Sounds like they sure can go outside. The written issue seems to be that the school is keeping them on a cell tower tether. That is weird. Are underground parking lots also banned if they are off school property? No cell coverage, likely higher probability of injury/robbery etc.
I wonder if "safety" is a dog whistle for something else. Or will the admin reverse its decision if every student gets a satellite phone, or goes with a team of professional trained guides?
Honestly, probably just best for the club to shut down and reform as a Venturing Crew. Same concept, much more independence, and you get access to the properties and resources that Scouting International and the Boy Scouts of America both offer.
I've yet to run into any issues going on trips as a gay couple in crew, its solidly not bad. Much more of a collegiate atmosphere than Boy Scouts too, and no uniform requirements or competitions either!
There’s at least one Venturing Crew in the area already (https://www.facebook.com/Venturing21/) and I’m sure Venturing is a fine option, but it’s ridiculous that they would need to go that avenue.
I’m also not sure what equipment has been purchased over the years, but reforming as an unassociated group would mean losing that. Also their ability to reserve rooms on campus for meetings, have a table at the “Involvement Fair” where incoming students can scope out all the clubs, no office space or storage in the student union building (not sure if PSOC has this or not, but many clubs do), etc.
Given what PSU is demanding here maybe BSA would be a more useful parent organization, I just can’t believe they even need to consider it. Going hiking in central PA is not a complicated endeavor. You can drive 15 minutes off of campus and you’re out in the woods with poor cell coverage, that’s just how things are.
Venturing is also age capped 14-21 which would potentially block people in their senior year or anyone who’s going to college later in life. Maybe better to be unaffiliated and more inclusive.
That's was what immediately came to my mind, are a couple of iridium phone subscriptions too much for a university budget? Especially for something as important as keeping contact with nature that is so often missing in the modern urban life, which should be heavily promoted by them, not dismissed as "risky".
Sounds like the university doesn’t want the liability. Students can just do things anyway, so long as it’s not under the university’s purview. Annoying, but not that bad.
It's more than just annoying. Schools typically offer opportunities for funding to official clubs. I'm guessing this club needs to pay for things like rental fees for equipment, equipment purchases, etc. Now students who want to engage in these activities have to self-fund, which may not be possible.
Meanwhile other students can engage in much more dangerous activities (downhill skiing, football, etc.) with school funding. That makes no sense.
> Basic map and compass training would be better than GPS
Surely any kind of hiking should include at least a little informal training in using a map and a compass. I had that in primary school in the UK. Mind you that was in the early sixties. Here in Norway children get an early introduction to simple woodcraft (shelters, fire, tools, maps, compasses) in primary school and have outings into the woods. My children would come home with a brief letter saying that a trip to the woods was planned and could we make sure that they were supplied with sausages to cook over a fire and a knife to cut sticks with to make the fire and a rudimentary shelter. And they did it before mobile phones were common too.
One of my sons was accidentally cut by a classmate but we didn't sue and he came to no lasting harm. The trip was not called off, the teacher simply and effectively bandaged it up and they all carried on. If primary school children can manage then surely 20 year olds can.
Maps are great if you know where you are. If I'm in the woods, that may be non-trivial to figure out.
In addition, GPS works fine in the standard conditions where you can't see very well (heavy rain, snow or fog) which would make figuring out where you are pretty stupidly difficult. This is extremely helpful even when using a map.
Teach people to use a map and compass? Absolutely. However, GPS is really useful.
> One of my sons was accidentally cut by a classmate but we didn't sue and he came to no lasting harm. The trip was not called off, the teacher simply and effectively bandaged it up and they all carried on. If primary school children can manage then surely 20 year olds can.
Most people think like this. The problem is that if even one parent/student winds up winning a big lawsuit, it ruins it for all the sensible people.
"...which has gone backpacking, kayaking, and hiking..."
Of the three listed activities, two have notable costs associated with them, while even hiking requires transport, food, and, depending on the hike, sometimes more specialized equipment.
Sounds like the university is using their power of the purse in a shitty overbearing way. Fortunately, college students are adults, and they can just form their own unofficial organization and do what they want, particularly since it's a perfectly legal set of activities.
It's highly germane this time, because it illustrates the lengths the school was willing to go to protect its football program: the pres, vp, and were charged with perjury and obstruction, etc.
