1988RedT2 said:Fueled by Caffeine said:If I want to be outraged.. by gum.. I'm going to find something to be outraged about.
Which gum is it that triggers you? The mere mention of Juicy Fruit causes me to fly into an uncontrollable rage!
Zebra stripe.
Five seconds of flavor and then disappointment for 20 minutes.
The point is not that the students could do this outside of the realm of the college. The point is that this club's been around for almost a century, and now, because of some ill-founded concerns, they can't do what they've always done. Nothing about the activity is illegal, insensitive, offensive, or whatever other buzzword you care to throw around. Some committee, somewhere, simply decided it was "Too Risky".
I don't buy the "This Day and Age" crap, either. That's simply code-speak for, in this instance, "we're afraid of being sued". And that's bullE36 M3. Plain and simple bullE36 M3. Students can't take responsibility for themselves, parent won't let them take responsibility for themselves, the college is too E36 M3 scared to let them keep doing it, and a nice thing goes away.
What nice thing is going to go away next, because we live in "This Day and Age"?
spitfirebill said:So are they disbanding the NAMBLA club?
The North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?
edizzle89 said:Duke said:edizzle89 said:I was unaware you needed to be in a club to go on outings....
Please see my post above. No, the school is not prohibiting group outings. They are just making them 10,000% harder to organize, promote, and execute.
would they not be able to start a 'club' on FB or some other source where everyone can keep in touch and know about events and do outings in no association with the school? maybe i'm missing why the school has to be part of it for it to work?
Schools provide funding for these things. At my alma matter we started a wakeboard club that ended up being the largest sports club on campus and won national championships for the school. It's partially funded by student fees. Had some of the best times of my life in that club!
I think that both sides are overreacting, and are ultimately supporting their arguments with rather weak logic. I don't really care how old the club is any more than I care about the largely-imagined risk level of student-led, low-impact, off-campus activities in state parks.
So do you believe the club should be allowed to run outdoor events or not?
2018 nature trip
In reply to Driven5 :
Can't be more dangerous than football programs for fraternity/sorority programs
Enyar said:In reply to Driven5 :
Can't be more dangerous than football programs for fraternity/sorority programs
Of course not, but my point is how long before these are deemed too dangerous to continue. Chances are someone, somewhere has already made that argument. It seems people are trying to outlaw or eliminate risk factors from everyday life, but that is not possible to any degree. We were encouraged to do activities like this back in the day, are kids different now in that they have proceeded through evolution to the point where common sense is totally gone? I would be willing to bet they are exactly the same if "adults" would let them.
Keith Tanner said:
So do you believe the club should be allowed to run outdoor events or not?
I believe that it's the schools right to choose what manner of unsupervised off-campus student activities they are willing to accept liability for, by sponsoring it. I recall some friends wanting to start a club for 'the betterment of alcohol and to promote drinking responsibly" or some such nonsense. Basically they wanted to see if they could get the school to pay for them to buy cheap vodka that they could experiment with pouring through water purifiers. It turns out the school thought any clubs specifically involving alcohol (even if responsibly administered by and restricted to exclusively 21+ membership) was too risky to sponsor. Guess what?...Life moved on, and they still did it anyway. They just had to buy their own cheap vodka to pour through the water purifiers.
I believe the impact of the loss school sponsorship for this type of club should not be overstated, as in and of itself there is no detrimental impact to any part of their lives or their education. The critics speak of this action overprotecting kids. What exactly is a bunch of unaffiliated people in the social/media sphere getting up in arms on their behalf doing, if not trying to overprotect them from some of the other less enjoyable realities of adulthood?
I believe that the critics of this decision are either underestimating or overestimating the importance of the club to the students in it...Meaning the success or failure of the club ultimately has much more to do with the students than it does the school.
I believe that the critics are not fostering a mindset of adaptation in the face of adversity. This is a "Who moved my cheese?" moment for the students, and I'm more interested in seeing what they can do (for themselves) with it.
racerdave600 said:Enyar said:In reply to Driven5 :
Can't be more dangerous than football programs for fraternity/sorority programs
Of course not, but my point is how long before these are deemed too dangerous to continue. Chances are someone, somewhere has already made that argument. It seems people are trying to outlaw or eliminate risk factors from everyday life, but that is not possible to any degree. We were encouraged to do activities like this back in the day, are kids different now in that they have proceeded through evolution to the point where common sense is totally gone? I would be willing to bet they are exactly the same if "adults" would let them.
That won't happen with the sports programs. The difference is that college football is a huge revenue generator.
Clubs end up costing the school money but they look good from a "quality of life" standpoint when prospects are evaluating the school.
Edit: The big thing here is that students won't be able to organize using the schools resources. So no club stipend, no flyers around campus, no reserved meeting rooms, ect. The school is welcome to allow or disallow any club they choose. That doesn't mean they're immune to the criticism of being a complete nanny.
Still wondering what criteria they use to decide "acceptable risk" because that could be weaponized against them if it comes out.
1988RedT2 said:Fueled by Caffeine said:If I want to be outraged.. by gum.. I'm going to find something to be outraged about.
Which gum is it that triggers you? The mere mention of Juicy Fruit causes me to fly into an uncontrollable rage!
Man, I don’t care about this situation very much, but I will say one thing. Motherberkeleying juicy fruit is motherberkeleying BullE36 M3.
Just build a lazy river like LSU did. It would fit the rigor of the average college intellect today.
And this is what I just started reading.
The story of an FBI infiltrating NAMBLA.
Nature is neat! But watch out for the mountain cougars and biting goats.
volvoclearinghouse said:Students can't take responsibility for themselves, parent won't let them take responsibility for themselves,
Wouldn't this change be the college saying "We aren't going to be responsible for your outings, you take responsibility of yourself on them" ? They are adults for crying out loud.
When kids are prohibited from playing a simple game of "tag" during elementary school recess, we have crossed some kind of line into a whacko twilight zone.
I ride motorcycles and fly airplanes. I have a good assessment of calculated risk. I don't give a damn about theses stupid people and their stupid problems. Eat your turd sandwich.
1988RedT2 said:When kids are prohibited from playing a simple game of "tag" during elementary school recess, we have crossed some kind of line into a whacko twilight zone.
Making mountains out of molehills.
Duke said:Abdication of individual responsibility, ridiculous litigation, and the resulting hyperaversion to risk are 100% to blame.
Everything bad that happens is someone else's fault > sue everyone in the same hemisphere as the incident > administrations adopt a "bubble-wrap everything" zero-exposure policy.
I blame society.
/thread
In reply to Driven5 :
Perhaps, but if we don't question the little absurdities, the absurdities tend to get bigger, and before we know it, we have an extremely absurd situation on our hands!
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
Can't see the forest through the trees?
Maybe once America manages to start getting even close to breaking into the top 10 for the quality education we are providing our future generations...Then maybe we would be justified in worrying even the slightest about such trivialities as one elementary school banning tag at recess or one college not sponsoring an outdoor club.
What a total waste of time.
Thing happens
people are outraged who aren’t really even remotely connected tot his issue
lots of Internet armchair quarterbacking ensues.
Pro tip. If you’re mad about something. Do something to change it. If you’re not willing to put skin in the game to change whatever it is you’re angry about then, it really wasn’t that important.
IF I ONLY HAD MY CELLPHONE!!!!!!
And the people who are saying that this is not important are the same ones complaining of a lack of shop classes in our schools where students can learn how to operate equipment.
Guess What! It's the same mentality.
Signed: Former Shop Teacher
You'll need to log in to post.
