Slashdot Mirror


Kent State Banning Athletes from Using Facebook

denebian devil links to a Columbus Dispatch story about athletes at Kent State being forbidden to use Facebook — "not by the Web site, but by university administrators." From the article: "Athletics Director Laing Kennedy recently told student-athletes they have until Aug. 1 to remove their Facebook profiles, citing a need to protect both their identities and the university's image. "We're really concerned about the safety of our student-athletes and some of the personal information some of them have on there," he said. ... If student-athletes don't remove their profiles by the deadline, they risk losing their scholarships, he said. Coaches and athletics counselors will monitor the site for violators." denebian devil continues "Arstechnica also has an interesting take on the subject. Makes you wonder why they even bother providing internet connections on college campuses."

41 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. Excessive force by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently, they just didn't learn their lesson!! Now they are just trying to be controlling digitally.

  2. This belongs in a legal textbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... under "Prior Restraint." (Which, I'm told, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected.)

    A state university with this kind of policy is setting themselves up for the mother of all First Amendment lawsuits. What an amazingly-dumb waste of university funding.

    1. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by abandonment · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention the fact that Teacher & University administration is notorious for complaining about how they don't have enough time to give these same students a quality education. Now they are supposed to spend HOW long trying to monitoring every website that might allow the students to have a personal profile, online 'persona' etc?

      Beyond ridiculous

    2. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by rabbit994 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many college policies on gay discrimination are not binding beyond being able to internally take care of the matter. Also, many states legistators reserve the right to determine policy about discrimination for state institutions so many of these policies are on shaky ground at best. If federal government gives you money, they get some say in how you manage your organization. Courts might rule in favor of universities being able to control money flow to students in the terms of revoking scholarships but not in banning them from teams because of their facebook association. Besides, the whole military recruiters on campus is a sign that certain professors are extremely out of touch with society.

    3. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by alshithead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're only reinforcing my point. Those who distribute the money have the ability to decide how it is spent. State universities get a lot of federal money and the Supreme Court said, "Screw your idealism on gays, we don't care if your policies align with military's. We say you HAVE to let the recruiters on campus even if it violates your policies."

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    4. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the university, it's alumni, employees, students, and their families, all still have to pay taxes to support all the other universities that choose to discard their principles and take the money, so they have to pay twice, once for the education they actually get, and again to subsidise the competition. It's just another way of letting the state control education while pretending we're still free.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      College athletes on scholarship are entertainers, and getting well paid for it. Part of their value as employees of the college is their public image. If they don't like the rules they are free to leave for greener pastures.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. wow by joe+155 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is this even legal? I would think that what an adult choses to do in their provate time is their business... besides that, how are they any more or less safe on face book than on any internet site/chatroom in which they provide a large amount of information about themselves...

    I suspect that this has far more to do with the uni wanting to protect its image - which for some reason it believes would be more damaged by people being on face-book than than this action to put stupid restrictions over what people can do

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    1. Re:wow by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention people pay to attend University (well, maybe not some athletes). It's not like the Army where you get paid and benefits in exchange for temporarily signing over your constitutional rights.

      I hope the students speak out, because it they who have the power and their presence lets the University run.

    2. Re:wow by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      is this even legal? I would think that what an adult choses to do in their provate time is their business...

      Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students recieving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say "if you want this free money, you can't use facebook". It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles.

      Not that I approve of the practice in this case -- it seems to me that banning social network sites so your jocks don't post up the stupid shit they do is attacking the problem from the completely wrong side. But this is a university system, so expecting them to do things that make sense is a tad unrealistic.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    3. Re:wow by tenton · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students recieving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say "if you want this free money, you can't use facebook". It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles.


      Yeah, but can you retroactively add to the contract? That is, when they signed on (for their scholarships), was that restriction there, or anything remotely resembling it (for example, an NFL contract stating that you can't do dangerous activities, which could be applied to trying to do stupid things on a motorcycle, ala Kellan Winslow Jr.).

      Plus, looking at the article, it's a move to "protect" the student-athletes. From the article:

      Kennedy said some Kent students who list phone numbers and addresses have been contacted inappropriately, either by strangers or sports agents.

      Although Kennedy said he regrets limiting the students' ability to communicate, he sees it as a necessary step.

      "It would be irresponsible on our part if this led to something serious," he said.

      The move to ban the site came from students and coaches expressing concern over safety and privacy issues. Kennedy said he hasn't seen the site.


      Why must the adminstration do something about this? Putting your own information on a public site is not a great way to maintain your privacy, one would think; i.e. if one is worried about privacy, then how about not putting things like your address, phone and class schedule up for all to see?
    4. Re:wow by remin8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, it is the students paying for a service (education). If the university has to dosomething to preserve their image they should either kick these students out, administer random drug tests, restrict access to these sites on their networks, or just not enroll the types of people that like to drink and party and embarass them (oh wait, thats about all 18-22 year olds (at least engineers!)).

