Other sources often present a very different view of all of the discussed issues. For example, Stanford’s statement about the Hoover fellow at Faculty Senate condemns COVID-19 actions of Hoover’s Scott Atlas | Stanford News mentions the follow reasons for being condemned. It’s not just a matter of being anti-Trump or blocking free speech.
.
This isn’t a uniquely Stanford issue. Some of the other colleges that have eliminated several financial loss sports recently (often prompted by COVID-19) include Dartmouth, Notre Dame, and Brown. Stanford says it was losing $25 million per year on the 11 eliminated sports and the loss wasn’t sustainable.
I expect it’s more a matter of priorities. COVID presents increased budget challenges. Stanford needed to cut something from the budget, and they chose certain less popular sports. Whether this does a disservice to Stanford’s ethos is a matter of opinion. Some feel that Stanford should prioritize sports, including less popular ones. Some do not.
I rowed at Stanford. One unique thing about rowing was it was one of the only sports that a student could realistically hope to join without needing to be a top athlete in the country. I walked on the team without any past rowing experience. I personally think it’s a shame to eliminate that. However, I imagine there will likely be options to compete at a less formal club level in rowing and others, sort of like the Cycling Club team which I also did. The Cycling Club had (has?) informal rides from the post office each day, as well as options for those who are interested in serious competition. As I recall, it was ranked #1 in the nation for awhile when I was a student. I’d personally prefer more options for students to participate and compete at a varsity level like this, rather than giving a strong preference to athletes in admission, such that only the best athletes in the country can compete at a non-club level. However, I’m sure this is an unpopular opinion.
A list of the 11 eliminated sports and 25 remaining sports is below.
At 25 remaining varsity sports, Stanford now fields fewer teams than some colleges of ~2000 students, most notably those in the NESCAC (which tend to support about 30 intercollegiate varsity teams each). It’s surprising to me that Stanford was not willing to maintain at least the level of athletic activity of these small colleges, particularly since I’ve not heard anything about NESCAC sports being currently endangered over budgetary concerns.
The article doesn’t give a lot of specifics about how Stanford is instilling a particularly orthodoxy and focusing on politicized jargon, so there is not a lot of specific details to comment on. I’d expect that professors have a good amount of control over their curriculum, and some may reflect their personal opinions, while others may be more impartial.
If I had to guess, the author might have some issues with the emphasis on race and diversity, such as the comment about the number of courses with the word “queer”, article saying Stanford should eliminate affirmative action, and past issue with racially insensitive wording in a republican’s club newsletter. It was my experience that Stanford does make a strong effort to promote and support cultural diversity and this is reflected in the curriculum, in some cases in class material, and out of the classroom.
The author expressed her political views early and often at Stanford through her writings and actions, so it isn’t surprising that she would complain about the current environment as she sees it. She was frustrated by it and by the other two issues she wrote about in the piece. Frustration is the only connection among the three (they’re completely disjointed otherwise).
NESCAC is a Div IIi conference. It’s a very different situation, with different budgetary concerns. For example, according to https://ope.ed.gov/ Stanford spends ~$140 million per year on their sports. In contrast, most NESCAC schools spend ~$2 million per year.
The Hoover “dust-up” (not the first, by the way) seems just another attempt to de-platform alternative points of view under the guise of “danger” and “public health.” OP might know more about this issue but Stanford itself seems appropriately non-responsive, from what I’ve read recently. Institutionally, it seems to be taking a similar stance to UChicago’s Kalven Report findings: The University is the sponsor of critics; the University is not itself the critic. Read about the issue here: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2021/02/08/academic-freedom-or-misinformation-after-controversies-settle-stanford-faculty-remains-divided-over-the-hoover-institution/
The faculty petition, similar to what we’ve seen at UChicago on occasion and I’m sure elsewhere, is filled mostly with the usual group of non-experts and should just be ignored. Using pressure of this kind is un-inquisitive and has no place at an academic institution.
Here is the general ed humanities requirement prior to 2012, consisting of a three quarter sequence:
" Introduction to the Humanities
Students entering in 2011 or earlier are required to take Introduction to the Humanities (IHUM).
Introduction to the Humanities builds an intellectual foundation in the study of human thought, values, beliefs, creativity, and culture. Courses introduce students to methods of inquiry in the humanities: interdisciplinary methods in Autumn Quarter and discipline-based methods in Winter and Spring quarters.
The requirement consisted of a one quarter introductory course followed by two quarter thematic sequences."
The Humanities sequence was replaced with one “Thinking Matters” course in 2012 and one course in the Humanities (as part of the breadth requirement). Thinking Matters need not be a humanities subject, although all emphasize rigorous inquiry.
The one humanities breadth requirement was subsequently removed, perhaps in a recent revision to the general ed program. Currently there is no required humanities course, although several of the gen ed sections (for instance, Ethical Reasoning or Aesthetics and Interpretive Inquiry) will include humanities classes if desired.
Therefore, it is definitely possible to graduate from Stanford having taken precisely zero humanities, compared to three courses in sequence about 10 years ago. Note: there is a writing requirement (PWR), but that is project-based with the subject matter being the student’s choice or, later on, is major-specific.
To help answer this question, I’m always interested in the reading material that Stanford requires of the incoming class each summer. Stanford’s reason for assigning these works is that they help introduce the students to the intellectual life of the university through the shared experience of reading. Students discuss the works over the summer and then get an opportunity once on campus to hear from the authors themselves and ask them questions.
UChicago doesn’t assign summer or O-Week reading because, they claim, the students will be plenty busy once classes start. The one required sequence that all first years must take is Humanities, and there are six or seven sequence choices, many of which have at least some overlap on the texts (or will cover similar texts). Both my kids had plenty of reading their first quarter on campus as they took both the required Humanities and their required Social Science at the same time. In fact, they took the same sequences, though two years apart from one another. Here’s what they read and discussed in their seminars during those 10 weeks (if only one of the kids was assigned the book, I’ve indicated with a D or S):
Divine Comedy - Inferno (Dante Alligheiri) (D)
The Aenid (Vergil)
The Iliad (Homer)
Paradise Lost (Milton) (S)
On Law, Morality and Politics (Aquinas)
The Prince (Machievelli)
The Republic (Plato)
Politics (Aristotle)
On Duties (Cicero) (S)
I believe it’s possible to find this sort of list in some of the curricular choices at Stanford - perhaps even in one of the gen ed courses. And it’s probably possible to avoid some of the above simply by taking another sequence (though probably impossible to avoid them totally). What’s interesting to me is the contrast of what it actually means to “share in the intellectual life of the university.” At UChicago it means that all take a common Core curriculum where everyone shares in the community’s intellectual tradition by learning about the “thinking process” outside their own discipline. The varying perspectives are, for the most part, still grounded in intellectual matters. At Stanford, it means that all will read and discuss three popular contemporary works over the summer, and then hear the authors’ perspective once they arrive on campus. The perspectives may include some intellectual components, but - given that these are popular authors, not all of whom are scholars - will most likely be focused on other matters pertaining to the current times (political, practical, social, cultural, etc).
This is not to say that these authors wouldn’t be welcome on UChicago’s campus. There are academic and extra-curricular institutes that invite popular authors and speakers all the time. Once students are introduced to the intellectual life of the university, they of course can and do participate enthusiastically in these forums. I think the main difference between these schools, for this particular issue, concerns priorities: the university has the opportunity to introduce itself to the incoming student in a way that will form a lasting impression. What should that introduction be about?
They have made it a gen ed requirement called “Engaging Diversity”:
What
Engaging Diversity (ED) courses have a rigorous analysis of diversity as a constituent element across social and cultural domains. ED courses show how diversity is produced, understood, and enacted.
Why
In a globally interconnected world, it is ethically and practically crucial to develop an awareness and understanding of differences. By gaining knowledge about diversity and public scholarship, your understanding of the social contexts that frame our communication and collaboration with one another will be extended, and your ability to respond to cultural challenges enhanced.
How
You might gain knowledge in the ED Way by taking courses in Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, History, Anthropology, English, or Feminist Studies, among several other areas.
Choose
You’ll find many courses that will allow you to explore Engaging Diversity, but here are a handful:
@1NJParent not sure where you are sensing frustration. The author has clearly made a statement that Stanford has lost some of its earlier identity. Do you agree with that or not, and why or why not?
I don’t believe Stanford’s website, news stories, or other publications about the summer reading uses the phrase quoted in the post above – “share in the intellectual life of the university.” Instead they same things like the following.
The summer reading is claimed be a first introduction to the “intellectual climate” at Stanford, rather than the culmination of all “intellectual” experiences at Stanford. The “intellectual life/climate” the statements refer to goes beyond just the general ed requirements or even just experiences within the classroom.
My personal experience was I thought of the summer reading as more of an ice breaker to give students some kind of directed topic to talk about with each other, as they arrive on campus. Many students continued to have intellectual discussions with dormmates on their own, without direction from the university.
I don’t think this is what the author was referring to in the quoted statement about instilling students with a particular orthadoxy, although she doesn’t provide a lot of detail, so it’s matter of opinion.
Full disclosure: tldr re the whole thread or posted article. I gather there is handwringing that Stanford dropped some sports, as it is a leading indicator that the ethos of the student athlete is in decline.
@Data10 observed that it was a shame that rowing was dropped because it was the rare sport you didn’t have to have experience in to participate. There was also a comparison of D1 v D3. Strikes me that the Stanford student athlete ethos is getting back to a more pure state if it is shifting away from an elite student athlete model to club sports. Club sports seem to be developing into a great option for the student-athlete (as opposed to the athlete-student). They actual compete against other schools and everything.
Actually, one of the articles I linked from Stanford News does, indeed, use that phrase: “In late June, Stanford mailed books to more than 1,700 incoming undergraduates for this year’s Three Books program, which serves as an introduction to new students to intellectual life on the Farm through the shared experience of reading, thinking about and discussing the same books.” Three Books program invites new students to think about cities | Stanford News
I would agree.
If the primary purpose was social, I’d expect the associate dean to describe it as such in his letter. But he didn’t. I took him at his word that Stanford considers it to be a shared intellectual experience for the incoming class. He seems to think very highly of it. I’m not surprised to hear that students continue to have intellectual discussions w/o direction from the university. My guess is that this would be possible even without the summer reading.
That could be. It’s what I thought of when I read the comment, so thougth I’d post for discussion.
Incorrect, and your insistence merely threatens to derail the thread. You are not the OP. However, you have been enlightened by the OP - a couple times now. What contribution would you like to make to the actual topic?
That’s the quote I copied in my post. It’s not the text in quotes from your original post. It’s only a minor difference in wording as listed below, but my point was the website and news story comments about the 3 books program says things like “an introduction”, “offer entrance”, and “first exposure.” The full quoted text makes it clear that the summer reading is suppose to just be an introduction to the “intellectual life” at Stanford, not the main event.
The actual text you listed above says:
" an introduction to new students to intellectual life on the Farm through the shared experience of reading, thinking about and discussing the same books."
The portion in quotes from your earlier post instead said: “share in the intellectual life of the university.”
Interesting point. However, I thought the issue was monetary in essence - they dropped financial support of some sports (and those have to go to club status) due to financial considerations, not because they thought that sports was dominating academics or was compromising the intellectual identity of the school. If Stanford is still viewing sports as a money machine (or a profit center) and making decisions that way, those aren’t very pure motives and won’t necessarily lead to a more “pure” state of the student-athlete ethos. I admit, however, that I might be mischaracterizing Stanford’s motives in reducing some sports programs.
IMO, of this opinion piece, this sentence (among many) is nonsense. “Participation” in a cut sport doesn’t make you a “serious athlete.” And she quit, according to another poster above. Quitters aren’t “serious athletes.”
Data - I see what you are saying. I apologize for inadvertent confusion. I think we are in agreement. My unstated implication was that any “sharing” would be introductory of course - a beginning, not a culmination. I didn’t make that clear earlier. Also, it just occurred to me that my perspective is based not on Stanford’s ethos but on UChicago’s - even if “introductory” it’s still a shared experience among the first years and between the first years and the rest of the university. That’s the way UChicago does things. It’s why first years don’t do much till they get to campus. Stanford’s approach might be a different sort of transition - more gradual, perhaps. Just a thought.
Also - before I forget - UChicago did actually assign humanities reading over this past summer, as part of overall orientation (which was completely different from past years due, of course, to the pandemic-induced changes to the schedule). My recollection was that it was something academic - having to do with studying the humanities. Probably not something that was on the NYT Best Seller list recently! Tbh, it might be new normal now to assign this. We’ll have to see. Apparently the collegiate master for the humanities division was very enthusiastic about it . . .