[Goose]

The primary arguments defending these cuts, in the face of mounting data that they don't meaningfully solve budget deficits, disenfranchise a third of current and would-be student athletes, and anger generations of alumni, amount to "because we said so." We've now heard this from Athletic Director Bernard Muir, several members of the Board of Trustees (including its athletics subcommittee and outgoing Chairman, Jeff Raikes), and Provost Persis Drell. This is not transparency. This is not innovative, creative thinking. This is not the Stanford we know. 

Interesting you should say that. The Stanford I knew (and know) often did/does things "because we said so". Sometimes most people agree with
these actions, sometimes they don't. Many of the changes in the new housing policy seem arbitrary and ill advised to me, but I get no vote. I really don't like much of what I consider to be excessive construction for a University that is not expanding the student body, but I don't get a vote.
My point is that Stanford has been run by the administration that basically has total authority over policy. The idea the students and/or even in large measure the faculty has much influence has never been true.

You do have a voice and you do have a vote. Your wallet is your voice and your vote.

I stopped giving to the University outside of Athletics several years ago as I saw policies being put forward that did not align with my values and what I think is important in college education.

My takeaway from this summary is the Muir's being given marching orders and may not be on board with the decisions, particularly after the proposals to self-endow these sports. Could see him making a hard push for the Pac-12 commissioner job.

Drell's attitude reminds me of Robin Hamlett, who killed athletics with her admissions policies in the early 2000s.

I am quite certain the University cares not an iota about my contributions (or lack thereof). The also do not care what I say. They didn't when I was a student and the certainly don't now. It I was a big enough financial contributor they may care an iota, but only an iota. When you have a 27 billion dollar endowment, you aren't likely to worry about a few million here or there.

[Goose]

The primary arguments defending these cuts, in the face of mounting data that they don't meaningfully solve budget deficits, disenfranchise a third of current and would-be student athletes, and anger generations of alumni, amount to "because we said so." We've now heard this from Athletic Director Bernard Muir, several members of the Board of Trustees (including its athletics subcommittee and outgoing Chairman, Jeff Raikes), and Provost Persis Drell. This is not transparency. This is not innovative, creative thinking. This is not the Stanford we know. 

Interesting you should say that. The Stanford I knew (and know) often did/does things "because we said so". Sometimes most people agree with
these actions, sometimes they don't. Many of the changes in the new housing policy seem arbitrary and ill advised to me, but I get no vote. I really don't like much of what I consider to be excessive construction for a University that is not expanding the student body, but I don't get a vote.
My point is that Stanford has been run by the administration that basically has total authority over policy. The idea the students and/or even in large measure the faculty has much influence has never been true.

You do have a voice and you do have a vote. Your wallet is your voice and your vote.

I stopped giving to the University outside of Athletics several years ago as I saw policies being put forward that did not align with my values and what I think is important in college education.

My takeaway from this summary is the Muir's being given marching orders and may not be on board with the decisions, particularly after the proposals to self-endow these sports. Could see him making a hard push for the Pac-12 commissioner job.

Drell's attitude reminds me of Robin Hamlett, who killed athletics with her admissions policies in the early 2000s.

I am quite certain the University cares not an iota about my contributions (or lack thereof). The also do not care what I say. They didn't when I was a student and the certainly don't now. It I was a big enough financial contributor they may care an iota, but only an iota. When you have a 27 billion dollar endowment, you aren't likely to worry about a few million here or there.