02-12-2025, 12:38 PM
Jonathan Martin
02-12-2025, 05:31 PM
That article brought back memories. I kinda think there's a special place in hell for people like Richie Incognito.
Thanks for the link. I'll use this thread as a catalyst to address mental health at Stanford and beyond.
To this middle aged professional, life feels more demanding than ever. But it's not just people at my stage of life, with a demanding career and young kids, who are facing the increased demands. My kids seem to face more demands and pressures than I did at their age as well. From what I read here, the same is true, and magnified, at Stanford, a home for overachievers.
In one indication that Stanford students recognize the scope of the problem, the undergraduate senate recently passed a measure providing The Bridge with a stronger financial foundation: https://stanforddaily.com/2025/01/23/ugs...ng-center/
That's a good, but small, bit of progress for a big problem.
Is Stanford making adjustments in the admissions office to select kids who have the mental makeup needed to succeed there?
What resources is Stanford putting towards helping kids manage the demands and pressures once they arrive?
What measurables beyond number of attempted or completed suicides does Stanford use to determine whether it is making sufficient progress?
As I explore options for my kids' future, when I visit schools with them, I plan to ask questions about these subjects because they matter to me. It's easy to say that we want our kids to be able to attend the best academic schools available to them, but it may be more important to find schools that focus on whole person development. When my parents sent me to Stanford, my mom said the school seemed like a good in loco parentis. I certainly enjoyed my time at Stanford, but I'm not sure my mom's characterization was correct then or now. What do you all think?
To this middle aged professional, life feels more demanding than ever. But it's not just people at my stage of life, with a demanding career and young kids, who are facing the increased demands. My kids seem to face more demands and pressures than I did at their age as well. From what I read here, the same is true, and magnified, at Stanford, a home for overachievers.
In one indication that Stanford students recognize the scope of the problem, the undergraduate senate recently passed a measure providing The Bridge with a stronger financial foundation: https://stanforddaily.com/2025/01/23/ugs...ng-center/
That's a good, but small, bit of progress for a big problem.
Is Stanford making adjustments in the admissions office to select kids who have the mental makeup needed to succeed there?
What resources is Stanford putting towards helping kids manage the demands and pressures once they arrive?
What measurables beyond number of attempted or completed suicides does Stanford use to determine whether it is making sufficient progress?
As I explore options for my kids' future, when I visit schools with them, I plan to ask questions about these subjects because they matter to me. It's easy to say that we want our kids to be able to attend the best academic schools available to them, but it may be more important to find schools that focus on whole person development. When my parents sent me to Stanford, my mom said the school seemed like a good in loco parentis. I certainly enjoyed my time at Stanford, but I'm not sure my mom's characterization was correct then or now. What do you all think?
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Thanks for the link. I'll use this thread as a catalyst to address mental health at Stanford and beyond.
To this middle aged professional, life feels more demanding than ever. But it's not just people at my stage of life, with a demanding career and young kids, who are facing the increased demands. My kids seem to face more demands and pressures than I did at their age as well. From what I read here, the same is true, and magnified, at Stanford, a home for overachievers.
In one indication that Stanford students recognize the scope of the problem, the undergraduate senate recently passed a measure providing The Bridge with a stronger financial foundation: https://stanforddaily.com/2025/01/23/ugs...ng-center/
That's a good, but small, bit of progress for a big problem.
Is Stanford making adjustments in the admissions office to select kids who have the mental makeup needed to succeed there?
What resources is Stanford putting towards helping kids manage the demands and pressures once they arrive?
What measurables beyond number of attempted or completed suicides does Stanford use to determine whether it is making sufficient progress?
As I explore options for my kids' future, when I visit schools with them, I plan to ask questions about these subjects because they matter to me. It's easy to say that we want our kids to be able to attend the best academic schools available to them, but it may be more important to find schools that focus on whole person development. When my parents sent me to Stanford, my mom said the school seemed like a good in loco parentis. I certainly enjoyed my time at Stanford, but I'm not sure my mom's characterization was correct then or now. What do you all think?
To this middle aged professional, life feels more demanding than ever. But it's not just people at my stage of life, with a demanding career and young kids, who are facing the increased demands. My kids seem to face more demands and pressures than I did at their age as well. From what I read here, the same is true, and magnified, at Stanford, a home for overachievers.
