Senior Jarret Guajardo returned from his 22nd birthday party at Comprade’s like most others: in a good mood, a few drinks deep and ready for some hijinks. He stripped down to his birthday suit and entered the CoHo. Most years, he would have streaked. This November, however, Guajardo took the opportunity to lash out at what he described at the injustices visited upon the class of 2007, ranging from the Bike Ban, fewer Pub Nights and the Band Run. When he was done, some students clapped, others booed and most averted their eyes. Every observer, however, took away one note: as President Jimmy Carter famously stated, a “general malaise” has struck this year’s senior class.

“I believe the University is becoming more concerned with making a profit and less concerned with the experience of the individual student,” said senior Matt Percy, founder of the Facebook group, “When I was your age, Stanford was Fun.” “The University needs to realize that many people came to Stanford because in addition to offering a great education, Stanford has the reputation of being a little more relaxed and carefree than other top schools. We are after all college students, and I’d like to have a little fun during my last year.”

Seniors have pointed to a number of recent grievances, including the Band’s disciplinary troubles, hassles getting onto buses headed for Pub Night, stricter alcohol policies, the Bike Ban and party restrictions. Some feel that these policies are the University’s way of gradually weakening much of the social scene on campus.

“There seems to have been a shift this year to no longer treat students as adults but rather as baby chicks who are too brittle and irrational to make their own decisions,” said senior Chris Holt, who also writes a column for The Daily.

In addition to seniors, many alumni feel that Stanford’s focus on academic excellence has forced the University to alter some of its past social practices and traditions.

“I think Stanford has become a lot more serious about keeping its place as a top undergraduate institution and is convinced that this is mutually exclusive from partying and drinking,” said 2003 Stanford graduate Ezra Callahan, a former Daily business manager. “Stanford’s intentions may not have been bad, but it’s clear that restricting drinking and partying as they have this decade does make Stanford less fun.”

Callahan pointed to alcohol liabilities as the primary catalyst in this trend.

“Clearly Stanford has gotten a lot more serious about alcohol from when I was a freshman,” Callahan said. “When I first got to Stanford people got MIPs and parties got broken up, but the atmosphere felt a lot more permissive. It was easy for a freshman to get a beer at the CoHo and most parties didn’t even bother with wristbands.”

Students also cited increased security at Full Moon.

“It can be intimidating to have so much of a police presence and I think it’s too harsh a stance,” said senior Luis Cerna. “Ultimately most of the students are going to be OK and it’s supposed to be fun. This year it wasn’t as exciting as my freshman year.”

However, a number of students and members of the administration believe that this supposed discontent is nothing new, but merely a standard sentiment of seniors during fall quarter.

Dean of Freshman and Transfer Students Julie Lythcott-Haims dismissed the concerns of the class of “oh-seven,” saying that seniors give off the same signs of displeasure almost every year.

“They are nostalgic for the way they perceive things were when they were freshmen,” said Lythcott-Haims, a graduate of the class of 1989. “It gets at their love of the institution and their wanting the freshmen to have the best possible experience. I know of no University conspiracy to end fun, but I understand that seniors love the place and can be nervous or angry about any perceived changes.”

Lythcott-Haims cited the resurrection of the Mausoleum Party as an obvious example of the University’s concern with social tradition, countering accusations put forth by the students.

“Mausoleum, a great Stanford tradition, was back for the first time in how many years?” Lythcott-Haims said. “And the University completely supported it being back. I heart the sound was bad, but it wasn’t as if the University pulled the plug on the speakers.”

Jeff Wachtel, senior assistant to President Hennessy, said that while the University might have abandoned and changed some of its past traditions, a number of new activities and practices have emerged. He argued that recent safety precautions by the University have not affected the quality of life for students.

“There are lots of great and fun things that are happening now that were not happening years ago and in many ways this is a less restrictive environment,” Wachtel said. “The fact that we have taken action to make the corridors safer by asking cyclists not to park their bicycles there is not a sign that Stanford is less fun.”

Some students attributed recent complaints to the fact that this year’s senior class was the first freshman class to undergo the no-alcohol rule in freshman dorms.

“Had our class not entered Stanford in an era of “new restrictions,” perhaps these minor changes would be viewed simply as nuisances or maybe even good policies,” said senior class president Faris Ali Mohiuddin. “I think early on many 07-ers internalized the notion that Stanford is gradually cracking down on fun. This theme of ‘cracking down on fun’ may have permeated how seniors now assess any new policy or program.”

Lythcott-Haims argued that Stanford’s adjustments are a necessary reaction to a global trend.

“It may be that students are longing for the days of ‘Animal House,’” she said. “But that movie was a hyperbole when it came out in 1978 let alone today. Those days of debauchery and recklessness are gone. It’s unrealistic to think that any college today could operate like that.”