[martyup]

I remember that one of the guys killed in that DUI accident, Kevin McMillan, was the boyfriend of THE most beautiful woman on campus.  Her name IIRC was Heather.  I found out at our 10 year class reunion that after graduating she married and had children and then died of brain cancer.  Man that revelation really made me realize how fleeting life can be and altered my outlook permanently.

[martyup]

I remember that one of the guys killed in that DUI accident, Kevin McMillan, was the boyfriend of THE most beautiful woman on campus.  Her name IIRC was Heather.  I found out at our 10 year class reunion that after graduating she married and had children and then died of brain cancer.  Man that revelation really made me realize how fleeting life can be and altered my outlook permanently.

[82lsju]

I remember that one of the guys killed in that DUI accident, Kevin McMillan, was the boyfriend of THE most beautiful woman on campus.  Her name IIRC was Heather.  I found out at our 10 year class reunion that after graduating she married and had children and then died of brain cancer.  Man that revelation really made me realize how fleeting life can be and altered my outlook permanently.

Heather Pfotenhauer Wimmer '83 (she married Gary Wimmer '83) lived in my dorm (Serra) my sophomore (her frosh) year (Gary lived there too), she was a lovely person taken way too young in 2008.  

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/mer...d=23247844

[82lsju]

I remember that one of the guys killed in that DUI accident, Kevin McMillan, was the boyfriend of THE most beautiful woman on campus.  Her name IIRC was Heather.  I found out at our 10 year class reunion that after graduating she married and had children and then died of brain cancer.  Man that revelation really made me realize how fleeting life can be and altered my outlook permanently.

Heather Pfotenhauer Wimmer '83 (she married Gary Wimmer '83) lived in my dorm (Serra) my sophomore (her frosh) year (Gary lived there too), she was a lovely person taken way too young in 2008.  

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/mer...d=23247844

[martyup]

I remember that one of the guys killed in that DUI accident, Kevin McMillan, was the boyfriend of THE most beautiful woman on campus.  Her name IIRC was Heather.  I found out at our 10 year class reunion that after graduating she married and had children and then died of brain cancer.  Man that revelation really made me realize how fleeting life can be and altered my outlook permanently.

Heather Pfotenhauer Wimmer '83 (she married Gary Wimmer '83) lived in my dorm (Serra) my sophomore (her frosh) year (Gary lived there too), she was a lovely person taken way too young in 2008.  

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/mer...d=23247844

Must have been out 30 year class reunion that I found out about Heather.  Tragic.

[martyup]

I remember that one of the guys killed in that DUI accident, Kevin McMillan, was the boyfriend of THE most beautiful woman on campus.  Her name IIRC was Heather.  I found out at our 10 year class reunion that after graduating she married and had children and then died of brain cancer.  Man that revelation really made me realize how fleeting life can be and altered my outlook permanently.

Heather Pfotenhauer Wimmer '83 (she married Gary Wimmer '83) lived in my dorm (Serra) my sophomore (her frosh) year (Gary lived there too), she was a lovely person taken way too young in 2008.  

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/mer...d=23247844

Must have been out 30 year class reunion that I found out about Heather.  Tragic.

[akiddoc]

Back in the day, which is long past 30 years ago, the RA was rarely seen, usually leaving his room or returning to it, but never out with the inhabitants of the dorm.  Poker games, serious bridge playing, all for money of course. took place 30 ft from his door.  Flasks came out of pockets and the contents emptied into cokes.  
Some how we all found our advisors, scheduled classes, went to them when we liked them and tended not to go when we didn't and just did the reading and papers, unless of course the Prof was one of few who took roll. We pretty much made all of own decisions without unwanted input from the University.  We mostly all graduated, moved on with our lives and years later still looked back on the Stanford years as some of the bests of our lives. Doesn't sound like is the case now.

My experience was very similar to yours. Freshman year, I lived next door to the RA. I think we stabilized him more than visa-versa. There weren't many interactions, and none of them were "significant". Our "tutor" worked the night shift at SLAC and slept during the day, so we never saw him. When SLAC first opened, they could only operate the beam at night. It took too much power (supposedly) to operate in the daytime. Interestingly, I do see him now occasionally, more than I ever did then.

We saw our RAs all the time. And they not only saw us drinking in the lounge, in the hallways, or in our rooms with the doors open, they were often drinking with us.  I think they even made the Ernie's run for our big dorm keg party.  

Perhaps they thought there was only so much trouble a bunch of nerdy SLE freshmen could get themselves into and so they wanted to show us how it's done.  

The only time I remember hearing about a dorm staff member crossing the line was when one offered an underclassman girl a drink behind closed doors. He lost his staff position for that.

