School Power Over Student Web Speech? 369
Petey_Alchemist asks: "In the wake of the Pope John XIII student weblogging ban, the online lives of students are once again being examined by their academic institutions. News outlets are covering a series of recent events--most notably the expulsion of a Fisher College sophomore (who also happened to be President of the Student Government) after he posted in a 'controversial' Facebook group. Facebook, for those of you who don't know, is an incredibly popular social networking site for American college students. The fact that you must have a college email account to join provides some modicum (re: illusion) of privacy, but doesn't keep faculty or administrative members from joining and patrolling the website.
Bottom line: Facebook, Pope John XIII, and other online student speech cases are popping up all over the place yet no case defining the amount of control a school has over a student based on that student's web speech has come before the Supreme Court. When will this happen? Moreover, what will be the result when it finally does?"
Personal Experience (Score:5, Interesting)
The lesson: don't be stupid about what you post on publicly viewable websites, such as blogs. You never know who's going to read it.
Let schools do whatever they want (Score:2, Interesting)
But the solution to this problem is simple -- if you're a student at one of these pro-brainwashing schools, leave. Go somewhere where freedom and academic integrity are the core values -- not "do whatever we tell you to do". Because frankly, college is not about doing what you're told, it's about learning, exploring new ideas, and being Free. If these institutions that censor their students claim to care about education, they're lying. Let them brainwash their students, while those who can think for themselves go elsewhere. Capitalism saves the day again
Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
The end result: loss of freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Free Speech is one of those things that is widely misunderstood. It is simply the ability to speak freely and without government interference. The government is restricted from barring you from exercising your right to speak.
That does not mean that you have that right everywhere. Your rights end, goes the phrase, where mine begin. Private property is one space where you are restricted in your speech. Public property, on the other hand, is where you ought to be unrestricted. Private sector entities (individuals, companies, and organizations) have the right to bar you from activities of the entity if they do not approve of your speech. This used to be an inherent right.
If we force private institutions to accept any and all free speech, despite the fact that it may injure, slander, or be antithetical to the institutions' charter, then we are in essence forcing them to act as a government agency, i.e. statute-restricted non-discriminatory agency. The institutions do not have the right to act as they deem appropriate, but must act in accord with governmental regulation.
Constitutional Amendments like the ERA were big steps in usurping the rights of private institutions. If we follow this line of thinking through, where schools ought to be prevented from punishing students who break school rules, then we can see that the end result is that schools and government move closer to each other and the value of private schooling is diminished.
Will it go that far? Hopefully not, and the school will realize what a mistake it is making. However, the odds are more likely that the growth of government will continue unabated and it will absorb all educational institutions as time goes by, piece by piece, right by right.
Re:state school (Score:4, Interesting)
* The policy-makers have their heads firmly lodged in their asses -- the excuse I always get is "our lawyers said this is OK". I guess their lawyers don't understand what a court ruling against them means.
If you care about your rights online, I suggest you do what I did -- cancel your account if the policy is unreasonable. You can get free e-mail anywhere these days. If their policy interferes with your classwork, be sure to let the University's higher-ups know about it. Schools have no right to tell their students what is and is not acceptable speech, especially schools funded entirely by the government!
Re:Further points on the subject... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Was the student photographed drinking on school premises?
2) Was the student photographed drinking during school hours?
3) Was the school visible in any of these photos?
If not, then the school has no say at all in what said student does in their own personal time. This is like my company firing me for being in a pub brawl. Yeah, I probably shouldn't be in pub brawls, but it's none of the companies business what I do outside of work hours.
sites that rate college teachers (Score:4, Interesting)
Downhill (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I grew older. I realized no country is inherently cool, when you look at the society and politics and not just action movies. USA seemed reasonable though, I remember a history (or geography) lesson in elementary school when a teacher described the basic ideas of the constitution, and the emigration from Sweden->America in the previous centuries. Inspiring.
Fast forward til now. Do I awe you? No, because in my opinion (which will be modded down really freaking fast), your country is going downhill. You are teaching religion as science, I don't even think fundamentalist muslims do that. Then you sort-of ban freedom of speech by forbidding blogging, of all stupid things to ban (whatever happened to land of the free?), introduce laws like DMCA, and are actively trying to destroy the whole worlds intellectual property laws.
Think about it.
Regards,
Swedish citizen.
Re:Let schools do whatever they want (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:state school (Score:4, Interesting)
The brainwashing that goes on in those schools can be scary sometimes.
-Z
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Interesting)
I sat through this girl's speech about how much facebook is corrupting society and how it's bad, bad, bad. She completely ignored the fact that you control the information you place in your own profile.
Widespread incidences (Score:2, Interesting)
I might add that I have been personally attacked by a facebook group and an individual known on facebook as "Thomas Torquemada." Not only is there an illusion of privacy, but also of anonymity.
Maybe it's part of the Church's seeming tendency to live vicariously through others. Seems like that's what some of our resident priests do during confession according to my girlfriend.
backlash (Score:2, Interesting)
But in the big picture, I think what you are seeing is that the US is going thru the birthing pains of the information age. All the people who were used to controlling information are panacking, and the peoples of the world who have been exposed to US cluture via the internet are suffering culture shock all over the planet - causing many to lash out at us, and a lot of islamic reactionisim.
