06-03-2026, 07:14 AM
IMO the question needs to be framed as follow: What was sub-optimal about the way the Tree had been traditionally chosen? This question must be explicitly and publicly asked and answered. When that has been done it may make sense to change the policy. The new protocol has to fix the problems with the previous protocol without adding obvious new ones. As of now, it is unclear to me why change was needed. There may be good reasons, but I want to hear them.
The Stanford student "administration" unfortunately has a long history of asserting more and more control over student's lives without articulating any reasons at all, let alone good ones. In the cases where they cited "reasons" the new system often had obvious problems of its own, or at the very least didn't clearly solve a "problem". This has indeed led to the "Stanford hates fun" situation.
It is readily apparent that the Stanford Band has a numbers problem. They are unable to attract enough members to put on the same kind of performances they used to. IMO that is problem 1, and if Stanford is going to have a band going forward it will need to be "fixed". The band is clearly a social organization. People joined it because it was "fun". It had to be, because practices and planning was/is a lot of work that takes up student's time. If that time doesn't seem to be "well spent", that will be the end of the Band as it currently exists. How the Tree is chosen matters if it is "part of the problem". If it isn't, IMO the process should be left alone. In any case, the Band should make that decision, not the Administration.
It may be that the Band as a social organization just can't "work" any more. It may be that it has to become an "organized" activity designed and run by the Administration in order to even exist. Many University bands are set up that way. I suspect that most of us on this board hope that isn't going to be necessary, and that the Band as a student-run organization can actually work in the current Stanford environment. It is ATM unclear this is the case.
The Stanford student "administration" unfortunately has a long history of asserting more and more control over student's lives without articulating any reasons at all, let alone good ones. In the cases where they cited "reasons" the new system often had obvious problems of its own, or at the very least didn't clearly solve a "problem". This has indeed led to the "Stanford hates fun" situation.
It is readily apparent that the Stanford Band has a numbers problem. They are unable to attract enough members to put on the same kind of performances they used to. IMO that is problem 1, and if Stanford is going to have a band going forward it will need to be "fixed". The band is clearly a social organization. People joined it because it was "fun". It had to be, because practices and planning was/is a lot of work that takes up student's time. If that time doesn't seem to be "well spent", that will be the end of the Band as it currently exists. How the Tree is chosen matters if it is "part of the problem". If it isn't, IMO the process should be left alone. In any case, the Band should make that decision, not the Administration.
It may be that the Band as a social organization just can't "work" any more. It may be that it has to become an "organized" activity designed and run by the Administration in order to even exist. Many University bands are set up that way. I suspect that most of us on this board hope that isn't going to be necessary, and that the Band as a student-run organization can actually work in the current Stanford environment. It is ATM unclear this is the case.