In order to prevent another Brock Turner-esque rape, Stanford has decided that they have an alcohol problem (not so much a rape problem) and therefore have banned hard liquor from on-campus parties. So now a woman who was inebriated when attacked with have a harder time coming forward. Way to problem solve, Stanford!
Man I pretty much always had a bottle some sort of liquor in my dorm room. Also I got plenty drunk on just beer often.
Reading this elicited the same response as the time someone came up running from behind me in a train station wearing a Burger King crown yelling “Wooba chubba wooba chubba.”
That is: Whatever just happened made no fucking sense.
Stanford spokesmen detailed their plans on how to enforce rules about what students do with their own time in the privacy of their own residences, saying, “…”
Look, the federal government had no problem with enforcing prohibition. Surely an organization like Stanford will be able to mimic their success with their considerably smaller resources.
My college was a very strict dry campus. Drinking on the premises was punished severely. Dorm rooms were searched at random, and if they found alcohol, you could be expelled. I lived on the same floor as part of the football team, and never saw even a bottle of beer.
Instead, everyone crossed the street to the row of fraternity/sorority houses that ringed the campus, and who had weekly parties where the alcohol flowed freely. The most popular was full-strength Everclear (190 proof!) mixed in tubs with Kool-aid or fruit juice. I was never drunker in my life than my freshman year on a dry campus.
I think that might be the idea. Stanford may not be able to prevent binge drinking and fratboy rape culture but they can try to relocate it to a place where they’ll bear less legal responsibility for it.
One of the biggest reasons why I only lived in the dorms as a freshman was that they had stricter rules than my mom did. They had this silly “one foot on the floor” rule for when you had visitors of the opposite sex in your room. My first blush reaction to that was “so, kids just have sex standing up, then?”
How quaint! Sounds like the Hays Code, but applied to “reality.” (Scare quotes because I imagine there were all kinds of feet off the floor in those dorms.)
Or on the floor…
Private schools (especially on the east coast) have been implementing hard liquor bans for many years. Stanford is a little late to the party, maybe that is because of its football culture. (Likewise Dartmouth only implemented its similar ban last year.) Studies show that these bans do seem to correlate to a significant drop in the incidence of “heavy episodic drinking”, though causality has not been established and of course it is less effective in places where there is easy access to alcohol off-campus (such as Stanford).
The move in this case is pretty obviously reactive and cynical, and to be honest the timing feels like a way of chastising the rape victim in the recent case. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it, but maybe they should have done it years ago.
When I was in highschool going to Classics Conference (I’m soooo cool) I learned that there had been a rule that when people of the opposite sex were in your dorm room you had to have the door open. The conference organizers found out, to their horror, that this meant teenagers having sex with the door open.
I think they replaced with with a sensible policy of having teachers who were concerned about student relationships talk to those students individually with a lens of trying to make sure no one was doing anything they didn’t want to do and that people who were doing things they did want to do were aware of the potential consequences of doing those things.
Not only is this a much better approach for dealing with teenage sex, but honestly, as a teenager what is the greater deterrent to having sex: A rule that you will get in trouble for breaking; or the idea that if a teacher thinks you are having sex you are going to have to sit down and talk to them about sex?
Was there more to that story or did it stop there?
Did it have to be your foot?
(Dark japhroaig, dark)
Oh, I’m sure the story kept going, but my part in it ended there.
Exactly. As always, it’s all about protecting the institution instead of protecting the students.
I don’t think i believe you. People in charge reacting to a bad rule by acting reasonable and treating their charges as incipient adults? Not. A. Chance. /s