Harvard Porn?

I just learned that Harvard is launching a porn magazine featuring students download boondock saints the .

Harvard students. Nudity. One shudders.

Actually, they’re probably shuddering themselves. It gets cold in Boston.

Seriously, I can’t help but wonder how long it is until someone at Stanford tries to copycat Harvard (consider our copycat mascot as evidence).

Once again for the record, Chi Alpha thinks porn is bad. The fact that Harvard is now complicit only makes it worse!

3 thoughts on “Harvard Porn?”

  1. Stanford was nicknamed “the Cardinal” back in the late 1800’s- Well before college athletics became so followed and glorified. Our school nickname has a history that goes back for over one‐hundred years and actually occured completely independent of the Crimson. This nickname was handed by a local SF reporter.

    Check out the history on it‐ It’s somewhere on the web.

  2. Thanks for the comment. I checked online, and the official explanation seems compatible with the original article I jokingly referenced.

    If I read it right, Stanford had a mascot for over four decades, dropped it, and then struggled to find a new one (the students rejected many sensible suggestions, my favorite being the Robber Barons).

    I don’t know for sure, but it sure makes sense to me that one of the significant appeals of the “Cardinal” was its resemblance to a certain East Coast school’s mascot.

    Maybe not, though. I’d be curious to see any other histories that discuss the issue.

  3. The following was a private letter from Gerhard Casper, president of Stanford University , to James Fallows, editor of U.S. News & World Report. With the permission of both, it since has entered the public domains.

    STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

    GERHARD CASPER

    September 23, 1996 Mr. James Fallows Editor U.S. News & World Report 2400 N Street NW Washington, DC 20037

    Dear Mr. Fallows:

    I appreciate that, as the new editor of U.S. News & World Report , you have much to do at this moment. However, it is precisely because you are the new editor that I write to you, personally.

    I emphasize you, because of your demonstrated willingness to examine journalism in the same way that journalism examines all other facets of society. And I say personally because my letter is for your consideration, and not a letter to the editor for publication.

    My timing also is related to the recent appearance of the annual U.S. News “America’s Best Colleges” rankings. As the president of a university that is among the top‐ranked universities, I hope I have the standing to persuade you that much about these rankings — particularly their specious formulas and spurious precision — is utterly misleading. I wish I could forego this letter since, after all, the rankings are only another newspaper story. Alas, alumni, foreign newspapers, and many others do not bring a sense of perspective to the matter.

    I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university — any more than the quality of a magazine — can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan‐Ann Arbor and the University of California‐Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America — one could make a strong argument for either in the top half‐dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21–24-24, and Berkeley 23–26-27.

Leave a Reply