In one indication that Stanford students recognize the scope of the problem, the undergraduate senate recently passed a measure providing The Bridge with a stronger financial foundation: https://stanforddaily.com/2025/01/23/ugs...ng-center/
That's a good, but small, bit of progress for a big problem.
Is Stanford making adjustments in the admissions office to select kids who have the mental makeup needed to succeed there?
What resources is Stanford putting towards helping kids manage the demands and pressures once they arrive?
What measurables beyond number of attempted or completed suicides does Stanford use to determine whether it is making sufficient progress?
As I explore options for my kids' future, when I visit schools with them, I plan to ask questions about these subjects because they matter to me. It's easy to say that we want our kids to be able to attend the best academic schools available to them, but it may be more important to find schools that focus on whole person development. When my parents sent me to Stanford, my mom said the school seemed like a good in loco parentis. I certainly enjoyed my time at Stanford, but I'm not sure my mom's characterization was correct then or now. What do you all think?
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-12-2025, 11:44 PM
Stanford was not a good entity in loco parentis because it gives us so much freedom as young, autonomous adults. Freedom is good; we're young people stretching our wings, trying to discover who we are in a new society away from the authorities who raised us and watched over us (if we were lucky to have them). Some of us thrived in freedom, some of us had a little harder time. I think Stanford does its best to admit capable, resilient students. At the same time, Stanford has to know that resilience and emotional repression are sometimes confused.
Why doesn't Stanford give the perception that they support students' mental health in significant ways? (Maybe it's because the professors think that it's their job to crush students academically and emotionally?? Haha, just certain engineering profs...and also the murderous curve in premed classes.) Well, it takes a lot of resources, and that costs money. Additionally, it's somewhat unclear on what to spend money on that will have the greatest effect. Therapy puppies? More mental health counselors? RA/RF training?
I think every parent has nightmares that their child will turn out like Richie Incognito. I don't know what Jonathan Martin went through, but I'm glad he's doing well for himself now.
Why doesn't Stanford give the perception that they support students' mental health in significant ways? (Maybe it's because the professors think that it's their job to crush students academically and emotionally?? Haha, just certain engineering profs...and also the murderous curve in premed classes.) Well, it takes a lot of resources, and that costs money. Additionally, it's somewhat unclear on what to spend money on that will have the greatest effect. Therapy puppies? More mental health counselors? RA/RF training?
I think every parent has nightmares that their child will turn out like Richie Incognito. I don't know what Jonathan Martin went through, but I'm glad he's doing well for himself now.
Stanford was not a good entity in loco parentis because it gives us so much freedom as young, autonomous adults. Freedom is good; we're young people stretching our wings, trying to discover who we are in a new society away from the authorities who raised us and watched over us (if we were lucky to have them). Some of us thrived in freedom, some of us had a little harder time. I think Stanford does its best to admit capable, resilient students. At the same time, Stanford has to know that resilience and emotional repression are sometimes confused.
Why doesn't Stanford give the perception that they support students' mental health in significant ways? (Maybe it's because the professors think that it's their job to crush students academically and emotionally?? Haha, just certain engineering profs...and also the murderous curve in premed classes.) Well, it takes a lot of resources, and that costs money. Additionally, it's somewhat unclear on what to spend money on that will have the greatest effect. Therapy puppies? More mental health counselors? RA/RF training?
I think every parent has nightmares that their child will turn out like Richie Incognito. I don't know what Jonathan Martin went through, but I'm glad he's doing well for himself now.
Why doesn't Stanford give the perception that they support students' mental health in significant ways? (Maybe it's because the professors think that it's their job to crush students academically and emotionally?? Haha, just certain engineering profs...and also the murderous curve in premed classes.) Well, it takes a lot of resources, and that costs money. Additionally, it's somewhat unclear on what to spend money on that will have the greatest effect. Therapy puppies? More mental health counselors? RA/RF training?
I think every parent has nightmares that their child will turn out like Richie Incognito. I don't know what Jonathan Martin went through, but I'm glad he's doing well for himself now.
(02-13-2025, 12:09 AM)newguy Wrote:(02-12-2025, 05:31 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I kinda think there's a special place in hell for people like Richie Incognito.
i couldn't agree more.
