Stanford’s war against its own students • Hacker News Board

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#101

Post by nitwit005 » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

Psychlist wrote: post #53

tptacek wrote: post #32

This is such a weird article that I feel like I must not understand it. From what I can tell: A fraternity hosted one or more parties where, by finding of fact and apparently the admission of the frat itself, they served alcohol to minors, contravening an obvious Stanford policy; as a result, they had to go through an annoying adjudication process and spend several months under the thread of a long-term suspension of…

I think the core bit you've missed is: Stanford explicitly selects for perfectionists by requiring extremely high standards of (most) students. Those students have spend several years working very hard to get in, aware that even the slightest mis-step can cost them everything they've worked for. But they're surrounded by people trying to help them get in. Then they get to Stanford and discover that the university adm…

This isn't an issue of a student being "imperfect". The issue is actual criminality. Throwing hot coffee at someone is an assault.

People have been arrested for throwing coffee at cashiers.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#102

Post by rocket_surgeron » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

bennysonething wrote: post #16

"For the past several years, Stanford has required students to adhere to a Student Party Policy, which includes a highly detailed “Harm Reduction Plan” mandating multiple sober monitors and designated alcohol service areas, and prohibiting the serving of any hard liquor. Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages, to “contribute to an inclusive and inviting experience” for a…

>Is this normal!?! I feel sorry for this generation. Attempts to make their world risk free has turned it into "fuck up once and we'll destroy you".

If the students would simply stop raping people and dying of fentanyl overdoses which lead to their parents suing the school I'm sure Stanford would not have as many rules for what occurs on campus.

Or we can choose as a society to free Stanford of civil liability for the actions of people who aren't Stanford employees on its campus.

It is normal, typical, common, and expected for universities in the United States to completely prohibit alcohol consumption on campus.

These rules seem like an attempt to regulate on-campus activities to a degree much lower than in public institutions.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#103

Post by ihateyouall123 » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

glonq wrote: post #98

bennysonething wrote: post #16

"For the past several years, Stanford has required students to adhere to a Student Party Policy, which includes a highly detailed “Harm Reduction Plan” mandating multiple sober monitors and designated alcohol service areas, and prohibiting the serving of any hard liquor. Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages, to “contribute to an inclusive and inviting experience” for a…

[flagged]

Got to love people like you who makes the world boring for some sense of safety that doesn't simply exist.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#104

Post by khazhoux » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

Psychlist wrote: post #82

tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's all of life, too, isn't it? If you host a party in real life that serves alcohol to minors and get caught, you'll face more annoying consequences than a 1 year party moratorium. And, as I said, I'm pretty sure that if you deliberately dump a cup of coffee onto a coworker, you'll be fired instantly.

Two things: college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes so making the normal consequence of any mistake the end of your career goes against that. Historically the decent young men of Stanford were able to get drunk, pull dumb stunts, embarrass themselves, then graduate and join "real life". The recent decision that sexual assault should be taken off the list of allowable "dumb stunts" is still wor…

> college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes

Where did you read that? I think you're quoting your own expectations. Certainly, people should be allowed to learn from mistakes (at all stages in life), but college is not designed to shield you from consequences. Now, I don't know what dumb stunts you're referring to (stealing the opposing team's pig mascot like in a movie?) but if any stunt causes actual harm, there will be consequences.

> We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?

The University bears zero responsibility for her death. Unless you are suggesting that any investigation must be preceded by a mental health evaluation in case the individual has suicidal predispositions.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#105

Post by bennysonething » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

glonq wrote: post #98

bennysonething wrote: post #16

"For the past several years, Stanford has required students to adhere to a Student Party Policy, which includes a highly detailed “Harm Reduction Plan” mandating multiple sober monitors and designated alcohol service areas, and prohibiting the serving of any hard liquor. Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages, to “contribute to an inclusive and inviting experience” for a…

[flagged]

Everyone I grew up with was underage drinking none of these things you've listed happened to anyone I know. Regulating parties might be one way to lessen the chances. But I'm not sure that price is worth it.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#106

Post by tptacek » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

bgentry wrote: post #90

tptacek wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that there are process concerns here (and that people think the rules Stanford is enforcing are dumb). But the stakes seem very low: we're talking about procedural due process protecting the rights of fraternities to host parties with alcohol.

But the stakes seem very low: we're talking about procedural due process protecting the rights of fraternities to host parties with alcohol. No? The quote is in reference to a lawyer defending students accused of cheating on an exam and facing an administrative process with no presumption of innocence or right to a proper defense. A process which could permanently destroy their college education and career prospects.

Here we're talking about a case where students were, in 2012, accused of cheating on a bio test, and not found guilty. Meanwhile: cheating is absolutely rampant --- and has presumably only gotten much, much worse since 2012.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#107

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #45

bennysonething wrote: post #16

"For the past several years, Stanford has required students to adhere to a Student Party Policy, which includes a highly detailed “Harm Reduction Plan” mandating multiple sober monitors and designated alcohol service areas, and prohibiting the serving of any hard liquor. Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages, to “contribute to an inclusive and inviting experience” for a…

The welcome event for freshers at Aberystwyth uni had the speaker (Chancellor? Don't remember) practically encouraging people to relax and drink as well as studying. One of my acquaintances at university did an exchange year with an American university, was forced to attend an alcoholism awareness group therapy program after being caught at a party with one beer, at which (I paraphrase but by his own description) alm…

[deleted]

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#108

Post by ihateyouall123 » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:05 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #58

nickff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not requests , they're requirements .

So don't host official fraternity parties if you're not OK with those requirements. What's complicated about this? Fraternities are "official" organizations; official organizations have to deal with official policies. Just have unofficial parties.

[flagged]

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#109

Post by dahwolf » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:05 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #61

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to back that up with any facts or is it just because you disagree with her? From what I've read she's a pretty run-of-the-mill liberal who's had some disagreements with the current orthodoxy of the left. That doesn't make her a tiki-torch bearing radical.

Since leaving nyt and even shortly before she's been almost completely focused on the censorship-of-conservatives moral panic and the anti trans crusade. Moderate-right and far-right projects respectively. She uses her newsletter to publish and amplify voices of the right, and writes from their perspective about issues they care about.

There's nowhere else to go if you do not subscribe to left wing orthodoxy. Even centrists and center-left nowadays aren't ideologically pure enough, and thus also "right-wing".

Recently a feminist on Twitter expressed this problem quite well. She was pushing back against the toxic parts of radical feminism which she considered counter productive. But in doing so, got a lot of heat from the radicals. She's very much left-wing, progressive, and reasonable. The side effect of her pushing back against left-wing extremism is that she gained a lot of attention from the right wing. Actual right wing, not "anybody that slightly disagrees".

She didn't ask for that nor does she want to chose between these two extremes, but that's the dynamic right now.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#110

Post by huevosabio » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:06 PM UTC

bennysonething wrote: post #16

"For the past several years, Stanford has required students to adhere to a Student Party Policy, which includes a highly detailed “Harm Reduction Plan” mandating multiple sober monitors and designated alcohol service areas, and prohibiting the serving of any hard liquor. Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages, to “contribute to an inclusive and inviting experience” for a…

A lot of people the stuff I see coming out of Stanford admin is absolutely ridiculous.

But I actually liked the EANABs policy when I was there. Granted, they mostly remained intact, but they provide something to hidrate in a party and something for those who don't drink (which is not that rare!).