Sam Bankman-Fried’s parents will not be teaching Stanford Law School next year | Hacker News Reader

Sam Bankman-Fried’s parents will not be teaching Stanford Law School next year

stanforddaily.com

53 pointstestfoobar23 comments

> Barbara Fried is not listed as the instructor for any of the courses in her course catalog next year. She wrote that this was due to a “long-planned” decision to retire and has “nothing to do with anything else going on,” in a statement to The Daily. Fried is an emerita professor, which means she has no regular teaching duties but is free to teach classes in the future.

Seems like she didn't plan on teaching anyway but that makes a great headline I guess.

I, too, will not be teaching at Stanford next year, just FYI.

Why not, sounds like there's going to be a spot open

You should be a little more skeptical. People don’t always tell the truth. And reasons for quitting is probably one of the most frequent lies people tell.

Headline: Man arrested for robbery

Him: I didn’t do it.

You: Seems like he didn’t do it.

The plan was "if my son becomes an international pariah I'll stop teaching".

You missed the "...and buys us a multi-million dollar holiday home in the Bahamas" from that sentence, surely.

> reasons for quitting

A professor emeritus not decisions to take up courses is nothing like quitting. You don’t need to make up excuses for deciding to not take courses, it’s pretty much the default.

Imagine that you retire from your job but tell your boss: “I know I’m retired, but Inwouldnt mind coming b once in a while just to say hey and catch up with people.” Would you then call it quitting or getting fired if suddenly you decided “actually I’ll not be stopping by next year”

If their son was revealed to have run a multibillion dollar scam with their help, maybe.

I'm going to fix your comment for you:

More like, “I know I’m retired, but I wouldn't mind coming in once in a while just to say "hey" and catch up with people.”

Would you then call it quitting or getting fired if suddenly you decided “actually I’ll not be stopping by next year, BECAUSE MY SON IS CONVICTED OF THE LARGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY, AND I WAS THERE HELPING HIM THE ENTIRE TIME, BUT IT IS JUST COINCIDENTAL THAT I WON'T BE STOPPING BY ANYMORE.”

Boss: Thinking "Phew, glad I didn't have to tell her not to show her face around here every again" but saying to her face, "Oh, ok...it's up to you, but I totally understand that the only reason that you are not coming by is because it is your own decision that has nothing to do with YOUR SON IS CONVICTED OF THE LARGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY, AND YOU WAS THERE HELPING HIM THE ENTIRE TIME, BUT IT IS JUST COINCIDENTAL THAT YOU WON'T BE STOPPING BY ANYMORE.”

The irony is how easily influenced you were by the article's viewpoint.

Does it not make sense that someone whose family is going through something like this would have a lot to deal with? Emeritus faculty are "retired" and electively teach classes for pay. They can't "quit" because they're not on contract and because they can't stop being emeritus.

You were pulled in my the intrigue of the author's spin on the topic, as intended, but the reality is much more boring.

The article’s “viewpoint” is backed up by facts.

> Bankman-Fried’s parents became involved in the scandal when Reuters broke that the professors had been named owners of a $16.4 million vacation home purchased by FTX. His parents told Reuters that they are seeking to return the deed to FTX

Very boring indeed /s

It's like saying "I'm looking for new challenges" when asked why you're leaving your previous company.

Or when an executive quits to “spend more time with their family.”

In jail.

That does happen, though. I quit an awesome job in Apple engineering that i'd had for several years to work on cancer research, totally unrelated.

If the property purchase information is accurate, seems they should be in prison next year along with Sam

I thought so too at first, but then how do you separate actual comp (and, say, sale of secondaries) from theft? Like, how much is he allowed in legit bonuses and at which point it becomes too much, and how do they decide that?

Because he could always just say I bought that place with a hard-earned bonus that year, and gifted it to my parents, who are of course even more clueless about those money things than I am.

> Because he could always just say I bought that place with a hard-earned bonus that year, and gifted it to my parents...

Except that isn't what happened. Apparently, the house was bought by FTX, not by SBF. The article says:

If they thought the house was a legitimate gift from their son, why would they be trying to return it to FTX?

well, they too could play dumb and claim complete ignorance up until the very point Reuters gave them an epiphany, but... yeah, I see what you're saying

I doubt prison, but I'm sure they'll be busy defending Sam and themselves for a few years.

Not sure if they need to, it’s hard to trace back billions of dollars, they could keep some for a rainy day.. I’m still skeptical there will be any serious justice, whether there’s real evidence on them. And at the end of the dat their politician friends will help them out when things calm down.

Not sure if they need to, it’s hard to trace back billions of dollars, they could keep some for a rainy day.. I’m still skeptical. Their politician friends will definitely help them out when things calm down.

This seems like a good call considering their personal safety. I’m not in the position to empathize with someone who’s lost millions to a scam artist. I imagine few are unhappy and unstable.

I don't imagine they'll be pitching a crypto exchange startup to new investors either, but that's probably not a newsworthy statement at this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com