[Snorlax94]

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.

[Snorlax94]

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.

[old spanish trail]

Same here, Snorlax.

[old spanish trail]

Same here, Snorlax.

[martyup]

I view the totalitarian social situation at Stanford akin to the football program.  It's so far gone that it will take a complete change of leadership and several years to turn it around.  That's if there is even the desire to turn it around.

[martyup]

I view the totalitarian social situation at Stanford akin to the football program.  It's so far gone that it will take a complete change of leadership and several years to turn it around.  That's if there is even the desire to turn it around.

[CompSci87]

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.

Seriously, MTL's column sounded like a hopeful development, at least talking to students and trying to make improvements, though there was a bit that suggested more staff would be needed for one aspect. I couldn't resist posting a tongue in cheek cynical reply about mandatory fun and increased bureaucracy, but I'm hoping for the best in reality.

[CompSci87]

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.

Seriously, MTL's column sounded like a hopeful development, at least talking to students and trying to make improvements, though there was a bit that suggested more staff would be needed for one aspect. I couldn't resist posting a tongue in cheek cynical reply about mandatory fun and increased bureaucracy, but I'm hoping for the best in reality.

[TonyLima]

A bit of history.  Jane and Leland Stanford hated alcohol.  It was banned from campus until (relatively) recently.  In the not-too-distant past there was a rule that no business serving alcohol was allowed within five miles of the campus.  Hence the popularity of The Oasis and The Dutch Goose.

As Jane's influence waned, these prohibitions were gradually relaxed.  This is from memory, so apologies if I've gotten anything wrong.

[TonyLima]

A bit of history.  Jane and Leland Stanford hated alcohol.  It was banned from campus until (relatively) recently.  In the not-too-distant past there was a rule that no business serving alcohol was allowed within five miles of the campus.  Hence the popularity of The Oasis and The Dutch Goose.

As Jane's influence waned, these prohibitions were gradually relaxed.  This is from memory, so apologies if I've gotten anything wrong.

[JJJ]

A bit of history.  Jane and Leland Stanford hated alcohol.  It was banned from campus until (relatively) recently.  In the not-too-distant past there was a rule that no business serving alcohol was allowed within five miles of the campus.  Hence the popularity of The Oasis and The Dutch Goose.

As Jane's influence waned, these prohibitions were gradually relaxed.  This is from memory, so apologies if I've gotten anything wrong.

Don’t forget Zott’s and sorry for the thread drift. I think we had a long thread on this topic before but I can’t seem to find it.

https://inmenlo.com/2019/12/30/the-saga-...the-years/

[JJJ]

A bit of history.  Jane and Leland Stanford hated alcohol.  It was banned from campus until (relatively) recently.  In the not-too-distant past there was a rule that no business serving alcohol was allowed within five miles of the campus.  Hence the popularity of The Oasis and The Dutch Goose.

As Jane's influence waned, these prohibitions were gradually relaxed.  This is from memory, so apologies if I've gotten anything wrong.

Don’t forget Zott’s and sorry for the thread drift. I think we had a long thread on this topic before but I can’t seem to find it.

https://inmenlo.com/2019/12/30/the-saga-...the-years/

[82lsju]

A bit of history.  Jane and Leland Stanford hated alcohol.  It was banned from campus until (relatively) recently.  In the not-too-distant past there was a rule that no business serving alcohol was allowed within five miles of the campus.  Hence the popularity of The Oasis and The Dutch Goose.

As Jane's influence waned, these prohibitions were gradually relaxed.  This is from memory, so apologies if I've gotten anything wrong.

Don’t forget Zott’s and sorry for the thread drift. I think we had a long thread on this topic before but I can’t seem to find it.

https://inmenlo.com/2019/12/30/the-saga-...the-years/

more on Mayfield and Palo Alto and alcohol

https://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-begi...ds-end.php

and

https://www.paloaltohistory.org/liquor-i...%20purpose.

[82lsju]

A bit of history.  Jane and Leland Stanford hated alcohol.  It was banned from campus until (relatively) recently.  In the not-too-distant past there was a rule that no business serving alcohol was allowed within five miles of the campus.  Hence the popularity of The Oasis and The Dutch Goose.