I appreciate the thread on mental health issues as it affects football players. Incognito is one of the all-time bad actors. Great football player. First Nebraska frosh OL to start the season opener. But horrendous behavioral issues in college:
- Hit walk-on OL Jack Limbaugh from behind.
- Spit on Troy State player
- Picked a fight in blowout loss to Penn State.
- Responsible for Husker loss to Colorado with late personal foul.
- Suspended indefinitely by HC Solich for a practice fight
- Solich and staff mandated anger management treatment at the Menninger clinic.
- Spit on two Michigan State players at Alamo bowl.
- Fight at a 2004 party, three counts of assault, guilty on one.
- Suspended indefinitely for repeated team rules violations
- Locker room fight, final straw for coach Callahan
- Transferred to Oregon, dismissed from team one week later, HC Belotti said he failed to meet conditions including anger management course and code of conduct.
And then in the NFL...
- ESPN noted that he would slip to the later rounds because of his emotional challenges.
- KC Chiefs GM Scott Pioli said publicly he wouldn't even consider Incognito, and Pioli was known for taking players with checkered pasts.
- Former Stanford and Colts coach Dungy said Incognito was on "DNDC" (DO Not Draft because of Character) list.
- Repeated partying while rehabilitating chronic knee injury.
- Fined 3x for berating official, chop block, "major" face mask penalty and separate personal foul.
- Two 15-yard personal fouls for headbutting Titans players. $50k NFL fine, letter from NFL warning against issues.
- Former Rams GM gave Incognito numerous chances to clean up his act.
- NFL leading 38 penalties and seven personal fouls in four years, most of any player from 2006 to 2009
- Suspended by Dolphins for harassment of Jonathan Martin and sat out next season. Dolphins took unusual step of asking NFL to conduct their own investigation.
- Jaguars defensive end Yannick Ngakoue accused Incognito of using racial slurs.
- Signed with Raiders, NFL suspended him for two games for violating league personal conduct penalties.
- ESPN reported on harassment of Martin. ESPN stated that Martin wasn't the only victim
- Fox Sports 1 reported that Incognito sent Martin threatening messages
- CBS Sports reported that Incognito had to be reprimanded in past for actions towards team employees, including an assistant trainer.
- In general, Incognito garnered attention for dirty play including eye gouging, punching players, illegal tackles.
- In 2009, NFL players voted Incognito the dirtiest player in the league.
- In 2018, Incognito was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold stemming from a Life Time Fitness health club incident, reportedly in an altered, paranoid state.
- Arrested in 2018 after a funeral home incident in which he threatened to shoot employees. Police seized two handguns, a suppressor and three rifles from Incognito's truck. He was charged with disorderly conduct and making threats.
I played football in high school with a guy like that, a genuinely bad guy. Shot to death when he was 21. None of our teammates were surprised.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(02-13-2025, 12:09 AM)newguy Wrote:(02-12-2025, 05:31 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I kinda think there's a special place in hell for people like Richie Incognito.
i couldn't agree more.
I appreciate the thread on mental health issues as it affects football players. Incognito is one of the all-time bad actors. Great football player. First Nebraska frosh OL to start the season opener. But horrendous behavioral issues in college:
- Hit walk-on OL Jack Limbaugh from behind.
- Spit on Troy State player
- Picked a fight in blowout loss to Penn State.
- Responsible for Husker loss to Colorado with late personal foul.
- Suspended indefinitely by HC Solich for a practice fight
- Solich and staff mandated anger management treatment at the Menninger clinic.
- Spit on two Michigan State players at Alamo bowl.
- Fight at a 2004 party, three counts of assault, guilty on one.
- Suspended indefinitely for repeated team rules violations
- Locker room fight, final straw for coach Callahan
- Transferred to Oregon, dismissed from team one week later, HC Belotti said he failed to meet conditions including anger management course and code of conduct.
And then in the NFL...
- ESPN noted that he would slip to the later rounds because of his emotional challenges.
- KC Chiefs GM Scott Pioli said publicly he wouldn't even consider Incognito, and Pioli was known for taking players with checkered pasts.
- Former Stanford and Colts coach Dungy said Incognito was on "DNDC" (DO Not Draft because of Character) list.
- Repeated partying while rehabilitating chronic knee injury.
- Fined 3x for berating official, chop block, "major" face mask penalty and separate personal foul.
