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

181–190 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#181

Post by fencepost »

etrautmann wrote: post #116
huevosabio wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Having decent NABs on hand for parties has always been a polite and common-sense thing to do. "Equally Attractive" seems like a bit of a judgement call.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#183

Post by nitwit005 »

fencepost wrote: post #169
nitwit005 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe I'm wrong, but a misdemeanor (or a meeting between the students if acceptable to both, except apparently it was an administrator and not the coffee-dampened football player who filed the complaint) might have been preferable to a 5-page single-spaced letter threatening a final-semester senior with expulsion. "Where'd you go to school?" "7 semesters at Stanford, finishing as captain of the women's soccer team, t…

You don't appear to be responding to anything I wrote, other than apparently agreeing it was a criminal issue.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#184

Post by giraffe_lady »

dahwolf wrote: post #127
giraffe_lady wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I suppose it depends on the position in question. It's not "leftists made me turn right" in all cases, it's also formerly progressive points (equality instead of equity, freedom of speech, science over safetyism) shifting into being seen as right-wing positions. The position didn't change, the label did. As to whether this is the case with Weiss, supposedly not. I believe you. Radicals may not be responsible for the…

> it's also formerly progressive points shifting into being seen as right-wing positions.

This is just the nature of these things. They aren't fixed. They're descriptions of views of different groups of people at a certain time, and change with time.

My childhood overlapped with the aftermath and social remnants of jim crow. Back then, there, a moderate position was that integration was inevitable and necessary for technical constitutional law reasons and to prevent wider upheaval, but that it should not have been welcomed and was allowed to progress too quickly. Only a radical leftist would hold that black and white people were fundamentally equal and the law and social norms must be immediately brought to respect that.

Within my memory, a centrist position was that gay men should be medically treated for that "disorder" rather than pursued criminally for it. A radical leftist position was that they should be allowed to openly participate as full members of society without restriction.

You're right that what is considered left or right changes. Center positions do often become far right positions with time. Sorry lol. It still isn't the fault of leftists.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#185

Post by woodruffw »

fencepost wrote: post #178
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...

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 sc…

Sure: I readily accept that this is a generational thing. But it's being presented as a culture war shift, when plenty of people in the comments here have observed that Stanford's policy has not meaningfully changed in the last 20 years.

I think banning alcohol on campus is foolish, and leads to worse overall outcomes. I also think this article's framing is dishonest and intentionally tendentious.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#186

Post by Manuel_D »

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…

The university was being actively hostile towards Meyer? It seems unambiguous to me that the hostility originated with Meyer. One does not accidentally spill coffee and it just happens to land on the person your friend unsuccessfully accused of harassment out of the 10k+ students on campus. According to the university, this resulted in physical injury [1]. This isn't just the university trying to "get rid of imperfect students". Violent retaliation on account of dissatisfaction with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding is a very significant transgression. If the university didn't sanction Meyer it would set the precedent that pouring boiling water on classmates is tolerated behavior - do you want the friends of men found responsible of sexual assault pouring boiling water on accusers if they feel the outcome was unjustified, in the same vein as what Meyer did? It's unfortunate that the university's actions seem to have prompted Meyer to take her life, but that does not mean their actions were wrong.

That said I do agree with a lot of what the article wrote. I was an undergrad at Stanford 2011-2015. The university was ramping up its control on social life around that time. Slav house was shut down my junior year, and they were already starting to tighten the reigns on band and greek life. I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be. Perhaps students will start to socialize more off campus, but that's not really feasible without a car (and the attended risks of driving under the influence).

1. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-fam...

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#187

Post by dahwolf »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #184
dahwolf wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it depends on the position in question. It's not "leftists made me turn right" in all cases, it's also formerly progressive points (equality instead of equity, freedom of speech, science over safetyism) shifting into being seen as right-wing positions. The position didn't change, the label did. As to whether this is the case with Weiss, supposedly not. I believe you. Radicals may not be responsible for the…

> it's also formerly progressive points shifting into being seen as right-wing positions. This is just the nature of these things. They aren't fixed. They're descriptions of views of different groups of people at a certain time, and change with time. My childhood overlapped with the aftermath and social remnants of jim crow. Back then, there, a moderate position was that integration was inevitable and necessary for t…

I'd say you're cherry picking the exact examples where a radically left position ultimately became mainstream. That strongly implies that radical left positions are correct, fruitful and destined to become the norm if only given enough time.

In reality it's much more of a mixed bag. Some ideas are impractical, downright destructive or achieve the exact opposite.

Unappealing unhinged ideas that alienate large groups and act as the perfect recruitment tool for the right wing? Absolutely the fault of leftists.

But agree to disagree, this isn't the place.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#188

Post by Manuel_D »

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 university campus is fairly isolated if you don't drive. You can walk to Palo Alto, but that's not exactly somewhere for undergrads to party.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#189

Post by fsckboy »

mjh2539 wrote: post #173
Symbiote wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sounds good, but not true at all.

Massachusetts was a Puritan colony and blue-laws state, but there was plenty of drinking for all undergrads using university money till the whole MADD (and related groups) national campaigns against drunk driving. (and in reaction you could get Tshirts that said DAMM, drunks against mad mothers)

The 17 and 18yo drinking ages around the country all got raised when the federal govt cut off highway funds if the state age wasn't 21. The insanity is all within my lifetime.

(but yes, various jurisdictions around the country before that were, for religi-political reasons but not puritan, "dry" with no sale of alcohol.)

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#190

Post by Manuel_D »

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!).

The EANABs is fine - I even do this at my parties as adults, it's good to have good non-alcoholic drinks for non-drinkers and for pacing.

That said, you're spot on about the ridiculous rules. One of the dumbest alcohol policies was to ban liquor containers over 750ml [1]. But you could still have any number of liquor bottles, as long as they were individually less than 750ml. The rationale is that since two 750ml bottles costs marginally more than a 1.5L handle of alcohol, that will reduce binge drinking. I kid you not.

1. https://bulletin.stanford.edu/pages/0Wpl6joexOePOiCBZWCB

Post reply on HN