Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily (/thread-5118.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily (/thread-5118.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - FarmBoy - 05-01-2013
Quote: In Bay Area, a large part of California and at Stanford the cultural "battle" is pretty much over.
The outcome of the Prop 8 vote in 2008 was eye opening to me. I thought for sure it would be a resounding No, but clearly even CA has a ways to go before equality is realized.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - CowboyIndian - 05-01-2013
(05-01-2013, 11:13 AM)garvin link Wrote:This idea of a racist, homophobic Ruling Class U. is a lot of crap.
Sounds like a 59er, no?
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Bruce Wang - 05-01-2013
(05-01-2013, 11:13 AM)garvin link Wrote:The reason I asked about all this to begin with is that I think Rachel Maddow falsifies a lot about her Stanford experience. I've heard her, several times, talk about how she hated Stanford because it was just a bunch of rich white guys. In fact, Stanford started taking enormous strides toward ethnic diversity in the 1960s and by 1990 no reasonable person could have called it an enclave of white guys. As for the rich part, my high-school-biology-teach dad would laugh out loud. He certainly made far less money than Rachel Maddow's government-lawyer dad.
As a contemporary of Maddow's, I would strongly disagree with her characterization. On my floor of an all Frosh dorm, there was only ONE person whose grandparents were born in the United States. He was our token rich white guy.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Bruce Wang - 05-01-2013
Come to think of it, I don't remember ever meeting her. And it sounds like the two of us went to completely different universities. Has she been pulling an Azia Kim?
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Farm93 - 05-01-2013
(05-01-2013, 01:00 PM)Publius link Wrote:Come to think of it, I don't remember ever meeting her. And it sounds like the two of us went to completely different universities. Has she been pulling an Azia Kim?To some degree we all went to different universities. Stanford is great because it is home to so many different perspectives, priorities and aspirations. However, in my experience I would not have called Stanford home to rich white guys, but perhaps that was true in her Stanford University experience.
One thought/comment, many groups at Stanford in the early 90s stuck together (affinity groups, affinity dorms, etc.). So I suspect it would be possible for a rich white girl to end up with a bunch of other rich white kids rather than they ~40-45% of the Stanford community at the time that was not white or the rather large percentage of white kids that were not rich.
Seems like to support Rachel's view of Stanford, one needs to be very tolerant of the idea of different perspectives because her recollection does not really align with our experiences. And that need for tolerance and understanding is ironic on so many levels.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - fullmetal - 05-01-2013
(05-01-2013, 01:19 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:So I suspect it would be possible for a rich white girl to end up with a bunch of other rich white kids rather than they ~40-45% of the Stanford community at the time that was not white or the rather large percentage of white kids that were not rich.
Ah, that's irony.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Bruce Wang - 05-01-2013
(05-01-2013, 01:19 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:One thought/comment, many groups at Stanford in the early 90s stuck together (affinity groups, affinity dorms, etc.). So I suspect it would be possible for a rich white girl to end up with a bunch of other rich white kids rather than they ~40-45% of the Stanford community at the time that was not white or the rather large percentage of white kids that were not rich.
Basically impossible. In terms of housing, there wasn't an white ethnic theme option for frosh. If she ended up in some sort of off campus housing that was only for rich white people for the rest of her years then that's her fault. There were no housed sororities at the time, so the only way she could have done this was to pull a Yentil and pledged one of the fraternities with this stereotype. Plus it was almost impossible to attend a class without significant diversity.
I say almost because I did take such a class: Physics 16 Cosmic Horizons. One of those classes Ivy Leaguers call "gut". I took it to fulfill the science requirement because my AP credits meant the next sequence of science classes would have been Organic Chemistry or Modern Physics. Plus I wanted to be an astronomer when I was a kid (big fan of Carl Sagan's Cosmos). Anyhow, I was the only Asian in the class. I sat in the front row because the subject matter commanded my full attention. The class had some basic problem sets that involved some math. Nothing more difficult than trigonometry. My classmates started coming to me for help after class, which I was more than happy to do. I then realized they thought I was a TA.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Farm93 - 05-02-2013
Obviously, not seeing minorities and/or non-rich kids on campus would have been impossible in the early 90s. Living on campus at that time as a member of both categories I can only guess that she did not meet me.
However, the basic premise behind my comment is that one COULD strategically spend all of their social time with a particular affinity group if that was a personal goal. And then their experience would be different enough that they could then claim their Stanford experience and their Stanford friends lacked racial and economic diversity.
Oddly, Stanford's affinity dorms did create part of that diversity challenge, even for rich, white kids. Zapata, Ujamaa and the others were great for giving affinity groups a sense of community, but that meant that most of the other upper class dorms had rather small percentages from those same groups.
I realize her summary of the situation fit a narrative, and the facts were not really relevant. I still suspect her perspective could have been reasonable compared to living and working in major East Coast cities now.
In the end, I believe Maddow is now a rather rich white person. Her experience, whether voluntary or not, does not seemed to have hurt her financially. Blame Stanford, I guess. ::)
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - fullmetal - 05-02-2013
(05-02-2013, 12:38 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:In the end, I believe Maddow is now a rather rich white person.
I wonder if she feels any self-loathing or if she just likes to say things about diversity...ha.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - 97fan - 05-02-2013
Where did Maddow make the comments about Stanford's lack of diversity that you guys are now pillorying her for?
Garvin wrote: "I've heard her, several times, talk about how she hated Stanford because it was just a bunch of rich white guys." I took this to be a bit of hyperbole on Garvin's part, but everyone else here seems to be taking this as a literal summary of Maddow's remarks. In any case, it'd be nice to see the actual comments.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - washingtonismoney - 05-02-2013
I'm not going to say I agree with all of her argument, but the way class manifests itself at Stanford is interesting, in a way I think that quote gets at. I'm from similar economic circumstances as Maddow, and there is a certain group on campus of people who were much more wealthy than me. Opportunities do open themselves more readily if you leverage your position, in a way that doesn't necessarily seem fair. That's life, of course -- I'm sure we could have a debate over whether what I've described is particularly troubling -- but the proximity makes you aware of the fact.
(which, by the way, is only to the good. One of the problems with society these days is social isolation; you barely hear about a unemployment crisis these days in the Beltway. If the power brokers know unemployed people, it's generally only kids just coming out of college, and that's just cute -- spend a year backpacking in Europe or South America or something. New York writer Jonathan Chait had a wise thought on this point a while ago:
Quote:I live in a Washington neighborhood almost entirely filled with college-educated professionals, and it occurred to me not long ago that, when my children grow up, theyll have no personal memory of having lived through the greatest economic crisis in eighty years. It is more akin to a famine in Africa. For millions and millions of Americans, the economic crisis is the worst event of their lives.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/08/why-washington-accepts-mass-unemployment.html)
Anyway, to get back to Stanford. Maddow/my perspective is really only #firstworldproblems, so of course it likely sounds whiny. (I feel a bit whiny; certainly I didn't really lack for anything in college.) But I do remember a friend of mine breaking down once because she couldn't afford to go on a date with her boyfriend (he was, if I recall, the son of a South American diplomat). I advised her to talk to him about it; he was a nice guy at heart and surely he would understand her situation. She did, and he (in her telling) had confessed he hadn't thought about the issue and, in the future, things would be different (there were plenty of good dates that didn't need money, and at any rate, there is no price for love, right?).
They broke up a month afterward.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Bruce Wang - 05-03-2013
(05-02-2013, 12:38 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:However, the basic premise behind my comment is that one COULD strategically spend all of their social time with a particular affinity group if that was a personal goal. And then their experience would be different enough that they could then claim their Stanford experience and their Stanford friends lacked racial and economic diversity.
If that was somebody's goal, why on earth would they go to STANFORD? I know our rival in the Northeast as well as you possibly can without having gone there (sibling there while I was in grad school at the place. Hell, I even married a professor, and lived in the Square with her). It's not nearly as diverse as the Farm.
To me, that's one of the selling points of the university. Stanford is truly diverse. Unless you are giant a-hole, you will meet and become friends with a person of every race, religion, socio-economic background, sexual orientation, physical ability, and academic interest. The only thing we don't have is the intellectually challenged.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - 97fan - 05-03-2013
I also came to Stanford from a similar background of economic privilege in comparison to America at large, but not in comparison to some of my Stanford classmates. But to the extent I felt alienated at Stanford, it had much more to do with the money my classmates were chasing in their careers than the money some of them stood to inherit.
This may not have been true in the 70s, but in the mid-90s, I would say the dominant student culture on campus involved the pursuit of lucrative careers. Within that that general framework, there were both kids who were pursuing a passion that happened to be potentially lucrative (often engineers, programmers and pre-med students) and those who were chasing lucrative careers for their own sake (often future investment bankers, consultants and lawyers). Of course there were also people who would become academics, journalists, playwrights, and stay-at-home parents, among other unremunerative jobs, but they were not really part of the dominant culture on campus.
If you had an activist bent -- which I don't, but I think Maddow does -- I can see how Stanford would have felt pretty alienating. But not for the reason she describes in that Chronicle article.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Farm93 - 05-03-2013
She was on campus during the First Iraq war. I can imagine her desire to protest that war and stage sit-ins, marches or whatever. I can also imagine that she discovered that your average Stanford student really was more concerned about getting the best TA for a lab, networking with the corporate campus recruiting teams, or finding a great LSAT prep course.
I was not thrilled with the characterization of Stanford, but at the same time it probably seemed too populated with elite rich people and/or people that aspired to be elite rich people for her tastes.
It is all fantastically ironic because she is rather rich now and spends her days and hosts a show with educated, elite and powerful types as guests.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - Bruce Wang - 05-03-2013
In this case, irony is an euphemism for hypocrisy.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - stupac2 - 05-03-2013
(05-03-2013, 08:05 AM)97fan link Wrote:If you had an activist bent -- which I don't, but I think Maddow does -- I can see how Stanford would have felt pretty alienating. But not for the reason she describes in that Chronicle article.
I can't say for certain, obviously, but I think that changed pretty significantly (I was there 05-09). I believe a GWB visit to campus got canceled because of the protests while I was there. It seemed like some students would protest absolutely anything at the drop of a hat, from supporting a dining hall worker's strike to divesting from every possible thing to removing sweatshop-made clothes from the bookstore, there was a lot of protesting. There was other activism too, that silly AIDS dance-off thing sticks in my memory, but plenty of other stuff.
It was so ingrained in the culture that I have a hard time envisioning that it was different 10 years earlier, but I suppose that could just be the result of a Republican president and non-booming economy? I don't really know.
Re: Rachel Maddow and the Stanford Daily - 97fan - 05-03-2013
(05-03-2013, 09:17 AM)Publius link Wrote:In this case, irony is an euphemism for hypocrisy.
How is it hypocritical to be uncomfortable with wealth at one point in your life and then later to become wealthy? We all change. She's more than 20 years older now.
Also, it's not like she betrayed her youthful ideals in an effort to make a lot of money. The money she's made is a byproduct of her success, but you don't go into liberal talk radio in western Massachusetts as a stepping stone to life on the Upper East Side.