4 ms·

I think I'm close to an outside observer - I didn't go to Stanford and don't have a dog in that fight, as the saying goes. I don't trust the conclusions of this

I think I'm close to an outside observer - I didn't go to Stanford and don't have a dog in that fight, as the saying goes. I don't trust the conclusions of this article. It starts with a story about a frat which filled their building's first floor with sand, so much that they had to rent a bulldozer to relocate it to the campus lake. Then they call the Stanford admins killjoys for not supporting it. But... of course Stanford wouldn't support that! That would try anyone's patience. What kind of impact does dumping all that sand have? What about running the bulldozer over the Stanford campus? What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. Then, the article talks about Stanford letting the lake "go dry." I live in California and I can tell you what happened: the drought. There's a killer drought, nonessential water use is discouraged, and a manmade lake in a little-used corner of a campus is the definition of nonessential. Stanford did the right thing by not artificially pumping it up. There's no malice involved; a lake like that, in 2022, is destined to dry up. So based on those things, I don't think I can trust the article to be taking a balanced, sensible position. My "middle of the road" position wold be that, yes, sometimes adventurous college kids can get away with something - once in a while. But over the long term, it's the institution's job to prevent one-off events from turning into ongoing disaster generators.

UncleEntity 4y ago
> What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. You, sir, would have an absolute conniption if you knew half the stuff we got up to in the airborne…
awhitty 4y ago
You might live in California and have certainly seen the drought, but the lake didn't go dry due to drought. The lake was fed by diverting water from nearby San Francisquito Creek. The university chose to stop filling the lake for recreational use in 2001 to protect the endangered California tiger salamander as the article notes. The lake was still sometimes artificially filled to support salamander breeding, but it was not maintained to a level suitable for (most forms of) recreation (though I still saw members of KA attempt to take a raft out on 1-2ft of water during a rainy week -- I think their raft was more full of beer than the lake was of water, though my memory is hazy). The university has since removed the dam used to divert water to Lake Lag as part of a process of habitat restoration upstream. I'm not sure how that will affect the population of salamanders that depended on that water in Lake Lag, but I believe they also breed upstream and will have more sustainable natural habitat. Also, water from Searsville Dam just upstream from this project is used to irrigate Stanford's golf course, and that is cited as a reason not to remove that dam (the other reason is that removing it would change habitats that formed from the lake it created). The school has sometimes turned off its campus fountains during periods of drought. They shut the fountains down for 2 years while I was there. During that same time I didn't see them shut off water to the golf courses though, and that consumes substantially more water than the fountains. They did restore water in the fountains for the weeks leading up to our graduation, and I can recommend grabbing a pitcher of beer or two from the CoHo and walking it straight down to the fountain outside the bookstore for a soak, if the school still allows it. To summarize, if we are to infer Stanford's priorities based on how it has approached the complex dynamics around Lake Lag and its (former) tributary, I believe that would look like: golf course > endangered salamander > students.
civilized 4y ago
I don't think your disagreement with a couple points in the essay really merits a knee-jerk conclusion that the whole thing is untrustworthy. You didn't show anything the author said was dishonest or egregiously wrong. You just have your own ideas on a couple of particulars.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  This article fails to provide some necessary context that is being brought up elsewhere in the thread. KA, the house whose demise served as an emblem in this article for the demise of Stanford’s social scene: the house associated with the Brock Turner rape. The mile-long lake whose recreational utility was neglected by Stanford administration: unnatural municipal lake whose dam simply stopped operating. The author doesn’t have to be explicitly “dishonest or egregiously wrong” to warrant some skepticism on the part readers.
rileyphone 4y ago
If you actually read the rest of the article it makes some good arguments.
- galoisgirl 4y ago
  I like my articles like I like my women - truthful and not manipulative. Manipulation makes me think that there isn't enough merit on its own.
lmm 4y ago
> What kind of impact does dumping all that sand have? What about running the bulldozer over the Stanford campus? What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. That's exactly the attitude that causes this problem - there's always a reason to say no. These are supposed to be adults, they (presumably) legally rented the bulldozer, they got the consent of the groundskeeper. There's no possible fun so innocuous that you can't come up with one more bureaucratic requirement to slap on it if you really try. Thought experiment: if it turned out the bulldozer driver did in fact have some kind of training/license, would that change your mind? Or would you just look for another reason to say this was bad?
- tsol 4y ago
  Okay so then can I have some fun driving a bulldozer on your property, or are you no fun too?
  - lmm 4y ago
    If you can physically manage it I'll be impressed (it's not easy to get to, and I hope you'll understand I'm not going to doxx myself by giving details). Don't damage anything, don't make noise after 10PM, leave it as you found it. Other than that knock yourself out. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the local kids already do tbh.
- watwut 4y ago
  Now do the consent of house owner and especially lake owner. And also, just because you convinced groundskeeper does not mean the ground-owner have to be agree with it too. Acting like adults involves also NOT dumping your trash in an artificial lake. And yes, that sand was their trash. Edited to add: That is what rubs me really wrong here. The only "crime" university committed here is that they did not treated the sand hill as special thing worthy of protection forever. Instead, they closed the lake due to salamanders which is hardly outrageous action. And then apparently later on did not kept lake during drought (and note that they did took some pro-salamanders actions even during that drought). At no point is this the case of university ridiculously restrictive or doing something wrong. But, frankly, the entitlement in the article is astonishing. You dump your trash into lake and then have fun with it, that somehow means this should be treated as cultural monument worthy of forever protection.
imgabe 4y ago
> What kind of impact does dumping all that sand have? The sand gets wet and sits in the water. It's sand, i.e. dirt. In case you weren't aware, there's already dirt at the bottom of all lakes. > What about running the bulldozer over the Stanford campus? The ground would get slightly compacted and maybe some grass torn up. That's why they got clearance from the person responsible for that, the groundskeeper. > What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? They will learn an important lesson about bulldozer safety. > I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. If you ever find yourself running a bulldozer rental place, you're free to not rent to them.
- watwut 4y ago
  > The sand gets wet and sits in the water. It's sand, i.e. dirt. In case you weren't aware, there's already dirt at the bottom of all lakes. Obvious much of it is there matters. This does not sound like serious argument at all.

