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  
•       •       •

9081 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 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!
 
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