Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that article really was depressing. Interesting that there's been quite a bit about Stanford in the news lately - including their idiotic "harmful language/forbidden words" nonsense. Too bad. I always thought Stanford would remain independent of all the liberal nuttery, but I guess not.

The forbidden language thing was for the IT people who wrote official content for their website. Stop letting clickbait get you worked up!

PP here and I’m well aware of that. That doesn’t change the fact that the “official content” was indeed, officially for Stanford. How about you stop being an apologist for idiocy?

In other words, even a minimal amount of clickbait will cause me to set my hair on fire.

C’mon. Calling students “frosh” instead of freshmen is stupid. Women have been part of freshman classes for decades and no one was confused about it. Freshmen includes women. It’s insulting to think women can’t handle that or realize it’s being used generically.

Yeah, and I suppose you think non-white men and all women should have thought "all men are created equal' included them, and that 'God creating man in his image' referred to all humans. Black people have never been confused about the 'n' word, Asians were not confused by the word 'Orientals', gay men knew exactly what a 'faggot' was, etc... Language evolves in response to our increasing understanding of how it's been used derogatorily or in a way that favors one group over another. It should be insulting to you for anyone to think you can't wrap your head around a new way of doing things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that article really was depressing. Interesting that there's been quite a bit about Stanford in the news lately - including their idiotic "harmful language/forbidden words" nonsense. Too bad. I always thought Stanford would remain independent of all the liberal nuttery, but I guess not.

The forbidden language thing was for the IT people who wrote official content for their website. Stop letting clickbait get you worked up!

PP here and I’m well aware of that. That doesn’t change the fact that the “official content” was indeed, officially for Stanford. How about you stop being an apologist for idiocy?

In other words, even a minimal amount of clickbait will cause me to set my hair on fire.

C’mon. Calling students “frosh” instead of freshmen is stupid. Women have been part of freshman classes for decades and no one was confused about it. Freshmen includes women. It’s insulting to think women can’t handle that or realize it’s being used generically.

What’s stupid is caring what they call them. Do you have some vested interest in the term “freshmen”? Did you trademark it and earn money off it? If not, this is just an injustice you invented so you can throw a temper tantrum. It’s no different than the identity/labeling people on the other side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that article really was depressing. Interesting that there's been quite a bit about Stanford in the news lately - including their idiotic "harmful language/forbidden words" nonsense. Too bad. I always thought Stanford would remain independent of all the liberal nuttery, but I guess not.

The forbidden language thing was for the IT people who wrote official content for their website. Stop letting clickbait get you worked up!

PP here and I’m well aware of that. That doesn’t change the fact that the “official content” was indeed, officially for Stanford. How about you stop being an apologist for idiocy?

In other words, even a minimal amount of clickbait will cause me to set my hair on fire.

C’mon. Calling students “frosh” instead of freshmen is stupid. Women have been part of freshman classes for decades and no one was confused about it. Freshmen includes women. It’s insulting to think women can’t handle that or realize it’s being used generically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that article really was depressing. Interesting that there's been quite a bit about Stanford in the news lately - including their idiotic "harmful language/forbidden words" nonsense. Too bad. I always thought Stanford would remain independent of all the liberal nuttery, but I guess not.

The forbidden language thing was for the IT people who wrote official content for their website. Stop letting clickbait get you worked up!

PP here and I’m well aware of that. That doesn’t change the fact that the “official content” was indeed, officially for Stanford. How about you stop being an apologist for idiocy?

In other words, even a minimal amount of clickbait will cause me to set my hair on fire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that article really was depressing. Interesting that there's been quite a bit about Stanford in the news lately - including their idiotic "harmful language/forbidden words" nonsense. Too bad. I always thought Stanford would remain independent of all the liberal nuttery, but I guess not.

The forbidden language thing was for the IT people who wrote official content for their website. Stop letting clickbait get you worked up!

PP here and I’m well aware of that. That doesn’t change the fact that the “official content” was indeed, officially for Stanford. How about you stop being an apologist for idiocy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that article really was depressing. Interesting that there's been quite a bit about Stanford in the news lately - including their idiotic "harmful language/forbidden words" nonsense. Too bad. I always thought Stanford would remain independent of all the liberal nuttery, but I guess not.

The forbidden language thing was for the IT people who wrote official content for their website. Stop letting clickbait get you worked up!

They’ve replaced “freshman” with “frosh” on their website. That’s just weird.

Most schools now call them first-years.

Freshmen is not gender -neutral.

Time did not stand still based on how people spoke when you were in college.

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of greek life? Let me count the ways...

-Paying for friends is dumb. And is a way to separate the haves from the have nots (to quote others, a way to "keep out the poors")
-death by alcohol poisoning (usually from pledging or a Greek party)
-rape, sexual assault, etc. and other traumatic misogyny

My kids are both at top colleges (ok, not Stanford level, but still), and both lived in communities within the school. One lived in a community relative to their major and one another like they all had in common. Both have made tons of friends. Sure, there's always anecdotal evidence (both ways), kids who are thriving/making friends and kids who don't.

There is more of a focus nd openess about mental health these days - perhaps that's why we all know someone struggling. But, there are just as many who are thriving. This particular essay about the gold old days, let's just say It Don't Impress Me Much

This

Anonymous wrote:“Undergraduate culture” is a synonym for misogyny, bad behavior masked as exploitation and inequality.

