03-19-2025, 07:05 PM
Bye, Felicia….
The CardBoard
/
C-House!
/
The CardBoard
/
ESPN: Stanford investigated Troy Taylor twice for workplace misconduct
ESPN: Stanford investigated Troy Taylor twice for workplace misconduct
03-19-2025, 07:17 PM
Do we really think Taylor is going to be gone just like that? These allegations are from some time ago now and he is still the HC of Stanford football. I really don’t know what happens next.
03-19-2025, 07:20 PM
I'm in a different industry, but we've concluded that if you are wondering whether to fire someone, it means you need to fire that someone. I did that on Monday. Never fun, even though there were two recent fireable offenses, one of which involved using my digital signature without me knowing or authorizing said use. No notice, no warning, here's a box for your stuff and get out as the IT guy throws the switch.
It is different with an employment contract, which we do not have. We are at will, so unless someone is let go discriminatorily, there is no recourse. Harassment probably rises quickly to "with cause", but they gave him warning(s), and he said he would comply. So they will be watching for a third strike. If I'm in charge, the next time he's an asswipe to someone, he's out the door.
My main concern with Luck remains that he was on the committee, although who knows what that really means - I doubt he had anything to do with vetting, and he said 'Coach Taylor is on the right track.' Hopefully that was luck just being polite on Gameday. He needs his digital rolodex out front and center.
What is the length of Taylor's contract? Five years? Unless Stanford was monumentally stupid and extended it, after next year he can be shoved out the door without much cost or thought unless he pulls ten wins out of his ass, which ain't happening.
I knew I didn't like that guy for some reason....
It is different with an employment contract, which we do not have. We are at will, so unless someone is let go discriminatorily, there is no recourse. Harassment probably rises quickly to "with cause", but they gave him warning(s), and he said he would comply. So they will be watching for a third strike. If I'm in charge, the next time he's an asswipe to someone, he's out the door.
My main concern with Luck remains that he was on the committee, although who knows what that really means - I doubt he had anything to do with vetting, and he said 'Coach Taylor is on the right track.' Hopefully that was luck just being polite on Gameday. He needs his digital rolodex out front and center.
What is the length of Taylor's contract? Five years? Unless Stanford was monumentally stupid and extended it, after next year he can be shoved out the door without much cost or thought unless he pulls ten wins out of his ass, which ain't happening.
I knew I didn't like that guy for some reason....
I'm in a different industry, but we've concluded that if you are wondering whether to fire someone, it means you need to fire that someone. I did that on Monday. Never fun, even though there were two recent fireable offenses, one of which involved using my digital signature without me knowing or authorizing said use. No notice, no warning, here's a box for your stuff and get out as the IT guy throws the switch.
It is different with an employment contract, which we do not have. We are at will, so unless someone is let go discriminatorily, there is no recourse. Harassment probably rises quickly to "with cause", but they gave him warning(s), and he said he would comply. So they will be watching for a third strike. If I'm in charge, the next time he's an asswipe to someone, he's out the door.
My main concern with Luck remains that he was on the committee, although who knows what that really means - I doubt he had anything to do with vetting, and he said 'Coach Taylor is on the right track.' Hopefully that was luck just being polite on Gameday. He needs his digital rolodex out front and center.
What is the length of Taylor's contract? Five years? Unless Stanford was monumentally stupid and extended it, after next year he can be shoved out the door without much cost or thought unless he pulls ten wins out of his ass, which ain't happening.
I knew I didn't like that guy for some reason....
It is different with an employment contract, which we do not have. We are at will, so unless someone is let go discriminatorily, there is no recourse. Harassment probably rises quickly to "with cause", but they gave him warning(s), and he said he would comply. So they will be watching for a third strike. If I'm in charge, the next time he's an asswipe to someone, he's out the door.
My main concern with Luck remains that he was on the committee, although who knows what that really means - I doubt he had anything to do with vetting, and he said 'Coach Taylor is on the right track.' Hopefully that was luck just being polite on Gameday. He needs his digital rolodex out front and center.
What is the length of Taylor's contract? Five years? Unless Stanford was monumentally stupid and extended it, after next year he can be shoved out the door without much cost or thought unless he pulls ten wins out of his ass, which ain't happening.
I knew I didn't like that guy for some reason....
03-19-2025, 07:40 PM
Quote:After the first investigation, Taylor signed a warning letter on Feb. 14, 2024, acknowledging he could be fired if the conduct continued, according to the documents. Additional complaints were documented in a second investigation that ended last July 24, but Taylor remains on the job.
