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

211–220 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#211

Post by fortran77 »

tptacek wrote: post #203
prepend wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 de…

(1) The coffee assault apparently caused a physical injury. (2) If you dumped so much as a cup of cold water on someone in a workplace, you'd be out on your ass that day. I honestly don't understand what we're even debating here. This isn't middle school. These are adults, in one of the most selective institutions on the planet.

Yes. They should have left this to the police and courts and, if she gets convicted, or pleads guilty, expel her.

This also ensures there’s a proper public record for future schools or employers.

I don’t know why the author of this piece tried to wave away a felony assault. And I’m saddened that a woman who got in to Stanford doesn’t believe in due process, but instead opts for vigilante justice based on a rumor. We reap what we sow.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#212

Post by jiveturkey »

fallingknife wrote: post #160
jiveturkey wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Attempts to make their world risk free It's nothing to do with risk free for the students. Nothing. It's to reduce liability for the university. That is the world we live in.

They didn't do this in college 20 years ago, and liability laws have not changed since then.

Well, I didn't say anything about laws. As alcohol-related incidents increase in frequency and severity, and as payouts become bigger, the cost to insure (including self-insure) goes up.

This kind of policy existed at my alma mater 30 years ago. Even the alt beverage bit. Can't remember if we just served water or did we actually have punch of some kind. We even had (student) inspectors that went around to registered parties to verify that the rules were followed. And yes, citations were written and disciplinary hearings were held, and party privileges revoked for the semester. This was at a big 10 state school.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#213

Post by aidenn0 »

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…

The University I went to was a dry (or nearly dry, maybe wine for welcoming VIP speakers) campus for a long time, but the degree to which it was enforced varied. It was also largely moot since there were 3 bars a single block away from the student union and the majority of students lived off campus.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#214

Post by verall »

dahwolf wrote: post #161
verall wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 encou…

Your hypocrisy angered me, in particular because it puts you on the side of the problem: dysfunctional discourse in politics, anti-intellectualism, suppression and silencing based on a whim, etc. I was firm but not out of hate. I was hoping that you'd take it as a lesson learned whether you would publicly admit to that or not. It's admirable that you did. We all make mistakes and we're not static creatures. This conv…

Thanks. I really am not advocating for silencing but this site is meant to be a relatively curated list, there are plenty of places to go to view political/ideological content. It's not silencing to suggest that something might not belong here.

Since I may have you emotionally captive here, I'm really curious:

What is your strategy for separating interesting wheat from flamebait chaff? I try to do my "due diligence" but it is exhausting and frequently frustrating to follow what appears to be clickbait and see where it lands. But I'm a'merican zoomer so maybe that's, just, not my vibe, or whatever.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#215

Post by consumer451 »

karaterobot wrote: post #136
consumer451 wrote: post #19

Pure politics, nothing technology related.

Ironically, the guidelines specifically allow non-technology stories, but advise against complaining about non-technology submissions. So, if you want to be a stickler about the rules, check out the guidelines document, already linked. > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that g…

I am just extremely salty because in my experience there is a clear right-leaning bias on HN for when politics is allowed. By allowed I mean not flagged. I am very much an indie, but I find this HN characteristic really unfun.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#216

Post by idontwantthis »

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.

Exactly. The main reason these rules are great is that it makes students comfortable with calling an ambulance when someone has alcohol poisoning. If drinking is illegal on campus, then you criminalize alcohol poisoning too and students die as a result. My university had a similar, but not as regimented policy as Stanford. It allows the administration and the students to understand each other.

Edit: Besides alcohol poisoning, you also decriminalize injuries and re-criminalize sexual assault.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#217

Post by randycupertino »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #197
fortuna86 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

They certainly exist and are fun (as well as playing beer pong in the fountain) but it's nothing as wild as say ... Arizona State.

source: went to big state university undergrad then 4 years at Stanford. Miles of difference in the party scenes.

Stanford social scene: Beige Toyota Prius

Big State U: Lime green Ferrari 250 GTO

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#218

Post by nocoiner »

Manuel_D wrote: post #190
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!).

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 bot…

This actually doesn’t seem that silly to me. Isn’t this a bog standard Pigouvian tax? And I think it should be fairly uncontroversial that there are definite negative externalities to handles of liquor…

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#219

Post by seanhunter »

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…

Exactly. This article is just culture war pearl-clutching at its very worst. Having students adhere to a campus policy when having parties on campus seems perfectly reasonable, and considered without the hyperbolic tone of the article, the policy itself seems fine in substance.

If you didn't take into account that it is written for undergrads etc you might think it was strangely specific but then you realise these are people who in some cases have just left home. In an ideal world you could just have your policy be "don't be an idiot" but sadly the people who need that policy in the first place also need it spelled out for them in a little more detail.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#220

Post by itsthejb »

hgsgm wrote: post #200
hanoz wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One could argue that maturity can only be reached by allowing minors responsibility
Post reply on HN