So back to OP: TBIs, spinal injuries, child abuse (and all the related crimes), all are acceptable damages when talking about football.
But if someone might turn an ankle in the woods, hold on a second.
This is the kind of dishonesty that gives risk assessment a bad name. Note that they weren't even allowed to see and contest the assessment, and Alpine ski racing was allegedly deemed safe.
> Note that they weren't even allowed to see and contest the assessment
I don't know much about how risk assessment in large organizations is done, but that strikes me as an illegitimate attempt to stifle debate. Are there any legitimate reasons the university administrators might keep the risk assessment secret?
Because university administrators are often (not always but often) absolutely terrible managers, terrible leaders, and have really no clue how many of the organizational things they are in charge of work. I don't think its malicious I think its...just lack of thinking.
I don't mean that as an insult, sincerely. They are typically very very good at what they are trained to do - research - they just aren't trained for this. It is unfortunate that the programs that do exist for training them often do not deliver meaningful training. Some schools have even stopped giving (unless requested) quarterly statements on grant accounts to faculty. I was told that such things were 'difficult' for faculty to understand and led to many questions and confusion.
> I'm furious that Penn State administration allows indoor activities but has hobbled healthy, outdoor leadership and controlled risk-taking opportunities
Easy solution. Forbid indoor sports activities as well and mandate that students spend all their freetime in the safety of their homes browsing reddit.
Which presumably prevents them from using university resources and funding. It may also limit their ability to recruit and hold meetings on the campus, depending on Penn State's policies.
So yes, this is still a fairly big deal for the Outing Club.
Is the flip side of this official funding and support coin the fact that the University's insurers will be on the hook for anything bad that happens during one of these expeditions? In which case this isn't about helicopter parenting so much as simple risk management.
I imagine the insurance situation for Penn State extracurriculars is already problematic, given the recent history.
"> In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.
This could be a legitimate reason to cut a risky club while allowing a similarly risky sport; it is not a legitimate reason to hide the report."
So yes, this definitely cpuld be an acceptable reason, but there's no way for students to know without the minimal transparency of publishing the risk assessment. As long as the report remains private, it may be assumed that "student safety" is a smokescreen for a political or similar reason to cut the club.
I don't find the insurance argument compelling because so many other colleges and universities have official outing clubs that are covered by the institutional policy. It's not an unusual addition to a college insurance policy.
Sure but they're the same general concept, just applied to two different domains. When overdone, they result in same general pathology: goal of reducing unknown downside -> destruction of local autonomy -> decreased development of localized ability -> poorer overall outcomes.
In fact, I don't even see anybody referencing the specific "helicopter parenting" until you brought it up.
Presumably, they'd be losing the funding that the university provides to official student organizations. It may be difficult to go hiking on your own if you don't have a car, or have a friend who has one.
The sports/activities that college outdoor clubs are involved in often require gear which can cost $100s or $1000s per sport. Most college students cannot afford to spend that kind of money just to try a sport. These clubs often use the dues to buy gear which can then be used by the members. Even hiking which is the cheapest could require a backpack, 3-4 season tent, zero degree sleeping bag, etc which is still expensive especially for a college kid.
If lack of cell service in case of emergency is really the reason for denying backwoods hikes, can't they just carry an emergency personal locator beacon?
Pete Hautman wrote a satirical novel about a decade ago, called "Rash," in which a spirited teenager defies the very cautious norms of "The United Safer States of America." Our hero gets sent off to a penal colony north of the Arctic Circle, where he must make pizzas all day. Without giving away too much, the system does not crush his spirit.
It's a weird book, but when well-meaning grown-ups are putting the squeeze on adventurous students, I'm glad that such books (still) exist. Hope they don't get banned. A link is here: https://www.amazon.com/Rash-Pete-Hautman/dp/0689869045
I’m a Penn State grad and have been hearing about this from a couple of people, glad to see it’s getting wider attention.
If the “no cell service” issue is really the problem, this is even more embarrassing. Satellite phones are a thing, and if they can’t afford the subscription for that, then get a subscriptionless emergency satellite beacon instead. They cost a few hundred dollars.
It’s even run by an international treaty with many satellite networks listening for these alerts and forwarding them to local authorities. Works pretty much anywhere in the world and costs less than most cell phones.
Snark aside, I think you hit on the main point. Bean counters have a two columns whenever they assess something, the value in profit a venture brings and the potential costs. They find the profit they derive from football more than covers the cost that they have to bear, while allowing students (adults, mind you) to go on outing trips has more potential cost than profit.
So, under the system we've given them, they made a rational decision.
It could be that the risk management department would like to shut down football but doesn't have the political power to do so since there are so many people invested in keeping that going.
PSOC is a convenient soft target without anyone on the payroll to defend it, so risk management is in a position to do whatever they want.
Sure, but the root of the problem is that beancounters shouldn't be anywhere near such a "decision". We're reinventing totalitarianism through insurance companies.
If only Penn State had a recent highly publicized event regarding its staff and deans that probably should have killed their football program forever - from a risk assessment pov at least.
I am not a Penn State grad but I have suspicion that there is simple explanation. The explanation is marketing. As students are less and less independent, the decisions are made my more and more concerned parents. Parents that don't want their "kids" engaging in "risky" activities.
The actual risk has nothing to do with this, only perception of it.
My school organized trips to wilderness and I took part in it when I was 9. There were no phones, no satellites. This was cold war Poland and the bears and wolves were present in the woods. Yet I never heard anything really dangerous happening to anybody unless you ask for problems (like climbing a steep rock face without safeties). You are probably safer in the wilderness than on the city street.
That would seem to be but that is not what is happening.
Young men and women may be of legal age but are not at all independent financially or mentally from their parents.
Financially, it is more and more difficult with each year as education costs inflate, to be able to afford education yourself. There were times when you could get a job and be able to survive through university but I think this is past.
At the same time parents became crazy for safety and behave overprotective of their kids. This means it is more difficult for the young adult to take independent decision and when faced with conflict they will more likely yield to parents. The parents themselves, being crazy for safety, are less and less approving of any activities that may be contrived to be unsafe for children. Your kids sensibilities can be hurt? That's a no no... Lack of cell coverage... don't even think about it.
Interesting, so you think it comes down to "I'm paying $x/year for you to be at the school, you are forbidden from taking part in dangerous activities". If so, that's really quite sad - university should be a time where you transition into adulthood and are responsible for your own decisions (good and bad).
Because football is a profit center and is already handled by actuarial analysis for insurance purposes. Clubs on the other hand are risky non-profit centers that are notoriously hard to insure. Just ask any council member for the Boy Scouts of America about insurance...
I didn't expect this from Reason, a libertarian magazine.
Libertarians tend to support free and voluntary association. The college is not stopping these students from voluntarily hiking together. The college is simply saying: we don't want to get eaten alive by the potential liability if you hike together with our organization's name attached.
If anything, you'd think Reason would applaud the college for not strapping the non-hiking student with the increased insurance costs of allowing the hiking group to continue.
You're missing that the Student Activities Fee or equivalent at most American universities is not voluntary. Students pay it (often several hundred dollars or more) on top of tuition and other fees, and have only limited or indirect control of where the fee goes. Here, the administration is giving a flat "no" rather than seeking a way to make things work (insurance or a satellite phone for the club).
That paternalism infantilizes the adult students and encourages a childlike mindset of seeking safety in exchange for submission to an authority and its power over you rather than an independent minded, solve-it-yourself, get-up-and-go ethos more conducive to a free society.
Libertarians often retort that the fees are not really involuntary, you can either go to the college or not. I think this has more to do with libertarians are often finding themselves taking sides in the culture war for some reason.
And it's not a contradiction for libertarians to advocate for a particular kind of culture which they (and I) might believe is more conducive to a free society (or to advocate against a particular kind of culture which might threaten the survival of individual rights). That's your 'some reason' for libertarian participation in the culture war---the belief that, with respect to liberty, some kinds of culture are invigorating and others are corrosive---and we (libertarians) don't come down uniformly on the left or right, or even uniformly with each other.
I do so all the time, and as long as I'm not employing violence in my advocacy, I don't see a conflict with my moral and political principles.
In the context of being in college, the fee is usually either mandatory or required to participate in any activity at all, whether it's the bible study that reserves rooms and gets no money from student government, the film series that spends like mad bringing in 35mm and 70mm prints, or something in between. At best, that's an extremely poor gradient of control over your own money and a consequence of centralizing control of funds in a way that many libertarians would likely oppose.
Why is it your business what a college decides to make their culture? Isn't it your choice to go to that college or not? Where is the libertarian logic for imposing your own beliefs on others?
Trying to persuade people that certain things are good and others are bad by publishing articles doesn't violate anybody's rights within most moral and ethical frameworks typically regarded as libertarian.
Beyond that sort of strictly purpose-driven reasoning, there are tendencies for certain attitudes and preferences to overlap. I've found that libertarians tend to like going outside.
With regard to culture though, I think a culture of being less fearful tends to be conducive to the political viability of libertarian policies. There's a trend, as the world becomes safer for people to treat risks that were previously regarded as reasonable, or that were simply unavoidable, as unreasonable. I hope that walking outdoors where there isn't a cell signal doesn't start to be widely regarded as an unreasonable risk.
Re: Student Activities Fee, the current fee at PSU is $258, including $60.26 for student activities. Some of that is student organization insurance, the bulk of it is allocated to activities by UPAC, the University Park Allocation Committee. And IIRC a $50 default budget for any organization.
I used to be the treasurer for the Urban Gaming Club and got them UPAC funding for "Nerf capture the flag" events run on Friday/Saturday nights in the student union building. We had inflatable paintball bunkers and maybe 10 loaner blasters, most of the recurring attendees brought their own. Fun times.
Completely forgot to finish my thought, which is that a few hundred dollars for an emergency beacon is a pretty small deal and I can't imagine UPAC would decline it. They could probably get several.
With the $54.13 per student and an undergraduate population of roughly 46,000 on main campus, UPAC is allocating a budget of nearly $2.5 million per year.
https://www.rei.com/product/843146/ for example. Buoyant, waterproof, and transmits a GPS location (some don't, and are only triangulated to a few km by the receiving satellites). Costs $270.
On the other hand, if Risk Management is concerned about financial risk rather than student safety, calling search and rescue may not be cheap. But the risk of needing this seems _very_ small. In the club's 98 year history has it ever happened?
For actual student safety issues I would bet the top three are sports, drinking, and street crossings (especially Atherton).
>Josef Blunschi , a Ph.D. student and part-time university employee, was crossing the intersection of East Park Avenue and McKee Street around 6:50 p.m. when he was struck by a vehicle travelling westbound toward Atherton Street, police said.
>Three other pedestrians have been killed crossing streets on the north side of campus in the last 20 months, State College Police Chief Thomas King said at a press conference on Thursday.
It reminds me so much of the 1990's when they ripped all of the tall slides and monkey bars, all of the fast merry-go-rounds, etc. out of playgrounds for younger kids. It is just moving up the chain. Where can it go next? Employer-sponsored health insurance will require members not to participate in certain activities?
Ludicrous. You can buy a Garmin inReach Explorer Plus for $450, pay $25/month for a subscription, and have two way messaging via Iridium/GPS/GLONASS satellites, mapping, position sends every 10 minutes to an interactive map on the website, and an SOS button that sends the cavalry if the shit really hits the fan.
This is almost surely related to the insurance policy PSU has for official clubs. If the Outing Club could get liability insurance for itself, I doubt that PSU would care. If it wants to use the university's policy, it plays by the university's rules, no matter how stupid they are, because it's really the insurance company's rules. Because the university is a giant cash cow that's target #1 if anything goes wrong, and what the Outing Club does has a high chance of injury (try getting travel insurance that covers what these guys do -- it's way more expensive).
This article just feels like clickbait. No analysis of why the university might have taken a decision that on the surface is bizarre but is reasonable given a moment's thought.... ironic given the name of the site.
If it is related to insurance, I don't think that makes Penn State look any better.
Far smaller universities and colleges have outing clubs that are covered by the institutional insurance policy. Some schools like Middlebury even run officially sanctioned and organized outings for matriculating students.
This is not impossible or expensive coverage to get.
PSU has unlimited coffers as a state school and the Outing Club is very popular, and also run by amateurs. A perfect storm for e.g. a rich international student to get injured or killed and then have their parents sue Pennsylvania for megabucks.
This is 100% related to liability reduction. No insurance company would cover a high-risk activity group without demanding conditions like being able to call 911 or medevac.
The condition demanded here is 100% reasonable given the risk.
Reason is complaining about people wanting to do risky things and have other people pay for them which is par for the course for libertarianism these days, I guess.
You might want to look into the insurance coverage that the Boy Scouts of America has, with what is a shoestring budget by comparison. There's no way reasonable insurance is difficult for Penn State to obtain or afford.
> the Outing Club is very popular, and also run by amateurs.
This is true of hundreds, maybe thousands of colleges and universities in the U.S. It's not unusual to have a college outing club that is led by students.
> No insurance company would cover a high-risk activity group without demanding conditions like being able to call 911 or medevac.
This is just incorrect. Backcountry activities are not necessarily higher risk than other activities, and insurance companies will certainly cover such activities. Again: many, many colleges and universities already have coverage for their outing clubs.
I guarantee that's why the Rugby club is allowed to stay. Having previously played organized rugby in school you pretty much have to sign away your rights to sue and acquire rather comprehensive insurance for injuries obtained as a result of playing. Additionally the game was strictly monitored for dangerous behavior such as high tackling and collapsing the ruck/scrum/maul.
If the outings club were able to obtain such insurance and get trained supervisors for their outings I doubt they'd have trouble getting the official seal of approval.
The university insures their football and ruby teams. Surely they can get insurance for other clubs, even if it means losing some money. Students do after all pay record tuition.
So insurance didn't exist for 98 years the club existed? Or how comes it existed for 98 years doing all the same activities, but now suddenly it can't do the same thing they did for all those years?
I think we’re not getting the full story. This same university tolerates fraternity culture that literally killed someone last year. What ever actuary looked at the outing club had to have looked at the fraternities too.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some kind of hazing or even worse behavior is the real reason for the shutdown.
Full disclosure I live in State College. Football is a dangerous sport yes - but we have bears here. Both football and all activities the Outing club did can be safe. The same can be said for fraternities, if responsible people are involved it can be a rewarding experience for all.
I'm trying to point out that there may a larger crackdown at foot, and if the clubs were involved in especially risky behavior, or hazing or worse we probably won't hear about it.
This was at Indiana University (in Bloomington, Indiana) in Fall 2017. The Indiana University Outdoor Adventures club went on a hike through a nearby cave. To prevent vandalism and overtraffiking, the cave has a locking gate inside the entrance. (Far enough inside that there is no cell signal at the gate.) (I believe the key can be checked out from the park office.) One new member fell behind the group, and:
* his assigned buddy completely forgot about him, and
* the club leaders failed to account for him at an end-of-hike headcount.
Later that weekend, somebody who was on the trip (I think it was his "buddy") realized what had happened, contacted a club leader, and they drove out to the cave. They found him just inside the entrance. He had spent about 2 nights inside the cave with no food and little water. He was fine, but it caused a bit of a ruckus in the news.
FWIW, the Indiana University Outdoor Adventures club continues to operate as a university student organization. [0]
As a non-American, Penn State didn't immediately register and I was thinking this was about an organisation similar to scouts (i.e. for kids) and was thinking this was already harsh. Then halfway through it dawned on me that this was a university club and it seemed downright crazy.
Maybe they can take virtual reality walks in a padded room—provided there's cell service.
We may need a great many more padded rooms if such insanity continues in the world. It has never been easier to rescue someone in serious trouble in a remote location, cell phone or no cell phone.
Last year at Stanford, the Business School Kids Club (the org for families with kids) attempted to do an outdoor "water" event featuring water balloons, squirt guns, and sprinklers that kids could play with.
Part of the event was to have open 5 gallon containers of water so the kids could refill their squirt guns. The whole event was killed by the administration because the open water containers posed a "drowning hazard." As a number of commentators have mentioned, this was driven by the school's insurance policy.
A few weeks later, they hosted a professional birds of prey experinece - including faclons, eagles, etc for the kids to engage with. The Admin again banned it - but the organizers put it on anyway.
105 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 93.3 ms ] threadI wonder if "safety" is a dog whistle for something else. Or will the admin reverse its decision if every student gets a satellite phone, or goes with a team of professional trained guides?
I've yet to run into any issues going on trips as a gay couple in crew, its solidly not bad. Much more of a collegiate atmosphere than Boy Scouts too, and no uniform requirements or competitions either!
I’m also not sure what equipment has been purchased over the years, but reforming as an unassociated group would mean losing that. Also their ability to reserve rooms on campus for meetings, have a table at the “Involvement Fair” where incoming students can scope out all the clubs, no office space or storage in the student union building (not sure if PSOC has this or not, but many clubs do), etc.
Given what PSU is demanding here maybe BSA would be a more useful parent organization, I just can’t believe they even need to consider it. Going hiking in central PA is not a complicated endeavor. You can drive 15 minutes off of campus and you’re out in the woods with poor cell coverage, that’s just how things are.
A Venture crew would not be accessible to many juniors, most seniors, or (almost) any graduate students.
[0] http://www.venturing.org/learn-more.html
Maybe there is no equivalent in US Scouting.
* Venture Scouting (aged 14-21),
* Exploring (aged 10-20) [0],
* and Sea Scouting (aged 14-20) [1]
However, there are plenty of university students that would be too old to take advantage of programs that had an upper age limit of 25.
[0] https://www.exploring.org/about-us/
[1] http://join.seascout.org/join/
Meanwhile other students can engage in much more dangerous activities (downhill skiing, football, etc.) with school funding. That makes no sense.
GPS trackers would certainly be something I would have for every member of the club.
Even the so-called 100 Mile Wilderness on the AT in northern Maine is crisscrossed with dozens of logging roads.
Basic map and compass training would be better than GPS
Surely any kind of hiking should include at least a little informal training in using a map and a compass. I had that in primary school in the UK. Mind you that was in the early sixties. Here in Norway children get an early introduction to simple woodcraft (shelters, fire, tools, maps, compasses) in primary school and have outings into the woods. My children would come home with a brief letter saying that a trip to the woods was planned and could we make sure that they were supplied with sausages to cook over a fire and a knife to cut sticks with to make the fire and a rudimentary shelter. And they did it before mobile phones were common too.
One of my sons was accidentally cut by a classmate but we didn't sue and he came to no lasting harm. The trip was not called off, the teacher simply and effectively bandaged it up and they all carried on. If primary school children can manage then surely 20 year olds can.
In addition, GPS works fine in the standard conditions where you can't see very well (heavy rain, snow or fog) which would make figuring out where you are pretty stupidly difficult. This is extremely helpful even when using a map.
Teach people to use a map and compass? Absolutely. However, GPS is really useful.
> One of my sons was accidentally cut by a classmate but we didn't sue and he came to no lasting harm. The trip was not called off, the teacher simply and effectively bandaged it up and they all carried on. If primary school children can manage then surely 20 year olds can.
Most people think like this. The problem is that if even one parent/student winds up winning a big lawsuit, it ruins it for all the sensible people.
Of the three listed activities, two have notable costs associated with them, while even hiking requires transport, food, and, depending on the hike, sometimes more specialized equipment.
People can still donate to the club, and IMO tuition money should not be going towards other people's hobbies. Tuition is high enough as-is.
So back to OP: TBIs, spinal injuries, child abuse (and all the related crimes), all are acceptable damages when talking about football.
But if someone might turn an ankle in the woods, hold on a second.
I don't know much about how risk assessment in large organizations is done, but that strikes me as an illegitimate attempt to stifle debate. Are there any legitimate reasons the university administrators might keep the risk assessment secret?
In some organizations they quack like auditors, but aren’t really auditors. Usually if they are involved, a big shot doesn’t want to do something.
In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.
> In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.
This could be a legitimate reason to cut a risky club while allowing a similarly risky sport; it is not a legitimate reason to hide the report.
I don't mean that as an insult, sincerely. They are typically very very good at what they are trained to do - research - they just aren't trained for this. It is unfortunate that the programs that do exist for training them often do not deliver meaningful training. Some schools have even stopped giving (unless requested) quarterly statements on grant accounts to faculty. I was told that such things were 'difficult' for faculty to understand and led to many questions and confusion.
As an example: The Big 10 Academic Leadership Program Seminar https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/leadershipdev/semin... 2.5 days
First day (12pm-8pm):
a 45min 'conversation'
a 1hr talk on 'the pragmatics of leadership'
a 1:15 panel on the role of the arts in diversity and inclusion
everything else is social.
Second Day (8am-9pm):
1:15 Issues confronting US universities
1:45 freedom of expression and inclusive campus
1:15 public engagement in academia
1 hr 'conversation' with University president.
The rest is social, breaks, field trips, tours, etc.
TL:DR: in 2.5 days, there is approximately 8 hours of content most of which is just someone in a position of authority's opinion/experience.
Easy solution. Forbid indoor sports activities as well and mandate that students spend all their freetime in the safety of their homes browsing reddit.
So yes, this is still a fairly big deal for the Outing Club.
I imagine the insurance situation for Penn State extracurriculars is already problematic, given the recent history.
"> In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.
This could be a legitimate reason to cut a risky club while allowing a similarly risky sport; it is not a legitimate reason to hide the report."
So yes, this definitely cpuld be an acceptable reason, but there's no way for students to know without the minimal transparency of publishing the risk assessment. As long as the report remains private, it may be assumed that "student safety" is a smokescreen for a political or similar reason to cut the club.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16899232
In fact, I don't even see anybody referencing the specific "helicopter parenting" until you brought it up.
And they know that any "legitimate" reason they cook up is going to apply to some other club or sport so they're keeping the report secret.
It's a weird book, but when well-meaning grown-ups are putting the squeeze on adventurous students, I'm glad that such books (still) exist. Hope they don't get banned. A link is here: https://www.amazon.com/Rash-Pete-Hautman/dp/0689869045
If the “no cell service” issue is really the problem, this is even more embarrassing. Satellite phones are a thing, and if they can’t afford the subscription for that, then get a subscriptionless emergency satellite beacon instead. They cost a few hundred dollars.
It’s even run by an international treaty with many satellite networks listening for these alerts and forwarding them to local authorities. Works pretty much anywhere in the world and costs less than most cell phones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cospas-Sarsat_Pr...
Risk management my ass. If they were really concerned about the safety of students it wouldn’t be a football school.
Maybe I should write the risk management people a letter in case they haven’t heard about this yet.
But, what about all that sweet, sweet sportsball money? Oh yeah, TBI? Nahh, the helmets are "safe".
So, under the system we've given them, they made a rational decision.
PSOC is a convenient soft target without anyone on the payroll to defend it, so risk management is in a position to do whatever they want.
If only Penn State had a recent highly publicized event regarding its staff and deans that probably should have killed their football program forever - from a risk assessment pov at least.
The actual risk has nothing to do with this, only perception of it.
My school organized trips to wilderness and I took part in it when I was 9. There were no phones, no satellites. This was cold war Poland and the bears and wolves were present in the woods. Yet I never heard anything really dangerous happening to anybody unless you ask for problems (like climbing a steep rock face without safeties). You are probably safer in the wilderness than on the city street.
Penn State is a university for adults, no? Not a nursery or something.
Young men and women may be of legal age but are not at all independent financially or mentally from their parents.
Financially, it is more and more difficult with each year as education costs inflate, to be able to afford education yourself. There were times when you could get a job and be able to survive through university but I think this is past.
At the same time parents became crazy for safety and behave overprotective of their kids. This means it is more difficult for the young adult to take independent decision and when faced with conflict they will more likely yield to parents. The parents themselves, being crazy for safety, are less and less approving of any activities that may be contrived to be unsafe for children. Your kids sensibilities can be hurt? That's a no no... Lack of cell coverage... don't even think about it.
Libertarians tend to support free and voluntary association. The college is not stopping these students from voluntarily hiking together. The college is simply saying: we don't want to get eaten alive by the potential liability if you hike together with our organization's name attached.
If anything, you'd think Reason would applaud the college for not strapping the non-hiking student with the increased insurance costs of allowing the hiking group to continue.
That paternalism infantilizes the adult students and encourages a childlike mindset of seeking safety in exchange for submission to an authority and its power over you rather than an independent minded, solve-it-yourself, get-up-and-go ethos more conducive to a free society.
And it's not a contradiction for libertarians to advocate for a particular kind of culture which they (and I) might believe is more conducive to a free society (or to advocate against a particular kind of culture which might threaten the survival of individual rights). That's your 'some reason' for libertarian participation in the culture war---the belief that, with respect to liberty, some kinds of culture are invigorating and others are corrosive---and we (libertarians) don't come down uniformly on the left or right, or even uniformly with each other.
I do so all the time, and as long as I'm not employing violence in my advocacy, I don't see a conflict with my moral and political principles.
