@awcntdb “You have not a clue whether any of those cases were technically fought on the same grounds, so to use them as examples that colleges would be off the hook in the future is impossible to judge or even predict.”
@northwesty “I think an actual trial of those incidents is pretty rare.”
Actually northwesty there are plenty of lawsuits brought against colleges by parents of injured or deceased students. They sue for sure, but they are mostly unsuccessful.
awcntdb - What? Of course we “have a clue on whether the cases were technically fought on the same grounds.” You read the decisions. And yes one can predict the likelihood of future decisions because case law creates the concept of “precedent.” When an attorney is evaluating a case one thing they do is look at case law to see how the courts have ruled in similar or identical circumstances. Judges rely on the precedent established by prior case law when rendering a decision in subsequent cases. Case law in this area is pretty firmly established.
Prior to the mid 1950’s colleges were acting “in loco parentis.” Colleges had a lot of control over the behavior of students and thereby had similar legal obligations as a parent would over safety issues. This changed dramatically in the 1960’s. With the student protests and rebellion that spread across campuses, students left the 1960’s with their freedoms established. The courts began to recognize this in their decisions related to college liability for student safety. Until the 1990’s there were very few cases that held colleges responsible for injury or death stemming from alcohol related “accidents.” The court’s reasoning varied from “assumption of risk by the student” to “no duty established or assumed by the college.”
In the mid 1990’s the courts shifted slightly and have found colleges liable in a few cases but mostly in hazing incidents. In the Furek case, oven cleaner was poured over a frat pledge resulting in third degree burns. The court found the university liable because they were aware of of the dangerous hazing on campus and had issued statements to the student body about those practices. Thus liability was found because the university had not taken reasonable steps to curtail the behavior. Same finding in the Knoll case where a pledge was handcuffed to a radiator and fed shots to the point of extreme intoxication. He was able to break loose but was severely injured when he fell while sliding down a third floor window drain pipe. College was found liable.
But that trend has not been expanded much and decisions vary greatly from state to state. In the more recent Guest case Kristine Guest was attending a raucous party by a frozen lake on a college campus. Intoxicated students were racing snowmobiles on the lake and she was killed while being given a ride by an intoxicated student. A NY court declined to find liability on behalf of the college despite the college’s knowledge of the dangerous practices.
I think most attorneys would advise their clients that today it is still difficult to hold a college accountable for student injury. Even if a duty can be established, liability does not necessarily follow. You still have to prove both actual negligence and probable cause.
momofthreeboys, the data you give is from 2006, but it seems that the trend is the same now. But this just makes the “lower the drinking age” argument even worse. What’s the connection supposed to be between raising the drinking age and having binge drinking go down among college men, and up among college women?
It feels like the binging is being done with liquor but i could be wrong maybe people are binging on beer although even for a large sized male it’s hard to down enough beers in a short period to time unless they are shooting them.
I agree with CF that it is really hard to know if lowering the drinking age would reduce binge drinking. OTOH, raising the penalities for hard liquor, along with allowing beer and wine, might. The idea is that if a keg can be legally present at a frat party or at some other event, kids won’t feel the need to pre-game to the same extent. but CF is right that it might not be the case. I was in HS and college when the drinking age was 18 and we mostly drank beer. But there was no such thing as flavored vodka in those days either.
Not as clear is the extent to which raising the drinking age or the rise of the designated driver have been responsible for the drop in drunk driving deaths, as well as safer cars. Air bags etc. have certainly helped too.
To me, 19 is the correct age. That way, students in HS can not drink legally, but most kids can in college by the end of freshman year. I don’t quite get why an 18 yo is responsible for their own health care, can go fight and be killed in a war, but can’t legally drink a beer.
Alh: Why do you no longer think that drinking has any impact on campus sexual assault? Every single study, which may disagree in other ways, show that drinking is a huge factor. Even in the Vanderbilt case, I don’t think it is in dispute that the boys were very drunk. Not that that is an excuse for what they did, because it is not. However, this may not have happened if they hadn’t been doing shots.
I worked for a bit in alcohol research, just after grad school- at the time, there was no appreciable statistical benefit to the lower drinking age. But, okay, that was limited to what was tracked. Yes, traffic incidents went up- but as Mom2and points out, lots of things changed, incl designated drivers.
And DD is interesting. In my family’s case, much awareness for DD came from my kids’ high school and middle school discussing and promoting this. It became an idea they could absorb. To this day, they practice it. So, maybe the idea kids can be socially reconditioned about binging isn’t so odd, after all.
I was in college when the drinking age was 18. Few women I knew drank beer. It was seen as too fattening. We drank hard liquor in mixed drinks. Or straight. Or we drank fruity wine. If we drank enough to vomit, that was a good thing. Got rid of those calories. Bulimia is another thing not really named in the 70s. I can remember some actives instructing pledges in these arts in the sorority bathroom.
Y’know, when someone says that pretty much everyone agrees that X, and a quick Google search will show X, I wonder why they don’t do that quick Google search and show us.
I did a quick Google search, and did not discover a consensus on why binge drinking among women has increased. I do see that if one is a young woman who wants to get drunk quickly and doesn’t like old-style hard liquors, flavored vodka would be the choice. But that doesn’t explain to me why the woman wants to get drunk quickly, which is the point that needs explaining. She’s not drinking the flavored vodka for the flavor; she’s drinking it because it’s the least unpleasant way to get drunk quickly. If she just wanted the flavor, she’d drink soda.
We drank beer. During college, I worked at a bar that only served beer and soda, at night. For everyone I knew, hard liquor was a thing “adults” drank. But yes, we also drank Boone’s Farm and Cold Duck.
mom2and: Thinking about rape prevention, early on I proposed:1) enforcing campus drinking prohibitions, 2) affirmative consent,3) bystander education.
I am still okay with enforcing campus drinking prohibitions. Bystander intervention is heroic and should be encouraged.
However, if we agree a woman has privacy rights to her body, and teach affirmative consent as a cultural norm, rape is dramatically reduced. Men need to ask for permission. I think the focus needs to shift to what men can do to prevent rape. Affirmative consent puts the responsibility with the one seeking sex. (I could write this to be gender neutral, but we are still hung up here on women’s rights to their own bodies, it seems to me. However, I may be wrong. Maybe the thread has reached a consensus on no touching without permission?)
I would be interested to hear Cardinal Fang’s and Dstark’s thoughts on your question. Their posts are much more logical and elegant than mine.
adding:
Yesterday dstark wrote “sexual assault is a male problem.” Until we take out all the extraneous discussions and deal with that, it is difficult to stop rape. imho
It is difficult to stop rape but it is NOT impossible to have kids curb their drinking. It’s pretty common accepted knowledge that people will do things after a few drinks that they wouldn’t do if they were sober. For me it’s a black diamond when skiing - don’t touch them unless I’ve had 2 drinks, no more no less, it loosens me up. Maybe I could learn to loosen up without two drinks, but after thirty years probably not gonna happen without alcohol. Regret sex and rape are not the same thing and never will be. The difference is most males just stuff it or endure their friends bad jokes when they have bad sex and many women need to talk it through. Until we can put some parameters around the terminology…and the justice system has pretty good parameters. You can call it whatever you want - bad sex, regret sex, in over my head sex, had to much to drink sex…call it whatever makes you feel better because it’s applicable to men and women. I’m willing to discuss how schools should deal with it, I’m willing to discuss the inadequacies of the criminal system.I’m willing to discuss the pros and cons of fraternities. I have to bow out when we start male bashing, it’s like nails on a chalk board.
You’ve said that over and over in this thread. And nobody in this thread has disputed it, because it’s obvious, so I can’t imagine what logical purpose you have for stating it over and over again. Apparently, you want us to make this logical journey with you:
(1) Some women have consensual sex and regret it.
(2) Some colleges have had problems with disciplinary procedures for sexual misconduct.
(3) There exist cases where women have made false accusations of sexual assault.
(4-999) ???
(1000) Therefore, colleges should not adjudicate sexual assault cases.
(1), (2) and (3) are obvious. Could you please fill in 4-999? Because right now I’m missing the part about how we conclude that because some women have sex and regret it, colleges should ignore all students who accuse other students of sexual assault. Are we to conclude that if the rapists are discovered in flagrante in the bushes, or they’ve inexplicably videotaped themselves, they’re guilty, but every single other accused guy is innocent?
I’d like to point out that the Stanford swimmer might well get off with a plea to misdemeanor sexual battery. If he does, should Stanford take him back? I guess in the momofthreeboys world, they ought to. In the Fang world, on the other hand, Stanford should sever all ties with a guy who is discovered in the dark in the bushes behind a dumpster with an unconscious woman who has her underpants off and her dress around her waist. In the Fang world, once Stanford has established those facts to its satisfaction, they should give the swimmer the boot.
i think I’ve posted enough in 5293 posts that you can figure out my position. I’ll be back when the police release the information they found in the UVa case.
Alh: while that makes sense in theory, not so much in practice. A drunk kid is less likely than a sober one to obtain proper consent. A drunk girl is more likely to go along with a situation she is not comfortable with or to give consent, when she really was not sober enough to do so. A drunk boy is less likely to be able to discern if the girl is really consenting or not. Not excusing behavior due to drinking, but certainly much more likely that these things will happen if the participants are drinking. I don’t think that this type of assault can be reduced without some reduction in drinking by both genders.
Because it is just unworkable HSdad2. I don’t believe colleges are willing to expel a very high percentage of their students, when many are drinking responsibly, even if illegally. I don’t believe our country is ready to impose prohibition on college students or high school students. What college does your kid go to where there is literally no drinking?