> 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?
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.