alcohol made them do it; that they themselves were just victims of a "campus alcohol culture".  There are problems with binge drinking and alcoholism on campuses (and generally among 18-22 year olds) but people like Mr. Turner were not in trouble because they got drunk.

[CTcard]

I said this in another post, but I feel it should be repeated here.  I believe that this administration has decided that the LSJUMB is too offensive for today's society.  The tradition of poking fun at opponents' fans, traditions, and communities does not align with the current move on college campuses to ban anything that might offend anyone.  IMO, the administration is using alcohol and other incidents to reach their goal of culling this "offensive" organization from our school.

I have thought about this a bit, and I think that is probably not quite what most concerns the people making these decisions.

There are many, including many fans and posters here and on other boards, that do not like the overall style of the LSJUMB and their almost miraculous ability to offend people. I am sure there are many people in Stanford's administration who would like for all that to go away. However, I think they are also resigned to this aspect. For example, my memory of the Rose Bowl aftermath is that the administration issued a pretty bland response that amounted to something like, "we regret that some Iowans were offended by misunderstanding the show" and then left it at that.

Rather, I think there is a sincere feeling that the band is violating tenets of Title IX. And maybe they are, I am not there so I cannot know. However, it does appear that the officials in this case are falling into two traps on the issue. The first is confusing which word in the phrase "sexual assault" is the real problem. That was eloquently addressed by the female band alums in their letter to the Daily - I won't say more. The other is buying into the rather common argument by those accused of sexual assault, most recently by Brock Turner, that the alcohol made them do it; that they themselves were just victims of a "campus alcohol culture".  There are problems with binge drinking and alcoholism on campuses (and generally among 18-22 year olds) but people like Mr. Turner were not in trouble because they got drunk.

[JJJ]

Now a thing on "Friends of LSJUMB" group, in response to Buck/Cardinal Club requests for donations:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1...=3&theater

#nobandnomoney

While I am aware that not everyone feels this way (and all it takes is one wealthy alum who dislikes Band to offset any difference), I thought it was one way to be heard. If enough people send these in, perhaps there will be an additional voice from Athletics that reaches out to the Provost.

[JJJ]

Now a thing on "Friends of LSJUMB" group, in response to Buck/Cardinal Club requests for donations:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1...=3&theater

#nobandnomoney

While I am aware that not everyone feels this way (and all it takes is one wealthy alum who dislikes Band to offset any difference), I thought it was one way to be heard. If enough people send these in, perhaps there will be an additional voice from Athletics that reaches out to the Provost.

[JJJ]

Now a thing on "Friends of LSJUMB" group, in response to Buck/Cardinal Club requests for donations:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1...=3&theater

#nobandnomoney

While I am aware that not everyone feels this way (and all it takes is one wealthy alum who dislikes Band to offset any difference), I thought it was one way to be heard. If enough people send these in, perhaps there will be an additional voice from Athletics that reaches out to the Provost.

[JJJ]

Now a thing on "Friends of LSJUMB" group, in response to Buck/Cardinal Club requests for donations:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1...=3&theater

#nobandnomoney

While I am aware that not everyone feels this way (and all it takes is one wealthy alum who dislikes Band to offset any difference), I thought it was one way to be heard. If enough people send these in, perhaps there will be an additional voice from Athletics that reaches out to the Provost.

[pefloresjr]

I was away for most of December so I wasn't able to send a letter complaining about the suspension of the Band.  I sent my 3 page email to Tessier-Lavigne, Etchemendy, and Muir last night so that they would have it when they returned to work after the holidays.  I got the general response letter previously sent out by Etchemendy.  No response from the others. I hope that more rational minds prevail in reviewing the Band's appeal. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

I was away for most of December so I wasn't able to send a letter complaining about the suspension of the Band.  I sent my 3 page email to Tessier-Lavigne, Etchemendy, and Muir last night so that they would have it when they returned to work after the holidays.  I got the general response letter previously sent out by Etchemendy.  No response from the others. I hope that more rational minds prevail in reviewing the Band's appeal. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[JJJ]

This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyers should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d7y7dxllpga9e...LI98a?dl=0
… contains a letter to John Etchemendy (Stanford’s Provost) that includes a detailed discussion of the facts surrounding the Band’s suspension and suggests a path forward. TL;DR: Stanford should embrace the Band. Instead of treating the Band like some of the worst performers at Stanford, who need an up-or-out performance plan, treat them like some of the best performers at Stanford, by giving them help and support. Stanford treats its best alumni volunteers this way. Stanford should treat its largest, most dedicated student volunteer group the same way.

