Two things: college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes so making the normal consequence of any mistake the end of your career goes against that. Historically the decent young men of Stanford were able to get drunk, pull dumb stunts, embarrass themselves, then graduate and join "real life". The recent decision that sexual assault should be taken off the list of allowable "dumb stunts" is still working its way through the system, and right now we seem to be at the "major overreaction" stage.
Secondly, part of the idea of Stanford and other elite schools is to create social links so that even quite serious mistakes aren't career-ending. The idea that "your first business will fail, and that's ok" is necessary because almost all new businesses do fail. Society needs that, and since the US can't have a social safety net, we need that group of rich kids with rich friends to provide at least some people who can afford those failures.
We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?
Stanford students are adults (indeed, many of them aren't even young adults). It is not principally the mission of Stanford to insulate its students from consequences. We just had a story here earlier today where HN is up in arms (somewhat reasonably so) because of Stanford's refusal to visit consequences on students who protested an odious speaker. Here the consequences we're talking about are even sillier: it's the right to host official school-sanctioned parties with alcohol service. Who gives a shit?
Second, it indeed may be a subtextual benefit of Stanford that attendance cements your status among an elite (this touches on the "human capital" vs. "signaling" debate). But to whatever extent that's the case, it's a bad thing. Stanford attendance is an unimaginably rarified privilege. If Stanford's disciplinary process happens to mute some of the status benefit of making it in, so much the better.
I don't have much to say about the coffee-cup case, which is very sad, and which fortunately doesn't occupy much of the attention of this article the way the frat party case does. So: let's just focus our attention on the frat party. And in response to it, I'd just remind you of the scene in The Social Network, where the Winklevii attempt to escalate to the president of Harvard their concerns about Zuckerberg stealing the idea for ConnectU. Retaining lawyers to fight sanctions against underage drinking is that, but like 6 times dumber.
Wait, I don't think even the article is complaining that students can't host frat parties. It's about students having to deal with months of legal proceedings as a consequence when they potentially break a rule.
Your characterization of frat parties as being an asinine issue is true and exactly the reason for concern here. Legal proceedings are super shitty to go through. Your whole life basically gets mentally put on hold. If the issue in question is such a non-issue, why should it cause students to have to face that?
I think he was saying that the banning of parties with alcohol for a frat house accused of serving alcohol to minors is a mild punishment and not a notable event. I don't think he was saying that frat parties serving alcohol to minors is a non-issue. It's a pretty serious crime when you're not on a campus.
You're right, I misread. That negates my second paragraph.
Again though, the article is not complaining about parties being banned, but about the process surrounding that decision:
Dealing for months with lawyers and campus investigators drove Paulmeier, typically enthusiastic and motivated, into what he calls an “exhausted, burnt-out depression.” He told me he had gone through “a state of mental and physical exhaustion and collapse.”
Paulmeier was doing graduate-level coursework before the investigation. But by the end of spring 2022, he ended up with three incomplete classes. Normally a student who earned mostly As and Bs, he said he started his senior year in the fall by failing a class for the first time in his life.
His grades dropped so precipitously he was placed on academic probation and was in danger of failing out. Worst of all, one of his academic advisors wrote him a sympathetic letter urging him “in the strongest terms” to withdraw his honors thesis, which explored how elite colleges can reform their admissions processes to attract more students like him.
From what I understand, what happened was:
* Paulmeier hosted a party which he claims adhered to the rules.
* Allegations were made that rules were broken.
* His frat was placed on probation, along with several other frats.
* The university proceeded with a months-long investigation, throwing the weight of their legal team at the students, with actual lawyers doing lawyer things.
So basically, either accept the allegations, or go through months of legal crap. And this is going to be the standard process for resolving code of conduct disputes across the board, all the way up to and including matters involving academic suspensions (the coffee cup girl). I dunno, do we really want universities to be run this way?
> college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes
Where did you read that? I think you're quoting your own expectations. Certainly, people should be allowed to learn from mistakes (at all stages in life), but college is not designed to shield you from consequences. Now, I don't know what dumb stunts you're referring to (stealing the opposing team's pig mascot like in a movie?) but if any stunt causes actual harm, there will be consequences.
> We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?
The University bears zero responsibility for her death. Unless you are suggesting that any investigation must be preceded by a mental health evaluation in case the individual has suicidal predispositions.
Secondly, part of the idea of Stanford and other elite schools is to create social links so that even quite serious mistakes aren't career-ending. The idea that "your first business will fail, and that's ok" is necessary because almost all new businesses do fail. Society needs that, and since the US can't have a social safety net, we need that group of rich kids with rich friends to provide at least some people who can afford those failures.
We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?