The caption on that picture is golden. Since when is "Slow Down" a "biking restriction"? It's sad that such a sign was even necessary, but apparently they haven't added a motor skills section to the SAT yet.

Jeez- everybody is always talking about the good ol' days and how they are long going. "Things were so much better when I was in school ..." The truth is that Stanford students have always been nerdy and apathetic in comparison to other universities. Lythcott-Haims is an idiot for saying the days of recklessness are gone. She obviously did not party a great deal when she was in school (aka libo nerd). Someone needs to let a black squirrel loose in her pantaloones to remind her that recklessness is still around - as evidenced by 1) a black squirrel and 2) the fact it is in her pants.

From an email I just wrote to Dean Julie Lythcott-Haims:
Dean Julie,
I would just like to say how saddened I was by the article in the Daily today. I was disappointed because everyone interviewed on the administration side - yourself and Jeff Wachtel - once again brushed aside the complaints of the undergraduate student body, this time blaming it on senioritis. You used the word "conspiracy," which also appeared in your last email to me. I believe that using that word instantly belittles the several hundred undergraduates and god knows how many alumni who have legitimate concerns about the path that this school is taking.
No one believes that there is a conspiracy (although I always enjoy the rumors of OSA's 5-year plan to eradicate all fraternities). But look at what my class has had to go through: the Ban on Alcohol in Freshman Dorms (which lately instigated a scuffle between the senior Branner alums and the current Branner RF and, more generally, radically altered the Tradition of Dorm Reunions), the Ban on bicycles in the arcades of the quad, the progression of Full Moon on the Quad from seductive darkness into a well-lit concert, the steady overenforcement of parking tickets (and, indeed, an increased police presence everywhere, especially at events like Full Moon).
What all this overregulation has accomplished is a general dehumanization of individual students. At Pub Night a couple of weeks ago, a Stanford student was not allowed on the last bus leaving the bar because her student ID did not have that holographic sticker. I am talking about a student of this university, tired and inebriated and at least a half-hour's walk from home, not being allowed on a half-empty bus because she did not have a silly little holographic sticker. It wasn't even the bus driver who wouldn't let her on - it was one of her fellow students, an elected member of the ASSU who will remain nameless and whose southern accent is thick. We literally left her out in the cold. That is not right.
I do not believe that these things are joined together by some common "conspiracy," but please look at all of those things taken together over such a short time span, putting aside the fact that the Office of Student Activities is making it harder than ever for organizations to throw parties (as an example: after a week of preparing for our Holiday Party, setting up several thousand christmas lights, advertising out in White Plaza with a giant inflatable snowman, telling of our friends to tell their friends, Peggy Su Chang from OSA emailed us this afternoon - exactly 10 hours before the party was to start, after knowing about our party for the required 14 days - to alert us that we had to hire Paid security, that we had to end the party at 11 pm, and that our party is not technically officially approved (I can forward you the email if you have any interest). I am not nostalgic for the way I perceive things were when I was a freshman. There were more parties thrown when I was a freshman, that is a fact. There were not so many bans on campus, that is a fact. The Band was not constantly under the hatchet, that is a fact.
What unites everything I mention above is that they did all require changes. There were several possible solutions to each problem which would have involved limiting some freedoms and allowing for more. Instead, the solution in every case was all-out prohibition. My god, they are forcing some freshmen to sign contracts that they will not drink any alcohol before they turn 21. Dean Julie, you were in college here - you know that college students will party, and that underage students will drink, not because they are alcoholics but because they are social. This is not a boarding school. Forcing someone to sign a contract like that is wrong. It removes personal responsibility from the equation. It stops them from developing a healthy relationship with alcohol. It treats them like children, not like adults.
And that is why each senior class while I have been here has left Stanford more cynical than the last - because of all this babyproofing. These are not "perceived" changes. Please, understand this. I have done and will continue to do my best to use my column as a platform for the arguments that I have heard from my fellow students throughout my time here. I do not know what else we can do to convince the administration that this is an important issue. The Daily puts it on the front page, and the only response we get is that "change is hard." Jeff Wachtel was quoted today as saying that "in many ways this is a less restrictive environment." How, after so many Bans, so many new regulations, can he say that? (No need to answer, I already sent him an email asking that).
I am sorry if my tone is accusatory, but it is only because I still believe, with ridiculous optimism, that the administration only wants to do right by us. I do not think that the administration fully understands the depth of feeling on this issue, and honestly Dean Julie, I am not sure what else we can do short of organize a sit-in at President Hennessy's house. And we are not so far from that. I do not know everything, but I know the students at this school, and there is a palpable feeling in the air that has been growing all quarter, first with the Band controversy and then with the Bicycle Ban. What is going to go next? Please, Dean Julie, I beg you: talk to your fellow administrators. Tell them that many students feel as I do, that I get emails from alumni who feel as I do, that even a few staff members have agreed with me. Do not discount the feelings of the senior class just because they are "nostalgic." This is the future of Stanford, right here right now.
Please help us. I honestly don't know anyone else who can. I've probably burned whatever possible bridges I might have had with President Hennessy (who still hasn't responded to me with anything more than a form letter) and Dean Powers. I only want what everyone wants: for Stanford to be great, for everyone to just get along, for everyone to just CHILL OUT. I am not sure if you believe me, if you think I am young and naive (both are accurate), but whenever we students look over the list of grievances, we feel helpless. That is not a feeling I ever expected to feel at Stanford.
How much more can be taken away from us? How many more Traditions will have disappeared when I return here 30 years from now with my own kids? What else can be restricted? Which fraternity is next on the chopping block? How long can the people on the Band stand to be disrespected by their own university? How long until Fountainhopping is banned because of the risk of injury (I've got a few Claw scars)? What is next?
Please do something. Anything. From the bottom of my heart, I beg you.
Cheers,
Darren

