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

151–160 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#151

Post by [deleted] »

pessimizer wrote: post #146
brhsagain wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#152

Post by pessimizer »

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?

> Everyone in alcohol research knows the graph. It plots the change in annual consumption of alcohol in the UK, calculated in litres of pure alcohol per person. (None of us drinks pure alcohol, thankfully; one litre of pure alcohol is equivalent to 35 pints of strong beer.) In 1950, Brits drank an average of 3.9 litres per person. Look to the right and at first the line barely rises. Then, in 1960, it begins to creep upward. The climb becomes steadier during the 1970s. The upward trajectory ends in 1980, but that turns out to be temporary. By the late 1990s consumption is rising rapidly again.

> Come Peak Booze, in 2004, we were drinking 9.5 litres of alcohol per person – the equivalent of more than 100 bottles of wine – each year.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#153

Post by chernevik »

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…

Sometimes the process is the punishment.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#154

Post by AlbertCory »

pessimizer wrote: post #149
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.

OR, non-drinkers would bring their own water bottles. As people do nowadays anyway.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#155

Post by stale2002 »

grammers wrote: post #26
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 sounds so crazy. Can't they just leave the premises to have a good party?

Not really, no.

The way that university policy often works, is that for certain groups, especially "Greek Life" related groups, if you run an event that is included any members of that group, then the group could be held liable.

That leads to absurd situations where if a bunch of friends, host a party, in a privately owned residence, because the friends happen to be in the same fraternity, if anything bad happens, the fraternity could get in trouble.

And this is regardless of if the event is hosted off campus, in a privately owned place.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#156

Post by mkoubaa »

tptacek wrote: post #106
bgentry wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the stakes seem very low: we're talking about procedural due process protecting the rights of fraternities to host parties with alcohol. No? The quote is in reference to a lawyer defending students accused of cheating on an exam and facing an administrative process with no presumption of innocence or right to a proper defense. A process which could permanently destroy their college education and career prospects.

Here we're talking about a case where students were, in 2012, accused of cheating on a bio test, and not found guilty . Meanwhile: cheating is absolutely rampant --- and has presumably only gotten much, much worse since 2012.

I've seen people cheat first hand dozens of times and know that a jury would find them not guilty. Legal standards are very high

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#157

Post by hot_gril »

bennysonething wrote: post #105
glonq wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Everyone I grew up with was underage drinking none of these things you've listed happened to anyone I know. Regulating parties might be one way to lessen the chances. But I'm not sure that price is worth it.

These are on-campus parties. Underage college drinking is still a big thing. Title is clickbait.

But gen Z (which I'm part of) has lost out on a lot of other fun things and turned antisocial on average for other reasons, some of them having to do with safety obsession.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#159

Post by stale2002 »

tptacek wrote: post #58
nickff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not requests , they're requirements .

So don't host official fraternity parties if you're not OK with those requirements. What's complicated about this? Fraternities are "official" organizations; official organizations have to deal with official policies. Just have unofficial parties.

> So don't host official fraternity parties

If only it were allows to host a party, with your friends who happen to be in the same fraternity, and it were allowed to do this unofficially, without having to follow university rules.

Unfortunately, this is often not allowed. As in literally, if you have a party, at a private residence, because the people going to it happen to be in the same fraternity, this is disallowed.

Unofficial parties are quite literally often not allowed, and are seen by universities as a way of getting around their draconian rules, and you could actually get in trouble for hosting them.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#160

Post by fallingknife »

jiveturkey wrote: post #95
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 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.
Post reply on HN