[PAsportsfan]

I think I'm gonna start a rumor that Bernard Muir has been promoted to Provost, and then scan the horizon for the towering inferno when the Cardboard server erupts into flame.

I am not sure it would. It would be regarded by many as a mixed blessing. He would no longer be the AD, and some would say that it would be impossible to find anyone worse. Others would say that finding someone worse was inevitable, as Muir would be doing the hiring. Others would say the whole thing was Shaw's fault. Just when you think you have the Cardboard figured out, somebody will come up with a new angle.

The problem is that Muir would then be responsible for hiring his replacement...this would not be a good thing

You can say that again.

[PAsportsfan]

I think I'm gonna start a rumor that Bernard Muir has been promoted to Provost, and then scan the horizon for the towering inferno when the Cardboard server erupts into flame.

I am not sure it would. It would be regarded by many as a mixed blessing. He would no longer be the AD, and some would say that it would be impossible to find anyone worse. Others would say that finding someone worse was inevitable, as Muir would be doing the hiring. Others would say the whole thing was Shaw's fault. Just when you think you have the Cardboard figured out, somebody will come up with a new angle.

The problem is that Muir would then be responsible for hiring his replacement...this would not be a good thing

You can say that again.

[ADPinWDC]

Stanford Review offers no quarter on dumping Drell.  
They posit she looked the other way on the IT "List of Harmful Language" -- where the words picked were just foolish: 
--  "American"... well, cuz that insults Latin Americans, South Americans, etc.  No es bueno. 
--  "Brave"... as a noun, aka "Indian male".   Probably too masculine also. 
--  "War room"... too violent 
--  "Mentally ill" or "Insane"... those on the IT panel took it personally. 

https://stanfordreview.org/house-of-cowa...ve-update/  

Then Stanford Admin moon-walked back on the whole steaming mess, but it was parked at Drell's door.  

Others have expressed concern at the elevated number of suicides tolerated at Stanford over Drell's six-year tenure.  
GONE GIRL.   (Too offensive?)

[ADPinWDC]

Stanford Review offers no quarter on dumping Drell.  
They posit she looked the other way on the IT "List of Harmful Language" -- where the words picked were just foolish: 
--  "American"... well, cuz that insults Latin Americans, South Americans, etc.  No es bueno. 
--  "Brave"... as a noun, aka "Indian male".   Probably too masculine also. 
--  "War room"... too violent 
--  "Mentally ill" or "Insane"... those on the IT panel took it personally. 

https://stanfordreview.org/house-of-cowa...ve-update/  

Then Stanford Admin moon-walked back on the whole steaming mess, but it was parked at Drell's door.  

Others have expressed concern at the elevated number of suicides tolerated at Stanford over Drell's six-year tenure.  
GONE GIRL.   (Too offensive?)

[GK3]

Stanford Review offers no quarter on dumping Drell.  
They posit she looked the other way on the IT "List of Harmful Language" -- where the words picked were just foolish: 
--  "American"... well, cuz that insults Latin Americans, South Americans, etc.  No es bueno. 
--  "Brave"... as a noun, aka "Indian male".   Probably too masculine also. 
--  "War room"... too violent 
--  "Mentally ill" or "Insane"... those on the IT panel took it personally. 

https://stanfordreview.org/house-of-cowa...ve-update/  

Then Stanford Admin moon-walked back on the whole steaming mess, but it was parked at Drell's door.  

Others have expressed concern at the elevated number of suicides tolerated at Stanford over Drell's six-year tenure.  
GONE GIRL.   (Too offensive?)

Thanks for posting the link.  I struggle to understand what has happened to Stanford.  While the buildings look the same, something is sorely wrong at the upper levels of the administration.  To consider publishing a document like this is bizarre, what were they thinking?

Oh, I get it, the thinking part was missing.

One last edit, are you saying her departure was encouraged?

[GK3]

Stanford Review offers no quarter on dumping Drell.  
They posit she looked the other way on the IT "List of Harmful Language" -- where the words picked were just foolish: 
--  "American"... well, cuz that insults Latin Americans, South Americans, etc.  No es bueno. 
--  "Brave"... as a noun, aka "Indian male".   Probably too masculine also. 
--  "War room"... too violent 
--  "Mentally ill" or "Insane"... those on the IT panel took it personally. 

https://stanfordreview.org/house-of-cowa...ve-update/  

Then Stanford Admin moon-walked back on the whole steaming mess, but it was parked at Drell's door.  

Others have expressed concern at the elevated number of suicides tolerated at Stanford over Drell's six-year tenure.  
GONE GIRL.   (Too offensive?)

Thanks for posting the link.  I struggle to understand what has happened to Stanford.  While the buildings look the same, something is sorely wrong at the upper levels of the administration.  To consider publishing a document like this is bizarre, what were they thinking?

Oh, I get it, the thinking part was missing.

One last edit, are you saying her departure was encouraged?

[washingtonismoney]

I thought the language thing was a real tempest in a teapot. The actual prescriptive language was silly but it's a random department in a university. People bringing this up are really looking for an axe to grind, and it ain't the one Cal has.

[washingtonismoney]

I thought the language thing was a real tempest in a teapot. The actual prescriptive language was silly but it's a random department in a university. People bringing this up are really looking for an axe to grind, and it ain't the one Cal has.

[burger]

Can we keep away from the political bullshit?

Yes, the "banned words" thing (ed. note: they weren't banned) is all politics, as the negative publicity on that came almost entirely from right wing sources and pundits.

[burger]

Can we keep away from the political bullshit?

Yes, the "banned words" thing (ed. note: they weren't banned) is all politics, as the negative publicity on that came almost entirely from right wing sources and pundits.

[terry]

I struggle to understand what has happened to Stanford.  While the buildings look the same, something is sorely wrong at the upper levels of the administration.  To consider publishing a document like this is bizarre, what were they thinking?

As I understand it, the "upper levels of the administration" did not publish the document in question. Rather, the document created by the Information Technology group for its own internal use.

[terry]

I struggle to understand what has happened to Stanford.  While the buildings look the same, something is sorely wrong at the upper levels of the administration.  To consider publishing a document like this is bizarre, what were they thinking?

As I understand it, the "upper levels of the administration" did not publish the document in question. Rather, the document created by the Information Technology group for its own internal use.

[TonyLima]

To paraphrase a South Park episode, this is a great day for Stanford and therefore the world.

Fingers crossed that the new Provost is more Etchemendy, less Drell when it comes to support for and interest in Athletics.

Or even John Shoven.

[TonyLima]

To paraphrase a South Park episode, this is a great day for Stanford and therefore the world.

Fingers crossed that the new Provost is more Etchemendy, less Drell when it comes to support for and interest in Athletics.

Or even John Shoven.

[82lsju]

Stanford University inaugurated its first provost in 1952. Over the past decades, the office has been held by three future presidents of the University as well as other distinguished Stanford names.

Provost of Stanford University
1952-1955 Douglas M. Whitaker 
1955-1965 Frederick E. Terman 
1967-1970 Richard W. Lyman 
1971-1978 William F. Miller 
1979 Gerald Lieberman 
1979-1980 Donald Kennedy 
1980-1984 Albert M. Hastorf 
1984-1992 James N. Rosse 
1992-1993 Gerald Lieberman 
1993-1999 Condoleezza Rice 
1999-2000 John Hennessy 
2000-2017 John Etchemendy 
2017-  Persis Drell

[82lsju]

Stanford University inaugurated its first provost in 1952. Over the past decades, the office has been held by three future presidents of the University as well as other distinguished Stanford names.

Provost of Stanford University
1952-1955 Douglas M. Whitaker 
1955-1965 Frederick E. Terman 
1967-1970 Richard W. Lyman 
1971-1978 William F. Miller 
1979 Gerald Lieberman 
1979-1980 Donald Kennedy 
1980-1984 Albert M. Hastorf 
1984-1992 James N. Rosse 
1992-1993 Gerald Lieberman 
1993-1999 Condoleezza Rice 
1999-2000 John Hennessy 
2000-2017 John Etchemendy 
2017-  Persis Drell

[TonyLima]

Stanford University inaugurated its first provost in 1952. Over the past decades, the office has been held by three future presidents of the University as well as other distinguished Stanford names.

Provost of Stanford University
1952-1955 Douglas M. Whitaker 
1955-1965 Frederick E. Terman 
1967-1970 Richard W. Lyman 
1971-1978 William F. Miller 
1979 Gerald Lieberman 
1979-1980 Donald Kennedy 
1980-1984 Albert M. Hastorf 
1984-1992 James N. Rosse 
1992-1993 Gerald Lieberman 
1993-1999 Condoleezza Rice 
1999-2000 John Hennessy 
2000-2017 John Etchemendy 
2017-  Persis Drell

Eric, thanks for the correction. My mistake. See attached. 

[TonyLima]

Stanford University inaugurated its first provost in 1952. Over the past decades, the office has been held by three future presidents of the University as well as other distinguished Stanford names.

Provost of Stanford University
1952-1955 Douglas M. Whitaker 
1955-1965 Frederick E. Terman 
1967-1970 Richard W. Lyman 
1971-1978 William F. Miller 
1979 Gerald Lieberman 
1979-1980 Donald Kennedy 
1980-1984 Albert M. Hastorf 
1984-1992 James N. Rosse 
1992-1993 Gerald Lieberman 
1993-1999 Condoleezza Rice 
1999-2000 John Hennessy 
2000-2017 John Etchemendy 
2017-  Persis Drell

Eric, thanks for the correction. My mistake. See attached. 

[76lsjumb]

Can we keep away from the political bullshit?

Yes, the "banned words" thing (ed. note: they weren't banned) is all politics, as the negative publicity on that came almost entirely from right wing sources and pundits.

Pot, meet kettle.

[76lsjumb]

Can we keep away from the political bullshit?

Yes, the "banned words" thing (ed. note: they weren't banned) is all politics, as the negative publicity on that came almost entirely from right wing sources and pundits.

Pot, meet kettle.

[McKenwood]

John Shoven would have been great 15 years ago. Headed SIEPR for many years. brobdingnagian sports fan. 
Need to find a young Humanities prof for this job. Move away the STEM mindset.

[McKenwood]

John Shoven would have been great 15 years ago. Headed SIEPR for many years. brobdingnagian sports fan. 
Need to find a young Humanities prof for this job. Move away the STEM mindset.

[Goose]

John Shoven would have been great 15 years ago. Headed SIEPR for many years. of immense proportions sports fan. 
Need to find a young Humanities prof for this job. Move away the STEM mindset.

Not sue it matters what "school" they come from. Their philosophy about what the University owes the students and what the students owe the University is IMO the critical factor.

There is no question the bureaucracy at Stanford has increased greatly over the years. It is at least two orders of magnitude larger than what it was back in the early 70's. Even more importantly, the effect it has on student life has also increased greatly. There is a thread of though that believes Stanford began selecting students for admission at least partly based on their willingness to be passive in the face of regulatory expansion. It is obviously not clear that indeed this is the case, but it is unquestionably true that today's students accept thing that would have been unthinkable in the 70s.

In the 70s, the administration was not markedly different it character that it is today. There were many examples of attempts to control student behavior. These attempts were often foolish, even counterproductive, as they are IMO today. There are three main differences today. 1) The administration is much larger, so it's impact on student life is much greater by it's mere size. 2) The expectation that the University is "responsible" for student welfare (of all kinds) is much greater today. As a result, the University has to be able to "control" more things. 3) The students seem much more willing to accept higher levels of administrative control. Back "in the day", we would just ignore them. We felt we were responsible for our own welfare, not the University, and we didn't much care what they thought about how we lived our life. Today, the students expect/accept more "handholding" and therefore get/accept more "control" from the University.

If the next Provost continues to expand administrative control and responsibility, IMO things will just get worse. What is needed is somebody who will redefine the relationship between the students and the University such that the responsibilities rest primarily with the students. That is part of the educational process. IMO Stanford has been rushing toward failure in that area for many years.

[Goose]

John Shoven would have been great 15 years ago. Headed SIEPR for many years. of immense proportions sports fan. 
Need to find a young Humanities prof for this job. Move away the STEM mindset.

Not sue it matters what "school" they come from. Their philosophy about what the University owes the students and what the students owe the University is IMO the critical factor.

There is no question the bureaucracy at Stanford has increased greatly over the years. It is at least two orders of magnitude larger than what it was back in the early 70's. Even more importantly, the effect it has on student life has also increased greatly. There is a thread of though that believes Stanford began selecting students for admission at least partly based on their willingness to be passive in the face of regulatory expansion. It is obviously not clear that indeed this is the case, but it is unquestionably true that today's students accept thing that would have been unthinkable in the 70s.

In the 70s, the administration was not markedly different it character that it is today. There were many examples of attempts to control student behavior. These attempts were often foolish, even counterproductive, as they are IMO today. There are three main differences today. 1) The administration is much larger, so it's impact on student life is much greater by it's mere size. 2) The expectation that the University is "responsible" for student welfare (of all kinds) is much greater today. As a result, the University has to be able to "control" more things. 3) The students seem much more willing to accept higher levels of administrative control. Back "in the day", we would just ignore them. We felt we were responsible for our own welfare, not the University, and we didn't much care what they thought about how we lived our life. Today, the students expect/accept more "handholding" and therefore get/accept more "control" from the University.

If the next Provost continues to expand administrative control and responsibility, IMO things will just get worse. What is needed is somebody who will redefine the relationship between the students and the University such that the responsibilities rest primarily with the students. That is part of the educational process. IMO Stanford has been rushing toward failure in that area for many years.

[Mick]

There is no question the bureaucracy at Stanford has increased greatly over the years. It is at least two orders of magnitude larger than what it was back in the early 70's. Even more importantly, the effect it has on student life has also increased greatly. There is a thread of though that believes Stanford began selecting students for admission at least partly based on their willingness to be passive in the face of regulatory expansion. It is obviously not clear that indeed this is the case, but it is unquestionably true that today's students accept thing that would have been unthinkable in the 70s.

In the 70s, the administration was not markedly different it character that it is today. There were many examples of attempts to control student behavior. These attempts were often foolish, even counterproductive, as they are IMO today. There are three main differences today. 1) The administration is much larger, so it's impact on student life is much greater by it's mere size. 2) The expectation that the University is "responsible" for student welfare (of all kinds) is much greater today. As a result, the University has to be able to "control" more things. 3) The students seem much more willing to accept higher levels of administrative control. Back "in the day", we would just ignore them. We felt we were responsible for our own welfare, not the University, and we didn't much care what they thought about how we lived our life. Today, the students expect/accept more "handholding" and therefore get/accept more "control" from the University.

I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to the greater administration and the oversight that it brings. The one main difference you didn't mention is that liability -- particularly for California-based institutions -- is so much greater than it used to be. I think the University is reacting to the legal environment with the greater oversight.

I agree with you, I think it has ever been thus. My sister-in-law was an RA at Stanford thirty years ago, and she fairly regularly referred to the "thought police" in terms of University oversight. So there's that...

[Mick]

There is no question the bureaucracy at Stanford has increased greatly over the years. It is at least two orders of magnitude larger than what it was back in the early 70's. Even more importantly, the effect it has on student life has also increased greatly. There is a thread of though that believes Stanford began selecting students for admission at least partly based on their willingness to be passive in the face of regulatory expansion. It is obviously not clear that indeed this is the case, but it is unquestionably true that today's students accept thing that would have been unthinkable in the 70s.

In the 70s, the administration was not markedly different it character that it is today. There were many examples of attempts to control student behavior. These attempts were often foolish, even counterproductive, as they are IMO today. There are three main differences today. 1) The administration is much larger, so it's impact on student life is much greater by it's mere size. 2) The expectation that the University is "responsible" for student welfare (of all kinds) is much greater today. As a result, the University has to be able to "control" more things. 3) The students seem much more willing to accept higher levels of administrative control. Back "in the day", we would just ignore them. We felt we were responsible for our own welfare, not the University, and we didn't much care what they thought about how we lived our life. Today, the students expect/accept more "handholding" and therefore get/accept more "control" from the University.

I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to the greater administration and the oversight that it brings. The one main difference you didn't mention is that liability -- particularly for California-based institutions -- is so much greater than it used to be. I think the University is reacting to the legal environment with the greater oversight.

I agree with you, I think it has ever been thus. My sister-in-law was an RA at Stanford thirty years ago, and she fairly regularly referred to the "thought police" in terms of University oversight. So there's that...

[GK3]

There is no question the bureaucracy at Stanford has increased greatly over the years. It is at least two orders of magnitude larger than what it was back in the early 70's. Even more importantly, the effect it has on student life has also increased greatly. There is a thread of though that believes Stanford began selecting students for admission at least partly based on their willingness to be passive in the face of regulatory expansion. It is obviously not clear that indeed this is the case, but it is unquestionably true that today's students accept thing that would have been unthinkable in the 70s.

In the 70s, the administration was not markedly different it character that it is today. There were many examples of attempts to control student behavior. These attempts were often foolish, even counterproductive, as they are IMO today. There are three main differences today. 1) The administration is much larger, so it's impact on student life is much greater by it's mere size. 2) The expectation that the University is "responsible" for student welfare (of all kinds) is much greater today. As a result, the University has to be able to "control" more things. 3) The students seem much more willing to accept higher levels of administrative control. Back "in the day", we would just ignore them. We felt we were responsible for our own welfare, not the University, and we didn't much care what they thought about how we lived our life. Today, the students expect/accept more "handholding" and therefore get/accept more "control" from the University.

I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to the greater administration and the oversight that it brings. The one main difference you didn't mention is that liability -- particularly for California-based institutions -- is so much greater than it used to be. I think the University is reacting to the legal environment with the greater oversight.

I agree with you, I think it has ever been thus. My sister-in-law was an RA at Stanford thirty years ago, and she fairly regularly referred to the "thought police" in terms of University oversight. So there's that...

Back in the day, which is long past 30 years ago, the RA was rarely seen, usually leaving his room or returning to it, but never out with the inhabitants of the dorm.  Poker games, serious bridge playing, all for money of course. took place 30 ft from his door.  Flasks came out of pockets and the contents emptied into cokes.  
Some how we all found our advisors, scheduled classes, went to them when we liked them and tended not to go when we didn't and just did the reading and papers, unless of course the Prof was one of few who took roll. We pretty much made all of own decisions without unwanted input from the University.  We mostly all graduated, moved on with our lives and years later still looked back on the Stanford years as some of the bests of our lives. Doesn't sound like is the case now.

[GK3]

There is no question the bureaucracy at Stanford has increased greatly over the years. It is at least two orders of magnitude larger than what it was back in the early 70's. Even more importantly, the effect it has on student life has also increased greatly. There is a thread of though that believes Stanford began selecting students for admission at least partly based on their willingness to be passive in the face of regulatory expansion. It is obviously not clear that indeed this is the case, but it is unquestionably true that today's students accept thing that would have been unthinkable in the 70s.

In the 70s, the administration was not markedly different it character that it is today. There were many examples of attempts to control student behavior. These attempts were often foolish, even counterproductive, as they are IMO today. There are three main differences today. 1) The administration is much larger, so it's impact on student life is much greater by it's mere size. 2) The expectation that the University is "responsible" for student welfare (of all kinds) is much greater today. As a result, the University has to be able to "control" more things. 3) The students seem much more willing to accept higher levels of administrative control. Back "in the day", we would just ignore them. We felt we were responsible for our own welfare, not the University, and we didn't much care what they thought about how we lived our life. Today, the students expect/accept more "handholding" and therefore get/accept more "control" from the University.

I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to the greater administration and the oversight that it brings. The one main difference you didn't mention is that liability -- particularly for California-based institutions -- is so much greater than it used to be. I think the University is reacting to the legal environment with the greater oversight.

I agree with you, I think it has ever been thus. My sister-in-law was an RA at Stanford thirty years ago, and she fairly regularly referred to the "thought police" in terms of University oversight. So there's that...

Back in the day, which is long past 30 years ago, the RA was rarely seen, usually leaving his room or returning to it, but never out with the inhabitants of the dorm.  Poker games, serious bridge playing, all for money of course. took place 30 ft from his door.  Flasks came out of pockets and the contents emptied into cokes.  
Some how we all found our advisors, scheduled classes, went to them when we liked them and tended not to go when we didn't and just did the reading and papers, unless of course the Prof was one of few who took roll. We pretty much made all of own decisions without unwanted input from the University.  We mostly all graduated, moved on with our lives and years later still looked back on the Stanford years as some of the bests of our lives. Doesn't sound like is the case now.

[Canalejas]

We saw our RAs all the time. And they not only saw us drinking in the lounge, in the hallways, or in our rooms with the doors open, they were often drinking with us.  I think they even made the Ernie's run for our big dorm keg party.  

Perhaps they thought there was only so much trouble a bunch of nerdy SLE freshmen could get themselves into and so they wanted to show us how it's done.  

The only time I remember hearing about a dorm staff member crossing the line was when one offered an underclassman girl a drink behind closed doors. He lost his staff position for that.

[Canalejas]

We saw our RAs all the time. And they not only saw us drinking in the lounge, in the hallways, or in our rooms with the doors open, they were often drinking with us.  I think they even made the Ernie's run for our big dorm keg party.  

Perhaps they thought there was only so much trouble a bunch of nerdy SLE freshmen could get themselves into and so they wanted to show us how it's done.  

The only time I remember hearing about a dorm staff member crossing the line was when one offered an underclassman girl a drink behind closed doors. He lost his staff position for that.

[Goose]

Back in the day, which is long past 30 years ago, the RA was rarely seen, usually leaving his room or returning to it, but never out with the inhabitants of the dorm.  Poker games, serious bridge playing, all for money of course. took place 30 ft from his door.  Flasks came out of pockets and the contents emptied into cokes.  
Some how we all found our advisors, scheduled classes, went to them when we liked them and tended not to go when we didn't and just did the reading and papers, unless of course the Prof was one of few who took roll. We pretty much made all of own decisions without unwanted input from the University.  We mostly all graduated, moved on with our lives and years later still looked back on the Stanford years as some of the bests of our lives. Doesn't sound like is the case now.

My experience was very similar to yours. Freshman year, I lived next door to the RA. I think we stabilized him more than visa-versa. There weren't many interactions, and none of them were "significant". Our "tutor" worked the night shift at SLAC and slept during the day, so we never saw him. When SLAC first opened, they could only operate the beam at night. It took too much power (supposedly) to operate in the daytime. Interestingly, I do see him now occasionally, more than I ever did then.

We saw our RAs all the time. And they not only saw us drinking in the lounge, in the hallways, or in our rooms with the doors open, they were often drinking with us.  I think they even made the Ernie's run for our big dorm keg party.  

Perhaps they thought there was only so much trouble a bunch of nerdy SLE freshmen could get themselves into and so they wanted to show us how it's done.  

The only time I remember hearing about a dorm staff member crossing the line was when one offered an underclassman girl a drink behind closed doors. He lost his staff position for that.

In later years in dorms that were not all freshmen (and eventually were co-ed) there were RAs that operated like you describe, more or less. Most of them didn't actually participate in the parties, but they did make Ernie's runs to facilitate them. They all had their own lives and friends, so they often were absent or involved is a "small group" party of their own. I think they felt their prominent presence at dorm events might cast a damper on them (and they also might have wanted plausible deniability if "something" happened). In any case they were absolutely certain we knew how to get into trouble and they also believed we would mostly refrain from doing so (and step up to help those who accidentally did so without involving "the administration").

I was an RA for a quarter. I was almost never "there" as I had lots going on academically and in fact quit as an RA after one quarter because it was obvious I just didn't have the time to do even a minimal job.

[Goose]

Back in the day, which is long past 30 years ago, the RA was rarely seen, usually leaving his room or returning to it, but never out with the inhabitants of the dorm.  Poker games, serious bridge playing, all for money of course. took place 30 ft from his door.  Flasks came out of pockets and the contents emptied into cokes.  
Some how we all found our advisors, scheduled classes, went to them when we liked them and tended not to go when we didn't and just did the reading and papers, unless of course the Prof was one of few who took roll. We pretty much made all of own decisions without unwanted input from the University.  We mostly all graduated, moved on with our lives and years later still looked back on the Stanford years as some of the bests of our lives. Doesn't sound like is the case now.

My experience was very similar to yours. Freshman year, I lived next door to the RA. I think we stabilized him more than visa-versa. There weren't many interactions, and none of them were "significant". Our "tutor" worked the night shift at SLAC and slept during the day, so we never saw him. When SLAC first opened, they could only operate the beam at night. It took too much power (supposedly) to operate in the daytime. Interestingly, I do see him now occasionally, more than I ever did then.

We saw our RAs all the time. And they not only saw us drinking in the lounge, in the hallways, or in our rooms with the doors open, they were often drinking with us.  I think they even made the Ernie's run for our big dorm keg party.  

Perhaps they thought there was only so much trouble a bunch of nerdy SLE freshmen could get themselves into and so they wanted to show us how it's done.  

The only time I remember hearing about a dorm staff member crossing the line was when one offered an underclassman girl a drink behind closed doors. He lost his staff position for that.

