Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford’s war on social life

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 402 posts

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#31

Post by WoahNoun »

googlryas wrote: post #9
tomohawk wrote: post #2

Linked from the article: https://us9.campaign-archive.com/?u=c9d7a555374df02a66219b57... Details on the cancellation of the JV marching band.

Are there specific details about what the band did?

History of rampant sexual harassment and hazing.

> The university initiated the joint inquiry after learning of concerns regarding several band events, including off-campus trips, that the band held for its members between 2012 and 2015. The investigation found that, on several occasions, the band violated university policies regarding alcohol, controlled substances, hazing and/or sexual harassment. Violations included a tradition in which a band member was given an alcoholic concoction intended to make that individual vomit publicly; an annual trip in which some band members used illegal substances; and a band selection process in which individuals were asked a number of inappropriate questions on sexual matters.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#32

Post by armchairhacker »

version_five wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Multiculturalism does work. The way it works is, people with different cultures / wants / ideas form their own communities and mind their own business. And when someone feels part of one community and part of another, they band together with others in the middle and create a third community.

Multiculturalism often fails because people on all sides get offended too easily. Maybe it’s my personality but I really can’t see why some people just hate others with values which are “weird” or “immoral” (but not actually immoral as in they don’t hurt other people / animals / the environment).

Obviously there is tension when there aren’t enough resources, but people get offended even when there are enough resources.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#33

Post by hemloc_io »

This highlights something I feel like most older people on Hackernews, and generally don't know about modern student life!

the amount of university involvement in what's going on in everyone's personal lives has increased substantially from when you were in school, much to the adulation of a portion of the student population. Unis now focus on "student welfare", which really just means expanding the universities reach into what everyone is up to. The most obvious of this is campus police depts.

Where I went to school the admin was straight up bolshevikan in mass, complexity, and sense of self importance.

Generally speaking any self governing student org, particularly greek life, was treated as a liability to be carefully balanced against the amount of donations they bring in.

EDIT: One more thing, 99.9% of these dumbass rules are made due to actuaries in insurance companies or lawyers trying to minimize university liability.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#34

Post by WillPostForFood »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #30
humanistbot wrote: post #8

I read the whole article, and it seems to be entirely about the push to remove Greek / Frat / Sorority life from campus and convert these houses to more traditional dorms. I know that some people who got a lot out of Greek Life equate it with Social Life, but most college students don't pledge/rush and it doesn't get in the way of social life. There are plenty of ways to socialize without frats.

This seems to be like "they're removing greek/frat/sororities, so they're coming for co-ops". That said, you know, you're going to a rich private university with other rich kids, what do you expect the administration to do?

It was a rich private school for over a hundred years without the administration acting this way. You might expect the status quo, not that they would suddenly get a massive case of bureaucratitis.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#35

Post by mensetmanusman »

“Stanford's new social order offers a peek into the bureaucrat's vision for America. It is a world without risk, genuine difference, or the kind of group connection that makes teenage boys want to rent bulldozers and build islands. It is a world largely without unencumbered joy; without the kind of cultural specificity that makes college, or the rest of life, particularly interesting.”

This is true at MIT as well. Can’t imagine the hacks of old being allowed.

Our zero risk society is perfectly boring.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#36

Post by FairHope »

avindroth wrote: post #11
vfclists wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has this got to do with multiculturalism? Did the non-white male students call for these changes, or is it part of the corporate agenda of disrupting strong social networks and bonds?

I think the implication is that multiculturalism is very hard to get right, and that one solution to it is to be very careful all the time. This leads to a sort of vague blandness that has become more prominent in the Bay area over the past few years. If you don't want to be cancelled, just don't say potentially controversial things. The thing with unique, interesting group identities (like in Stanford social groups)…

No post body was provided.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#37

Post by [deleted] »

humanistbot wrote: post #8

I read the whole article, and it seems to be entirely about the push to remove Greek / Frat / Sorority life from campus and convert these houses to more traditional dorms. I know that some people who got a lot out of Greek Life equate it with Social Life, but most college students don't pledge/rush and it doesn't get in the way of social life. There are plenty of ways to socialize without frats.

[deleted]

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#38

Post by car_analogy »

armchairhacker wrote: post #32
version_five wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Multiculturalism does work. The way it works is, people with different cultures / wants / ideas form their own communities and mind their own business. And when someone feels part of one community and part of another, they band together with others in the middle and create a third community. Multiculturalism often fails because people on all sides get offended too easily. Maybe it’s my personality but I really can’t…

> Multiculturalism does work. The way it works is, people with different cultures / wants / ideas form their own communities and mind their own business.

You're describing nationalism.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#39

Post by marcosdumay »

googlryas wrote: post #7
version_five wrote: post #3

[flagged]

When do you think multiculturalism was implemented? Hasn't America been multicultural for...hundreds of years? Different immigrant groups had their own culture, different states had their own culture, different religions had their own cultures, hicks/urbanites had their own cultures, educated/uneducated had their own cultures, etc.

Going on the GP's line¹, diversity of cultures is a result of balkanization. Just like genetics speciation, but with memes.

Once people start moving around, multiculturalism dies.

1 - I'm not sure I agree, but after reading the comment, I'm tending this way.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#40

Post by temp8964 »

BonoboIO wrote: post #28

What a sad story. I can really imagine being there and have fun, be creative and „grow up“ to be an adult with a purpose in life. But now, this sounds like a soulless place, replaceable, replaceable like myself. Every student should be the same, no variations ... for what. I don’t get it. This makes me very sad.

Soulless is the essence of postmodernism. I have no doubt if the admin can remove the traditional buildings, they will replace them with all cubical buildings. Yelling for diversity and at the same time replacing everything with grey color rectangles and squares is their cultural revolution.
Post reply on HN