- Two 15-yard personal fouls for headbutting Titans players. $50k NFL fine, letter from NFL warning against issues.
- Former Rams GM gave Incognito numerous chances to clean up his act.
- NFL leading 38 penalties and seven personal fouls in four years, most of any player from 2006 to 2009
- Suspended by Dolphins for harassment of Jonathan Martin and sat out next season. Dolphins took unusual step of asking NFL to conduct their own investigation.
- Jaguars defensive end Yannick Ngakoue accused Incognito of using racial slurs.
- Signed with Raiders, NFL suspended him for two games for violating league personal conduct penalties.
- ESPN reported on harassment of Martin. ESPN stated that Martin wasn't the only victim
- Fox Sports 1 reported that Incognito sent Martin threatening messages
- CBS Sports reported that Incognito had to be reprimanded in past for actions towards team employees, including an assistant trainer.
- In general, Incognito garnered attention for dirty play including eye gouging, punching players, illegal tackles.
- In 2009, NFL players voted Incognito the dirtiest player in the league.
- In 2018, Incognito was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold stemming from a Life Time Fitness health club incident, reportedly in an altered, paranoid state.
- Arrested in 2018 after a funeral home incident in which he threatened to shoot employees. Police seized two handguns, a suppressor and three rifles from Incognito's truck. He was charged with disorderly conduct and making threats.
I played football in high school with a guy like that, a genuinely bad guy. Shot to death when he was 21. None of our teammates were surprised.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
02-13-2025, 08:42 AM
(02-12-2025, 05:31 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: That article brought back memories. I kinda think there's a special place in hell for people like Richie Incognito.
There are always -- ALWAYS -- enablers for sorry-ass creatures like Incognito all along the way, and they know who they are. Clueless family members, school administrators/teachers, community, coaches, et. al. Gotta hope they, too, roast in hell right along with their protegee(s). Makes me want to puke.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(02-12-2025, 05:31 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: That article brought back memories. I kinda think there's a special place in hell for people like Richie Incognito.
There are always -- ALWAYS -- enablers for sorry-ass creatures like Incognito all along the way, and they know who they are. Clueless family members, school administrators/teachers, community, coaches, et. al. Gotta hope they, too, roast in hell right along with their protegee(s). Makes me want to puke.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
As the Incognito/Martin story makes clear, two things an entity (like Stanford or the Dolphins) can do to promote mental health are: (1) expel bad actors, or force them to get treatment, so they don’t traumatize others; and (2) give people suffering trauma or mental health issues an opportunity to escape an antagonizer or take a leave of absence that won’t prejudice them. When I attended Stanford, I had friends assigned to freshman roommates who were bad abusers of alcohol, which imposed significant consequences on my friends. I don’t remember anyone ever being forced into treatment or expelled. I don’t remember anyone ever being able to move out of a bad dorm situation or taking leaves of absence for mental health. Maybe those remedies actually did happen sometimes but I was oblivious to all that. Maybe the more proactive approach would be to heavily limit alcohol on campus. It’s a scourge that causes lots of problems and generally doesn’t give people the benefits they are hoping to obtain.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
As the Incognito/Martin story makes clear, two things an entity (like Stanford or the Dolphins) can do to promote mental health are: (1) expel bad actors, or force them to get treatment, so they don’t traumatize others; and (2) give people suffering trauma or mental health issues an opportunity to escape an antagonizer or take a leave of absence that won’t prejudice them. When I attended Stanford, I had friends assigned to freshman roommates who were bad abusers of alcohol, which imposed significant consequences on my friends. I don’t remember anyone ever being forced into treatment or expelled. I don’t remember anyone ever being able to move out of a bad dorm situation or taking leaves of absence for mental health. Maybe those remedies actually did happen sometimes but I was oblivious to all that. Maybe the more proactive approach would be to heavily limit alcohol on campus. It’s a scourge that causes lots of problems and generally doesn’t give people the benefits they are hoping to obtain.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-13-2025, 12:25 PM
(02-13-2025, 09:39 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: As the Incognito/Martin story makes clear, two things an entity (like Stanford or the Dolphins) can do to promote mental health are: (1) expel bad actors, or force them to get treatment, so they don’t traumatize others; and (2) give people suffering trauma or mental health issues an opportunity to escape an antagonizer or take a leave of absence that won’t prejudice them. When I attended Stanford, I had friends assigned to freshman roommates who were bad abusers of alcohol, which imposed significant consequences on my friends. I don’t remember anyone ever being forced into treatment or expelled. I don’t remember anyone ever being able to move out of a bad dorm situation or taking leaves of absence for mental health. Maybe those remedies actually did happen sometimes but I was oblivious to all that. Maybe the more proactive approach would be to heavily limit alcohol on campus. It’s a scourge that causes lots of problems and generally doesn’t give people the benefits they are hoping to obtain.
