csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/20/85)
In article <52700001@hpcnof.UUCP> dat@hpcnof.UUCP (dat) writes: > To move into a slightly different topic, continuing the above >bit, does anyone else see a prevalence of the Puritan attitude >in this country? I can point to any number of public attitudes towards >things that seem to spring from the original religious and moral beliefs >of the founding fathers. Even with the 'Melting Pot' amalgamation of >people that created the United States there still seems to be a continuing >thread. Comments? Your article brings to mind a recent case: MIT student 'A' harrassed MIT student 'B' who is homosexual (and damn proud of it). Student 'B' went to the deans' office and complained. As a result, student 'A' was forced to leave the dormitory in which 'A' and 'B' had both lived. Student 'B' was not entirely happy and asked that student 'A' be completely kicked out (in his last term at MIT!). Student 'C' pointed out that had MIT tried this, Student 'A' could have sued them for a lot of money. The main reason? Homosexuality is ILLEAGAL in Massachusetts and therefore student 'B' was standing on shaky ground, legally. Of course, this absurdity never happened but it sounds like the sort of thing that could. More of MIT: Massachusetts just raised the drink age to 21 and now only about 23% of MIT students are legal. Despite the fact that the MIT Campus Police have sole jurisdiction on campus, MIT has been going out of it's way to enforce the drinking age. Nobody really knows why. This seems to be vogue among colleges now -- following the drinking ages. I recently saw a copy of "The Engineers' Song" who's chorus goes: We are we are we are we are We are the engineers We can we can we can we can Demolish forty beers Not any more. "Tank '85" team speed drinking contest at MIT used non-alcholic beer. Sad. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Don't get bogged down with details, just eat the stupid peice of paper." -Rev. Wang Zeep
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/23/85)
>More of MIT: Massachusetts just raised the drink age to 21 and now only >about 23% of MIT students are legal. Despite the fact that the MIT >Campus Police have sole jurisdiction on campus, MIT has been going out >of it's way to enforce the drinking age. Nobody really knows why. This >seems to be vogue among colleges now -- following the drinking ages. Perhaps one reason is that injuries, deaths, and property damage have been known to occur at on-campus parties, with alcohol apparently being a contributing factor, and the colleges/universities do not wish to be found liable. Could any legal beagles tell us what the law says about this? In any case, deans do not relish phoning parents at 1 a.m. to tell them their daughter is dead, as happened here a year or two ago when a freshman who had been drinking at a dorm party fell out of a fourth-story window (which was missing a screen) and landed on her head. > "Tank '85" team speed drinking contest at MIT used > non-alcholic beer. Sad. Not so sad, and it has nothing to do with Puritanism (were the Puritans teetotalers, anyway?). One possible reason colleges are banning alcohol is that alcohol abuse is now a very widespread problem among students, and the colleges don't want to foster the problem in any way. To those of you who object to the 21 drinking age: If you can't enjoy your college years and the company of your friends without alcohol or other drugs, you are setting yourself up for serious problems later on. If you think it's tough being 20 and dry, wait till you're 40 and alcoholic. Richard Carnes