In later years in dorms that were not all freshmen (and eventually were co-ed) there were RAs that operated like you describe, more or less. Most of them didn't actually participate in the parties, but they did make Ernie's runs to facilitate them. They all had their own lives and friends, so they often were absent or involved is a "small group" party of their own. I think they felt their prominent presence at dorm events might cast a damper on them (and they also might have wanted plausible deniability if "something" happened). In any case they were absolutely certain we knew how to get into trouble and they also believed we would mostly refrain from doing so (and step up to help those who accidentally did so without involving "the administration").

I was an RA for a quarter. I was almost never "there" as I had lots going on academically and in fact quit as an RA after one quarter because it was obvious I just didn't have the time to do even a minimal job.

45 years ago, the RA for my freshman dorm helped arrange for kegs and set up parties. Every party on campus had alcohol. Everyone knew it. Even President Lyman would come to the dorms for wine and cheese socials. Our RA had one rule: "don't do anything stupid." We policed ourselves pretty well. Stopped drunken dorm mates from leaving the building, stopped them from driving, etc. Our RA was very visible. Gave a lot of good advice. I followed him to Yale Med School, actually.

[akiddoc]

Back in the day, which is long past 30 years ago, the RA was rarely seen, usually leaving his room or returning to it, but never out with the inhabitants of the dorm.  Poker games, serious bridge playing, all for money of course. took place 30 ft from his door.  Flasks came out of pockets and the contents emptied into cokes.  
Some how we all found our advisors, scheduled classes, went to them when we liked them and tended not to go when we didn't and just did the reading and papers, unless of course the Prof was one of few who took roll. We pretty much made all of own decisions without unwanted input from the University.  We mostly all graduated, moved on with our lives and years later still looked back on the Stanford years as some of the bests of our lives. Doesn't sound like is the case now.

My experience was very similar to yours. Freshman year, I lived next door to the RA. I think we stabilized him more than visa-versa. There weren't many interactions, and none of them were "significant". Our "tutor" worked the night shift at SLAC and slept during the day, so we never saw him. When SLAC first opened, they could only operate the beam at night. It took too much power (supposedly) to operate in the daytime. Interestingly, I do see him now occasionally, more than I ever did then.

We saw our RAs all the time. And they not only saw us drinking in the lounge, in the hallways, or in our rooms with the doors open, they were often drinking with us.  I think they even made the Ernie's run for our big dorm keg party.  

Perhaps they thought there was only so much trouble a bunch of nerdy SLE freshmen could get themselves into and so they wanted to show us how it's done.  

The only time I remember hearing about a dorm staff member crossing the line was when one offered an underclassman girl a drink behind closed doors. He lost his staff position for that.

In later years in dorms that were not all freshmen (and eventually were co-ed) there were RAs that operated like you describe, more or less. Most of them didn't actually participate in the parties, but they did make Ernie's runs to facilitate them. They all had their own lives and friends, so they often were absent or involved is a "small group" party of their own. I think they felt their prominent presence at dorm events might cast a damper on them (and they also might have wanted plausible deniability if "something" happened). In any case they were absolutely certain we knew how to get into trouble and they also believed we would mostly refrain from doing so (and step up to help those who accidentally did so without involving "the administration").

I was an RA for a quarter. I was almost never "there" as I had lots going on academically and in fact quit as an RA after one quarter because it was obvious I just didn't have the time to do even a minimal job.

45 years ago, the RA for my freshman dorm helped arrange for kegs and set up parties. Every party on campus had alcohol. Everyone knew it. Even President Lyman would come to the dorms for wine and cheese socials. Our RA had one rule: "don't do anything stupid." We policed ourselves pretty well. Stopped drunken dorm mates from leaving the building, stopped them from driving, etc. Our RA was very visible. Gave a lot of good advice. I followed him to Yale Med School, actually.

[OutsiderFan]

45 years ago, the RA for my freshman dorm helped arrange for kegs and set up parties. Every party on campus had alcohol. Everyone knew it. Even President Lyman would come to the dorms for wine and cheese socials. Our RA had one rule: "don't do anything stupid." We policed ourselves pretty well. Stopped drunken dorm mates from leaving the building, stopped them from driving, etc. Our RA was very visible. Gave a lot of good advice. I followed him to Yale Med School, actually.

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.

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.

[OutsiderFan]

45 years ago, the RA for my freshman dorm helped arrange for kegs and set up parties. Every party on campus had alcohol. Everyone knew it. Even President Lyman would come to the dorms for wine and cheese socials. Our RA had one rule: "don't do anything stupid." We policed ourselves pretty well. Stopped drunken dorm mates from leaving the building, stopped them from driving, etc. Our RA was very visible. Gave a lot of good advice. I followed him to Yale Med School, actually.

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.

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.

[oldalum]

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

That is true at Vanderbilt for fraternities, so I suspect at other schools too. Required at Vandy to identify who's responsible for and thus accountable for the party, which includes meeting requirements such as checking IDs at the door to ensure no non-students are present, non-drinking party monitors who also escort too-drunk individuals back to their dorms, no hard alcohol.

[oldalum]

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

That is true at Vanderbilt for fraternities, so I suspect at other schools too. Required at Vandy to identify who's responsible for and thus accountable for the party, which includes meeting requirements such as checking IDs at the door to ensure no non-students are present, non-drinking party monitors who also escort too-drunk individuals back to their dorms, no hard alcohol.

[82lsju]

Stanford will be implementing a new Student Conduct Charter on May 2, 2023

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/07/stu...ay-08-2023

the charter is here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PN2QovO...XdfXL/view

[82lsju]

Stanford will be implementing a new Student Conduct Charter on May 2, 2023

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/07/stu...ay-08-2023

the charter is here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PN2QovO...XdfXL/view

[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.

[82lsju]

looks like no replacement for Drell until at least July which is probably the correct decision

The University announced Tuesday the formation of the Provostial Search Advisory Committee, which will support the search for Persis Drell’s successor as provost.

The Committee will recommend candidates to Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, who originally selected Drell as provost. Tessier-Lavigne informed the committee that he will not select the next provost until the conclusion of the Board of Trustees’ investigation into allegations of research misconduct in papers he co-authored.

“The President is showing respect for the process of the Board of Trustees,” university spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote on Tessier-Lavigne’s decision to delay selection.

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/24/pre...ay-24-2023

the search advisory committee is listed here

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...st-search/

Those wishing to provide input to the advisory committee will be encouraged to do so before June 6, 2023, by emailing provostsearch@stanford.edu. Nominations and other input also can be mailed to Building 1, Mail Code 2070, or faxed to (650) 723-3235. All communications with the advisory committee will be kept confidential.

[82lsju]

looks like no replacement for Drell until at least July which is probably the correct decision

The University announced Tuesday the formation of the Provostial Search Advisory Committee, which will support the search for Persis Drell’s successor as provost.

The Committee will recommend candidates to Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, who originally selected Drell as provost. Tessier-Lavigne informed the committee that he will not select the next provost until the conclusion of the Board of Trustees’ investigation into allegations of research misconduct in papers he co-authored.

“The President is showing respect for the process of the Board of Trustees,” university spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote on Tessier-Lavigne’s decision to delay selection.

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/24/pre...ay-24-2023

the search advisory committee is listed here

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...st-search/

Those wishing to provide input to the advisory committee will be encouraged to do so before June 6, 2023, by emailing provostsearch@stanford.edu. Nominations and other input also can be mailed to Building 1, Mail Code 2070, or faxed to (650) 723-3235. All communications with the advisory committee will be kept confidential.

[winflop]

“The President is showing respect for the process of the Board of Trustees,” university spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote on Tessier-Lavigne’s decision to delay selection.

Better late than never

[winflop]

“The President is showing respect for the process of the Board of Trustees,” university spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote on Tessier-Lavigne’s decision to delay selection.

Better late than never

[Mick]

[quote="82lsju" pid='390963' dateline='1684933732']
looks like no replacement for Drell until at least July which is probably the correct decision

The University announced Tuesday the formation of the Provostial Search Advisory Committee, which will support the search for Persis Drell’s successor as provost.
[/quote]

I nominate Terry...

---

[quote="Goose" pid='389978' dateline='1683577962']
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".
[quote]

This reminds me of how our firm budgets. The bureaucracy is so overwhelming, the red tape is so thick, that most people just throw up their hands and give up. Great way to keep costs down. Great way to reduce and subsequently control social interaction. If everything is under Big Brother's eye, then...nothing.

[quote="Goose" pid='389978' dateline='1683577962']
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.
[quote]

That, plus the decades-long prolonging of adolescence to now expand through the mid-20s, puts the onus of liability on the shoulders of good ol' Stanford U. If the University frames itself as the ultimate arbiter of social behavior, they own the ultimate responsibility and liability, without question -- at least in the eyes of a jury. Just my $0.02.

[Mick]

[quote="82lsju" pid='390963' dateline='1684933732']
looks like no replacement for Drell until at least July which is probably the correct decision

The University announced Tuesday the formation of the Provostial Search Advisory Committee, which will support the search for Persis Drell’s successor as provost.
[/quote]

I nominate Terry...

---

[quote="Goose" pid='389978' dateline='1683577962']
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".
[quote]

This reminds me of how our firm budgets. The bureaucracy is so overwhelming, the red tape is so thick, that most people just throw up their hands and give up. Great way to keep costs down. Great way to reduce and subsequently control social interaction. If everything is under Big Brother's eye, then...nothing.

[quote="Goose" pid='389978' dateline='1683577962']
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.
[quote]

That, plus the decades-long prolonging of adolescence to now expand through the mid-20s, puts the onus of liability on the shoulders of good ol' Stanford U. If the University frames itself as the ultimate arbiter of social behavior, they own the ultimate responsibility and liability, without question -- at least in the eyes of a jury. Just my $0.02.