[chrisk]

under Casper, Lieberman served as provost for one year before Condi took over.

Etchemendy stayed on for one year under MTL.

[chrisk]

under Casper, Lieberman served as provost for one year before Condi took over.

Etchemendy stayed on for one year under MTL.

[Mudhead]

While the questions are worth asking, consider the alternative, that MTL announced this.  What would this board have made of that.  Whatever the new provost's qualifications, there would be those that, if she doesn't control the AD as they want, would talk about her as appointed by a lame duck president.

I think it makes perfect sense for the incoming (interim) president to announce the selection, as a show of support.

As for "interim", I rather doubt Stanford has had time to do all the checking it might do on potential candidates and to make a selection.  I rather doubt Stanford would tip its hand by simply dropping "interim" in a press release.

Saller's field of expertise, Ancient History, fits nicely with our Athletic Department. He's an expert on the Fall of Rome, as well. . . .

As for Martinez, I too am puzzled in light of the recent fiasco at the Law School. Sure, she penned a nice response after the fact, but the fiasco happened on her watch. Time will tell.

What should she have done? Personally muzzle the students?

The continuing complaints here about that incident are so transparently tendentious that it's sad.

There are actual threats to free speech being enacted in schools all over the country today, but you people are fixated on a single incident involving a few students with no power whatsoever.

Hypocritical whiners need to get over it already.

I would like for her to have acted upon the free speech paper she put out after the incident.  Those who violated the rather bright lines she set forth should have been disciplined .  If you read her statement and do see the inconsistency between what she wrote and what she failed to do, then  you and I will simply have  to conclude that one of us cannot read.  And my apologies if that is “hypocritical whining”.  Some times the expression of a different perspective is also called open discourse. If not curtailed by personal attacks it can even lead to the open expression of differing ideas in an academic setting.  That’s a form of free speech.
 
Or hypocritical whining ?

Thanks for your input .

[Mudhead]

While the questions are worth asking, consider the alternative, that MTL announced this.  What would this board have made of that.  Whatever the new provost's qualifications, there would be those that, if she doesn't control the AD as they want, would talk about her as appointed by a lame duck president.

I think it makes perfect sense for the incoming (interim) president to announce the selection, as a show of support.

As for "interim", I rather doubt Stanford has had time to do all the checking it might do on potential candidates and to make a selection.  I rather doubt Stanford would tip its hand by simply dropping "interim" in a press release.

Saller's field of expertise, Ancient History, fits nicely with our Athletic Department. He's an expert on the Fall of Rome, as well. . . .

As for Martinez, I too am puzzled in light of the recent fiasco at the Law School. Sure, she penned a nice response after the fact, but the fiasco happened on her watch. Time will tell.

What should she have done? Personally muzzle the students?

The continuing complaints here about that incident are so transparently tendentious that it's sad.

There are actual threats to free speech being enacted in schools all over the country today, but you people are fixated on a single incident involving a few students with no power whatsoever.

Hypocritical whiners need to get over it already.

I would like for her to have acted upon the free speech paper she put out after the incident.  Those who violated the rather bright lines she set forth should have been disciplined .  If you read her statement and do see the inconsistency between what she wrote and what she failed to do, then  you and I will simply have  to conclude that one of us cannot read.  And my apologies if that is “hypocritical whining”.  Some times the expression of a different perspective is also called open discourse. If not curtailed by personal attacks it can even lead to the open expression of differing ideas in an academic setting.  That’s a form of free speech.
 
Or hypocritical whining ?

Thanks for your input .

[Canalejas]

I think it sounds like hypocritical whining because you expect student audience members to be better behaved than the speaker they pepped with questions.  

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023...ition.html  

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/07/stanford...le-duncan/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...839426.php

In contrast, I actually have a very specific memory of Professor Martinez who was asked a very silly and ideologically charged question by an undergraduate student auditing her lecture one day.  But instead of calling that student an "appalling idiot," Professor Martinez calmly and professionally explained that an equal application of a discriminatory law did not magically make that law non-discriminatory.  

If anything, I wish that version of Professor Martinez had been in charge all those years later.  She might not have given in to the disingenuous media portrayal so many of you have eaten up about this "fiasco."

[Canalejas]

I think it sounds like hypocritical whining because you expect student audience members to be better behaved than the speaker they pepped with questions.  

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023...ition.html  

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/07/stanford...le-duncan/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...839426.php

In contrast, I actually have a very specific memory of Professor Martinez who was asked a very silly and ideologically charged question by an undergraduate student auditing her lecture one day.  But instead of calling that student an "appalling idiot," Professor Martinez calmly and professionally explained that an equal application of a discriminatory law did not magically make that law non-discriminatory.  

If anything, I wish that version of Professor Martinez had been in charge all those years later.  She might not have given in to the disingenuous media portrayal so many of you have eaten up about this "fiasco."

[johnbar]

FWIW, the email sent by Saller to staff made it clear the new president will have free rein to choose a different provost:

"It is a great pleasure to announce that Dean Jenny Martinez has agreed to serve as the next provost during my term and beyond at the pleasure of the next president."

[johnbar]

FWIW, the email sent by Saller to staff made it clear the new president will have free rein to choose a different provost:

"It is a great pleasure to announce that Dean Jenny Martinez has agreed to serve as the next provost during my term and beyond at the pleasure of the next president."

[76lsjumb]

I think it sounds like hypocritical whining because you expect student audience members to be better behaved than the speaker they pepped with questions.  

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023...ition.html  

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/07/stanford...le-duncan/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...839426.php

In contrast, I actually have a very specific memory of Professor Martinez who was asked a very silly and ideologically charged question by an undergraduate student auditing her lecture one day.  But instead of calling that student an "appalling idiot," Professor Martinez calmly and professionally explained that an equal application of a discriminatory law did not magically make that law non-discriminatory.  

If anything, I wish that version of Professor Martinez had been in charge all those years later.  She might not have given in to the disingenuous media portrayal so many of you have eaten up about this "fiasco."

With those three links, this post is so far past the “too political” line you can’t even see it from here…

[76lsjumb]

I think it sounds like hypocritical whining because you expect student audience members to be better behaved than the speaker they pepped with questions.  

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023...ition.html  

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/07/stanford...le-duncan/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...839426.php

In contrast, I actually have a very specific memory of Professor Martinez who was asked a very silly and ideologically charged question by an undergraduate student auditing her lecture one day.  But instead of calling that student an "appalling idiot," Professor Martinez calmly and professionally explained that an equal application of a discriminatory law did not magically make that law non-discriminatory.  

If anything, I wish that version of Professor Martinez had been in charge all those years later.  She might not have given in to the disingenuous media portrayal so many of you have eaten up about this "fiasco."

With those three links, this post is so far past the “too political” line you can’t even see it from here…

[PVTree]

Without passing judgment on Prof. Martinez, the title of this thread is just begging for:

...same as the old provost?

Hahaha.... Had the same thought when I read the title....

We don't get fooled again!

[PVTree]

Without passing judgment on Prof. Martinez, the title of this thread is just begging for:

...same as the old provost?

Hahaha.... Had the same thought when I read the title....

We don't get fooled again!