Hey, there! Log in / Register
Proposed city law on off-campus students could violate federal law
By adamg on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 9:09am
The Daily Free Press reports that City Council President Mike Ross's proposal to force Boston colleges to hand over the addresses of off-campus students could violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - and that Emerson College is already vowing to not hand over names.
Ross begs to differ as he continues his campaign to prevent more than four unrelated students from sharing apartments. An ordinance he helped pass last year has proven unenforceable, in part, the Free Press reports, because ISD can only respond to complaints, and nobody's complained about groups of students living together.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
An ordinance he helped pass
In all fairness how can you prove that their is a large group of students without the information from the college? Its a catch 22, because without that info you can not fully prove that their is a group of kids greater then 4 in the apartment, and without the proof there is no valid complaint to ISD and if there is no valid complaint to ISD the colleges dont want to play ball.
Singling out students
I honestly don't understand why Ross insists on singling out students. Too many people sharing an apartment can be a problem regardless of whether they are students or not. And what happens when a place has more than 4 bedrooms? He'd be better off creating a rule about so many unrelated people of any age sharing an apartment, hopefully based on the number of bedrooms.
I realize college students can be annoying sometimes, but it's not fair (and arguably illegal) to single out a specific group of people. Perhaps since there are no complaints then it's not as big of a problem as he thought?
Well,
if the majority of college students who weren't disruptive and destructive did what was necessary to keep troublemakers and instigators in their flanks under control, then students per se (college students) wouldn't be getting such a bad name. As I've already pointed out, if the majority doesn't control the trouble-making minority, then they're part of the problem.
Also, a lot of kids that age don't use such great sense, and, I think that people shouldn't just be crammed like sardines into one apartment. Famillies generally don't do that. Many college students and illegals do, and it's not good.
This brings us back to the position that I've taken on colleges and universities putting a cap on their yearly student enrollments. It wouldn't hurt, and it should be done.
Wow, that comment sums up
Wow, that comment sums up quite well everything that is wrong with this ordinance.
I'm an undergraduate student who also works full time and volunteers in my community. When I'm not in class or at work, is it my responsibility to help keep "troublemakers and instigators in [my] flanks under control?" If I'm not doing so am I part of the problem? I should risk having to leave my home because of them? Give me a break!
Also, you talk about "a lot of kids that age." What age? The ban says nothing of age. It discriminates against undergraduate students. I'm 31 and an undergraduate student. My roommates are also in their late 20s or early 30s. We each have our own bedroom... nobody's crammed like a sardine anywhere here.
I'm against troublesome neighbors just as much as anyone else... but I could care less whether they're students, mechanics, lawyers, sales clerks, or anything else for that matter.
If overcrowding is your beef, pass an overcrowding ordinance. If noise and disruptive behavior is what you're upset about, enforce the noise and disorderly conduct ordinances.
I'm talking about a lot of much YOUNGER college students
I'm referring to much younger college students, especially ones who're one, two, three, four years out of high school, (late teens-early to mid twenties), who, having all this new-found freedom, often don't know how to handle it and often act in ways that're rather destructive to themselves as well as other people around them. Anybody old enough to go to college is old enough to have a certain amount of consideration and respect for their neighbors, which many of these younger college students don't.
I also think that what City Councilor Ross has passed is an overcrowding ordinance, and I also think that colleges and universities in the area should crack down on troublemakers.
Also, lawyers, mechanics, doctors, sales clerks, or craftspeople, for instance, are not
to cram together into an apartment like sardines.
Tough if those young students who misbehave feel discriminated against. No sympathy here.
Who cares?
Who cares how old they are? Who cares what they do during the day?
If they misbehave, call the cops.
Why is crowding okay for families and bad for students? Several kids were killed last year because their huge family was crammed into a small apartment and they were all sleeping around a space heater. How many people lived in that house where the kid was shot with a gun?
Oh really, but other people don't crowd. GAFL
Just because you hate students for no real reason, and some shitty councilor in a city you don't live in does too, doesn't mean the universities have to break federal laws. Find another fetish, both of you. Game over.
It seems to me, anon, that you cannot stand it when
anon, it seems to me that you don't seem able or even willing to accept the fact that not everybody's going to agree with you. I have no sympathy for these young college kids who cause lots of trouble and then try to hide behind various laws to avoid the consequences of being involved in a wrongdoing of some sort or other.
