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."

77 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 alshithead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure a state univeristy is completely out of bounds here. The supreme court might very well rule in their favor. Hell, they allowed the military to recruit on campus despite the fact that their "don't ask, don't tell" policy violates many state universities' written policies on discrimination against gays.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    3. 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.

    4. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by kalel666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I believe that any university (state or private) can refuse to allow the miltary to recruit on campus. The catch is that they have to accept the forfeiture of federal funds for that decision.

      --
      I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A state university with this kind of policy is setting themselves up for the mother of all First Amendment lawsuits.

      Not true. US courts have repeatedly ruled that, as participation in extracurricular activities is not a required part of the educational mission, it can be subject to restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. That's why drug tests for Algebra II are not allowed, but drug tests for Basketball are.

      The major advantage they have at the university level is that athletic scholarships are tied to eligibility (and sometimes even performance), so getting kicked off the team also takes away the money you're using to pay for school.

      Note that I don't support this move (though I can understand picking the low-hanging fruit), but it's certainly within their authority.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    8. Re:This belongs in a legal textbook by Stiletto · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is about BASIC FREEDOMS here! I'm gonna ENJOY my coffee.

    9. 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 garcia · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know how it works at Kent but when I went to BGSU (as a scholarship athlete) we had to sign tons of paperwork including a "Code of Conduct"-like document that would have waived my right to pretty much anything legally binding.

      If you weren't 18 you couldn't sign it without your parents co-signing it. I was 18 and thus a legal adult. I assume that Kent would be doing something very similar (hell they probably use the same paperwork being that they're in the same conference).

      Kent doesn't exactly have an "image". They are just another college in the Midwest that no one cares about.

    4. 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?
    5. 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
    6. Re:wow by arivanov · · Score: 2, Funny

      Err... What in particular makes you think that if they speak up the university administration will not use the national guard to make them keep their mouth shut. After all this is Kent State we are talking about. It has traditions to uphold in this area.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. Re:wow by murphyslawyer · · Score: 4, Informative
      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
      At least back when I was in school (5 years or so ago now), my scholorships were renewed on a semester-by-semester basis, and I'd have to fill out a sort of mini application each semester to continue getting my funds. My guess is they just new added legalese to the form, and while they can't retroactively make students comply right now, they can certainly prevent them from getting future money.
      --
      I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
    10. 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.

    11. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you took a second to consider your thinking here, you may have realized that while you can write a legally binding contract forbidding one party from engaging in a legal activity, you cannot write a contract requiring one party to engage in an illegal one.

      So, while I can write an athletic scholarship demanding that a student participate in a given sport in order to get the money, I cannot write one that forces women to have sex with me (since that would be coerced sex or, depending on the attitude of the woman in question, prostitution).

      But I'm sure that's obvious to anyone with the least bit of sense.

    12. Re:wow by lcohiomatty86 · · Score: 2, Informative

      to totally ban them from having a facebook profile is a very restrictive kind of thing to impose upon a student. i can understand if they monitor the profiles or force the students to keep them in a reasonably "family friendly" manner, but to totally keep them from it? that's kinda stupid. Facebook does AMAZING things for finding people at college. say, one of ur buddies mentions somebody's name.. and ur wonderni who that is.. its very easy to just search the name on facebook and viola.. you found out who that person is... mayby thats' why at a lot of colleges 1/3-1/2 of the students have one of those profiles?

    13. Re:wow by garcia · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.).

      Speaking as a graduate of BGSU and a scholarship athlete there (same conference), you signed the forms at the end of every year accepting your scholarship funds and then differnt forms at the beginning of each year that dealt with issues like this Facebook bullshit.

      Could you alter your contract during the middle of the year? I doubt it.

    14. Re:wow by t35t0r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Constitutional rights are the law of the land unless you're in the army or work for the fed government in some capacity as a spy. A state government cannot pass a law that violates a constutional liberty. If it does then it can be taken to court. Far be it for a uni to pass some assinine policy to keep their students' mouths shut.

    15. 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.