As Jane's influence waned, these prohibitions were gradually relaxed.  This is from memory, so apologies if I've gotten anything wrong.

Don’t forget Zott’s and sorry for the thread drift. I think we had a long thread on this topic before but I can’t seem to find it.

https://inmenlo.com/2019/12/30/the-saga-...the-years/

more on Mayfield and Palo Alto and alcohol

https://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-begi...ds-end.php

and

https://www.paloaltohistory.org/liquor-i...%20purpose.

[oldalum]

more on Mayfield and Palo Alto and alcohol
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-begi...ds-end.php. and
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/liquor-i...%20purpose.

Yes, that's it. Mayfield was unincorporated at the time and had no obligation to become alcohol-free.
Both the O and Dutch Goose were/are within 5 miles of campus; the dry area wasn't a geographic distance limitation.

[oldalum]

more on Mayfield and Palo Alto and alcohol
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-begi...ds-end.php. and
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/liquor-i...%20purpose.

Yes, that's it. Mayfield was unincorporated at the time and had no obligation to become alcohol-free.
Both the O and Dutch Goose were/are within 5 miles of campus; the dry area wasn't a geographic distance limitation.

[82lsju]

more on Mayfield and Palo Alto and alcohol
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-begi...ds-end.php. and
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/liquor-i...%20purpose.

Yes, that's it. Mayfield was unincorporated at the time and had no obligation to become alcohol-free.
Both the O and Dutch Goose were/are within 5 miles of campus; the dry area wasn't a geographic distance limitation.

as I vaguely recall the "alcohol line" was the Santa Clara County/San Mateo County border

[82lsju]

more on Mayfield and Palo Alto and alcohol
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-begi...ds-end.php. and
https://www.paloaltohistory.org/liquor-i...%20purpose.

Yes, that's it. Mayfield was unincorporated at the time and had no obligation to become alcohol-free.
Both the O and Dutch Goose were/are within 5 miles of campus; the dry area wasn't a geographic distance limitation.

as I vaguely recall the "alcohol line" was the Santa Clara County/San Mateo County border

[oldalum]

I think Leland's first choice was Mayfield because the train station was there (now the California Ave station); the next station north was Menlo Park.

[oldalum]

I think Leland's first choice was Mayfield because the train station was there (now the California Ave station); the next station north was Menlo Park.

[82lsju]

a couple of articles on alcohol, Stanford, Palo Alto, and surrounding communities

regarding The Alpine Inn

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/mo...TRY24.html

When Stanford opened in 1891, the students soon discovered the liquid refreshments at Black Chapete's, a welcoming change from "dry" Palo Alto. University officials pressured San Mateo County officials about the saloon operating near the university and its young, impressionable students. But county officials did nothing--as saloon keepers and related interests dominated San Mateo County politics, maintaining a very "wet" atmosphere throughout the county.

When the notoriously "wet" town of Mayfield incorporated in 1903, one of the first acts of the town trustees was to declare the town "dry," thus forcing the closure of the 23 saloons in town. Charlie Wright, one of the former Mayfield saloon owners, began a partnership with Crovello at the Alpine roadhouse.

Soon thereafter Charles Schenkel took over management of the roadhouse and renamed it the "Wunder." With the new name came a German flavor, but Schenkel's proprietorship did not last nearly as long as the new name.

In 1907, Portola Valley farmer Walter Jelich bought Schenkel's lease and continued the saloon's operation.

Stanford President David Starr Jordan took advantage of the change of ownership to protest the saloon's presence to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. He complained that the establishment had "the reputation of being vile even for a roadhouse" and that it was a "disgrace to San Mateo County."

But the Board of Supervisors again failed to share the Stanford viewpoint of and granted Jelich a liquor license before they even listened to Jordan's plea.

Jelich's attorney responded that Jordan and the other Santa Clara County protestants should "missionize at home before crossing the creek."

As is the case with many protest efforts, the publicity only increased the popularity of the saloon. Local ranchers, farm workers and draymen continued to patronize the establishment, but it was Stanford students that made it a profitable business for more than 70 years.