More to the point, your argument that i'm accusing all of these young adult students of causing problems totally missing the point. They do not have to be in the majority to present problems. As I've pointed out before, all it takes is a minority of students to cause trouble and instigate others into acting like that who might or might not act that way ordinarily. If the non-trouble-making majority doesn't take the necessary steps to keep the trouble-making minority in line, then they, too, are a big part of the problem.
This is America,
This is America, independentminded. If we punished identifiable classifications of people for some things that only subset of the members do, then we'd rightly collapse.
The identifiable classification of people who I think need the most talking-to is the set of people who consider themselves to be proper Americans yet keep acting as if they are ignorant of the basic foundations of our American society.
And if you think lawyers and doctors don't cram together into an apartment like sardines, then you haven't seen enough of Cambridge. :)
One Question
What exactly is your problem here?
You don't live in Boston.
You don't seem to even live in an area with many students, if any students.
You have yet to report any specific issues that you yourself have had that were clearly related to students.
AND YET:
You go on and on about "bad students in boston" and "all those people are bad people because they don't control each other" as if it had anything to do with your life
You can't grasp that FEDERAL LAW actually means anything (then again, you were raised in Massachusetts ...)
Explain what your problem is, aside from a highly reactive and automatic U KIDZ GIT OFFA MY LAHWWN response to any discussion of students.
What's MY problem?
I should be asking you that, honeybabe. One doesn't have to in the midst of, or even live right close to the situation to be aware of what's going on. Frankly, if I had a bunch of spoiled, nasty college kids who really should've known better who'd moved in and partied loud and drunkenly every single night of the week until all hours of the night and kept me from getting a decent night's sleep so that I could go about my business and my life the next day, then, yeh, I would be pissed off and have that "You kids get the hell off of my lawn" response.
And if ...
I lived in a 'hood with large gangs of angry clucking chickens, I'd be getting my stewpot ready, but I don't, so you don't tend to see me getting too angry about the issue, but if I did, then, yeah, I'd be pissed.
Collective Punishment
My moral outrage at your theoretical postulation has made up my mind about what to have for dinner.
A minority of theortical chickens are so damn inconsiderate that I intend to punish a wholly unrelated and material chicken for its categorical association.
As for me
Since I was raised in Massachusetts and thus lack the technical skills required to prepare my own food, I will probably get a sandwich for dinner somewhere.
That doesnt make much sense.
That doesnt make much sense. Is that some sort of stereotype I never heard of about Massachusetts?
No
It was a(n admittedly vague) reference to a post above in this thread, where somebody took a slam at the mental capabilities of locals. One guess who.
The fact is, we don't all
The fact is, we don't all act like right fools. I go to Northeastern, I live off campus, and I can honestly say I've never run around at 3 am drunk and screaming my head off in the streets. I work two jobs including one 9 to 5 at the moment, and was raised with the common sense to respect one's neighbours and treat others as you want to be treated. Because I'm an undergrad, I can't automatically assumed to be inconsiderate and irresponsible.
This isn't a STUDENT problem. This is a "I'm in my late teens, early 20s, and I'm going to do whatever I want because I'm a selfish tool" problem. Student or no student.
My point is, however, that the people who ARE like that
and are selfish jerks may be the minority, and all it takes is a minority of them to cause problems. If the majority doesn't keep the troublemaking minority in line, then they're part of the problem.
Lawyers, engineers. sales clerks, etc., aren't likely to hold parties 'til all hours of the night that keep their neighbors awake during weeknights, because they're working people with jobs themselves.
I don't get it
How exactly are the majority supposed to "keep the troublemaking minority in line"? It's not their job to search out and control these students.
What do you mean "you don't get it"?
It 's easy enough to do if the majority puts their mind to it. Ever heard the expression "Friends don't let friends drive drunk"? This same thing applies here.
What I mean is
If I, an undergrad, choose to NOT out out, get drunk, party all night, what exactly do you expect me to do about these drunken partying students that I have already chosen to NOT associate with?
Okay, here's what I mean:
If if thee or four young undergrad students living in a given house decided to have a party, they should pointedly tell everybody that they're inviting that drunkenness, rowdyness, relieving themselves, etc, in their neighbors' yards, or keeping them awake with loud noise and music playing full blast until all hours of the night will not be tolerated, and they'll be ousted from the party immediately if they get out of control. Then, if there are any guests who get out of control, the host(s)/hostess(es) should oust them immediately. That's what I'd do if in that situation, and I wouldn't give a party on a weeknight, either.
What I'm really saying is this? What's so hard about setting firm, inflexible rules regarding the above-mentioned beforehand? Nothing, and it would prove that young undergrad students were mature, considerate enough and responsible enough to live off campus.
If someone told me
...they'd be relieving themselves in my yard later that night, I know I'd be pretty upset!
Yes but
If you were a majority member of a group of which they were a minority member, then their urination would also be your fault.
The least you could do is hold it for them.
Sock_Puppet...you are deliberately
and totally taking what I say out of context. If I were the hostess of a party, and didn't set down firm rules beforehand about and against that kind of destructive actions and behaviour(s), then, yes I would be responsible. If a person holds a party, and a guest drinks too much, gets behind the wheel of his or her automobile, and ends up in a car accident that results in the killing/maiming of other people, can the host or hostess be held responsible? Yes, they can.
Context?
If you were the hostess of a party, none of us would come, so there wouldn't be any problem.
We'd come by later and piss in your yard, and then that'd be your fault.
Well, you know what, Sock_Puppet?
Without knowing any of you guys personally, it's clear to me that you're not the kind of people that i'd want to know personally, so you'd never be invited to any parties, etc, that I gave anyway. Anyway, I don't have a yard, since I live in a large apartment complext, so you'd have nowhere to piss if you came around. hehe.
Hostess?
That sounds more like a dominatrix to me.
I don't think that I have ever been lectured about such things, save when playing tea time with a bossy neighborgirl at age 4 or so.
And what would you do to your naughty, naughty guests if they were bad little guests, eh? Whips? Restraints?
I don't see it your way, sweety.
(Oh, I forgot...you're obviously not even the next thing to sweet!).
I don't agree with what you're saying. period.
Unlike you and everybody else here on UniversalHub, I'm not into embracing and taking in the whole wide world.
I agree with you in some
I agree with you in some ways, but I think your pushing the envelope when you say other students have to keep the rowdy students in check. When I was in school I only hung out with non rowdy kids, and while I was by no means a saint I never did anything crazy and avoided crazy parties. Plenty of people at my college were drunken jerks, but since I did not hang out with them I had no influence over them, what could I, as a student, do? They were not my friends, they were not my roommates, they were not my team mates, and quite honestly we did not even go to the same types of classes. The 22 year old students who do not party all day are as much the victims as the 23 year old post graduates or even the 33 year old person 10 years out of school.
The best solution, then,
if when giving a party, imho, is to hold a "by invitation only" party, which can and does go a long way towards preventing parties from getting too rowdy, drunken and out of control. These "come one, come all" parties, which are often held by young undergrad students, do tend to get out of hand (I went to afew of them myself, though I didn't participate in the drunken rowdiness that took place) when I was in undergrad school, so I can pass some judgement.
What you saying is
you don't have a f#%&ing clue.
Anon, I don't think YOU'VE got a fucking clue.
I stand by what I've said.
Then it doesn't need to be repeated.
Hitler. Nazis.
There, I said it - I've invoked Godwin's Law.
Bullshit, adamg.
n/t
No, it doesn't apply here
Anymore than you can be expected to stop crime because, after all, you are part of the majority of people who do not commit crime (I'm assuming).
During the heyday of mandatory school busing,
when some people from certain neighborhoods in Boston were throwing rocks, bottles, etc, at busloads of schoolchildren coming into their neighborhoods, and assaulting and beating up on them when they were in or outside the schools, don't you think that the community(ies) bear some sort of responsibility for it, because they allowed stuff like this to go on, and made no effort to prevent it before it started? I think the community does bear some responsibility, if the leaders and people who're supposedly in more control don't nip it in the bud.
BUSING WEST SIDE STORY PITBULLS LOUISE DAY HICKS CHAPPAQUIDDICK
Just sayin.
How could you not understand
See, the majority of any group is always responsible when the minority misbehaves. That's why the majority of children are responsible for the minority of children, and adults (who are in the majority) are responsible for children (except in third-world countries that have a child majority), and women (of whom there are more than men) are responsible for the behavior of men, and ot just good college students but all people are responsible for the behavior of college students (who are a subset of people) and minorities in Boston (who are in the majority) are responsible for the behavior of white people and white people (of whom there are more) are responsible for the behavior of Polynesians and everybody on this blog who writes things that make sense is responsible for the behavior of independentminded. Clear now?
Your argument doesn't hold water, Sock_Puppet.
n/t
Neither does
The guy in Michael's yard!
I think that guy is really like you in some fashion in that you are a majority member of a group of which the pee-pee guy is a minority member, so it's your fault he's pissing in Michael's yard.
Don't you have any sense of responsibility whatsoever?
ha ha Ha.
n/t
Now listen, Sock_Puppet, just a minute here
(Bet you thought that was Miki based on the subject, didn't you?)
I agree wholeheartedly with your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Errr... "Sales clerks"
Ha that made me crack up! ;)
Sales clerks do indeed party all night. Other professions known to keep your lame ass up all night include but are not limited to: Musicians and music teachers, waiters and food service staff, bartenders, celebrating sales teams, etc.
And yes, also engineers and lawyers, but only a (high-achieving) minority of them!
Also, young reporters
Have been known to carouse at all hours. I personally know one reporter who once walked around Harvard Square late at night wearing a giant replica garlic on her head.
I feel so ashamed now knowing that I did absolutely nothing at all to stop her; in fact, I simply went home to go to sleep, leaving her all alone with all the other drunken young reporters.
That's it!
I'm putting garlic on my chicken too!
The entire allium family must be punished for the mishbehavior upon a reporter's head of one of its members.
"Tough if those young
"Tough if those young students who misbehave feel discriminated against. No sympathy here."
What about the not-so-young students who don't misbehave and ARE being discriminated against? When that ordinance passed, my living situation went from legal to illegal, overnight. It's a wonderful feeling, let me tell you.
Then again, maybe we should take time off from our jobs (in sales, IT, transportation, and even an auto repair garage*) to spend more time controlling those misbehaving kids, huh? By your logic, we're "part of the problem," so I guess you feel that the punishment fits the crime?
It's ironic, in another comment, you actually wrote, "for god sakes, don't always automatically assume that all students are put in that category." That's exactly the same point I'm trying to make. Don't punish an entire category, just those individuals who cause a problem.
* Even more ironic that this ordinance is actually discriminating against people who you list as examples of people unlikely to cause problems, huh?
The problem is, however, anon,
is that, all too often, the individuals who do cause problems don't get punished, which is the whole point.
Wait Miki, what?
Lawyers, engineers. sales clerks, etc., aren't likely to hold parties 'til all hours of the night that keep their neighbors awake during weeknights, because they're working people with jobs themselves.
Are you serious? Because the jackhole on my street whose car goes BOWM BOWM BOWM and shakes my house every time he leaves at 2:30pm and comes back at 11:30pm between Tuesday and Saturday seems to have a job. The scrubs that he wears when going and coming also seem to indicate this. On Sundays and Mondays, he leaves in the evening and then comes home much later in the night/morning, BOWM BOWM BOWM ing and all.
We really should outlaw those damn people who work in the medical field. Clearly it would make more sense to refuse housing to medical employees than, say, to use laws already on the books to call the cops when this particular asswad is being annoying. Not that the cops ever show up, mind you, even when said wad was blocking my driveway with his car (vacant and not BOWMing at the time) and I couldn't get to my job, but it's not like they're going to show up any faster if I'm calling because wearing scrubs is illegal versus my current complaints to the police about the BOWMing and driveway blocking.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
BOWM BOWM BOWM
I'm sure all the hospitals and rehabilitation and nursing facilities would gladly let the city do a fishing expidition on their payroll records to identify which employees lived packed into apartments and houses - like, oh, residents who are, coincidently, considered to be students in some places too! Not to mention entry level and immigrant workers in the environmental services departments.
Not.
It's agreed that not all young undergrads act like nasty jerks.
So, for god sakes, don't always automatically assume that all students are put in that category. While you may have been raised with and taught common sense, and to respect other people around you, there are, unfortunately, a substantial minority of people who clearly weren't taught that when they were growing up, and that, in itself, presents a huge problem in that they make it far more difficult for other young undergrad students who're not like that.
I'd say then the problem is
I'd say then the problem is that the penalties for getting caught disturbing the peace/massive parties where there's lots of underage drinking aren't stiff enough. A fine/community service from the police, a warning from the school - that's not enough for the selfish ones. I think the city's addressing what they perceive as a cause of the problem, and not taking a look at how do cut down on the entitlement the ones how make trouble feel, which is basically - legally, teach them a real lesson.