WTF, Stanford? It is perfectly reasonable to show people some amount of grace and say we're giving you a second chance, but if he signed a warning letter in Feb and there were additional complaints, how does this man still have a job?
BC
Quote:After the first investigation, Taylor signed a warning letter on Feb. 14, 2024, acknowledging he could be fired if the conduct continued, according to the documents. Additional complaints were documented in a second investigation that ended last July 24, but Taylor remains on the job.
WTF, Stanford? It is perfectly reasonable to show people some amount of grace and say we're giving you a second chance, but if he signed a warning letter in Feb and there were additional complaints, how does this man still have a job?
BC
03-19-2025, 08:25 PM
(03-19-2025, 07:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote:And here we are in March 2025 learning about that history.Quote:After the first investigation, Taylor signed a warning letter on Feb. 14, 2024, acknowledging he could be fired if the conduct continued, according to the documents. Additional complaints were documented in a second investigation that ended last July 24, but Taylor remains on the job.
WTF, Stanford? It is perfectly reasonable to show people some amount of grace and say we're giving you a second chance, but if he signed a warning letter in Feb and there were additional complaints, how does this man still have a job?
BC
So did something happen in 2025 with Taylor and/or one of the parties from the 2023 & 2024 actions?
(03-19-2025, 07:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote:And here we are in March 2025 learning about that history.Quote:After the first investigation, Taylor signed a warning letter on Feb. 14, 2024, acknowledging he could be fired if the conduct continued, according to the documents. Additional complaints were documented in a second investigation that ended last July 24, but Taylor remains on the job.
WTF, Stanford? It is perfectly reasonable to show people some amount of grace and say we're giving you a second chance, but if he signed a warning letter in Feb and there were additional complaints, how does this man still have a job?
BC
So did something happen in 2025 with Taylor and/or one of the parties from the 2023 & 2024 actions?
03-19-2025, 09:06 PM
(03-19-2025, 07:20 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: What is the length of Taylor's contract? Five years? Unless Stanford was monumentally stupid and extended it, after next year he can be shoved out the door without much cost or thought unless he pulls ten wins out of his ass, which ain't happening.
I knew I didn't like that guy for some reason....
Muir was monumentally stupid and extended Taylor's contract after his first season because UCLA supposedly interviewed Taylor for their HC job.
(03-19-2025, 07:20 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: What is the length of Taylor's contract? Five years? Unless Stanford was monumentally stupid and extended it, after next year he can be shoved out the door without much cost or thought unless he pulls ten wins out of his ass, which ain't happening.
I knew I didn't like that guy for some reason....
Muir was monumentally stupid and extended Taylor's contract after his first season because UCLA supposedly interviewed Taylor for their HC job.
03-19-2025, 09:46 PM
(03-19-2025, 05:21 PM)JJJ Wrote: This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)
He did. Little did we know that love would turn out to be the Orwellian kind.......
From my relatively distant vantage point the strongest argument in favor of keeping him -- apart from the pecuniary ones recently brought to light -- is that he hasn't (yet) killed a player like D.J. Durkin did.
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
(03-19-2025, 05:21 PM)JJJ Wrote: This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)
He did. Little did we know that love would turn out to be the Orwellian kind.......
From my relatively distant vantage point the strongest argument in favor of keeping him -- apart from the pecuniary ones recently brought to light -- is that he hasn't (yet) killed a player like D.J. Durkin did.
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
03-20-2025, 03:43 AM
(03-19-2025, 09:46 PM)Sam Leopold Wrote:(03-19-2025, 05:21 PM)JJJ Wrote: This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)
He did. Little did we know that love would turn out to be the Orwellian kind.......
From my relatively distant vantage point the strongest argument in favor of keeping him -- apart from the pecuniary ones recently brought to light -- is that he hasn't (yet) killed a player like D.J. Durkin did.
Who knows the real facts, I am sure they are not all here on this board. Maybe this is True, partially True, or just plain BS. In today's world you can be assassinated by just plain BS. Facts may or may not be required. If it is true I want him gone, if it is BS, then I want the perpetrators gone.
(03-19-2025, 09:46 PM)Sam Leopold Wrote:(03-19-2025, 05:21 PM)JJJ Wrote: This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)
He did. Little did we know that love would turn out to be the Orwellian kind.......