In 1909 the State of California passed a law prohibiting the sale of liquor within 1 1/2 miles of schools and universities, including Stanford. This resulted in the closure of 14 saloons in Menlo Park, but left the Alpine Road establishment unaffected--it was just outside the new limit. With much of the competition banned, the saloon's business boomed.

on Mayfield

That small downtown was present-day California Avenue, or Lincoln Street as it was then known. And in 1886, when Leland and Jane Stanford were looking for a college town to support the new university they were building nearby, they turned to Mayfield.

There was just one condition: Mayfield would have to go dry, ending the sale of liquor within the community.

This was during the heart of the Temperance Movement, and the Stanfords knew that associating their school with an alcohol-free town would be enticing to many of the parents of prospective students. (The Stanfords themselves had no issues with alcohol production. They owned the world's largest winery just north of Chico, and they even operated a winery on Stanford's campus for a time.)

https://www.kqed.org/news/11735298/how-s...-palo-alto

and this article talks about local alcohol policies and had this tid-bit on Kepler's bookstore

“Yeah, you had to be careful who saw you coming out of Kepler’s.”

“Wait, wha?”

“It was pretty much an anarchist bookstore way back when,” he explained. “I always worried my neighbors would see me walking out of there and tell my parents.”

https://medium.com/@charlierusso23/an-is...48ca86c984

[82lsju]

a couple of articles on alcohol, Stanford, Palo Alto, and surrounding communities

regarding The Alpine Inn

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/mo...TRY24.html

When Stanford opened in 1891, the students soon discovered the liquid refreshments at Black Chapete's, a welcoming change from "dry" Palo Alto. University officials pressured San Mateo County officials about the saloon operating near the university and its young, impressionable students. But county officials did nothing--as saloon keepers and related interests dominated San Mateo County politics, maintaining a very "wet" atmosphere throughout the county.

When the notoriously "wet" town of Mayfield incorporated in 1903, one of the first acts of the town trustees was to declare the town "dry," thus forcing the closure of the 23 saloons in town. Charlie Wright, one of the former Mayfield saloon owners, began a partnership with Crovello at the Alpine roadhouse.

Soon thereafter Charles Schenkel took over management of the roadhouse and renamed it the "Wunder." With the new name came a German flavor, but Schenkel's proprietorship did not last nearly as long as the new name.

In 1907, Portola Valley farmer Walter Jelich bought Schenkel's lease and continued the saloon's operation.

Stanford President David Starr Jordan took advantage of the change of ownership to protest the saloon's presence to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. He complained that the establishment had "the reputation of being vile even for a roadhouse" and that it was a "disgrace to San Mateo County."

But the Board of Supervisors again failed to share the Stanford viewpoint of and granted Jelich a liquor license before they even listened to Jordan's plea.

Jelich's attorney responded that Jordan and the other Santa Clara County protestants should "missionize at home before crossing the creek."

As is the case with many protest efforts, the publicity only increased the popularity of the saloon. Local ranchers, farm workers and draymen continued to patronize the establishment, but it was Stanford students that made it a profitable business for more than 70 years.

In 1909 the State of California passed a law prohibiting the sale of liquor within 1 1/2 miles of schools and universities, including Stanford. This resulted in the closure of 14 saloons in Menlo Park, but left the Alpine Road establishment unaffected--it was just outside the new limit. With much of the competition banned, the saloon's business boomed.

on Mayfield

That small downtown was present-day California Avenue, or Lincoln Street as it was then known. And in 1886, when Leland and Jane Stanford were looking for a college town to support the new university they were building nearby, they turned to Mayfield.

There was just one condition: Mayfield would have to go dry, ending the sale of liquor within the community.

This was during the heart of the Temperance Movement, and the Stanfords knew that associating their school with an alcohol-free town would be enticing to many of the parents of prospective students. (The Stanfords themselves had no issues with alcohol production. They owned the world's largest winery just north of Chico, and they even operated a winery on Stanford's campus for a time.)

https://www.kqed.org/news/11735298/how-s...-palo-alto

and this article talks about local alcohol policies and had this tid-bit on Kepler's bookstore

“Yeah, you had to be careful who saw you coming out of Kepler’s.”

“Wait, wha?”

“It was pretty much an anarchist bookstore way back when,” he explained. “I always worried my neighbors would see me walking out of there and tell my parents.”

https://medium.com/@charlierusso23/an-is...48ca86c984

[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.