[fleetwoodsnack]

It may depend on the author, as some articles in the publication are inconsistent with the characterization of “in-depth research.” Previously, the publication wrote about “Stanford’s War on Social Life,” but made some omissions that misrepresented some key facts used as evidence of Stanford’s supposed demise.[1]

Two key things pointed out by our fellow HN readers included the (1) failure to acknowledge the association of the defunct fraternity, wistfully characterized as emblematic of campus social life, with the Brock Turner rape; and (2) the mischaracterization of Lake Lagunita as a beloved campus waterfront neglected by Stanford, when it was in fact an artificial pond created by a dam that the municipality stopped servicing.[2]

These may or may not necessarily be important for a casual audience, but for a publication that presents itself in the self-appointed realm of “governance futurism” there is a lack of rigor and a palpable sense of linguistic license. Take it for what you will.

[1]https://palladiummag.com/2022/06/13/stanfords-war-on-social-...

[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31732944

[m-ee]

The Stanford article rings true to me as an alum. The justification for KA losing their housing was entirely unrelated to the Brock Turner case. He was not a member, he just happened to be attending the party.

My time predates most of the events of this article but the war on fun was well underway. Sentiment was that the frats in trouble at the time (kappa sig and SAE) largely deserved it, especially SAE, but there was a sense that anyone else could be next. The university values conformity over social life or even safety. The abrupt removal of the European theme houses without any justification pretty much confirms the former, the banning of hard alcohol and end of the "open door" drinking policy confirms the latter. The coops are probably next on the chopping block.

EDIT- Unrelated fun fact, there is tunnel underneath lake lag that the endangered salamanders and other wildlife can just to get to the other side of the road. This also creates an ambush point for local raccoons and coyotes to eat what comes out.

[fleetwoodsnack]

Not an alum so I can’t speak to the first person experience, and the quirks of Stanford are not interesting. My comment’s purpose is limited to that of a discriminating reader seeking to become more informed.

I think these observations would have been fine independently but the context is important, if only for the sake of refuting it. The failure to acknowledge it, and the license taken with respect to other facts is what is unsettling.

[m-ee]

I agree that context is important, but context here is that they were put on probation four years later for something completely unrelated. Criticizing its omission without pointing that out might mislead people.

The quirks of Stanford may not be interesting to you but it is literally an article about Stanford social quirks. If there's any criticism to be made of the article it's not acknowledging why SAE or Sigma Chi were removed from campus as their behavior was far more abhorrent (a targeted harassment campaign against a sorority member and a roofie incident by a non student friend of the fraternity members.

[fleetwoodsnack]

I think that’s a worthwhile discussion, and readers would have definitely appreciated a discussion of, “Does reputational damage precipitate organizational dissolution in the context of college associations?”

It would have been enlightening and gotten to the heart of the nominal issue with respect to both the theme houses and the fraternity houses, I think.

That was not what the article was, however, and I think we can acknowledge Stanford’s failures and the failure of authorship in the article-publication in the same breath.