From my relatively distant vantage point the strongest argument in favor of keeping him -- apart from the pecuniary ones recently brought to light -- is that he hasn't (yet) killed a player like D.J. Durkin did.
Who knows the real facts, I am sure they are not all here on this board. Maybe this is True, partially True, or just plain BS. In today's world you can be assassinated by just plain BS. Facts may or may not be required. If it is true I want him gone, if it is BS, then I want the perpetrators gone.
03-20-2025, 04:51 AM
(03-20-2025, 03:43 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-19-2025, 09:46 PM)Sam Leopold Wrote:(03-19-2025, 05:21 PM)JJJ Wrote: This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)
He did. Little did we know that love would turn out to be the Orwellian kind.......
From my relatively distant vantage point the strongest argument in favor of keeping him -- apart from the pecuniary ones recently brought to light -- is that he hasn't (yet) killed a player like D.J. Durkin did.
Who knows the real facts, I am sure they are not all here on this board. Maybe this is True, partially True, or just plain BS. In today's world you can be assassinated by just plain BS. Facts may or may not be required. If it is true I want him gone, if it is BS, then I want the perpetrators gone.
Why is there any reason to doubt this? The espn story got access to both outside investigators' reports and quoted them at length.
(03-20-2025, 03:43 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-19-2025, 09:46 PM)Sam Leopold Wrote:(03-19-2025, 05:21 PM)JJJ Wrote: This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)
He did. Little did we know that love would turn out to be the Orwellian kind.......
From my relatively distant vantage point the strongest argument in favor of keeping him -- apart from the pecuniary ones recently brought to light -- is that he hasn't (yet) killed a player like D.J. Durkin did.
Who knows the real facts, I am sure they are not all here on this board. Maybe this is True, partially True, or just plain BS. In today's world you can be assassinated by just plain BS. Facts may or may not be required. If it is true I want him gone, if it is BS, then I want the perpetrators gone.
Why is there any reason to doubt this? The espn story got access to both outside investigators' reports and quoted them at length.
03-20-2025, 05:05 AM
Some information about "Level III" violations:
"Standard Penalties for Level III Violations in Division I" (PDF)
"New Violation Structure Introduced"
I've read the ESPN report twice. Stanford has investigated twice. Taylor is still employed, despite a losing record. Losing cultures are difficult to change. One possibility is that Taylor is clashing with a losing culture. Another is that people are too easily offended or officious. Another is that Taylor is a jerk. The possibilities are endless and we don't have all the facts. I've seen nothing yet that tells me, based merely on ESPN's reporting, that Stanford's current position on the matter is wrong. I am open to new information.
"Standard Penalties for Level III Violations in Division I" (PDF)
"New Violation Structure Introduced"
I've read the ESPN report twice. Stanford has investigated twice. Taylor is still employed, despite a losing record. Losing cultures are difficult to change. One possibility is that Taylor is clashing with a losing culture. Another is that people are too easily offended or officious. Another is that Taylor is a jerk. The possibilities are endless and we don't have all the facts. I've seen nothing yet that tells me, based merely on ESPN's reporting, that Stanford's current position on the matter is wrong. I am open to new information.
Some information about "Level III" violations:
"Standard Penalties for Level III Violations in Division I" (PDF)
"New Violation Structure Introduced"
I've read the ESPN report twice. Stanford has investigated twice. Taylor is still employed, despite a losing record. Losing cultures are difficult to change. One possibility is that Taylor is clashing with a losing culture. Another is that people are too easily offended or officious. Another is that Taylor is a jerk. The possibilities are endless and we don't have all the facts. I've seen nothing yet that tells me, based merely on ESPN's reporting, that Stanford's current position on the matter is wrong. I am open to new information.
"Standard Penalties for Level III Violations in Division I" (PDF)
"New Violation Structure Introduced"
I've read the ESPN report twice. Stanford has investigated twice. Taylor is still employed, despite a losing record. Losing cultures are difficult to change. One possibility is that Taylor is clashing with a losing culture. Another is that people are too easily offended or officious. Another is that Taylor is a jerk. The possibilities are endless and we don't have all the facts. I've seen nothing yet that tells me, based merely on ESPN's reporting, that Stanford's current position on the matter is wrong. I am open to new information.
