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

191–200 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#191

Post by Manuel_D »

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…

The "coffee-dampened" student was physically injured [1], according to the university. The fact that this act of violence was done on account of disagreeing with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding does not make it less serious - quite the contrary, the fact that this was retaliation over the outcome of a proceeding makes it far more serious as it risks igniting a cycle of further escalation and retaliation. Would you have been so nonchalant if the accused was found responsible, and he poured coffee on his accuser because he felt the outcome of the proceeding was incorrect? If not, then the accused deserved the same protection from accusers dissatisfied with the outcome of sexual misconduct proceedings.

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

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#192

Post by projectazorian »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #170

Talk about burying the lede, the article is 4000 words deep before they mention that the draconian party requirements were implemented after an unconscious student was raped behind a dumpster at a frat party in 2015.

And these fraternities are housed on campus, as far as I can tell. The university is entitled to impose whatever requirements it likes on social clubs that use university property. And administrators are justified in taking a harsh stance against a category of clubs that have a long rap sheet for sexual assault, hazing, and extreme binge drinking. It would be unethical for administrators to not take action.

As other posters have pointed out these rules are in fact liberal by university standards. Many universities ban alcohol from undergrad social events entirely, others are completely dry across the board.

The traditional approach would be for the frats to move off campus if they don’t like the rules, but that’s not possible because Palo Alto, so instead they’re trying to do culture war special pleading in conservative media.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#193

Post by Per_Bothner »

Manuel_D wrote: post #188
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.

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.

Most of Palo Alto and Menlo Park are within an easy bike ride from campus. You can mostly stay on pleasant tree-filled residential streets as you admire the multi-million-dollar cottages. Though as others have commented: few undergraduates live or party off-campus.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#194

Post by OrvalWintermute »

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 issue is making mountains out of molehills.

If you have ever been subject to the faceless institutional processes judicial, or non-judicial, they can be weaponized in a way that forgets there is a human on the receiving end. We need to be careful when things go overboard with applying the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit of it which is about justice.

Sometimes, the punishment is the process.

> Stanford now has more than 10,000 administrators who oversee the 7,761 undergraduate and 9,565 graduate students—almost enough for each student to have their own personal butler. (There are about 2,290 faculty members.) These bureaucrats make up an increasingly powerful segment of the university population, as they expand their portfolio and send the message that all conflict should be adjudicated by them. (OCS reports for the 2022–2023 school year have not yet been released.)

This bothered me, and this series of occurences in Academia sounds exactly like what is happening with medicine these days.

A bunch of administrators that are not educators ((or physicians) , or professional law enforcement, or judges, or prosectuors, all having professional, and advanced legal educations )) that desperately are in need of work to justify their raison d'être.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#195

Post by tqi »

kryogen1c wrote: post #174
tqi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Your argument is basically the domino effect meme with Stanford Party Policy on one end and Global Culture on the other? I dunno about others but I definitely don't buy it - I think some people just like minding other people's business.

To your point about training future leaders, there is a reason people don't start out training with live ammo. If every element of campus life could randomly and capriciously be escalated to the national stage, how could anyone possibly expect kids to learn how to take risks or make mistakes? (I believe this is true across the political spectrum)

20 years ago this would have been a heated discussion limited to the campus community, which to me at least held the possibility of the sides having empathy for each other. Now, with the polarized, dehumanized nature of our national discourse, I have no doubt that everyone will simply dig in.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#196

Post by st00 »

kryogen1c wrote: post #174
tqi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Could you say more about why you think that this is a terrible take? It's not clear to me from your comment. If you're being sarcastic: forgive me; bravo, well-played. Otherwise...

My attempt at a generous reading would summarize your point as "kids go to Stanford to finish their inculcation before we let them start taking responsibility for things. The idea of controlling potentiality destructive behavior is crucial for social control and stability."

The position I described strikes me as mechanistic in the extreme. I'll skip over my disagreement with "the enture purpose..." and focus on the big issue. Wouldn't it be better for everyone concerned to allow kids to make mistakes that affect just a few people, and be forced to learn how to navigate and resolve those errors-- that is, to build practical wisdom--before putting them in a position where their mistakes (due to a lack of perspective and emotional immaturity borne by living in tightly controlled conditions), affect many people?

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#197

Post by ZephyrBlu »

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.

Do house parties not exist at Stanford?

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#198

Post by prepend »

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…

> But an adjudication process doesn't seem like a disproportionate response to an assault, however minor.

It’s a cup of coffee that wasn’t hot or scalding and wasn’t reported by the student but by an administrator. It’s a multi month process including outside counsel hired by the university.

It sounds entirely disproportionate in the first place. This seems like a stupid and wasteful unjust kangaroo court that was designed by people to create more work for themselves to hire more people and lawyers for make work. It doesn’t seem designed to deliver justice so what is the point.

Stanford received federal funds and a system having processed this dumb likely has other faults that should be addressed if they wish to continue receiving funds.

The article is basically saying “Stanford is really stupid” and based on this article, I agree. I don’t go to Stanford and never will do it doesn’t directly affect me other than I’m generally interested in reducing the price of college.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#199

Post by intev »

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…

Have you ever lived in the area? I'm 100% sure you have't because of how you're framing this. Off campus housing is extremely expensive. Stanford doesn't really provide any affordable options off campus because they have all the housing they need in campus. The only students who live out of campus are local students and MBA students.

Do you expect undergrads who fly come from Missouri to start paying 2k/month for housing? I'm sorry but your solution is an imaginary one that doesn't apply to Stanford. NYC is completely different because you can practically live anywhere there and use the great public transportation network to get to where you want to go. If you live in East Palo Alto (cheapest area), good luck getting to class.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#200

Post by hgsgm »

hanoz wrote: post #177
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?

Too many Americans are extremely immature and kill or rape each other with binge drinking.
Post reply on HN