[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)