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 9
    More: Asinine, Cal Poly, Associated Students Inc., students' union, Dang Guo, student leader, Cesar Chavez  
•       •       •

9043 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2014 at 11:22 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-25 11:57:31 PM
2 votes:
And technically, the IRS was never legally approved so I don't have to pay my taxes, mannnnn!
2014-02-25 08:42:51 PM
2 votes:
You gotta FIGHT for your RIGHT to PAAAAAAAARTAAAAAAAAAY

/It's in the constitution, man
//First and fourth amendments
2014-02-25 07:37:58 PM
2 votes:
Double. Secret, probation.
2014-02-26 05:47:33 AM
1 votes:

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 12:24:20 AM
1 votes:

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 12:17:51 AM
1 votes:
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 12:08:45 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


You would be correct if those rules only applied to students in fraternities. However, take someone like me. I have friends in frats. However, I'm not in a frat. I get invited to a frat party. I attend. The school now knows. That is an extreme overreach.
2014-02-26 12:05:02 AM
1 votes:

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


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


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

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


Actually, as a publicly funded institution, they actually don't have right right to make rules abridging the bill of rights. Your third sentence is correct... a church isn't publicly funded (i.e. it is not the government). The school, however, is publicly funded (i.e. it is the government) Good try though.
2014-02-26 12:02:34 AM
1 votes:
Color me shocked that it is a Calif college that was trying to enforce these rules.

/liberals are all about choice, right?
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report