    16. 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
    17. 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.

    18. Re:wow by xenocide2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not that it excuses the kind of CYA mentality, but certain plenty of religious affilitated image conscious schools require their athletes sign a code of conduct, like no drinking in public, etc, as a condition of recieving the scholarship. Apparently Kent State believes these sorts of ties between conduct and finance aren't enough to prevent it from being known that their athletes aren't infalliable supermen who excel in athletic, academic and moral standing, and wishes to add what is essentially an NDA to their contract.

      Something here is broken. Maybe it's that Universities, institutes of higher education, are resorting to sporting events as a recruiting campaign. Maybe it's the number of schools pitting athletes against each other such that success requires dedication to the exclusion of personal growth. Maybe it's students, for being so vain as to photograph themselves in comprimising situations, and think that the public Internet is a suitable place to distribute these to close friends and strangers alike. Maybe it's you and me for watching the whole thing. But lets face it, there's no Rose Bowl for the most wholesome two teams in the nation. The Final Four aren't the four people left at the party who refused to hook up with drunken coeds.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    19. Re:wow by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just to clarify, because you're mixing up the authority of the coach, university, and scholarship giver:

      If the coach has $10,000 of his own money he wants to give as a scholarship to any girl who will take off her clothes, that is of course perfectly legal. (though he'd likely get fired because of bad publicity)

      If the University wants to start a Stripping team and awards scholarships for it, that would be legal (though probably a bad idea due to the inevitable lawsuits and bad publicity no matter how well-run the program was).

      If a university gives a scholarship to a player for playing a sport, and the coach declares on his own that he'll stop her eligibility unless she takes off her clothes, that's sexual harrassment. You see the difference? You keep suggesting that somehow the coach gets to dictate the terms of a scholarship or eligibility, and that's just not the case, coaches are coaches, the scholarship committees do the contracts and finances (though often the coach is on the committee, it's unlikely they'll get away with adding a stripping provision to the contracts).

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    20. 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.
    21. Re:wow by Siward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd agree that it's not a particularly big deal, but I do find it rather strange nonetheless. According the Ars Technica article, Kent State could be concerned about atheletes posting pictures of themselves participating in some unsavory act during a party. That's a pretty legitemate reason, but it's also pretty easy to believe that anyone else on campus attending the same party could take similar pictures and post them on...oh just for grins let's say Facebook.

      This thread has already addressed the issues of student atheletes vs. students being in legal agreements, so I'm not headed down that road. I do think, however, that this is a pretty short-sighted move on the part of the University. Again, the Ars Technica article makes a good point: Kent State is an educational institution. Why aren't they educating their students on this instead of outright banning the site and creating an opportunity for students with friends on athletic teams to make a nice, fat mistake in the name of ignorance?

      Now I'll grant you that it's impossible for them to prevent all student-related bad moves, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to have an athletic department meeting with the students, explain what the University wants and why that's best for all parties involved? Similarly, wouldn't it be fairly easy to add a little five minute segment to the Freshman orientation presentation explaining Facebook, MySpace, and similar sites, and explain why posting pictures of this sort of thing can be embarassing for students, parents, and the University? Hell, this message applies to non-athletic groups as well -- think of how many College-related organizations there are, and how many students belong to the organizations. It's pretty easy to explain to someone that when you belong to a College-related organization, your actions frequently reflect (to a greater degree, even) upon the college, you, and your family.

    22. Re:wow by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hm. Interesting perspective on scholarships. Let me show you another one, from Europe.

      We have state sponsored education in my country. You can also pay if you want to get into the university with a bit lower scores.

      We have a grant system based on a student's average grade. On the top of that we've got scholarships, you apply, they tell you if you've been accepted, you sign a form (not a contract! It is governed by educational law so no contract is required).

      If a university would tell me to quit being registered on a website I'd most likely first laugh them in the face about the absurdity they want. Even if I would have a scholarship. The point is, just because you've got free education or even a nice scholarship on the top of that, it doesn't mean they should be able to force you to do stupid shit like this just because of that.