[JJJ]

This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyers should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d7y7dxllpga9e...LI98a?dl=0
… contains a letter to John Etchemendy (Stanford’s Provost) that includes a detailed discussion of the facts surrounding the Band’s suspension and suggests a path forward. TL;DR: Stanford should embrace the Band. Instead of treating the Band like some of the worst performers at Stanford, who need an up-or-out performance plan, treat them like some of the best performers at Stanford, by giving them help and support. Stanford treats its best alumni volunteers this way. Stanford should treat its largest, most dedicated student volunteer group the same way.

[2006alum]

That letter truly is a thing of beauty. Thanks for sharing this.

[2006alum]

That letter truly is a thing of beauty. Thanks for sharing this.

[CTcard]

This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyer should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

Wow.


---------
Probably should have left the commentary at that, but a few things to highlight.

Apparently John Etchemendy's sister, Jonrie Etchemendy(?) was a dollie in 1978. Hope he is hearing from her.

There's a lot of not-so-subtle band-like humour that starts to get sprinkled in there toward the end (as I am sure Robby was getting tired of writing).

47  For clarity, “embrace” is used here in the “accept, help, and support” sense, and not in the “highly sexualized” sense.

Please know that I really wrestled with whether or not to include Mike Stemmle’s comments in this letter, for several reasons. First, I was concerned that some people might take his comments the wrong way, as being negative and disrespectful.

Alas, I fear that as a very long letter, and no doubt one of many, Etchemendy won't really read it.


And I am brought to think that it has been a long time since I have seen Robby. Makes me nostalgic.

[CTcard]

This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyer should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

Wow.


---------
Probably should have left the commentary at that, but a few things to highlight.

Apparently John Etchemendy's sister, Jonrie Etchemendy(?) was a dollie in 1978. Hope he is hearing from her.

There's a lot of not-so-subtle band-like humour that starts to get sprinkled in there toward the end (as I am sure Robby was getting tired of writing).

47  For clarity, “embrace” is used here in the “accept, help, and support” sense, and not in the “highly sexualized” sense.

Please know that I really wrestled with whether or not to include Mike Stemmle’s comments in this letter, for several reasons. First, I was concerned that some people might take his comments the wrong way, as being negative and disrespectful.

Alas, I fear that as a very long letter, and no doubt one of many, Etchemendy won't really read it.


And I am brought to think that it has been a long time since I have seen Robby. Makes me nostalgic.

[JJJ]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=16269.msg185133#msg185133 date=1483571810]
This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyer should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

Wow.


---------
Probably should have left the commentary at that, but a few things to highlight.

Apparently John Etchemendy's sister, Jonrie Etchemendy(?) was a dollie in 1978. Hope he is hearing from her.

There's a lot of not-so-subtle band-like humour that starts to get sprinkled in there toward the end (as I am sure Robby was getting tired of writing).

47  For clarity, “embrace” is used here in the “accept, help, and support” sense, and not in the “highly sexualized” sense.

Please know that I really wrestled with whether or not to include Mike Stemmle’s comments in this letter, for several reasons. First, I was concerned that some people might take his comments the wrong way, as being negative and disrespectful.

Alas, I fear that as a very long letter, and no doubt one of many, Etchemendy won't really read it.


And I am brought to think that it has been a long time since I have seen Robby. Makes me nostalgic.
[/quote]

If you go to the Friends of LSJUMB page, you will see that Robby himself posted a request for people to spread his letter far and wide. Please feel free to do so and also to reach out to him. (I don't know him personally, but have absolutely loved his prose and the way his mind works from reading his material.)

[JJJ]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=16269.msg185133#msg185133 date=1483571810]
This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyer should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

Wow.


---------
Probably should have left the commentary at that, but a few things to highlight.

Apparently John Etchemendy's sister, Jonrie Etchemendy(?) was a dollie in 1978. Hope he is hearing from her.

There's a lot of not-so-subtle band-like humour that starts to get sprinkled in there toward the end (as I am sure Robby was getting tired of writing).

