If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mustang News)   University demands guest list of off campus parties, while banning hard alcohol and drinking games there, also plans to force students to live on campus for first two years. Back tracks after hearing about things called 1st and 4th Amendments   (mustangnews.net) divider line 169
    More: Asinine, Cal Poly, Associated Students Inc., students' union, Dang Guo, student leader, Cesar Chavez  
•       •       •

9037 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2014 at 11:22 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-25 07:33:32 PM
I don't know about the whole list, but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

I also seem to remember that some dorms/apartments on campus were not available to freshmen.
 
2014-02-25 07:37:58 PM
Double. Secret, probation.
 
2014-02-25 07:46:37 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I don't know about the whole list, but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

I also seem to remember that some dorms/apartments on campus were not available to freshmen.


Ayup. That was the rule at OSU. Though I seem to have slipped through the cracks when I left the frat I was rushing after my first semester and got my own apartment with a friend. It made us quite popular with the freshmen girls :)
 
2014-02-25 08:36:09 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.


And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.
 
2014-02-25 08:42:51 PM
You gotta FIGHT for your RIGHT to PAAAAAAAARTAAAAAAAAAY

/It's in the constitution, man
//First and fourth amendments
 
2014-02-25 08:50:06 PM

Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.


It's a fairly common policy.  Usually it works by the school requiring you to either prove that you're living at and commuting from home, or pay for a dorm room.  Now, you could just pay for the dorm room and then live somewhere else, and I knew students who did that, but most people aren't going to waste money like that.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

If they're registered student organizations the school can have sway over what goes on even if it isn't technically on campus.  Rules regulating official fraternity/sorority parties aren't unprecedented.  Of course, it's hard for them to police unofficial gatherings that aren't technically being hosted by the group.

At the end of the day it's CYA for the school - they don't want someone to die from alcohol poisoning, get sexually assaulted, or drive drunk and hit somebody in any way related to the school officially.  If it happens at a party involving students at the school, but held off campus and not under the banner of any organization recognized by the school, it's easier for the school to distance itself.
 
2014-02-25 09:36:32 PM

Flab: And people go for it? Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.


Kind of have to, or they won't admit you or will kick you out. Also, there are colleges/universities that forbid freshmen from having a car.

Of course, there are ways around this if you're willing to fight or otherwise raise a stink. My school was one that mandated all freshmen live on campus, and I was told there were no exceptions. I told them I had a full time job, had already been living on my own for 6+ months, and would not live on campus nor buy a meal plan. And you know what? I kept living on my own and buying my food wherever the hell I wanted. I was there on scholarship, so that might have helped me out. I don't really know. But it is possible. It just depends on how much of a fight you are willing to put up.
 
2014-02-25 09:40:00 PM

TuteTibiImperes: It's a fairly common policy. Usually it works by the school requiring you to either prove that you're living at and commuting from home, or pay for a dorm room. Now, you could just pay for the dorm room and then live somewhere else, and I knew students who did that, but most people aren't going to waste money like that.


Maybe it's because my university had 35,000 students.  but I can't begin to fathom why any college would even consider being in charge of a 15,000-20,000 dorm rooms.  Fark, the Atlantis resort in the Bahamas is not that big!

TuteTibiImperes: If they're registered student organizations the school can have sway over what goes on even if it isn't technically on campus

.  Rules regulating official fraternity/sorority parties aren't unprecedented.  Of course, it's hard for them to police unofficial gatherings that aren't technically being hosted by the group. .

Hmm...  So faternity XYZ can't hold tequila shots parties, but if a few members of said fraternity and their girlfirends just happen to be watching the game on tv and someone takes out the Cuervo and a few limes, it's all good?  I smell a loophole...

TuteTibiImperes: At the end of the day it's CYA for the school - they don't want someone to die from alcohol poisoning, get sexually assaulted, or drive drunk and hit somebody in any way related to the school officially. If it happens at a party involving students at the school, but held off campus and not under the banner of any organization recognized by the school, it's easier for the school to distance itself.


In my experience, even if the party was held on campus by an officially recognized organisation (e.g.: the undergrad engineering students union sold about 300 cases of beer per week during happy hours to finance various extra-curicular activites, and the on-campus fully licensed bar was owned and operated by the uni's federation of student unions), the administration would simply say "They are grown adults and we don't have anything to say other than make sure they obey the law".
 
2014-02-25 09:45:36 PM

Pokey.Clyde: Flab: And people go for it? Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Kind of have to, or they won't admit you or will kick you out. Also, there are colleges/universities that forbid freshmen from having a car.

Of course, there are ways around this if you're willing to fight or otherwise raise a stink. My school was one that mandated all freshmen live on campus, and I was told there were no exceptions. I told them I had a full time job, had already been living on my own for 6+ months, and would not live on campus nor buy a meal plan. And you know what? I kept living on my own and buying my food wherever the hell I wanted. I was there on scholarship, so that might have helped me out. I don't really know. But it is possible. It just depends on how much of a fight you are willing to put up.


The school I went to required Freshmen to live on campus their first year, unless they were over age 20 or working full time during the school year.  They really didn't check all that closely you just needed a letter from a local company stating you were a full time employee.  Usually these exceptions are fairly easy to get.
 
2014-02-25 10:07:15 PM
Flab:

In my experience, even if the party was held on campus by an officially recognized organisation (e.g.: the undergrad engineering students union sold about 300 cases of beer per week during happy hours to finance various extra-curicular activites, and the on-campus fully licensed bar was owned and operated by the uni's federation of student unions), the administration would simply say "They are grown adults and we don't ha ...

I see you're from Canada, did you go to school there to?  I'm sure the rules and attitudes regarding alcohol differ pretty greatly even amongst US schools, but I had a friend who went to Queen's University in Kingston, ON, and the times I visited the attitude towards alcohol was far more relaxed than any school I've visited in the US.

I'm sure part of it is the difference in drinking age - in Canada there are freshman who can legally drink, and pretty much all sophomores and above can.  In the US it's not until the late Junior or Senior year when you can legally drink.

At my school they would never have allowed student groups to sell alcohol.  In fact, I was in a fraternity that was categorized as a professional organization instead of a social/greek and because of that classification we were not allowed to own a house a or host official events involving alcohol at all.  Of course that didn't stop us from throwing unofficial parties where alcohol was present in the homes or apartments rented by members.

The university even pushed for stronger alcohol regulations in the town.  For example - drink specials and discounted drinks during happy hours were forbidden anywhere in the city.  Some bars came up with clever ways around that.  Since drink specials weren't allowed, one bar set their regular price for Natty Light at 50 cents per, but only sold it one night per week.
 
2014-02-25 10:15:33 PM
Guest list.

The pretty
The witty
My good buddy New Wave Pancho, because he's cool despite his ridiculous hairdo
The guy with the turntable

The Dean's Wife
 
2014-02-25 10:22:30 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I see you're from Canada, did you go to school there to?


Yep.  Even commuted from home (that's another big difference between Canadian and American colleges, most people pick one of the local ones, unless you want to go in a very speficic field that's not offered locally)  until my dad got transfered out of town, so I only moved to the uni residences for my final year.

TuteTibiImperes: in Canada there are freshman who can legally drink

 
In Quebec, all freshmen can legally drink.  The drinking age is 18, and due to the way schools are set up, when you get to university, you are usually already 19.


I understand that this DOES make a difference.  If the colleges were responsible for minors, I'm sure they would have more stringent rules about on campus alcohol consumption.  But I still think their sphere of influence would end at the sidewalk in front of the main entrance.
 
2014-02-25 11:26:30 PM

Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.


Well, it only works if they can GUARANTEE incoming freshmen dorm space; not all colleges can do that. And they also then have to pay for kids who would otherwise find cheaper off-campus housing their first year.

All it really does is ensure kids run amok their second year instead of freshman year.
 
2014-02-25 11:28:06 PM
College has college rules.

Subby apparently never went to one.
 
2014-02-25 11:30:58 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I don't know about the whole list, but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

I also seem to remember that some dorms/apartments on campus were not available to freshmen.


That was the rule at MTU when I was there.

Freshman live on campus unless you're a local.

There are non-freshman halls/floors
 
2014-02-25 11:31:55 PM
Oh man, I miss university so much. All those hot chicks in class all day long and constant parties. Who goes to class anyways?

Oh wait, I went to the Engineering school. No girls, no parties and class was hard as balls.

/did manage to score with the hot girl in my program junior year
//she was a hard 7 but an EE 10+
 
2014-02-25 11:33:22 PM
In loco parentis: I thought that Purdue was the last to fall in the 1970s.

But Cal Poly???
 
2014-02-25 11:38:02 PM

Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.


"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.
 
2014-02-25 11:39:06 PM
I suppose a college can mandate conditions of admission involving living on campus, I'm spent my career working at urban campuses where we don't care where you live, just as long as you show up for classes, so I fail to see how they have any right to have much of a say about what happens off-campus unless the off-campus organizations are somehow related to the school.  So sure, make your students live on campus, have fun with taking on that responsibility (I hope you have retained some decent legal counsel), but whatever they do off campus is none of your damn business.
 
2014-02-25 11:39:33 PM
images.sodahead.com
 
2014-02-25 11:41:29 PM

ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.


What about orphans?  Or somebody that moves to the city, buys a single wide trailer and lives in it?  The university is farked when that hits the court system.
 
2014-02-25 11:42:36 PM
I have no problem with the on-campus living. It's pretty common. Alcohol can be a problem, but I recall a push a few years ago by university presidents to return the drinking age to 18 to reduce the problems they have with underage drinking.
 
2014-02-25 11:42:43 PM
Also the 21st amendment.
 
2014-02-25 11:44:33 PM
There was a bar in the student union where I attended university. We had legal keggers in the dorm. Every Friday and Saturday there were alcohol-fueled fraternity parties.

Now the campus is dry.

/pussies
 
2014-02-25 11:46:13 PM
and 4th amendment have nothing to do with this, dudebro.
 
2014-02-25 11:46:14 PM

Smeggy Smurf: ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.

What about orphans?  Or somebody that moves to the city, buys a single wide trailer and lives in it?  The university is farked when that hits the court system.


Any student who is no longer a dependent is free from those restrictions.

Seriously, this has been a standard policy for a decade or two at almost every university. Unless you can commute, you live on campus. And there's no constitutional barrier, because your matriculation in the school is a contract accepting those policies.
 
2014-02-25 11:47:40 PM
Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.
 
2014-02-25 11:51:17 PM

Smeggy Smurf: ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.

What about orphans?  Or somebody that moves to the city, buys a single wide trailer and lives in it?  The university is farked when that hits the court system.


All those are actually covered in the student manual, and they vary only slightly by university. And they have been covered for decades.
 
2014-02-25 11:54:08 PM

ElLoco: Smeggy Smurf: ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.

What about orphans?  Or somebody that moves to the city, buys a single wide trailer and lives in it?  The university is farked when that hits the court system.

All those are actually covered in the student manual, and they vary only slightly by university. And they have been covered for decades.


True.  On campus living requirements are fairly common, but it seems like this school is taking their policies a bit too far for a public institution.
 
2014-02-25 11:56:23 PM

Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.


You do not have a right either under the law or the Constitution to a post secondary education. PERIOD. A post secondary institution has a lot of liberty to do what it wants regardless of whether its public or private status. The actual legal distinction between them is minimal to non-existent. Honestly, the headline was written by some 20 year old libertarian nutcase who understands nothing about higher education, the law, or the Constitution.
 
2014-02-25 11:57:06 PM
Iamnotacop.jpg
 
2014-02-25 11:57:31 PM
And technically, the IRS was never legally approved so I don't have to pay my taxes, mannnnn!
 
2014-02-25 11:57:35 PM
Subby needs to read the part of the first amendment about freedom of association.  No students are forced to attend this college, but when they do, they choose to abide by its rules.

It's no different than choosing to join a church that restricts behavior in such a way that it would be unconstitutional if the government did it.
 
2014-02-25 11:58:52 PM
Flab: Hmm... So faternity XYZ can't hold tequila shots parties, but if a few members of said fraternity and their girlfirends just happen to be watching the game on tv and someone takes out the Cuervo and a few limes, it's all good? I smell a loophole...

Nope... been tried.

http://mustangnews.net/mustang-news-feb-13-2014-greeks-off-probation -d ecosta-looking-into-reported-ifc-parties/


Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: College has college rules.

Subby apparently never went to one.


Subby here. I actually go here. I'm not involved in the Greek life (which is what the majority of these rules pertain to). That being said, name me a University (public) that forces sophomores to live on campus. Or transfer students. I won't hold my breath. I was a 21 year old sophomore, by the way. Fat chance I'd be forced to live on campus in dorms, let alone a dry campus.

Here are the new rules dealing with parties associated with Greek organizations:
http://mustangnews.net/greeks-off-probation-after-passing-party-regi st ration-policy/

 - A fraternity party is "any event an observer would associate with the fraternity or sorority." A frat bro and a couple of his bros over to watch the football game on Sunday? Frat party (again, who's the observer? Someone in Admin, I'm sure).

- Fraternities cannot host parties from one week before school starts until the end of the "rushing" period (mid quarter).  [ Subby note: Before school starts is the biggest party week there is. In fact, during the school year, parties aren't really held when class is in session. It's usually the week before Fall quarter, the weekend before Winter quarter, and Spring break (the week before Spring quarter) ]

- No parties during Finals week.   [Subby note: Makes sense, but most people are done with finals on Wendesday... so they can't party until Saturday?]

- Parties only permitted on days when the next day is not a "school day"; parties may not exceed 5 hours in length and must end by 1 AM. [Subby note: 5 hours? That's nothing. 1AM? Crap, last call at the bars is 1:30 or 1:45]

- "Day parties" must end by 8PM.

- Alcohol may not be served an hour prior to the end of the event. [Subby note: I'm sure the bars and SLOPD will love this. Everyone will leave the frat party, drive drunk down town, so they can drink for another 90 minutes]

- Fraternities may not supply alcohol. All alcohol must be BYOB or supplied by a 3rd party. Furthermore, "common sources" of alcohol are not allowed. These include but are not limited to: kegs, handles, cases, and other large volumes.  [Subby note: BYOB? Might as well stay home... Alcohol has to be kept in a common location. Why bring my beer for others to drink?]

- Individuals (fraternity members or not) of legal drinking age may bring beer totaling no more than 72 oz or one bottle (750ml) of wine.