03-20-2025, 06:40 AM
(03-20-2025, 05:05 AM)branner Wrote: Some information about "Level III" violations:
"Standard Penalties for Level III Violations in Division I" (PDF)
"New Violation Structure Introduced"
I've read the ESPN report twice. Stanford has investigated twice. Taylor is still employed, despite a losing record. Losing cultures are difficult to change. One possibility is that Taylor is clashing with a losing culture. Another is that people are too easily offended or officious. Another is that Taylor is a jerk. The possibilities are endless and we don't have all the facts. I've seen nothing yet that tells me, based merely on ESPN's reporting, that Stanford's current position on the matter is wrong. I am open to new information.
I mean there isn't really a reason to keep him around. We're losing on the field and is creating a hostile atmosphere off the field with staff. I've yet to see a reason to keep him around.
Add this to the senior day stunt he pulled in the fall. I wouldn't be mad if Stanford let him go now. I just haven't seen enough to warrant keeping him around.
(03-20-2025, 05:05 AM)branner Wrote: Some information about "Level III" violations:
"Standard Penalties for Level III Violations in Division I" (PDF)
"New Violation Structure Introduced"
I've read the ESPN report twice. Stanford has investigated twice. Taylor is still employed, despite a losing record. Losing cultures are difficult to change. One possibility is that Taylor is clashing with a losing culture. Another is that people are too easily offended or officious. Another is that Taylor is a jerk. The possibilities are endless and we don't have all the facts. I've seen nothing yet that tells me, based merely on ESPN's reporting, that Stanford's current position on the matter is wrong. I am open to new information.
I mean there isn't really a reason to keep him around. We're losing on the field and is creating a hostile atmosphere off the field with staff. I've yet to see a reason to keep him around.
Add this to the senior day stunt he pulled in the fall. I wouldn't be mad if Stanford let him go now. I just haven't seen enough to warrant keeping him around.
03-20-2025, 08:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2025, 08:05 AM by jacket3ree.)
(03-19-2025, 09:06 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Muir was monumentally stupid and extended Taylor's contract after his first season because UCLA supposedly interviewed Taylor for their HC job.
If true, UCLA dodged a bullet. I'm curious as to the timing and terms of Taylor's extension. This is not easy to find online. After Taylor's first season, Chip Kelly resigned on 2/09/24, a mere five days (2 or 3 business days) before Taylor signed his warning. It is implausible to assume Chip Kelly resigned before results of the investigation were known, as unrelated as those two things are. UCLA might have been hedging against Kelly's resignation or was looking to move on prior to that and started sniffing around Taylor or for some reason went to Taylor as soon as Kelly quit. I find it hard to believe that Muir would extend Taylor knowing there were compliance and harassment issues that rose to a warning of termination, because that would be another level of incompetence or malfeasance on Muir's part.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2025, 08:05 AM by jacket3ree.)
(03-19-2025, 09:06 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Muir was monumentally stupid and extended Taylor's contract after his first season because UCLA supposedly interviewed Taylor for their HC job.
If true, UCLA dodged a bullet. I'm curious as to the timing and terms of Taylor's extension. This is not easy to find online. After Taylor's first season, Chip Kelly resigned on 2/09/24, a mere five days (2 or 3 business days) before Taylor signed his warning. It is implausible to assume Chip Kelly resigned before results of the investigation were known, as unrelated as those two things are. UCLA might have been hedging against Kelly's resignation or was looking to move on prior to that and started sniffing around Taylor or for some reason went to Taylor as soon as Kelly quit. I find it hard to believe that Muir would extend Taylor knowing there were compliance and harassment issues that rose to a warning of termination, because that would be another level of incompetence or malfeasance on Muir's part.
03-20-2025, 08:43 AM
(03-20-2025, 08:04 AM)jacket3ree Wrote:(03-19-2025, 09:06 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Muir was monumentally stupid and extended Taylor's contract after his first season because UCLA supposedly interviewed Taylor for their HC job.
If true, UCLA dodged a bullet. I'm curious as to the timing and terms of Taylor's extension. This is not easy to find online. After Taylor's first season, Chip Kelly resigned on 2/09/24, a mere five days (2 or 3 business days) before Taylor signed his warning. It is implausible to assume Chip Kelly resigned before results of the investigation were known, as unrelated as those two things are. UCLA might have been hedging against Kelly's resignation or was looking to move on prior to that and started sniffing around Taylor or for some reason went to Taylor as soon as Kelly quit. I find it hard to believe that Muir would extend Taylor knowing there were compliance and harassment issues that rose to a warning of termination, because that would be another level of incompetence or malfeasance on Muir's part.
Imo, there's no level of incompetence or malfeasance that Muir isn't capable of. If true, I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest. Baffled and angry, yes. But not shocked.