47  For clarity, “embrace” is used here in the “accept, help, and support” sense, and not in the “highly sexualized” sense.

Please know that I really wrestled with whether or not to include Mike Stemmle’s comments in this letter, for several reasons. First, I was concerned that some people might take his comments the wrong way, as being negative and disrespectful.

Alas, I fear that as a very long letter, and no doubt one of many, Etchemendy won't really read it.


And I am brought to think that it has been a long time since I have seen Robby. Makes me nostalgic.
[/quote]

If you go to the Friends of LSJUMB page, you will see that Robby himself posted a request for people to spread his letter far and wide. Please feel free to do so and also to reach out to him. (I don't know him personally, but have absolutely loved his prose and the way his mind works from reading his material.)

[TreesAndBirds]

Email from Band received today...

To all those who have written,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and objections, as well as your experiences, about the suspension of the Stanford Band. So far, nearly 250 of you have spoken up, and more letters continue to arrive every day. Your voices have created a powerful testament to Band’s irreplaceable role in Stanford culture.

To update you on The Band’s situation, we have decided to appeal Vice Provost Boardman’s suspension to Provost Etchemendy, who has agreed to stay on as Provost in order to hear our case. We met with Provost Etchemendy at the end of fall quarter to discuss this procedure, and it was clear to us that the widespread concern and frustration he has confronted over this decision are having an impact.

We believe that our case is a solid and compelling one, and that the outpouring of respectful dissent that has accompanied our objections has shifted the balance of power. As the appeals process moves forward, we will need your continued engagement and support. Right now, what we need most is another wave of letters to renew the pressure on administrators after their winter break and remind them of the importance of a student-run Band. Please encourage your Stanford peers, colleagues, and fellow alumni to write if they haven’t already.

The funkless, both on and off campus, have never needed funk more than they do now. Thank you for helping ensure that we can bring it to them.

RTFO,
The Band

[TreesAndBirds]

Email from Band received today...

To all those who have written,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and objections, as well as your experiences, about the suspension of the Stanford Band. So far, nearly 250 of you have spoken up, and more letters continue to arrive every day. Your voices have created a powerful testament to Band’s irreplaceable role in Stanford culture.

To update you on The Band’s situation, we have decided to appeal Vice Provost Boardman’s suspension to Provost Etchemendy, who has agreed to stay on as Provost in order to hear our case. We met with Provost Etchemendy at the end of fall quarter to discuss this procedure, and it was clear to us that the widespread concern and frustration he has confronted over this decision are having an impact.

We believe that our case is a solid and compelling one, and that the outpouring of respectful dissent that has accompanied our objections has shifted the balance of power. As the appeals process moves forward, we will need your continued engagement and support. Right now, what we need most is another wave of letters to renew the pressure on administrators after their winter break and remind them of the importance of a student-run Band. Please encourage your Stanford peers, colleagues, and fellow alumni to write if they haven’t already.

The funkless, both on and off campus, have never needed funk more than they do now. Thank you for helping ensure that we can bring it to them.

RTFO,
The Band

[ceece]

Stanford should embrace the Band. Instead of treating the Band like some of the worst performers at Stanford, who need an up-or-out performance plan, treat them like some of the best performers at Stanford, by giving them help and support. Stanford treats its best alumni volunteers this way. Stanford should treat its largest, most dedicated student volunteer group the same way.

So how DOES Stanford normally treat alumni volunteers? I confess I only help out at Reunions and the off-campus 'Beyond the Farm' events, so I don't know what happens for regular volunteers.

[ceece]

Stanford should embrace the Band. Instead of treating the Band like some of the worst performers at Stanford, who need an up-or-out performance plan, treat them like some of the best performers at Stanford, by giving them help and support. Stanford treats its best alumni volunteers this way. Stanford should treat its largest, most dedicated student volunteer group the same way.

So how DOES Stanford normally treat alumni volunteers? I confess I only help out at Reunions and the off-campus 'Beyond the Farm' events, so I don't know what happens for regular volunteers.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=16269.msg185133#msg185133 date=1483571810]
This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyer should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

Wow.


---------
Probably should have left the commentary at that, but a few things to highlight.

Apparently John Etchemendy's sister, Jonrie Etchemendy(?) was a dollie in 1978. Hope he is hearing from her.

