Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford’s war on social life

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 402 posts

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#231

Post by beefman »

In fairness, this sort of transformation has taken place in every station of American life. My dweeb chemist parents regularly hosted and attended parties with their dweeb chemist colleauges. My wife and I have hosted 3 parties in the last 17 years.

We had to fight for the modicum of freedom our kids had growing up. Our oldest now has a car but his licence forbids him taking friends along.[1]

Our youngest built his first model rocket this week, to find it's only feasible to launch with a club. The nearest club, which used to host monthly launches at Moffett field, is closed until Fall. So it'll take as long to drive to and from the launch site as to buid a rocket, and the maximum launch cadence is monthly. Not a viable hobby for a 13-year-old, unless it's your only hobby and your parents help with everything.

Churches have disintegrated, workplaces are toast. The loss of "third places" was measured by Putnam.[2] Somebody on twitter suggested companies should have sports teams, aparrently unaware it was quite common until recently.

On my first day of work in California in 2001, my boss asked me if I'd tried ecstasy yet.[3] Nowadays you must be mentally ill to take it, under a doctor's supervision. Hope you get better like us!

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/ed...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone

[3] https://twitter.com/clumma/status/1519377410810023936

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#232

Post by asdff »

ketzo wrote: post #43

It is absolutely impossible to take this article seriously, because the author refuses to acknowledge the un-fucking-believably fraught legacy that the Greek fraternity system has, at Stanford and at every other school. > Driven by a fear of uncontrollable student spontaneity and a desire to enforce equity on campus Oh, yeah, Stanford’s really afraid of “student spontaneity.” They’re definitely not afraid of organiza…

These sort of incidents are possible in any student org or group of young people in college. Going after fraternities is just a knee jerk reaction because it seems right to go after fraternities given the notoriety we've given them in the culture, but I can tell you that some of the worst examples of hazing I've learned of when I was on college took place in orgs like the club rugby team. Those sorts of student orgs also have like zero oversight over any social activity from the university. There is no IFC checking these parties, the parties aren't registered with anyone. The university doesn't even know of the off campus houses where these groups live and party in.

Its easy to react emotionally, but rationally, there is no reason for fraternities to be inherently worse than any other student org or even just a random group of people living off campus and hosting parties. The problems you cite are really broad college problems, and if we continue to just assume that they are solely fraternity problems I don't think we will ever make meaningful progress on any of them.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#233

Post by asdff »

ketzo wrote: post #54
scarmig wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be a slightly more trenchant critique if Stanford weren't simultaneously declaring war on houses devoted to everything from French culture to cooperative vegetarian meals. But, as little as I liked the frats, I'm not going to throw them under the bus and push the idea that they were some kind of dens of misogyny and rape. They're not. If Stanford really wanted to combat those ills, perhaps it should focus…

In my sophomore year, my roommate came back at 7am after being out all night with his thighs literally purple from paddling. He couldn't stand up for a day - I had to bring him meals. He was in the professional society for international relations students . It's not just frats.

Hazing happens anywhere in college. Your own roommates could haze you in your dorm, you don't need a student org or an off campus house. I'm not sure there is much of an easy solution. You ban all the student orgs you want and force people to live in a dorm for 4 years, and people will still party and get drunk and do stupid things and be terrible people at times.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#234

Post by jessriedel »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #35

“Stanford's new social order offers a peek into the bureaucrat's vision for America. It is a world without risk, genuine difference, or the kind of group connection that makes teenage boys want to rent bulldozers and build islands. It is a world largely without unencumbered joy; without the kind of cultural specificity that makes college, or the rest of life, particularly interesting.” This is true at MIT as well. Ca…

Its a trend spanning all of academia, I’m sure. Princeton essentially eliminated frats years ago and keeps the eating clubs on a very short leash; the clubs doubtlessly would have been killed too if it wouldn’t have cratered alumni donations.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#235

Post by insightcheck »

asdff wrote: post #229

I think what gets missed about greek life in general is that its just a group of students. It's not inherently more dangerous or not than any other group of college age students. In my experiences in undergrad, organizations like club rugby or even the marching band were where you seriously got hazed or had risky partying going on. Greek parties in contrast were regulated. Representatives from the interfraternity cou…

> "while turning a blind eye to the fact that most partying isn't even happening withing student orgs but just from random people throwing big parties in their off campus houses"

This is overall a good argument that Greek parties aren't necessarily unsafe, but I question this reasoning. Would universities have jurisdiction to intervene in off-campus houses?