      --

      "Initial success, or total failure!"
      remin8.com
    5. Re:wow by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but can you retroactively add to the contract? That is, when they signed on (for their scholarships), was that restriction there, or anything remotely resembling it (for example, an NFL contract stating that you can't do dangerous activities, which could be applied to trying to do stupid things on a motorcycle, ala Kellan Winslow Jr.).

      I don't know this for a fact, but I'm guessing that there is language in the scholarship agreement that allows the university to impose restrictions of this type. I mean, I'm guessing that Kent State might have a lawyer that they ran this past.

      That aside, I don't see what the big deal is here. It's not as if this is being imposed as a requirement for attendance at the University, it's being instituted as a condition of accepting a free education in exchange for participation in an extra-curricular activity. If you as a student athlete find that unacceptible, you can always take out a loan like the rest of us did.

      If you want to start talking about outrages related to athletic scholarships, this is the wrong end of the pool to start in.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    6. Re:wow by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students recieving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say "if you want this free money, you can't use facebook". It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles.

      First, there are a lot of protected rights you can't sign away, no matter how hard you try. The majority of contract signed in this country probably have at least some unenforceable terms as a result. Second, this is a public university, is it not? That means it gets a lot of federal funding and has to follow all sorts of rules that apply to government entities, but not to private businesses. Third, retroactively changing the terms of a contract is always one of those unenforceable terms.

      it seems to me that banning social network sites so your jocks don't post up the stupid shit they do is attacking the problem from the completely wrong side.

      Indeed. In fact, if the terms of this policy are really what the article would have us believe then they are begging for a lawsuit. Banning students from participating in some type of social networking site is one thing, but banning only a specific site is something else entirely.

    7. Re:wow by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That aside, I don't see what the big deal is here. It's not as if this is being imposed as a requirement for attendance at the University

      Step 1: Become coach
      Step 2: Demand female athletes put out on command or lose their scholarship
      Step 3: Profit (every day and twice on sunday)

      It's okay by you, right? Because they can just drop out of school.

    8. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, you'd be okay with requiring the girls to simply take off their clothes? That wouldn't be coerced sex, and clearly isn't illegal, since women contract to show themselves naked all the time (reference: Playboy magazine), and we're just talking about a contract here?

    9. Re:wow by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Kent doesn't exactly have an "image".

      You're not familiar with recent US history, eh? Go to iTunes, type "ohio" in the search, and listen to the 30 second clip.

    10. Re:wow by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thing is, the only teeth this has is that the student loses their free ride. I think the university may be in the clear on this as whomever is giving away the money can set limits. That said, a paying student should not have said limits imposed, else the 1st rots away further.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    11. Re:wow by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except they're not telling athletes what they can do; rather it's a condition of receiving scholarships. And they can certainly decide who to give money to and who not.

      "If student-athletes don't remove their profiles by the deadline, they risk losing their scholarships, he said. Coaches and athletics counselors will monitor the site for violators."

      If they started kicking them off the team or expelling them, that's one thing, but they're just threatening to revoke scholarships.

      More serious action may still be okay too, legally, since a code of conduct is common practice. Cheating isn't illegal, but a school can still expell you or take other administrative action if you're caught. The school is providing a service/product (education), and it's provided at their sole discretion, as long as the decision is not made based on race, color, creed, or other constitutionally protected attributes.

      I think it's a ridiculous policy, but it's theirs to make.

    12. Re:wow by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, you say "they can certainly decide who to give money to" but isn't this specific decision a bit retroactive? Now, I'm sure there are clauses in all that paperwork, but it's not deciding who to give money to, but controlling them afterwards as I'm sure this specific rule was not in play before. Afterall, once a student agrees to a scholarship, they restrict their options in some ways and are ceding control to the universities and the students have to trust the schools to play fair and not be completely arbitrary.

      I think it's a ridiculous policy, but it's theirs to make.


      And in the end, they have to answer to the students (and state?), if the students decide to leverage their power. The ones who hold the purse strings hold the power.
  4. Drunk photos on facebook by TexasDex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Protect the university's image

    "Our students don't drink! Honest"

    I can attest to the fact that lots of students post drinking photos, even joining groups like "I was drunk when my facebook profile photo was taken". Kent state is worried about this. While I'm guessing they're wringing their hands at such open bragging about underage drinking that sort of thing is a fact of life, from long before facebook existed.

