[Goose]

nothing makes me more confident that Stanford does not hate fun than a column from the President about all they are doing to make it fun...

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/creatin...ampus-life

I don’t know why every development and announcement is met with cynicism.

I read MTL’s announcement. It (not surprisingly) makes absolutely no mention of “mandatory fun,” and I don’t think it’s helpful when false characterizations are manufactured.

I previously have not been a fan of MTL but his comments reflect exactly the kind of response I was hoping for. It sounds like MTL and the university “gets it” that there is a problem, and the university has given the issue priority and is taking steps to make improvements. Some of the recommendations — like university funding for programs and reduced red tape for parties and other activities — are exactly what I would have hoped for. And with Drell’s replacement, it is possible some of the administrative concerns are being addressed. I think the university deserves some time to see what impact these changes have.

I view the situation differently. The thing that IMO the University does not "get" is that the students are quite capable of figuring out how to have fun, and that the University simply needs to get out of the way. University funding of programs sounds like an attempt to retain control, which is in fact the problem. I do understand that the University does have some obligations to prevent things from "getting out of hand", but a much more minimalist approach is what is needed. Why is there any "red tape" for parties? I can understand it if you want to close down a street or something, but for just a "dorm party" I really don't know why it should require the participation and approval of the administration. Set the rules, and assume people will follow them. If they don't, apply appropriate punishments. That used to be the paradigm, and it worked pretty well.

[Goose]

nothing makes me more confident that Stanford does not hate fun than a column from the President about all they are doing to make it fun...

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/creatin...ampus-life

I don’t know why every development and announcement is met with cynicism.

I read MTL’s announcement. It (not surprisingly) makes absolutely no mention of “mandatory fun,” and I don’t think it’s helpful when false characterizations are manufactured.

I previously have not been a fan of MTL but his comments reflect exactly the kind of response I was hoping for. It sounds like MTL and the university “gets it” that there is a problem, and the university has given the issue priority and is taking steps to make improvements. Some of the recommendations — like university funding for programs and reduced red tape for parties and other activities — are exactly what I would have hoped for. And with Drell’s replacement, it is possible some of the administrative concerns are being addressed. I think the university deserves some time to see what impact these changes have.

I view the situation differently. The thing that IMO the University does not "get" is that the students are quite capable of figuring out how to have fun, and that the University simply needs to get out of the way. University funding of programs sounds like an attempt to retain control, which is in fact the problem. I do understand that the University does have some obligations to prevent things from "getting out of hand", but a much more minimalist approach is what is needed. Why is there any "red tape" for parties? I can understand it if you want to close down a street or something, but for just a "dorm party" I really don't know why it should require the participation and approval of the administration. Set the rules, and assume people will follow them. If they don't, apply appropriate punishments. That used to be the paradigm, and it worked pretty well.