That's a good idea, but it might prove challenging in the execution. Right before my frosh year in college, the son of a major donor got blindly drink and stumbled off the top of the arena roof on campus. So for my frosh year, kegs were banned from dorms. And I distinctly recall going up in an elevator my first month with the new president of the university. Seven drunk frat brothers, all with beer cups stumble into the elevator. "Having a little party boys?" said the Pres with a tight-lipped smile. They all cheered. Pres gets off on fifth floor, elevator continues to top floor, eleventh. One of the drunken kids finally gets the clue and realizes that it was the university's new president.
Next week, all alcohol is off-limits at university events. The next quarter, alcohol was permanently banned from campus.
Wish I could say that it did the trick. But it just moved off-campus, or the kids got better at hiding it.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(02-13-2025, 09:39 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: As the Incognito/Martin story makes clear, two things an entity (like Stanford or the Dolphins) can do to promote mental health are: (1) expel bad actors, or force them to get treatment, so they don’t traumatize others; and (2) give people suffering trauma or mental health issues an opportunity to escape an antagonizer or take a leave of absence that won’t prejudice them. When I attended Stanford, I had friends assigned to freshman roommates who were bad abusers of alcohol, which imposed significant consequences on my friends. I don’t remember anyone ever being forced into treatment or expelled. I don’t remember anyone ever being able to move out of a bad dorm situation or taking leaves of absence for mental health. Maybe those remedies actually did happen sometimes but I was oblivious to all that. Maybe the more proactive approach would be to heavily limit alcohol on campus. It’s a scourge that causes lots of problems and generally doesn’t give people the benefits they are hoping to obtain.
That's a good idea, but it might prove challenging in the execution. Right before my frosh year in college, the son of a major donor got blindly drink and stumbled off the top of the arena roof on campus. So for my frosh year, kegs were banned from dorms. And I distinctly recall going up in an elevator my first month with the new president of the university. Seven drunk frat brothers, all with beer cups stumble into the elevator. "Having a little party boys?" said the Pres with a tight-lipped smile. They all cheered. Pres gets off on fifth floor, elevator continues to top floor, eleventh. One of the drunken kids finally gets the clue and realizes that it was the university's new president.
Next week, all alcohol is off-limits at university events. The next quarter, alcohol was permanently banned from campus.
Wish I could say that it did the trick. But it just moved off-campus, or the kids got better at hiding it.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
02-13-2025, 12:51 PM
(02-13-2025, 12:25 PM)Mick Wrote:(02-13-2025, 09:39 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: As the Incognito/Martin story makes clear, two things an entity (like Stanford or the Dolphins) can do to promote mental health are: (1) expel bad actors, or force them to get treatment, so they don’t traumatize others; and (2) give people suffering trauma or mental health issues an opportunity to escape an antagonizer or take a leave of absence that won’t prejudice them. When I attended Stanford, I had friends assigned to freshman roommates who were bad abusers of alcohol, which imposed significant consequences on my friends. I don’t remember anyone ever being forced into treatment or expelled. I don’t remember anyone ever being able to move out of a bad dorm situation or taking leaves of absence for mental health. Maybe those remedies actually did happen sometimes but I was oblivious to all that. Maybe the more proactive approach would be to heavily limit alcohol on campus. It’s a scourge that causes lots of problems and generally doesn’t give people the benefits they are hoping to obtain.
That's a good idea, but it might prove challenging in the execution. Right before my frosh year in college, the son of a major donor got blindly drink and stumbled off the top of the arena roof on campus. So for my frosh year, kegs were banned from dorms. And I distinctly recall going up in an elevator my first month with the new president of the university. Seven drunk frat brothers, all with beer cups stumble into the elevator. "Having a little party boys?" said the Pres with a tight-lipped smile. They all cheered. Pres gets off on fifth floor, elevator continues to top floor, eleventh. One of the drunken kids finally gets the clue and realizes that it was the university's new president.