- At the party, no hard alcohol, squeeze bottles, water bottles, beer bongs, party bongs, party balls, pitchers, tumblers, or other containers are permitted. No glass is permitted other than glass bottles of wine (750ml) in size or less. [Subby note: No water bottles? Sounds like a recipe for hangovers]

- No shots, drinking games, or other activities that encourage inappropriate drinking behaviors shall be allowed [Subby note: Remember kids, don't yell chug!]

- All parties must be closed events with a guest list[subby note: wait what?]

- Guest lists must be typed and finalized no later than 24 hours before the party.

- There shall be no advertising of a party [Subby note: I guess that's one way to prevent a party]

- Guests shall be marked off on a copy of the guest list when they arrive

- Chapters holding a party must develop a wristband system (no stamps, pens or markers)   [Subby note: The bars down here use a stamp system, if that]

- It is highly recommended that the verification of those who are of legal drinking age is  performed by hired security  [ Subby note: yeah that's really cheap ]

- All parties under 100 people must be registered at least 5 business days before the date it is taking  place

- All parties over 100 people must be registered at least 10 business days before the date it is taking  place

And here's the big one:

- follow up guest list must be submitted by Monday at 12 noon with the full names of all attendees and birthdates of all guests receiving wristbands.

[Subby note: I'm not in a frat. However, the school has no right to know what parties I've attended, what I've had to drink, and where I've been. That is need to know information, and the school -- a publicly funded institution -- does not need to know]
 
2014-02-26 12:00:32 AM

Begoggle: And technically, the IRS was never legally approved so I don't have to pay my taxes, mannnnn!


Sorry dude, that's only if the flags in their offices have gold fringes.....
 
2014-02-26 12:01:37 AM

Ikam: True.  On campus living requirements are fairly common, but it seems like this school is taking their policies a bit too far for a public institution.


They are, as a state institution. Private universities, and most especially religious universities tend to go waaaay farther than that. So far even that most have guidelines for where you or your vehicle can be seen when not on campus. Lubbock Christian University has people that keep their eyes on titty bar and liquor store parking lots. Finding your vehicle in the parking lot can result in probation, suspension, or removal from the university.
 
2014-02-26 12:02:24 AM

Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.


If you read the rules, they specifically target parties thrown fraternities/sororities affiliated with the school.  In exchange for being a registered student organization, they agree to abide by the school's policies.

The rules apply to Kappa Alpha having a party at their frat house, not Tim and Eric throwing a shindig at their off-campus apartment.

There's nothing in the rules that remotely violates federal law.
 
2014-02-26 12:02:34 AM
Color me shocked that it is a Calif college that was trying to enforce these rules.

/liberals are all about choice, right?
 
2014-02-26 12:02:45 AM

SkyFlyer: [Subby note: I'm not in a frat. However, the school has no right to know what parties I've attended, what I've had to drink, and where I've been. That is need to know information, and the school -- a publicly funded institution -- does not need to know]


The school does have that right under the law. You do not have a right to a post secondary education. I do not understand what is so hard to grasp about that concept. If you do not like it, leave.
 
2014-02-26 12:02:49 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I don't know about the whole list, but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

I also seem to remember that some dorms/apartments on campus were not available to freshmen.


My wife's college (Hope in Holland, Michigan, private, Christian) required on-campus housing (or proof you were commuting from your parents' home) for... two (maybe three?) years.   Also, they had a rule where the opposite sex wasn't allowed in the dorm rooms past... 2 AM, I think. (Only got caught once... she had to write an essay about honesty, or some such nonsense.)  That was in 2004.
 
2014-02-26 12:05:02 AM

sprgrss: and 4th amendment have nothing to do with this, dudebro.


Actually it does when the school is requiring that a list of all students attending fraternity parties be handed over to administration the next day.


As for on campus living requirements are standard. Sure. For freshman. Maybe. But 2nd years? And Transfers? hahahaha. Yeah find me an example, please.

udhq: Subby needs to read the part of the first amendment about freedom of association. No students are forced to attend this college, but when they do, they choose to abide by its rules. It's no different than choosing to join a church that restricts behavior in such a way that it would be unconstitutional if the government did it.


Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.
 
2014-02-26 12:05:56 AM
That list of rules needed to end with

...and a partridge in a pear tree.
 
2014-02-26 12:06:42 AM
My school required all freshmen to live in the dorms, then accidentally accepted too many students in my junior year.  Most rooms were doubles, and some were converted to house three students; a bed was added, and a dresser, but it was still obviously designed for two students (two closets, symmetry).  I would have been pissed to end up in that situation without some kind of discount or other perk.

Commuting is a big issue.  If they don't provide sufficient dorms, they have to consider how else all of their students are going to get there.  If the bus system is poor, then they need parking structures.

Personally, I appreciated living on campus.  It's a great social network and everyone around you is going through the same issues.
 
2014-02-26 12:08:45 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.

If you read the rules, they specifically target parties thrown fraternities/sororities affiliated with the school.  In exchange for being a registered student organization, they agree to abide by the school's policies.

The rules apply to Kappa Alpha having a party at their frat house, not Tim and Eric throwing a shindig at their off-campus apartment.

There's nothing in the rules that remotely violates federal law.


You would be correct if those rules only applied to students in fraternities. However, take someone like me. I have friends in frats. However, I'm not in a frat. I get invited to a frat party. I attend. The school now knows. That is an extreme overreach.
 
2014-02-26 12:10:00 AM

sirbissel: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I don't know about the whole list, but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

I also seem to remember that some dorms/apartments on campus were not available to freshmen.

My wife's college (Hope in Holland, Michigan, private, Christian) required on-campus housing (or proof you were commuting from your parents' home) for... two (maybe three?) years.   Also, they had a rule where the opposite sex wasn't allowed in the dorm rooms past... 2 AM, I think. (Only got caught once... she had to write an essay about honesty, or some such nonsense.)  That was in 2004.


Small, christian, not publicly funded. The last two are particularly key.
 
2014-02-26 12:10:54 AM

SkyFlyer: hey actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights


That's true but it's besides the point because the rules do not actually abridge the bill of rights. Which Amendment? Not the 4th. The 4A only applies to the state's police power. Are these rules to be enforced by the police? No. Then no 4A for you.
 
2014-02-26 12:12:16 AM

worlddan: SkyFlyer: [Subby note: I'm not in a frat. However, the school has no right to know what parties I've attended, what I've had to drink, and where I've been. That is need to know information, and the school -- a publicly funded institution -- does not need to know]

The school does have that right under the law. You do not have a right to a post secondary education. I do not understand what is so hard to grasp about that concept. If you do not like it, leave.


Actually, they may not, depending on the situation.  The school could require a guest list for any event held on campus property.  A school could require a guest list for any event hosted or run by an affiliated student organization.  I think the law may not allow the school to demand guest lists for events held off campus and not run by affiliated student organizations.

Just being a student at a school doesn't give the school the right to invade your privacy at will when not on campus or using the school's resources.  There's a difference between acting as an individual and acting as a member of an organization affiliated with the school however.  In the latter case it's not unreasonable to expect members of those organizations to abide by the regulations the school has set up for such organizations when those members are acting on behalf of the organization.
 
2014-02-26 12:12:28 AM

Flab: Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere


Washington State University is surrounded on all sides by wheat fields and most of the people living in Pullman are in nursing homes.
 
2014-02-26 12:14:58 AM

worlddan: SkyFlyer: hey actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights

That's true but it's besides the point because the rules do not actually abridge the bill of rights. Which Amendment? Not the 4th. The 4A only applies to the state's police power. Are these rules to be enforced by the police? No. Then no 4A for you.


The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government -- not just publicly funded security forces (aka police). A private university would be within their rights to do this. A publicly funded one, not so much.
 
2014-02-26 12:15:55 AM
Never ceases to amaze me how people would pay so much money to be tyrannized.
 
2014-02-26 12:17:51 AM
SkyFlyer:
- Parties only permitted on days when the next day is not a "school day"; parties  may not exceed 5 hours in length and must end by 1 AM. [Subby note: 5 hours? That's nothing. 1AM? Crap, last call at the bars is 1:30 or 1:45]

- Alcohol  may not be served an hour prior to the end of the event. [Subby note: I'm sure the bars and SLOPD will love this. Everyone will leave the frat party, drive drunk down town, so they can drink for another 90 minutes]


These two seem like the biggest issue.  That's going to result in drunk driving.  This is why we needed a federal drinking law, to prevent kids from hopping state lines in order to drink and then crashing on the way home.  We don't need the equivalent at campus parties!

Everything else is about protecting people at the party, mostly by preventing parties from happening or by preventing people from getting drunk.  None of this will succeed; I went to a school with a dry campus, and we got wasted in one of two ways:

1.  We broke the rules and got drunk on campus, in walking distance of water and our beds, and with fairly reliable sources of help as needed.
2.  We went off-campus and got drunk, then needed someone to drive us home (hopefully sober; I always brought a mormon).   Chances are this increases the amount of drunk driving, because sometimes students will make a bad call.  Then they get to survive that bad call, because they usually do, and go on to assume that they can drink and drive in the future and be OK.  Lovely.

Honestly, it seems like the thing the university should focus on is providing support and education.  If you've got lots of people receiving a small discount on housing in exchange for taking a class on how to deal with alcohol issues, you've got a hoard who can assist when things go south.  If you spend some money to get an on-call nurse, you've got someone to deal with emergencies quickly.  This doesn't seem out of the budget for a large school, especially.  You can't keep college kids from drinking.  Focus on keeping them from dying from it, or killing anyone else, and teach life-long responsible drinking habits.
 
2014-02-26 12:18:15 AM

SkyFlyer: TuteTibiImperes: Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.

If you read the rules, they specifically target parties thrown fraternities/sororities affiliated with the school.  In exchange for being a registered student organization, they agree to abide by the school's policies.

The rules apply to Kappa Alpha having a party at their frat house, not Tim and Eric throwing a shindig at their off-campus apartment.

There's nothing in the rules that remotely violates federal law.

You would be correct if those rules only applied to students in fraternities. However, take someone like me. I have friends in frats. However, I'm not in a frat. I get invited to a frat party. I attend. The school now knows. That is an extreme overreach.


It's not an overreach at all. You choose to attend a party run by an organization subject to regulation by the school, you choose to be subject to the rules the school has placed on that organization.  The school isn't decreeing that you provide the details of your attendance, but rather that the organization hosting the event provide the details of who attended.

Because the school regulates the fraternity, they can do that.   It's fully within your rights to choose not to attend such parties.

If the school started requiring that individual students keep attendance records of off-campus parties which weren't in any way associated with or run under the auspices of a student organization affiliated with the school, that would be a gross overreach. That, however, isn't what's happening here.
 
2014-02-26 12:19:45 AM

TuteTibiImperes: I think the law may not allow the school to demand guest lists for events held off campus and not run by affiliated student organizations.


Sure but that is not what is at stake in this case. What is pissing the OP off is precisely the fact the the school is demanding this information in order to become an affiliated organization.

BTW, here is the actual policy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206830577/Cal-Poly-Party-Registration-Poli cy

It clearly only applies to university affiliated organizations.
 
2014-02-26 12:20:09 AM

Aestatis: SkyFlyer:
- Parties only permitted on days when the next day is not a "school day"; parties  may not exceed 5 hours in length and must end by 1 AM. [Subby note: 5 hours? That's nothing. 1AM? Crap, last call at the bars is 1:30 or 1:45]

- Alcohol  may not be served an hour prior to the end of the event. [Subby note: I'm sure the bars and SLOPD will love this. Everyone will leave the frat party, drive drunk down town, so they can drink for another 90 minutes]

These two seem like the biggest issue.  That's going to result in drunk driving.  This is why we needed a federal drinking law, to prevent kids from hopping state lines in order to drink and then crashing on the way home.  We don't need the equivalent at campus parties!

Everything else is about protecting people at the party, mostly by preventing parties from happening or by preventing people from getting drunk.  None of this will succeed; I went to a school with a dry campus, and we got wasted in one of two ways:

1.  We broke the rules and got drunk on campus, in walking distance of water and our beds, and with fairly reliable sources of help as needed.
2.  We went off-campus and got drunk, then needed someone to drive us home (hopefully sober; I always brought a mormon).   Chances are this increases the amount of drunk driving, because sometimes students will make a bad call.  Then they get to survive that bad call, because they usually do, and go on to assume that they can drink and drive in the future and be OK.  Lovely.

Honestly, it seems like the thing the university should focus on is providing support and education.  If you've got lots of people receiving a small discount on housing in exchange for taking a class on how to deal with alcohol issues, you've got a hoard who can assist when things go south.  If you spend some money to get an on-call nurse, you've got someone to deal with emergencies quickly.  This doesn't seem out of the budget for a large school, especially.  You can't keep college kids ...


It's even worse than that... I'm trying to find it (perhaps it was struck in the final draft), but it was very clear that fraternities would be held liable if they took a kid to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. The only way they would not get in trouble was if they could PROVE that the kid was drunk BEFORE arriving at the party. If that is an incentive to not get medical care for a kid dying of alcohol poisoning, I don't know what is.
 
2014-02-26 12:22:36 AM

TuteTibiImperes: SkyFlyer: TuteTibiImperes: Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.

If you read the rules, they specifically target parties thrown fraternities/sororities affiliated with the school.  In exchange for being a registered student organization, they agree to abide by the school's policies.

The rules apply to Kappa Alpha having a party at their frat house, not Tim and Eric throwing a shindig at their off-campus apartment.

There's nothing in the rules that remotely violates federal law.

You would be correct if those rules only applied to students in fraternities. However, take someone like me. I have friends in frats. However, I'm not in a frat. I get invited to a frat party. I attend. The school now knows. That is an extreme overreach.

It's not an overreach at all. You choose to attend a party run by an organization subject to regulation by the school, you choose to be subject to the rules the school has placed on that organization.  The school isn't decreeing that you provide the details of your attendance, but rather that the organization hosting the event provide the details of who attended.

Because the school regulates the fraternity, they can do that.   It's fully within your rights to choose not to attend such parties.

If the school started requiring that individual students keep attendance records of off-campus parties which weren't in any way associated with or run under the auspices of a student organization affiliated with the school, that would be a gross overreach. That, however, isn't what's happening here.


Ah right. I chose to own a cell phone. I chose to use it by a carrier that uses a spectrum regulated by the FCC. Therefore the NSA is allowed to see who I spoke with and for how long, because the FCC and NSA are both government organizations.

I like the way you think.
 
