Slashdot Mirror
Kent State's Facebook Ban for Athletes
Like many readers, NMerriam was critical of the Kent State policy, but skeptical of the argument that KSU's action violated the First Amendment right to free speech, writing "Not true. U.S. 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."
Along the same lines, one reader notes that "plenty of religiously-affiliated, image-conscious schools require their athletes sign a code of conduct, like no drinking in public, etc, as a condition of receiving 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 infallible supermen who excel in athletic, academic and moral standing, and wishes to add what is essentially an NDA to their contract," and argues that "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 compromising 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 let's 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."
Along similar lines, one reader argued "Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students receiving 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."
In answer to these and similar arguments that the student athletes are only facing obligations in their scholarship agreements that they might in any other contract, though, another reader bites back:
"[T]here 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."
"... [I]f 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."
Only a few readers seemed to chalk up KSU's limitation on athletes to motives other than the University's own self interest, including one who described the change as a move "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."
TexasDex voiced a more common-sense argument for the University's desire to patrol the social-networking world, however justified or misguided that patrolling might be, writing "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."
A touch more cynically, reader revery calls it "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."
At least a handful of readers suggested that the University was better off with such a policy, and that no fundamental rights were compromised by such a rider, one of them writing "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.
Another comment, from a Kent State student, was similarly blunt, calling the restriction "Good, if not good enough," and continuing "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."
On a pragmatic level, as several readers pointed out, colleges are using information on social networking sites to find campus rule-breakers anyhow; one reader commented "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 it for everyone. Do I feel bad for them? Not at all."
Responding to the idea that a third party might create a fake identity for a Kent State player, a handful of readers elaborated on Facebook's focus on users at educational institutions. Reader Gothic_Walrus provided a useful capsule description: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.A comment from reader finkployd (who describes himself as "a Fight The Power, Go EFF, Die MPAA kinda guy") wryly suggests that Facebook isn't really the greatest subject for an argument about Internet freedom in academia. Finkployd supplies the rhetorical question raised in the original story ("Makes you wonder why they even bother providing internet connections on college campuses.") with a possibly unpopular answer: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.
"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).Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above: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.
... [Y]ou 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 ;)"
so it was already on slashdot and here are some highlights so we can rehash the other non-highlighted comments as well?
Don't we have a moderation system in place to highlight the best comments? Why the "mega"-moderation?
I just don't understand why the concern would start and end with Facebook. If you're going to ban such online actvities, why not go to the extreme, and ban any sort of social networking site.
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- Exercise for the rest of us.
Great write up. Yes, we already have a moderation system, but even moderating at +5 you often have to wade through repeats, jokes, etc. Thank you Timothy.
My first reaction was anger when I read TFA. Then I considered what it meant in a way I could relate to my life.
What if my bank agreed to waive my mortgage in exchange for me keeping the grounds? Their motivation was to make money off my work in exchange. Perhaps to showcase the house to prospective clients.
After accepting their offer, what if I decided I'd work in the garden nude. Or, post signs in the yard complaining about the bank. If they came back and said that this was not part of the deal and either to stop or I'd have to start paying my mortgage again I think they'd have a point.
If this were to extend to the general population of the student body not receiving a free education in exchange then that's when I will think they've gone too far.
MHO -[d]-
I'm sorry but am I the only one who sees a lot of conservative bias in this piece?
There were plenty of good points made that this violated people's rights.. and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.
The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Yeah but if I'm an employer and I'm checking up on you that isn't going to stop me from not hiring you. Thats about as effective as the "If you are 21 or older click here" that they put on porn sites to keep underage kinds out.
I'm sorry but am I the only one who sees a lot of conservative bias in this piece?
First, aren't you even a little embarassed to pretend that the general editorial and commentary orientation on slashdot isn't demonstrably left-leaning on many subjects? I don't care that it is, it just is, and that's part of the atmosphere. But don't pretend that it's normally straight-down-the-middle objective or equally deferential to every point of view.
There were plenty of good points made that this violated people's rights.. and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.
I don't always subscribe to Timothy-think, but he's actually providing a valuable service, here. He's pointing out that, contrary to the foregone conclusions that people like you have made, that some very thoughtful people are seeing the larger picture here, and bothering to make those thougts clear to this audience. In essence, it's worth the posting space because it's unusual for slashdot. Oh, and just because identifying "straw man" arguments is a favorite junior varsity sport here doesn't mean that simply calling something one makes that true. These students are graciously receiving scholarships, and countless court rulings have affirmed that participating in extra-curricular activities (to say nothing of being given money) can sure as hell be dependent on a code of conduct that extends outside of the classroom.
The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?
You mean like means testing? Already done. Do you mean like, certain types of criminals and fraud artists don't get to have the benefits? Already done. Other than that, your merit as an athlete isn't what gets you government entitlements - but it is what gets you a selective, qualified, and behavior-dependent athletic scholarship. Scholarship students with bad grades lose the scholarship. Medicare patients with crappy eating habits and drinking problems still get medical care.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Now I don't care about this issue (Jocks and facebook users can burn in hell), I'm not usually the sort of guy who says "moderation is censorship" nor did I actually post on this the first time, but this is the most blatant and shameful case of bias on slashdot I have ever seen. To reiterate one side of a discussion and almost completely cut the other, then put the results onto the front page? What the hell kind of fair discussion is that?
I hope to never see anything like this on slashdot again.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem