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.
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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
The groundskeeper is their duly authorized representative.
> Acting like adults involves also NOT dumping your trash in an artificial lake. And yes, that sand was their trash.
Dumping would be if you leave it somewhere and never go back. They upcycled it into something positive (an artificial island that they apparently then enjoyed for many years), which is surely something we should applaud.
> The only "crime" university committed here is that they did not treated the sand hill as special thing worthy of protection forever.
No one is demanding that - I don't think anyone would be complaining if the next year's students had demolished the sand island so that they could have more boating space or whatever. The issue is that they took away an area that the students were able to use for unstructured fun, for the sake of something that was evidently not very important to them (they care about the salamanders enough to take away the students' lake access, but not enough to keep the lake filled), probably because they don't attach any value to students having unstructured fun.
> Dumping would be if you leave it somewhere and never go back.
This is not true. It is dumping trash whether you go back or not.
> The issue is that they took away an area that the students were able to use for unstructured fun,
This is astonishing entitlement. No, just because you used something for fun does not mean the owner can't start using it differently. In particular, it does not mean owner can't start protecting animals there.
This level of entitlement is probably one of reason why majority of Stanford students 83% were for abolishment, dehousing or at least reform of these groups.
> for the sake of something that was evidently not very important to them (they care about the salamanders enough to take away the students' lake access, but not enough to keep the lake filled),
This is both lie and manipulative. It was massive California wide draught. There was also restauration of biome upstream going on (biome better for salamanders). They did periodically let some water in to allow them breeding, it was not good for people.
But, even if the salamanders became victim to that drought, that would not imply what you said.
> This is astonishing entitlement. No, just because you used something for fun does not mean the owner can't start using it differently.
If your logic is "the university is the owner and can do whatever they like", pretty soon students will be living in pods like one of those Japanese hotels. The university supposedly has the welfare of its students as one of its priorities (and gets tax breaks and donations on that basis).
At the very least people applying to universities on the strength of their reputation deserve to know the extent to which Stanford has destroyed the student experience that built that reputation.
> There was also restauration of biome upstream going on (biome better for salamanders).
Then why was it necessary to close the lake to students in the first place?
> But, even if the salamanders became victim to that drought, that would not imply what you said.
Yes it would. You can say that water in a drought would be a bigger expense and only allocated to the highest priority uses, but per this thread they apparently found it worthwhile to keep the golf course sprinklers running.
> Then why was it necessary to close the lake to students in the first place?
To protect salamanders who at the time lived in the lake. Even during draught, the university did periodically filled water in to keep them alive. That biome upstream got restored between original closing is super cool, but does not negate anything.
Also, students are not 2 years old. Overwhelming majority of them is able to process the above without having emotional meltdown over sandpit.
> If your logic is "the university is the owner and can do whatever they like", pretty soon students will be living in pods like one of those Japanese hotels. The university supposedly has the welfare of its students as one of its priorities.
This is quite massive logical leap from "university is entitled to close lake or part of campus despite single fraternity having made sand hill years ago". Students wont and did not had any lasting trauma from not having lake accessible.
> The university supposedly has the welfare of its students as one of its priorities (and gets tax breaks and donations on that basis).
This is in no way contradictory with single fraternity loosing their sand hill or artificial lake not being available to students in general.
> Yes it would. You can say that water in a drought would be a bigger expense and only allocated to the highest priority uses, but per this thread they apparently found it worthwhile to keep the golf course sprinklers running.
The complain that university should have stop wasting water on golf course is perfectly valid. They should. That does not imply that closing lake for salamanders or during that draught is an outrage.
> Even during draught, the university did periodically filled water in to keep them alive.
According to the article the lake is now gone.
> That biome upstream got restored between original closing is super cool, but does not negate anything.
If that meant the lake was no longer needed for the salamanders, surely the university should have turned it back over to students at that point.
> Also, students are not 2 years old. Overwhelming majority of them is able to process the above without having emotional meltdown over sandpit.
> This is quite massive logical leap from "university is entitled to close lake or part of campus despite single fraternity having made sand hill years ago". Students wont and did not had any lasting trauma from not having lake accessible.
> This is in no way contradictory with single fraternity loosing their sand hill or artificial lake not being available to students in general.
Of course one isolated incident means nothing on a larger scale. But the article is clearly making the claim (and supports it with examples) that this is representative of a broader pattern of the university taking away unstructured student-run fun, banning distinctive student communities, and turning those spaces over admin-run systems that are less effective. And it points to things that suggest this pattern has ultimately been quite harmful: feelings of isolation among the current student body, and ultimately elevated suicide rates.
Now I'd be the first to argue for more quantitative journalism in general, but using a single example to express a narrative is what virtually any article does; frankly this one is better than most in terms of putting it in a context.
You've made your scorn for anyone who disagrees with you quite clear, but are you actually claiming something substantive? E.g. that the case the article is presenting is unrepresentative? (e.g. can you point to other cases where the university is changing in the opposite direction, into more unstructured fun and student-organized social structures?) Or that the broader pattern exists but does not have the downsides the article thinks it does?
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.
> 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.
> 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…
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.
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.