[HN Gopher] Stanford Hates Fun ___________________________________________________________________ Stanford Hates Fun Author : onlyi_spectator Score : 102 points Date : 2022-12-24 19:59 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (johnhcochrane.blogspot.com) (TXT) w3m dump (johnhcochrane.blogspot.com) | pannSun wrote: | > ...When Stanford could not remove a student organization for | bad behavior, they found other justifications. One such case was | the end of Outdoor House, an innocuous haven on the far side of | campus for students who liked hiking. The official explanation | from Stanford for eliminating the house was that the Outdoor | theme "fell short of diversity, equity and inclusion | expectations." ... | | > Next year, Outdoor House will be reinstated, but only because | house members promised to refocus their theme on "racial and | environmental justice in the outdoors." Upholding diversity, | equity, and inclusion is the first of four "ResX principles" that | now govern undergraduate housing. Stanford reserves the right to | unhouse any organization that does not, in their opinion, uphold | these principles. | tatrajim wrote: | Just a bit different in the 70s. My first day as a freshman, the | cool guy next door kindly approached me and muttered "Hey kid, | you want a hit of hash?" | | The one inviolable rule for university housing was "no growing of | pot plants in a dorm room facing the street". Otherwise, cheerful | anarchism prevailed, mixed with some anti-war near mayhem. Good | times, indeed. | lazyeye wrote: | Rather than all the useless ineffectual discussions that happens | whilst a minority at Stanford continues to impose their views on | the majority, what can be done to push back in a way that | actually changes things? | sbuccini wrote: | I think the way Greek life operate at Berkeley provides a study | in contrasts. | | I distinctly remember attending a party at a Stanford frat during | the "crackdown" timeframe. As I was walking up to the house, I | noticed a small scrum of people gathered on the front lawn. It | seemed that a cop was in a discussion with several of the | brothers. He had his Maglite out and appeared to be writing them | ticket. But as I got closer, I realized the brothers were | grilling hot dogs and the cop was using his flashlight to | illuminate the grill. A marked contrast from our house's | interactions with Berkeley's police. | | All Berkeley frats/sororities have houses on private property, | meaning they are subject to the City of Berkeley laws and | regulations which are enforced by Berkeley police (as opposed to | the UCPD which only operates on campus). As you can imagine, the | City of Berkeley (often egged on by NIMBYs living next to the | fraternity houses) were less than enthused about Greek life and | tried to pass several laws/restrictions to effectively outlaw | them. | | The university administration tried to assert some control by | officially "recognizing" fraternities that complied with | university policies. But at the end of the day, to the average | student, it would be impossible to separate the sanctioned frats | from the unsanctioned ones: they all held parties, conducted | rush, held formals, etc. Having frats located on university | property does have some serious advantages. One big one is | forcing someone to leave entirely. Berkeley frats had to deal | with people showing up from all over the Bay trying to sneak into | our parties. They were never happy about not being let into the | party, but there was nothing we could do to stop them from | standing out on the sidewalk and causing issues. | | As they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Berkeley has an | extreme housing shortage. The university realized that having | several thousands students willing to cram as many as people as | possible into a single house was actually hugely beneficial. | Ultimately, the administration stood with the fraternities | against Berkeley city council because they realized that they had | nowhere else to put all these students. | | So if I had to chose, which system is better? Having everything | controlled by the university? Or ultimately being subject to the | whims of cantankerous old people with too much time on their | hands? | watwut wrote: | The best system is the one that treats all students equally | instead of giving special privileges to Greek organizations. | | Let them be just like all other orgs, with no special rules | just for them. Half the problems will dissappear overnight. | lsy wrote: | The author is clearly complaining from a conservative, free- | market viewpoint, but it's difficult to overlook that the | conservative, free-market ideology that triumphed in the Reagan- | Thatcher era has been a major driver of the complaints voiced | here. The late-sixties to early-nineties free-for-all at | universities was partly due to an understanding of the university | as a place for the betterment of the population in the form of a | largely-subsidized public good. This also tied into concepts like | tenure and academic freedom which insulated students and | educators from the surrounding society, and allowed students to | run organizations