[Goose]

This is how it would be if you didn't have people like the parents of Katie Meyer suing schools for wrongful death because the injury lawyer industry has proliferated. I don't think schools like Stanford want to be so bureaucratic, but when operating in a litigious culture, measures must be taken to protect yourself.

IMO there are plenty of people at Stanford who indeed want it to be so bureaucratic. They fall into two (overlapping) groups. One group sees expanding/creating a program of some kind as a way to build their empire. The other group believes there is a "problem" of some kind and they truly believe they can "fix" it. It is true that we live in a litigious society, but IMO the "we may get sued" rationale is often over-used. It is a great rationale for the above two groups to do what they want to do anyway, and there is nobody to push back and say "No, we don't need to do that".

One problem with creating programs to address potential lawsuits is that by so doing you admit it is your responsibility. You can't argue it isn't because you created a program to do it. Further, like all "programs" it is probable that somewhere, somehow, somebody will make a mistake. When the fairly unsympathetic respondent Stanford University is sued in a case like this, they are toast. Even if Stanford arguably didn't unequivocally "make a mistake", the jury quite probably will look at the deep pockets and find for the complainant. Some of these programs are attempting to solve social issues that so far society has no foolproof answer. If Stanford willingly puts that on their plate, it is asking for trouble. They would be better off arguing it isn't their problem.

Another option would be for schools to push state governments to pass laws that limit their liability for what students do. I mean how can anyone in their right mind hold the school responsible when students do dumb things? Have any student who is admitted sign a waiver that releases school from liability for whatever school wants that is within reason.



Then, have campus police enforce the laws that apply to everyone else in the county, as well as campus ordinances like you must be inside and not disturbing neighbors after 11pm or similar. The alcohol issue exists on every campus in the land, so there are plenty of ways to manage it without being heavy handed.



It's comical to me that a school would require students to apply for a party permit like Stanford apparently does.

Totally agree with the above. Unfortunately the Universities tend to accept the (IMO) unreasonable expectations regarding  their obligations regarding student conduct. They don't push back and end up in a no win situation where they have accepted responsibility for the conduct of others. In order to even hope to avoid failure, they have to adopt successively more authoritarian regulations. Of course, even that will fail.

[Goose]

This is how it would be if you didn't have people like the parents of Katie Meyer suing schools for wrongful death because the injury lawyer industry has proliferated. I don't think schools like Stanford want to be so bureaucratic, but when operating in a litigious culture, measures must be taken to protect yourself.

IMO there are plenty of people at Stanford who indeed want it to be so bureaucratic. They fall into two (overlapping) groups. One group sees expanding/creating a program of some kind as a way to build their empire. The other group believes there is a "problem" of some kind and they truly believe they can "fix" it. It is true that we live in a litigious society, but IMO the "we may get sued" rationale is often over-used. It is a great rationale for the above two groups to do what they want to do anyway, and there is nobody to push back and say "No, we don't need to do that".

One problem with creating programs to address potential lawsuits is that by so doing you admit it is your responsibility. You can't argue it isn't because you created a program to do it. Further, like all "programs" it is probable that somewhere, somehow, somebody will make a mistake. When the fairly unsympathetic respondent Stanford University is sued in a case like this, they are toast. Even if Stanford arguably didn't unequivocally "make a mistake", the jury quite probably will look at the deep pockets and find for the complainant. Some of these programs are attempting to solve social issues that so far society has no foolproof answer. If Stanford willingly puts that on their plate, it is asking for trouble. They would be better off arguing it isn't their problem.

Another option would be for schools to push state governments to pass laws that limit their liability for what students do. I mean how can anyone in their right mind hold the school responsible when students do dumb things? Have any student who is admitted sign a waiver that releases school from liability for whatever school wants that is within reason.



Then, have campus police enforce the laws that apply to everyone else in the county, as well as campus ordinances like you must be inside and not disturbing neighbors after 11pm or similar. The alcohol issue exists on every campus in the land, so there are plenty of ways to manage it without being heavy handed.



It's comical to me that a school would require students to apply for a party permit like Stanford apparently does.

Totally agree with the above. Unfortunately the Universities tend to accept the (IMO) unreasonable expectations regarding  their obligations regarding student conduct. They don't push back and end up in a no win situation where they have accepted responsibility for the conduct of others. In order to even hope to avoid failure, they have to adopt successively more authoritarian regulations. Of course, even that will fail.