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."

13 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.

  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 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.
  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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.)

  7. 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.

  8. Attention: Kent State Athletes by Avillia · · Score: 5, Funny
  9. 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