> 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?
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?