Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, Cal Poly, Associated Students Inc., students' union, Dang Guo, student leader, Cesar Chavez  
•       •       •

9077 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2014 at 11:22 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report