Slashdot Mirror
Bills to Restrict Campus Internet Access
Slackrat writes "This article in the Arizona Daily Wildcat details the efforts of Rep. Jean McGrath, R-Glendale, to restrict dormitory visitation, require the installation of Internet filters, and allow students to to use campus Internet connections only for a "specific educational purpose" on all Arizona university campuses. And you thought banning Napster was rough." It goes beyond Internet access; opposite-sex dormroom visitation is on the block, too.
I am a new student at Arizona State University, and much of what goes on here politically is very confusing. One thing to understand though, there isn't really much behind these bills, they are just fodder for future political mudslinging... Banning co-ed dorms here would be entirely impossible because there is one dorm (the one I am currently in) that holds a huge majority of all on-campus residants, if it were to become male, or female only, there would be next to no other available space. There is very little chance of it actually occuring.
I also doubt the internet restrictions will pass, and suspect they are also just political manuvering. I wouldn't put it past the legislature here to do something like that though, but it isn't much of a concern as the dorms aren't wired anyway, the only place we have internet access is in the computer labs.
High speed internet connections have become a selling point for universities that have it in the dorms; and a major stumbling block for those universities that don't.
Now, after investing who knows how much, they want to take away a large degree of that usability? These systems clearly have the bandwidth, so they can't claim that all the non-educational activity is stealing from students involved in educational research. Just another case of someone trying to superimpose his/her morals onto society. As long as no crime is being committed, the students should have full access to the internet.
As for that visitation thing; get real. At my school, some dorm halls had that, and those who wanted it could live there, but they always had a tougher time filling those rooms than those on the rest of campus. Apply it to the full University system, and off campus landlords will be rejoicing.
As both a computer science student and a Resident Assistant, I fall on both sides of this edict - those affected by it, and those who would(if in Arizona) be required to enforce it.
Although RA's, in general, get a lot of flak for not "letting people have any fun", there is one thing that RA's generally have in common - we don't want to enforce more regulations then necessary.
In this case, I have a whole lotta problems with this. In effect, a regulation like the one dealing with inter-gender dorm visitation would require me to stop people from having sex.
I won't be doing that.
Mind you, this isn't a moral judgement. If you want to have extramarital sex, so long as it's legal for you to do so(i.e., age of consent), I'm not planning to stop you. That's your choice. I'm not planning to pigeonhole residents who live for me just because some state senator decides that Sex Is Dirty.
The network restriction is even more ludicrous. Porn viewers don't really hurt anyone. True, they take up shared bandwidth, but I doubt enough porn is shoved through ANY school's machines to make a noticeable difference in network traffic or available bandwidth. Second, this idea of filtering cuts to the very heart of free speech - in effect, you are preventing legitimate adults from using services that they have paid for in ways that are perfectly legal and don't hurt anyone. Some schools decide that they don't want porn on a school-by-school basis. While I may not agree with the decision, it's something that each school needs to decide. Personally, i don't see many schools deciding that monitoring porn habits is a good use of employee time.
Finally, I don't think that filtering enhances "education" any more. Is Slashdot eduicational? Well, I don't have any classes that talk about it, so not really. Same with the Weather Channel Online, CNN Interactive, etc. Where do we draw the line between educational and non?
The answer: Don't regulate it. If a school has a bandwidth problem, and they want to regulate, fine. But, don't regulate me because you have a "moral" problem with what I do, and because you're a state senator.
what really disturbs me about this is her comparing using her phone at work to make personal calls to a student using university internet facilities. AFAIK, she is being *paid* by the government of AZ to do her job. the phone in her office is part of the equipment provided for her in order that she can do her job. but a student is *paying* to go to university. this is a state university and, as such, is funded by taxpayers. but isn't also funded by the students' own tuition? so shouldn't the students have some control over the equipment they're paying for? (disclaimer: i don't personally know about AZ, but a PA resident does have to pay tuition to go to Penn State). if students choose to waste their time downloading pr0n, what else are they hurting besides (potentially) their GPA? by virtue of the student paying for their education, i feel that they are in a state wholly uncomparable to that of a Company employee.
and i'm not even going to comment on the blatant attempt to legislate morals here.