If not, even if they can't stop all potentially dangerous parties, wouldn't it still be progress to improve safety at alcohol-heavy events where universities can? In the 2020s in the United States, three deaths were related to fraternities due to overconsumption of alcohol, with many other cases in the 2000s to 2010s (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hazing_deaths_in_the_U...). It is plausible that off-campus parties could be more dangerous, but it looks like it's still an ongoing issue at Greek parties too.

Current scrutiny by universities and the media have directly led to Greek societies to want to introduce safety measures to reduce this from happening, and the scrutiny is justified by past deaths.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#236

Post by jessriedel »

sanderjd wrote: post #198
derevaunseraun wrote: post #176

> Stanford students live in brand new buildings with white walls. We have a $20 million dollar meditation center that nobody uses. But students didn’t ask for any of that. We just wanted a dirty house with friends. From my experience, covid exacerbated this significantly. I don't know if it's just the universities or a broader cultural shift. And as the article says, the administrators introduced more "community init…

The optimistic side of this is that the backlash is inevitable.

Its not. Stanford and other elite schools know their brand name is immensely valuable and students will keep enrolling even if campus social life is bleached of all fun. The only real force pushing back at all are alumni whose donations fall (briefly) when a university squashes something too explicitly that had an unusual amount of sentimental value. But that just slows things down a bit.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#237

Post by bergenty »

zdragnar wrote: post #53
dgs_sgd wrote: post #46

I can see why there's a push to eliminate Greek life given all the unfortunate events associated with it. But I'm extremely confused this example: > One such case was the end of Outdoor House, an innocuous haven on the far side of campus for students who liked hiking. The official explanation from Stanford for eliminating the house was that the Outdoor theme “fell short of diversity, equity and inclusion expectations…

I've seen a quiet but persistent thought pattern that outdoor / nature activities- hiking, camping, etc- are endemically white and that any attempt to organize around it without making overt, aggressive attempts to include minorities is a sign of white supremacy. This is the main thrust of the "anti-racist" movement. If you aren't talking about being inclusive in every aspect of any social interaction you partake in,…

This comment has all the “right” buzzwords.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#238

Post by asdff »

Hizonner wrote: post #58

Why would you make your housing or social life, or indeed your weird edgy experiences of whatever kind, dependent on the same institution teaching your classes? That's the actual root cause. And I understand that some of these institutions require living on campus, at least in the first years, which is absolutely insane.

Another thing is you can't do things with another student org thats on campus with an off campus student org, so if you try partying with a sorority they could be sanctioned too. You can't advertise or recruit around campus because that's unauthorized. Can't post flyers in the dorm elevators, the RAs will rip it down. Can't rent classrooms out for recruitment events or participate in anything at the beginning of the year when students learn of these things. Universities typically make it easy to kick you out of the school if something goes wrong at an unregistered org event and make sure you are fully legally liable. Something going wrong could just be a freshman stumbling back a little drunk and getting in trouble with an RA, doesn't have to be a serious thing to ruin your life.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#239

Post by asdff »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #189

What is the obsession with college campuses and what happens on them? I feel like there is a circuit of people obsessed with producing content claiming that random campus scandals say something about society at large.

It's a perennial bone of contention because people who have a good experience in college want it to stay the same for everyone, and people who have a bad experience want to burn it down. Makes for good clickbait and everyone loves to see some b roll footage of greek letters on local news.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#240

Post by dilyevsky »

namlem wrote: post #202
zbrozek wrote: post #149

My interactions with Stanford administrators convinced me that I didn't need a graduate degree and that I would never donate to the school. Beyond that, I also got totally fed up trying to figure out how to get definitive positive permission to do anything. At one point I asked facilities if I could build an oven to cure composites. They reviewed and approved the plans. But when some other group within the school saw…

"I was then told my student group would be dissolved if we used off-campus facilities" This is the craziest part to me. There doesn't seem to be any rational reason for it other than wanting absolute control for its own sake.

Liability insurance most likely
Post reply on HN