In later years in dorms that were not all freshmen (and eventually were co-ed) there were RAs that operated like you describe, more or less. Most of them didn't actually participate in the parties, but they did make Ernie's runs to facilitate them. They all had their own lives and friends, so they often were absent or involved is a "small group" party of their own. I think they felt their prominent presence at dorm events might cast a damper on them (and they also might have wanted plausible deniability if "something" happened). In any case they were absolutely certain we knew how to get into trouble and they also believed we would mostly refrain from doing so (and step up to help those who accidentally did so without involving "the administration").

I was an RA for a quarter. I was almost never "there" as I had lots going on academically and in fact quit as an RA after one quarter because it was obvious I just didn't have the time to do even a minimal job.

[qwerty49]

Back in the late 60s we were called “sponsors,” one or two of us on each floor in Wilbur. The “tutor” was a grad student who was never around, and the “RA” was a junior faculty member who lived in one of the little  units next to each dorm.

I was a sponsor my senior year in one of the last all-male frosh dorms on campus. A real zoo fueled by an abundance of testosterone and various illegal substances. The lack of female-influenced civility was telling.

I got elected by my fellow sponsors to give the opening day “the only rules are that there are no rules, and please don’t ask us to buy you beer or weed” speech.

Everything else was totally laissez-faire.  Thankfully nobody OD’ed or got in any trouble.  I socialized a lot with my frosh because three years earlier my sponsor had been a great mentor and inspiration to me. To this day I’m still in touch with 6 or 7 of them and we periodically get together for a “boys’ weekend” on a lake in the Midwest.

I’m guessing there’s a lot more pressure on the students these days.  At least they don’t have to put up with Oakland cops tossing tear gas and charging thru White Plaza. But I sure don’t remember anything as terrible as the Katie Meyer and Brock Turner incidents.  

But like they say, if you remember everything from the 60s, it just proves you weren’t there. :)

[qwerty49]

Back in the late 60s we were called “sponsors,” one or two of us on each floor in Wilbur. The “tutor” was a grad student who was never around, and the “RA” was a junior faculty member who lived in one of the little  units next to each dorm.

I was a sponsor my senior year in one of the last all-male frosh dorms on campus. A real zoo fueled by an abundance of testosterone and various illegal substances. The lack of female-influenced civility was telling.

I got elected by my fellow sponsors to give the opening day “the only rules are that there are no rules, and please don’t ask us to buy you beer or weed” speech.

Everything else was totally laissez-faire.  Thankfully nobody OD’ed or got in any trouble.  I socialized a lot with my frosh because three years earlier my sponsor had been a great mentor and inspiration to me. To this day I’m still in touch with 6 or 7 of them and we periodically get together for a “boys’ weekend” on a lake in the Midwest.

I’m guessing there’s a lot more pressure on the students these days.  At least they don’t have to put up with Oakland cops tossing tear gas and charging thru White Plaza. But I sure don’t remember anything as terrible as the Katie Meyer and Brock Turner incidents.  

But like they say, if you remember everything from the 60s, it just proves you weren’t there. :)

[Goose]

Back in the late 60s we were called “sponsors,” one or two of us on each floor in Wilbur. The “tutor” was a grad student who was never around, and the “RA” was a junior faculty member who lived in one of the little  units next to each dorm.

I do remember the "sponsor" part. I translated it to RA because that is I think the "current" nomenclature. The junior faculty living in the small house was the Faculty Resident as I recall it. I think they are now called Resident Fellows. I was in Cedro in fall 67-spring 68, so that was before anyplace in Wilbur was Co-Ed. The Faculty Resident in Arroyo that year was David Gries. Little did we know he would become famous. I don't remember the Faculty Resident in Cedro for some reason. Not actually sure there was one. There was one Sponsor on each floor plus the tutor.

I was a sponsor my senior year in one of the last all-male frosh dorms on campus. A real zoo fueled by an abundance of testosterone and various illegal substances. The lack of female-influenced civility was telling.

I got elected by my fellow sponsors to give the opening day “the only rules are that there are no rules, and please don’t ask us to buy you beer or weed” speech.

Everything else was totally laissez-faire.  Thankfully nobody OD’ed or got in any trouble.

I think that was pretty much the "norm" at that time.  IMO it "worked" much better than the current system. Females still had "hours" though, at least for a while :-).