I've heard rumors that Arizona is also considering banning students from taking classes. There have been allegations that some students have been encouraged to think both in and out of class. Several faculty members stand to lose their positions if they continue to encourage such anti-conformist behavior in the student population. It is rumored that one cafeteria worker has already been fired for asking a student to decided between regular and low-fat gruel.
~Caliban
you missed the worst part
McGrath responded to this scenario: a student uses a campus Internet connection to decide which political candidates to support. That person is misusing university equipment, she said, just as if she used her legislative office phone to make long-distance personal phone calls.
.and. the kicker
On the other hand, the same student, viewing the same pages for a class assignment, is using the equipment properly, she said.
I want this lady writing more Internet legislation she is "with it" and knows how "totally rad" this whole "Internet" thing is....
I also read this as saying, "If you are an out-of-state student (i.e. not subsidized by the state) you have free reign to grab all the pr0n you want" It's not taxpayer money at that point (have you seen out of state tuitions?!), and therefore their purview expires.
+&x
Isn't a college education supposed to _expand_ your mind? Isn't the reason you get treated like cattle (among other reasons), so that you can _interact_ with your _peers_ (of any, and all, races and sexes)? College, besides stuffing information into your brain, is there to _expose_ you to the _real_world_, not to teach you to close your eyes and stick your head in the ground singing the smurf theme song when anything slightly controversial is introduced to you.
I don't see how cutting off access to peers and anything deemed "offensive" by the moral supremecy conducive to education. Um, shouldn't we be _exposed_ to and learn to _analyse_ "offensive" or controversial things?
The only thing a stupid bill like this would do is raise a generation of closed-minded ignorant bigotted people. Hmm...maybe that is why it was proposed...
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
This is honestly the scary part of it. Clearly, there are sufficient votes in trying to pass these bans that it's worth infuriating large segments of the student population.
(Mind you, the students have no union. The UK's NUS would blow something like this out the water faster than you could say "urp!".)
First off, the best way to kill the bill is to kill the support. No votes, no risks, no bill. It's as simple as that. Whilst you fight on the facts, you'll risk losing, as voters don't care about the facts any more than the politicians do.
Remember that. Voters look after number 1, and if that means voting for an ultra-conservative, then you can wave your rights good-bye.
If that changes, though - if those same voters start to feel that they are impacted by this, somehow, they'll change their minds. Fast. Whilst it's someone else's problem - ESPECIALLY those "Pinko Socialist Students" who are so "stuck up" and "deserve to be kicked out of their ivory towers" - then why should Joe and Jane Bloggs give a damn? Far as their concerned, students are getting no better than they deserve. After all, learning and stuff makes people "stuck up and snobbish". It makes them "know more". In short, a lot of people think about as low of students as tech folk think of politicians, and the Right Wing thinks of Big Government.
The only way to change the minds of those voters is to get them involved. Make the fight personal to them, somehow, and make sure that they are on the same side of the fence as the students. There's nothing like personal ego and vested self-interest to change someone's mind.
Last, but not least, a call to all students in Arizona and surrounding States. Go on a Rent Strike, if the University's go ahead with this. Sure, they can threaten to kick you out, but no students equals no income equals no jobs for them. And their self-interest won't allow that. You can't lose anything but these paper-chains.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Whether or not this person is serious about this bill, as some posters haqve suggested, is irrelevant. The attempt to clamp down on pornography, mp3's etc, is part of a larger trend of oppression of the young that is sweeping america. As america gets older, its polititians become more conservative, more restrictive, and more out of touch with the youth of america. This bill is evidence of that, the age of adulthood has been increasing along with the average age of the population. Once you were considered an adult at 18, capable of making decisions like whether or not you should drink for yourself, now the age in almost every state is 21. Has the maturity of americas youth changed? no, nothing has changed, merely the perception of polititans that we are children and therefore have no rights, and can eaisily be oppressed. The youth still have the vote fortunately, one of the problems is that we dont use it. We need to send polititans a mesage, that we can take care of ourselves, that we arent children anymore, and we wont take this kind of crap like censoring and filtering an internet that we are building ourselves as much as anyone else.
/rant
I recently graduated from a mid-western college and lived under a very strict intervisitation policy that had been in place since the founding of the school: No opposite sex visitors in the dorms at any time except Friday and Saturday from 6 pm - 1 am.