(03-20-2025, 08:04 AM)jacket3ree Wrote:(03-19-2025, 09:06 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Muir was monumentally stupid and extended Taylor's contract after his first season because UCLA supposedly interviewed Taylor for their HC job.
If true, UCLA dodged a bullet. I'm curious as to the timing and terms of Taylor's extension. This is not easy to find online. After Taylor's first season, Chip Kelly resigned on 2/09/24, a mere five days (2 or 3 business days) before Taylor signed his warning. It is implausible to assume Chip Kelly resigned before results of the investigation were known, as unrelated as those two things are. UCLA might have been hedging against Kelly's resignation or was looking to move on prior to that and started sniffing around Taylor or for some reason went to Taylor as soon as Kelly quit. I find it hard to believe that Muir would extend Taylor knowing there were compliance and harassment issues that rose to a warning of termination, because that would be another level of incompetence or malfeasance on Muir's part.
Imo, there's no level of incompetence or malfeasance that Muir isn't capable of. If true, I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest. Baffled and angry, yes. But not shocked.
03-20-2025, 09:31 AM
The interesting questions here are: Why did this information leak, why did it leak to who it did, and why now?
1. WHY DID THIS LEAK: The most likely answer based on situations like this in the past is that someone was unhappy with the outcome of these investigations. To leak the reports, obviously you have to have access to them. Who had access? Taylor, Muir, Luck, and various higher-ups in the admin had access but no reason to leak - they had already reckoned with these allegations and came to their conclusion. The outside investigator had access but would never leak - that's a good way to kill your practice. So that leaves the targets of the alleged actions, who have clear motives.
2. WHY DID IT LEAK TO XUAN THAI: This was the most eye-raising thing about the story to me. Typically, big Stanford news gets broken by Pete Thamel - he's the favored reporter of the institutional powers. Thai is an investigative reporter with a law degree who digs into major stories involving lawsuits, conflicts involving government oversight, etc.
3. WHY NOW: My best guess is that someone (or perhaps multiple people) who was party to the investigation and was allegedly harmed by Taylor is readying a lawsuit against Taylor and the university. My bet would be on the compliance officer, who has the best case for demonstrating professional damage. Leaking the investigations sets the table for a second stage of this story when the complaint(s) hits.
1. WHY DID THIS LEAK: The most likely answer based on situations like this in the past is that someone was unhappy with the outcome of these investigations. To leak the reports, obviously you have to have access to them. Who had access? Taylor, Muir, Luck, and various higher-ups in the admin had access but no reason to leak - they had already reckoned with these allegations and came to their conclusion. The outside investigator had access but would never leak - that's a good way to kill your practice. So that leaves the targets of the alleged actions, who have clear motives.
2. WHY DID IT LEAK TO XUAN THAI: This was the most eye-raising thing about the story to me. Typically, big Stanford news gets broken by Pete Thamel - he's the favored reporter of the institutional powers. Thai is an investigative reporter with a law degree who digs into major stories involving lawsuits, conflicts involving government oversight, etc.
3. WHY NOW: My best guess is that someone (or perhaps multiple people) who was party to the investigation and was allegedly harmed by Taylor is readying a lawsuit against Taylor and the university. My bet would be on the compliance officer, who has the best case for demonstrating professional damage. Leaking the investigations sets the table for a second stage of this story when the complaint(s) hits.
The interesting questions here are: Why did this information leak, why did it leak to who it did, and why now?
1. WHY DID THIS LEAK: The most likely answer based on situations like this in the past is that someone was unhappy with the outcome of these investigations. To leak the reports, obviously you have to have access to them. Who had access? Taylor, Muir, Luck, and various higher-ups in the admin had access but no reason to leak - they had already reckoned with these allegations and came to their conclusion. The outside investigator had access but would never leak - that's a good way to kill your practice. So that leaves the targets of the alleged actions, who have clear motives.
2. WHY DID IT LEAK TO XUAN THAI: This was the most eye-raising thing about the story to me. Typically, big Stanford news gets broken by Pete Thamel - he's the favored reporter of the institutional powers. Thai is an investigative reporter with a law degree who digs into major stories involving lawsuits, conflicts involving government oversight, etc.
3. WHY NOW: My best guess is that someone (or perhaps multiple people) who was party to the investigation and was allegedly harmed by Taylor is readying a lawsuit against Taylor and the university. My bet would be on the compliance officer, who has the best case for demonstrating professional damage. Leaking the investigations sets the table for a second stage of this story when the complaint(s) hits.
