[thunder_chik]

Stanford Athletic Dept. issues an apology for the halftime show at Saturday's BYU game.
Stanford Athletics says it ‘deeply regrets’ offense caused by band’s halftime show (msn.com)
Featured two women getting "eternally married" using LDS sacred language.  Oh my.
At the 2004 BYU game, the Band poked fun at polygamy.

[thunder_chik]

Stanford Athletic Dept. issues an apology for the halftime show at Saturday's BYU game.
Stanford Athletics says it ‘deeply regrets’ offense caused by band’s halftime show (msn.com)
Featured two women getting "eternally married" using LDS sacred language.  Oh my.
At the 2004 BYU game, the Band poked fun at polygamy.

[martyup]

That is completely unacceptable at so many levels.  Also, not funny in the least.  People should be fired over this incident.  I wouldn't be surprised if BYU cancels all contests with Stanford.

[martyup]

That is completely unacceptable at so many levels.  Also, not funny in the least.  People should be fired over this incident.  I wouldn't be surprised if BYU cancels all contests with Stanford.

[Canalejas]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

[Canalejas]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

[Phogge]

Stanford could replace with Laverne.

[Phogge]

Stanford could replace with Laverne.

[BostonCard]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

All Band shows are reviewed and approved by the AD (based on past experience). Someone in a position of authority signed off on this.

[Spiny_Norman]

All Band shows are reviewed and approved by the AD (based on past experience). Someone in a position of authority signed off on this.

[martyup]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

There are many Stanford sports that compete with BYU, not just football.

[martyup]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

There are many Stanford sports that compete with BYU, not just football.

[SamuelMcF]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

They already did when they moved to the Big 12.

[SamuelMcF]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

They already did when they moved to the Big 12.

[Canalejas]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

There are many Stanford sports that compete with BYU, not just football.

And if BYU wants to cancel those too, I'd want to replace them with any of the Big West UCs. I wish we had stronger ties to those schools anyway.

[Canalejas]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

There are many Stanford sports that compete with BYU, not just football.

And if BYU wants to cancel those too, I'd want to replace them with any of the Big West UCs. I wish we had stronger ties to those schools anyway.

[PalmTree]

All Band shows are reviewed and approved by the AD (based on past experience). Someone in a position of authority signed off on this.

The Band moved back under DAPER oversight a couple of years ago - whether or not DAPER still reviews program scripts is a question.  If not - oopsies....    

Daily article on Band move back to DAPER

[PalmTree]

All Band shows are reviewed and approved by the AD (based on past experience). Someone in a position of authority signed off on this.

The Band moved back under DAPER oversight a couple of years ago - whether or not DAPER still reviews program scripts is a question.  If not - oopsies....    

Daily article on Band move back to DAPER

[Canalejas]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

They already did when they moved to the Big 12.

Oh, that's right.  It looks like only a 2031 game @BYU remains on the future schedules.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/stanford/

[Canalejas]

I wouldn't mind BYU canceling the rest of the series.

They already did when they moved to the Big 12.

Oh, that's right.  It looks like only a 2031 game @BYU remains on the future schedules.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/stanford/

[Nan3cy]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

And the 1991 Notre Dame game when the drum major ran out on the field dressed as a nun. (To be fair, for equal time he dressed for the second half as a rabbi.)

[Nan3cy]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

And the 1991 Notre Dame game when the drum major ran out on the field dressed as a nun. (To be fair, for equal time he dressed for the second half as a rabbi.)

[martyup]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

[martyup]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

[Phogge]

I liked the band when they played for the sunny side after games in then old stadium. After that not much. There is a line and they have crossed it a bunch. A much better basketball band and now irrelevant for football.

[Phogge]

I liked the band when they played for the sunny side after games in then old stadium. After that not much. There is a line and they have crossed it a bunch. A much better basketball band and now irrelevant for football.

[gailtate]

That is completely unacceptable at so many levels.  Also, not funny in the least.  People should be fired over this incident.  I wouldn't be surprised if BYU cancels all contests with Stanford.

I'd be very surprised. But I wouldn't mind it in the least. No reflection on the Band

[gailtate]

That is completely unacceptable at so many levels.  Also, not funny in the least.  People should be fired over this incident.  I wouldn't be surprised if BYU cancels all contests with Stanford.

I'd be very surprised. But I wouldn't mind it in the least. No reflection on the Band

[BostonCard]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

I don't find it funny.  But I also don't want to be the arbiter of what is funny or not, and if I were to ask the university to be heavy handed about interceding it, then I would not want to turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun".  You can't have it both ways; either you will have the university sets strict limits (some of which you will think go to far) that make the university not fun, or you accept that maybe the university has gone too far in trying to ensure that nobody ever gets hurt and nobody gets offended, and accept that letting kids have some degree of autonomy means they will make decisions you don't like.

I'm ok with the university issuing an apology (and agree with it).  But if your response is "people should be fired over this" then be prepared for only the most milquetoast activities to ever survive, lest someone get offended at something and calls for people to be fired come from the peanut gallery.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

I don't find it funny.  But I also don't want to be the arbiter of what is funny or not, and if I were to ask the university to be heavy handed about interceding it, then I would not want to turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun".  You can't have it both ways; either you will have the university sets strict limits (some of which you will think go to far) that make the university not fun, or you accept that maybe the university has gone too far in trying to ensure that nobody ever gets hurt and nobody gets offended, and accept that letting kids have some degree of autonomy means they will make decisions you don't like.

I'm ok with the university issuing an apology (and agree with it).  But if your response is "people should be fired over this" then be prepared for only the most milquetoast activities to ever survive, lest someone get offended at something and calls for people to be fired come from the peanut gallery.

BC

[gailtate]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

I don't find it funny.  But I also don't want to be the arbiter of what is funny or not, and if I were to ask the university to be heavy handed about interceding it, then I would not want to turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun".  You can't have it both ways; either you will have the university sets strict limits (some of which you will think go to far) that make the university not fun, or you accept that maybe the university has gone too far in trying to ensure that nobody ever gets hurt and nobody gets offended, and accept that letting kids have some degree of autonomy means they will make decisions you don't like.

BC

Generally agree. Thing is, humor by definition is threatening. Just is. That and subjective as nothing else. I've never done anything close to stand-up, but I know enough about it to understand just how fragile it is and why comedians are so threatening to so many people. This is why you don't see comedians in authoritarian countries. It is comedy. It is "making fun" of something or someone. At their expense. It is high-risk. The funnier the higher the risk. Nothing more or less. One person's bad taste is another's hilarity. Good taste is in mouths of an audience.

[gailtate]

I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)

You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.

BC

What is funny or "fun" about that skit?  What part of the Stanford apology do you disagree with?

"The Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (LSJUMB) has a long history of lighthearted and satirical halftime performances. Unfortunately, some of the language that was used in Saturday’s halftime show did not reflect Stanford University’s values of religious freedom and diversity, inclusion and belonging."

Is this the kind of "unique" that Stanford wants to be?  I don't think so.  When a bully belittles his victim and the crowd around them laughs, is it funny and is that fun?  Sometimes laughter can be cruel.  Sometimes satire can be cruel too.

BTW, I see this as vastly different from the "Farmers Only" Rose Bowl skit.  That satire didn't attack race, religion, sexual preference, or political affiliation.  I could envision a similar skit about moonshiners if we played Tennessee.

I don't find it funny.  But I also don't want to be the arbiter of what is funny or not, and if I were to ask the university to be heavy handed about interceding it, then I would not want to turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun".  You can't have it both ways; either you will have the university sets strict limits (some of which you will think go to far) that make the university not fun, or you accept that maybe the university has gone too far in trying to ensure that nobody ever gets hurt and nobody gets offended, and accept that letting kids have some degree of autonomy means they will make decisions you don't like.

BC

Generally agree. Thing is, humor by definition is threatening. Just is. That and subjective as nothing else. I've never done anything close to stand-up, but I know enough about it to understand just how fragile it is and why comedians are so threatening to so many people. This is why you don't see comedians in authoritarian countries. It is comedy. It is "making fun" of something or someone. At their expense. It is high-risk. The funnier the higher the risk. Nothing more or less. One person's bad taste is another's hilarity. Good taste is in mouths of an audience.

[burger]

That is completely unacceptable at so many levels.  Also, not funny in the least.  People should be fired over this incident.  I wouldn't be surprised if BYU cancels all contests with Stanford.

Bigotry and homophobia are unacceptable, too. The halftime show was the best kind of trolling because you can tell who is on the right and wrong sides of history by their response to it. Anyone who doesn't understand what the band was doing needs to do some reading on the Mormon church's history with regard to LGBT people. My spouse, a therapist, has counseled people who were the victims of discrimination by the church--it's an ugly legacy.

In the future, Stanford should not play any games against schools run by organizations that actively discriminate against large portions of the population. And if that means no more games against Notre Dame, that's fine, too.

[burger]

That is completely unacceptable at so many levels.  Also, not funny in the least.  People should be fired over this incident.  I wouldn't be surprised if BYU cancels all contests with Stanford.

Bigotry and homophobia are unacceptable, too. The halftime show was the best kind of trolling because you can tell who is on the right and wrong sides of history by their response to it. Anyone who doesn't understand what the band was doing needs to do some reading on the Mormon church's history with regard to LGBT people. My spouse, a therapist, has counseled people who were the victims of discrimination by the church--it's an ugly legacy.

In the future, Stanford should not play any games against schools run by organizations that actively discriminate against large portions of the population. And if that means no more games against Notre Dame, that's fine, too.

[Spiny_Norman]

Maybe the Band's show was intended to communicate its support for the LDS's new position in favor of a national law to safeguard same-sex marriage.

https://apnews.com/article/religion-rela...98a199b860

The nearly 17-million member, Utah-based faith said in a statement that church doctrine would continue to consider same-sex relationships to be against God’s commandments. Yet it said it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose.

Still you might consider it crass or snarky that they used LDS sacred language in their narration. But as we know, crass and snark have been the Band's stock-in-trade for years.

[Spiny_Norman]

Maybe the Band's show was intended to communicate its support for the LDS's new position in favor of a national law to safeguard same-sex marriage.

https://apnews.com/article/religion-rela...98a199b860

The nearly 17-million member, Utah-based faith said in a statement that church doctrine would continue to consider same-sex relationships to be against God’s commandments. Yet it said it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose.

Still you might consider it crass or snarky that they used LDS sacred language in their narration. But as we know, crass and snark have been the Band's stock-in-trade for years.

[M T]

Would the band's actions come under the Stanford Protected Identity Harm policies:

Conduct or an incident that adversely and unfairly targets an individual or
group on the basis of one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics:
race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual
orientation, gender identity or expression, veteran status, marital status or any
other characteristic protected by applicable law.

Contrary to that would be whether it should also be considered protected as free speech.

In any case, I would expect that there will be changes made that impact the band.

[M T]

Would the band's actions come under the Stanford Protected Identity Harm policies:

Conduct or an incident that adversely and unfairly targets an individual or
group on the basis of one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics:
race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual
orientation, gender identity or expression, veteran status, marital status or any
other characteristic protected by applicable law.

Contrary to that would be whether it should also be considered protected as free speech.

In any case, I would expect that there will be changes made that impact the band.