2014-02-26 12:22:37 AM
My school's policy was

"We try to ensure all first years have the option to live in dorms but demand is high so make sure you apply early or you're on your own finding a place in London. Students in Second Year and on can apply to live in dorms if they agree to do chores, but don't get your hopes up and it's for one year only. Here's a list of known terrible private landlords - we recommend you avoid them"

(Dorm rent was about half the going rate for private rentals and you didn't have bills or douchy landlords to worry about)
 
2014-02-26 12:23:03 AM
If it weren't for my horse...
 
2014-02-26 12:23:04 AM
Compared to the minimum security prison like environment that is Bob Jones or Liberty, this looks like intervention by Mom.
 
2014-02-26 12:24:12 AM

SkyFlyer: worlddan: SkyFlyer: hey actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights

That's true but it's besides the point because the rules do not actually abridge the bill of rights. Which Amendment? Not the 4th. The 4A only applies to the state's police power. Are these rules to be enforced by the police? No. Then no 4A for you.

The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government -- not just publicly funded security forces (aka police). A private university would be within their rights to do this. A publicly funded one, not so much.


As I said, you have been misinformed. Maybe that is what the 4A should say but it is not what it in fact does say. The 4A at the time it was passed and has always been understood since that time to apply only to criminal not civil actions. This is one of the most basic distinctions in the law.
 
2014-02-26 12:24:20 AM

worlddan: TuteTibiImperes: I think the law may not allow the school to demand guest lists for events held off campus and not run by affiliated student organizations.

Sure but that is not what is at stake in this case. What is pissing the OP off is precisely the fact the the school is demanding this information in order to become an affiliated organization.

BTW, here is the actual policy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206830577/Cal-Poly-Party-Registration-Poli cy

It clearly only applies to university affiliated organizations.


Where did I say otherwise? I even attached a link to the policy on scribd (it's embedded in the mustang news link I posted above). Find a better way to get your "Ah hah!" moment than reposting what I already have.
 
2014-02-26 12:24:50 AM

SkyFlyer: Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.


Really?  It sounds like you're familiar with this specifically, I'm wondering if you can provide an specific details/citations?  I'm not an attorney, but it surprises me that "If you choose to join this organization, you agree to abide by these rules" would be unconstitutional.

I mean, one can be fired from government jobs for conduct otherwise covered by BoR.
 
2014-02-26 12:26:44 AM

worlddan: SkyFlyer: worlddan: SkyFlyer: hey actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights

That's true but it's besides the point because the rules do not actually abridge the bill of rights. Which Amendment? Not the 4th. The 4A only applies to the state's police power. Are these rules to be enforced by the police? No. Then no 4A for you.

The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government -- not just publicly funded security forces (aka police). A private university would be within their rights to do this. A publicly funded one, not so much.

As I said, you have been misinformed. Maybe that is what the 4A should say but it is not what it in fact does say. The 4A at the time it was passed and has always been understood since that time to apply only to criminal not civil actions. This is one of the most basic distinctions in the law.


Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri
 
2014-02-26 12:27:24 AM

udhq: SkyFlyer: Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.

Really?  It sounds like you're familiar with this specifically, I'm wondering if you can provide an specific details/citations?  I'm not an attorney, but it surprises me that "If you choose to join this organization, you agree to abide by these rules" would be unconstitutional.

I mean, one can be fired from government jobs for conduct otherwise covered by BoR.


I never joined the organization.
 
2014-02-26 12:28:40 AM

Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.


Well... first, remember that it's the government that is deciding who can drink on any property. The university just enforces it as policy. If they didn't, local cops would be on campus every night, and in droves every extended weekend night.

But to your main point: yes, people go for it. And research shows that resident students score higher than commuter students in academic success, involvement, and measures of personal development. Of course it's more complicated than that, but this is a thread comment and not a graduate thesis paper. I did try to provide links, but my computer is currently in "suck mode," and not in a good way. Thanks Dell, thanks Microsoft.

And, although it's unheard of on Fark: restrictions on alcohol are not a major deal for most students. Partly because there's always a party somewhere despite the rules. But mainly because, and the mainscream media notwithstanding, alcohol is just not an important part of a majority of students' lives. Again, I'd source it but... Well, you can google university alcohol surveys, just be sure to skip the links to media reports and find primary sources.
 
2014-02-26 12:29:58 AM
Hey, I went to Cal Poly in Pomona.

Definitely not a party school. You go there when you decide to give up on your dreams.
 
2014-02-26 12:31:22 AM

brimed03: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

Well... first, remember that it's the government that is deciding who can drink on any property. The university just enforces it as policy. If they didn't, local cops would be on campus every night, and in droves every extended weekend night.


Sorry, but local cops can't just come onto a private property and start dictating who can drink what on a private property. Not without a warrant or actively seeing a law being broken, anyway.
 
2014-02-26 12:32:24 AM

Dadoody: Hey, I went to Cal Poly in Pomona.

Definitely not a party school. You go there when you decide to give up on your dreams.


I'm sorry... We're talking about the Real Cal Poly™  here... :P
 
2014-02-26 12:34:30 AM

Target Builder: My school's policy was

"We try to ensure all first years have the option to live in dorms but demand is high so make sure you apply early or you're on your own finding a place in London. Students in Second Year and on can apply to live in dorms if they agree to do chores, but don't get your hopes up and it's for one year only. Here's a list of known terrible private landlords - we recommend you avoid them"

(Dorm rent was about half the going rate for private rentals and you didn't have bills or douchy landlords to worry about)


My school's policy is - we have a dorm if you would like, if you were new to urban living we recommend it. Also, we have RA staff and all that fun stuff, but it is not required. However, it is more expensive than any housing you'd find on your own, so we suggest you go that route (and we don't have enough room for everyone). We'll do our best to point you in the right direction. Have fun. We're not responsible if you get bedbugs.
 
2014-02-26 12:34:35 AM

SkyFlyer: udhq: SkyFlyer: Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.

Really?  It sounds like you're familiar with this specifically, I'm wondering if you can provide an specific details/citations?  I'm not an attorney, but it surprises me that "If you choose to join this organization, you agree to abide by these rules" would be unconstitutional.

I mean, one can be fired from government jobs for conduct otherwise covered by BoR.

I never joined the organization.


Oh, my apologies, I must have been mistaken.  I thought your profile said you were a student there.

Carry on.
 
2014-02-26 12:35:18 AM

SkyFlyer: TuteTibiImperes: SkyFlyer: TuteTibiImperes: Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.

If you read the rules, they specifically target parties thrown fraternities/sororities affiliated with the school.  In exchange for being a registered student organization, they agree to abide by the school's policies.

The rules apply to Kappa Alpha having a party at their frat house, not Tim and Eric throwing a shindig at their off-campus apartment.

There's nothing in the rules that remotely violates federal law.

You would be correct if those rules only applied to students in fraternities. However, take someone like me. I have friends in frats. However, I'm not in a frat. I get invited to a frat party. I attend. The school now knows. That is an extreme overreach.

It's not an overreach at all. You choose to attend a party run by an organization subject to regulation by the school, you choose to be subject to the rules the school has placed on that organization.  The school isn't decreeing that you provide the details of your attendance, but rather that the organization hosting the event provide the details of who attended.

Because the school regulates the fraternity, they can do that.   It's fully within your rights to choose not to attend such parties.

If the school started requiring that individual students keep attendance records of off-campus parties which weren't in any way associated with or run under the auspices of a student organization affiliated with the school, that would be a gross overreach. That, however, isn't what's happening here.

Ah right. I chose to own a cell phone. I chose to use it by a carrier that uses a spectrum regulated by the FCC. Therefore the NSA is allowed to see who I spoke wit ...


A better way to think about it is:

My  boss has the right to read my e-mail in my company account whether I'm using it at work or at home.  If you e-mail me on my company account, my boss has the right to read that e-mail too even if you don't work for my company.
 
2014-02-26 12:39:07 AM
This kind of bothered me:

FTFA: (ASI) President Jason Colombini said one ASI Board of Directors member told him she didn't consider going to schools without vibrant greek life. He compared it to Cal Poly Athletics, which attracts otherwise intelligent students interested in playing for or rooting on Division I sports teams.

If you're picking a school (a school, mind you) based on the party scene or sports, do you really need to enroll?  Why not just move to an area you like and get a job?  You'll be much better off financially, at least in the short term.  If after a few years of partying you settle down and feel that your long-term goals might be better served with more education, go for it.

The idea that college is an experience to be had for the sake of having it is silly.  College is expensive.  If you're going to invest in something you should try to maximize the payoff.  The idea that you have to go straight from high school to college is also kind of silly.  If you're not ready for college (in the educational sense), then wait.

If people didn't treat college like an extension of high school and refuse to accept adult responsibility then colleges wouldn't feel the need to act like parents.  It's a waste of everyone's time and energy, but telling the schools to simply back off won't solve the underlying issues.  Personally I would just let the students who aren't really interested fail on their own and drop out - let them cut their losses.  It's not like they can't try again after they've grown up a bit.
 
2014-02-26 12:40:59 AM

udhq: SkyFlyer: udhq: SkyFlyer: Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.

Really?  It sounds like you're familiar with this specifically, I'm wondering if you can provide an specific details/citations?  I'm not an attorney, but it surprises me that "If you choose to join this organization, you agree to abide by these rules" would be unconstitutional.

I mean, one can be fired from government jobs for conduct otherwise covered by BoR.

I never joined the organization.

Oh, my apologies, I must have been mistaken.  I thought your profile said you were a student there.

Carry on.


As stated above, students do not lose their Constitutional rights when attending school. High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either, however, their freedom of association and speech is still protected.

Additionally, that policy is has two parties: Cal Poly Administration, and the IFC. I am not a fraternity member ==> I did not agree to that policy. That policy is not between Cal Poly and Cal Poly students. Furthermore, I was admitted before the policy was put in place. They can't just force me to adhere to a new policy... This is why catalog rights exist.
 
2014-02-26 12:42:27 AM

TuteTibiImperes: It's not an overreach at all. You choose to attend a party run by an organization subject to regulation by the school, you choose to be subject to the rules the school has placed on that organization. The school isn't decreeing that you provide the details of your attendance, but rather that the organization hosting the event provide the details of who attended.

Because the school regulates the fraternity, they can do that. It's fully within your rights to choose not to attend such parties.


Yarp. The frat follows the school's regs, and the guests follow the frat's rules. Them's the breaks.

Also, the majority of universities in this region (giant state U all the way down to small, elite, urban schools) require at LEAST the Freshfolks to live in campus housing, minus special cases. Most students also choose to stay there through Sophomore year, too. It's just too convenient to let go of for a while.
 
2014-02-26 12:42:28 AM
I know it's a private University, but before people dial up the outrage, compare the BYU Honor Code.

Here's a few I can remember....

1. No alcohol in the residence, on or off campus, regardless of age.
2. No mixed sex roommates, unless married.
3.Landlords and places to live must come from a pre-approved list.
4. Cable service can only be through a pre negotiated "special" package.

Even having a girl in your bedroom for a minute to go over homework in the middle of the day, with the door wide open and your apartment full of other students to witness that you are doing nothing wrong can get you brought up on a violation (and possibly booted from school) if one of these uptight assholes reports you.

There are a bunch more I can't think of right now.
 
2014-02-26 12:45:39 AM
When internet viruses happen...Carnegie Mellon students figure out the cure...

Cal Poly...no problem.  I'm sure the students at West Virginia University will be more than happy to figure out a way around your problems.
 
2014-02-26 12:45:40 AM

fusillade762: If it weren't for my horse...


Goddammit so much.  Whaadayoumeanbythat?
 
2014-02-26 12:46:01 AM
TuteTibiImperes:

At the end of the day it's CYA for the school - they don't want someone to die from alcohol poisoning, get sexually assaulted, or drive drunk and hit somebody in any way related to the school officially.  If it happens at a party involving students at the school, but held off campus and not under the banner of any organization recognized by the school, it's easier for the school to distance itself.

Actually, if an university establishes rules and then fails to enforce them it will open them up to greater liability.  And, if the fraternity or sorority house is located off campus, on private property, than they university has no authority to enforce rules there.  In fact, they cannot even enter such off campus houses without a warrant.  Attorney:  "So you passed regulations giving parents a false sense of security for their children, but knew all along that you couldn't enforce them? And, their son passed out in the snow and froze to death while attempting to walk home? In freezing temperatures? without a coat, after drinking shots?"  Jury: "$$$$$!"

As a former member of a fraternity, I have always held the position that colleges and universities should refuse to recognize fraternities and sororities as student organizations.  They do it by passing a rule that prohibits any student organization from discriminating against any member based on sex.  Fraternities and sororities are single-sex organizations, so they would be excluded.  Of course, this wouldn't prohibit the existence of fraternities or sororities.  However, the university wouldn't have to worry about any liability due to their actions, and the organizations wouldn't have to worry about the university passing all sorts of rules targeting them, that don't apply to any other student organization.  Any fraternity or sorority wishing to use university property, such as a meeting room, would have to lease it just like any other unrecognized organization. And, they university could set any regulations on rented rooms, including excluding all alcoholic beverages.  If they did this they would be liability free, and fraternities could set their own rules, just like all the students that host house parties that are not affiliated with a fraternity.
 
2014-02-26 12:46:11 AM

SkyFlyer: Subby here. I actually go here. I'm not involved in the Greek life (which is what the majority of these rules pertain to). That being said, name me a University (public) that forces sophomores to live on campus. Or transfer students. I won't hold my breath. I was a 21 year old sophomore, by the way. Fat chance I'd be forced to live on campus in dorms, let alone a dry campus.


Ohio State
 
2014-02-26 12:46:28 AM

Pokey.Clyde: Flab: And people go for it? Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Kind of have to, or they won't admit you or will kick you out. Also, there are colleges/universities that forbid freshmen from having a car.

Of course, there are ways around this if you're willing to fight or otherwise raise a stink. My school was one that mandated all freshmen live on campus, and I was told there were no exceptions. I told them I had a full time job, had already been living on my own for 6+ months, and would not live on campus nor buy a meal plan. And you know what? I kept living on my own and buying my food wherever the hell I wanted. I was there on scholarship, so that might have helped me out. I don't really know. But it is possible. It just depends on how much of a fight you are willing to put up.


Often there's no need to "fight."

Hollywood portrayals notwithstanding, college administrators generally want to help. And the closer the department is to having daily student contact-- like Housing and Residence Life folks-- the truer that generally is.

It also helps to assume the best, that the policies are there for a good reason; and then calmly and rationally explain why the general policy doesn't apply to your unique situation. You'd be surprised at how often this gets you what you want in higher ed.

