RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceUnopposed USG presidential candidate Connor Diemand-Yauman ’10 is currently awaiting his day in court after having been charged in September with serving alcohol to a minor. Diemand-Yauman explained in an e-mail that the charge resulted from his decision to call ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I have no words. The sneaky, deceptive way the university justifies their role in this is deeply disappointing. Way to earn our trust.
"Hi, Mayor Trotman? This is President Tilghman. The University will no longer pay a voluntary contribution to the Borough. Have a nice day." That's all it would take to end this nonsense. Good luck CDY. I know what you're going through.
It seems that if students know that they'll be criminally charged for helping a friend out, they'd be more likely not to pick up the phone at all. I'm sure many more students will be put in danger thanks to this high-profile example. People could care less about university disciplinary action, although immunity is nice. It's the criminal record that's the bad part.
Yet another debate over town/gown relations where the topic of money comes up on these boards. I don't say I agree with the town in this case, but you rich, spoiled brats really need to learn that you can't buy your way out of everything. You're just perpetuating the Ivy stereotype.
This is awful news. The borough council and mayor will soon have blood on their hands, because this action will incentivize students away from helping friends who may be needing medical attention.
Within a few years, I'd be surprised not to see a death or serious injury from people trying to tend for students at their rooms. What a terrible day for the student body.
@GS:
I understand your sentiments, but no one here is trying to "buy their way" out of anything. In fact, I believe that Mr. Scharf (a person about as intimately familiar with the Boro's legal mechanisms as possible, by the way) is indicating that withholding financial support is the only recourse with which the Boro has left the University. Apparently safety measures on Prospect that are unparalleled in any other collegiate environment, extensive student training, and Good Samaritan rules are not enough for the Boro.
You are free to disagree with any of these facts if you like, or to question the efficacy of them, but to assert that Princeton students are "spoiled brats" who are "trying to buy their way" out of the situation through suggesting an end to financial ties is intellectually shallow.
@Teach
"Apparently safety measures on Prospect that are unparalleled in any other collegiate environment, extensive student training, and Good Samaritan rules are not enough for the Boro."
I think you might be stuck in the Princeton bubble. There are peer institutions that have far greater levels of responsible drinking, alcohol education, respect for fellow students than this college, and positive relationships with local municipalities.
I think the biggest problem with the town/clubs relationship here is that when the clubs mess up, they don't take responsibility for their own actions. That really is the key. Certainly there is underage drinking going on, but its obvious when someone goes the ER for alcohol poisoning, that someone messed up. I'm sure the town would have a far greater appreciation and respect for the clubs if they took responsibility for their actions. First, clubs need to admit when they are wrong and impose restrictions/sanctions on themselves to show outsiders that they are in fact responsible and understanding of the severity of the situation.
I understand that in this case the person may not have drank in Cloister, but Cloister is still liable for their guests. They still let this person in as their guest and in doing so, they are responsible for their safety. If they didn't serve alcohol, then they definitely should not have let someone that drunk into their facility.
People, this isn't about the Boro. Once the Boro PD gets a call from the university that a crime happened, they're obligated to investigate and prosecute. This is about someone at the university who contacted the Boro police and had them tag along with ublic safety from the get-go in this situation, without properly announcing that fact to the student.
@ ____ :
I did not say that Princeton has more responsible drinkers...Lord knows that isn't true. I merely brought attention to the SAFETY MEASURES Prospect has in place. I think you raise a very interesting point though, re: the clubs taking responsiblity. The problem, as I see it, is that the clubs are more than happy to take responsibility for their actions when they are actually at fault...however, in the past four/five times that clubs have been charged with crimes, the evidence has been specious at best, and nonexistent at worst. I am not saying that the clubs are flawless or beyond reproach, merely that these highly publicized cases not been the fault of the clubs.
Furthermore, you make an excellent point about Cloister being responsible for the safety of their guests. I believe that as more details come out, it will be clear that Cloister did, in fact, look out first and foremost for this individual's safety. I don't wish to debate the details here, nor do I think it is proper given that the other commenting section has already been shut down.
Ultimately, I think this situation highlights the existence of a big problem in alcohol policy nearly everywhere you go, whether it's the University or the Boro - the fact that the drinker himself is not held responsible for his actions. In Connor's situation as well as any eating club situation, all of the responsibility is shifted onto the place where it happened. I agree that some of the responsibility is shared by the host, but this kind of thinking leads students to feel like there aren't any consequences for overdrinking, at least from a legal standpoint, because in every situation (as long as they are minors, I suppose), they're treated as "victims."