Stanford President John Hennessy told the Stanford News Service, “Dick Lyman was a man of great strength, integrity, common sense and good humor. It was a privilege to know him, and I am deeply saddened by his death. His impact on Stanford was profound.  He guided the university through some of the most turbulent years in its history, and under his leadership, Stanford not only survived, it flourished.”

For more information, visit the obituary published by the Stanford Report.

6:01 I’m late to pick up Maddy who will be photographing the night’s show. We aren’t quite sure what to wear to this. I’ve heard it’s rave-y, but I can’t tell if that means rally or straight crazy. We test out the waters in semi-rally, fit for perhaps a Volleyball game but not quite for Band Run. I use the drive to wonder what this will be like. I think the only thing that makes outdoor concerts any different must be that you can smoke outside and sit on the ground, and it doesn’t even seem that different from a Stanford party, except that you don’t have to be squished up next to people like Ellis island immigrants or worry about creepers asking to dance.

6:25 Maddy and I meander down to the Main Stage, where a long-haired Asian man in sweet skeleton pants works a beat to a half-full stadium. The half bowl extends high up into a lawn like a roman coliseum, which separates the classes with the most daring in the heat of a pit before a man I deduce to be Steve Aoki. We find a place to stand and groove for a moment before a gaggle of girls grabs us to take their photo. One girl in cheetah print lingerie discovers we’re covering the show for The Stanford Daily and confesses she just graduated from Cal. “Go Bears!” she screams into my face and admits her whole family attended Cal.

I wonder what went wrong. She starts to ask me about how hard it is to get classes and I am caught off-guard, trying to understand the appeal of Steve Aoki, Chewbacca-in-the-making, and this chick’s inquiring about the difficulty of getting into a seminar. Then I get it. She sprays into my face “You have to understand that you go to a private school and it’s a blessing.” Who knew the epiphany I’d find in an EDM concert would be about the luck of Stanford. I’ll take it!

It’s hard to take her seriously with the acrylic silver face paint suggesting her sexy-cat/bunny/cheetah-ness distracting me; I wonder how healthy that is and if she’ll die of clogged pores like that Bond girl. But I can feel her sincerity, and I do feel blessed for my sweet education and for the divine press-passes that let me meet this Cal girl with Tree-envy.

7:03 Main Stage. After chucking two bottles of water into the crowd, Aoki comes to Champagne shower, to the beat, the entire crowd. It’s just like a post-rush party. This isn’t so strange.

7:24 We venture to the Bass Stage for Crystal method. It’s what it sounds like. Lots of bass. There are food trucks, though, which is cool if only for novelty.

7:35 Park Stage, literally a parking lot, where less than 50 drugged-out hipsters sway around to Holy Ghost! with no inhibitions. This is strange.

7:58 Duck Sauce will be taking the stage, and concert workers are throwing out plastic duck bills to the crowd. These, like masks, are strapped to the face. The crowd suddenly becomes ducks, like some post-Bird Flu-apocalyptic Asian country and where, in an ironic turn of events, those blue health masks are replaced by actual bird bills. This is swell. I applaud the creativity and only wish that Stanford games entailed crazed cheerleaders throwing us fake axes to strap to our bodies, or at least branches and leaves.

8:03 We jam.

8:28 Some girl asks me if I’m rolling. That, of course, if the same as asking if I’m on ecstasy. I tell her abashedly “no,” to which she replies, “You have great energy!” Now this is the type of perceptiveness I wish for my future employers. Right before they recognize I don’t have enough industry experience.

8:36 A fight breaks out between several very tall, very attractive men in bro tanks. Maddy and I retreat in fear. Sparks literally fly from cigarettes. Perks of outdoor concerts?

8:37 They fist-bump it out

8:42 These Duck Sauce guys, otherwise mediocre entertainers, start to bump along to it. The seem like they could be those Stanford guys—you know the ones—who come to Stanford and think they’re DJ’s or something, and the next thing you know they be posting Sound Cloud links left and right. Or at least they could be Berkeley guys.

Cue the strobe lights. It’s amazing how much your perspective can change when you see yourself only part of the time.

9:02 Sebastian Ingrosso immediately has the crowd jumping.

9:50 Florence + the Machine “You’ve got the love” cover.

9:53 “Somebody that I used to know.”

10:16 Creeper asks me to dance. So much for that perk.

10:50 We dip lest we wade through traffic and hit several pedestrians.

The staff member reported the incident to the Residence Dean of Toyon and Stern Hall, Arcadio Morales, and Dean of Sexual Assault Angela Exson on Feb. 15, two days after the alleged assault occurred. University officials suspected he was lodging in Sigma Chi and Florence Moore Hall (FloMo) in addition to Toyon.

No further contact between the Toyon staff member and administrators occurred until two weeks later, on Feb. 28, when Valdez was again spotted in Toyon, after he and his Stanford-student host were told by the staff member that Valdez would not be allowed back in the dorm. The following day, this same staff member requested a meeting with Morales, at which point Morales said that he had informed staff at Sigma Chi to look out for Valdez, that FloMo was too large of a hall to contact and that he thought that Valdez would stay away from Toyon after being asked to do so by the staff member.

Scott Galey ’12, a resident assistant (RA) of Sigma Chi, told The Daily he does not recall receiving a phone call or alert from Morales or any other University official. Galey was not aware of Valdez or any other lodger in Sigma Chi.

Guests who stay for three consecutive days or five days in a single quarter in Stanford housing are required to register with the Stanford Housing front desk, according to guest policy. Housing strengthened policies to prevent against unauthorized occupants following an “incident” that occurred several years ago, according to a Housing representative who was likely referring to the case of Azia Kim, who lived in Stanford housing for nearly a year from 2006 to 2007, despite never being an enrolled student.

Valdez claims he was on campus to work on a start-up with several other Stanford students, which he continues to do from an off-campus apartment.

On March 20, five weeks after the initial incident was reported to University officials, Stanford issued a stay-away letter to Valdez, according to University spokesperson Lisa Lapin.

At the time initial concerns were voiced, Valdez received multiple warnings to leave the campus, including a written stay-away letter issued to him March 20.

Valdez denied receiving such a letter, but did say that University administrators had warned him not to come within 50 feet of student residences. His Twitter feed shows photos taken from the Stanford campus on March 30 and April 16.

On May 4, more than a month after the stay-away letter was issued, the Department of Public Safety (SUDPS) was called to FloMo — one of the residences Valdez is known to have stayed in — to accompany University staff in confronting Valdez. After arriving at the dorm room where he was staying, University staff escorted Valdez off the premises, according to an SUDPS report.

On May 9, Fran’Cee Brown-McClure, student affairs officer for Residential Education, sent an email to all RAs with a picture of Valdez, identifying him as an “illegal lodger” and notifying RAs that, “we have reason to believe that [Valdez’s] presence could be a threat to other Stanford students.” The notice informed students to contact SUDPS deputies if they see Valdez on campus.

The University has not pressed charges against Valdez; however, failure to comply with a stay-away letter could result in trespassing charges, a criminal misdemeanor.

“The warnings are over,” Lapin said. “If he comes on campus again, he will be subject to arrest.”

Lapin added that administrators were unable to confirm that Valdez committed any crime, but decided to ban him from campus given student concern.

“While the University has not been able to verify any criminal conduct to date, Stanford takes any concerns voiced by students seriously,” Lapin said.

Sophomore second baseman Brett Michael Doran (above) and the No. 11 Stanford baseball crew carry an eight-game winning streak into a critical three-game homestand against unranked Cal starting today. A sweep over its cross-Bay rivals could reward the Cardinal with the chance of hosting a Super Regional in postseason play. (IAN GARCIA-DOTY/The Stanford Daily)

That could change in a hurry for the Cardinal (37-14, 17-10 Pac-12) if everything goes its way this weekend, as Stanford hosts unranked Cal (27-24, 10-17) with just two games separating the top five teams in the Pac-12 and only their respective rivalry series remaining. The last time that even three squads at the top of the conference finished within two games was in 2004, when Stanford won its last Pac-10 title in a close finish over Washington and UCLA.

“We’re aware of the standings but at the same time we know that all we can do is go up and win games,” said first baseman Brian Ragira, whose .330 batting average is third-best on the squad. “We’ll let things fall where they will.”

This time around, No. 9 Oregon is in the driver’s seat to win its first conference championship since the Ducks reinstated their baseball program in 2008-09 following a 28-year hiatus. They can clinch at least a share of the title with a series win over Oregon State, but the No. 20 Beavers are no pushovers, having already beaten Oregon once this season.

No. 13 Arizona is only a game behind the Ducks at 18-9, but it must face a top-tier opponent as well in 17-10 Arizona State, which is unranked in the Coaches Poll due to NCAA sanctions but still ranked as high as 16th by some publications.

Also at 17-10 is No. 10 UCLA, which has perhaps the easiest series of the bunch this weekend. The Bruins will play at home against 10th-place USC, which has lost eight of its last nine in Pac-12 play.

Rounding out the group is Stanford, which will ride an eight-game winning streak into its series with the Golden Bears. With a sweep, the Cardinal would likely finish in second place in the conference, which could bring a Super Regional to Sunken Diamond if the squad can stay alive long enough in the postseason.

Unless Oregon gets swept for the first time this season, winning just twice would, at best, put Stanford in a three-way tie for second. With UCLA likely to have a strong showing as well, the Cardinal would have a hard time distinguishing itself to the selection committee if it finishes below 20 Pac-12 wins.

Thus, a sweep is imperative for Stanford for the third straight weekend.

“It always is [a must-win] once the postseason comes around,” Ragira said. “It was pretty similar last year.”

The Cardinal did win three of its last four games of the 2010 season, including two victories at Berkeley. And given its results playing under pressure over the last two weeks, the squad has a good shot at filling that tall order.

Two 3-0 weekends against eighth-place Washington State and conference doormat Utah weren’t entirely unexpected, but they helped revitalize a Stanford lineup that lost three of four to Oregon State and San Jose State, never scoring more than five runs in the process. Since its May 6 loss to the Beavers, the Cardinal has dipped below the five-run mark only once.

Additionally, Stanford’s starting pitchers combined for a 1.40 ERA and struck out double-digits on three separate occasions in those two series. Redshirt junior lefthander Brett Mooneyham (6-4) has returned to form with two straight wins, while junior utilityman Stephen Piscotty—recently named a finalist for the John Olerud Award, given to the best two-way player in college baseball—has emerged as a reliable starter to round out the Cardinal’s rotation.

“We knew Stephen could throw. He threw all through fall,” Ragira said. “He’s been a big pick-me-up for us.”

For their part, Cal could use a pick-me-up of its own on the mound. The Bears are the third-worst pitching team in the Pac-12 with an ERA of 4.13, with sophomore lefty Michael Theofanopoulos—who hit a three-run homer against Stanford in nonconference play last season as an outfielder—stepping in without much success on Sundays.

Offensively, Cal is paced by one of the best hitters in the conference, junior Tony Renda. The 2011 Pac-10 Player of the Year, Renda is batting .365 but his mere 26 RBI are indicative of the Bears’ overall difficulties with scoring runs this season. In contrast, the Cardinal is averaging nearly two more runs per game than Cal.

Much of that production has come from junior centerfielder Jake Stewart as of late. Stewart led off four innings on Tuesday at Santa Clara and got on base all four times, while also hitting two home runs and going a perfect 4-for-4.

“He’s a catalyst. He’s got speed, he’s got power, he can do everything,” Ragira said. “At this time of year, we need a guy who can get things rolling and he’s just that guy.”

When these two teams met a year ago, the Cardinal won the first two games before the final one was rained out with Stanford holding a 7-1 lead in the fourth inning. This year, it’s going to have to win all three if it wants to contend for a conference title.

Tonight’s opener is scheduled for 5:30 p.m., with 1 p.m. starts on Saturday and Sunday at Sunken Diamond.

Courtesy of BlackStage Theatre Company

Amid the warm spring air these past few days, campus events have consumed students. TEDx talks, for instance, inspired hundreds, while Frost Revival and BlackFest delivered the best of Bay Area music right to Stanford’s doorstep.

But another buzz has been growing on campus around a show that completely sold out weeks before opening night. In the shadows of Pigott Theater, fifty audience members waited as a simple scene of rural Georgia was lit up in pale shades of violet, and on a very small stage, a monumental performance gripped the crowd as BlackStage Theater Company put on their first full showing of their spring musical, “The Color Purple.”

“Purple,” based on the 1982 epistolary novel by Alice Walker and directed by Brandon Jackson ‘12, follows the shadowed life of Celie (Jessica Anderson ‘14), first introduced to the audience as a 14-year-old girl pregnant with her second child—both sired by her stepfather. The only bright spot in this child’s life is her younger, prettier sister Nettie, but the two are separated after their father gives Celie to a brutal man known only as Mr. (Logan Richard ‘15). Celie and Mr. continue a hostile life together that is shaken up when Shug Avery (Doris Bumpus), a crucial part of Mr.’s past—and eventually Celie’s future—comes to town.

“Purple” is not for the faint of heart, containing demeaning images of women, domestic abuse, discussions of rape and blatant racism. But in the spots when some of the plot-knowledgeable audience members were clearly nervous about others’ reactions—at one tense point when a knife is pulled on another character, a woman sitting behind me actually muttered, “I hope no one walks out after this scene”—the cast handled the roles beautifully.

In fact, what made the show so incredible was the fine line that this immensely talented ensemble was able to collectively walk to make every characterization spot on. Take Celie, for example, who might be one of the most difficult girls to portray in all of musical theater, her character forcing actresses to convince the audience of her transformation from meek and confused to bold and unhindered. Anderson, however, is a star on any stage, not simply that of “Purple.” I don’t think I’m alone in saying that her incredible solo performance of “I’m Here,” the penultimate song, raised goosebumps.

Courtesy of BlackStage Theatre Company

On the nefarious side, Mr.—whose short, terse name seems to reflect his bad attitude—was vicious from the start and induced actual physical cringes whenever he raised his whip. Richard has a substantial stage presence and equally large voice, helping to establish him as a true villain—no small feat in a musical production.

But the strongest of presences might have belonged to Ladidi Garba ‘12, whose brash character Sofia made slapping men around look easy. Garba was easily one of the best performers of the night, not to mention her palpable chemistry with her on-stage husband Harpo (Kelsei Wharton ‘12) in their duet “Any Little Thing.” Most importantly, though, Sofia, along of the rest of the cast, continually reaffirmed the importance of moral strength, the driving force behind Celie’s dramatic transformation.

At a time when racial tension lies at the crux of many recent political issues and in an environment where self-affirmation remains a constant goal throughout our four years, “The Color Purple” boldly reminds us of the powerful force of hope, even in the most extreme oppression. Purple, they say, is an indefinable shade of mystery and intrigue, of royalty and of spirituality, but for BlackStage, it is clearly the color of excellence.

Caterpillar CEO Doublas Oberhelman spoke Thursday at Cemex Auditorium on the long-term planning necessary to run his company. (MEHMET INONU/The Stanford Daily)

“We have to start planning now for the short, medium and long-term so we can be around for another 85 years,” Oberhelman said. “We have to deal with 10-year product cycles. Can you even imagine that happening over here?”

Outside the auditorium, a handful of students protested Oberhelman’s presence on campus and Caterpillar’s business practices in the Middle East.

While introducing Oberhelman, Graduate School of Business (GSB) Dean Garth Saloner credited Caterpillar Inc. — an 85-year-old company that is currently the world’s largest producer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, and industrial gas turbines — with having its “fingers on the pulse of the world.”

“If you want to see where infrastructure development will fuel growth tomorrow,” Saloner said, “you should look at where Caterpillar is getting its orders today.”

During his talk, which was part of the GSB’s View From The Top speaker series, Oberhelman discussed the strategic value of working in emerging markets, commenting on the possibility of Caterpillar expanding to Brazil, the Middle East and Africa.

“Everyone in emerging markets right now wants to live like us, and we want to help them do that,” Oberhelman said.

“I couldn’t imagine saying so when I first started working at Caterpillar, but I can see the day coming when we will have our first production facility somewhere in Africa,” he added.

The presentation took the format of a “fireside chat,” with questions posed to Oberhelman by a GSB student. When asked what the company’s three most pressing challenges are, Oberhelman answered accountability, a connection with customers and asset allocation.

“Responsibility gets diffused in a big company, and when it’s all going well, that doesn’t really matter,” he said. “But when things start slowing down, the finger-pointing starts.”

He said his proudest accomplishment would be leaving behind a legacy of changing the company’s corporate culture.

Oberhelman, CEO of Caterpillar since November 2010, said the most vital part of his job has been communication. He credited social media with simplifying the task, but said it hasn’t completely solved the problem.

“When conducting the big orchestra that is 150,000 employees, you can get lost easily,” he said. “You have to communicate, communicate, communicate, and let that information cascade down.”

Three students protested outside a talk by Dougla Oberhelman, Caterpillar CEO, Thursday. (MEHMET INONU/The Stanford Daily)

Oberhelman also touched on cultivating leadership within the company, praising its internal strength as the reason that Caterpillar has never had an outside CEO in its history. He described his managerial philosophy as one that strives to develop “a deep set of values” that are universalized across the company.

“It doesn’t matter whether you are in Palo Alto, Peoria, Ill., Brussels or Moscow; people just want to know what the rules are, and they want a level playing-field where they know exactly how they can succeed,” he said.

He added that it is important for a leader to get “direct and honest feedback.” Oberhelman said he has taken an unconventional strategy of visiting plants around the world and unassumingly approaching random employees.

“As CEO, you never get any honest feedback, ‘Everything’s just always going great!’” he said. “And I wanted to get past that.”

He also touched on the topic of innovation, and argued that it “is nothing but a buzzword unless you actually loosen the reins of creativity.” He went on to describe a virtual reality simulator at a Caterpillar R&D office as an implementation of innovation within the company.

Audience member Parabal Singh ’15 reflected positively on Olberhelman’s ideas.

“I loved the talk because he was more honest than almost anybody I have seen present,” Singh said.

Protesters outside, however, carried placards with messages such as “The Wall Must Fall” and “Say No to Caterpillar Violations of International Law,” attempting to highlight Caterpillar’s role in the construction of the West Bank Barrier and the provision of bulldozers to Israeli defense forces as critical grievances.

“They’re supplying tools to the occupation,” said Itai Farhi ’14, vice president of Students for Palestinian Equal Rights (SPER). “It’s wrong to be continuing to profit from the stealing of land.”

While SPER has consistently advocated University divestment from companies associated with the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, Farhi acknowledged that — as demonstrated by the small number of protesters, which at one point numbered three — the cause has yet to gain traction with the Stanford student body.

“None of what we’re saying should be surprising to people,” Farhi said. “People know that there are a lot of things that aren’t right, and it shouldn’t be as weird as it seems to be to say ‘this matters.’”

“Those [issues] are things that any person with a conscience should care about,” he added. “This isn’t a radical issue or even an activist issue — this is an ethics issue.”

Marshall Watkins contributed to this report.

The Center for Ethics in Society hosted Rodrik’s lecture, which was titled “Who Needs the Nation State?” and delivered as the annual Arrow Lecture on Ethics and Leadership.

During the presentation, Rodrik defended the concept of a nation state, which he defined as any smaller, self-governed body as contrasted to a global polity. He began by outlining key criticisms of the nation state, primarily those from fellow economists who emphasize the inefficiency of transaction costs caused by national borders, which impede global trade.

“This sort of looks like it’s hundred dollar bills lying on the proverbial pavement to the economists,” Rodrik said. “It means that we should basically pick up these hundred dollar bills by getting rid of nation states, getting rid of these jurisdictional boundaries, discontinuities in the global economy.”

Rodrik pointed to ethical arguments by “moral cosmopolitans,” who question the validity of national distinctions.

“It’s a totally artificial boundary,” Rodrik said, paraphrasing the arguments of his critics. “Moreover, it’s becoming more and more artificial in terms of improvements in communication and transportation technologies.”

