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.
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.
This is a great opening. Just start calling it the "Gay Collage Students Privacy Bill" and watch as support whithers.
"So, senator, how are you voting on the Gay Collage Students Privacy Bill?"
"The what bill?!?"
"You know. The one that gets rid of those pesky girls. The ones to keep girls away from our horny studs so that there's less competition."
"Um, uh, er... I .. uh .. hm. I have always supported the rights of gays to .. uh.. er. I uh.. I mean, I disapprove of .. uh. What bill is that again?"
"You know. The one that keeps the horny studs from getting any pr0n and also keeps the girls away. So that when they just have do appease the monster, instead of choking the chicken or banging that luscious coed, they turn to their fellow man for help."
"Um, er, uh... I'm not sure I like the sound of that bill."
"Thank you, senator."
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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
...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?
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!
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.