Stanford hates fun
Obviously they need to get 16 topless students to display the letters and sit in the front row of the student section where the infield cameras can catch their act. Probably another two to stand between the words as open space.
Athlete suicide, university mental health services getting trashed on print and on social media, a horrible football team, an anti-fun administration all are bad pub for the overlords.
DON'T WRITE THEM A CHECK GUYS AND GALS. Sooner or later they will get the message. Write to the big donors, some of whom are your classmates. Go all Broadcast News on 'em.
On strike, shut them down. Worked for Savio. Worked for Black Studies at State. Worked for Harry Bridges.
Athlete suicide, university mental health services getting trashed on print and on social media, a horrible football team, an anti-fun administration all are bad pub for the overlords.
DON'T WRITE THEM A CHECK GUYS AND GALS. Sooner or later they will get the message. Write to the big donors, some of whom are your classmates. Go all Broadcast News on 'em.
On strike, shut them down. Worked for Savio. Worked for Black Studies at State. Worked for Harry Bridges.
Obviously they need to get 16 topless students to display the letters and sit in the front row of the student section where the infield cameras can catch their act. Probably another two to stand between the words as open space.
Athlete suicide, university mental health services getting trashed on print and on social media, a horrible football team, an anti-fun administration all are bad pub for the overlords.
DON'T WRITE THEM A CHECK GUYS AND GALS. Sooner or later they will get the message. Write to the big donors, some of whom are your classmates. Go all Broadcast News on 'em.
On strike, shut them down. Worked for Savio. Worked for Black Studies at State. Worked for Harry Bridges.
Athlete suicide, university mental health services getting trashed on print and on social media, a horrible football team, an anti-fun administration all are bad pub for the overlords.
DON'T WRITE THEM A CHECK GUYS AND GALS. Sooner or later they will get the message. Write to the big donors, some of whom are your classmates. Go all Broadcast News on 'em.
On strike, shut them down. Worked for Savio. Worked for Black Studies at State. Worked for Harry Bridges.
11-06-2022, 04:02 PM
Stanford is not altruistic so they must know something we don’t know. If these are COVID-related measures (and not just taking away people’s signs) that go beyond CDC guidelines, this “Stanford Hates Fun” and lawsuit will be incredibly helpful to Stanford in fending off future lawsuits when the full effects of Long Covid are known. An expensive Stanford degree won’t help you if you can’t work or are dead from repeated reinfections.
Stanford is not altruistic so they must know something we don’t know. If these are COVID-related measures (and not just taking away people’s signs) that go beyond CDC guidelines, this “Stanford Hates Fun” and lawsuit will be incredibly helpful to Stanford in fending off future lawsuits when the full effects of Long Covid are known. An expensive Stanford degree won’t help you if you can’t work or are dead from repeated reinfections.
11-06-2022, 04:29 PM
(11-06-2022, 04:02 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: Stanford is not altruistic so they must know something we don’t know. If these are COVID-related measures (and not just taking away people’s signs) that go beyond CDC guidelines, this “Stanford Hates Fun” and lawsuit will be incredibly helpful to Stanford in fending off future lawsuits when the full effects of Long Covid are known. An expensive Stanford degree won’t help you if you can’t work or are dead from repeated reinfections.
My brain is spinning. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(11-06-2022, 04:02 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: Stanford is not altruistic so they must know something we don’t know. If these are COVID-related measures (and not just taking away people’s signs) that go beyond CDC guidelines, this “Stanford Hates Fun” and lawsuit will be incredibly helpful to Stanford in fending off future lawsuits when the full effects of Long Covid are known. An expensive Stanford degree won’t help you if you can’t work or are dead from repeated reinfections.
My brain is spinning. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
The university probably shouldn’t have suspended the tree and been so heavy-handed about the signs — in fact, Stanford Hates Fun signs could have distracted the media from the massacre on the field.
I think the “Stanford Hates Fun” logo is a misleading, manipulative cheap-shot slogan, but these are college kids.
So I think the high road would have been to permit the tree and fans to bring their signs and then just to provide the media some context.