Paradoxically, nation states both enable and impede globalization by providing the institutions required by global trade while introducing regulatory barriers, Rodrik said.

“This paradox requires us to manage the role of the nation state, to maintain this balance in a way, because the danger of trying to push markets beyond what the existing regulatory agents can support is that we get too much markets, too little governments, and therefore a lot of instability,” Rodrik said, highlighting the 2008 global financial collapse as evidence that nation states are required to pick up the pieces after economic crises.

“It was governments that stepped in to bail out the banks, to provide the safety nets and pump up demand and print the money,” Rodrik said. “Most typically, in the Euro Zone, we’ve seen how what seems to be a transnationalist project depends so much on the choices that individual nation states make, and ultimately all the responsibility for everything that has gone wrong — and for the little that has gone right — has been laid at the feet of national politicians.”

Earlier in the day, Rodrik spoke to eight students in Crothers Memorial Hall through the dorm’s Global Citizenship program, in a discussion moderated by Ishan Nath ’12.

Rodrik presented data showing that Europeans surveyed identified only slightly more as citizens of the European Union than as global citizens. The Euro Zone debt crisis was the topic of numerous audience queries in the question-and-answer session that followed Rodrik’s lecture.

“The fact that certainly Germans don’t feel they are the same political community as the Greeks — and that difference creates an apparently insurmountable obstacle to the creation of Europe-wide institutions, that makes the economic and financial integration projects unsustainable,” Rodrik said. “Europe is going through precisely the tensions that I’ve tried to identify here, and is doing it in a very vivid and real-time kind of fashion.”

One student audience member criticized both the event’s outreach.

“The talk was almost identical to other Ethics in Society events,” said audience member Joe Rivano Barros ’14. “Few students were in the audience, and fewer still were asking questions, with only faculty or gray-haired locals remotely engaging with the speaker.

“It was interesting that he didn’t really question the nation state as a construct,” he added, “but stuck to the question of the role of the nation state, given that it’s here to stay, in a globalized world.”

The Office of Undergraduate Advising and Research announced the three texts chosen for the program on Tuesday. The selections, provided by courtesy to all incoming members of the Class of 2016, include the DVD documentary “My Kid Could Paint That” by New York Times critic Michael Kimmelman, the smartphone application “Smule” by Stanford Assistant Professor of Music Ge Wang and “Fargo Rock City: A Heavy Metal Odyssey in Rural North Dakota,” a memoir written by Chuck Klosterman.

Incoming freshmen will receive the DVD and memoir by mail in July, and will be able to download the smartphone app when they arrive on-campus.

Mark Applebaum, associate professor of music, is responsible for this year’s unconventional picks. In a University press release, Applebaum said his selections were inspired by the opening of the Bing Concert Hall, which is set to open its doors in January. Applebaum said he hopes the texts will inspire students “to ask broader questions about where art is made, what art is important and who should decide.”

“In selecting these ‘texts,’ Professor Applebaum hopes the diversity of formats encourages students to think about how ideas are expressed differently by the written word, in filmic presentation, through music, or by using contemporary social media,” said Julie Lythcott-Haims ’89, dean of Freshman and Undergraduate Advising, in the University press release. Lythcott-Haims pioneered the Three Books program, now in its ninth year.

This will be the first year that non-printed texts have been selected. Past picks have included Junot Diaz’s “The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao” in 2008, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” in 2009 and Geraldine Brooks’ “March” in 2011.

The authors of the three texts will participate in a panel discussion at the conclusion of New Student Orientation. This year’s discussion, moderated by Applebaum, will take place on Sept. 23 in Memorial Auditorium. A live telecast of the event in Pigott Theater will be open to the broader Stanford community.

– Kurt Chirbas

Tuesday, May 15

A bike was stolen from outside of Soto in Wilbur Hall between 1:30 a.m. and 8:40 a.m.

An iPad was stolen from Hillel between 3 a.m. and 12 p.m.

A bike was stolen from outside of the Escondido V high rise between 1 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.

A laptop was stolen from Lagunita Dining between 6:30 p.m. and 6:35 p.m.

Wednesday, May 16

A bike was stolen from outside of Adams House between 12:01 a.m. on May 15 and 8:45 a.m. on May 16.

A bike was stolen from outside of Loro in Florence Moore Hall between 8 p.m. on May 14 and 11:45 a.m. on May 16.

Thursday, May 17

No incidents were reported.

Friday, May 18

A bike was stolen from in front of Florence Moore Hall between 10 p.m. on May 16 and 9 a.m. on May 18.

Two males were transported to the San Jose Main Jail and booked for vandalism near the intersection of Arguello Way and Serra Street at 2:38 p.m.

A male was cited and released for being a minor in possession of alcohol at 9:30 p.m. near 675 Lomita Drive.

A female was transported to the San Jose Main Jail and booked for being publicly intoxicated near the intersection of Governor’s Avenue and Campus Drive West at approximately 11:15 p.m.

Saturday, May 19

A male was transported to the San Jose Main Jail and booked for being publicly intoxicated near the intersection of Lane A and Nathan Abbott Way at 12:26 a.m.

A female was cited and released for being a minor in possession of alcohol near the intersection of Lane A and Campus Drive at 12:45 a.m.

A bike wheel was vandalized on a bike parked outside of Griffin House between 11 p.m. the previous night and 8:45 a.m.

A male was transported to the San Jose Main Jail and booked for being publicly intoxicated at 8 p.m. near Galvez Field.

A male was cited and released for being a minor in possession of alcohol at 11:20 p.m. on Mayfield Drive.

A male was cited and released for being a minor in possession of alcohol at 11:50 p.m. on Mayfield Drive.

Sunday, May 20

An iPhone was stolen from Lantana between 8:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m.

Monday, May 21

A bike was stolen from outside of Haus Mitteleuropa between 8 p.m. on May 19 and 10 a.m. on May 21.

Senior Bradley Klahn (above) easily defeated No. 4 Jarmere Jenkins from Fresno State 6-1, 6-1, despite coming into the tournament as the No. 36 seed. In addition to facing Ohio State’s Cole Buchanan today with a quarterfinal berth on the line, Klahn will pair up with senior Ryan Thacher in the doubles round against a Duke duo. (ALISA ROYER/The Stanford Daily)

Klahn, playing the day after his impressive, straight-set upset victory over No. 4-seed Jarmere Jenkins, continued his stellar play by knocking off No. 27 Remi Boutillier of Fresno State 6-1, 6-1. Klahn rolled right from the get-go on Thursday, dominating Boutillier and cruising to an easy victory. Boutillier has been a familiar opponent for Klahn as Stanford and Fresno State have squared off in each of Klahn’s four seasons with the Cardinal.

Thursday’s victory was a continuation of the extremely strong play that Klahn has exhibited since returning from an injury that had cost him much of the first half of his senior season. True to the form that Cardinal fans have come to expect of Klahn during his Stanford career, he has elevated the quality of his play for the postseason, having lost just twice in his last 15 singles matches. Both of those losses came at the hands of No. 1 Steve Johnson of USC.

Seeded No. 4 in the doubles portion of the NCAAs, Klahn and Thacher gritted through a tough two-set victory in their opening round match. Against Niall Fitzgerald and Casey Watt of Notre Dame, the Cardinal pair consistently came up more clutch than their Irish counterparts in the match’s most critical situations, eventually closing out a 6-4, 7-6 (2) victory.

Klahn and Thacher—close friends and roommates on the road—have had a prolific doubles career and an NCAA doubles championship would be the crowning achievement to a fantastic doubles career on the Farm.

Klahn now faces off against No. 10 seed Cole Buchanan of Ohio State at 7 a.m. PST this morning with a berth in the Elite Eight on the line.

In doubles, Klahn and Thacher’s next opponents are the dangerous No. 16 seed Henrique Cunha and Chris Mengel of Duke University. That match is slated to start at 1 p.m. PST today.

Sophomore Nicole Gibbs (above) and junior Mallory Burdette both won their singles matches yesterday morning to advance to the quarterfinal round of the NCAA Singles Championship. The duo also teamed up to win the first round of the doubles draw by dominating an unseeded Princeton’s doubles team 6-1, 6-1. (IAN GARCIA-DOTY/The Stanford Daily)

Gibbs got an early scare on the second day of singles play, needing three sets to beat Florida’s Joanna Mather 3-6, 6-4, 6-3.

“This match was really big for me mentally,” said Gibbs, who is now 2-2 in her career against Mather. “She plays really good tennis and I was able to stay with her.”

Burdette dominated for a second straight day, defeating Washington’s Denise Dy 6-1, 6-2.

The second-seeded duo of Gibbs and Burdette took care of business in their opening round of doubles play, winning 6-1, 6-1 against the unseeded Princeton pair of Hillary Bartlett and Lindsay Graff.

The work has just begun for Gibbs and Burdette, who will have to play both a singles and a doubles match every day until they are eliminated, or until the finals next Monday. This is nothing new for Burdette, who won last year’s NCAA doubles championship with Hilary Barte, who graduated last year.

Having a chance at making a deep run in both the singles and doubles is new for Gibbs though.

“It is definitely a grind, but I am taking all the right precautions,” Gibbs said of the battles ahead.

Freshman Ellen Tsay and junior Stacey Tan also appeared in the doubles draw, although they lost a closely contested match with the score of 4-6, 7-5, 7-6 (5) to the eighth-ranked duo of Kristy Frilling and Shannon Mathews from Notre Dame.

Next up for Gibbs is Natalie Pluskota from Tennessee. They have never played each other in singles, but they have met in doubles in the past.

Burdette will face a more familiar foe in USC’s top singles player Zoe Scandalis. While Gibbs has beaten Scandalis in dual matches twice this year, Burdette fell to her 7-6, 6-7, 3-6 in the finals of the Freeman Invitational back in January. Winning would also give Burdette a measure of revenge from the team competition as Stanford lost to USC in the quarterfinals of the NCAA team competition last week.

Gibbs and Burdette’s doubles match will be against Rice’s Natalie Beazant and Dominique Harmath in the second round of the doubles draw.

Both Gibbs’s and Burdette’s singles matches will begin at 7 a.m. PDT while their doubles match is scheduled to start at 1 p.m. PDT today.

Conference Commissioner Larry Scott earned $1.9 million in 2010, USA Today reported Wednesday, making him the highest-paid commish in the nation just months after he took the position. By comparison, Thomas Hansen, who headed the Pac-10 from 1983-2009, made less than $600,000 in his last full year on the job.

Though it’s no surprise that the Pac-12’s pockets have been getting progressively deeper in this era of big-money college sports, it’s exciting that the conference is doing so much better financially than its major counterparts. Its 12-year, $3 billion TV deal with Fox and ESPN shattered records and has begun to inspire other conferences’ similarly lucrative agreements, though none have yet eclipsed the Pac-12’s.

Having lived my entire life in the Bay Area, I’m no fan of the East Coast bias. But I’m a huge fan of blaming absolutely everything on the short-sightedness of our friends to the east, and when it comes to the conference pecking order, East Coast bias is clouding their understanding of something we are all very aware of: The Pac-12 is the most powerful league in college sports.

First of all, we have a practical monopoly over the world’s biggest hotbed of sporting growth: California. In college, California has produced indisputably the three most successful programs in NCAA history. UCLA’s 108 NCAA team championships, Stanford’s 103 and USC’s 94 are miles ahead of the take of the next-best Division I program, Oklahoma State (50).

But the Pac-12 is no stranger to uncharted territory. We started the whole conference realignment shindig that is still rocking the NCAA two years later. Big Ten fans will point out that their conference started the realignment rumors in early 2010, but while they were busy doing all the talking the Pac-10 ignited the powder keg by adding Colorado on June 10, one day before Nebraska announced its move to the Big Ten.

And what’s more, the Sports Business Journal nominated both Scott and the Pac-12 for its executive and league of the year, respectively, making them the only college-level nominees in each category.

Nobody cares about the big picture, you might quip. It’s all about the biggest teams in the biggest sports around: football and men’s basketball.

I can’t detract from the SEC’s six straight football titles. But on the other hand, the Pac-12 gets to send a team to the Rose Bowl—the biggest event in college athletics—on a nearly annual basis. We haven’t done that seven times, or even 70; no fewer than 92 Pac-12 schools have been in Pasadena for New Year’s.

The ACC may seem to have a claim to men’s basketball, with perennial powerhouses Duke and North Carolina. But the Pac-12 has actually won more national titles (15) in the sport than any other conference, even the ACC (12). And even though the conference has hit a rough patch on the hardwood over the last couple of years, given the storied history of programs like UCLA, you can’t expect those difficulties to stick around for long.

When it comes to the so-called “Olympic sports,” the Pac-12 is dominant. League members have already won eight national titles this year, and the conference has several major contenders in baseball and softball (though neither is actually played at the Olympics anymore).

So is the Pac-12 paying Larry Scott ridiculous amounts of money? Without question. But it has been getting quite a lot of bang for its buck, and before long even those from the East Coast will have a hard time denying its superiority.

Joseph Beyda is bracing himself for an earful from sports fans in the Southeast and East Coast. Give him moral support at jbeyda”at”stanford.edu.

Following Skip Kenney's retirement last week, former associate head coach Ted Knapp will officially take over as the head coach of the Stanford men's swimming and diving program in July after the Olympic Trials. (DANI VERNON/Stanfordphotos.com)

Knapp has been involved in Stanford athletics for most of his life. Before getting into coaching, he had a successful collegiate career with the Cardinal from 1977-1981. Knapp swam under Coach Kenney in his junior and senior seasons, earning All-American status his junior year.

Following his swimming career, Knapp quickly jumped onto the coaching scene by serving as a volunteer assistant beginning in 1984. By the 1988-1989 season, he was working as a full-time assistant coach.

In the 28 years that Knapp spent alongside Kenney, he has been a driving force in Stanford’s incredible run that includes seven national titles and 31 consecutive conference championships. Knapp closely works with his swimmers every year, including designing workouts and overseeing dry-land training.

Knapp has also played a major role in the coaching world beyond the Farm. He has coached 19 Olympians, including three-time gold medalist Pablo Morales. Ten of his swimmers have gone on to set a total of 20 world records. In addition, Knapp served as the head men’s manager of the 2008 U.S. Olympic team as well as the assistant manager of the 2005 and 2007 U.S. World Championship team.

In 2011, Knapp won the national assistant coach of the year award, given by collegeswimming.com.

Knapp will officially begin his duties as head coach in July after the Olympic Trials.

-George Chen

. Okay, so I’m, by most definitions of the word, a woman, but “Man Crush” is the only phrase to describe my adulation of the columnist whose first book, “Man Made,” hit the stands last week. A simple “crush” doesn’t fit, because this is not a Lolita situation and I am not creepy; he’s not quite a “mentor,” because I’m pretty sure he doesn’t actually know who I am; and it’s not a “girl crush,” because, despite Stein’s 300-page-long quest for manliness, he is technically male. Alas, I have a man crush on Stein because, well, he’s the type of man I want to be.

Struck with the fear that his sonogram-baby’s penis will eventually grow to full human form and that he must teach his penis-baby the tricks of the man trade lest that baby seek help from friends’ fathers or coaches, Stein decides to embark on a journey to find his own masculinity. If you don’t know Stein as well as I claim to, the humor writer for “Time Magazine” has contributed to the likes of GQ and the Los Angeles Times and even began as a columnist for The Stanford Daily. Maybe I look up to Stein because I’m the type of person who isolates two obscure similarities between myself and a potential idol, finds a desired outcome and then concludes that there is hope for me, the struggling artist with a figurative beret and literal dreams for semi-stardom.

So when I found out during one of Stein’s campus talks that he also didn’t start at The Daily until sophomore year, that his back-up plan was a life of lawyerdom, too, and that he contributed to GQ — nothing less than my dream job and the subject of my college essay — I was certain that I too would some day make it in this society. All alumni should be so inspiring.

I remember the first time I met Stein. It was just before I was ducking out of a class to attend Stein’s actual talk with The Daily. He was wearing a brown suit, like a monkey. And then I met Stein again when he spoke during iDeclare week to a group of sophomores, sitting around him and a panel of other speakers in folding chairs with mediocre refreshments that made it feel more like a self-help slap in the face than a career-planning venture. When a former Wall Street Journal journalist asked me what I wanted to be when I graduated from Stanford, I announced to the room that I wanted to be Stein. The room laughed; iDidn’tDeclare.

The last time I met Stein, I cornered him after his TEDxStanford talk to sign my copy of his book. His talk introduced “Man Made” with just a tad of suspense for those who haven’t yet flipped through the essays of wanton manliness, but that was about it. He concluded that the dagger of unmanliness — or for those of us blessed/cursed to move through life with a vagina know, of weakness in general — is just fear of confrontation. That’s it! He didn’t even read us “The List,” his top-secret list of life lessons reserved for only Laszlo, his oddly named penis-baby. And some people paid a lot for those TEDx tickets.

But “Man Made” is worth the read even if it doesn’t reveal all of life’s secrets to pretty successful success and even for those readers who aren’t women who secretly want to be dapper, sturdy gentlemen. Yes, there are life lessons to be learned — like the importance of a knowledge of American history, particularly of our success in wars, to the apparent perception of manliness — and Stein makes a point to mention Stanford many times, which will in turn make any Stanford reader feel both special and closer to the author. (That last one may just be me again.)

But no, not for knowledge or manliness or even for a Father’s Day gift should you pick up this book. Do it for the laughs. Any Stanford student immersed in spoiled discontent or mild frustration at the limitations of a comfortable upbringing can appreciate Stein’s journey through manliness as if in some modern Orpheus story, rescuing his own man-imus from himself and from society’s expectations. It’s no “Eat, Pray, Love,” but it is a barrel of laughs and will probably become a TV movie starring Casey Affleck if they can’t get Matt Damon. Plus, the book is a lot cheaper than TEDx tickets anyway.

“I had been looking for a gangster film to do, and couldn’t find any new take on it,” said Hillcoat, who first read the novel while in production on his 2009 film “The Road.”

The Bondurants’ compelling story was full of potential, and the director immediately sent it to Cave.

“The book is amazing,” agreed the writer. “It was really about the foot soldiers and worker bees that create the very beginning of the whole process of this wave of corruption that goes up and up and up into the cities and the glamour and into the pinstripe suits.”

And indeed, the film’s title is a reflection of those very rural outlaw enclaves, and especially the Bondurants, that dared to defy the corrupt lawmen who demanded protection money in order to continue the illicit whiskey trade. In the film, the brutal Agent Rakes (Guy Pearce) is sent by Chicago’s district attorney to bring the bootleggers in line with the law, but instead incites small-scale warfare within the community. Forrest Bondurant (Hardy), the eldest brother, leads the opposition.

For an American-set period piece, “Lawless” has a surprisingly international cast. So were those pesky Southern drawls difficult to master?

“I couldn’t tell you whether my accent in [Lawless] is truly genuine or authentic,” said Hardy, who hails from London. “Nor do I really give a shit.”

“What I care about is the character that comes across—whether you care about him, whether you identify with him, whether he can get away with doing some heinous stuff and still [have] you feel for him. [Forrest] cut somebody’s balls off! Would you want to sit in a room with someone who cut a man’s testicles off?”

“Not while he still had the testicles in his hand,” interjected Pearce with a straight face.

Like Hillcoat’s previous films, “Lawless” is graphic, bloody and violent—and not in a stylized, Quentin Tarantino sort of way. In the film, both the bootleggers and the law enforcers are utterly brutal and unapologetic. The director cited classics like “Bonnie & Clyde,” “Scarface” and “Goodfellas” as inspiration.

“Gangster films nowadays are more about pure action, not character,” he said. “So it was a special treat to have such rich [material].”

For the actors, however, bringing the violence to the screen isn’t always so easy.

“It’s kind of therapeutic in a way,” said Pearce, although he was quick to separate real life from the “safety of the film circus.”

“Violence in reality is truly fucking horrific,” Hardy agreed. “And truly pedestrian. And when it comes sometimes, it comes out of nowhere and it’s shocking.”

As antagonists, their characters share quite a few charged, and sometimes violent, interactions. Yet by their account, all of the tension disappeared when the cameras stopped rolling.

“We just chilled,” said Hardy. “We’d sit in the makeup trailer and chat and play Angry Birds.”

“That’s how we connected to our [characters’] anger,” added Pearce. There you have it: Acting 101.

Mia Wasikowska and Dane DeHaan, who have supporting roles in the film, had nothing but praise for their co-stars—even those with reputations for being difficult on set.

“Well they are big personalities,” said Wasikowska. “But they’re hard-working as well.”

“Shia really runs the set,” said DeHaan. “Because he’s so used to playing that leading man role.”

“But he comes prepared and ready to go, and he’s [always] cheering everyone on.”

When asked what contemporary audiences might glean from a historical drama like “Lawless,” both cast and crew gave similar answers.

“I feel like the core themes of that time are sort of always recycled and are seen under different names throughout history and even present day,” said Wasikowska, who plays the love interest of LaBeouf’s character.

Cave was slightly less diplomatic, likening Prohibition to “the great embarrassment of [current] American policy: the war on drugs.” Together, they represent “two great failures” in history.

So, uh, did anyone actually try any moonshine (the traditional name of the clear whiskey produced in the region)?

“Oh yeah!” said DeHaan enthusiastically. Since his character distills the liquor for the Bondurants, it was only natural for the actor to do his proper “research.”

“If you can get a blackberry or a peach moonshine, that’ll taste a little better,” he advised. “But if it’s just straight moonshine, that pretty much tastes like rubbing alcohol. It’s strong—you don’t need much of it.”

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

For the average cinephile or celebrity gawker, the word “Cannes” probably conjures up images of svelte actors and gowned actresses posing on the red carpet silhouetted against a blue sea, speckled with fancy yachts, and the occasional renegade director. Sure, world premieres, photo calls and press conferences are just part of the everyday happenings, but what the photo-shopped images don’t reveal is the less than glamorous behind-the-scenes scrambling that truly makes the Cannes Film Festival the prestigious event that it is.

As a lowly student journalist I’ve been a bit of a fly on the wall, enjoying the people watching almost as much as the films. And believe me, there can be a lot of downtime. With thousands of accredited journalists attending the festival, Cannes has a hierarchy to manage who gets in to what screening. My yellow badge puts me just above the photographers, but at the bottom of the ranks of the rest of the journalists. Depending on the venue, blue, pink and white badges all have priority access before me. Just the other night, I waited in line for an hour—outside, in the rain—for the new Abbas Kiarostami film that debuted in competition, only to be turned away when the theater became full with higher-ranked press. (Granted, it could have been worse. Entry to last year’s “The Tree of Life” was so competitive that it resulted in actual physical fights.)

However, for each minor setback Cannes has something redeeming to offer, like the time some friends and I crashed a party hosted by Firefox for their new Flicks platform. Unfortunately we missed the guest of honor, actor Edward Norton, but the open bar, fireworks over the water and excellent DJ made up for it. The chances of a celebrity sighting at Cannes are also considerably high—possibly even more so than in metropolitan Meccas like Los Angeles and New York. In fact, my first night here, I took the bus back to my apartment and noticed Bonnie Wright (aka Ginny Weasley) standing a few feet away with a group of friends.

Balancing work and play can be a bit of a challenge, especially when press screenings begin as early as 8:30 a.m. and continue on until 10 in the evening which, for some films, means getting out of the theater past midnight. The Palais des Festivals, the central hub for press and industry members, offers free Nespresso stations to recharge between screenings, but as you might guess they only serve espresso. In tiny cups. Maybe my palette just isn’t refined enough, but even with sugar, the experience of drinking espresso the French way is not unlike how I would imagine taking a shot of battery acid would feel: unpleasant, yet highly stimulating.

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

As a seasoned journalist advised me at a press junket, the more you accept that Cannes, despite its golden reputation, isn’t actually all that well organized, the more you can relax and enjoy yourself. So having come to terms with the fact that I can only fit so much into a single day, I’m back to feeling that same sense of awe that I had the day I first checked in. For someone like me, just being here is a dream come true.

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

One of the hottest In Competition films so far is Jacques Audiard’s “Rust and Bone,” a dynamic relationship drama centering on a whale trainer and a struggling single father who moonlights as a small-time boxer. Starring Academy Award-winner Marion Cotillard and Matthias Schoenaerts as the leads, this atypical love story is set to make waves once it reaches overseas.

Trying to make a fresh start, Alain (Schoenaerts) leaves Northern France with his young son Sam (Armand Verdure) to stay with his estranged sister in a beach town on the Riviera. Taking a job as a bouncer at a night club, he first meets haughty whale trainer Stephanie (Cotillard) while working one night. She gets into a fight; he breaks it up and drives her home, forgetting about her until much later.

After losing both legs in an accident at a marine park, Stephanie calls Alain out of the blue. By now his life is relatively on track, having moved on from his post as a bouncer to one as a night guard at a warehouse. During the days he keeps Stephanie company, gradually reintroducing her to the outside world that she shunned in her depression following the accident. Their relationship grows more complicated as Alain, accustomed to feeling that what he has to offer is more physical than intellectual, agrees to help Stephanie rediscover her sexuality. Meanwhile, his professional life takes a turn when a new employer convinces Alain to get involved in some off-the-books security details and amateur fights, both of which lead to unforeseen circumstances.

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

At its core, “Rust and Bone” is a story about love. Stephanie and Alain continue to evolve and learn from each other, but never in a way that feels contrived and formulaic like many relationship dramas. Instead, the personal hardships that they endure serve as a de-romanticizing force, not unlike fellow French director Cédric Kahn’s gritty 2011 film “Une vie meilleure” starring Guillaume Canet.

Yet the film would be nothing without the astounding performances of its two leads. Cotillard shines as a vulnerable woman constantly fluctuating between self-acceptance and insecurity in adapting to life as an amputee. In the press conference for the film, the actress merely said of her performance, “One simply pretends that one doesn’t have legs any longer.” And indeed, her restrained yet poignant performance already has Best Actress buzz swirling.

Schoenaerts is equally strong as the volatile but good-hearted Alain. Despite having worked steadily in his native Belgium for over a decade, including a starring role in this year’s Academy Award-nominated “Bullhead,” “Rust and Bone” is sure to be his breakout role on the international scene. Hollywood, take note: in addition to French and Dutch, he also speaks flawless English. Needless to say, American cinema could use more actors like him, who are not only capable of pulling off the macho swag but also the nuanced character beneath.

Organic, beautifully crafted and supremely acted, “Rust and Bone” is a film that packs a powerful emotional punch without ever venturing into melodrama.

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

Part coming-of-age story and part comedy of manners, Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom” chronicles the adventurous romance of two young lovers on a fictional island off the coast of New England. Newcomers Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman lead a star-studded supporting cast including Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Edward Norton and Tilda Swinton.

In the summer of 1965, precocious 12-year-old Sam Shakosky (Gilman) executes a well-planned escape from his Khaki Scout troop in order to rendezvous with his pen pal and crush, Suzy Bishop (Hayward). With the help of Sam’s superior wilderness skills, the two fugitives make their way across the island while evading the clutches of the various locals out to reign them in, which include Scout Master Ward (Norton) and the rest of Troop 55, Mr. and Mrs. Bishop (Murray and McDormand) and local police Captain Sharp (Willis).

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

Alone together, Sam and Suzy bond over a mutual penchant for getting in trouble and feeling like an outsider — he as a foster child and she for getting into fights at school. She shares with him her favorite books (stolen from the library, no less) while he, a budding renaissance man, paints watercolors of her against the beautiful New England scenery. Yet just as they realize their true love for each other, the search party catches up and forces them apart. But, as young people are wont to do, Sam and Suzy scheme up ways to be reunited, even in the face of an aggressive social services agent (Swinton) who threatens to take Sam away. Meanwhile, a hurricane brews just off the coast and promises to shake things up even more for the tiny, insular community.

Awash in the vintage, sepia-toned look that Anderson favors, “Moonrise Kingdom” is less of a period piece than merely an extension of the quirky, off-kilter realities that the director brings to the screen. (His previous works include “The Darjeeling Limited” and “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.”) But as kitschy as his latest film is, it feels more grown up and thorough than anything else he has produced to date, perhaps, in a way, representing a certain coming of age for the director as well as the characters.

As a twist on the “Romeo and Juliet” forbidden love story, “Moonrise Kingdom” succeeds in capturing the playful earnestness and awkwardness of budding romance without being overly sentimental. Juxtaposed with the adults in the film, who are portrayed as incompetent, inept and forever loveless (the failure of the Bishops’ marriage is a recurring theme), Sam and Suzy make admirable heroes for taking their fate into their own hands. So if they take themselves a little too seriously, it’s only because, well, they’re a lot more adult than the real grown-ups around them.

Anderson fans will be satisfied with the impeccable ensemble casting and the evolution of his storytelling, and as for everyone else — here’s your chance to jump on the bandwagon.

“Moonrise Kingdom” hits theaters June 1.

Courtesy of MCT

Like most of the undergrad population on this campus, I was too young to be a part of the target audience of the original “Men in Black” when in came out in ’97. Most of us were fortunate enough to have older siblings or pals introduce us to the comedic and badass stylings of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, and we can fondly look back on the original as well as the sequel. But even if “Lilo and Stich” was your primary extraterrestrial exposure, you’re in luck, because Will Smith doesn’t seem to have aged a day in “Men in Black III.” Plus, the first 15 minutes of this movie provide a handy refresher on the dynamic, crime-fighting alien duo of Agent J and Agent K, not to mention bring you up to speed on the current state of (Hollywood) race relations.