The dorm advisors were the enforcers and were actually sent on patrols through the halls between 1 am and 4 am to listen for the sounds of the opposite sex. (Sad, I know.)
The students are overwhelmingly in favor of a change, but the president and board are children of the fifties and sixties. At that time, social biases kept men and women from developing friendships and pursuing the same majors. There was no need for mixed sex study groups. Few guys had friends who were girls or vice versa. The only opposite sex visitors were girl/boyfriends. The problem here is that the people who are trying to make these rules had a college experience that would be unrecognizable to most of today's college students.
...one with far stricter rules than this bill would provide, and they had no luck with enforcement.
There were no co-ed dorms. Students were not allowed to invite members of the opposite sex into their rooms. The rules stipulated no drinking, no smoking, no drugs, no dancing (you wouldn't believe the things Mennonites can talk themselves into), and absolutely-by-God no sex. RA's were expected to police the dorms to insure compliance.
I can tell you from personal experience that a good third of the students drank, a large number smoked, plenty of pot was smoked in and out of the dorms, and dancing wasn't considered serious enough to elicit serious rule-breaking. As for sex, have you ever known any large group of single 18-24 yr olds stuck together to abstain? I can assure you this group was no exception.
One of the English profs sang folk songs at a local bar, and a lot of her students showed up to listen to her. I caught my French advisor in a bar, drink in one hand, cigarette in the other. (I had snuck in on a slightly confusing foreign ID.)
The pharmacy across the street from the college had a quite sizeable stock of condoms, cigarettes, booze, porno and even rolling papers. They filled an indeterminate number of birth control prescriptions. The college clinic was even willing to provide prescriptions for birth control, and under the table would point women to the Planned Parenthood office in the city if it was a little too late for the pill. (Confidentiality was in the clinic's charter.)
Of the 16 guys on my dorm floor, there were at least 5 who received soft porn magazines through the college mail, two who could be relied on to have that month's Hustler, and one guy who got a variety of stuff with names like "Big Boobs and Classic Cars."
The rules were not even dimly enforceable.
This was before the 'Net and at a private, religious school. What on earth could lead this McGrath person to think that if a conservative, Christian college with the full legal authority to enforce whatever rules they saw fit couldn't keep the kinds of rules she has in mind, what leads her to think she can impose them through legislation when local college administrators are openly hostile to her rules?
Except.... Most large colleges and universities have a fast connection. If I am downloading my porn at 100k/s, that means that someone downloading educational material is also getting about 100k/s. Since most educational material comes in the form of text, this is extremely fast. In fact, for 99% of academic work, I would say that 5k/s is more than sufficient. Given this, there really is no reason to restrict "other" downloads, since they do not significantly hamper "legitamite" ones. Remember also that the avaliable bandwidth has historically increased even faster than CPU speed, so even if it is congested now, wait a bit and it won't be.
Add to this the additional headaches your suggestion would cause. Everyone would have to be educated about the new method and a lot of the non-geeks would take a while to undersatand. I would be pissed that the people who barely touch their computers are wasting an allotment of throughput that I could be using. Sysadmins would have to use valuable hours making sure the bandwidth sharing system was working and that no one was getting around it. Trust me, no one would like it.
but she will never succeed in changing the behavior of college kids. The University of Tennessee has for years run dorm space with no opposite sex visitation allowed (the so-called Virgin Vault :) .... but that never stopped rebellious and resourceful Vol coeds (male and female) from sneaking into their opposite numbers' quarters in order to *ahem* discuss the Big Bang Theory. Nor does it prevent them from simply living off campus (or worse :) yet, in a Greek house) and thus circumventing all the restrictions altogether. (Alcohol is completely and totally prohibited on UT campus. Greek houses, however, are private property.... can you say, KEGGER?)
What goes beyond all reason, though, is the censorship of political ideas. Is it not the function of an institute of higher learning to revel in the free exchange of ideas, and by doing so to expand one's mind? College students are, mostly, of the age of majority (at least to vote), and neither need nor desire protection from so-called dangerous ideas.
The poor lady is deluded if she thinks she's going to do anything more than be a giant pain in the toosh to the good people of the State of Arizona. But I think it goes beyond that. The lady wants complete and total control of the still-malleable minds present in her state's universities, and she's like to get it if she's not stopped.