I socialized a lot with my frosh because three years earlier my sponsor had been a great mentor and inspiration to me. To this day I’m still in touch with 6 or 7 of them and we periodically get together for a “boys’ weekend” on a lake in the Midwest.

I’m guessing there’s a lot more pressure on the students these days.  At least they don’t have to put up with Oakland cops tossing tear gas and charging thru White Plaza. But I sure don’t remember anything as terrible as the Katie Meyer and Brock Turner incidents.

There were suicides at Stanford during the period of 67-72. I know of at least two. It didn't get publicized very much, so if you didn't know the people involved or live in that dorm, you wouldn't hear about it. Nothing like Brock Turner ever happened that I knew of.

[Goose]

Back in the late 60s we were called “sponsors,” one or two of us on each floor in Wilbur. The “tutor” was a grad student who was never around, and the “RA” was a junior faculty member who lived in one of the little  units next to each dorm.

I do remember the "sponsor" part. I translated it to RA because that is I think the "current" nomenclature. The junior faculty living in the small house was the Faculty Resident as I recall it. I think they are now called Resident Fellows. I was in Cedro in fall 67-spring 68, so that was before anyplace in Wilbur was Co-Ed. The Faculty Resident in Arroyo that year was David Gries. Little did we know he would become famous. I don't remember the Faculty Resident in Cedro for some reason. Not actually sure there was one. There was one Sponsor on each floor plus the tutor.

I was a sponsor my senior year in one of the last all-male frosh dorms on campus. A real zoo fueled by an abundance of testosterone and various illegal substances. The lack of female-influenced civility was telling.

I got elected by my fellow sponsors to give the opening day “the only rules are that there are no rules, and please don’t ask us to buy you beer or weed” speech.

Everything else was totally laissez-faire.  Thankfully nobody OD’ed or got in any trouble.

I think that was pretty much the "norm" at that time.  IMO it "worked" much better than the current system. Females still had "hours" though, at least for a while :-).

I socialized a lot with my frosh because three years earlier my sponsor had been a great mentor and inspiration to me. To this day I’m still in touch with 6 or 7 of them and we periodically get together for a “boys’ weekend” on a lake in the Midwest.

I’m guessing there’s a lot more pressure on the students these days.  At least they don’t have to put up with Oakland cops tossing tear gas and charging thru White Plaza. But I sure don’t remember anything as terrible as the Katie Meyer and Brock Turner incidents.

There were suicides at Stanford during the period of 67-72. I know of at least two. It didn't get publicized very much, so if you didn't know the people involved or live in that dorm, you wouldn't hear about it. Nothing like Brock Turner ever happened that I knew of.

[winflop]

Drell leaving is a necessary, but sadly woefully insufficient, condition of Stanford restoring it's image

[winflop]

Drell leaving is a necessary, but sadly woefully insufficient, condition of Stanford restoring it's image

[82lsju]

There were suicides at Stanford during the period of 67-72. I know of at least two. It didn't get publicized very much, so if you didn't know the people involved or live in that dorm, you wouldn't hear about it. Nothing like Brock Turner ever happened that I knew of.

there were also suicides during 79-82 as well, one was a former dorm-mate who committed suicide in 1981, everyone was shocked as he seemed happy and had everything going for him, his death got a brief mention in the Daily

https://archives.stanforddaily.com/1981/...34#article

There was also a DUI on campus that killed a couple of students.

https://archives.stanforddaily.com/1981/...E4#article

https://archives.stanforddaily.com/1982/...E1#article

There were also sexual assaults, perhaps not quite like Brock Turner, they happened to several of my friends, I only found out about them years later.

[82lsju]

There were suicides at Stanford during the period of 67-72. I know of at least two. It didn't get publicized very much, so if you didn't know the people involved or live in that dorm, you wouldn't hear about it. Nothing like Brock Turner ever happened that I knew of.

there were also suicides during 79-82 as well, one was a former dorm-mate who committed suicide in 1981, everyone was shocked as he seemed happy and had everything going for him, his death got a brief mention in the Daily

https://archives.stanforddaily.com/1981/...34#article

There was also a DUI on campus that killed a couple of students.

https://archives.stanforddaily.com/1981/...E4#article

https://archives.stanforddaily.com/1982/...E1#article

There were also sexual assaults, perhaps not quite like Brock Turner, they happened to several of my friends, I only found out about them years later.