      Now, I realise that there are differences between my example and this case, but even if they agreed to a contract with the college/university/whatever, it is not certain whether it has a clause by which they can sanction this kind of thing. Even if it has such clause, it could be still horribly wrong and maybe even breaking your laws, because it is a government institution that is doing this. Just because someone gets a scholarship, a government institution shouldn't bastardise the meaning of a scholarship to mean a paid slave/pr drone.

      I certainly can understand that you might not be too concerned about losing something most of you never had (so you had to pay for university education), but the scholarship and the censorship should be separated from each other. Accepting a scholarship shouldn't be a faustian business deal. It shouldn't come with this kind of strings attached.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  4. Dumb Students by ggKimmieGal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At my own college, security uses facebook to find out about parties and underage drinking on campus. Chances are, someone put stupid info up and has ruined i for everyone. Do I feel bad for them? Not at all.

    1. 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.

  5. 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.
    1. Re:Drunk photos on facebook by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      While I'm guessing they're wringing their hands at such open bragging about underage drinking

      It's funny to think of "underage drinking" as "drinking under 21" as in Belgium you're legally allowed to drink from the age of 16.

      Even before you're allowed to drive a car...

      I'm not sure what's better though, I used to get wasted when I was 16-17. Now I'm 24 and I barely drink as I lack to see the "cool" or "fun" of it other then once in a while a glass of wine with a nice dinner.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  6. Myspace? by Cherita+Chen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why Facebook and not Myspace? I've never even heard of "Facebook"...

    --
    I'm not fat, just big boned...
    1. Re:Myspace? by Azarael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Facebook pretty similar to myspace except it is geared more towards student(post-secondary) networking. It's basically the easy target, I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to myspace (like it is in high schools).

    2. Re:Myspace? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Informative

      Myspace is the networking site for the Facebook rejects. Everyone in college uses facebook, and only a few use Myspace, also. But since you can't get on Facebook without a college email address, the uneducated masses (and the old people) have no option but to use Myspace.

      Facebook is the "cool kids' table" at lunch, and is technically superior to Myspace in almost every way.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  7. 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).

    1. Re:No surprise by Feyr · · Score: 4, Funny

      -
      At least these are college students instead of pedophiles, adolescents, and aspiring criminals
      -

      you mean that's not the same?

  8. 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 TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think this violates the first amendment "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...

      Interesting. I missed the part of TFA where congress made a law preventing scholarship recipients from using Facebook. I take it you believe that all NDAs are unconstitutional too? I'll have to remember that if I am ever in a position to do business with you.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  9. 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?

    1. Re:Proof? by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      Simple. There's no possible way to hide the e-mail address that you signed up for the account with. Regardless of any other privacy settings, if someone can see your profile on Facebook, they can see the address that the account is linked to.

      Now, this isn't entirely foolproof from fake profiles. At my college, anyone with an account can log into the directory and create groups of e-mail addresses. If you can come up with a group e-mail address that's both believable and not already taken and add yourself as the group's only member, you're set to create that fake profile.

      But on the other side of the coin, it's incredibly easy to log into the directory to see who an e-mail address is registered to. And if that's not good enough, there are printed directories that, if memory serves, list the person's e-mail in their contact information.

      The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that it's easy to make a fake profile, but it's usually just as easy to figure out who it belongs to.

      The school has an even easier time of it. Since there's only one e-mail address per person and since the school has that e-mail address in their records, it simply boils down to looking at the profile and seeing if they match.

      Not a definitive answer, maybe, but I hope that helps.

      --
      Goo goo g'joob.
  10. Pro Athletes by neonprimetime · · Score: 2, Funny

    But she stressed the importance of excluding information employers wouldn't want to see.

    One student chose a picture of himself shirtless holding a Miller Lite can for his profile photo. He's on the baseball team.

    Another belongs to the "My cell phone is my best friend when I'm drunk in Kent" group and lists skinny-dipping as an interest.


    I always thought these were good things on a pro-athlete's resume?

  11. 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".

  12. It's all about the moolah by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is your free speech for sale ? It is if you want to keep that scholarship. This is a great example of how growing economic inequality spills over into other aspects of life. A well off student can afford to take a stand on principle here.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    1. Re:It's all about the moolah by Skyshadow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you're happy about poor people giving up their free speech while rich people don't.

      I think I'd prefer to say that I recognize that people with more money traditionally have to make fewer tradeoffs in life. I'm not going to sit here and declare that I should be able to talk shit about my employer in a public forum and expect to do so with impunity, just like I'm not going to moan about how unfair it is that I have to go to work everyday while Paris Hilton is out shopping or driving an expensive car or videotaping herself sucking cock.

      I'm not rich. I need money coming in so I can afford to pay my rent, put gas in my car and buy food. I'm prepared to make certain trade-offs in order to accomplish these things, because it sucks sleeping outside, walking and eating out of dumpsters.

      Taking the position that these tradeoffs shouldn't exist is all well and good, but expecting people to take you seriously is something else.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  13. Re:The Only Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, that's definitely my thought process. If I go look for the Kent State football players on Facebook and don't find any, the obvious conclusion is that the National Guard must have killed them.

  14. 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.)

  15. Attention: Kent State Athletes by Avillia · · Score: 5, Funny
  16. Re:The Only Problem by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tin soldiers and Bush is coming,
    We're finally on our own website.
    This summer I hear the clicking, Four spreads in Ohio.

    Gotta get down to it
    Firewalls are cutting us down
    Should have been done long ago.
    What if you knew her
    And found her spread nude on the page
    How can you link when you know?
    Gotta get down to it
    Firewalls are cutting us down
    Should have been done long ago.
    What if you knew her
    And found her spread nude on the page
    How can you link when you know?

    Tin soldiers and Bush is coming,
    We're finally on our own.
    This summer I hear the clicking, Four spreads in Ohio.

  17. My Favorite Part by richdun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    So not only has the guy making the policy not even seen the site, but the move supposedly came from students and others - the same students who were posting there in the first place? "Higher" education is so smart.

  18. why provide internet on campus? by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Makes you wonder why they even bother providing internet connections on college campuse
    Um, perhaps because it is easeir to plagerize papers using the internet? But seriously, one could consider research for papers, help with math and science papers. Most universities, perhaps you haven't been in one recently, pay for a large number of resources, that are really quite expensive, to thier students and faculty.

    Of course, it may be that millions of dollars of infrastructure and millions in connections fees are what is neccesary for the modern college student to get a date. I just had to ask the babe that sat next to me in Calculus.

    To be more serious, I understand that this ban has more to do with public image, and could be construed as censorship. But think of ti this way. The average athelete is on scholarship, which mean he or she is there at the whim of the university and those alumni that donate to the university. If, due to something posted on the net, such funds become unavailable or the students freedom becomes compromised, then the student does not get an education. We all know that adolescents and young adult do silly things, and none of us really want to impose any significant consequences for the most of the silly things kids do. The minor things are often best handled in house in such a way that boundries are enforced, but the future of the student is not compromised. It may seem funny to post teammates drinking, or in drag, or pretending to commit some felony, but in the competitive world of althletics, where perhaps 1:500 gets into college ball, and 1:2000 gets into pro ball, such actions may not be insignificant.

    And think of it another way. When one enters college, escpecially on an scholarship, and especially on an athelitic scholar ship, one is asking the college to help guide you to a hopefully more promising future. A significant number of freedoms and rights are given away. Unlike other 18 year olds, you are in class and studying, instead of working at starbucks for 8 hours then coming to you apartements and doing nothing. The college students has any number of people using thier experience to navigate a specific educational journey, even though it is theorectically possible to navigate that same path using free resources. In other words, the student is attending the university to help insure a specific outcome, and has accepted some limitations to achieve that outcome.

    To put it simpler, if facebook is so important, an athelete could gain an education and even break into the majors without a university. It is not impossible to his the minors and work the ladder to the majors. But if one wants a univeristy degree, or wants the NCAA help, then one should have a little trust in the people in charge. If there is no trust, then why go to that school? If the school is so corrupt, then why accept the tainted money?

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  19. 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.

  20. What's Wrong With Ohio? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't Kent State the college where they executed Vietnam War protesters in the 1970s?

    I guess the only lesson the college learned from that hideous exercise was that published pictures of their students can get the college into trouble.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  21. Re:Agents and Scouts using info? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 2, Informative

    it's also impossible as you have to be a registered student at the same university to view any information on a facebook member.

    Or you'd have to have a pliable intern who's a registered student at the university in question. Or have $50 and/or some alcohol to bribe a freshman to log on using his account information.

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  22. problem with facebook by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why Facebook and not Myspace?

    Because the main "advantage" of facebook is also its main disadvantage. Since the profile is automatically associated with your college email address, the facebook profile becomes an extension of your "college identity" and what you present on there is more or less irrevocably associated with the college you go to (there are now ways around this, but circumventing this basically makes having a facebook profile meaningless.)

    Will KSU care what their student athletes put on Myspace? Maybe...but since its alot easier for the student to not associate their college with their Myspace profile, a careful student may have no problems with Myspace at all.

  23. 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.
  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.
  27. Thank you Duke! by Electr!c_B4rd_Qu!nn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm sure this is a DIRECT outcome of the Alleged Duke Rape Case that's not only being mishandled by the prosecution(There IS no case against the Duke kids IMHO), but it's forcing Universities to take steps to protect their students(read: athletes) from whatever digital evil they thought up.

    The "anti-facebook" is more than likely a protective measure to keep the wild parties where strippers might be involved under wraps. We all know, if there's no proof, then it NEVER happened.

    --
    " i r 1337. j00 a l0z3r "
    That talk kinda makes you cry, doesn't it?
    That's right..cry those nerdly tears
  28. Logoff or we shoot! by wardk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kent State has a proud history of violating their students rights.

    at least the National Guard is tied up on the border. I'd hate to see anyone shot for exposing this fine university to the internet.

  29. Bullshit. by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Taking the position that these tradeoffs shouldn't exist is all well and good, but expecting people to take you seriously is something else.

    Those tradoffs should not exist at a state university. If they want to kick people out doing some real harm, that's OK. Kicking people out for publishing a web page is pure bullshit. Policing it is going to be a real waste of time and money.

    If you want me to take YOU seriously, justify the expense in some real terms. No, telling me that the company you work for sucks is not an adequate justification. Nor are the silly things rich people can do or the fact you work for a living (or at least pretend to work for a living).

    Face it, at best Kent State's Administrators are a bunch of pussies. At worst, they are a bunch of greed heads worried about revenue from "exclusive" interviews.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  30. Re:From a local: Good! by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Funny
    They'll probably end up cutting the whole ban later due to lack of funds for enforcement.
    I'm sure there are plenty of English & Women's Studies Majors who will monitor Facebook on the school's behalf for free.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  31. Re:The Only Problem by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Informative

    Holy crap...

    Dude. Seriously, a period. It's "where you take a breath."

  32. I completely understand the policy... by x-vere · · Score: 2

    I completely understand the policy... As an employee of an Athletic University for a School larger than Kent State, I see first hand how irresponsible these kids (student athletes) can be (Not saying the all are, but we all read our local papers). There is a lot of pressure on these kids and what an immature 18 year old would think nothing of may haunt them for their professional career. College athletes are celebrities in their own right and people are hungry for dirt. Say a hot shot freshman gets drafted by a major sports team and he posted photos of himself at parties drinking as a minor. Now we have dirt. What's worse, if he is a scholarship holder and he's publicly posting his lack of respect for the law and the school he plays for, it doesn't look good on the school, athletes, or staff.

    A lot of responsibility is on these kids. Believe me. So, think of it as a rule that insists that student athletes CYA, for their sake and the school's sake.

    --
    One day the toilets of the world will rise up... And I'm going to nuke them.