A negative response sometimes indicates that you are talking to the wrong person, or the right person on a bad day. More often, it's a sign that you're trying to be a special snowflake. Yes, even you.

/no, you don't need a car on campus because you work at the ice creamery in your town on weekends. There are lots of jobs available around campus and the college town. Changing where you live in life often entails changing other things too.
//I don't care that Daddy bought you a BMW SUV for high school graduation. Not a reason for a parking exception. Wait, I do care actually: is Daddy adopting?
 
2014-02-26 12:49:12 AM

eajc4f: TuteTibiImperes: It's not an overreach at all. You choose to attend a party run by an organization subject to regulation by the school, you choose to be subject to the rules the school has placed on that organization. The school isn't decreeing that you provide the details of your attendance, but rather that the organization hosting the event provide the details of who attended.

Because the school regulates the fraternity, they can do that. It's fully within your rights to choose not to attend such parties.

Yarp. The frat follows the school's regs, and the guests follow the frat's rules. Them's the breaks.

Also, the majority of universities in this region (giant state U all the way down to small, elite, urban schools) require at LEAST the Freshfolks to live in campus housing, minus special cases. Most students also choose to stay there through Sophomore year, too. It's just too convenient to let go of for a while.


Let's assume your point has validity. The problem still exists... what if I have 3 friends over from the same frat? We start pounding vodka. Depending on who the "observer" is, this could be a fraternity party. To an unbiased observer? probably not. To someone in admin who has a power boner? probably.
 
2014-02-26 12:51:22 AM

llortcM_yllort: SkyFlyer: Subby here. I actually go here. I'm not involved in the Greek life (which is what the majority of these rules pertain to). That being said, name me a University (public) that forces sophomores to live on campus. Or transfer students. I won't hold my breath. I was a 21 year old sophomore, by the way. Fat chance I'd be forced to live on campus in dorms, let alone a dry campus.

Ohio State


Holy crap! Is it 2016 already? /s

Not yet. And the idea will probably get scrapped. Good try though.
 
2014-02-26 12:54:00 AM

SkyFlyer:

Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri


Stop pulling shiat off of Ron Paul's website and educate yourself. Tinker relates to k-12 education and has nothing to do with post-secondary education. Under the law you have a right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in K-12. You have no such right to a post secondary education.  Papish in a 1A case not a 4A case, and once again has nothing to do with the polices you are complaining about.
 

SkyFlyer: High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Appropriate_Public_Education

Yes, high school is a RIGHT

I'm outta here, you have to be trolling Skylark.
 
2014-02-26 12:54:07 AM

Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.


I think colleges have found that there is a much higher drop-out rate among those initially living off campus, maybe because they can't handle drink or drugs.

Yale: "Freshmen and sophomores are required to live on campus unless they are married or are at least twenty-one years of age."

then again there are economic screwups which tends to more leniency such as at the newly built UC Merced:

"Due to the United States housing bubble, and high costs of bond-funded student housing ($13,720 on-campus compared to $7,000 off campus), many students choose to live in new housing subdivisions and McMansions outside of campus. The Cattracks transit system serves student-dense developments"
 
2014-02-26 12:54:50 AM
This is simple, just include every member of the faculty on the guest list. Have a drunken party busted by the police? Well, the Dean was there, just ask him! He was on the guest list after all!
 
2014-02-26 12:57:35 AM

Gyrfalcon: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

Well, it only works if they can GUARANTEE incoming freshmen dorm space; not all colleges can do that. And they also then have to pay for kids who would otherwise find cheaper off-campus housing their first year.

All it really does is ensure kids run amok their second year instead of freshman year.


True. But at least they've lost some of their naivete, and gained knowledge about campus layouts and resources. Makes them a little less vulnerable to upperclass predators when they do run amok.
 
2014-02-26 12:57:38 AM
SkyFlyer:
It's even worse than that... I'm trying to find it (perhaps it was struck in the final draft), but it was very clear that fraternities would be held liable if they took a kid to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. The only way they would not get in trouble was if they could PROVE that the kid was drunk BEFORE arriving at the party. If that is an incentive to not get medical care for a kid dying of alcohol poisoning, I don't know what is.

And that's a recipe for killing some students.  Seriously?  My school had an amnesty policy that protected those who chose to seek help; I think this is vital to keeping students' alive.  I know a guy who fell down the stairs wasted and slammed his head; if the students around him had held back on calling for help...
 
2014-02-26 12:57:42 AM

SkyFlyer: As stated above, students do not lose their Constitutional rights when attending school. High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either, however, their freedom of association and speech is still protected.

Additionally, that policy is has two parties: Cal Poly Administration, and the IFC. I am not a fraternity member ==> I did not agree to that policy. That policy is not between Cal Poly and Cal Poly students. Furthermore, I was admitted before the policy was put in place. They can't just force me to adhere to a new policy... This is why catalog rights exist.


Well, yes, unfortunately, "at-will" students do forfeit some of their constitutional rights, as do at-will employees.

But in this case, I believe you're fighting the good fight.  Right on, man.
 
2014-02-26 01:00:19 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: I have no problem with the on-campus living. It's pretty common. Alcohol can be a problem, but I recall a push a few years ago by university presidents to return the drinking age to 18 to reduce the problems they have with underage drinking.


The main problem, depending on where the school is located, is that they charge you much more money to live on campus than you would have to pay to live in similar conditions off campus. And then stick their nose in your business anyways. I think one "out" is to just get kicked out of the dorms, then you'll pretty much have to find an apartment.

/worked for my brother, anyhow...
 
2014-02-26 01:00:28 AM

Omnivorous: In loco parentis: I thought that Purdue was the last to fall in the 1970s.

But Cal Poly???


There are still schools, religious and secular, with parietals. I consider that an _in loco_ holdover.
 
2014-02-26 01:01:54 AM

worlddan: SkyFlyer:

Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri

Stop pulling shiat off of Ron Paul's website and educate yourself. Tinker relates to k-12 education and has nothing to do with post-secondary education. Under the law you have a right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in K-12. You have no such right to a post secondary education.  Papish in a 1A case not a 4A case, and once again has nothing to do with the polices you are complaining about.
 

SkyFlyer: High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Appropriate_Public_Education

Yes, high school is a RIGHT

I'm outta here, you have to be trolling Skylark.


LOL. You are trolling:

Free Appropriate Public Education, or FAPE, is an educational right of children with disabilities in the United States... (quoted directly from your link).
 
2014-02-26 01:02:17 AM

ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.


And you know this from what professional experience or reviewed study?
 
2014-02-26 01:06:11 AM

HairBolus: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

I think colleges have found that there is a much higher drop-out rate among those initially living off campus, maybe because they can't handle drink or drugs.

Yale: "Freshmen and sophomores are required to live on campus unless they are married or are at least twenty-one years of age."

then again there are economic screwups which tends to more leniency such as at the newly built UC Merced:

"Due to the United States housing bubble, and high costs of bond-funded student housing ($13,720 on-campus compared to $7,000 off campus), many students choose to live in new housing subdivisions and McMansions outside of campus. The Cattracks transit system serves student-dense developments"


Yale is private.


udhq: SkyFlyer: As stated above, students do not lose their Constitutional rights when attending school. High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either, however, their freedom of association and speech is still protected.

Additionally, that policy is has two parties: Cal Poly Administration, and the IFC. I am not a fraternity member ==> I did not agree to that policy. That policy is not between Cal Poly and Cal Poly students. Furthermore, I was admitted before the policy was put in place. They can't just force me to adhere to a new policy... This is why catalog rights exist.

Well, yes, unfortunately, "at-will" students do forfeit some of their constitutional rights, as do at-will employees.

But in this case, I believe you're fighting the good fight.  Right on, man.


Thank you for your support. But you are wrong. Students, "at-will" or not, do not forfeit some of their constitutional rights.

"Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. " -- Justice Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines
 
2014-02-26 01:08:32 AM
My own school was completely dry (except for the President's house, which was allowed to have alcohol for the purpose of parties, but only with board approval). They didn't allow mixed-gender housing, and they had a whole dorm that was female-only with a special curfew for men. Greeks weren't allowed to recruit freshmen or have freshmen at parties until their second semester.

Frankly, I was OK with that. The frats were just about the most disgusting and irresponsible groups in town. One frat was cited for having underage drinking so the school required them to have designated sober hosts at all their parties that would check ID and watch out for dangerous behavior. A few months later, a drunk underage freshman took a swan dive down a stairwell during rush week and ended up paralyzed. The school suspended their charter for five years (the idea being that all of the current students would have to leave before they could resume normal activities), but later had to expel some of their members who were continuing to host greek-type recruiting and events. In general, they were a lot of blowhards who couldn't smell how much their shiat stank.

I had some friends who lived in a female-only dorm at a different college, and they had an actual matron who would call the cops when she found men. People want all kind of things.
 
2014-02-26 01:09:07 AM

brimed03: ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.

And you know this from what professional experience or reviewed study?


The issue with saying that on-campus students do better is that *they chose to be on campus.* It's not that being on campus makes them do better, it's that the students who chose to live on campus are also those who chose to study over party.
 
2014-02-26 01:09:14 AM
CAL poly SLO is probably the hardest school in Ca to get into. They could probably require students to live on campus all 6 years and still turn down 70% of applicants.

If you dont like it, you might be able to still get into questa.
 
2014-02-26 01:09:22 AM

SkyFlyer: Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri


You're missing  worlddan's point.  The point is not that the Bill of Rights do not apply to public universities, it is that the fourth amendment does not apply to civil actions.  He's arguing that the school is in the right even though you possess rights under the fourth amendment because fourth amendment rights do not apply if there is no criminal action.  Honeycutt v. Aetna Insurance Company is an example of this phenomenon, even if it doesn't quite pertain to the issue at hand (IANAL, so it might be a bad exmple).  Fourth amendment trials only apply to criminal or quasi-criminal trials, at least according to case law, so it doesn't apply when a college wants to have a closer view over fraternities.
 
2014-02-26 01:10:44 AM
The only thing I have to contribute to this thread is an amusing second-hand story from a friend that registered for college on his GI bill after finishing a quick but exciting career as the pointy end of our nation.  He'd been stationed stateside for the last year, married, and had a baby girl so new the tags weren't off yet.

A week before his first quarter starts, he gets an official looking nasty-gram about being required to live in student housing with the rest of the freshmen.  Ignores it.

Two days into the quarter, somebody from student services interrupts the afternoon lecture he's in, calls for him by name from the front of the lecture hall, and pulls him out of the room.  Tells him that he has 24 hours to register for student housing and move in or he'll be expelled.

He explained to them that his wife, baby daughter, and employer would all be extremely irritated if he was forced to move out of the house he was paying for with a full-time job and into, and I quote as he quoted, a "moldy dorm room painted with decades worth of desperate midnight spooge of pathetic man-children."

Matter closed. :D
 
2014-02-26 01:11:15 AM

SeaMan Stainz: CAL poly SLO is probably the hardest school in Ca to get into. They could probably require students to live on campus all 6 years and still turn down 70% of applicants.

If you dont like it, you might be able to still get into questa.


They already turn down like 70% of applications (I believe 45,000 applied, and only 13,000 admitted, of which ~4,000 enrolled). However, I believe that the student/alum who made the Weeners on that article makes a fairly good case about the state of Cal Poly. It's not going to be a great school in 5-10 years if things keep going in this direction.
 
2014-02-26 01:12:33 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: I have no problem with the on-campus living. It's pretty common. Alcohol can be a problem, but I recall a push a few years ago by university presidents to return the drinking age to 18 to reduce the problems they have with underage drinking.


...by *some* university presidents. Currently more against it than for it. It's a complicated question with no definitive research to help.

It's also fair game to question the motives of at least some of these presidents. A lowered drinking age would solve a lot of administrative problems without necessarily being best for the students.

/Used to be against it. Then for it. Currently, and wisely I think, undecided.
//alcohol and young adults is a verrry complicated question with almost no definitive research
 
2014-02-26 01:18:21 AM

wambu: There was a bar in the student union where I attended university. We had legal keggers in the dorm. Every Friday and Saturday there were alcohol-fueled fraternity parties.

Now the campus is dry.

/pussies


Golly, reading that makes me wonder why they ever closed the campus bar.

I used to oversee a student-run campus bar. It did well. Around the same time, another local U. closed their campus bar after (a) a girl slipped on the beer-drenched floor and later sued and (b) the local cops raided the place *without an advanced courtesy call to campus police* and arrested several underage drinkers and the whole student bar staff for serving them.
 
2014-02-26 01:18:43 AM

Flab: And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.


My college did that. (It  was in the middle of nowhere, but the magical train stopped running back in the fifties.) It was no big deal. They had all three kinds of housing: unbelievably shiatty dorms, unbelievably shiatty apartments, and "nice" apartments that were actually quite shiatty except by the standards of a 20-year-old.  It was a private school, though, so HERE'S WHERE YOU CAN SHOVE YOUR PRECIOUS CONSTITUTION!

In all seriousness, though, since there were no alternatives in town, nobody really cared. I've lived in big university towns ever since graduating, and constitutional issues aside, I don't think there's much of a case to be made for the superior quality of off-campus housing.
 
2014-02-26 01:20:42 AM

llortcM_yllort: SkyFlyer: Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri

You're missing  worlddan's point.  The point is not that the Bill of Rights do not apply to public universities, it is that the fourth amendment does not apply to civil actions.  He's arguing that the school is in the right even though you possess rights under the fourth amendment because fourth amendment rights do not apply if there is no criminal action.  Honeycutt v. Aetna Insurance Company is an example of this phenomenon, even if it doesn't quite pertain to the issue at hand (IANAL, so it might be a bad exmple).  Fourth amendment trials only apply to criminal or quasi-criminal trials, at least according to case law, so it doesn't apply when a college wants to have a closer view over fraternities.

Honeycutt v. Aetna Insurance Company

is a bad example as Aetna is not a publicly funded organization.

The fourth amendment rights do apply if there is no criminal action. Civil action is certainly a grayer area than criminal action, but there is precedence that it applies in civil action.

See a paper from the Duke Law Journal from 1963: "It is seen that the role played by the fourth amendment has undergone radical expansion in the criminal area of the law and that the fourth  amendment plays a definite role  in certain civil proceedings." and "It may reasonably be anticipated that the fourth amendment's role in civil cases will undergo further expansion in the future"

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1866&con te xt=dlj

Now, you may argue that, as in the majority opinion of Katz, I do not have an expectation of privacy as I entered the house hosting the party through the front door... but that might be a bit of a stretch. Again, one of those gray areas.
 
