[qwerty49]

Without wading into the conflict itself, how does a University police itself so everyone feels safe, if students can't exercise civility and self-control? Are students at Stanford and elsewhere really going to take up arms, or is it talk? Do they understand that other people might fight back physically too?  I was in college a decade after the Vietnam era and divestment from South Africa was the thing in my day. That was really students v. trustees and it wasn't violent that I recall. Sashes at graduation. This is student on student. So sad that people fear for their own safety and some may be compelled to leave and find quieter campuses elsewhere to resume their studies.

Where do they all find time for this?  I didn't even have time to sleep when I was in school, much less protest.

I was at Stanford during the Vietnam demonstrations/riots. In most cases this was students against the administration, but there was plenty of violence. It was also not a period of "free speech". If one didn't think shutting down the University was a good idea, it was very wise not to say so in the hearing of others. Those that doubt student on student violence is "just not going to happen" are at least historically mistaken. If you were looking for a "safe place" at Stanford, you weren't going to find it. The serious problems arise when the process of protest / counter-protest becomes an end in itself. The issues that ignited the protest  no longer really matter.

Students can easily find plenty of time to engage in socially acceptable "mass movements", especially in spring quarter. Unfortunately these activities often attract non-Stanford actors. Invited speakers often have an agenda that includes creating an "incident" if at all possible. People from the surrounding community (many of whom do actually have an opinion on the Gaza situation) find anonymity for forcefully expressing their views on the Stanford campus.

All that said, I don't think the Gaza issue is going to generate widespread involvement by Stanford students. While many of them "care", few of them intend to become personally involved in political protest/action on campus. That however can change, particularly if the administration does something that inflames tempers.

I was on campus at the height of the VN turmoil, which was exacerbated by the RFK and MLK assassinations, and the general social tumult of the times.  I had friends and relatives serving in-country, and friends throwing rocks at cops in White Plaza.  I do think that our country is just about as polarized now as it was 55 years ago, which is a sobering thought.

I can remember when members of a certain frat grabbed David Harris and shaved his head.  I can also remember when helicopters were buzzing Wilbur, Stern, and Branner and a few hundred folks lined up LSJUMB-style in the street to spell out an epithet for the searchlights scanning down (I was in the first "U" of that phrase).  

But aside from the Harris incident, I don't remember personal insults or threats.  It was more the whole boiling-cauldron vibe of the times that scared me.

Yes, there are some free speech principles in play, but what Theo describes in the article is concerning to me.  Maybe that's just the way things have evolved in terms of behavior.  And yes, the university's role is difficult to determine.

[qwerty49]

Without wading into the conflict itself, how does a University police itself so everyone feels safe, if students can't exercise civility and self-control? Are students at Stanford and elsewhere really going to take up arms, or is it talk? Do they understand that other people might fight back physically too?  I was in college a decade after the Vietnam era and divestment from South Africa was the thing in my day. That was really students v. trustees and it wasn't violent that I recall. Sashes at graduation. This is student on student. So sad that people fear for their own safety and some may be compelled to leave and find quieter campuses elsewhere to resume their studies.

Where do they all find time for this?  I didn't even have time to sleep when I was in school, much less protest.

I was at Stanford during the Vietnam demonstrations/riots. In most cases this was students against the administration, but there was plenty of violence. It was also not a period of "free speech". If one didn't think shutting down the University was a good idea, it was very wise not to say so in the hearing of others. Those that doubt student on student violence is "just not going to happen" are at least historically mistaken. If you were looking for a "safe place" at Stanford, you weren't going to find it. The serious problems arise when the process of protest / counter-protest becomes an end in itself. The issues that ignited the protest  no longer really matter.

Students can easily find plenty of time to engage in socially acceptable "mass movements", especially in spring quarter. Unfortunately these activities often attract non-Stanford actors. Invited speakers often have an agenda that includes creating an "incident" if at all possible. People from the surrounding community (many of whom do actually have an opinion on the Gaza situation) find anonymity for forcefully expressing their views on the Stanford campus.

All that said, I don't think the Gaza issue is going to generate widespread involvement by Stanford students. While many of them "care", few of them intend to become personally involved in political protest/action on campus. That however can change, particularly if the administration does something that inflames tempers.

I was on campus at the height of the VN turmoil, which was exacerbated by the RFK and MLK assassinations, and the general social tumult of the times.  I had friends and relatives serving in-country, and friends throwing rocks at cops in White Plaza.  I do think that our country is just about as polarized now as it was 55 years ago, which is a sobering thought.

I can remember when members of a certain frat grabbed David Harris and shaved his head.  I can also remember when helicopters were buzzing Wilbur, Stern, and Branner and a few hundred folks lined up LSJUMB-style in the street to spell out an epithet for the searchlights scanning down (I was in the first "U" of that phrase).  

But aside from the Harris incident, I don't remember personal insults or threats.  It was more the whole boiling-cauldron vibe of the times that scared me.

Yes, there are some free speech principles in play, but what Theo describes in the article is concerning to me.  Maybe that's just the way things have evolved in terms of behavior.  And yes, the university's role is difficult to determine.