I'm sure my fellow 06ers enjoyed this story as much as I did. By my count, '07 got a brand-new marble-counter-topped Branner, a Mausoleum Party, will have their graduation in the football stadium, allowing an unlimited number of family and friends to attend, have new overseas options unavailable just years prior, and experienced a tremendous freshman basketball season in which we went on a 29-0 run and had two absolutely classic game-winning plays. Even us 06ers carried our "cursed class" label around with a bit of jolliness and humor.

Enjoy your time at Stanford. If you think being an 07 graduate is rough in the fall of 2006 at Stanford, try being an '06 graduate in the fall of 2006 in the REAL WORLD. I think any of us would gladly suffer along with you back at the farm!

Since when did a trust fund and BMW entitle you to break the law? Last time I checked, the laws that govern our great nation prohibit individuals under 21 years of age to drink alcoholic beverages. Although, I can't say I blame the seniors for being mad; after all, it's a lot harder to take advantage of a freshman girl if she doesn't have a drink to slip a Mickey into.

re:that guy
I once again point out the fallacy and offesiveness of assuming everyone at Stanford has "a trust fund and BMW." You know, most of us are just normal people, and a lot of us weren't born with silver spoons in our mouths. So, shut yours or get on to substantive dialogue.
As for the point of alcohol consumption, I say, for the greater safety of students, it is important for the school to focus on what is responsible rather than what is legal. Should we be more concerned about the freshman who casually drinks or the grad student who binge drinks? Just because you are legal doesn't mean you are responsible. And just because you are illegal doesn't mean you are irresponsible.

We should have a campus forum to discuss this instead of posting offensive yet anonymous -- and thus cowardly -- emails. I'm game. With or without a squirrel in my pantaloones.

Freshman, sophomores, juniors, and the occasional senior who aren't of age need to get over their sense of entitlement to break the law. The university is well within it's bounds to regulate alcohol consumption on its property, so quitchabitchin. Whether the administration does so in a rational way is left to be debated.
Forbidding alcohol in freshman dorms is more likely to drive it underground. Drinking conducted in the open and in the presence of respobsible adults (read alumni, former residents, etc.) is undoubtedly safer, as it would be in the best interest of said adults to ensure safe drinking occurs. Whining about the administration's enforcement of state laws on the books for years are little more than the complaints of self indulgent children.

I think it's time to dismiss one half of the various Deans in charge of undergraduat education and use the money for keggers. Invite those members of the Stanford police force who understand what their role on campus should be.