How about we register people like you?
So because some young adults weren't taught correctly by their parents how to behave in a civilized society, we're supposed to teach them? How is that possible? I can tell you that your a jackass and give some mighty fine reasoning behind it, but you're probably not going to listen either.
My opinion to all of your responses and obvious attitudes is
that this kind of "do whatever the hell you want when you want", and, "If it feels good, do it" attitudes are exactly what helped lead to the fact that this country overall has listed as far to the Right as it has. Those kinds of attitudes that were oh, so prevalent in the late 1960's and early 1970's are what turned off and alienated enough people that they ended up voting for the most Rightwing Republicans and/or Democrats alike for POTUS, which, in turn, resulted in the overall mess that this country's in right now, and which will take a good, long time to get out of, if we get out of it at all.
Um ...
And here I thought it was the right wing that always wants to run everybody's lives from the perspective of "knowing better" and "being in charge". To make sure that "those people" don't live in their neighborhoods. That thinks people are children until their parents die.
Or maybe IM is another right winger in disguise? Sure sounds like it ... wants categorical discrimination instead of individual responsibility, wants to force people to be in their "place", declares adults to be children in need of controlling, doesn't listen to logic and reason, disregards history, ignores federal law, etc. Yep. True Wingnut.
Sui generis
It's a good phrase.
Why...Glad to know it.
You're all obviously for total anarchy, which I'm not.
If you've got a problem with that, so be it.
In that perfect world of yours
People like yourself would be forced to live in institutions rather than have their disabilities addressed with life skills training and vocational accomodation.
Think about the history of a societies which treat certain adults like children because of a perceived categorical deficit of life skills. Do you really think you would be allowed to live independently - by virtue of your being female even?
Think about what would happen to you if the government just went around deciding, on a categorical basis, who was and wasn't fit to be an adult.
Quite frankly, anon and adamg,
I really couldn't care less what you thought of me for my opinions.
Well, as an American I
Well, as an American I reserve my right to do "whatever the hell I want when I want" as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights in the process.
Your rights end where my nose begins
And my nose, like Savoir Faire, EES EVERYWHAIR!!!
yeh, but the point is,
that these young undergrad students who engage in loud, drunken partying until all hours of the night and keep their neighbors awake do infringe on the rights of others.
This whole thing that you're all giving me about clerks, lawyers, etc., doing likewise, is totally irrelevant, imho, and is bullshit.
My opinion to all of your insisting and obvious insanitude is
just the same as it would be if I came upon some poor unfortunate soul on a streetcorner arguing with herself.
Poor thing. There's nobody there saying what she thinks somebody is there saying. And yet she's very angry about it. She must have been traumatized somehow, or be not all right in the head.
And then she starts screaming about how because college students didn't stop people they barely know from drinking, they caused the Iraq War, and I toddle off because she seems like she might be dangerous. That, and the smell of urine.
Who cares about all your bullshit, Sock_Puppet?
Not me....I don't. Nor does a poor crrazy girl on the street concern me, either.
This is why we can't have nice things...
Like bars that don't close.
Overreact much?
If you can't stand the
If you can't stand the heat... get out of the kitchen.
Listen, living in the city you have to expect to put up with stuff like this. Problem is people living close together in a CITY not students in an apartment.
I hate the smelly guy on the T, the green line whine, the guy who always asks me for change, the sound of love making coming from the apartment above me and the guy who plays the piano below me. They are all fucking annoying as hell. But you know what, it's part of living in a city... Along with loud, partying kids.
If you're annoyed a little, too bad... If the problem is criminal (like a disturbance of the peace) then call the cops (your taxes pay for that!) If that still isn't good enough then maybe city life isn't for you.
You're missing my point.
The noise that many young undergrad college students create during their loud, allnight drunken partying doesn't even compare to ordinary, run of the mill city noise, such as cars, trains, etc.
You obviously don't live next to the Amtrak line
That train is LOUD and it rattles houses along the tracks.
Ban Amtrak!
Amtrak--
Who cares about Amtrak?
I never use it, probably never will use it, let alone live near it, so why should I care.
OK, this has been fun
But it's wicked late and the 'rents'll be back in the morning and I've got a ton of cleaning to do (geez, I love you people, but you're all slobs!), so I'm going to do something I haven't done in a long time: Close this thread because now we're all just standing around yelling at each other, y'know?