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

171–180 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#171

Post by woodruffw »

Nevermark wrote: post #164
woodruffw wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fine! But that's a "them" problem, not a culture-way-proxy-how-dare-they-not-allow-students-to-booze-in-a-college-dorm problem.

That's a bit black and white. And impractical. They are adults, and if there are no reasonable venues for being able to do regular adult things, for intentional reasons or not, they will create venues somehow, someway. If there is anything to be learned from Prohibition, it is if you make rules too strict for the context, either you have to enforce them with unreasonable measures, or people break the rules in ways th…

> They are adults, and if there are no reasonable venues for being able to do regular adult things, for intentional reasons or not, they will create venues somehow, someway.

Yes, it's called an off-campus apartment. Students have been drinking in them for centuries.

America's pathologies around student drinking are ridiculous. But let's not pretend like the path of least resistance doesn't already exist, and isn't in wide application by just about every other college in this country. The only reason we're talking about Stanford is because it hits all of the culture war hot-topic buttons (elite college, bureaucracy, "coddling," &c.). Nothing about the actual state of affairs is remotely unusual or controversial.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#172

Post by fencepost »

ginger2016 wrote: post #39

The article is too long. Is the headline a clickbait or is Stanford doing something against its own students?

Sounds like a combination of significant changes in student policies and enforcement over the last 40-50 years (accelerating in the last 20-25?) combined with very bureaucracy- and process-heavy set of enforcement mechanisms.

Editorializing a bit, this may reflect general social changes in the US - schools are seen as being "in loco parentis" though many of the students are legally adults, and parenting in the US has changed in the last 40 years from "go play at the park with your friends, but be back by sunset" to helicopter parenting and the very thought of unsupervised children at a park being something deserving of reports to Child Protective Services.

So, now the school is helicopter-"in loco parentis"ing, and covering its butt with paper to shield it from the actual helicopter parents.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#173

Post by mjh2539 »

Symbiote wrote: post #135
woodruffw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The article bends over backwards to make this sound like a repressive policy, but it's significantly more permissive than most campuses' alcohol rules. My campus didn't allow alcohol at campus parties, full stop[1]. It was nominally allowed at individually approved events, of which I never observed any (besides perhaps a football game?). [1]: https://health.umd.edu/wellness-advocacy-alcohol-and-other-d...

In my first week of university in London there was an official Maths Department party for new students. There was so much wine the head of department asked me and several others to take a box of 6 bottles home (each!) so it would be less obvious that she's ordered too much. There are at least 4 bars on the main campus, and several pubs just outside it. They do have a policy: > The licensed premises in the College are…

You have to understand, the UK got to keep all of its normal Protestants. All of the nuts (see: Puritans and other non-conformist unmentionables) came here.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#174

Post by kryogen1c »

tqi wrote: post #87
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…

> Attempts to make their world risk free has turned it into "fuck up once and we'll destroy you". TBH I think it is a much bigger problem that low-stakes hyper-local issues have been elevated into proxy battles for national politics. Truly, the fact that anyone who is not either attending or administering this university cares about their party policy at all (let alone enough to write about it professionally) is comp…

> low-stakes hyper-local

What a terrible take. The entire purpose of college is to influence the minds that attend them before sending them out to further propagate those ideals into the world.

Furthermore, this is an elite institution that ostensibly is training future leaders - the type of people most poised to spread influence.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#175

Post by trinsic2 »

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…

Sad state of affairs, man.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#176

Post by Nevermark »

woodruffw wrote: post #171
Nevermark wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit black and white. And impractical. They are adults, and if there are no reasonable venues for being able to do regular adult things, for intentional reasons or not, they will create venues somehow, someway. If there is anything to be learned from Prohibition, it is if you make rules too strict for the context, either you have to enforce them with unreasonable measures, or people break the rules in ways th…

> They are adults, and if there are no reasonable venues for being able to do regular adult things, for intentional reasons or not, they will create venues somehow, someway. Yes, it's called an off-campus apartment. Students have been drinking in them for centuries . America's pathologies around student drinking are ridiculous. But let's not pretend like the path of least resistance doesn't already exist, and isn't i…

> Yes, it's called an off-campus apartment. Students have been drinking in them for centuries.

Agreed as a generality. But we are discussing Stanford in particular and you were replying to this:

> Sure, there are just very few Stanford undergrads who live off-campus. And most Stanford undergrads would not choose to live off-campus in order to be able to party more.

The local effectiveness and externalities of rules, no matter how widespread or time honored, still depend on their local context.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#177

Post by hanoz »

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…

As a Briton, it's incomprehensible to me that American adults allow themselves to be told, like children, that they can't drink alcohol until they are an older adult! It's completely and utterly baffling. How do you guys put up with it?

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#178

Post by fencepost »

woodruffw wrote: post #79
aidenn0 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. The article bends over backwards to make this sound like a repressive policy, but it's significantly more permissive than most campuses' alcohol rules. My campus didn't allow alcohol at campus parties, full stop[1]. It was nominally allowed at individually approved events, of which I never observed any (besides perhaps a football game?). [1]: https://health.umd.edu/wellness-advocacy-alcohol-and-other-d...

I'm going to guess that you're in your 30s or younger (looked, yep). Part of what you're seeing in the comments is a reflection of age ranges on HN and of pretty massive change over the last 30-35 years around alcohol on campuses.

As relevant history, it's less than 40 years since the October 1986 deadline for states to raise their alcohol purchase and possession ages to 21, and until sometime in the '90s a lot of schools were still pretty permissive about underage drinking on campus as long as it wasn't in the face of 'townies' and police. For a lot of HN readers who graduated in the 90s (or earlier) the kind of party and alcohol restrictions that are now commonplace are something they first encountered when their kids went to college.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#179

Post by Gordonjcp »

pessimizer wrote: post #152
throwaway22032 wrote: post #139

The US has such a weird attitude towards alcohol. In my day at Oxford every college had a bar worked by the students. I don't remember if ours was open every evening but it felt often enough.

The UK is a heavily binge drinking and alcoholic country: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151102-why-do-the-briti... > I discovered that 2004 was Peak Booze: the year when Brits drank more than they had done for a century, and more than they have done in the decade since. Leading the way to this alcoholic apogee were those of us born around 1980. No other generation drank so much in their early 20s. Why us? > Ev…

That's not really true, though.

You can't really consider an article on a "National Enquirer"-type website to be a solid source of factual information.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#180

Post by frant-hartm »

pessimizer wrote: post #152
throwaway22032 wrote: post #139

The US has such a weird attitude towards alcohol. In my day at Oxford every college had a bar worked by the students. I don't remember if ours was open every evening but it felt often enough.

The UK is a heavily binge drinking and alcoholic country: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151102-why-do-the-briti... > I discovered that 2004 was Peak Booze: the year when Brits drank more than they had done for a century, and more than they have done in the decade since. Leading the way to this alcoholic apogee were those of us born around 1980. No other generation drank so much in their early 20s. Why us? > Ev…

As someone who comes from central Europe and lived in UK for a few years I say this - UK is not particularly alcoholic. It's the drinking culture which is terrible and I think it's due to 2 facts: - pubs close early - if you want a pub open longer than till 11 pm you need a more expensive license. I was told it's a remnant of a WWII policy when they needed workers ready in the morning to work in factories. Anyway the places which stay oper are more expensive. This encourages binge drinking. If you drink 8 lagers in 2 hours because the club you go to afterwards is twice as expensive you get pretty drunk. If you spaced it out between 9 pm and 4 am you would be fine. - very strict enforcement of no alcohol till 18. When the teens turn 18 and get access to alcohol they get shitfaced. I started drinking at home or at pubs at 15 and I learned how much I can safely drink. It also took off the forbidden fruit badge. Try any UK high street on Friday 11 pm, there UK doesn't seem to have bright future :-)
Post reply on HN