Although, I don’t think a group of students who so quickly turn to lawsuits just because they weren’t allowed to bring banners into a football game are the poster children for campus “fun.” Sounds like the signs and slogan were an excuse for some kind of pre-existing agenda.
One article I saw said students felt like there was not enough university support for student social life and events, which sounds like a reasonable request, and that they wanted a leas bureaucratic process to plan parties, which also sounds reasonable. But then they said they wanted to change the alcohol policies and bring back distinctive social life in Row Houses because it was “zany,” and then I thought, ah, the frats and their attorneys, back at it again. Look at the pictures of the students unfurling the Stanford Hates Fun signs.
I think the “Stanford Hates Fun” logo is a misleading, manipulative cheap-shot slogan, but these are college kids.
So I think the high road would have been to permit the tree and fans to bring their signs and then just to provide the media some context.
Although, I don’t think a group of students who so quickly turn to lawsuits just because they weren’t allowed to bring banners into a football game are the poster children for campus “fun.” Sounds like the signs and slogan were an excuse for some kind of pre-existing agenda.
One article I saw said students felt like there was not enough university support for student social life and events, which sounds like a reasonable request, and that they wanted a leas bureaucratic process to plan parties, which also sounds reasonable. But then they said they wanted to change the alcohol policies and bring back distinctive social life in Row Houses because it was “zany,” and then I thought, ah, the frats and their attorneys, back at it again. Look at the pictures of the students unfurling the Stanford Hates Fun signs.
The university probably shouldn’t have suspended the tree and been so heavy-handed about the signs — in fact, Stanford Hates Fun signs could have distracted the media from the massacre on the field.
I think the “Stanford Hates Fun” logo is a misleading, manipulative cheap-shot slogan, but these are college kids.
So I think the high road would have been to permit the tree and fans to bring their signs and then just to provide the media some context.
Although, I don’t think a group of students who so quickly turn to lawsuits just because they weren’t allowed to bring banners into a football game are the poster children for campus “fun.” Sounds like the signs and slogan were an excuse for some kind of pre-existing agenda.
One article I saw said students felt like there was not enough university support for student social life and events, which sounds like a reasonable request, and that they wanted a leas bureaucratic process to plan parties, which also sounds reasonable. But then they said they wanted to change the alcohol policies and bring back distinctive social life in Row Houses because it was “zany,” and then I thought, ah, the frats and their attorneys, back at it again. Look at the pictures of the students unfurling the Stanford Hates Fun signs.
I think the “Stanford Hates Fun” logo is a misleading, manipulative cheap-shot slogan, but these are college kids.
So I think the high road would have been to permit the tree and fans to bring their signs and then just to provide the media some context.
Although, I don’t think a group of students who so quickly turn to lawsuits just because they weren’t allowed to bring banners into a football game are the poster children for campus “fun.” Sounds like the signs and slogan were an excuse for some kind of pre-existing agenda.
One article I saw said students felt like there was not enough university support for student social life and events, which sounds like a reasonable request, and that they wanted a leas bureaucratic process to plan parties, which also sounds reasonable. But then they said they wanted to change the alcohol policies and bring back distinctive social life in Row Houses because it was “zany,” and then I thought, ah, the frats and their attorneys, back at it again. Look at the pictures of the students unfurling the Stanford Hates Fun signs.
11-07-2022, 08:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2022, 08:14 AM by cardcrimson.)
Have you read the article from the Daily? It's a lot more than the frats and their attorneys. . . .
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2022, 08:14 AM by cardcrimson.)
Have you read the article from the Daily? It's a lot more than the frats and their attorneys. . . .
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(11-07-2022, 08:14 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Have you read the article from the Daily? It's a lot more than the frats and their attorneys. . . .
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
Whew! The comments section to this piece say it all! Stanford students migrating down to the SJS campus for party-time isn't new, however. And the fraternities would routinely invite Spartan sororities up to Palo Alto. Not always successfully, but the boys make the effort. No knock on Stanford ladies of course. Heh-heh. Hey, it was a long time ago, mais, plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, ne c'est pas?
