[gailtate]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

I don't find it funny.  But I also don't want to be the arbiter of what is funny or not, and if I were to ask the university to be heavy handed about interceding it, then I would not want to turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun".  You can't have it both ways; either you will have the university sets strict limits (some of which you will think go to far) that make the university not fun, or you accept that maybe the university has gone too far in trying to ensure that nobody ever gets hurt and nobody gets offended, and accept that letting kids have some degree of autonomy means they will make decisions you don't like.

BC

Generally agree. Thing is, humor by definition is threatening. Just is. That and subjective as nothing else. I've never done anything close to stand-up, but I know enough about it to understand just how fragile it is and why comedians are so threatening to so many people. This is why you don't see comedians in authoritarian countries. It is comedy. It is "making fun" of something or someone. At their expense. It is high-risk. The funnier the higher the risk. Nothing more or less. One person's bad taste is another's hilarity. Good taste is in mouths of an audience.

[gailtate]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

I don't find it funny.  But I also don't want to be the arbiter of what is funny or not, and if I were to ask the university to be heavy handed about interceding it, then I would not want to turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun".  You can't have it both ways; either you will have the university sets strict limits (some of which you will think go to far) that make the university not fun, or you accept that maybe the university has gone too far in trying to ensure that nobody ever gets hurt and nobody gets offended, and accept that letting kids have some degree of autonomy means they will make decisions you don't like.

BC

Generally agree. Thing is, humor by definition is threatening. Just is. That and subjective as nothing else. I've never done anything close to stand-up, but I know enough about it to understand just how fragile it is and why comedians are so threatening to so many people. This is why you don't see comedians in authoritarian countries. It is comedy. It is "making fun" of something or someone. At their expense. It is high-risk. The funnier the higher the risk. Nothing more or less. One person's bad taste is another's hilarity. Good taste is in mouths of an audience.