There's a lot of not-so-subtle band-like humour that starts to get sprinkled in there toward the end (as I am sure Robby was getting tired of writing).

47  For clarity, “embrace” is used here in the “accept, help, and support” sense, and not in the “highly sexualized” sense.

Please know that I really wrestled with whether or not to include Mike Stemmle’s comments in this letter, for several reasons. First, I was concerned that some people might take his comments the wrong way, as being negative and disrespectful.

Alas, I fear that as a very long letter, and no doubt one of many, Etchemendy won't really read it.


And I am brought to think that it has been a long time since I have seen Robby. Makes me nostalgic.
[/quote]

Well, if the band doesn't die, he's still at every football game and lots of spring and summer rallies/parades/etc. taking photographs of them, so that's a good place to say hi. If the band doesn't die.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=16269.msg185133#msg185133 date=1483571810]
This one's worth a read (the dropbox letter (pdf file) by Robby Beyer should be read when you have some time with a preferred adult beverage in hand, imho):

Wow.


---------
Probably should have left the commentary at that, but a few things to highlight.

Apparently John Etchemendy's sister, Jonrie Etchemendy(?) was a dollie in 1978. Hope he is hearing from her.

There's a lot of not-so-subtle band-like humour that starts to get sprinkled in there toward the end (as I am sure Robby was getting tired of writing).

47  For clarity, “embrace” is used here in the “accept, help, and support” sense, and not in the “highly sexualized” sense.

Please know that I really wrestled with whether or not to include Mike Stemmle’s comments in this letter, for several reasons. First, I was concerned that some people might take his comments the wrong way, as being negative and disrespectful.

Alas, I fear that as a very long letter, and no doubt one of many, Etchemendy won't really read it.


And I am brought to think that it has been a long time since I have seen Robby. Makes me nostalgic.
[/quote]

Well, if the band doesn't die, he's still at every football game and lots of spring and summer rallies/parades/etc. taking photographs of them, so that's a good place to say hi. If the band doesn't die.

[JJJ]

Op-ed in the Merc. Keep writing; it can only help.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/06/ch...ited-band/

[JJJ]

Op-ed in the Merc. Keep writing; it can only help.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/06/ch...ited-band/

[warrenloui]

My wife wrote that op-ed; it was hard to condense to 600 words our thoughts about the issue.  We can't overstate the positive impact Band has had on our daughter's Stanford experience and our disappointment with the suspension.

My wife and I have also written letters to the administration and have encouraged others to write letters.  There should be an op-ed written by another alum/parent of band member appearing in the Palo Alto weekly soon. 

[warrenloui]

My wife wrote that op-ed; it was hard to condense to 600 words our thoughts about the issue.  We can't overstate the positive impact Band has had on our daughter's Stanford experience and our disappointment with the suspension.

My wife and I have also written letters to the administration and have encouraged others to write letters.  There should be an op-ed written by another alum/parent of band member appearing in the Palo Alto weekly soon. 

[TreesAndBirds]

Welcome to the Board Warren. And it was a great letter!

[TreesAndBirds]

Welcome to the Board Warren. And it was a great letter!

[JJJ]

My wife wrote that op-ed; it was hard to condense to 600 words our thoughts about the issue.  We can't overstate the positive impact Band has had on our daughter's Stanford experience and our disappointment with the suspension.

My wife and I have also written letters to the administration and have encouraged others to write letters.  There should be an op-ed written by another alum/parent of band member appearing in the Palo Alto weekly soon.

Welcome to the 'board, Warren. I didn't mean to steal your thunder by posting that op ed--I just wanted to spread it far and wide!

[JJJ]

My wife wrote that op-ed; it was hard to condense to 600 words our thoughts about the issue.  We can't overstate the positive impact Band has had on our daughter's Stanford experience and our disappointment with the suspension.

My wife and I have also written letters to the administration and have encouraged others to write letters.  There should be an op-ed written by another alum/parent of band member appearing in the Palo Alto weekly soon.

Welcome to the 'board, Warren. I didn't mean to steal your thunder by posting that op ed--I just wanted to spread it far and wide!

[JJJ]

Just so everything is in one place, here's Provost Etchemendy's letter to the Stanford community today:

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/09/lett...tchemendy/

I'm still disappointed with regard to what he says about Band's actions in recent months.

the original 2015 travel and alcohol ban was the result of events that had happened as recently as a few weeks before the investigation was launched, and the 2016 suspension was due to continued violations that occurred after the 2015 travel and alcohol ban was imposed. In other words, the sanctions are not, as they have been portrayed, for events that transpired many years before any of the current membership joined the Band.

He does not acknowledge/specify *what* those events and violations were, which have already been covered by Robby's tome. At least he sounds positive about his meeting with Band.

[JJJ]

Just so everything is in one place, here's Provost Etchemendy's letter to the Stanford community today:

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/09/lett...tchemendy/

I'm still disappointed with regard to what he says about Band's actions in recent months.

the original 2015 travel and alcohol ban was the result of events that had happened as recently as a few weeks before the investigation was launched, and the 2016 suspension was due to continued violations that occurred after the 2015 travel and alcohol ban was imposed. In other words, the sanctions are not, as they have been portrayed, for events that transpired many years before any of the current membership joined the Band.

He does not acknowledge/specify *what* those events and violations were, which have already been covered by Robby's tome. At least he sounds positive about his meeting with Band.

[JJJ]

My guest opinion letter. You've seen most of it here already. https://issuu.com/paloaltoweekly/docs/20...15?ff=true

(*with much-appreciated help from Warren's wife and daughter)

*Late add (perhaps easier to read link): http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/...-kBw.email

[JJJ]

My guest opinion letter. You've seen most of it here already. https://issuu.com/paloaltoweekly/docs/20...15?ff=true

(*with much-appreciated help from Warren's wife and daughter)

*Late add (perhaps easier to read link): http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/...-kBw.email

[fullmetal]

So how DOES Stanford normally treat alumni volunteers? I confess I only help out at Reunions and the off-campus 'Beyond the Farm' events, so I don't know what happens for regular volunteers.

I don't know if there's such a thing as a regular volunteer, but if you're a local club, non-big-money-donor volunteer, the answer is that you don't get treated all that awesomely.  Once every couple of years, someone from your club leadership gets sent to CLAW, which is a Fri/Sat alumni leaders workshop.  If you're deemed to have been superbly worthy, you'll get invited to a once-every-two-years (??) alumni volunteer assembly/celebration where you'll be surrounded by awardees who have rendered more worthy service to the university by virtue of $$$, proximity to the university, or major university leadership initiative.

Local alumni volunteers can work pretty hard to accomplish things, but you have to do it for the love of the university because there's no guaranteed payoff other than the immediate fruits of your labor.

[fullmetal]

So how DOES Stanford normally treat alumni volunteers? I confess I only help out at Reunions and the off-campus 'Beyond the Farm' events, so I don't know what happens for regular volunteers.

I don't know if there's such a thing as a regular volunteer, but if you're a local club, non-big-money-donor volunteer, the answer is that you don't get treated all that awesomely.  Once every couple of years, someone from your club leadership gets sent to CLAW, which is a Fri/Sat alumni leaders workshop.  If you're deemed to have been superbly worthy, you'll get invited to a once-every-two-years (??) alumni volunteer assembly/celebration where you'll be surrounded by awardees who have rendered more worthy service to the university by virtue of $$$, proximity to the university, or major university leadership initiative.

Local alumni volunteers can work pretty hard to accomplish things, but you have to do it for the love of the university because there's no guaranteed payoff other than the immediate fruits of your labor.

[Leftcoast]

Here's the Stanford Review snippet on Boardman's resignation.  Not much new here except this line covering possible administration concerns.

"His decision to resign draws questions at a time when VPSA faces criticism for Stanford’s mishandling of Title IX cases, firing of a legal advocate for sexual assault survivors, and reversal of their decision to suspend Band."

I suspect the Band suspension ranks well below the other two but clearly this has been a bad year for Boardman.

https://stanfordreview.org/vice-provost-....kbn78xsnn

[Leftcoast]

Here's the Stanford Review snippet on Boardman's resignation.  Not much new here except this line covering possible administration concerns.

"His decision to resign draws questions at a time when VPSA faces criticism for Stanford’s mishandling of Title IX cases, firing of a legal advocate for sexual assault survivors, and reversal of their decision to suspend Band."

I suspect the Band suspension ranks well below the other two but clearly this has been a bad year for Boardman.

https://stanfordreview.org/vice-provost-....kbn78xsnn