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(11-07-2022, 08:14 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Have you read the article from the Daily? It's a lot more than the frats and their attorneys. . . .
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
Whew! The comments section to this piece say it all! Stanford students migrating down to the SJS campus for party-time isn't new, however. And the fraternities would routinely invite Spartan sororities up to Palo Alto. Not always successfully, but the boys make the effort. No knock on Stanford ladies of course. Heh-heh. Hey, it was a long time ago, mais, plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, ne c'est pas?
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
yesterday's Daily article
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/06/sta...ball-game/
which among other items talked about
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/06/sta...ball-game/
which among other items talked about
Quote:Outside the stadium on Saturday, volunteers passed out free shirts that read “Stanford Hates Fun” and “Free The Tree.” Students said they noticed an increased security presence at Saturday’s game, from Menlo Park Police and Apex Security Group.
As chants ensued during halftime, some students held up a banner that read, “Stanford Hates Fun.” Apex Security guards attempted to take the sign but after booing from the crowd, allowed students to keep the banner. When asked about the incident, the Apex Security guards declined to comment.Carl Schoeller ’23, who was wearing a toga labeled “Free the Tree,” said he was turned away from the game by gate security. Schoeller said a director of security told him they didn’t want him to “disrupt the game” and that they didn’t know what was under his clothing.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
yesterday's Daily article
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/06/sta...ball-game/
which among other items talked about
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/06/sta...ball-game/
which among other items talked about
Quote:Outside the stadium on Saturday, volunteers passed out free shirts that read “Stanford Hates Fun” and “Free The Tree.” Students said they noticed an increased security presence at Saturday’s game, from Menlo Park Police and Apex Security Group.
As chants ensued during halftime, some students held up a banner that read, “Stanford Hates Fun.” Apex Security guards attempted to take the sign but after booing from the crowd, allowed students to keep the banner. When asked about the incident, the Apex Security guards declined to comment.Carl Schoeller ’23, who was wearing a toga labeled “Free the Tree,” said he was turned away from the game by gate security. Schoeller said a director of security told him they didn’t want him to “disrupt the game” and that they didn’t know what was under his clothing.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
11-07-2022, 09:32 AM
It sounds like some of this began with the new 2021 alcohol policy. Is that really the heart of the matter, students feeling they can't find a good alcohol-fueled party on the weekends?
It is a difficult line to walk, as some past terrible examples of alcohol's involvement in rapes and deaths make clear. But all forms of control and prohibition run the risk of making the problem worse. Drunken kids driving back and forth to San Jose as opposed to stumbling around their dorms is one such example.
It is a difficult line to walk, as some past terrible examples of alcohol's involvement in rapes and deaths make clear. But all forms of control and prohibition run the risk of making the problem worse. Drunken kids driving back and forth to San Jose as opposed to stumbling around their dorms is one such example.
It sounds like some of this began with the new 2021 alcohol policy. Is that really the heart of the matter, students feeling they can't find a good alcohol-fueled party on the weekends?
It is a difficult line to walk, as some past terrible examples of alcohol's involvement in rapes and deaths make clear. But all forms of control and prohibition run the risk of making the problem worse. Drunken kids driving back and forth to San Jose as opposed to stumbling around their dorms is one such example.
It is a difficult line to walk, as some past terrible examples of alcohol's involvement in rapes and deaths make clear. But all forms of control and prohibition run the risk of making the problem worse. Drunken kids driving back and forth to San Jose as opposed to stumbling around their dorms is one such example.
11-07-2022, 03:24 PM
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It seems like Stanford probably has good reason for what it is doing. In retrospect, a lot of the stuff that was happening when I was enrolled in school (in the mid-90's) and before that was probably high risk for both students and the University. On the other hand, it sounds like the university has been heavy handed in its response, and that students are rightfully chafing under the increased paternalism from the school. I think this is the sort of thing that should have been dealt with by a less top-down approach and one that involved more consultation with and input from students. It sounds like this has not really happened (or, at least, not to the degree necessary) for students to feel invested in the process.
