[Softball Fan]

Pretty sure Rice has not been involved but no insight into Yang. Just curious…what reservations would you have about Rice? She’s got all the Stanford Credentials you could want and has  very solid standing in the collegiate sports community nationwide.  Adding Luck into the mix makes sense but I think  those focusing on what’s good for the PAC 4 should be different from those focusing on what is good for 
Stanford.

BS

Please don't go there. Branner has already made it abundantly clear his feelings regarding Condi in previous posts that frankly crossed the line well into the political arena.

I believe it is fair for me to rebut what I consider to be a false assertion about my writing, to wit, that in a previous post I "crossed the line well into the political arena." I do so in the hope that this will improve moderation of the forum, but have no objection if the moderator concludes otherwise and chooses to remove this reply.

In another thread, several writers touted Rice as a replacement for MTL. I objected to her fitness for that position and stated the basis for my objection. My reservations were moral and intellectual in nature, not political or even remotely ideological. In fact, I know nothing about Rice's politics or ideology. Outside of her football interests, I am only familiar with her actions in the foreign policy/national security realm. These took place in a Republican administration, but whether she is a member of that party or even votes Republican, I have no idea. In any event, my concerns about her have nothing to do with her party affiliation or political philosophy.

Imagine that bountiful evidence exists that someone who was once a political figure engaged in plagiarism during his time in political office (for want of doubt, I am not suggesting Rice ever did such a thing, and raise this point only for illustration). Would it be "political" to object that such a person is unfit to serve as president of Stanford? If so, then political service becomes some sort of immunity for candidates for academic office. That is, if they cannot be criticized or disqualified for their non-political actions while in political service, be these actions plagiarism, drug abuse, crimes against humanity, racial bigotry, spousal abuse, culumny, or falsification of evidence or other deception, they come to enjoy an enormous advantage that no other candidates for academic office will enjoy.

I hope that the moderators can appreciate these distinctions, as they can well apply to coaches, athletic directors, etc. If Tommy Tuberville ever returns to the coaching ranks and becomes a candidate for the head job in Stanford football, shall his actions during his time as Senator be off-limits for discussion, even if these actions bear directly on his fitness to lead the program?

What?

[Softball Fan]

Pretty sure Rice has not been involved but no insight into Yang. Just curious…what reservations would you have about Rice? She’s got all the Stanford Credentials you could want and has  very solid standing in the collegiate sports community nationwide.  Adding Luck into the mix makes sense but I think  those focusing on what’s good for the PAC 4 should be different from those focusing on what is good for 
Stanford.

BS

Please don't go there. Branner has already made it abundantly clear his feelings regarding Condi in previous posts that frankly crossed the line well into the political arena.

I believe it is fair for me to rebut what I consider to be a false assertion about my writing, to wit, that in a previous post I "crossed the line well into the political arena." I do so in the hope that this will improve moderation of the forum, but have no objection if the moderator concludes otherwise and chooses to remove this reply.

In another thread, several writers touted Rice as a replacement for MTL. I objected to her fitness for that position and stated the basis for my objection. My reservations were moral and intellectual in nature, not political or even remotely ideological. In fact, I know nothing about Rice's politics or ideology. Outside of her football interests, I am only familiar with her actions in the foreign policy/national security realm. These took place in a Republican administration, but whether she is a member of that party or even votes Republican, I have no idea. In any event, my concerns about her have nothing to do with her party affiliation or political philosophy.

Imagine that bountiful evidence exists that someone who was once a political figure engaged in plagiarism during his time in political office (for want of doubt, I am not suggesting Rice ever did such a thing, and raise this point only for illustration). Would it be "political" to object that such a person is unfit to serve as president of Stanford? If so, then political service becomes some sort of immunity for candidates for academic office. That is, if they cannot be criticized or disqualified for their non-political actions while in political service, be these actions plagiarism, drug abuse, crimes against humanity, racial bigotry, spousal abuse, culumny, or falsification of evidence or other deception, they come to enjoy an enormous advantage that no other candidates for academic office will enjoy.

I hope that the moderators can appreciate these distinctions, as they can well apply to coaches, athletic directors, etc. If Tommy Tuberville ever returns to the coaching ranks and becomes a candidate for the head job in Stanford football, shall his actions during his time as Senator be off-limits for discussion, even if these actions bear directly on his fitness to lead the program?

What?