In fact, something similar happened during the industrial revolution as new transportation technology caused US, inidian, and Mexican cultures to mingle like never before and completely clash. Not to mention the thought of the plantation masters who freaked at the thought of loosing their labor force as labor in the North became mobile. Now, information is becomming commoditized and large industries are threatened with complete loss of control. (over information, implying the death of the copyright system)
We haven't had a transformation like this since the civil war. IMHO, it's just the beginning and all freakin hell is about to break loose.
Re:Downhill (Score:1, Interesting)
Idealistic youth becomes wise to the fact that his superficial views of far-off places may not be, in fact, the truth? How shocking! You should maybe write a blog about the whole thing. Just what the world needs, another jaded Swede.
Please let us know how we can rectify this situation. I don't know what we'll do if the US isn't the object of every Europeans idealized fantasy world. More Rambo movies maybe? Perhaps Lee Greenwood should remix "America the Beautiful" to some funky euro techno beat. Kids love that stuff.
The US isn't doing things that are all that different from any other time in its history. It's always been sordid, petty, arrogant and hypocritical to it's professed core values. The difference is that now the internet lets you Swedes see all of America's warts...and comment on them ad nauseum. Another thing is that there isn't the Soviet threat keeping everone's attention focused elsewhere.
Think about it. In 1989, the US invaded Panama and arrested M. Noriega, a dictator formerly on the CIA's payroll. There was no international outrage on the scale we see today. The UN wasn't consulted on our "unilateral" action. But yet, the US spent a good portion of the 90's still with a favorable international image. Why?
Go look at court cases from our history. It is filled with the struggle between how we as a nation view our civil rights. For 230 years we have been at odds with our government over things as basic as the 1st Amendment, but yet nothing garnered international dismay like we now see over blogs of all things. The US survived the Scopes Monkey trial, it will survive the Intelligent Design nutjobs as well.
It's not the US that has changed. It is you that has changed. I don't mean to call Europeans children, but what you are seeing is the same disillusionment you see when kids grow up and find out their parents *aren't* perfect. Well, Santa Claus ain't real either, so sorry to disappoint. Shine the light of every country's media on any other country in the world like you shine the light on the US and you will be equally dismayed. Part of this of course is a consequence of being the sole superpower in the world, as China or India rises they will not fare well either.
And finally, America doesn't it owe it to you to live up to it's values, nor your childhood understanding of it.
Sincerely,
An Unapologetic American
How about having students decide? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2, Interesting)
These agreements can force you to not drink, do drugs, or be slanderous. Bethel in St. Paul requires that no student on campus dance. Ever.
If you sign away the rights, you sign them away. If you say they can A. to you because you do B., don't be mad when they catch you doing A. and B. comes down with a vengence.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
The head of department went massively overboard on the disciplinary proceeding and tried to have me expelled on a personal grude (after I complained she covered up our initial complaint about the lecturer concerned). Eventually it was tacitly admitted she was pursuing a vendetta, and I was let go with a severe punishment (to set a precedent), but a suspended one (so as long as I did nothing else wrong in my time left there - about 6 months, by that point - I basically just got away with a token slap on the wrist).
I learned some hard lessons as a result of the experience, and the crux of the matter is this:
1) Universities/colleges are private clubs.
2) Private organisations make their own rules, and can freely disregard rules we otherwise take for granted in everyday life, such as "freedom of speech".
3) Most universities don't make a complete copy of their disciplinary rules and regulations easily available before you enroll there... and even if they do, they're pretty much all the same so there's not much to choose between them.
4) If they perceive you're fucking with one member of their club (a "important" one anyway, like a member of the teaching staff, tenured professor, administrative employee, whatever), they will close ranks and will all fuck you. You have attacked their "club", so the whole club comes gunning for you.
5) Because they're a private club, this is all entirely legal, and above-board.
Sample interesting details of a typical UK university disciplinary process:
i) While you're accused of (or being investigated for) an academic or disciplinary offence, you have no right to a lawyer. Contacting any form of legal representation is itself a further disciplinary offence.
ii) You do have the right to be represented by a member of the Students' Union. These people are generally untrained volunteers, and may not even know the disciplinary process prior to taking on your case. You may also not be informed of your right to representation at any stage.
iii) Merely being accused (not even necessarily found guilty) of an academic or disciplinary offence and having to take time to defend yourself, even under threat of expulsion, is not considered grounds for an extention on a single coursework deadline.
iv) Offences such as "abusing, harassing, threatening or insulting a member of the university" mean exactly that. If you state "X is bald" and he doesn't like the fact he's bald, you can be hauled up in front of the university authorities, regardless of the fact he is bald. Unlike libel/slander, truth is no defence.
v) If you publically assert a lecturer is fundamentally unqualified to do his job, you commit an academic offence. Providing documentary evidence that you're right makes it a worse offence - it doesn't mitigate it.
iv) By submitting coursework to the university you permanently sign over all IP rights to the university. Some universities claim rights to all IP you produce while a member, even in your spare time and on your own equipment.
So yeah. Schools, universities and colleges aren't fair, aren't democratic, and aren't even (arguably) ethical. That said, if you shut up and keep your head down you're fine, and it's a great opportunity to spend 3-5 years getting wasted and having fun.
Just don't insult a faculty member while you do it, and never, ever stand up for a point of principle.