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

Stanford’s war against its own students

thefp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#111

Post by tedunangst »

aidenn0 wrote: post #44
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…

This looks to apply to on-campus parties only? If so, it's more liberal, if also more complicated, than the university I went to where the policy for alcohol on-campus was "No." Granted you could find dozens of parties within a mile of campus there; I don't know the geography of Stanford.

Stanford campus is somewhat inconveniently distant from any off campus housing. As in two miles is more than a quarter mile when you're running late to class.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#112

Post by actionfromafar »

bennysonething wrote: post #105
glonq wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

No sexual assaults? I think the people you know are very lucky, or you don't know the people you know as well as you think you do.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#114

Post by havblue »

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…

I think this was more or less normal over twenty years ago when everyone started to crack down on underage drinking. Get caught serving minors or hazing and the university might take your house away.

From the university's standpoint they of course want to pave the way for donations and protect their reputation. If they boot an occasional animal house fraternity it just lets them open a door to a more reputable organization that is more discreet about breaking campus rules.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#116

Post by etrautmann »

huevosabio wrote: post #110
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!).

yeah I agree, I've tried to follow that EANAB's example when throwing parties elsewhere too. I most certainly do not submit any party plan to anyone in advance

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#117

Post by AlbertCory »

I didn't attend Stanford, but I've been on campus a zillion times for various functions (cultural events, choir, extension classes).

It's not like most colleges. There's no big group of off-campus apartment buildings that nearly all upperclassmen live in.

Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages is, without doubt, the most nanny-ish rule ever invented ("What? You only have Coke? That's not equally attractive! I'm writing you up.")

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#118

Post by ModernMech »

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #102
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 th…

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

My question is: why does this article try so hard to make it seem like it’s not typical?

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#119

Post by [deleted] »

khazhoux wrote: post #104
Psychlist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cause…

[deleted]

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#120

Post by giraffe_lady »

dahwolf wrote: post #109
giraffe_lady wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

That sounds like an interesting dynamic but not really relevant to bari weiss consistently endorsing right wing positions and figures and so being accurately described as a rightwing attention seeker, which was the original topic.

I don't know anything about the specific situation you're alluding to so can't responsibly comment. But "the leftists made me turn to the right" has been an excuse as long as I can remember and it's a thin one. Radicals simply aren't responsible for the actions their opponents choose to take.

Post reply on HN