    --
    The Cheese Stands Alone.
  5. No surprise by TildeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Duke lacrosse team will do for college sports what Janet Jackson did for network TV. Nobody should be surprised that college sports don't want any more such negative publicity, and anyone who has used Facebook knows that its users are almost as dumb as Myspace users when it comes to posting incriminating pictures and other details of their lives. (Almost. Not quite. At least these are college students instead of pedophiles, adolescents, and aspiring criminals).

  6. This is unfortunate... by nebaz · · Score: 2, Insightful



            I think this violates the first amendment "Congress
    shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... the right of the people
    peaceably to assemble". This is an implicit freedom of association issue, and as a
    state funded school, Kent State has an obligation to uphold the constitution.

            They do as an institution with an internet connection, have the right to
    blacklist certain websites at their ISP level, which would probably be the best
    technological solution, which would block students from using the account on
    campus. But they are going after 'athletes' in particular, which is a viscious form of
    discriminiation.

            They feel that they need to 'protect their image', and student athletes form
    a higher percentage of that 'image' than should really be the case. As much as I like
    sports, we have elevated their role in college policy to an absurd level. Money talks.
    But if a student has an athletic scholarship, he should be considered a student, first and
    foremost, and no additional restrictions on being a student should be allowed. Sure, kick
    them off the team if you want to, but by tying their student status to this rule, you are
    holding them hostage, and to a different standard than your regular student. This is unfair
    to them, especially as they are generating more revenue for you than the average student.

            Sure maybe the student may be giving stalkers information, or embarrasing the
    school. But that could be true of any student. So should the university ban all
    cameras on campus, as not to show any drunken students? Ban all contact with the
    outside world? These are students, not prisoners, and if they want to hand over their
    information for stalkers, that is their right. They are being stupid, but that is their right.
    If the university doesn't want them stalked on campus, it should beef up campus security.
    They are not the university's 'asset', they are it's student, and it is supposed to be providing
    them a service, not the other way around. Don't treat them as a revenue stream, and don't
    violate the spirit of the constitution.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:This is unfortunate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This does nto violate any aspect of the United States Constitution.

      Why not?

      The school did NOT say "You can't do this."

      The school DID say "If you want to participate in our optional program, or continue to receive funding from us, then you will not do this."

      There's a difference.

      The kids can do what they want. If they want to participate in the athletic program, then they have to meet the terms provided for participation. It is a voluntary course of action. We're not talking about people who have no choice, or even people limited to a binary set of choices.

    2. Re:This is unfortunate... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The school DID say "If you want to participate in our optional program, or continue to receive funding from us, then you will not do this."

      Actually, the school says "then you will not do this", then a few years later said "oh, and this too."

      It's a state institution, that means the government is in charge. Would you let them change the terms of other contracts on a whim? Like your bond payout. Or your army service contract?

    3. Re:This is unfortunate... by sfjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The school did NOT say "You can't do this."

      That is, in effect, what they did say. It is completely unconstitutional for them, as a government institution, to use this form of coercion to restrict free speech. You need to go back and study up on constitutional law and then you'd be able to use your own name to post comments.

      P.S. listening to Bill O'Reilly will not make you better informed about the US Constitution.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    4. Re:This is unfortunate... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The school DID say "If you want to participate in our optional program, or continue to receive funding from us, then you will not do this."

      There's a difference.

      The same goes for the school as a whole. All the taxpayers have to do is say, "sorry, Kent State, but if you want state money for the school, you have to play by our rules, which include the First Ammendment." Problem solved.
  7. Proof? by tansey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this even enforceable? Last time I remember checking, facebook didn't provide any way to check that a person's registered profile is actually them, outside of saying the email is from the actual school. Last year my friend registered himself as Kwami Brown and started poking all the guys on the hall.

    What's to stop someone from taking a Kent State player's identity and creating a fake profile of them?

  8. One more step down the road... by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...away from the internet as a network for data exchange, and towards the internet as a one-way pipe by which to push content your way.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    1. Re:One more step down the road... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF knee-jerk. That makes no sense.

      The situation is university administrators not wanting athletes to spoil their image. It has nothing to do with Facebook or anybody else "pushing content".

  9. reveals the true nature of their concerns by revery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is fairly obvious that the school is less concerned with preventing students from engaging in illegal activity and undesirable behavior than it is with preventing it from becoming public knowledge that students are engaging in illegal activity and undesirable behavior. If they had come out and said, "If we catch you confessing to activities that violate our code of conduct, you will face disciplinary action", that would be quite another thing altogether. (Not that people wouldn't complain, I'm just saying I think they could make a pretty decent defense of their actions.)

  10. Re:The Only Problem by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can anyone say Ohio National Guard?

    Modded as... interesting? Simply slashdotalicious.

    There has to be some special, super-duper mod that's available, just once per year - perhaps made of some sort of extra-shiny tinfoil - that is reserved for this sort of thing.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Great Job coach! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They do realize that the students can just set up another account under a nickname, leave out what college they go to (or create a pseudo-name for it), and continue on they merry drunken, misguided way.

  12. Why? by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Makes you wonder why they even bother providing internet connections on college campuses."

    Oh you know, research, email, that sort of thing. This may surprise you but the original intent of providing internet access was not to pass around mp3's, pictures of yourself drunk, and porn (well, that last one is debatable).

    You would think students over the years would have gotten better about using the internet but it seems it has regressed quite a bit. I am reminded of reports of students at the university where I work getting busted selling drugs on facebook and posting pictures of themselves doing illegal things. In the papers they always seem quoted as indignantly saying "I didn't know the police could monitor that stuff, that is really scary" as though cops looking at facebook was on par with warrant-less wiretapping.

    Look, I'm a Fight The Power, Go EFF, Die MPAA kinda guy. However, the way I see it is if a school is giving you tens of thousands of dollars for your education and they decide they want you to either (1) not advertise that you are a drunken asshole all over the net, or (2) risk losing that free money, then that is their right. I think it is a little harsh to ban facebook altogether, I think I might have seen one or two actual mature entries in it, but that is certainly on more solid legal ground than subjectively taking it on a case by case basis.

    Also, you can look at it as preparing these student athletes for the future. If they make it to the pros and become the typical corporate whore, they will have to get used to being told how to act, what to say, and what to do. College is actually preparing them for the real world ;)

    Finkployd

    1. Re:Why? by denebian+devil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh you know, research, email, that sort of thing. This may surprise you but the original intent of providing internet access was not to pass around mp3's, pictures of yourself drunk, and porn (well, that last one is debatable).

      I completely agree. The purpose of my little commentary (which perhaps was lost) was that if the school really wants to keep people from posting their personal information or embarassing stories of schooltime drunkenness and debauchery on the internet, they're going to have to unplug the ethernet to even hope to have a chance of stemming the tide, because Facebook is far from the only place where they can do it. Saying these kids can't use Facebook is just going to force them to go somewhere else, and as a result is inflammatory, capricious, and above all useless.

  13. Safety? Privacy?! BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This stuff is getting ridiculous. These are fucking adults we're talking about here. The concern sure as hell isn't about safety. "Privacy issues"? They are concerned about privacy so they -monitor- what their students do on their own time?

  14. Re:Dumb Students by captainPenguin13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's why you set up your privacy settings so that only your friends can see the stupid ass shit you do. If security busts you then you know your "friends" really aren't.

  15. Re:The policy is too broad by TheGreek · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If challenged, this policy will most likely be struck down. It is wrong to implement mass bans on actions such as these, and probably encroaches on a few key liberties that we're guaranteed.
    Shit.

    You mean we have a constitutional right to a college scholarship?

    I wish I knew that earlier.
  16. From a local: Good! by Corvaith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a Kent student. And while I know this is by far not universal among the athletes at this campus, at least going by the ones who I've seen in classes:

    Good, if not good enough. Because they're getting a ridiculous amount of money in the form of scholarships and such, in exchange for which they do terribly in classes (dragging their groups down with them, much of the time), drink as much or more as anybody else here (which is no small amount) and then go throw a ball around every now and then in exchange.

    No, I don't have sympathy. Stop showing off your drinking skills and go to class. I'd be happier if they'd prevent them from drinking and tell them to stop using the team as an excuse to ditch classwork when they apparently have plenty of time for parties. Considering very few of them are going to be able to rely on sports as a career, I'd be happier if the University was less concerned with image and more concerned with the fact that the images are often of underaged students drinking alcohol. But... oh, right. I go to a state school in Ohio. Chances of that happening... slightly less than zero. They'll probably end up cutting the whole ban later due to lack of funds for enforcement.

  17. Not neccessarily a bad idea... by nintendo_is_a_cereal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A starter on our basketball team (a computer engineering major no less!) got pranked pretty hard by an opposing school after an elaborate IM ruse that all started from someone acquiring his AIM screen name off his facebook account. OTOH I think people should really just use a bit more common sense about this stuff and realize that there are potential repercussions for putting this stuff outthere. I just can't shake the feeling that facebook is slowly going to go away. Especially as more and more administrative types begin using it under the guise of students.

  18. Lazy/biased reporting by Hammerikaner · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Not one quote from one student in a story about an issue that primarily affects students. A half dozen officials from the university and the ACLU quoted. Not a single student. The lack of any quotes from any actual students stands out especially because of this line:
    Most students have responded to the ban positively, Kennedy said.
    Riiiiiight.