Ura Typical Idiot wrote:
Paterno haters, Trump supporters and Nazis...you clowns are all alike.
This explains everything about you, and your Penn State cult. You are completely off your rocker, and are unqualified to engage in any topic of discussion. Bark at the moon.
haha dems are losers wrote:
LookLikeDemocrats wrote:
They look like typical shrieking, whiny, wimpy democrats.
amen!
This doesn't need to be turned into a Republican/Democrat thing.
There are plenty of Democrats who like to go outdoors.
I may encouage the mods to delete posts that make something overtly political when it doesn't need to be. Could improve the discourse on here and everywhere.
Just like if someone on the right does something and then the left tries and group all Republicans with it. Thoughts?
vivalarepublica wrote:
Exactly. Rojo is a pre-maturely grumpy old man that likes to troll his own message board with reactionary declarations about the decline of society.
I wish Robert had started this without the "Snowflake" designation. It's unneccessary and just inflames people. The same discussion could occur without it.
wejo wrote:
I wish Robert had started this without the "Snowflake" designation. It's unneccessary and just inflames people. The same discussion could occur without it.
Ban the OP!
Not sure if any of you have been in an outdoor club at college, but they are...awesome! Well the one at Georgia Tech was. Yes, students are still free to organize their own camping trips and so forth, but they will no way be as good. The outdoor club owns/maintains/stores all tents, canoes, climbing gear, etc. The club at GT also had vans and trailers that we could use for the weekend. There is no way a group of students living in dorms or off-campus housing could amass the amount of gear that the club has.
we're paying for it wrote:
camp Yogi wrote:
This is a good policy , as higher education should not be responsible for introducing hobbies.
If a university charges a mandatory activity fee to all students, then yes, they are responsible for this.
camp Yogi wrote:
we're paying for it wrote:
If a university charges a mandatory activity fee to all students, then yes, they are responsible for this.
Thanks for the spirited discussion...
camp Yogi wrote:
we're paying for it wrote:
If a university charges a mandatory activity fee to all students, then yes, they are responsible for this.
Yes, activities on University campus. Holding someone's hand a walking through a public forest is not required by an Institution of higher learning.
camp Yogi wrote:
camp Yogi wrote:
Yes, activities on University campus. Holding someone's hand a walking through a public forest is not required by an Institution of higher learning.
Straw man. No one is saying that they are required to have an outing club.
Rifle club, archery club, boxing club, and alpine skiing club can all continue with their activities, but hiking, canoeing, and camping are too dangerous.
The "Joepa did nothing wrong" group is on the same level as Flat Earthers and the chem trail people.
rojo wrote:
For the record, I'm not calling the kids snowflakes. I'm calling the administration that.
Yes, I get it. You don't want to get sued but come on. People wonder why universities cost 60k per year now. This is an example of why.
Rojo-
Do universities perhaps cost $60k/ year in part because of the insurance they need to carry to cover student-run clubs?
It seems a prudent fiscal decision for a tax-payer funded university to pull the plug on a club whose primary costs are certainly in insurance premiums- we were all in college somewhat recently and recall that direct funding for student clubs is minimal. I would posit that the statement from the university is a thinly veiled attempt to say "we don't want to saddle tax payers and students with the insurance costs associated with putting our name, and implicit approval, on these trips."
The outdoors-inclined will find a way to get together and get outside on their own.
This is the small government ideal. If I want to go outside with friends, or sit at home with a book, or run around my block, or any other alternate use of my Saturday why should I be paying incrementally more for tuition to cover the insurance for students who need the school's permission to go on a hike?
Trolliworms wrote:
It seems a prudent fiscal decision for a tax-payer funded university to pull the plug on a club whose
Your bar for calling a university "tax-payer funded" is pretty low.
Why not just get the students to sign a release? Not good enough?
Positive Contribution wrote:
Meanwhile the frats will continue to get dangerously drunk while sexually assaulting woman and the football team will continue to draw 100,000+ to watch 18-22 year olds inflict brain damage upon one another.
I agree that there is a problem in the fraternal world. But, remember, if the schools go ejecting the fraternities, the black frats will go too.
Can of worms.
ssjimbo wrote:
Rifle club, archery club, boxing club, and alpine skiing club can all continue with their activities, but hiking, canoeing, and camping are too dangerous.
Shooting galleries, archery and boxing clubs, and ski resorts are private companies with their own insurance policies. People are injured at ski areas everyday but they have policies in place to protect themselves from liability and build that into their operating cost.
It's not about risk per se, it's only about the university protecting themselves from liability.
GFR wrote:
ssjimbo wrote:
Rifle club, archery club, boxing club, and alpine skiing club can all continue with their activities, but hiking, canoeing, and camping are too dangerous.
Shooting galleries, archery and boxing clubs, and ski resorts are private companies with their own insurance policies. People are injured at ski areas everyday but they have policies in place to protect themselves from liability and build that into their operating cost.
It's not about risk per se, it's only about the university protecting themselves from liability.
Those insurance policies don't protect the university and these are university sponsored clubs.
GFR wrote:
It's not about risk per se, it's only about the university protecting themselves from liability.
Risk and liability are the same thing.
The biggest liability that Penn State came under the direction of Joe Paterno, who was accountable to no one.
13% wrote:
Trolliworms wrote:
It seems a prudent fiscal decision for a tax-payer funded university to pull the plug on a club whose
Your bar for calling a university "tax-payer funded" is pretty low.
I'm not familiar with the Pennsylvania state budget but I imagine there is a chunk of state taxes going to the university system, right?
Trolliworms wrote:
13% wrote:
Your bar for calling a university "tax-payer funded" is pretty low.
I'm not familiar with the Pennsylvania state budget but I imagine there is a chunk of state taxes going to the university system, right?
Yes, but a minuscule portion of PSU's budget comes from the state.
rojo wrote:
For the record, I'm not calling the kids snowflakes. I'm calling the administration that.
Yes, I get it. You don't want to get sued but come on. People wonder why universities cost 60k per year now. This is an example of why.
Wait, let me see if I've got this straight. So, the University costs so much per year because they REDUCE their costs and liabilities by limiting some activities?!?
How does that work again?