2014-02-26 01:20:52 AM

meddleRPI: Smeggy Smurf: ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.

What about orphans?  Or somebody that moves to the city, buys a single wide trailer and lives in it?  The university is farked when that hits the court system.

Any student who is no longer a dependent is free from those restrictions.

Seriously, this has been a standard policy for a decade or two at almost every university. Unless you can commute, you live on campus. And there's no constitutional barrier, because your matriculation in the school is a contract accepting those policies.


Do you work at RPI?

I feel like Fark attracts a lot of university administrators. Probably a relief valve for all the snark that gets bottled up during the workday.
 
2014-02-26 01:21:52 AM

SkyFlyer: It's not going to be a great school in 5-10 years if things keep going in this direction.


How is that? As far as academic outcomes, fraternity members perform below their peers.

Most people don't really care whether or not a school has greek life.

Parents like to send their kids to schools where they feel they'll stay out of trouble.
 
2014-02-26 01:23:23 AM
*sigh*

Let me guess. The mandatory "Alcohol Awareness" course you're forced to take are totally included in your tuition. They'll show "Clean and Sober", "28 Days" and have some some loser's tell his sob story about plowing Daddy's BMW into a school bus of Jerry's Kids.

Schools DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR LIFE. Bad publicity on the other hand is another thing.
 
2014-02-26 01:24:36 AM

SkyFlyer: llortcM_yllort: SkyFlyer: Subby here. I actually go here. I'm not involved in the Greek life (which is what the majority of these rules pertain to). That being said, name me a University (public) that forces sophomores to live on campus. Or transfer students. I won't hold my breath. I was a 21 year old sophomore, by the way. Fat chance I'd be forced to live on campus in dorms, let alone a dry campus.

Ohio State

Holy crap! Is it 2016 already? /s

Not yet. And the idea will probably get scrapped. Good try though.


Fine, maybe the first Google result was wrong.  I apologize for my laziness.  How about Illinois State, Miami University, Ohio University, or Western Kentucky?   There are quite a few public universities that force sophomores to live on campus.  I'm not sure why  this comes as a shock to you.
 
2014-02-26 01:26:04 AM

Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.


This is why I never worked at the publics. Here you're trying to help a student develop and they whack you with some obscure state law.

Sometimes working in education just sucks.

/yes, I know, I sound like a power-tripping Nazi with overcompensation issues.
//I've heard it all and it's not any more clever when you say it.
 
2014-02-26 01:26:48 AM

Fubini: SkyFlyer: It's not going to be a great school in 5-10 years if things keep going in this direction.

How is that? As far as academic outcomes, fraternity members perform below their peers.

Most people don't really care whether or not a school has greek life.

Parents like to send their kids to schools where they feel they'll stay out of trouble.


I'm not going to copy pasta that person's comment. Go to the link and read the Weeners. I think (s)he makes a good case
 
2014-02-26 01:31:23 AM

llortcM_yllort: SkyFlyer: llortcM_yllort: SkyFlyer: Subby here. I actually go here. I'm not involved in the Greek life (which is what the majority of these rules pertain to). That being said, name me a University (public) that forces sophomores to live on campus. Or transfer students. I won't hold my breath. I was a 21 year old sophomore, by the way. Fat chance I'd be forced to live on campus in dorms, let alone a dry campus.

Ohio State

Holy crap! Is it 2016 already? /s

Not yet. And the idea will probably get scrapped. Good try though.

Fine, maybe the first Google result was wrong.  I apologize for my laziness.  How about Illinois State, Miami University, Ohio University, or Western Kentucky?   There are quite a few public universities that force sophomores to live on campus.  I'm not sure why  this comes as a shock to you.


Illinois state: First two years out of high school, NOT freshman and sophomores (technicality, I'll grant you that).
Miami Ohio: Valid
WKU: Also valid, although I think it's funny that "a fee of $1,000 is assessed per semester to students who are in non-compliance with this policy."

Seems like they're in it for the money, not the student's well being.

Regardless, I'm surprised they don't get called out on that more (although it does seem to be a midwest thing).
 
2014-02-26 01:32:43 AM
The college where I graduated was indeed out in the middle of nowhere and I'm pretty sure everyone HAD to live on campus -- because if you weren't on campus you were in an Ohio cornfield.

Go Lords!
 
2014-02-26 02:35:16 AM

worlddan: As I said, you have been misinformed. Maybe that is what the 4A should say but it is not what it in fact does say. The 4A at the time it was passed and has always been understood since that time to apply only to criminal not civil actions. This is one of the most basic distinctions in the law.


The 5th isn't even arguably so encumbered, but also provides an obstacle to a school receiving public funding.
 
2014-02-26 02:37:46 AM

SkyFlyer: llortcM_yllort: SkyFlyer: Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri

You're missing  worlddan's point.  The point is not that the Bill of Rights do not apply to public universities, it is that the fourth amendment does not apply to civil actions.  He's arguing that the school is in the right even though you possess rights under the fourth amendment because fourth amendment rights do not apply if there is no criminal action.  Honeycutt v. Aetna Insurance Company is an example of this phenomenon, even if it doesn't quite pertain to the issue at hand (IANAL, so it might be a bad exmple).  Fourth amendment trials only apply to criminal or quasi-criminal trials, at least according to case law, so it doesn't apply when a college wants to have a closer view over fraternities.

Honeycutt v. Aetna Insurance Company is a bad example as Aetna is not a publicly funded organization.

The fourth amendment rights do apply if there is no criminal action. Civil action is certainly a grayer area than criminal action, but there is precedence that it applies in civil action.

See a paper from the Duke Law Journal from 1963: "It is seen that the role played by the fourth amendment has undergone radical expansion in the criminal area of the law and that the fourth  amendment plays a definite role  in certain civil proceedings." and "It may reasonably be anticipated that the fourth amendment's role in civil cases will undergo further expansion in the future"

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1866&con te xt=dlj

Now, you may argue that, as in the majority opinion of Katz, I do not have an expectation of privacy as I entered the house hosting the party through the front door... but that might be a bit of a stretch. Again, one of those gray areas.


Let's look at that in context. shall we?

It is seen that the role played by the fourth amendment has undergone radical expansion in the criminal area of the law and that the fourth  amendment plays a definite role  in certain civil proceedings. The ability of the Internal Revenue Service to investigate is essential to the proper determination, assessment, and collection of taxes and an investigative civil summons has been likened unto a grand jury subpoena and equivalent to a search and seizure.  Prior to an investigation of barred years, the government has generally been required to show a probability of fraud or at least a suspicion of fraud on either section 7605(b) codal grounds or constitutional grounds under the fourth amendment.  Under certain narrow circumstances, the fourth amendment may also be utilized to render a civil tax assessment.  The fourth amendment does not guarantee a return of forfeited property and the forfeiture proceedings seem not to be affected by acquittal. It may reasonably be anticipated that the fourth amendment's role in civil cases will undergo further expansion in the future

Your source is about tax law.  The actions were considered subject to the fourth amendment because the actions of the IRS were likened to a grand jury subpeona.  This does not apply to frat guest lists.  However, after looking into it further, I'm not entirely sure if I can find evidence that the fourth amendment does not apply to non-police searches (I'm a little interested to hear what legal background worlddan has, because I can't seem to find any evidence supporting his original statements).   In fact, there are several instances where the university can not leverage its position to search student dorms even though they are the landlord.  I cannot imagine that these protections would disappear for fraternities since the university isn't even a landlord for these organizations.  Maybe the fact that it is an organization as opposed to an individual changes these requirements and the university can require consent in order to let these universities on campus.

Of course, this all assumes that what the university does constitute a search, and I don't think it does.  If what the university is doing is not a search, then the fourth amendment doesn't apply and this whole discussion is moot.

Anyways,  I have no clue what I'm talking about, and I probably shouldn't have started posting because of my ignorance.  Good night everybody!
 
2014-02-26 02:40:15 AM

SkyFlyer: High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either, however, their freedom of association and speech is still protected.


Perhaps not federally, but your mileage may vary at the state level.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter11/s11.13.html
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter11/s11.11.html
 
2014-02-26 02:42:22 AM

Fubini: SkyFlyer: It's not going to be a great school in 5-10 years if things keep going in this direction.

How is that? As far as academic outcomes, fraternity members perform below their peers.


They tend to out-donate their peers as alumni.
 
2014-02-26 02:53:10 AM
I'll take a stab at interpreting some of these from the university's perspective.  Don't hold the university to my opinion.  Caution: heavy editing to reduce wall-o-text.  Caution#2: Please take my snark as good-natured teasing.  That's all it is intended to be.

 - A fraternity party is "any event an observer would associate with the fraternity or sorority." (who's the observer? Someone in Admin, I'm sure).

Some college students live to find loopholes-- as you yourself noted.  Don't get butthurt when they preemptively close them!
Of course Admin will be the "observer."  You expected the Pope, maybe?

- No parties during Finals week.   [Subby note: Makes sense, but most people are done with finals on Wendesday... so they can't party until Saturday?]

This rule isn't about your finals/party schedule.  It's about the God-forsaken sod that does have Friday exams and needs to not have Joe Kegger drunk and screaming through the halls, paths, or streets at 2am.

- Parties only permitted on days when the next day is not a "school day"; parties may not exceed 5 hours in length and must end by 1 AM. [Subby note: 5 hours? That's nothing. 1AM? Crap, last call at the bars is 1:30 or 1:45]

Again, it's not about your party schedule.  Your schedule lets you party to 3am?  Great; but the ROTC men and women, or the junior working to put herself through school, or the senior with a crucial internship all have to be up at 5am.  The school has to balance competing needs.
Also, the school is probably looking at what time most of the "incidents" start, and IME those seriously crank up after 1:30am.

- "Day parties" must end by 8PM.

Closing a loophole.  C'mon, I didn't need to explain that one to you.

- Alcohol may not be served an hour prior to the end of the event. [Subby note: Everyone will drive drunk down town, so they can drink for another 90 minutes]

Good point.  I mean it.
This one is about liability control.  Remember that the next time your tuition goes up by 3% instead of 8%.
Oh, and expect lots of town cops outside the university gates and DUI arrests until students learn to walk and not drive.

- Individuals (fraternity members or not) of legal drinking age may bring beer totaling no more than 72 oz or one bottle (750ml) of wine.

LOL I can hear y'all cursing from the East Coast.
72oz is a standard six-pack.  "BInge drinking" is defined as (if I remember right) five 12oz drinks during the course of an evening/session.  This may seem ridiculous.  Or, maybe, it's time to reassess some of what you "know" about drinking.  *Shrug* college students and admins will always disagree on this one.  Admins have to stand on the side of research and liability prevention.

- At the party, no hard alcohol, squeeze bottles, water bottles... [Subby note: No water bottles? Sounds like a recipe for hangovers]

Really?  Really?  You know darned well what this one is about.  I'm a little disappointed in you for saying that; I thought you wanted to be taken seriously.
For the uninitiated: it's a loophole.  Students will put hard alcohol in water bottles and go to the party.  They're hard to regulate without an outright ban.

- All parties must be closed events with a guest list [subby note: what?]  no later than 24 hours before... no advertising... Guests marked off when they arrive... wristband system... recommended verification by hired security

I lumped these.  Not as much about killing the party scene as you think.  Definitely about liability control, and if you saw the absolute raft of lawsuits against U's all over the country from people whose kids were hurt/killed at unregulated campus parties, you'd sympathize more.
Also: about protecting the student hosts from what they don't know.  New Jersey, for example, has "social host" laws with such goodies as: if you unknowingly serve someone underage, you go to jail (goodbye police/law career); if someone hurts themselves after leaving your party, you can be sued on that basis and expect to lose; if someone comes to your party drunk and you let them in but refuse to serve them, and then they leave and hurt themselves, you can be sued and expect to lose.  Most students just think they're throwing a party.  No idea of the liabilities they expose themselves to.

- All parties under 100 people must be registered at least 5 business days... >100 people/10 days

Not about you.  Campus PD needs time to let their officers know what shifts they're working.  Campus PD may need to request security help from town cops if it's going to be a huge party.  These men and women have families, dude.  Have a heart.

 - follow up guest list must be submitted by Monday at 12 noon with the full names of all attendees and birthdates of all guests receiving wristbands. [Subby note: the school has no right to know...]

You got me, man.  I dunno why they required this.  So go ask.
Make an appointment with someone on the director/dean level, within the Dept of Student Affairs most likely, and ask.  Politely.  Interestedly.  Non-attackingly.  Student Affairs admins in particular tend to believe that the role of educating students goes beyond the classroom, and if you aren't being a d*ck or trying to "trap" them, they'll explain it to you.  Let them know in advance what you're going to ask so they don't feel like being ambushed.  And don't be a super-prick and run to the student paper afterwards, unless you told the admin in advance you might do that.  That's what discourages admins from talking honestly with students.
Oh: and yes, they do have a legal right to know.  Sorry.  "Unreasonable search and seizure" rules apply to law enforcement personnel, not university administrators.  Whether and why they have a genuine need to know, well, ask about that too!
 
2014-02-26 03:09:17 AM

brimed03: /no, you don't need a car on campus because you work at the ice creamery in your town on weekends. There are lots of jobs available around campus and the college town. Changing where you live in life often entails changing other things too.
//I don't care that Daddy bought you a BMW SUV for high school graduation. Not a reason for a parking exception. Wait, I do care actually: is Daddy adopting?


In case you missed it, I was working full-time (40+ hours/week) with a 60 mile round-trip drive every day. And the only jobs available in that college town usually paid about half what I was making, and a good chunk of those were usually part-time.

Oh, and I was driving a 1987 Ford Ranger with 180K miles on it. Not exactly a BMW SUV. Must suck to be such an assuming asshole.
 
2014-02-26 03:10:17 AM

SkyFlyer: sprgrss: and 4th amendment have nothing to do with this, dudebro.

Actually it does when the school is requiring that a list of all students attending fraternity parties be handed over to administration the next day.


As for on campus living requirements are standard. Sure. For freshman. Maybe. But 2nd years? And Transfers? hahahaha. Yeah find me an example, please.

udhq: Subby needs to read the part of the first amendment about freedom of association. No students are forced to attend this college, but when they do, they choose to abide by its rules. It's no different than choosing to join a church that restricts behavior in such a way that it would be unconstitutional if the government did it.

Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.


Deep breath... deep breath....  OK, look.  Any mall in America (except, apparently, Colorado and Oregon), you get caught by mall security "underage and in possession of liquor" (PULA), the cops get called, right?  You get cuffed, booked, a date for a court appearance, and a record that if you're lucky gets sealed when you're 18.

But, in most cases, that's not what happens if you get caught by campus security at a university.  Instead, you get referred to the campus judicial system.  You meet with an administrator instead of a judge, and you get a sanction that in most cases never leaves University records.

So why is that?  Legally speaking, how on earth did Universities get that right, which is considered by many to be a double standard that discriminates against young adults who are not in college-- and yet state and federal courts have upheld this system time and again?

Let that sink in and start asking questions about what "legal rights" Universities have instead of answering them based on your years of learning and experience as a college sophomore.

/you do remember that "sophomore" means "wise fool" and refers to someone who knows just enough to make a public spectacle of themselves?
//I'm really not trying to rile you up.  I'm trying to warn you, and to kick you into better critical thinking.
 
2014-02-26 03:19:58 AM

SkyFlyer: As for on campus living requirements are standard. Sure. For freshman. Maybe. But 2nd years? And Transfers? hahahaha. Yeah find me an example, please.


What exactly do you want here?  This wasn't a standard link you submitted.  It was a personal complaint that got greenlit.  Congrats.  Now what were you expecting?  All of Fark to echo your opinion that this is HORRIBLE and ILLEGAL?  You've been here long enough to know Fark doesn't work like that.  So what are you expecting?  What do you want?

If you really hate this policy, stop biatching and do something about it.  For example, Fark a little less and use the extra time to look up other schools' websites and policies.  Don't expect Fark to do it for you, we don't live at your school and we aren't butthurt about its policies.

I give you this much: there are plenty of other schools that require sophomores and transfers to live on campus.  Hell, I was both-- a transfer sophomore-- and was required to live on campus.
 
2014-02-26 03:26:20 AM

Ikam: Also, as a public institution, this will prove problematic.  Private schools can be as weird and despotic as they want depending on whether or not accept federal funding for financial aid, etc. (for frightening examples, see those weird right-wing Christian 'colleges'), but public schools?  Not so much.


The courts have given universities, both private and public, wide latitude with the policies they set with no effect on the federal funding they receive.  It's not blanket; for example, you can get federal funding or ignore Title IX, but not both.  Still, it's not as easy as saying "all your policies and procedures must be identical to non-university institutions or you lose funding."
 
2014-02-26 03:27:19 AM

Agent Smiths Laugh: Never ceases to amaze me how people would pay so much money to be tyrannized.


Right.  That's why Disneyland failed.  So costly, and all those farking rules.
 
2014-02-26 03:29:31 AM

zepher: Color me shocked that it is a Calif college that was trying to enforce these rules.

/liberals are all about choice, right?


Hear that sound?  That's a seal barking and clapping its flippers while it balances a ball its nose.  All for you.  Now go back to the Politics tab with your silly trolling.
 
2014-02-26 03:31:42 AM
SkyFlyer:
You would be correct if those rules only applied to students in fraternities. However, take someone like me. I have friends in frats. However, I'm not in a frat. I get invited to a frat party. I attend. The school now knows. That is an extreme overreach.

Nonsense.  You have the freedom to choose to NOT attend the party.  Then the school knows nothing.
 
2014-02-26 03:33:53 AM

TuteTibiImperes: worlddan: SkyFlyer: [Subby note: I'm not in a frat. However, the school has no right to know what parties I've attended, what I've had to drink, and where I've been. That is need to know information, and the school -- a publicly funded institution -- does not need to know]

The school does have that right under the law. You do not have a right to a post secondary education. I do not understand what is so hard to grasp about that concept. If you do not like it, leave.

Actually, they may not, depending on the situation.  The school could require a guest list for any event held on campus property.  A school could require a guest list for any event hosted or run by an affiliated student organization.  I think the law may not allow the school to demand guest lists for events held off campus and not run by affiliated student organizations.


But this is a school-affiliated organization: a campus-chapter fraternity.
 
2014-02-26 03:38:44 AM

SkyFlyer: worlddan: SkyFlyer: hey actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights

That's true but it's besides the point because the rules do not actually abridge the bill of rights. Which Amendment? Not the 4th. The 4A only applies to the state's police power. Are these rules to be enforced by the police? No. Then no 4A for you.

The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government -- not just publicly funded security forces (aka police). A private university would be within their rights to do this. A publicly funded one, not so much.


A fair point.  My colleagues who work in ResLife at public institutions have told me some stories about what they are/aren't allowed to do when it comes to inspecting student rooms.  BUT-- and here's the piss in your cereal bowl-- it's not campus police collecting the information, is it?  Because if it has to be sent to an administrator, that person is not law enforcement.

/you know how students search for loopholes in policies?  It works both ways.  The only difference being that administrators are usually trying to protect someone.  Yes, sometimes themselves.  More often, the institution.  Most often, the students.
 
2014-02-26 03:41:07 AM
Aestatis:
2.  We went off-campus and got drunk, then needed someone to drive us home (hopefully sober; I always brought a mormon).

"Funny"'d.
 
2014-02-26 03:48:41 AM

SkyFlyer: It was very clear that fraternities would be held liable if they took a kid to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. The only way they would not get in trouble was if they could PROVE that the kid was drunk BEFORE arriving at the party. If that is an incentive to not get medical care for a kid dying of alcohol poisoning, I don't know what is.


Oof.  Schools make a lot of hard choices when negotiating their liability exposure; this is not the choice I would have made or supported, but I understand it.

That policy will may change after the first student dies.  Or, there may be a reason you can't find it anymore; it may already have been changed.

However, note what I said in my earlier post about New Jersey social host laws.  There, too: unless you can PROVE that the person was drunk BEFORE arriving at the party-- AND can prove you didn't serve them anything at your party-- you will be sued and you will lose.  Sometimes what seems a "ridiculous" University rule in fact just mirrors what you'll face after graduation.
 
2014-02-26 03:50:02 AM

SkyFlyer: Ah right. I chose to own a cell phone. I chose to use it by a carrier that uses a spectrum regulated by the FCC. Therefore the NSA is allowed to see who I spoke wit ...


Leave off the reductio ad absurdum arguments.  They're a logical fallacy and weak debating technique.
 
2014-02-26 03:54:27 AM

SkyFlyer: worlddan: TuteTibiImperes: I think the law may not allow the school to demand guest lists for events held off campus and not run by affiliated student organizations.

Sure but that is not what is at stake in this case. What is pissing the OP off is precisely the fact the the school is demanding this information in order to become an affiliated organization.

BTW, here is the actual policy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206830577/Cal-Poly-Party-Registration-Poli cy

It clearly only applies to university affiliated organizations.

Where did I say otherwise? I even attached a link to the policy on scribd (it's embedded in the mustang news link I posted above). Find a better way to get your "Ah hah!" moment than reposting what I already have.


Dude... take five and dial it back.  I don't think he was attacking your position there.  Just clarifying.
 
2014-02-26 04:04:46 AM
SkyFlyer: Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri

*facepalm*

Be very, very careful about applying K-12 caselaw to institutions of higher education.  Because the courts often do not.  Similarly, beware of calling on university-related caselaw in support of your point when it has nothing to do with your point.

For instance, Tinker v. DesMoines was specifically about free speech in high school and subsequently has been ruled to have limited or no application to higher education.  Papish v. was about free speech on campus grounds, not, well, whatever it is you're trying to protest here.  (You're not really arguing that your attendance at a frat party is free speech, are you?  Because I got out of bed and warmed up my decrepit computer to try to help you with whatever it is you're doing here.  And I'd be really pissed if it turned out you were just arguing stupidly.)
 
2014-02-26 04:07:48 AM

Dadoody: Hey, I went to Cal Poly in Pomona.

Definitely not a party school. You go there when you decide to give up on your dreams.


And now I has a sad.

/Fark should have a "Hug" button
 
2014-02-26 04:08:35 AM

SkyFlyer: brimed03: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

Well... first, remember that it's the government that is deciding who can drink on any property. The university just enforces it as policy. If they didn't, local cops would be on campus every night, and in droves every extended weekend night.

Sorry, but local cops can't just come onto a private property and start dictating who can drink what on a private property. Not without a warrant or actively seeing a law being broken, anyway.


Oh dear.  You have so much to learn about the difference between theory and practice.
 
2014-02-26 04:21:14 AM

JeffreyScott: TuteTibiImperes:

Actually, if an university establishes rules and then fails to enforce them it will open them up to greater liability.


Woof.  Very, very true.  Woe to the university that doesn't follow its published policies and procedures.

And, if the fraternity or sorority house is located off campus, on private property, than they university has no authority to enforce rules there.

Are you a lawyer?  And have you looked up the relevant caselaw on this?  Because if both of those things aren't true, I'm gonna have to red-flag this as probably untrue.  Each house of Greek life is directly affiliated with the university by its charter.  That brings it under the purview-- and legal responsibility-- of the university.

As a former member of a fraternity, I have always held the position that colleges and universities should refuse to recognize fraternities and sororities as student organizations.

Wow, that's actually an interesting notion.  My hunch, though, based on experience, is that it would never fly.  Universities wouldn't take the risk of this theory turning out to be wrong in the courts.  Neither would their insurers.  And parents would go absolutely NUTS at the abdication of responsibility and oversight.  And, to my mind, that is an abdication of responsibility, a university prioritizing liability over student safety.  Which reminds me, the first time there's a tragedy at one of your "unaffiliated Greek houses" and the media gets hold of the legal dodge... just imagine what Nancy Grace would do with that.  Right or wrong, the school would be crucified.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:11 AM

worlddan: SkyFlyer:

Tinker vs. Des Moines  would disagree with you, as students "do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

You may also be interested in Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri

Stop pulling shiat off of Ron Paul's website and educate yourself. Tinker relates to k-12 education and has nothing to do with post-secondary education. Under the law you have a right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in K-12. You have no such right to a post secondary education.  Papish in a 1A case not a 4A case, and once again has nothing to do with the polices you are complaining about.
 

SkyFlyer: High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Appropriate_Public_Education

Yes, high school is a RIGHT

I'm outta here, you have to be trolling Skylark.


God help him if he is.  I will track him down.
 
2014-02-26 04:26:36 AM

udhq: SkyFlyer: As stated above, students do not lose their Constitutional rights when attending school. High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either, however, their freedom of association and speech is still protected.

Additionally, that policy is has two parties: Cal Poly Administration, and the IFC. I am not a fraternity member ==> I did not agree to that policy. That policy is not between Cal Poly and Cal Poly students. Furthermore, I was admitted before the policy was put in place. They can't just force me to adhere to a new policy... This is why catalog rights exist.

Well, yes, unfortunately, "at-will" students do forfeit some of their constitutional rights, as do at-will employees.

But in this case, I believe you're fighting the good fight.  Right on, man.


Oh, udhq...that's not nice man.  Don't do that to him.
 
2014-02-26 04:27:39 AM
You see, the problem we have is that the tools that actually work to use to reduce the unwanted behaviour are being removed by over the top human rights.

When you have to ask timmy 30 times to please give you back the lighter, please stop trying to light the curtains and eventually you have to explain to the firefighters how you are not authorised to physically chastise the children or touch them in order to get them to do what you want in case of a law suit.

When young offenders just sit and take the piss because, well, what are you going to do that I can`t get you arrested for?
 
2014-02-26 04:37:19 AM

proteus_b: The Irresponsible Captain: I have no problem with the on-campus living. It's pretty common. Alcohol can be a problem, but I recall a push a few years ago by university presidents to return the drinking age to 18 to reduce the problems they have with underage drinking.

The main problem, depending on where the school is located, is that they charge you much more money to live on campus than you would have to pay to live in similar conditions off campus. And then stick their nose in your business anyways.


Except that there are no "similar conditions" off campus.  You're overlooking the things you get in campus housing that do not come with that apartment on J-Street.  For example: unlimited utilities, including water, electricity, and usually cable and internet (which itself is usually faster on campus than anything you'll pay for off-campus).  Also: multiple layers of security; a dedicated police station on campus, regular patrols of your "neighborhood" (often both car and foot), usually front-desk security with access restricted to photo-ID carrying residents and their guests, and professional administrators (RDs) and paraprofessional staff members (RAs) doing safety checks and rule enforcement.  Also: usually, far better fire safety building design, equipment, and enforced policies.  Also: professional (RD) and paraprofessional assistance/intervention with domestic disputes and complaints about neighbors.  Also: paraprofessional programming about health and wellness, studying, local and regional entertainment, and community building.  Also: close access to prepared and nutritious meals (meal plans are usually required with on-campus housing) that you do not have to cook.  Also....

Do I really have to go on?  Or do you want to revise your apples-to-oranges comparison of the costs of living on and off campus?
 
2014-02-26 04:45:22 AM

SkyFlyer: Students, "at-will" or not, do not forfeit some of their constitutional rights.

"Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. " -- Justice Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines


Sigh. OK, here's why secondary ed law and higher ed law are not comparable: you are required by law to attend high school.

You are not required to attend higher ed.  You can opt to retain your constitutional freedoms by not enrolling.  Again, Tinker v. DesMoines only applies to high school, and has subsequently and very specifically been ruled by the courts to have little or no application to universities.

Stop citing Tinker v. DesMoines.  It's like pressing the wrong keystroke over and over again: it just makes you look baqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
 
2014-02-26 05:15:59 AM

brimed03: SkyFlyer: Students, "at-will" or not, do not forfeit some of their constitutional rights.

"Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. " -- Justice Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines

Sigh. OK, here's why secondary ed law and higher ed law are not comparable: you are required by law to attend high school.

You are not required to attend higher ed.  You can opt to retain your constitutional freedoms by not enrolling.  Again, Tinker v. DesMoines only applies to high school, and has subsequently and very specifically been ruled by the courts to have little or no application to universities.

Stop citing Tinker v. DesMoines.  It's like pressing the wrong keystroke over and over again: it just makes you look baqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq


You make a lot of good points. I'll try to hit them all tomorrow. For now, time to sleep. I think I still have the right to sleep as a college student per Tinker v. DesMoines, right?
 
2014-02-26 05:21:23 AM

SkyFlyer: brimed03: SkyFlyer: Students, "at-will" or not, do not forfeit some of their constitutional rights.

"Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. " -- Justice Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines

Sigh. OK, here's why secondary ed law and higher ed law are not comparable: you are required by law to attend high school.

You are not required to attend higher ed.  You can opt to retain your constitutional freedoms by not enrolling.  Again, Tinker v. DesMoines only applies to high school, and has subsequently and very specifically been ruled by the courts to have little or no application to universities.

Stop citing Tinker v. DesMoines.  It's like pressing the wrong keystroke over and over again: it just makes you look baqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

You make a lot of good points. I'll try to hit them all tomorrow. For now, time to sleep. I think I still have the right to sleep as a college student per Tinker v. DesMoines, right?


And for the record, I understand where the campus is coming from -- to an extent. I think they seriously overstepped their bounds in a few areas, though (demanding lists of all attendees, forbidding advertising, whether on campus or off campus, on line or off line, as well as limiting alcohol to BYOB -- beer and wine at that).

Having worked as an RA, I can empathize with what housing and admin are facing -- however, Cal Poly seems to be in the process of making a lot of bad decisions, and in my opinion, their approach to this "issue" (if you want to call it that), is one of them.

I'm even torn about the time limits on parties. More than once I've had to tell roommates to STFU because I had a thursday final and they were done on tuesday. But, you know what, all these frats are off campus (we don't have a Frat Row at Cal Poly). Make it a city ordinance. The university's arm shouldn't extend any further than campus.

And the water bottle / hangover comment was pure snark. I'm pretty sure everyone here put vodka in their calistoga bottle on 8th grade trip, amirite?
 
2014-02-26 05:27:14 AM

SkyFlyer: brimed03: ElLoco: Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.

"Home" is defined as 'where your parents live'... for the most part, when it comes to that rule. If your parents live in the same city and you stay there, you're usually exempted from taking a dorm room

And the whole 'freshmen must stay in the dorm' has got jack to do with their education like the universities so often say. It has to do with making sure all the dorm rooms are full. They make a metric shiatton of cash on dorm rooms. If they're trying to force students into taking a dorm for the first two years, then they built too many rooms to fill them with only freshmen.

And you know this from what professional experience or reviewed study?

The issue with saying that on-campus students do better is that *they chose to be on campus.* It's not that being on campus makes them do better, it's that the students who chose to live on campus are also those who chose to study over party.


Nope.

Nope, nope, nope.  Look, I really, really hate to pull rank, but I have a masters degree in this.  They don't give those out like candy.   I had to study thousands of pages on the subject of student development and university administration and pass some really really hard tests.  So please understand when I tell you that what you're saying is not only wrong but insulting as shiat.

You're also being insulting to both groups, with your assumption that students who live off campus are in college for the party and those who live on are, shall we say, fun-deficient.  Your perspective is based on a very small fishbowl of people you hang out with.  Oh, I know.  Trust me, I know what you're going to say about how many subgroups you hang out with, etc etc.  If any of that was true, you never would have made that awful and untrue generalization.

So it turns out there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying whether, and if so why, students do better living on campus or off.  And what administrators can do to help their academic and personal development.  And they wrote more than a couple of things about what they found.  Here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and, well, get the idea?  Your pat answers based on what you "know" in your deep and wide experience are worth-- well, quite a bit, in fact, they're the reason a lot of us get into the field, because we're interested in what you think and how you reason and where you want to go in life, and we want to help you develop the tools to think better and reason more critically and just generally enjoy the hell out of life by developing a well-rounded self.

You're actually on the right track, from a research perspective, to question whether there's a sample bias in the populations.  Or whether there's a third (or fourth, or fifth) co-variable or a correlative or a confounding factor in the research findings on this stuff.  The thing is, you jump right from question to conclusion, without literature reviews for previous findings, without designed and implemented research, without statistical factoring and validity testing.

Go back and try again.  Or-- and this is ok too-- acknowledge that this is a subject you really know little about and haven't the interest to learn.  There's a world full of knowledge and none of us will do more than make the tiniest scratch in learning it all in the short time we're given to live, so there's no fault or harm in making that admission, either privately or publicly.  Yes, that last phrase was also a tongue-in-cheek reference to what started all this.

You're pissed about the policy.  You care enough to ask why it exists as it does.  Stop asking people on Fark.  People on Fark don't farking know and you know it; you were just looking for people that either would agree with you, or give you an argument so you could work out your irritation.  Fine.  You've had your day.  And I've lost my night.  So, maybe, just possibly, as a nod to a fellow Farker who spent hours trying to help you understand why, maybe, this policy came to be: shut up and ask someone who really knows.  Find an administrator who both is willing to talk and was directly involved in the policy formulation discussions, make an appointment, ask-- and listen.  DON'T ARGUE.  Just... listen.

Or just waste everyone's time and fark you, you sonofabiatch.

/incidentally, yes: I've read parts or all of most of those books and a hell of a lot more; I own quite a few of them; and had to buy them before the discount-textbook sites got really good.  Damn straight I'm invested in this shiat a hell of a lot more than you.  So shut the hell up you quintessential sophomore.
 
2014-02-26 05:42:13 AM

Pokey.Clyde: brimed03: /no, you don't need a car on campus because you work at the ice creamery in your town on weekends. There are lots of jobs available around campus and the college town. Changing where you live in life often entails changing other things too.
//I don't care that Daddy bought you a BMW SUV for high school graduation. Not a reason for a parking exception. Wait, I do care actually: is Daddy adopting?

In case you missed it, I was working full-time (40+ hours/week) with a 60 mile round-trip drive every day. And the only jobs available in that college town usually paid about half what I was making, and a good chunk of those were usually part-time.

Oh, and I was driving a 1987 Ford Ranger with 180K miles on it. Not exactly a BMW SUV. Must suck to be such an assuming asshole.



Whoa whoa whoathere Pokey_McAssumptionMaker.  I was making a general and somewhat tongue-in-cheek set of comments about how to work with college administrators to get your needs met and the silliness that administrators sometimes encounter on these occasions.  Nowhere in there does it indicate overtly or tacitly that any of this was pointed at you.  Nor was any of it pointed at you.  Had you farking ASKED me that, you would have avoided a lot of self-imposed butthurt.  F*cking sensitive much??

Yes, it MUST suck to be such an assuming asshole.
 
2014-02-26 05:47:33 AM

SkyFlyer: brimed03: SkyFlyer: Students, "at-will" or not, do not forfeit some of their constitutional rights.

"Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. " -- Justice Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines

Sigh. OK, here's why secondary ed law and higher ed law are not comparable: you are required by law to attend high school.

You are not required to attend higher ed.  You can opt to retain your constitutional freedoms by not enrolling.  Again, Tinker v. DesMoines only applies to high school, and has subsequently and very specifically been ruled by the courts to have little or no application to universities.

Stop citing Tinker v. DesMoines.  It's like pressing the wrong keystroke over and over again: it just makes you look baqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

You make a lot of good points. I'll try to hit them all tomorrow. For now, time to sleep. I think I still have the right to sleep as a college student per Tinker v. DesMoines, right?



No, actually, I'm afraid TvDM does not address your right to sleep.

Oh God.  You. Can't. Go. To. Sleep!

What a typical University administrator may look like:

img3.wikia.nocookie.net  GIVE ME YOUR FUN!  ALL OF IT!  GIVE IT TO ME!!
 
2014-02-26 05:52:20 AM
SkyFlyer:

Having worked as an RA,

OK.  Now you've really pissed me off.  I mean it.  You were an RA.  Unless you had the worst ResLife training program in the world (or slept through it), you KNOW what this shiat is about.  Which means you're griefing your former colleagues simply because you don't like what they came up with.  You also know who you should be posing your questions to, and it ain't Fark.

In other words, you know better.  So act it.
 
2014-02-26 07:24:31 AM

dready zim: You see, the problem we have is that the tools that actually work to use to reduce the unwanted behaviour are being removed by over the top human rights.

When you have to ask timmy 30 times to please give you back the lighter, please stop trying to light the curtains and eventually you have to explain to the firefighters how you are not authorised to physically chastise the children or touch them in order to get them to do what you want in case of a law suit.

When young offenders just sit and take the piss because, well, what are you going to do that I can`t get you arrested for?


In this instance, "Little Timmy" is old enough to enlist and go around the world killing and to be killed.

Everything you said it utter unadulterated bullshiat, because there are no children involved.

You are doing a perfect job of pointing out what the real problem is though...
 
2014-02-26 08:11:18 AM
You would figure employees at a university would be smart enough to know that they only hold power over school property. Any attempt to control anything beyond that will typically be met with laughter and insults. Just like when I lost my virginity.
 
2014-02-26 08:24:11 AM

Fubini:  The frats were just about the most disgusting and irresponsible groups in town.


This due more to human nature than anything else.  Organized people can inflict more harm than disorganized people.  Three angry young men?  Someone's getting jumped.  A hundred angry men organized into a group?  A beer hall is gettin' putsched.
 
2014-02-26 08:30:18 AM

brimed03: proteus_b: The Irresponsible Captain: I have no problem with the on-campus living. It's pretty common. Alcohol can be a problem, but I recall a push a few years ago by university presidents to return the drinking age to 18 to reduce the problems they have with underage drinking.

The main problem, depending on where the school is located, is that they charge you much more money to live on campus than you would have to pay to live in similar conditions off campus. And then stick their nose in your business anyways.

Except that there are no "similar conditions" off campus.  You're overlooking the things you get in campus housing that do not come with that apartment on J-Street.  For example: unlimited utilities, including water, electricity, and usually cable and internet (which itself is usually faster on campus than anything you'll pay for off-campus).  Also: multiple layers of security; a dedicated police station on campus, regular patrols of your "neighborhood" (often both car and foot), usually front-desk security with access restricted to photo-ID carrying residents and their guests, and professional administrators (RDs) and paraprofessional staff members (RAs) doing safety checks and rule enforcement.  Also: usually, far better fire safety building design, equipment, and enforced policies.  Also: professional (RD) and paraprofessional assistance/intervention with domestic disputes and complaints about neighbors.  Also: paraprofessional programming about health and wellness, studying, local and regional entertainment, and community building.  Also: close access to prepared and nutritious meals (meal plans are usually required with on-campus housing) that you do not have to cook.  Also....


CSB - I went to law school during the real estate boom.  Oncampus housing was incredible.  The school was on the site of a former luxury hotel, so the "dorms" were basically a large hotel room that you had to yourself.  Free maid service, wifi, utilities, etc.. No restrictions on anything, although I guess if I'd thrown a party during finals the guards would've come by.  My room opened out onto a palm tree-lined courtyard with a pool where I'd drag a cooler on the weekends. Oncampus gym.  All for $580 a month.  In Tampa Bay.
 
2014-02-26 08:38:39 AM
Wow....just wow.  This has been quite the thread, and as an alumnus of a BCS-playoff quality party school I'm witnessed plenty of folks in real life who mirrored this exact argument. I myself was a not so proud participant in the "five-year plan" to get my four year degree, and the only real nugget I can add to this is a philosophical point one of my professors made when I went back recently for a second degree at the same institution.  He was exasperated (and obviously not from this country) that students were trying to get out of his class early to either attend or watch a Thursday night ESPN football game.

To paraphrase - "Education is the one product we invest lots of money into but don't want to get any benefit from."
 
2014-02-26 08:43:27 AM

brimed03: The courts have given universities, both private and public, wide latitude with the policies they set with no effect on the federal funding they receive.  It's not blanket; for example, you can get federal funding or ignore Title IX, but not both.  Still, it's not as easy as saying "all your policies and procedures must be identical to non-university institutions or you lose funding."


Oh, I realize this, and typically don't have a problem with that (I was being a bit flippant in my statement above).  Most privates, including religious privates who may have some restrictions I find a bit silly such as restrictions on dancing?! etc., are fairly reasonable in their approach to student development related policies, and students are typically aware of these restrictions when sign up, especially if they are receiving Title IX.  I fully support schools being able to set their own educational mission (even if I disagree with it), although sometimes I do think some schools hover a bit too when it comes to their students, to the detriment of the student.  College should be a place to explore, make mistakes, learn from them and grow up.  While I support what I consider reasonable policies of education and protection, I do think that college students should be treated like adults (adults that occasionally do really stupid things ... like most other adults).  I work at a school that some would likely consider absurdly liberal in their policies related to student life (within the law of course) and while it doesn't work for some students, the vast majority of our students manage to do quite well.  Occasionally, parents have a problem with it, but thankfully our student life people don't really pay them much mind.
 
2014-02-26 08:47:59 AM
When I was in school, we could advertise alcohol at off campus get togethers if we invited the teachers.  It was actually a good time to get them drunk and then ask them to fix things that were wrong with tests or whatnot.

BEvERages forever!
 
2014-02-26 08:59:11 AM

Flab: TuteTibiImperes: I see you're from Canada, did you go to school there to?

Yep.  Even commuted from home (that's another big difference between Canadian and American colleges, most people pick one of the local ones, unless you want to go in a very speficic field that's not offered locally)  until my dad got transfered out of town, so I only moved to the uni residences for my final year.

TuteTibiImperes: in Canada there are freshman who can legally drink
 
In Quebec, all freshmen can legally drink.  The drinking age is 18, and due to the way schools are set up, when you get to university, you are usually already 19.


I understand that this DOES make a difference.  If the colleges were responsible for minors, I'm sure they would have more stringent rules about on campus alcohol consumption.  But I still think their sphere of influence would end at the sidewalk in front of the main entrance.


It sounds like you have never dealt with american parents in an official capacity. Parents are the reason these rules exsist. Well, specifically thier lawyers.

Also, a few parents are politically connected. It's lovely.
 
2014-02-26 09:54:48 AM

SkyFlyer: sprgrss: and 4th amendment have nothing to do with this, dudebro.

Actually it does when the school is requiring that a list of all students attending fraternity parties be handed over to administration the next day.


As for on campus living requirements are standard. Sure. For freshman. Maybe. But 2nd years? And Transfers? hahahaha. Yeah find me an example, please.


Seriously?

First thing on Google:  http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/2013/07/15/university-to-require- j uniors-to-live-on-campus/
 
2014-02-26 09:59:55 AM

SkyFlyer: udhq: SkyFlyer: udhq: SkyFlyer: Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.

Really?  It sounds like you're familiar with this specifically, I'm wondering if you can provide an specific details/citations?  I'm not an attorney, but it surprises me that "If you choose to join this organization, you agree to abide by these rules" would be unconstitutional.

I mean, one can be fired from government jobs for conduct otherwise covered by BoR.

I never joined the organization.

Oh, my apologies, I must have been mistaken.  I thought your profile said you were a student there.

Carry on.

As stated above, students do not lose their Constitutional rights when attending school. High school isn't a right and technically students aren't forced to attend either, however, their freedom of association and speech is still protected.


Now you're really losing me.  High school students ARE forced to attend in most states, AND they have limits put on their freedom of association AND speech.

And I'm fine with that.  Little Timmy and his buddy Johnny don't get to run around yelling like assholes during class while everyone else is trying to learn.  Ie, reasonable limits on freedom of association and speech.

You may well have a point about the college program you submitted, but you're making it poorly.
 
2014-02-26 10:01:40 AM

FLMountainMan: brimed03: proteus_b: The Irresponsible Captain: I have no problem with the on-campus living. It's pretty common. Alcohol can be a problem, but I recall a push a few years ago by university presidents to return the drinking age to 18 to reduce the problems they have with underage drinking.

The main problem, depending on where the school is located, is that they charge you much more money to live on campus than you would have to pay to live in similar conditions off campus. And then stick their nose in your business anyways.

Except that there are no "similar conditions" off campus.  You're overlooking the things you get in campus housing that do not come with that apartment on J-Street.  For example: unlimited utilities, including water, electricity, and usually cable and internet (which itself is usually faster on campus than anything you'll pay for off-campus).  Also: multiple layers of security; a dedicated police station on campus, regular patrols of your "neighborhood" (often both car and foot), usually front-desk security with access restricted to photo-ID carrying residents and their guests, and professional administrators (RDs) and paraprofessional staff members (RAs) doing safety checks and rule enforcement.  Also: usually, far better fire safety building design, equipment, and enforced policies.  Also: professional (RD) and paraprofessional assistance/intervention with domestic disputes and complaints about neighbors.  Also: paraprofessional programming about health and wellness, studying, local and regional entertainment, and community building.  Also: close access to prepared and nutritious meals (meal plans are usually required with on-campus housing) that you do not have to cook.  Also....

CSB - I went to law school during the real estate boom.  Oncampus housing was incredible.  The school was on the site of a former luxury hotel, so the "dorms" were basically a large hotel room that you had to yourself.  Free maid service, wifi, utilities, etc.. No r ...


That's way over the top! Campus life should be a bargain. I understand that may places it's not, and frankly that's a separate argument on the cost of education.

Near our school they had a couple of private "efficiency" dorms. They were small, single-person dorm style rooms in the old bare-bones style. They were well kept, but a particularly thrifty student could save a few dollars. Otherwise, unless you were in a place with several roommates, dorms were cheaper.
 
2014-02-26 10:09:54 AM
In case it hasn't been posted yet, Flanagan's got a very interesting piece in The Atlantic about fraternities, liability, universities, drinking, and safety:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-dark-power-o f- fraternities/357580/
 
2014-02-26 10:20:09 AM

brimed03: Pokey.Clyde: brimed03: /no, you don't need a car on campus because you work at the ice creamery in your town on weekends. There are lots of jobs available around campus and the college town. Changing where you live in life often entails changing other things too.
//I don't care that Daddy bought you a BMW SUV for high school graduation. Not a reason for a parking exception. Wait, I do care actually: is Daddy adopting?

In case you missed it, I was working full-time (40+ hours/week) with a 60 mile round-trip drive every day. And the only jobs available in that college town usually paid about half what I was making, and a good chunk of those were usually part-time.

Oh, and I was driving a 1987 Ford Ranger with 180K miles on it. Not exactly a BMW SUV. Must suck to be such an assuming asshole.


Whoa whoa whoathere Pokey_McAssumptionMaker.  I was making a general and somewhat tongue-in-cheek set of comments about how to work with college administrators to get your needs met and the silliness that administrators sometimes encounter on these occasions.  Nowhere in there does it indicate overtly or tacitly that any of this was pointed at you.  Nor was any of it pointed at you.  Had you farking ASKED me that, you would have avoided a lot of self-imposed butthurt.  F*cking sensitive much??

Yes, it MUST suck to be such an assuming asshole.


You seem touchy.
 
2014-02-26 10:31:07 AM
It sounds like the Uni is overstepping reasonable bounds, but what is it you really want, subby? You want the secured right to drink anonymously and underage with the dumbest people at your school? I'm sure there are still plenty of ways to do that, but with fewer people are puking on your shoes.
 
2014-02-26 12:23:24 PM
poor little miss muffin, drank too much farked an @$$hole and had buyers remorse so now it's rape. if you can't drink and control yourself, stay at home little girl.

// got nothing
 
2014-02-26 01:08:17 PM

udhq: Subby needs to read the part of the first amendment about freedom of association.  No students are forced to attend this college, but when they do, they choose to abide by its rules.

It's no different than choosing to join a church that restricts behavior in such a way that it would be unconstitutional if the government did it.


Public schools are not private entities.  They are required to give students their constitutional rights because they are  extensions of the government.  (assuming its a public school, Didn't read)
 
2014-02-26 02:42:40 PM

BetterMetalSnake: Flab: TuteTibiImperes: I see you're from Canada, did you go to school there to?

Yep.  Even commuted from home (that's another big difference between Canadian and American colleges, most people pick one of the local ones, unless you want to go in a very speficic field that's not offered locally)  until my dad got transfered out of town, so I only moved to the uni residences for my final year.

TuteTibiImperes: in Canada there are freshman who can legally drink
 
In Quebec, all freshmen can legally drink.  The drinking age is 18, and due to the way schools are set up, when you get to university, you are usually already 19.


I understand that this DOES make a difference.  If the colleges were responsible for minors, I'm sure they would have more stringent rules about on campus alcohol consumption.  But I still think their sphere of influence would end at the sidewalk in front of the main entrance.

It sounds like you have never dealt with american parents in an official capacity. Parents are the reason these rules exsist. Well, specifically thier lawyers.

Also, a few parents are politically connected. It's lovely.



So, how does that work, exactly...

Scenario A:
15 guys decided to have a party at Bob's off-campus appartment.  Someone brings jello shots.  Someone gets sick and ends up in the hospital.

Scenario B:
The local chapter of the SAE rents a bar on a friday night and organize a party to collect funds to build a solar-powered car to compete in the annual race.  Someone gets sick and nearly chokes on her vomit, and ends up in the hospital.

How can anyone sue the university over either of these?

I'm not talking about sneaking booze somewhere where it's not allowed, or allowing underage people to drink.  I'm just wondering why a school could be held liable for the activities of adults while NOT on school property.
 
2014-02-26 05:20:20 PM

Flab: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: but I'm pretty sure that there's been colleges for a long time who require their freshmen to live on-campus if they're not commuting from home.

And people go for it?  Unless that college was in the middle of nowhere, and only accessible by a magical train, I don't see how that would make sense.

Also, I freely admit that I don't get Greek Life to begin with, but I don't see how a college can decide who can drink how much alcohol with whom outside of their property.


People used to put up with all kinds of rules in order to be able to attend college.  When my mom was in college, women could not wear pants on campus unless the temperature dropped below zero.  The school I attended did have the on-campus residency requirement.  The reasons given varied from "too many freshmen will flunk out if they are given total freedom" (which was probably true) to "the school was able to secure financing to build the dorms by requiring that students rent them" (bogus, since the freshman dorms were built shortly after WWII).
 
2014-02-26 05:22:48 PM

Flab: BetterMetalSnake: Flab: TuteTibiImperes: I see you're from Canada, did you go to school there to?

Yep.  Even commuted from home (that's another big difference between Canadian and American colleges, most people pick one of the local ones, unless you want to go in a very speficic field that's not offered locally)  until my dad got transfered out of town, so I only moved to the uni residences for my final year.

TuteTibiImperes: in Canada there are freshman who can legally drink
 
In Quebec, all freshmen can legally drink.  The drinking age is 18, and due to the way schools are set up, when you get to university, you are usually already 19.


I understand that this DOES make a difference.  If the colleges were responsible for minors, I'm sure they would have more stringent rules about on campus alcohol consumption.  But I still think their sphere of influence would end at the sidewalk in front of the main entrance.

It sounds like you have never dealt with american parents in an official capacity. Parents are the reason these rules exsist. Well, specifically thier lawyers.

Also, a few parents are politically connected. It's lovely.


So, how does that work, exactly...

Scenario A:
15 guys decided to have a party at Bob's off-campus appartment.  Someone brings jello shots.  Someone gets sick and ends up in the hospital.

Scenario B:
The local chapter of the SAE rents a bar on a friday night and organize a party to collect funds to build a solar-powered car to compete in the annual race.  Someone gets sick and nearly chokes on her vomit, and ends up in the hospital.

How can anyone sue the university over either of these?

I'm not talking about sneaking booze somewhere where it's not allowed, or allowing underage people to drink.  I'm just wondering why a school could be held liable for the activities of adults while NOT on school property.


I'm not exactly sure either. But it happens. And universities quake in their boots over the possibility. Much of our policy is designed to limit liability from litigious assholes. It's the same reason kids need helmets for everything and nobody has cool toys anymore.
 
2014-02-26 05:29:04 PM

Ikam: College should be a place to explore, make mistakes, learn from them and grow up.


When I build my university, you're hired.  Whatever other philosophical disagreements we may end up having, so long as you keep believing this you have a job.
 
2014-02-26 05:30:20 PM

Ikam: Occasionally, parents have a problem with it, but thankfully our student life people don't really pay them much mind.


Please.  Please tell me where you work.
 
2014-02-26 05:32:25 PM

llortcM_yllort: brimed03: Pokey.Clyde: brimed03: /no, you don't need a car on campus because you work at the ice creamery in your town on weekends. There are lots of jobs available around campus and the college town. Changing where you live in life often entails changing other things too.
//I don't care that Daddy bought you a BMW SUV for high school graduation. Not a reason for a parking exception. Wait, I do care actually: is Daddy adopting?

In case you missed it, I was working full-time (40+ hours/week) with a 60 mile round-trip drive every day. And the only jobs available in that college town usually paid about half what I was making, and a good chunk of those were usually part-time.

Oh, and I was driving a 1987 Ford Ranger with 180K miles on it. Not exactly a BMW SUV. Must suck to be such an assuming asshole.


Whoa whoa whoathere Pokey_McAssumptionMaker.  I was making a general and somewhat tongue-in-cheek set of comments about how to work with college administrators to get your needs met and the silliness that administrators sometimes encounter on these occasions.  Nowhere in there does it indicate overtly or tacitly that any of this was pointed at you.  Nor was any of it pointed at you.  Had you farking ASKED me that, you would have avoided a lot of self-imposed butthurt.  F*cking sensitive much??

Yes, it MUST suck to be such an assuming asshole.

You seem touchy.


Yeah.  I was tired.  I plan to email Pokey an apology shortly.

Mind you, s/he is still kind of an assuming ahole.  But with reason.  S/he really fought hard for graduation
 
2014-02-26 05:36:02 PM

Flab: BetterMetalSnake: Flab: TuteTibiImperes:

So, how does that work, exactly...
Scenario A:
15 guys decided to have a party at Bob's off-campus appartment.  Someone brings jello shots.  Someone gets sick and ends up in the hospital.
Scenario B:
The local chapter of the SAE rents a bar on a friday night and organize a party to collect funds to build a solar-powered car to compete in the annual race.  Someone gets sick and nearly chokes on her vomit, and ends up in the hospital.
How can anyone sue the university over either of these?
I'm not talking about sneaking booze somewhere where it's not allowed, or allowing underage people to drink.  I'm just wondering why a school could be held liable for the activities of adults while NOT on school property.


In the words of the philosopher, you wouldn't think it be like it is, but it do.  Situation A is a lovely example of a suit that has probably been brought against many an American university many a time, and the smart ones quietly and cheaply settle it out of court.  And then implement draconian-seeming policy changes so they don't have to keep raising tuition even higher than they already do.
 
2014-02-26 05:38:25 PM

flondrix: People used to put up with all kinds of rules in order to be able to attend college.  When my mom was in college, women could not wear pants on campus unless the temperature dropped below zero.


So your mom and her friends went to college naked below the waist?  And perky-nippled at 1degree?  Aww yissss......

*giggity*
/sorry for the mental image
//got any pictures of her co-ed days?
 
2014-02-26 05:43:40 PM
I'm so glad I, as someone who has actually studied and practiced the law, has been told by a college sophomore that I do not know the law.

Guess what, dudebro, Tinker v. Des Moines does not apply to higher eduction.  Secondly, over the years, Tinker has been walked back by the US Supreme Court.

Next, the school requiring school sponsored organizations (and prospective school sponsored organization) to turn over guest list does not violate the 1st or 4th Amendments to the United States Constitution.  As a school sponsored, or proactive school sponsored organization, those organizations have to abide by the rules and regs. established by the University lest they lose sponsorship.  Even if the school didn't get coverage here (which it does in droves), it would get coverage because an inspection of the guest lists are administrative searches and therefore are not searches under the 4th Amendment.

But you know, keep citing Tinker and telling everyone else they are wrong.
 
2014-02-26 07:32:20 PM

SkyFlyer: Aestatis: SkyFlyer:
- Parties only permitted on days when the next day is not a "school day"; parties  may not exceed 5 hours in length and must end by 1 AM. [Subby note: 5 hours? That's nothing. 1AM? Crap, last call at the bars is 1:30 or 1:45]

- Alcohol  may not be served an hour prior to the end of the event. [Subby note: I'm sure the bars and SLOPD will love this. Everyone will leave the frat party, drive drunk down town, so they can drink for another 90 minutes]

These two seem like the biggest issue.  That's going to result in drunk driving.  This is why we needed a federal drinking law, to prevent kids from hopping state lines in order to drink and then crashing on the way home.  We don't need the equivalent at campus parties!

Everything else is about protecting people at the party, mostly by preventing parties from happening or by preventing people from getting drunk.  None of this will succeed; I went to a school with a dry campus, and we got wasted in one of two ways:

1.  We broke the rules and got drunk on campus, in walking distance of water and our beds, and with fairly reliable sources of help as needed.
2.  We went off-campus and got drunk, then needed someone to drive us home (hopefully sober; I always brought a mormon).   Chances are this increases the amount of drunk driving, because sometimes students will make a bad call.  Then they get to survive that bad call, because they usually do, and go on to assume that they can drink and drive in the future and be OK.  Lovely.

Honestly, it seems like the thing the university should focus on is providing support and education.  If you've got lots of people receiving a small discount on housing in exchange for taking a class on how to deal with alcohol issues, you've got a hoard who can assist when things go south.  If you spend some money to get an on-call nurse, you've got someone to deal with emergencies quickly.  This doesn't seem out of the budget for a large school, especially.  You can't keep co ...


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report