Next week, all alcohol is off-limits at university events. The next quarter, alcohol was permanently banned from campus.
Wish I could say that it did the trick. But it just moved off-campus, or the kids got better at hiding it.
I attended in the Stone Age, and I don't know the history of alcohol bans on campus in recent years. That said, Stanford's website provides a complicated set of rules regarding alcohol that sounds not at all like a total ban: https://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/camp...%20Weekend. Regardless of the written rule, however, enforcement is the key. If students knew that a second violation of the university alcohol policy meant mandatory in patient rehab on their own dime during a university imposed leave, they'd be less likely to drink.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(02-13-2025, 12:25 PM)Mick Wrote:(02-13-2025, 09:39 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: As the Incognito/Martin story makes clear, two things an entity (like Stanford or the Dolphins) can do to promote mental health are: (1) expel bad actors, or force them to get treatment, so they don’t traumatize others; and (2) give people suffering trauma or mental health issues an opportunity to escape an antagonizer or take a leave of absence that won’t prejudice them. When I attended Stanford, I had friends assigned to freshman roommates who were bad abusers of alcohol, which imposed significant consequences on my friends. I don’t remember anyone ever being forced into treatment or expelled. I don’t remember anyone ever being able to move out of a bad dorm situation or taking leaves of absence for mental health. Maybe those remedies actually did happen sometimes but I was oblivious to all that. Maybe the more proactive approach would be to heavily limit alcohol on campus. It’s a scourge that causes lots of problems and generally doesn’t give people the benefits they are hoping to obtain.
That's a good idea, but it might prove challenging in the execution. Right before my frosh year in college, the son of a major donor got blindly drink and stumbled off the top of the arena roof on campus. So for my frosh year, kegs were banned from dorms. And I distinctly recall going up in an elevator my first month with the new president of the university. Seven drunk frat brothers, all with beer cups stumble into the elevator. "Having a little party boys?" said the Pres with a tight-lipped smile. They all cheered. Pres gets off on fifth floor, elevator continues to top floor, eleventh. One of the drunken kids finally gets the clue and realizes that it was the university's new president.
Next week, all alcohol is off-limits at university events. The next quarter, alcohol was permanently banned from campus.
Wish I could say that it did the trick. But it just moved off-campus, or the kids got better at hiding it.
I attended in the Stone Age, and I don't know the history of alcohol bans on campus in recent years. That said, Stanford's website provides a complicated set of rules regarding alcohol that sounds not at all like a total ban: https://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/camp...%20Weekend. Regardless of the written rule, however, enforcement is the key. If students knew that a second violation of the university alcohol policy meant mandatory in patient rehab on their own dime during a university imposed leave, they'd be less likely to drink.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-13-2025, 02:13 PM
(02-13-2025, 12:51 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: I attended in the Stone Age, and I don't know the history of alcohol bans on campus in recent years. That said, Stanford's website provides a complicated set of rules regarding alcohol that sounds not at all like a total ban: https://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/camp...%20Weekend. Regardless of the written rule, however, enforcement is the key. If students knew that a second violation of the university alcohol policy meant mandatory in patient rehab on their own dime during a university imposed leave, they'd be less likely to drink.I too attended in the stone age. The students were energetically resisting the in loco parentis concept. Getting rid of sign-in/out for females was one small step. Under-age drinking was not a major issue for the University as it definitely is today. Our RAs in Cedro would very occasionally fill a tub with ice and put beer in it. It was left in the lounge. Obviously we we all under-age, except the RAs themselves :-). Nobody got drunk (not really enough beer to do so). In subsequent years dorm parties always featured as much as you wanted to drink. Nobody was worried about who was 21 or not. It wasn't unknown for people to get drunk. In only one case that I recall did we end up taking anybody to Cowell. He weighed all of about 135 lbs and hadn't realized that keeping up with larger people was a very bad idea.
The RAs every year basically said they trusted us, that we should take care of each other if necessary and above all don't get them (the RAs) in trouble. That seemed to work well. It was undoubtedly a simpler time, but I am pretty certain the current situation is not an improvement. The University is IMO more concerned with their potential liability than they are with student welfare. That leads to a legalistic approach that may or may not actually help students "grow up" and take responsibility for their own lives. Different times I guess.
(02-13-2025, 12:51 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: I attended in the Stone Age, and I don't know the history of alcohol bans on campus in recent years. That said, Stanford's website provides a complicated set of rules regarding alcohol that sounds not at all like a total ban: https://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/camp...%20Weekend. Regardless of the written rule, however, enforcement is the key. If students knew that a second violation of the university alcohol policy meant mandatory in patient rehab on their own dime during a university imposed leave, they'd be less likely to drink.I too attended in the stone age. The students were energetically resisting the in loco parentis concept. Getting rid of sign-in/out for females was one small step. Under-age drinking was not a major issue for the University as it definitely is today. Our RAs in Cedro would very occasionally fill a tub with ice and put beer in it. It was left in the lounge. Obviously we we all under-age, except the RAs themselves :-). Nobody got drunk (not really enough beer to do so). In subsequent years dorm parties always featured as much as you wanted to drink. Nobody was worried about who was 21 or not. It wasn't unknown for people to get drunk. In only one case that I recall did we end up taking anybody to Cowell. He weighed all of about 135 lbs and hadn't realized that keeping up with larger people was a very bad idea.
The RAs every year basically said they trusted us, that we should take care of each other if necessary and above all don't get them (the RAs) in trouble. That seemed to work well. It was undoubtedly a simpler time, but I am pretty certain the current situation is not an improvement. The University is IMO more concerned with their potential liability than they are with student welfare. That leads to a legalistic approach that may or may not actually help students "grow up" and take responsibility for their own lives. Different times I guess.
02-13-2025, 07:38 PM
I must have gone to school in the In Darwin speramus age. The last thing any of us wanted was another parent. Those were 1,406 miles away and reachable only by collect call. In an absolute emergency. I had exactly one of those my entire time in school and my dad called me. The drinking age (not that it would matter) was 18, before the Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, when I was......21! Yay for me. We did routinely stupid things with routinely serious consequences. I once won a major award because of my stupidity. I once (yeah, right, once) lost a girlfriend because of my stupidity. I had a fraternity brother jump off our roof and need a year of rehab for his stupidity. The stupidity and consequences varied. But we learned. Or didn't learn. Life is tough. The Band-Aid comes off at some point. I suspect if alcohol was all underground (like weed, acid, coke, and shrooms were at the time); it would not have made a substantial difference in our behavior. But who knows, maybe if Stroh's didn't sponsor Greek Week, I wouldn't have given blood within 12 hours of personally drinking a dozen pitchers of beer. Gotta beat the Pikes, right?
Mental illness was never addressed in public. That wasn't good.
I'm not sure things would have worked out the same for most of us if cell phones were around though. That part is scary.
Mental illness was never addressed in public. That wasn't good.
I'm not sure things would have worked out the same for most of us if cell phones were around though. That part is scary.
I must have gone to school in the In Darwin speramus age. The last thing any of us wanted was another parent. Those were 1,406 miles away and reachable only by collect call. In an absolute emergency. I had exactly one of those my entire time in school and my dad called me. The drinking age (not that it would matter) was 18, before the Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, when I was......21! Yay for me. We did routinely stupid things with routinely serious consequences. I once won a major award because of my stupidity. I once (yeah, right, once) lost a girlfriend because of my stupidity. I had a fraternity brother jump off our roof and need a year of rehab for his stupidity. The stupidity and consequences varied. But we learned. Or didn't learn. Life is tough. The Band-Aid comes off at some point. I suspect if alcohol was all underground (like weed, acid, coke, and shrooms were at the time); it would not have made a substantial difference in our behavior. But who knows, maybe if Stroh's didn't sponsor Greek Week, I wouldn't have given blood within 12 hours of personally drinking a dozen pitchers of beer. Gotta beat the Pikes, right?
Mental illness was never addressed in public. That wasn't good.
I'm not sure things would have worked out the same for most of us if cell phones were around though. That part is scary.
Mental illness was never addressed in public. That wasn't good.
I'm not sure things would have worked out the same for most of us if cell phones were around though. That part is scary.
My FIL uses the “we survived” excuse too. Of course he survived since he’s the one talking with me. Lots of people didn’t. Thousands of people die from alcohol and drugs every year, either ODs or liver disease or car accidents. The justice system may not have a great solution for that. Stanford has a much better solution. Force people who behave like addicts into rehab or they leave the school. People don’t want to leave the school. Hence they will get the rehab they need and they won’t act like addicts. They won’t need to have their stomachs pumped or fall off balconies. They’ll deal with mental health issues in productive ways instead of self-medicating.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2025, 10:34 PM by TrumpCard.)
My FIL uses the “we survived” excuse too. Of course he survived since he’s the one talking with me. Lots of people didn’t. Thousands of people die from alcohol and drugs every year, either ODs or liver disease or car accidents. The justice system may not have a great solution for that. Stanford has a much better solution. Force people who behave like addicts into rehab or they leave the school. People don’t want to leave the school. Hence they will get the rehab they need and they won’t act like addicts. They won’t need to have their stomachs pumped or fall off balconies. They’ll deal with mental health issues in productive ways instead of self-medicating.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
This article was a bad idea for many reasons, and I wish an editor had either culled it completely or at least greatly shortened it.
Richie Incognito weighs in: "He couldn’t cut it in the NFL so he quit and his mom blamed me. Legacy media pushed this narrative long and far. Too bad it was all a lie! They lied to protect his money. He quit… the team had every right to claw back that money. His mom started the bullying narrative with @espn @AdamSchefter so that @MiamiDolphins wouldn’t go after his signing bonus!"
https://x.com/68INCOGNITO/status/1891250816968954313
Richie Incognito weighs in: "He couldn’t cut it in the NFL so he quit and his mom blamed me. Legacy media pushed this narrative long and far. Too bad it was all a lie! They lied to protect his money. He quit… the team had every right to claw back that money. His mom started the bullying narrative with @espn @AdamSchefter so that @MiamiDolphins wouldn’t go after his signing bonus!"
https://x.com/68INCOGNITO/status/1891250816968954313
This article was a bad idea for many reasons, and I wish an editor had either culled it completely or at least greatly shortened it.
Richie Incognito weighs in: "He couldn’t cut it in the NFL so he quit and his mom blamed me. Legacy media pushed this narrative long and far. Too bad it was all a lie! They lied to protect his money. He quit… the team had every right to claw back that money. His mom started the bullying narrative with @espn @AdamSchefter so that @MiamiDolphins wouldn’t go after his signing bonus!"
https://x.com/68INCOGNITO/status/1891250816968954313
Richie Incognito weighs in: "He couldn’t cut it in the NFL so he quit and his mom blamed me. Legacy media pushed this narrative long and far. Too bad it was all a lie! They lied to protect his money. He quit… the team had every right to claw back that money. His mom started the bullying narrative with @espn @AdamSchefter so that @MiamiDolphins wouldn’t go after his signing bonus!"
https://x.com/68INCOGNITO/status/1891250816968954313
02-16-2025, 08:10 PM
Never mind that very substantive voicemail...but I don't think anyone is listening to Richie's protests. I do wish Martin had a longer (more fulfilling) career in the NFL with another team, but he probably wasn't in the right head space for that.
02-16-2025, 08:40 PM
I feel badly for Martin, but he has degrees from Stanford, Georgetown, and soon Wharton. And his big plan is a crypto hedge fund? Hard to feel that bad.
02-17-2025, 12:03 AM
(02-16-2025, 08:40 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I feel badly for Martin, but he has degrees from Stanford, Georgetown, and soon Wharton. And his big plan is a crypto hedge fund? Hard to feel that bad.
People contain multitudes, and while I agree that hawking crypto is probably not the best use of his talent and education, nobody should have to go through what he went through, whether it is middle school or on the Miami Dolphins. So, I at once feel bad for him and hope that he eventually finds something more productive than a crypto hedge fund.
BC
(02-16-2025, 08:40 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I feel badly for Martin, but he has degrees from Stanford, Georgetown, and soon Wharton. And his big plan is a crypto hedge fund? Hard to feel that bad.
People contain multitudes, and while I agree that hawking crypto is probably not the best use of his talent and education, nobody should have to go through what he went through, whether it is middle school or on the Miami Dolphins. So, I at once feel bad for him and hope that he eventually finds something more productive than a crypto hedge fund.
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »