MIT students have their flaming bars of sodium and Harvard students have their little burning cardboard boats floating down the Charles. The annual Harvard rite went horribly awry this week as students began dousing their boats with stronger accelerants and both the fire and police departments arrived en masse. In fact, the Crimson reports that Harvard police acted as human shields to protect the students from the Cambridge constabulary.
When Cambridge police arrived, Koff said, “They talked to us in a really condescending way," saying that an arrest would lead to expulsion and that "'Mommy and Daddy will be pissed.'"
Still, some upperclassmen found time to relish the evening. ...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
The students got talked to condescendingly by police? Good!
By independentminded
Fri, 03/20/2009 - 3:54pm
Both Harvard and MIT are responsible for encouraging these kinds of irresponsible behaviours on the part of some of their students who participate in these kinds of beyond-stupid risky games that pass for "annual traditions", but the students who participate in this stuff and help cause damage to the boat(s) deserve to be talked to condescendingly by the police and to be arrested, to boot. Maybe next time these kids'll know better than to mess with their mom and dad's money that's being thrown out in the name of "a little fun".
Amazing level of mischaracterization!
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 03/20/2009 - 4:46pm
Harvard is about the only higher educational institution in the US, save the military acadamies, that admits based on merit and gives free rides to lower and middle income students to keep the merit level up. You don't pay full freight until you get well over $200K a year in annual income. If your parents come in under $60K, it's a totally free ride.
But, hey, I'm sure you would have just loved to be there so you could condescend to them like there was no tomorrow. Live and in person! Even after dark! Heck, I'd have bought tickets to see you wander around shreeking "get off my lawn!", (and wonder why they were hauling you off, too).
:=) Well, ain't you sweet, SwirlyBabe. see you there. lol
By independentminded
Sat, 03/21/2009 - 1:42pm
Actually, SwirlyBabe, without even knowing you personally, it's clear to me that you're not even the next thing to sweet, because I'm a better judge of character than
you and tons of other people would care to believe.
Grump, grump, grump
By bph
Fri, 03/20/2009 - 5:19pm
Yes, the kids were acting irresponsibly by building their fires up too much, but I didn't see anything in the article about damaging any real boats or wasting their parents' money.
Yes, they wasted the Cambridge tax payers' money, and I guess it did cost Harvard money to send their police down, but I don't think it's all that big a deal.
Did you ever act up at all when you were young? (Which I'm guessing was many many years ago.)
This:
By independentminded
Sat, 03/21/2009 - 1:47pm
has got to be the stupidest question to date, imho, bph.
Of course I acted up plenty of times as a youngster, but I didn't do stuff that involved damaging property or that either put people in danger, or had the potential for that.
bph and SwirlyBabe: your hostility towards people with different opinions and who're unlike you any way or form is rather palpapable, disgusting, and duly noted. Probably the best thing for me to do is to not respond to your posts, but I'm not a nice person when I'm kicked.
No kicking, please
By bph
Sat, 03/21/2009 - 5:02pm
I probably shouldn't prolong this, but just want to say that I didn't mean my post as a personal attack - sorry for the age joke. I was just looking at the story from a different point of view.
I suppose I might be stupid (How would I know? Hmmm) and ask stupid questions, but I didn't really think lighting cardboard boats & floating them on a river was all that dangerous.
I wasn't feeling hostile when I wrote that post, but it seems to have upset you, so I won't respond to posts like that in the future.
It's a stupid practice/tradition to begin with, but
By independentminded
Sun, 03/22/2009 - 4:25pm
using flammable liquids such as rubbing alcohol, etc., to make the flames go higher and brighter goes way beyond stupid.
It's a problem if someone
By neilv
Sun, 03/22/2009 - 4:54pm
It's a problem if someone gets set on fire, if a flaming boat gets away and sets something on fire, if burning embers blow off and set something on fire, if emergency personnel who were not aware of the event are deployed, if any laws were violated, or if the event inspires others to do things that are more reckless.
However, I wasn't there, I can't tell from the report how safely the fires were controlled, and Harvard students don't tend to be irresponsible, so I wouldn't make assumptions about how safe the event actually was.
It's beyond stupid to add flammable liquids to the flames.
By independentminded
Wed, 03/25/2009 - 3:44am
In any case, it's way beyond stupid to add flammable liquids to the flames to make them go higher and brighter. The fire department was obviously there for a reason.
Absolutely right
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 03/25/2009 - 8:25am
If you want to make the flames go higher and brighter, you should add something non-flammable.
How else will the Sorting Hat know to put you in Gryffindor?
Ha ha ha!
By independentminded
Wed, 03/25/2009 - 10:20am
n/t