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

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#141

Post by alephnerd » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:16 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #118

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

It's published by Bari Weiss, an ex-NYT reporter who leans Center-Right/Libertarian.

Not disagreeing with the content, but at the end of the day it's a blog like any other that has a slant like Vox or The Intercept or The Atlantic.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#142

Post by exogeny » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:18 PM UTC

The exact same thing happened/is happening at Carnegie Mellon. To the school, the undergraduates are nothing but PR and legal liabilities, therefore any fun or social life must be eradicated.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#143

Post by m-ee » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:19 PM UTC

zainhoda wrote: post #138

“past several years” Umm… I went to Stanford from 2002-2006 and this policy was in place back then. Why is this news now?

They’ve clearly ratcheted up the enforcement, EANABs did not used to be mandated (except maybe having water available?), and underage drinking was only a problem for the person doing it if they got caught outside with an open container or biking while drunk.

While I was there there was an “open door” drinking policy for freshmen. Meaning RAs would not stop you from drinking anything you chose but wanted the doors open so they could intervene quickly if someone got alcohol poisoning. It’s my understanding that hard alcohol is now banned so people just close the door.

Specific policies aside it’s clear from their actions that the university wants to purge student control from housing or social organizations. They unceremoniously eliminated the European theme houses, ended student control of band, have been picking the frats off one by one. The coops are probably next on the chopping block.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#144

Post by jtmcmc » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:19 PM UTC

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…

considering the bent of this publication towards conservatives I think you are in fact getting it, you're just not primed for outrage

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#145

Post by verall » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:20 PM UTC

dahwolf wrote: post #134

verall wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not against intellectual curiosity to avoid flamebait. Based on your recommendation I wanted to give this a chance, but as it's hours of podcast without transcript that's unlikely. "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling" seems to qualify as clickbait, it's title is intended to provoke, while reading the podcast episode summaries it seems to be well researched and interesting. I admit, I did not research it beyond the…

Thanks for admitting that you had not even bothered to listen to it yet confidently labelled it as ideological flamebait regardless, and then used this made-up assessment in a discussion with this site's admin to suppress another article.

I honestly appreciate your recommendation, it encouraged me to look past a clickbait title. It was a poor example but dang charitably understood me and I don't regret asking.

I don't think it's necessary to be this combative, and I think it's responses like these that encourage people to never admit any wrong on the internet. HN typically _tries_ to be above this.

I didn't try to suppress any articles, but I do encourage you to suppress your anger, because, it's probably not worth it :)

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#146

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:20 PM UTC

brhsagain wrote: post #131

tptacek wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't accept either of these premises. Stanford students are adults (indeed, many of them aren't even young adults). It is not principally the mission of Stanford to insulate its students from consequences. We just had a story here earlier today where HN is up in arms (somewhat reasonably so) because of Stanford's refusal to visit consequences on students who protested an odious speaker. Here the consequences we're…

Wait, I don't think even the article is complaining that students can't host frat parties. It's about students having to deal with months of legal proceedings as a consequence when they potentially break a rule. Your characterization of frat parties as being an asinine issue is true and exactly the reason for concern here. Legal proceedings are super shitty to go through. Your whole life basically gets mentally put o…

I think he was saying that the banning of parties with alcohol for a frat house accused of serving alcohol to minors is a mild punishment and not a notable event. I don't think he was saying that frat parties serving alcohol to minors is a non-issue. It's a pretty serious crime when you're not on a campus.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#147

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:21 PM UTC

fortuna86 wrote: post #132

testfoobar wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stanford is an elite institution that others watch carefully. Administrators go to conferences & workshops to discuss their practices. They get promoted into positions at other universities. Stanford is a leading indicator of campus life elsewhere.

> Stanford is a leading indicator of campus life elsewhere. It very much is not. Last party I went to at Stanford had corporate sponsorship.

[deleted]

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#148

Post by uejfiweun » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:22 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]

You're straight up being disingenuous by implying that people against Stanford's safety culture are pro-sexual assualt, pro-car accident, etc. Like honestly, do you think people against these policies are legitimately evil or something?

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#149

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:23 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #117

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 w…

> Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages is, without doubt, the most nanny-ish rule ever invented

Without that, everybody would be compliant who had a tap, or a hose around the back.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#150

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 11:25 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #67

yamtaddle wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blood of Christ, surely. I'm sure you've just committed some named, historical heresy. There's one for everything, it seems.

The original cover of The Hobbit has runes running along the outside; the runes read "The Hobbit or There and Back Again, being the record of a journey by Bilbo Baggins of Hobbiton compiled from his memoirs by JRR Tolkein and published by G?rge Allen and Unwin Ltd"[0]. I can read that because of my mum's books on doing fortune telling with Viking rune stones, which she kept near her statue of a Hindu god and some mag…

> published by G?rge Allen

Obviously, it says George.

(Knowing what an inscription means is actually an important real-world method of being able to read it!)

The "Z" used by Tolkien there appears to be his own invention. The whole inscription is something of a mess; a few things are put into runes by sound, but mostly a fairly strict letter-to-letter transcription is used. This is especially bad in "published", which prints an "S" followed by an "H", reflecting nothing about the actual word. (The sound in question would, in a real Anglo-Saxon text, be represented sc, not sh; Tolkien in his other documents used a mirror-reversed S rune instead.)