By whatever means necessary.
She thinks she has the right to impose her morals on adults. She would use the power of the state, which is the power of legal[sic] violence, in order to do so. This is doubleplusungood. She wouldn't get her way this time, as I've said, but that won't stop her from using increasingly more draconian measures in order to do so. And remember, she has the State's guns to back her up.
The Internet censorship issue is more than likely provably a First Amendment violation. But I don't think we should have to wait that long for our freedom. McGrath has been exposed. She should now be removed as a representative and steward of the peoples' rights. I leave it to the people of Arizona as to how.
--
We cannot legislate against all the stupid things people will do. -- Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota
Stupid politicians are the norm in state politics, no matter the party.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Back in the 'old days' when you were hand-feeding 'The Burroughs' with a five-inch deck of hand-punched cards and the mainframe cost was astronomical, that system made sense. Today, with bandwidth coming cheaply, use monitoring/enforcement makes no economic sense. By the time you research/implement such a beast, you've already spent more money than the connection costs in a year. Hiring the needed personnel to run such a system digs an even bigger hole; If they're qualified, a pair of 'em will run you more than the connection, every year. You may save a couple of bucks on bandwidth, but you're paying out more money to employees. Not to mention the faculty/student annoyance, pissed off calls to support, administrative overhead, etc.
You don't spend $100,000 to save $20,000!
.sig: Now legally binding!
Likewise, Arizona students should be allowed to conduct random searches of state government offices. :)
- Sexual discrimination This is a biggy. Seriously. What's the difference between saying a man/woman can't go somewhere and saying a black/white/Indian/European person can't go somewhere? You can argue all day about intentions to do things not conducive to "proper" study habits, but there's no way to say that a guy's buddies aren't coming over to play N64 games and otherwise deter studying.
- Discrimination Against Heterosexuals If the primary goal of this legislation is to stop in-dorm procreation, it's clear cut that this is a very narrow-minded way of doing it. Two counter-examples can be provided:
- Lack of Jurisdiction While state colleges are publically-owned and under jurisdiction of the state congress, such a policy is discrimination by sex and, hence, unconstitutional. The power to deny freedoms based on gender is expressly denied in the US Constitution. Were such a bill to become law, it would be impossible to enforce if the defendant were willing to appeal to a higher court.
- Hypocracy While senators and representatives may have strong opinions that sexual intercourse impairs proper study habits, and they may believe that they have the moral duty and power to prevent such actions from taking place, I would like to point out that any public officer in favour of such a bill that has received any sort of sexual favours in a public building, public office, or motor vehicle representing a public office is a hypocrite.
Perhaps it's that I'm enrolled in a very liberal university (Rice, down in Houston), but I really can't see how lawmakers think that they can get away with such a blatant disregard for the principles upon which this country was founded. I mean, here at Rice, sexuality is regarded as part of life--your personal life. What you do behind closed doors with intimate partners is your business. Others, most-likely don't want to hear about it, nor do they care. I guess we have more of a community atmosphere down here than a "Students" versus "The Adults" environment. I don't know. I just really don't see any other way to be mature about it. If nothing else, we're adults dammit! We can think for ourselves, make our own money, wipe our own asses, and vote on whether or not these fascists will remain in office With regard to Internet access.... They actually have more ground here. The public pays for the Internet access for the education use within the public college. The only argument the students have in this scenario is censorship. Internet access is not a right (though I wish it were) and since state funds are being spent on it, they do have jurisdiction. However, if the public displays that such policing is not in their interests, legislatores will be wary to vote for an unpopular bill. It's still an oppressive regime of treating adults like children and it sickens me. I would suggest that any concerned students in these schools threaten to study elsewhere if this bill were to pass (IE: threaten beforehand so the universities put the heat on the state). Demonstrate! Be vocal! Show them that you mean it when you say. I am a voting adult! Dammit! Respect My Authoritah!!!- Other-gender study partners
- Same-gender intimate partners
I realize that homosexual and bisexual persons have endured similar oppressions in the past and still endure them today, but I think we can all agree that the way to harmonize this situation is to stop such personal micromanagement and let people decide things for themselves.Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Coming from a city (Hong Kong) where every single school (as far as I know) requires public school kids in uniforms, perhaps I'm missing the point why uniform seems like some conformity suppression placed on poor kids. Why is it necessarily bad? And why is it acceptable when grownups in the army/navy wear uniforms? Is that suppression as well?
The thing that bothers me most about it is - if you treat people like kids (IE - they aren't smart enough to make choices for themselves), then they tend to act like kids. It was amazing how many people I encountered in classes who were really thrown off by classes without rigid structure/due dates and spoon-fed material. I didn't think these people were stupid - they were just born in an educational system which never exposed them to thinking for themselves - this is just the same thing outside the classroom.
The ol' "If you're old enough to be drafted and die in a war" mantra pops up, of course, but I don't think age is the whole story. People like Rep. Jean McGrath don't want ANYONE looking at porn sites, having sex before marriage (or whatever justification behind coed visitation restrictions), etc. These people want to enforce their belief system and their ideas on everyone. "Kids" are a great target, because society in general generally accepts kids shouldn't be exposed to some things for awhile.
Problem is, college students aren't kids, and no one needs to be making their choices for them. It's particularly insulting for those students who are basically financially independent (via loans/grants/their earned income) - gee, everyones old enough to 1) Vote 2) Get drafted 3) Pay Taxes 4) Stand trial as an adult -- but we need to impose these limits on college campuses. It's always good to try and understand an opposing viewpoint, but reasoning like this will never make sense to me.
Anyway this is just another good reminder for all of us to fight back the apathy and vote for the lesser-evil candidate.
If there is no option of making wrong choices, then it's not self control.
From the news report, particularly:
and it might be taken that there is some unusual problem.Is that actually the case? I would think it possible. Or is this merely a knee-jerk reaction that they've noticed some new way of "getting porn."
As compared to the consideration that students could use the US Mail service to send a subscription card to get a subscription to Playboy or potentially something "racier."
Actually, that suggests something comparable... I'd think that the institution is not permitted by US law to tamper with the mail. Considerable "games" could be played by using the mail service...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Today, I expect it costs the phone companies more to track and account for it than it costs for them to provide the service.
This doesn't stop them from sending you bills.
The parallel is quite clear: The "powers that be" care a whole lot more about control than they do about the economics of the matter.
The same is true for organizational attempts to block things like phone sex services. Some organizations have concluded that it is mandatory to block the stuff. I'd think it cheaper to handle it after the fact, permitting people to abuse it, but making this a firing offense.
There would be some losses resulting from people being stupid; these costs are not likely to be as high as the costs of setting up the pre-blocking system. A couple of other benefits come in:
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Reminds me of a quote from Neil Gaiman's The Sandman. I can't remember the quote exactly, but here's a rough paraphrase: "The idiot may point out that the Emperor has no clothes. But the idiot remains an idiot, and the Emperor remains an Emperor."
The point: uniforms may cover up a symbol, but they don't solve the problem behind it. It seems that, anymore, kids are being raised with a basic lack of respect for anyone or anything, the most important lack of respect being for each other. No uniforms will cover that problem up; only education will. Uniforms are a mere quick-fix.
Now, you ask why it's acceptable when grownups in various professions wear uniforms? Here are a few examples:
Those are just a few examples. And the point is, they all serve some purpose. School uniforms are nothing more than pretentious cover-ups for the real problems facing our schools and children today. I came from a high school with such a dress code, so I know what uniforms do and don't do. I've seen administrators use them as tools to manipulate the students. I saw one director who used them as an excuse to basically ogle and grope students, male and female alike (thankfully he didn't last long).
Never once did I see uniforms stop anyone from ostracizing anyone else. They never stopped any fights, nor did they prevent any other kind of rule infractions. They didn't increase school spirit at all; if anything they lowered it. On the few days when the dress codes were relaxed, no one seemed to extol the "convenience" of uniforms; everyone dressed as themselves, and you know what? There was no evidence of the "fashion-slavery" uniform advocates claim happens when uniforms aren't present (that bit about "the kids all wear uniforms now anyway" is complete and total crap, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise).
All the uniforms did was feed the school's ego. That's all school uniforms ever do. They suppres the individual in the very enviornment that's supposed to teach students to live, do, and think for themselves.