1. WHY DID THIS LEAK: The most likely answer based on situations like this in the past is that someone was unhappy with the outcome of these investigations. To leak the reports, obviously you have to have access to them. Who had access? Taylor, Muir, Luck, and various higher-ups in the admin had access but no reason to leak - they had already reckoned with these allegations and came to their conclusion. The outside investigator had access but would never leak - that's a good way to kill your practice. So that leaves the targets of the alleged actions, who have clear motives.
2. WHY DID IT LEAK TO XUAN THAI: This was the most eye-raising thing about the story to me. Typically, big Stanford news gets broken by Pete Thamel - he's the favored reporter of the institutional powers. Thai is an investigative reporter with a law degree who digs into major stories involving lawsuits, conflicts involving government oversight, etc.
3. WHY NOW: My best guess is that someone (or perhaps multiple people) who was party to the investigation and was allegedly harmed by Taylor is readying a lawsuit against Taylor and the university. My bet would be on the compliance officer, who has the best case for demonstrating professional damage. Leaking the investigations sets the table for a second stage of this story when the complaint(s) hits.
03-20-2025, 12:08 PM
Quote:Patterson cited "belittling comments" Taylor aimed at compliance officers, saying he "expressed inappropriate anger and frustration with staff." The coach would go from "sitting there silently to screaming," a witness stated. In some situations, staffers were "scared to death to talk to him."
"[Taylor] loses his s--- over things that aren't that big of a deal," one person told Patterson.
Even staffers whom Taylor viewed as allies described his behavior as "angry, aggressive and belittling at times," Patterson wrote.
It occurred to me that the reason Stanford hasn't moved against Taylor is that if they did, they might have to also fire, conservatively, about 10% of professors and deans. I think things are somewhat better than they were historically, but the trope of an academic department as a personal fiefdom, and a dean as a tin-pot dictator is sadly all to common.
BC
Quote:Patterson cited "belittling comments" Taylor aimed at compliance officers, saying he "expressed inappropriate anger and frustration with staff." The coach would go from "sitting there silently to screaming," a witness stated. In some situations, staffers were "scared to death to talk to him."
"[Taylor] loses his s--- over things that aren't that big of a deal," one person told Patterson.
Even staffers whom Taylor viewed as allies described his behavior as "angry, aggressive and belittling at times," Patterson wrote.
It occurred to me that the reason Stanford hasn't moved against Taylor is that if they did, they might have to also fire, conservatively, about 10% of professors and deans. I think things are somewhat better than they were historically, but the trope of an academic department as a personal fiefdom, and a dean as a tin-pot dictator is sadly all to common.
BC
03-20-2025, 12:23 PM
I knew TT was trouble when I saw him wearing the white Stanford cap! No one wears that white cap. Wlat and Buddy T. wore the white cap at times and the program bottomed out on their watch too. Just saying.
03-20-2025, 12:32 PM
Taylor is gone from the Stanford Directory. . . .Apparently still in the AD directory.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Taylor is gone from the Stanford Directory. . . .Apparently still in the AD directory.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
03-20-2025, 01:25 PM
Ann Killion's thoughts on the matter: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annki...232043.php
Quote:Apparently Stanford’s high standards of “learning” aren’t applicable to Taylor.
Ann Killion's thoughts on the matter: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annki...232043.php
Quote:Apparently Stanford’s high standards of “learning” aren’t applicable to Taylor.
03-20-2025, 01:30 PM
(03-20-2025, 12:23 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: I knew TT was trouble when I saw him wearing the white Stanford cap! No one wears that white cap. Wlat and Buddy T. wore the white cap at times and the program bottomed out on their watch too. Just saying.
LOL. I ran into him on my way to class last week (or the week before?) and was about to wish him luck on the season and he sort of sneered at me. I came home and told my kid about what happened and said, "I guess either he's an a-hole or could be he's just having a bad day." I now know the answer to that.
(03-20-2025, 12:23 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: I knew TT was trouble when I saw him wearing the white Stanford cap! No one wears that white cap. Wlat and Buddy T. wore the white cap at times and the program bottomed out on their watch too. Just saying.
LOL. I ran into him on my way to class last week (or the week before?) and was about to wish him luck on the season and he sort of sneered at me. I came home and told my kid about what happened and said, "I guess either he's an a-hole or could be he's just having a bad day." I now know the answer to that.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »