> 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 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.