![]() In my opinion, the worst thing Stanford could do for society is to treat such people that they are above reproach. So if I'm going to read between the lines, my inference is that Paulmeier is the kind of person who feels that he shouldn't be held responsible for his actions, and he's trying to make it seem like Stanford is oppressing him rather than the truth: he's being held accountable for bad decisions. It's that the standards are so high, how could anyone reasonably be expected to adhere to them? It's not that he's guilty of egregiously violating campus standards. Paulmeier I guess just can't meet the high bar Stanford has set. Do you get that? He feels the bar is set so high, he can't live up to the expectations of not throwing campus-sanctioned blowouts which land other students in the hospital. ![]() His position is not "I did everything right and yet I am unfairly being held accountable for something I didn't do." Instead, it's "I made mistakes, and being held account to those mistakes is unfair." Paulmeier is framing his guilt at throwing ragers that harmed other students as he failed to be "literally perfect" because the bar is set so high. This is where Paulmeier basically admits his guilt. “Any place that sets a bar so high that you have to be literally perfect to get there and when you get here, if you don’t stay perfect, will punish you with every administrative resource they have for embarrassing them,” This student admits "he worked closely with OCS to follow all its rules", so he knew or should have known better. This is a student who took it upon himself to become the president of an organization, a position that comes with trust and responsibility, a position which has control and access to Stanford funds. Let's also remember that this isn't just any student. The only claim actually made in the whole piece about the frat's expulsion was that it was overly harsh. Note, the piece never claims that there was no underage or unsafe drinking. “I had young kids that were 18, 19 years old who are international asking me, ‘Hey, can I talk to this attorney and tell them I drank a beer, or am I going to get my visa revoked?’ ” There are really only a few key points that cut through the noise: There's not much substance to this article, but I think we don't have to look at the whole thing. I assume this is the strongest evidence available, because if stronger evidence is out there, I question why the author didn't include it to support her piece. Let's consider the evidence in the article. That doesn't mean mistakes should go unpunished, and that doesn't mean punishment is oppression. When students violate standards and consequences are not served, that's a signal the standards are not as such. That means when students violate those standards, consequences are served. On the other hand, we want to make sure that the institutions of higher education are fair and rigorous in their standards. So yes, it's sad we live in a society where grades and educational records are so important, that a single black mark will limit opportunities. For every student who is mad about being accused of cheating, there is a student (or maybe dozens) who are worried about people cheating who cheapen the degree and educational experience for everyone. Let's first acknowledge there are many competing interests in these stories. > oppressive, no-mistakes, no-learning regime the college administration is creating. ![]() a girl got a conduct violation for intentionally spilling coffee and then killed herself. the media coverage isnt about highlighting mistakes students made the media coverage is escalating to the national stage the exact thing youre complaining about. the article we're commenting on is about exactly this type of oppressive, no-mistakes, no-learning regime the college administration is creating. > If every element of campus life could randomly and capriciously be escalated to the national stage, how could anyone possibly expect kids to learn how to take risks or make mistakes? One college isnt going to topple the global culture, but calling bad things that happen at college "hyperlocal" is obviously wrong. colleges are a training ground for young people during their formative years, a place we send them to intentionally change their personalities and come into their own being away from their parents. ![]() This is an exaggerated straw-man version of my argument, but yes. Your argument is basically the domino effect meme with Stanford Party Policy on one end and Global Culture on the other?
2 Comments
|