And so, here we are, with students and the administration at loggerheads. Broadly speaking, I think this reflects poorly on Provost Drell. It's a tough issue for the University administration to deal with, to be fair, but I think she has dealt with it poorly.
BC
It seems like Stanford probably has good reason for what it is doing. In retrospect, a lot of the stuff that was happening when I was enrolled in school (in the mid-90's) and before that was probably high risk for both students and the University. On the other hand, it sounds like the university has been heavy handed in its response, and that students are rightfully chafing under the increased paternalism from the school. I think this is the sort of thing that should have been dealt with by a less top-down approach and one that involved more consultation with and input from students. It sounds like this has not really happened (or, at least, not to the degree necessary) for students to feel invested in the process.
And so, here we are, with students and the administration at loggerheads. Broadly speaking, I think this reflects poorly on Provost Drell. It's a tough issue for the University administration to deal with, to be fair, but I think she has dealt with it poorly.
BC
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It seems like Stanford probably has good reason for what it is doing. In retrospect, a lot of the stuff that was happening when I was enrolled in school (in the mid-90's) and before that was probably high risk for both students and the University. On the other hand, it sounds like the university has been heavy handed in its response, and that students are rightfully chafing under the increased paternalism from the school. I think this is the sort of thing that should have been dealt with by a less top-down approach and one that involved more consultation with and input from students. It sounds like this has not really happened (or, at least, not to the degree necessary) for students to feel invested in the process.
And so, here we are, with students and the administration at loggerheads. Broadly speaking, I think this reflects poorly on Provost Drell. It's a tough issue for the University administration to deal with, to be fair, but I think she has dealt with it poorly.
BC
It seems like Stanford probably has good reason for what it is doing. In retrospect, a lot of the stuff that was happening when I was enrolled in school (in the mid-90's) and before that was probably high risk for both students and the University. On the other hand, it sounds like the university has been heavy handed in its response, and that students are rightfully chafing under the increased paternalism from the school. I think this is the sort of thing that should have been dealt with by a less top-down approach and one that involved more consultation with and input from students. It sounds like this has not really happened (or, at least, not to the degree necessary) for students to feel invested in the process.
And so, here we are, with students and the administration at loggerheads. Broadly speaking, I think this reflects poorly on Provost Drell. It's a tough issue for the University administration to deal with, to be fair, but I think she has dealt with it poorly.
BC
(11-07-2022, 08:42 AM)gailtate Wrote:Pretty sure ever since they were allowed to get their own credit cards, the Stanford ladies have doing been just fine. And going to SJS for a party was (almost) unheard of during my time at Stanford, so maybe I attended during a brief lull in which Stanford only mildly disdained fun.(11-07-2022, 08:14 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Have you read the article from the Daily? It's a lot more than the frats and their attorneys. . . .
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
Whew! The comments section to this piece say it all! Stanford students migrating down to the SJS campus for party-time isn't new, however. And the fraternities would routinely invite Spartan sororities up to Palo Alto. Not always successfully, but the boys make the effort. No knock on Stanford ladies of course. Heh-heh. Hey, it was a long time ago, mais, plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, ne c'est pas?
(11-07-2022, 08:42 AM)gailtate Wrote:Pretty sure ever since they were allowed to get their own credit cards, the Stanford ladies have doing been just fine. And going to SJS for a party was (almost) unheard of during my time at Stanford, so maybe I attended during a brief lull in which Stanford only mildly disdained fun.(11-07-2022, 08:14 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Have you read the article from the Daily? It's a lot more than the frats and their attorneys. . . .
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/ins...cial-life/
Whew! The comments section to this piece say it all! Stanford students migrating down to the SJS campus for party-time isn't new, however. And the fraternities would routinely invite Spartan sororities up to Palo Alto. Not always successfully, but the boys make the effort. No knock on Stanford ladies of course. Heh-heh. Hey, it was a long time ago, mais, plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, ne c'est pas?
11-07-2022, 04:16 PM
(11-07-2022, 03:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It seems like Stanford probably has good reason for what it is doing. In retrospect, a lot of the stuff that was happening when I was enrolled in school (in the mid-90's) and before that was probably high risk for both students and the University. On the other hand, it sounds like the university has been heavy handed in its response, and that students are rightfully chafing under the increased paternalism from the school. I think this is the sort of thing that should have been dealt with by a less top-down approach and one that involved more consultation with and input from students. It sounds like this has not really happened (or, at least, not to the degree necessary) for students to feel invested in the process.
And so, here we are, with students and the administration at loggerheads. Broadly speaking, I think this reflects poorly on Provost Drell. It's a tough issue for the University administration to deal with, to be fair, but I think she has dealt with it poorly.
BC
Drell also weighed heavily in the attempt to eliminate 11 (?) varsity sports. Her new job title will be Wokescold in Chief.
(11-07-2022, 03:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It seems like Stanford probably has good reason for what it is doing. In retrospect, a lot of the stuff that was happening when I was enrolled in school (in the mid-90's) and before that was probably high risk for both students and the University. On the other hand, it sounds like the university has been heavy handed in its response, and that students are rightfully chafing under the increased paternalism from the school. I think this is the sort of thing that should have been dealt with by a less top-down approach and one that involved more consultation with and input from students. It sounds like this has not really happened (or, at least, not to the degree necessary) for students to feel invested in the process.
And so, here we are, with students and the administration at loggerheads. Broadly speaking, I think this reflects poorly on Provost Drell. It's a tough issue for the University administration to deal with, to be fair, but I think she has dealt with it poorly.
BC
Drell also weighed heavily in the attempt to eliminate 11 (?) varsity sports. Her new job title will be Wokescold in Chief.
11-07-2022, 04:22 PM
Because of the political implications of the term "woke" can we agree not to use it in posts. "Scold in chief" would have conveyed the same message and not run the risk of dragging this discussion into a tangent about wokeness.
BC
BC
Because of the political implications of the term "woke" can we agree not to use it in posts. "Scold in chief" would have conveyed the same message and not run the risk of dragging this discussion into a tangent about wokeness.
BC
BC
11-07-2022, 05:13 PM
(11-07-2022, 04:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Because of the political implications of the term "woke" can we agree not to use it in posts. "Scold in chief" would have conveyed the same message and not run the risk of dragging this discussion into a tangent about wokeness.
BC
+1
BC, model grown-up. =)
11-07-2022, 05:42 PM
Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
11-07-2022, 06:04 PM
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Wow. Not a good look on the face of it. I wonder if Mr Dorsey ever had professional legal counsel, or if he waged this battle all on his own.
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Wow. Not a good look on the face of it. I wonder if Mr Dorsey ever had professional legal counsel, or if he waged this battle all on his own.
11-07-2022, 06:20 PM
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Absolutely sickening, but typical of how Stanford handles things lately. One of several reasons why I no longer donate to the University.
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Absolutely sickening, but typical of how Stanford handles things lately. One of several reasons why I no longer donate to the University.
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Wow. Just wow. Not a bit surprised.
(11-07-2022, 04:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Because of the political implications of the term "woke" can we agree not to use it in posts. "Scold in chief" would have conveyed the same message and not run the risk of dragging this discussion into a tangent about wokeness.
BC
I paid Ben Shapiro $1 to use Wokescold. I stand by my post.
(11-07-2022, 05:42 PM)gailtate Wrote: Re: Provost Drell
https://erdorsey2.medium.com/persis-drel...d1c083ea18
Wow. Just wow. Not a bit surprised.
(11-07-2022, 04:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Because of the political implications of the term "woke" can we agree not to use it in posts. "Scold in chief" would have conveyed the same message and not run the risk of dragging this discussion into a tangent about wokeness.
BC
I paid Ben Shapiro $1 to use Wokescold. I stand by my post.
11-07-2022, 11:07 PM
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
Given that someone else was put on time out for using the term, consider it friendly advice, if not a plea.
BC
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
Given that someone else was put on time out for using the term, consider it friendly advice, if not a plea.
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »