Live Sex Show! Free, with your semester tuition. Follow

If you were trying to show that both instances were examples of people making an informed choice, it's difficult for some of us to consider attending BYU an informed decision. Sometimes by nature of doing something, you reveal that you are not informed.

Lol, I go to Rutgers. I can't even begin to fathom that (the BYU thing).

As for the thread topic--I don't care as long as it was optional, without any real bonus to attendance.

Agreed. Back when I was in college at UD, we had an entire complex's Resident Assistants fired. The reason? There was a picture of them all at a party with people drinking in the background. The RAs were underage, and it was against the residence life policy to be in the presence of alcohol while on school grounds if you're underage (the people in the background were underage as well). This was a freshman dorm complex that needed to completely replace an entire staff mid-semester. Although it caused a lot of chaos that year, it had to be done because, hey, you agree to the rules when you sign up.

In high school a similar thing happened with one of our best swimmers. Got caught smoking pot one day and was banned from sports for a year. Zero tolerance policies ftw! But if you don't like the rules, then either work to change them or don't go there.

O.O;;

My RA freshman year would go out partying with the, ahem, whores from my house. And desperately tried to get in their pants (which may or may not have succeeded--I was never able to get a solid answer to that question)...

No. It reveals that he made a different choice than you would have made in his place. Don't let your own biases enter into the issue. He's an adult. He chose to attend a school with a strict honor code. It's kinda bizarre to assume that anyone who comes to a different conclusion or decision than you would must be uninformed or confused somehow. Perhaps he fully agreed to the code at the time he signed it. You can't possibly know otherwise.

Yes.

In general, I'd say it's a tough call. On one hand, you risk a problem spreading by opting for counseling over other more grave, lasting punishments. They definitely help to dissuade some bad behavior. I can remember from my high school days that it wasn't uncommon for kids that had a bad vice to enable others.

For pot though...meh. I think that some combination of suspension/detention/counseling would more than suffice. Though I'm always hesitant to blame another when someone kills themself. I've always been of the thought that suicide oft hails from preexisting personal conditions...you can't typically blame someone else for being their unknowing trigger.

Edited, Mar 9th 2011 12:36am by Eske

Well, I didn't suggest that draconian punishments do anything to stop someone who's already using drugs. I said that they can help to prevent the problem from spreading to others. As in, they might deter someone else from giving that particular offense a go. Fair to say, no?

With an expulsion (though I'd say pot busts don't warrant it), you'd be calling the "bad" element a lost cause, helping to prevent them from enabling others, and sending a message. Seems reasonable to me, given the right circumstances.

Edited, Mar 9th 2011 1:04am by Eske

Right, as idiggory correctly points out, they just don't work. Sounds good in theory, but recall, for example, that in some countries, theft has historically been punishable by having your hand cut off. Did that stop theft? Not even close. As I alluded to, when people are already getting away with it, and they are in virtually every school in the nation (and the athlete and rule in question here are no exception), it sends a much stronger message that it's safe to do, and only makes the harsh punishment for getting caught seem draconian, unreasonable, and unfair.

Essentially, every time a person performs a behavior or perceives another doing a behavior without punishment, that reinforces the belief that they will not be punished. Take speeding for example. And when punishment is rare, then when if it ever does come, then it is dismissed as one-off, bad luck. The lesson simply becomes "don't get caught," which is almost never the intention of the rule.

Particularly when you're talking about school, expulsion doesn't make a bad influence go away, it just gives them a lot more time to be a bad influence and a detriment to society. That kid expelled for drugs is likely going to turn into a drug dealer. It's better to keep them IN school.

I'd consider intent to be part of the crime. ;)