and modify or vandalize campus property without | consequence, with the benefits and costs that entailed. | | Today the university is largely re-imagined in the conservative | mold. It is foremost an elite job-training site, and includes not | only the cosmopolitan social training that companies demand of | 21st-century knowledge workers, but free-market costs | commensurate with the expected value of the degree in the | vocational sphere. Administration has been handed over to a | business class walled off from the educators, for fear of | academics running the show, with predictable results of fiefdom- | building. Tenured educators are disappearing and being replaced | with the adjunct precariat, another conservative win. This all | contributes to an atmosphere where the stakes of any action are | very high for both students and university employees, and danger | abounds, whether it be from lawsuits or from the possibility of | being forced out of school and suffering lifelong consequences as | a result. It's perplexing to see this laid at the feet of | academics, when one needs look no further than other bastions of | the conservative mindset, like HOAs or corporate HR departments, | to find organizations that would be similarly displeased with an | ad-hoc island in a common-area water feature. | golemiprague wrote: | [dead] | rippercushions wrote: | The article is blaming the school _administration_ , a | parasitic entity that's very different from the academics | you're talking about. | | It's also clear that the increasingly bloated administration is | horrendously inefficient from a free market POV, but what's | happened here is not a free market, but regulatory capture: the | administration makes the rules and spends the budget to benefit | itself, squeezing out both teaching staff and students in the | process. | ss108 wrote: | My understanding of the other poster's comment was that the | triumph of school administrators over tenured professors was | for some time a conservative goal and ostensibly a | conservative win--but it looks like it has backfired. | rippercushions wrote: | Universities like Stanford are notoriously liberal hotbeds, | by what mechanism would conservatives even make that | happen? | ss108 wrote: | IDK, ask that poster, I'm just summarizing the comment. | giraffe_lady wrote: | The hoover institution? The associations with the dept of | defense? | | Liberal _opinions_ may be commonly held there but the | university itself isn 't. | catawbasam wrote: | Hmm. Maybe google "Hoover Institution". | puffoflogic wrote: | The neat thing about being leftist in the USA today is you | can blame 100% of the problems caused by overregulation on | "muh free market!", a mythical boogieman supposedly in | control of the US economy but in reality essentially | nonexistent. | muststopmyths wrote: | Actually no, we blame them on DEregulation. Conservatives | are the ones throwing hissy fits about overregulation | sonofhans wrote: | This is a fantastic comment, and an incisive view of the | problem. I don't wish to sound to cynical, but in response to | | > It's perplexing to see this laid at the feet of academics ... | | I believe the answers are partly contained in your comment. For | one, it's in the professional interests of the administrative | class to continue to demonize, marginalize, and disempower | academics. For another, it's in their political interests to | continue pushing academic institutions towards job-training | programs rather than expanding intellects. | colechristensen wrote: | This is embarrassing and antithetical to what a university should | be. | | The whole purpose of an undergraduate education should be to | build young people into having the knowledge and skills to really | be free in society. A literally "liberal" education in the | original sense of the word. | | Instead adults have to ask permission to have guests. | | That's how you manufacture consent for a police state, making | people live in an environment where the authorities have to | approve of everything until their mid twenties. | | This is also how you waste student money, state money, research | money funneling it away into entirely unnecessary jobs. | | University of California students just got done with a strike, | maybe Stanford students should strike until the administration | stops wasting their money. | laidoffamazon wrote: | They should have simply have gone to their state school. That | they didn't indicates quite a bit, imho (they think the rest of | us who can't get in are subhuman, and in the Stanford case, are | probably eugenicists explicitly). | colechristensen wrote: | Uh, no. This is ridiculous. I'm met plenty of perfectly nice | Stanford folks. A bit of an elitist trend in a few, but the | "subhuman" and "eugenicist" comments are really unnecessary. | laidoffamazon wrote: | It's the natural conclusion of their beliefs in themselves | as ubermensch - that the rest of us are untermensch. I'm | sure many are nice on the surface, but they fundamentally | don't think of us as equals - there's a good reason why | they didn't go to their state schools after all. | | You can see it in people like Dan Gross who named his | venture fund after the eugenics research fund Pioneer Fund | and called other people "NPCs" in a lecture that got big on | HN a few years ago. | narrator wrote: | Since Stanford has not said anything about why they're doing this | that makes any sense, I am going to throw an idea out there: | | I think this all dates back to the end of Halloween in the | Castro[1]. This was back in 2006. S.F used to throw a huge | awesome LGBTQ themed party and then some gang members decided to | attend. Gang members being gang members, one threw a bottle at | another and 9 people got shot. They shut the whole thing down | that 10s of thousands enjoyed hugely because of that one | incident. | | I'm thinking that the extreme overreaction was because if this | incident had started a rift between any group that was not a | white supremacist or Christian group and LGBTQ+ this would have | been catastrophic for intersectionalism. So they had to shut it | all down. The suspects were never arrested or described any more | in news articles than being associated with at least one gang. | | Thus, I think the end of fun is to prevent any incident between | the great mass of intersectionalist factions that don't like each | other, or have irreconcilable differences in real life and must | exist in carefully managed online spaces and social interactions | in structured environments in order to present as part of a | unified woke coalition. The contradictions are so great between | all these groups that more and more rules must be added on top of | rules to keep all the conflict from escaping out and piercing the | image of a bland unified morally righteous whole. | | [1]https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/halloween-castro- | histor... | colechristensen wrote: | It would be much easier to communicate if we removed words like | "intersectional" and "woke" from our vocabulary. | | SF doesn't want to enforce laws and fun things are less | possible when violent idiots attend. | | There's a demographic skew when it comes to violent idiots and | people with more virtue signaling than sense are trying to turn | "violent idiot" into a protected class and strangely start | celebrating many of them. | | So we can't have nice things that attract people who tend to | hurt others. | narrator wrote: | The new problem is "hurt others" has been expanded to include | microaggressions and other trivial differences of opinion | between groups. In order to hold all these groups together in | a unified whole, they have to eliminate all uncontrolled | "fun" situations where differences could break out into the | open in an uncontrolled fashion and cause a huge PR disaster, | or worse a rift between groups that have very little in | common with each other and are only held together by the | thinnest of intersectionalist bonds. | | BTW, for all you downvoters. How is closing down the Stanford | outdoor hiking club not proof of this kind of thing? You have | hikers and they are accused of violating some sort of | diversity, equity, inclusion, social justice protocol. It's | because there's some other group that has some sort of | grievance with people hiking and in order to prevent conflict | they have to layer on more rules and bureaucracy to keep all | the grievance energy from crating a big dust up, scandal, | someone suing the school, etc. They have created all these | mobs of enraged activists marching around everywhere looking | for someone to enrage them so they can feel validated. The | school, to defend themselves creates more rules, more | bureaucracy, less controversial fun, etc. Banning Halloween | in the Castro was just the kickoff event to the long downhill | slide since then. | colechristensen wrote: | It's getting to the point where we need to intentionally | design people's young lives to include some actual strife | to reset their suffering metric so that someone being | slightly unkind stops being treated like battery. | | In other words the whole "right of passage" where you'd | dump a young teenager in the woods with a knife and a | fishing pole and tell them "good luck" needs a modern | equivalent. | | Human beings seem to have a sort of suffering constant | where it doesn't matter how awful or easy your life is, you | find about the same amount to suffer from regardless if | you're a billionaire or an orphan foraging in a garbage | dump. People with really comfortable lives are finding | troubling things to suffer from and it needs to be | addressed and soon. | slackfan wrote: | I didn't realize that knives and fishing poles and access | to the woods were things that were unavailable to the | general public. | ahstilde wrote: | The bastions of elite-school fun are, ironically, in state | schools. | | University of Virginia, University of Michigan, UNC -- these | schools are so large that it's impossible to completely shut out | self-organized chaos. | | I fully expect the next wave of excellence to come from these | schools. | laidoffamazon wrote: | It's pretty clear the Stanford elite think of the people who go | to public schools as either lazy or stupid, perhaps both (maybe | add in a dash of "NPC"? That's the new mold of thinking it | seems). They'll whine and complain but they won't change their | preferences because the _point_ of Stanford is to get away from | the types of people that go to UNC. | m4rtink wrote: | Its interesting how here in the Czech Republic all the good & | famous universities (Charles University, Masaryk University, | Mendel University, Czech Technical University, etc.) are all | public schools while private ones are hardly even on the | radar. | greggarious wrote: | I can't tell if this is a repost or was cited in something posted | recently, but I could have sworn last I read about this, they had | a snippet about how one of the many weird rituals Stanford had | involves running up and kissing strangers? That's the kind of | thing I wish one of the folks I know on the faculty had warned me | about before I spent a summer in Palo Alto. | | Speaking as someone who didn't go to a school with any of the | cutesy crap in the OP, and last read about the institution when | someone had to yank a rapist off some lady, I'm not very | sympathetic. | | I tried very hard to get in someplace without an athletics | program to avoid west coast equivalent of Dartmouth style | shenanigans... then got into neither and quit my PhD after | realizing it wasn't going to end unless I excused and ignored a | litany of abusive and illegal behavior. | | I feel bad for folks who JUST put on an unauthorized costume | but... I saw so much shit passing through when interning in the | Bay I don't have any sympathy for the party people of Palo Alto - | most of them should be sent to the nuthouse. | | (And not a bar.) | awillen wrote: | Former commissioner and champion of the Stanford IM Beirut | (that's beer pong for the uneducated) here. The university | repeatedly threatened to shut us down, but since we weren't an | official group that was tough. They did ban drinking games in | dorm rooms, which thankfully wasn't enforceable, but things were | headed in this direction back in the late aughts. | | Back then, this stuff was theoretically in the name of safety, | though that was totally misguided. When I got to my freshman | dorm, the RAs told us to leave the door open if we were drinking, | so they'd know if anything was wrong. In return, there would be | no trouble. They held up their end of the bargain, and everyone | was drunk but safe and free of administrative trouble. Even the | Stanford sheriffs were well known for not giving you trouble | unless you were flagrantly drinking in public or causing a real | problem. Forcing people to hide their drinking didn't make | anybody safer. | | It's really a shame that the administration has chosen this | direction. I genuinely don't know what the point is. | kenjackson wrote: | This sounds obvious. Of course the school isn't going to | sanction illegal drinking on campus. And of course random RAs | are going to possibly give more flexibility. | | This is like asking the police department to sanction drunken | driving -- versus individual cops making a judgment call. | awillen wrote: | You're misunderstanding - it wasn't random RAs; it was | university policy for RAs. Same thing in every dorm. They | were taught in RA training to focus on safety and not to call | the police or report to administrators if underage students | were drinking but otherwise fine. | kenjackson wrote: | What exactly was university policy? Approving of drinking | parties or minimizing damage done by students who had | drank? | awillen wrote: | Parties were a separate thing - this was just about | students drinking in their dorms (or coming home drunk, | etc.). If they weren't causing problems or in danger, RAs | just left them alone. | maneesh wrote: | Were you a sophomore in Toyon 2006-07? I think you may have | been my roommate... | cs702 wrote: | Wow, I don't always agree with Cochrane, but I found myself | nodding in agreement to everything in this OP. The passage about | Stanford asking students to apply two weeks in advance to host | parties (WTF?), with an advance list of attendees (WTF?), is | _shocking_ to me. The university 's response is _surreal_. | Quoting from the WSJ: | | _> Samuel Santos Jr., associate vice provost of inclusion, | community and integrative learning within the Division of Student | Affairs, says the school is working to address students' concerns | about Stanford's social atmosphere. "The party-planning process | will be streamlined and more administrators will be hired to help | facilitate student social life." "We want events to be fun, | inclusive and safe and those things can happen," Mr. Santos says. | "They just require collaboration and honesty."_ | | I couldn't agree more with Cochrane that _the real problem_ lies | in the fact that Stanford 's bureaucracy has gotten so bloated | that it now has an apparatchik with the title of "associate vice | provost of inclusion, community and integrative learning" ( _not_ | a provost, _not_ a vice provost, but an _associate vice | provost_... WTF?), who promises that "the party-planning process | will be streamlined" (WTF?) and that "more administrators will be | hired" to do so (WTF?). | icambron wrote: | The erosion of campus liberties at elite schools makes them | worse places for everyone. And it's been happening at least | since I went to school, from 2000-2004. It not only removes all | the fun, it also infantilizes the students. College is where | modern kids grow up, and growing up requires, for many of us, | doing some unwise or at least unwise-looking things. The growth | of the nanny-bureaucratic complex at these schools will make | them dull, lifeless, and even more expensive, and then after | college, people will finally start the growing up process at | age 22. As that happens, they'll hire ever more administrators | to try to fix it, with predictable results. | jwond wrote: | > who promises that "the party-planning process will be | streamlined" (WTF?) and that "more administrators will be | hired" to do so (WTF?). | | The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding | bureaucracy | andy9775 wrote: | Even more administrators? And we wonder why education keeps | getting more expensive. | amluto wrote: | > and more administrators will be hired to help facilitate | student social life. | | Pre-registration of large ("level 3") parties has been a thing | for a long time. But when I was there, one pre-registered a | party, one did so online, and I imagine a single administrator | could keep up with the entire workload. | | This made sense for a few reasons, including: | | Parties can be dangerous affairs, and campus security needs to | know where to direct its attention. (There is no need for | campus security to be _hostile_ to parties, but a good campus | police force should help ensure everyone's safety.) | | Student groups throwing parties generally want good attendance, | and pre-registration allows them to coordinate dates. | | Pre-registration helps avoid facepalms like throwing a party | during finals. | | For what it's worth, the actual policy: | | https://vaden.stanford.edu/super/education/parties/party-pla... | | Isn't that crazy. | cs702 wrote: | Thank you. I can see how, say, asking students to notify | campus police in advance with a simple online form would make | sense for large parties. But here we're talking about asking | students to submit an application with a known list of | attendants two weeks in advance. That doesn't seem right. | | Something feels _really off_ when I read that for 16,937 | students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 | administrators.[a] | | [a] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stanford-guide-to- | acceptabl... | zozbot234 wrote: | It's not like having a huge party during a frickin' | pandemic is a sensible idea in the first place. Really, I | have trouble getting what people are complaining about. | Nobody likes shelter-in-place all that much, but sometimes | it _is_ the right choice. | rainbowzootsuit wrote: | The administrators are there as approximately 1:1 hand | servants to carry your bags, attend to preparation of | meals, and so forth such that you not expend yourself | unduly. | MerelyMortal wrote: | I think you should have included the /s tag. Since they | don't actually do all of that stuff, it goes to show that | ratio is ridiculous. | letitbeirie wrote: | That's unreal. One bad year for admissions and the | administrators will outnumber the students. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > One bad year for admissions and the administrators will | outnumber the students. | | Only if a "bad year" is one where the majority of | college-age students in the world are precluded from | applying to college due to natural disasters or the like. | A realistic "bad year" would mean that the same number of | students are admitted, but Stanford breaks some informal | non-poaching agreements with Harvard / Yale / Princeton, | or perhaps admits some students at a lower bar than the | administration was hoping. | ajross wrote: | > Something feels really off when I read that for 16,937 | students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 | administrators.[a] | | Major universities aren't primarily about educating | undergraduates, and of course graduate students (about half | of that student population at Stanford) are essentially | "employees" from a economic production perspective. So | really it's about 8k kids paying to learn near the | activities of 10k researchers and academics, and the 16k | administrators are just the staff needed to keep those 10k | workers productive. Which... sounds about right to me? | cs702 wrote: | You make a good point... but when I read that one of | those 16K administrators has the title of "associate vice | provost of inclusion, community and integrative | learning," I can't help but feel that things have gotten | out of hand. And when I see that the "sticker price" of | attending elite US colleges has risen faster than pretty | much everything else and is now ~$80K/year, I can't help | but be _shocked_. | ajross wrote: | > but when I read that one of those 16K administrators | has the title of [...] | | That's the same logic you see on Fox Business when guests | demand that we defund the entire federal government | because something they don't agree with got funded. | Whether or not you personally see value isn't really the | issue here. You get that, right? | | Even granting that the post is likely to ineffective and | silly (something I'd agree with, FWIW) lots of people at | the school _value_ things like inclusion, community and | "integrative learning" and want to see the school | prioritize it in its staffing decisions. | | Also post-secondary tuition has been beating general | inflation, but lagging many other areas. This link says | it's been growing at 4.63% for the last decade, which is | less than most real estate markets. The idea of tuition | being "out of hand" is mostly just a meme. | ethbr0 wrote: | Requiring pre-registering parties is dangerous _precisely_ | because it is a control lever and a slippery slope. | | Students and administration will always disagree. | | Ergo, any requirement that _can_ be abused by administration | eventually _will_ be abused. Exactly as apparently happened | here. The only check is to prevent that lever from ever | existing. | | Anarchy has many problems, but its foremost strength is | standing in direct opposition to outside control. | | And that's an unfulfilled and critical need in our modern | society, as liberties are bricked up bit by bit. | | (And before someone tosses it in, we can have the militia vs | police end debate some other time, because "a bunch of | college kids getting in trouble" is _far_ short of anything | that serious to themselves or the surrounding community) | pstuart wrote: | Think of the children! | wilg wrote: | Or, in this case, adults. | analog31 wrote: | A special kind of "adults." I went to college and grad | school in two different towns. Each college had its own | culture of fun. The kind of "fun" that the colleges | condoned occurred in a sheltered atmosphere, and would have | been utterly off limits to the adult residents of the | surrounding towns. | kenjackson wrote: | Weird. I know several undergrad and grad students now and | recently graduated from Stanford and they are all really enjoying | it and having fun. Literally every one of them. | | I suspect that what is fun is different for different people. | rightbyte wrote: | Maybe the party rules are applied arbitrary to get rid of | students that annoy the admin somehow. I believe alot of rules | that are not followed are set up for that purpose. | kenjackson wrote: | Yes. This is a well known tactic. Although the people | complaining in this article are usually the demo that | perpetuates it. | laidoffamazon wrote: | The way I see it these institutions should be razed - not because | they "aren't fun" but because they're inherently exclusionary and | produce a cadre of out-of-touch elites who think or operate as if | the rest of us are genetically inferior for not passing their | arbitrary class hurdles at 17. | | The rest of us have nothing because these elites have everything. | motohagiography wrote: | The people behind these efforts exploit the basic agreeableness, | tolerance, and good nature of students everywhere. What I see on | the other side of the 90's was that behind almost every | "transgressive, alternative" culture participant was an | authoritian personality expressed as punk resentment. None of | them cared about the oppressed, it's just a means to an end where | they elevate themselves through criticism using the oppressed as | examples and a front for their own more petty grievences. | | Things like green hair and other alternative culture tropes used | to signal an anti-authoritarian attitude, but now it signals a | hyper authoritarian one using rote criticisms to target anything | simple enough that others just enjoy, and which others won't | match the irrational aggression being used against them to defend | their simple enjoyment of it, and in yielding, it just empowers | these bullies. | | We need to stop believing and listening to histrionic | authoritarian personalities. It was a mistake, and they | systematically abuse the very tolerance that characterizes | western culture with a simple escalating bullying technique of, | "oh, so you say you are tolerant, do you tolerate _this_ moral | abomination? No? Well then you are intolerant and if you don 't | denounce your own dispicable intolerance hard enough, then surely | you are a collaborator! Pay me off and I won't tell the world | what a disgusting person you are!" | | Stanford (and other universities) got hustled by the oldest | hustle since street corners were invented, and they're both too | naive to figure it out, and too conceited to admit they have been | taken by less intelligent but galactically more street smart | people they thought they could just be nice to and help. Stanford | doesn't hate fun, it just has a terminal ideological cancer. | vimax wrote: | Always worth keeping in mind that Stanford protected John Yoo | after authoring the torture memos, and it was MIT that pushed for | prosecuting Aaron Schwartz. University administrators are as much | your friend as HR. | | Edit: Berkeley not Stanford protected John Yoo | drewda wrote: | For what it's worth, John Yoo is a professor at UC Berkeley: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Academic_career | uoaei wrote: | What is that worth? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-24 23:00 UTC)