UncleEntity 4y ago

> What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. You, sir, would have an absolute conniption if you knew half the stuff we got up to in the airborne…

awhitty 4y ago

You might live in California and have certainly seen the drought, but the lake didn't go dry due to drought. The lake was fed by diverting water from nearby San Francisquito Creek. The university chose to stop filling the lake for recreational use in 2001 to protect the endangered California tiger salamander as the article notes. The lake was still sometimes artificially filled to support salamander breeding, but it was not maintained to a level suitable for (most forms of) recreation (though I still saw members of KA attempt to take a raft out on 1-2ft of water during a rainy week -- I think their raft was more full of beer than the lake was of water, though my memory is hazy). The university has since removed the dam used to divert water to Lake Lag as part of a process of habitat restoration upstream. I'm not sure how that will affect the population of salamanders that depended on that water in Lake Lag, but I believe they also breed upstream and will have more sustainable natural habitat. Also, water from Searsville Dam just upstream from this project is used to irrigate Stanford's golf course, and that is cited as a reason not to remove that dam (the other reason is that removing it would change habitats that formed from the lake it created). The school has sometimes turned off its campus fountains during periods of drought. They shut the fountains down for 2 years while I was there. During that same time I didn't see them shut off water to the golf courses though, and that consumes substantially more water than the fountains. They did restore water in the fountains for the weeks leading up to our graduation, and I can recommend grabbing a pitcher of beer or two from the CoHo and walking it straight down to the fountain outside the bookstore for a soak, if the school still allows it. To summarize, if we are to infer Stanford's priorities based on how it has approached the complex dynamics around Lake Lag and its (former) tributary, I believe that would look like: golf course > endangered salamander > students.

civilized 4y ago

I don't think your disagreement with a couple points in the essay really merits a knee-jerk conclusion that the whole thing is untrustworthy. You didn't show anything the author said was dishonest or egregiously wrong. You just have your own ideas on a couple of particulars.

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
This article fails to provide some necessary context that is being brought up elsewhere in the thread. KA, the house whose demise served as an emblem in this article for the demise of Stanford’s social scene: the house associated with the Brock Turner rape. The mile-long lake whose recreational utility was neglected by Stanford administration: unnatural municipal lake whose dam simply stopped operating. The author doesn’t have to be explicitly “dishonest or egregiously wrong” to warrant some skepticism on the part readers.

rileyphone 4y ago

If you actually read the rest of the article it makes some good arguments.

galoisgirl 4y ago
I like my articles like I like my women - truthful and not manipulative. Manipulation makes me think that there isn't enough merit on its own.

lmm 4y ago

> What kind of impact does dumping all that sand have? What about running the bulldozer over the Stanford campus? What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. That's exactly the attitude that causes this problem - there's always a reason to say no. These are supposed to be adults, they (presumably) legally rented the bulldozer, they got the consent of the groundskeeper. There's no possible fun so innocuous that you can't come up with one more bureaucratic requirement to slap on it if you really try. Thought experiment: if it turned out the bulldozer driver did in fact have some kind of training/license, would that change your mind? Or would you just look for another reason to say this was bad?

tsol 4y ago
Okay so then can I have some fun driving a bulldozer on your property, or are you no fun too?
- lmm 4y ago
  If you can physically manage it I'll be impressed (it's not easy to get to, and I hope you'll understand I'm not going to doxx myself by giving details). Don't damage anything, don't make noise after 10PM, leave it as you found it. Other than that knock yourself out. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the local kids already do tbh.
watwut 4y ago
Now do the consent of house owner and especially lake owner. And also, just because you convinced groundskeeper does not mean the ground-owner have to be agree with it too. Acting like adults involves also NOT dumping your trash in an artificial lake. And yes, that sand was their trash. Edited to add: That is what rubs me really wrong here. The only "crime" university committed here is that they did not treated the sand hill as special thing worthy of protection forever. Instead, they closed the lake due to salamanders which is hardly outrageous action. And then apparently later on did not kept lake during drought (and note that they did took some pro-salamanders actions even during that drought). At no point is this the case of university ridiculously restrictive or doing something wrong. But, frankly, the entitlement in the article is astonishing. You dump your trash into lake and then have fun with it, that somehow means this should be treated as cultural monument worthy of forever protection.

imgabe 4y ago

> What kind of impact does dumping all that sand have? The sand gets wet and sits in the water. It's sand, i.e. dirt. In case you weren't aware, there's already dirt at the bottom of all lakes. > What about running the bulldozer over the Stanford campus? The ground would get slightly compacted and maybe some grass torn up. That's why they got clearance from the person responsible for that, the groundskeeper. > What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? They will learn an important lesson about bulldozer safety. > I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. If you ever find yourself running a bulldozer rental place, you're free to not rent to them.

watwut 4y ago
> The sand gets wet and sits in the water. It's sand, i.e. dirt. In case you weren't aware, there's already dirt at the bottom of all lakes. Obvious much of it is there matters. This does not sound like serious argument at all.