Meanwhile, those of you already familiar with these secret agents and their usual high jinks need not get anxious at the prospect of a contrived regurgitation of the same fight scenes and jokes. Like practically all movies these days (including the upcoming movie version of “The Great Gatsby”… say what?), “Men in Black III” comes to you in 3D. I often get distracted in recent movies because I’m preoccupied with guessing which things I’m seeing are/will be enhanced by 3D or merely wondering if such objects are 3D — I’m pretty sure all of a few blades of grass were the only 3D parts of “Lion King 3D”– but if there ever was a movie made for that extra dimension, this is it. Surprises were much more surprising, aliens much more alien-y and travels through time and space generally more absorbing. This movie has no shortage of fantastical creatures and even more fantastical gadgets, all of which translates nicely to the 3D experience.

“MIB III” doesn’t just stop with protruding plasma guns, but continues to break from the existing “Men in Black” canon with the plot itself. The movie is a romp through New York and U.S. history, driven by Agent J’s mission to stop a gnarly-looking alien assassin from killing Agent K and ultimately destroying planet Earth. Same old, same old pressure to save the world in 90 minutes? Yes, but when Agent J goes back in time to do it, he finds himself paired up with the 40-years-younger version of his partner (played by Josh Brolin in an eerily Jonesian fashion), which makes for an entirely novel crime-fighting team. And to top it all off, these two get started kicking ass and taking names in 1969 New York City (redux with aliens).

We already knew the black suits and skinny ties were timeless, but they’re perhaps best served with the Mad Men-esque backdrop of mod ’60s decor and secretaries in sharp pencil skirts and fab, voluminous hairdos. Just when you start to wonder if this is AMC or the big screen, Will Smith brings you back with his witty repartee, taking his thoroughly confused ’60s peers by storm in scene after scene. While Agent J keeps the humor current, Agent K and his generation allow us to indulge some more of our favorite aspects of the era, from period cars to Andy Warhol to the Apollo 13. Will Smith’s acting is on point, if not because it feels more like Will Smith being cool than Will Smith acting.

Courtesy of MCT

Though many of these scenes are great fun, the progression from one scene to the next relies heavily on some relatively predictable plot developments and an overarching theme of secret-agent bromance and machismo. Attempts at bringing gravity to the plot and its key moments of foreshadowing often fell flat. It’s probably not a good sign when a serious moment of warning makes you inadvertently burst out laughing. It doesn’t help that somber news is delivered to the protagonists by a unicorn, albeit a very loose and rather bizarre interpretation of a “one horned” being. On the other hand, the title of this movie isn’t “Pursuit of Happyness II,” and I wouldn’t go into it with a hankering for nuanced symbolism or a narrative that tugs at the heartstrings. If you are, however, in the mood for some laugh-out-loud moments with Will Smith, some involuntary alien dodging in your seat and an overall fun time, then this may well be a movie for you.

-Alex Kennedy

Dear Restaurant/Strangers/Something Else,

“You have let me down. Sincerely, Me.” This one comes in many forms. Dear People who took all the parking spaces, I hate you. Dear Starbucks, tell your baristas not to put so much foam in my lattes.  Dear California, OMG thanks for the sun! Love you!!!!!

            This might have been funny the first 50 times people did it, but it’s become tiresome. If the whole purpose of writing the letter is to share this disappointing experience with your 700 Facebook friends, then the “letter” form is misleading. Cut the frills with an avant-garde, minimalist posting: “There’s too much foam in my latte.” Or even a surrealist text-painting a la Magritte: “This latte is not a latte.” Is it fair to complain about something behind someone’s back? Yes, it is. But it is not fair to pretend that you are directly addressing the problem when you are really just whining. So try this for a change: Write that letter to Starbucks or the person who cut you in line for Fraiche and give it to them. They can’t change if you don’t tell them.

Something fun that I’m doing, but I’m going to put a question mark at the end? Yes, please.

Why are you phrasing this as a question? If you are having a great day hanging out with your best friends by the new fountain, just say that. Posting “A sunny afternoon with my besties at the new fountain? Yes, please!” is terribly indirect. Have some confidence, take a stand and end your sentence with a period like a real grown-up who actually graduated grammar school.

Hey, Location! Missed you.

Again, just say it. Just say, “It’s great to be back at Stanford!” Just because a place is a proper noun does not mean you should address it directly. We hate to be the one to break it to you, but the place you are talking to cannot hear you and will never respond to you. It’s basically on par with talking to inanimate objects. See also, number one.

That awkward moment when the moment isn’t actually awkward, but I’m pretending it is.

You know you’ve done this one. The awkward moment when you drink 2 percent milk instead of fat free. The awkward moment when you think it’s Tuesday, but it’s Friday.

Not every moment is awkward. Not every moment needs to be written in this “the moment when…” format. Like a wise, now-anonymous, freshman housemate once said, “Awkward doesn’t even exist. It’s a mindset.” So lose it, and don’t let me find it on a newsfeed.

The “I have clearly been hacked” status.

Once upon a time, posting a status as your friend was really, really hilarious. Now it is a minor crime that happens once every 5.9 seconds. It’s still not funny when someone’s status update is “I smell like cat butt,” or “I love Sarah Palin.” Well, it’s probably funny if you were there, but all your Facebook friends wish you would stop posting statuses from your friends’ accounts, if only to not disrupt our ideas of static identity uncorrupted by role-play or a fluid existence. Or whatever.

- Savannah Kopp

And the perks of a spring fling? If you’re heading off to a new place for the summer, this might be your last, ahem, taste of Stanford for a while. Graduating seniors need to lock down their bucket lists, and you certainly can’t hook up in the stacks alone. And of course, with finals on the horizon, there’s no better way to de-stress than to undress.

As this isn’t Roxy’s first time at the spring quarter rodeo, she’s got some suggestions for how to guarantee a successful finish … to the year, of course! If you’re truly looking for random, Roxy recommends the dance floor of an all-campus party. You barely need to exchange names before the DFMO (dance floor make out, of course) can begin — forget pleasantries like class year, major and freshman year IHUM. Alternative places to meet potential hookups include outside on the Row as people wander between parties or on FloMo field mid-day drinking.

After the hookup, you’ve shared plenty — Roxy believes there’s no need to share more information…like your phone number. Of course, if you’re looking for a round two, you might have to give in order to get some. In that case, Roxy recommends you refrain from any texts before dinnertime — you might give the impression that you actually want to see this person before dinner. Similarly, avoid sympathy coffee (you know, the “I want to pretend this wasn’t a random thing so we can go out to coffee once and never talk again” coffee). Nothing ruins hot and steamy memories more than iced beverages and stilted conversation.

Roxy wishes you all the best in your pursuits. Trust her, it’s worth it to end the year with a bang. Or two.

Looking for a way to stay warm at night but can’t seem to find your space heater? Roxy can heat things up in no time. See if she’s busy (or wants to get busy) at Intermission@Stanforddaily.com.

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

As anyone who ever had to endure AP U.S. History knows, Prohibition was a brief period in post-WWI America when the sale, manufacture and transport of alcohol were illegal. What the textbooks probably didn’t elaborate on was how, well, badass the bootleggers who defied the law were. Enter “Lawless,” an adrenaline rush of a film inspired by the real-life Bondurant brothers, who made a killing in the illicit whiskey trade during the Great Depression.

In 1931 rural Virginia, Forrest, Howard and Jack Bondurant (played by Tom Hardy, Jason Clarke and Shia LaBeouf) do what all enterprising young men would to make living—distill whiskey, pay off local cops for protection and turn a nice profit selling the goods up and down the countryside. With family friend Cricket (Dane DeHaan, of “Chronicle”) crafting the brew to perfection, the family business runs like a well-oiled machine; that is until a special agent sent by Chicago’s district attorney rides into town hell-bent on stopping the flow of moonshine out of what has by now earned the moniker “the wettest county.”

Agent Rakes (Guy Pearce), however, proves much more sinister than just an officer on a power trip. Led by the Bondurants, the struggle to keep producing whiskey escalates into all-out warfare, and it won’t stop until one side backs down.

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

“Lawless” is easily director John Hillcoat’s most accessible film to date. Although often grim and violent, it still has moments of humor and levity, unlike Hillcoat’s previous two films, “The Proposition” and “The Road,” which a critic rightfully described as “misery on misery on misery.” This is not to say that the latest is by any means family-friendly — it’s still quite dark and graphic — but just not as bleak.

Using the historical novel “The Wettest County in the World,” written by Matt Bondurant (grandson of one of the famous brothers), as inspiration, screenwriter Nick Cave crafts a complex story of gangsters and corrupt lawmen almost as crooked as the crooks they make deals with. It’s almost too ambitious at times, with many promising characters receiving disappointingly little screen time. Gary Oldman’s brief cameo as fearsome gang boss Floyd Banner comes to mind, as do Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain as Jack and Forrest’s respective latent love interests.

Courtesy of Cannes Film Festival

Instead the film is anchored by the bond between the Bondurant brothers and rides on their performances and fraternal chemistry. Hardy, as the clan’s de facto ringleader, is all cool swag as usual, while Clarke is the brawny Howard who boozes by day and provides the muscle for the operation by night. LaBeouf is pleasantly sympathetic as the runt of the family trying to prove his toughness to his older brothers as much as to himself; in other words, encouraging proof that the actor has a shot at a successful post-Transformers career. Opposite the Bondurants, Pearce is absolutely terrifying as the sleazy, almost maniacal agent.

So while “Lawless” doesn’t quite push any boundaries and probably won’t spur any deep discussions afterward, it will undoubtedly be a fun, action-packed alternative for those burnt out on superheroes and CGI extravaganzas to close out summer movie season with panache.

Catch “Lawless” in theaters this August.

Courtesy of Daniel Chia

The Stanford Shakespeare Company traditionally stages its spring show outdoors, in scenic and visually interesting parts of campus. This year is no exception: The group mounts “Romeo and Juliet” in a small, sunken amphitheatre on the Engineering Quad, with a large tree bathed in violet lights as the centerpiece of the stage. The setting is intimate — the first ring of stone benches is level with the actors — and the players enter and exit from behind the audience.

The actors adapt well to a production in the round, making good use of the sparse scenery and the tree, which serves as Juliet’s (Camille Brown ’14) balcony in Act II, Scene 2. She and Romeo (Kevin Hurlbutt ’14) render this and other interactions with all the emotional fluctuation appropriate to a hormonal and eminently believable young couple. As Brown told The Daily, “Once I translated it into modern English — just for myself — it felt natural to become the character.” Brown’s Juliet is consistently relatable to anyone who remembers their high school years; she is impulsive and headstrong, the quintessential rebellious teenager in a restrictive household, whose infatuation with a boy she meets at a party becomes her whole world. Her best moments, however, are not the expected scenes of high passion; rather, Brown excels at internal conflict — her marriage vows, which follow several memorable bouts of self-doubt, are justly earned.

Hurlbutt’s Romeo, too, could be any brooding, lovelorn high schooler decked out in a blue doublet; he spends the majority of the play lamenting his romantic woes in a typical adolescent fashion, his melancholy punctuated by several soliloquies revealing a more impassioned inner character. Hurlbutt recounts developing Romeo’s internality with director Evan Dragic ’12, which involved “lots of looking at the text, talking about symbolism and all the little things [the audience doesn't] notice.” This detailed examination shines through in several key scenes: the few minutes of animated panic in the Capulet garden, a moving reaction to the death of Mercutio (Mary Glen Fredrick ’12) and Romeo’s bitterness upon receiving word of his banishment, whereupon he lashes out at his friend and mentor, Friar Laurence (Francisco Maravilla ’12).

The play is not all tears; the company deftly captures the Bard’s sharp, often bawdy wit. The banter between Romeo and his sidekicks Mercutio and Benvolio (Mary Beth Corbett ’12) never fails to amuse, especially as they become more inebriated as the night progresses. Corbett’s stage presence is emphatic and precise, whereas Fredrick’s Mercutio is mercurial and animated, both providing contrast to the more sober Romeo. Juliet’s nurse (Insiya Jafferjee ’14) also manages to ease the tension among the Capulets as she flits about like a well-intentioned mother hen, offering equal parts comfort and unwelcome advice, much to the exasperation of Juliet, her parents and undoubtedly the audience as well.

The production’s parental figures span a wide range of acting styles that, despite — or perhaps due to — their differences, complement each other and their wayward children. In this rendition, Lord and Lady Montague are collapsed into a single character (Rachel Lindee ’12), an unusual but ultimately effective casting that allows Friar Laurence to assume a unique position as surrogate father to Romeo. As Maravilla commented, “there was a lot of effort involved in carving out [the] character, figuring out why he and Romeo have this kinship.” Their relationship appeared in stark opposition to that of Juliet and her parents; Lord Capulet (Nick Weiler, 5th year Ph.D) is deliciously tyrannical, and Lady Capulet (Nora Tjossem ’15) attempts to soothe the tension between Juliet and her father, but ultimately lacks the will to contradict her husband — a subtle contrast to Montague’s strong single-motherhood. The Capulets’ version of tiger parenting, Renaissance-style, garners Juliet, and by extension, Romeo, immense audience sympathy.

Courtesy of Daniel Chia

StanShakes has produced, in “Romeo and Juliet,” another entertaining, moving classic that is sure to appeal to modern audiences of all stripes. The intimate venue is small, so you may want to reserve your tickets before they sell out.

The generational gap in technological know-how is a uniquely modern phenomenon, and the divide is only going to be larger for the next few rounds of wired youngsters. In the meantime, we should do more to develop a knowledge-driven sense of control over technology’s place in our personal lives.

As I discussed last week, console-manufacturers may be in a great position to lead that sort of paradigm-shift. By couching a gentle introduction to computer-tweaking in a common medium of entertainment, a lot more people might suddenly flex their sea legs in a world often consumed by technology. A host of obstacles have historically prevented that kind of radical change, but the playing field may be a little different today. Let’s take an updated look at some of the reasons console-makers don’t typically encourage us to tinker around with their products.

Splitting the user-base

The most talked-about problem with re-configurable consoles, without a doubt, is that they would split a manufacturer’s customers into various segments. In so doing, the traditional purpose of a console — giving users a streamlined, unified and easily advertised experience — is damaged.

What people sometimes neglect is this: we already have that problem. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony all released products in this console generation that categorically split the player experience to the point that compatible games now need to be specifically labeled. They didn’t shy away from advertising the add-ons — Wii MotionPlus, Kinect and PlayStation Move — as radically new experiences that redefine their consoles. Evidently, they aren’t so afraid of splitting the base anymore, especially if it means appealing to more people.

More importantly, most of the changes I’m advocating wouldn’t so much split  the user-base as stretch it out. That is to say, adding a couple gigabytes of RAM wouldn’t allow for categorically new experiences, just better ones of the same kind. Who loses there? That’s right, no one.

Alienating people

Consoles are popular because they aren’t intimidating. Quite rightly, their manufacturers are afraid of scaring off casual consumers with a dizzying array of options. But given the age we live in, I daresay those consumers are ready for a calculated step forward. We’ve gone from plug-and-play games to online services, micro transactions, wacky peripherals and finicky controller-syncing — at some point, we should be able to open the hood. It doesn’t have to be an instant switch to full customization, either. That would ruin the point. If we’re given a limited set of meaningfully distinguishable hardware options, I think we’d find the happy place between comfort and customization.

Price-gouging

            This worrying problem is more on the consumer’s side of spectrum, but no less important. The standard practice for exchangeable doo-dads on current platforms is (predictably) to not pass on the savings to the end-user and instead milk their wallets dry. Typically, that’s done by creating artificially proprietary components like the Xbox 360’s hard drive or the Vita’s outrageously expensive memory sticks. It’s like a homemade mini-monopoly. It’s a difficult problem to solve, but perhaps manufacturers could open RAM or processor production to third parties and charge licensing fees, as they currently do with other peripherals. Or they could simply trust that by treating the consumer fairly, they’d sell more units and create a larger install base for lucrative software.

Companies likely to make the switch

It’s hard to say which company might release the world’s first “open” console. Of the established players, Sony might make the best fit– it’s still one of the world’s premier electronics companies, and not long ago it championed Linux and custom hard drives on PS3. Microsoft certainly has the pipeline for such a move, but seems fiercely committed to keeping the Xbox line as straightforward as possible. Nintendo is the same way, infinitely more so.

It might make more sense for a new contender to come out of the gate with a custom-console approach from the beginning. Apple has been flirting with consoles for a while (and even developed one back in the day), but it is the last company on Earth that would release a new product line with customizable hardware. Valve, the savior of PC gaming and keeper of its biggest marketplace in Steam, is the top contender in my mind. Nobody champions user empowerment more than Gabe Newell & Co., who certainly have the liquid cash to produce and market a console. If Valve ever does release its much-rumored console, I’d be shocked, in fact, if we couldn’t open it up and toss in anything that the motherboard and OS would support.

In the end, I’ll salute (and pay) whoever bites the bullet and gives the consumer the customization we crave.

What follows is an exercise in exquisite voice work: It’s like radio with heads but completely engaging. As the three characters each recount the story of their love triangle directly to the audience, there are genuinely funny moments, such as, when describing the awkward tea meeting between the two women, the man says “Personally, I always preferred Lipton’s.” Once the story is complete, it repeats verbatim.

The second run of the story is spoken even more quickly than the first, which was already at an unnaturally clipped pace. It forces the viewer to question just how many times they have already repeated these exact words and why they continue to do so. The second time through, it is so fast that the words start to lose their meaning: They become a series of inflected sounds, formed in a familiar pattern and pitch.

“Play” is a piece that relies entirely on timing; the spotlight moves from one actor to another so that the spotlight shines on the speaking actor. If the actor is too slow or too quick to start the speech once the spotlight has moved, the comedy can be lost. The pacing is nearly flawless, and I expect that the few minor hiccups present on opening night will have long been ironed out by now.

After a brief intermission, the performance picks up again with a second Beckett play, “Endgame.” The action takes place in a single airy room, where the blind, self-centered and demanding Hamm is confined to his chair, unable to get up, and his crippled servant Clov limps about the stage, unable to sit down if he wanted to. Like “Waiting for Godot,” it’s a play that is very much about time passing, people being paralyzed and waiting for something to change: Hamm is an invalid awaiting death and dreading the day when Clov leaves him, which seems inevitable. Hamm uses and abuses Clov, and yet he has stayed, for years—perhaps, as Hamm suggests, “for the dialogue!”

The two spar verbally—the old curmudgeon and his deformed servant—both seemingly miserable but unable to change their situation: awaiting the end of the world, or perhaps, just the end of their lives. In the middle of the play, Hamm’s parents (Barbara Oliver and Giles Havergal) pop up, each housed in a garbage can, to share stories that neither can hear nor listen to. Yet despite the absurdity of where they live, the interaction between the parents is genuinely real: They have that ease with one another which can only come with years of companionship.  Their bodies are deteriorating and so is their interest in one another, despite the tenderness displayed. Their interaction is one of the key highlights of this production.

Bill Irwin, the great comic actor and clown, plays the self-centered Hamm, and it’s remarkable what he does with so many constraints: We can’t see his eyes, and his body is immobile, two key tools for an actor. But with his voice, his hands and the rest of his face, he is able to speak volumes about his character and his feelings. It’s easy to forget just how constrained the performance is because his Hamm behaves perfectly naturally and fully communicates his emotions, however childish they may be. Nick Gabriel as Clov is not in the same league as Bill Irwin: He is too young for the part and, despite some good physical work to show his deformities, he lacks the world-weariness that the part requires. Many of his lines also come off as over-acting, losing the comedy where laughs should be had.

It’s a solid production of “Endgame,” but Clov and Hamm don’t quite have enough chemistry, which makes this 90-minute play seem long, though that’s not too uncommon for Beckett. Some scenes drag, and those scenes, which just aren’t as good as the rest, make the play feel choppily paced in ways not intended by the script. Bill Irwin has set the bar so high with his performance that, though the rest of the production is adequate, it’s not remarkable except in Irwin’s best scene-stealing moments.

Aspiring writers Carlo Marx (Tom Sturridge) and Sal Paradise (Sam Riley), Kerouac’s autobiographical self, first meet Dean Moriarty (Garrett Hedlund) and his teenaged wife Marylou (Kristen Stewart) in New York City in the late 1940s. Carlo and Sal are immediately infatuated with Dean’s voracious appetite for life and easygoing, almost careless, manner, and the trio become fast friends, spending their days and nights drinking, smoking, dancing, having sex, doing drugs and waxing philosophical about everything from love to literature. So when Dean and Marylou decide to return to Denver, Carlo and Sal follow.

Infected with Dean’s wanderlust, Sal begins a meandering journey back and forth across the country. Although Dean’s companionship throughout the next several years is punctuated by half-hearted attempts at settling down, he maintains a constant presence and influence in Sal’s life, as evidenced by an increasing tendency toward recklessness. Taking note of the people he meets and the experiences they share during his travels, Sal finally overcomes his writer’s block and produces a manuscript.

Riley, Hedlund and Stewart are perfectly adequate as the film’s central characters, but it’s often the cameo roles of the people whose lives intersect so briefly with theirs who are the most memorable. Viggo Mortensen and Amy Adams play an eccentric couple who accommodate the trio as they pass through the South, while Steve Buscemi briefly appears as a lonely man seeking companionship.

At over two hours long, Sal and Dean’s unfettered determination to feel alive via their nomadic lifestyle becomes tiresome, affecting the audience long before the characters. The cinematography of the wide-open country is gorgeous, but gradually loses its sheen as one begins to wish that they could just stay in one place long enough to accomplish something—a relationship in Dean’s case, and a piece of writing for Sal.

The tone sometimes flip flops between self-discovery and coming of age to a study in self-absorption, as Sal and Dean tend to operate with little regard to the consequences of their actions. But at the same time, perhaps this is what gives Kerouac’s story such longevity. Youthful is as youthful does, and the kind of reckless abandon that “On the Road” depicts (some might even call it irresponsibility) still feels fresh and relatable.

In the end, we, like Kerouac, want to find meaning in all that we’re seeing, but all too often it seems to hover just beyond the frame.

Take, for example, the Art after Dark festival that took place in White Plaza. We as a student body generally value art, so we’re willing to pay student fees to help support such events, and when they are put on we go participate in them and view the art that others have made. At the same time, we value green grass, or at least the University administration does. In this case, the value placed on green grass competed with the value for an arts exhibit in White Plaza and the art won out; now the grass is dead. Of course, eventually the grass will be replaced, but what is important to note is that a compromise was made, and the quality of the grass was sacrificed for a period of time so that we could enjoy the art exhibit.

The same thing happens when cars drive around campus. Stop signs are put up to keep cars from hitting other cars and pedestrians, but at the same time, the low speeds and frequent stops significantly decrease the fuel efficiency of our cars. This creates a tension between our desire for a healthy planet with clean air and our desire to not get hit by automobiles. What is especially interesting about this is that these two values exist entirely independently within individual minds.

Still, if you were to ask an individual if they would prefer to have an increased likelihood of being hit by a car or if they wanted cars to have decreased gas mileage, I think everyone would answer that they care less about the environment than their own personal safety. This of course is not supposed to condemn anyone who does care about the environment; I simply want to point out that there lies a great deal of tension and contradiction within individuals when it comes to the realization of goals, as they are often in competition with other unrelated goals that an individual has.

Of course, I would like to help offer a solution to this problem, but I do not think it will be as easy as one would hope. What I would like to propose is that you consider your values differently. Why is it that you want some law to be passed? Your justification for valuing one option in life more than another might be just that you feel it is a better choice, but I urge you to think hard about why you choose what you do.

Sometimes, there is some unique solution to the problem that allows you to enjoy both of your competing values through some sort of compromise. This may be as simple as being more conservative with resource use; taking shorter showers, for example, allows you to be both clean and cut down on water waste. You could also try creating new technologies that enable even greater achievements, coupling old processes with new ideas to make medical surgeries less invasive or building products that make tangible improvements in people’s lives. If you do have to choose between two different things that you highly value, just try not to do something you’ll regret!

Regret something already? Wish the solution were easy? Email Sebastain about it at sjgould “at” stanford “dot” edu.

It’s the question that strikes fear into the heart of every graduating student. Well, not necessarily. But it’s probably the most frequent question directed towards soon-to-be grads, and not everyone is thrilled to hear it.

There are generally three kinds of responses after this question is asked.

First are the people who know what they’re doing. Some of them know it so well that they don’t even have to be asked. You innocently say something like “Are you excited for graduation?” And in return you get, “It’s a little bittersweet, but next year I’m consulting at McKinsey!”

Even when actually prompted, the answer comes confidently, comfortably, often excitedly. After all, the people who know what they’re doing have few worries. Some of them signed their contract months earlier, and they’re genuinely eager to begin working at a new place.

But this category is reserved for a certain kind of future employment: jobs at places that people know about. There are the names like Microsoft, Google and Facebook for CS kids and JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs for the finance-inclined. The political science-types head off to the White House, the State Department and various three-letter organizations. If you’re predictably unconventional, you do a start-up. And for every major, there’s Teach for America.

Then there’s more school, which includes scholarships like the Rhodes, Marshall and Fulbright. Or maybe you’re heading off to another university for a law, business or doctoral degree. Med school? That sounds good too. All of these things are logical next steps after Stanford because, like Stanford, they’re recognizable, big names.

So when, as a graduating student from Stanford, your next destination also has an impressive title, your response will be pretty well received. And you’ll speak out with gusto because, well, it’s gratifying to elicit a few “oohs” and “ahhs” from people when you tell them what you’re doing after graduation. “Wow, you’re working at Apple!” or “Congratulations on the Peace Corps!”

The next category is those people who have a job lined up, but it’s not the most recognizable. They’re working at a smaller company that hasn’t quite caught the public eye yet.

“Hey, what’re you doing next year?”

“I’m working at [insert name of company no one’s heard of except its 15 employees]!”

“Oh…right. What does [insert name of company] do?” The other person may already be losing interest, but they have to stick it out at this point. You respond, and they nod knowingly and trying to look excited for you. But because they still have no clue what this company (nonprofit) is or what it really does, this excitement can only go so far.

And so you find that these students are a little less outspoken about their future careers. If they know that a simple “What’re you doing next year?” will require a lengthy explanation, they won’t say anything unless asked. Having to describe your future job, and subtly justify why it’s worth your time and interest takes energy.

It also comes with some judgment. When someone hasn’t heard of the place you’re going to work at, you risk getting that vaguely disappointed look, the look that silently says, “Why isn’t this Stanford grad working at someplace I’ve heard of?”

Then there are those who still don’t know what they’re doing next year. Maybe they’ve had a few rejections from their top choices, or maybe their job search process started a bit late. For them, the repetitions of “So what’re you doing next year?” become more and more painful each time.

Want to make their lives easier? When someone answers the question with, “I actually don’t know yet,” there’s no need to gasp in shock. There’s also no need to flood the person with a series of job recommendations and pieces of “advice.” And they won’t feel better if you say something like, “Oh! Don’t worry, I know a whole bunch of grads who didn’t have a job until months after graduation! You’ll find something.”

No, that’s not comforting or helpful. If you really want to help, actually offer to help. Ask about their interests and try to connect them to a promising opportunity. Is that more than you wanted to do? Then there’s no need to dwell on the topic. The student in question won’t mind if their looming unemployment isn’t the subject of conversation.

And as for students: If your future is still undetermined, you can always spice up your answer to the question. Say that you’ll be taking some time off to travel (to your home). Or that you’re going to take a few months to finish your book (after you start it). Or that you’re going to found your own company (a job-seeking service for yourself). The questioner will get the point, and hopefully they’ll move on.

Want to ask Miriam what she’s doing next year? If you must, email her at melloram “at” stanford “dot” edu.  

Let us first pause and consider the magnitude of the NomCom problem, which spans multiple generations of ASSU leadership. A new NomCom was never recruited because of the assumption that a proposed revised constitution, which reformed the NomCom process, would pass. When it never went to ballot, this assumption no longer held, and yet an interim committee was never established. The 14th ASSU Senate debated their limited options at a May 16 meeting with the ultimate decision to revive the 2011-2012 NomCom in order to fill 40 committee spots reserved for students by June 1.

In discussing the NomCom issue, we do not wish to point fingers at individual ASSU members or at the 14th Undergraduate Senate, which has only been in office for a few weeks. However, we hope that in providing constructive criticism over the Senate’s handling of the issue, we can offer a perspective on how the Senate and the ASSU as a whole can restore their credibility with the student body. Our central argument is this: Students don’t care about parliamentary procedure, nuanced debate or a Google Doc of meeting minutes. They care about results, which in the case of NomCom have extremely high stakes.

Students lack trust in the ASSU because they perceive many of its actions as self-serving, disconnected and inefficient. These claims may not be entirely accurate – indeed, the majority of the ASSU is hard-working and invested in the student body – but we do believe that they summarize the sources of student frustration. Parliamentary procedure and the rules of debate are undoubtedly important, but when students see senators arguing over bylaws instead of proposing creative solutions to a problem, the crisis of confidence continues. Much of the problem is one of perception. It may be that in debating the substance of the bylaws, ASSU senators are actively tackling the problem at hand. However, that’s not something that translates into the student body’s consciousness.

Our advice to the 2012-2013 ASSU is threefold: Focus on tangible results, communicate those results to your peers and most importantly, take responsibility for your mistakes. The first two pieces of advice are self-evident in light of the NomCom controversy: Many students were shocked to hear that NomCom, which is traditionally assembled in February or March, languished until mid-May with a June deadline looming.

The third piece of advice – admitting shortcomings – is the most important. With the NomCom issue, it seemed that every member of the ASSU with a stake, past and present, was scrambling to blame someone else. On this issue we must be emphatic: There is no shame in failure, and the “pass the buck” mentality that comes to the fore whenever the Senate, Executive, and GSC bicker is unacceptable. At every level of ASSU involvement, there is a great deal of conversation about accountability and transparency, and yet there are precious few instances in which members of the ASSU own up to their mistakes and shortcomings. Everyone has a stake in ASSU action (or inaction). It’s time for ASSU representatives to put egos aside and focus on results. Their credibility in the eyes of students, faculty and administrators depends on it.