It’s time colleges are wiped clean of Greek culture and other clubs that drive division and discrimination. This needs to be done everywhere.

Yes!

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of greek life? Let me count the ways...

-Paying for friends is dumb. And is a way to separate the haves from the have nots (to quote others, a way to "keep out the poors")
-death by alcohol poisoning (usually from pledging or a Greek party)
-rape, sexual assault, etc. and other traumatic misogyny

My kids are both at top colleges (ok, not Stanford level, but still), and both lived in communities within the school. One lived in a community relative to their major and one another like they all had in common. Both have made tons of friends. Sure, there's always anecdotal evidence (both ways), kids who are thriving/making friends and kids who don't.

There is more of a focus nd openess about mental health these days - perhaps that's why we all know someone struggling. But, there are just as many who are thriving. This particular essay about the gold old days, let's just say It Don't Impress Me Much

Short version: I don’t care if an increasing number of kids at other schools are alienated with no social life or sense of community as long as it’s PC and my own kids haven’t fallen through the cracks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of greek life? Let me count the ways...

-Paying for friends is dumb. And is a way to separate the haves from the have nots (to quote others, a way to "keep out the poors")
-death by alcohol poisoning (usually from pledging or a Greek party)
-rape, sexual assault, etc. and other traumatic misogyny

My kids are both at top colleges (ok, not Stanford level, but still), and both lived in communities within the school. One lived in a community relative to their major and one another like they all had in common. Both have made tons of friends. Sure, there's always anecdotal evidence (both ways), kids who are thriving/making friends and kids who don't.

There is more of a focus nd openess about mental health these days - perhaps that's why we all know someone struggling. But, there are just as many who are thriving. This particular essay about the gold old days, let's just say It Don't Impress Me Much

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.

+1 The article mentioned a lot more than the Greek system.

The PP is correct about one thing, however: anecdotes go both ways. The PP advocates for getting rid of the Greek system. I stand as an example of how the Greek system can help a person. I was severely introverted and depressed at the start of college. A kindhearted friend introduced me to her sorority, and slowly I was brought out of my shell. It was an environment that provided opportunity and challenge. You wouldn’t believe that the person who sang and danced in front of an audience of thousands her senior year was afraid to leave her dorm room just 4 years earlier. Did I encounter bad situations? Yes, but I was also empowered to say no and to stand by my convictions, a skill I’m very glad I have now.

I could have made similar growth in another organization, but this is the way my path led me. I read that article with a bit of dismay. Yes, the author describes something practically dystopian, and I wonder whether it’s a positive change to restrict students’ opportunities in the manner described here. I don’t think it would have served me well.

This is happening to schools (and not just colleges) throughout the country. It's ironic because for the sake of "diversity" and DEI, they are actually killing diversity, free spirit and innovation.

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of greek life? Let me count the ways...

-Paying for friends is dumb. And is a way to separate the haves from the have nots (to quote others, a way to "keep out the poors")
-death by alcohol poisoning (usually from pledging or a Greek party)
-rape, sexual assault, etc. and other traumatic misogyny

My kids are both at top colleges (ok, not Stanford level, but still), and both lived in communities within the school. One lived in a community relative to their major and one another like they all had in common. Both have made tons of friends. Sure, there's always anecdotal evidence (both ways), kids who are thriving/making friends and kids who don't.

There is more of a focus nd openess about mental health these days - perhaps that's why we all know someone struggling. But, there are just as many who are thriving. This particular essay about the gold old days, let's just say It Don't Impress Me Much

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.

Why get rid of greek life? Let me count the ways...

-Paying for friends is dumb. And is a way to separate the haves from the have nots (to quote others, a way to "keep out the poors")
-death by alcohol poisoning (usually from pledging or a Greek party)
-rape, sexual assault, etc. and other traumatic misogyny

My kids are both at top colleges (ok, not Stanford level, but still), and both lived in communities within the school. One lived in a community relative to their major and one another like they all had in common. Both have made tons of friends. Sure, there's always anecdotal evidence (both ways), kids who are thriving/making friends and kids who don't.

There is more of a focus nd openess about mental health these days - perhaps that's why we all know someone struggling. But, there are just as many who are thriving. This particular essay about the gold old days, let's just say It Don't Impress Me Much

This resonated a bit with me. My alma mater, a SLAC, slowly got rid of the frat houses (sororities petered out on their own in the 70s) and replace them with “clusters” which sound similar to the Stanford neighborhoods. It was an artificial way of making communities and giving new social outlets but it never really took. Students did not, as the school hoped, identify with their clusters and felt limited by having to live within the cluster dorms. Thankfully, they eventually scrapped the idea. They started this farce when I was a senior and literally every student said it was a bad idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that article really was depressing. Interesting that there's been quite a bit about Stanford in the news lately - including their idiotic "harmful language/forbidden words" nonsense. Too bad. I always thought Stanford would remain independent of all the liberal nuttery, but I guess not.

The forbidden language thing was for the IT people who wrote official content for their website. Stop letting clickbait get you worked up!

They’ve replaced “freshman” with “frosh” on their website. That’s just weird.

Maybe due to the word "men" in "freshmen" ?

men does not mean men in freshmen it means mankind which is not gender specific. Grow up.

what does "growing up" have to do with it? "first years" is commonly used on many campuses because an alternative was sought to using the terms freshman or freshmen. It has little to do with growing up.