New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | September 23, 2004

David Weigel finds out what double secret probation really means.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | American Baghdad →

See all 13 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|9.23.04 @ 3:32PM|#

While certainly not breaking news, I always enjoy reading about the transparent hypocrisy of the old "new left" and their historic segue from rebels to opppressors in a mere three decades.

|9.23.04 @ 3:34PM|#

Wait a minute, New York used to have a Senator who wasn't a Democrat or a Republican?

Did he actually beat the Dem and Rep nominees in the general election?

|9.23.04 @ 3:46PM|#

Here at Southern Illinois University, there was a big flap over the implications of the Student Conduct Code recently. Apparently, the SCC covers any incidents off campus that could reflect badly on the university... so a girl who was involved in an off-campus barfight over the summer was found guilty of violating the SCC and faced expulsion. After people complained, it got overturned, but still....

|9.23.04 @ 4:14PM|#

"Wait a minute, New York used to have a Senator who wasn't a Democrat or a Republican?"

Yep. It was Bill Buckley's brother Jim.

http://www.pirg.org/buckbuckley/james.htm

|9.23.04 @ 4:18PM|#

Oh, and he actually did beat the Dem and Rep nominees in the general election. 38% plurality.

|9.23.04 @ 4:27PM|#

Quick correction. MIT did not ban freshmen from fraternities, they just required that all freshmen live on campus (or at home). Prior to Scott's death, freshman could pledge and live in fraternity houses.

One of the big changes after Scott's death was MIT went from being very laissez faire wrt to student behavior and very strict afterwards. I thought that one alcohol related death in over 100 years was a good record. Especially when compared to the suicide rate at the school, which went up significantly with the crackdown on drinking.

|9.23.04 @ 4:59PM|#

I too was at MIT during the "Kruger Years" I witnessed the transformation from a "Work Hard, Play Hard" environment to a "Work Hard, but don't even think about playing" one. Not at all surprisingly, the student life crackdown didn't eliminate or even reduce problem drinking, it merely drove it underground. People who would drink heavily at big parties stared doing the same in smaller groups. Thing is, there are lots of people at a big party to see what is going on and possibly prevent tragedy. Much less likely when it's 6 people in a room, and _everybody's_ very drunk.

Right after Scott died, the campus was packed with journalists. I always declined comment, as had been reasonably requested of us. But I sure wanted to choke them and say "You assholes are going nuts over the first alcohol death at MIT in at least 50 YEARS. We have the second highest suicide rate in the nation (just over 1 undergrad PER YEAR, ~5000 UG students) All your hand wringing and moralizing is going to cause a crackdown that will make student life worse, not better. MIT does not have an alcohol problem."

Of course, none of this mattered. MIT announced sweeping changes to the freshman year, and the chattering classes congratulated themselves on destroying the highest self-rated housing system in the country. The administration, fueled by fear of liability, and a lust for good old-fashioned in locis parentis scapegoated the fraternities and pretty much openly declared war. The administration came to see students as children needing to be babysat, and didn�t even bother to hide it.

So yeah, F*** the fun-free campus. Scores of dead nerds can�t be wrong.

|9.23.04 @ 6:06PM|#

When I was a college freshman I would not have been able to go to a school that required me to live in a dorm. I had a (lucrative, by student standards) job working in a nightclub, and sometimes did not get out of work until after two in the morning, thus making it impossible for me to meet most freshman dorm curfews. Yet despite my scandalously unchaperoned lifestyle I still managed to graduate with honors and without alcohol poisoning. I doubt I'm such a rare specimen that across-the-board rules are necessary to prevent such licentiousness. Do these schools make exceptions for young students who pay their own way?

By the way, if a kid's smart enough to get into MIT, shouldn't he know better than to consume such a huge amount of alcohol in such a short time?

|9.23.04 @ 6:48PM|#

tchiers,
As someone who was social chair during "the incident" and later risk mangement chairman, I heard of all sorts of idiotic rules. One fantastic idea was that anyone that called an ambulance for someone who had been drinking underage, the living grou and/or the people involved would get disciplinary action levied against them. This of course encourages, ignoring a problem, ditching the problem or driving the problem to the hospital themselves. Neither of which are good options.

My house almost got sanctioned because we called an ambulance on a guy who had gotten seriously ill shortly after his 21st birthday. Nothing happened and there wasn't anything they could do, since it happened in a bar, but they let us know they weren't happy. This was 3 months after the death and the guy was banned from the bar for 4 years (well after he had graduated) even though all the guys in our house, alumni included were regulars and loved by the owners.

One correction to your note though, after the Kruger death, MIT passed Cornell for #1 (and they have a gorge).

Oh and tchiers, IHTFP also stands for "I Hate That Fiji Pledge"

|9.23.04 @ 7:32PM|#

Mo,

I was treasurer at the time, and later president. I imagine we sat through some of the same idiotic meetings. My favorite was "you can only have 5 guests total in your house, unless you get permission first."

I didn't know we'd passed Cornell. MIT #1. Yay Chuck.

Jennifer,

I've never heard of a dorm, any dorm, having curfew. (Though I'm sure I know a few admins who would like to try it) Are we from different eras or merely diffent schools?

Oh, and you'd be surprised what some MIT kids don't know. Think "overprotected overacheivers suddenly living 2000 miles away from mom & dad." Though we generally can keep things from getting too out of hand...

|9.23.04 @ 10:31PM|#

"I had a (lucrative, by student standards) job working in a nightclub, and sometimes did not get out of work until after two in the morning"

Oooh, is this a nightclub, or a, you know, "nightclub"?

|9.26.04 @ 2:09AM|#

The resulting dearth of individual liberties on campuses would have seemed impossible to college students of 25 years ago

I don't know about 25 years ago, but it wouldn't have come as any surprise whatsoever to college students of 15 years ago. The neo-Prohibitionists were already out in force by then, and speech codes were all the rage.

|9.27.04 @ 11:02AM|#

" I've never heard of a dorm, any dorm, having curfew."

neither had i, until i started visiting friends. trenton state college does (10 pm during the week, 12 on weekends at the time), so does notre dame and most of the catholic universities. liberty and mallone and other religious institutions have even more interesting rules about having people of the opposite sex in a dorm room without chaperoning, etc.

it's pretty fucking sad, really.