In the context of being in college, the fee is usually either mandatory or required to participate in any activity at all, whether it's the bible study that reserves rooms and gets no money from student government, the film series that spends like mad bringing in 35mm and 70mm prints, or something in between. At best, that's an extremely poor gradient of control over your own money and a consequence of centralizing control of funds in a way that many libertarians would likely oppose.
With regard to culture though, I think a culture of being less fearful tends to be conducive to the political viability of libertarian policies. There's a trend, as the world becomes safer for people to treat risks that were previously regarded as reasonable, or that were simply unavoidable, as unreasonable. I hope that walking outdoors where there isn't a cell signal doesn't start to be widely regarded as an unreasonable risk.
I used to be the treasurer for the Urban Gaming Club and got them UPAC funding for "Nerf capture the flag" events run on Friday/Saturday nights in the student union building. We had inflatable paintball bunkers and maybe 10 loaner blasters, most of the recurring attendees brought their own. Fun times.
EDIT: link for reference http://www.studentfee.psu.edu/university-park/up-how-the-fee...
With the $54.13 per student and an undergraduate population of roughly 46,000 on main campus, UPAC is allocating a budget of nearly $2.5 million per year.
https://www.rei.com/product/843146/ for example. Buoyant, waterproof, and transmits a GPS location (some don't, and are only triangulated to a few km by the receiving satellites). Costs $270.
For actual student safety issues I would bet the top three are sports, drinking, and street crossings (especially Atherton).
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_9f27f...
>Josef Blunschi , a Ph.D. student and part-time university employee, was crossing the intersection of East Park Avenue and McKee Street around 6:50 p.m. when he was struck by a vehicle travelling westbound toward Atherton Street, police said.
>Three other pedestrians have been killed crossing streets on the north side of campus in the last 20 months, State College Police Chief Thomas King said at a press conference on Thursday.
This article just feels like clickbait. No analysis of why the university might have taken a decision that on the surface is bizarre but is reasonable given a moment's thought.... ironic given the name of the site.
Far smaller universities and colleges have outing clubs that are covered by the institutional insurance policy. Some schools like Middlebury even run officially sanctioned and organized outings for matriculating students.
This is not impossible or expensive coverage to get.
This is 100% related to liability reduction. No insurance company would cover a high-risk activity group without demanding conditions like being able to call 911 or medevac.
The condition demanded here is 100% reasonable given the risk.
Reason is complaining about people wanting to do risky things and have other people pay for them which is par for the course for libertarianism these days, I guess.
This is true of hundreds, maybe thousands of colleges and universities in the U.S. It's not unusual to have a college outing club that is led by students.
> No insurance company would cover a high-risk activity group without demanding conditions like being able to call 911 or medevac.
This is just incorrect. Backcountry activities are not necessarily higher risk than other activities, and insurance companies will certainly cover such activities. Again: many, many colleges and universities already have coverage for their outing clubs.
If the outings club were able to obtain such insurance and get trained supervisors for their outings I doubt they'd have trouble getting the official seal of approval.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some kind of hazing or even worse behavior is the real reason for the shutdown.
I'm trying to point out that there may a larger crackdown at foot, and if the clubs were involved in especially risky behavior, or hazing or worse we probably won't hear about it.
Here's some frat crackdown news: https://onwardstate.com/2017/11/08/another-one-bites-the-dus...
And some moving reporting about the fraternity death. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/a-death...
* his assigned buddy completely forgot about him, and
* the club leaders failed to account for him at an end-of-hike headcount.
Later that weekend, somebody who was on the trip (I think it was his "buddy") realized what had happened, contacted a club leader, and they drove out to the cave. They found him just inside the entrance. He had spent about 2 nights inside the cave with no food and little water. He was fine, but it caused a bit of a ruckus in the news.
FWIW, the Indiana University Outdoor Adventures club continues to operate as a university student organization. [0]
[0] https://imu.indiana.edu/activities/outdoor-adventures/index....
We may need a great many more padded rooms if such insanity continues in the world. It has never been easier to rescue someone in serious trouble in a remote location, cell phone or no cell phone.
Part of the event was to have open 5 gallon containers of water so the kids could refill their squirt guns. The whole event was killed by the administration because the open water containers posed a "drowning hazard." As a number of commentators have mentioned, this was driven by the school's insurance policy.
A few weeks later, they hosted a professional birds of prey experinece - including faclons, eagles, etc for the kids to engage with. The Admin again banned it - but the organizers put it on anyway.