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 ;)"
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.
Wow, by rehashing the best comments, I almost see... can it be... a good article? A real editor? I don't know, this is too much of a change...
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.
rats, I was hoping to copy some of the +5 comments from the first story and post them here, but the editors have already done that.
So what is this, some kind of new meta-discussion feature where Slashdot editors dig through some story and haul out lame comments that they think highlight the story. Whatever. Sounds stupid to me...
[Reads through some of the comments...]
A touch more cynically...revery...
Wait a second... I got featured?!?! On Slashdot!?! Hey that is so cool! Hi mom! Hi Cornelia! Check out my cynical self... I'm on Slashdot's new BackSlash feature.... Did I say it was stupid? I meant stupendous!!! and uh... lamerrific... or soemthing like that.
And Timothy, what an editor. Such insight, such wisdom. You're not gonna regret this... no sir. I'm gonna come up with some great comments for your next backslash. Something understated, but profound. Email me and let me know what the topic will be so I can do some research, ok? We'll do lunch.
--
This is a joke. I am joking. You have been joked with.
For the same alleged reason that
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Tim was bored, and wanted to play blogger.
Wake up.
When I was attending Skidmore College up in Saratoga Springs, and I shit you not, they had a "hook-up" server where students could log in with their regular college ID and type in the IDs of everyone they'd be willing to get freaky with. Whenever two people entered each other, the server would match them up and nature would take its course. It would tell you how many girls were willing to hook up with you (I had a few...), but it wouldn't tell you who. Very frustrating. Now normally in that case I would enter every girl in the whole college, but the catch was you could only enter 20 names. Anyway, it was eventually shut down by The Man.
Combine the fact that many student athletes are notorious for bad behavior like their pro-counterparts (where do you think it starts?) with the fact that many students are unabashed about posting about their bad behavior and the fact that they are affiliated with the university and you have an informal expose' on the team. Schools really do have a reason to be concerned. It's hard enough as it is to police their behavior offline to keep them out of trouble. The last thing they need is to have it all recorded for posterity online.
I'm a militant libertarian as a general rule. Much more so than your average slashdotter. Yet even I can sympathize with the school here. Until they take this over into punishing regular students, it's fine by me. If you wear the school uniform, your behavior reflects on the school the way that wearing a police uniform reflects on your department. Don't like it? Don't wear the uniform. It's not like there are a dearth of ways to pay for your way through college or jobs out there that lack these restrictions.
If it's really so important to them, they should be beyond reproach. No underage or heavy drinking. No womanizing, nothing. Be model students and athletes.
Not too much of a change, more like making use of the resources slashdot has to offer.
Auto moderation and overviews using the threshholds might follow the thread but they lack the important part.
it does require editing to make it work.
Well done timothy.
liqbase
Something that's overlooked is that the major collegiate sports are entertainment, not sports-for-the-sake-of-athletics. Harsh, but true. Viewed in that context, the athletes with scholarships are entertainers, and like all entertainers ALL of their actions reflect back on their employer/university.
Think I'm exaggerating? Ask the University of Colorado. How many scandals has it been involved with recently? How many were related to things that happened on the football field, and how many were related to things that happened off-campus? Guess which ones made the local, even national, news. Guess which ones resulted in ominous warnings that they would affect fundraising activities. (Which is somewhat circular since the money raised for sports rarely covers the actual costs of those sports -- the difference is treated as an advertising cost to promote the school to potential students.)
Actually the recent years have been unique since there was a legitimate athletics-related controversy -- the NCAA's ridiculous refusal to let Jeremy Bloom play football since he got compensation for his activities as a skier. The latter didn't bother the USOC, but it did bother the NCAA. Meanwhile there continue to be serious, but ignored, abuses by "boosters" nationwide....
So while I am worried that this case will set a bad precedence, much like the way "drug test HS athletes" (who do run the risk of injuring themselves on the field) got morphed into the "drug test for any extracurricular activity", I'm also aware of the unusual nature of the big sports programs. I don't know whether it's a good policy, but I think it's a defensible one.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I put this in my profile a couple of days ago:
-=[ README ]=-
If you're reading this profile while considering me for a job, internship, or other opportunity-to-succeed, please note that you are, or the person whose account you are using is, probably in violation of Facebook's terms of use and my personal privacy. This is a private profile and you have been granted permission to view it only if you are following Facebook's terms of use and thus respecting my privacy. Thank you. Please read the terms of use at http://www.facebook.com/terms.php if you haven't already, and read the Member Conduct section closely.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
I'll admit it, I'm guilty of it too. I actually rather like this idea of condensing a day's discussion into one article. It gives those who may have new insight into the topic a chance to join the discussion.
Thumbs up!
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!!
I also agree. It's a good job at putting together the best parts of pro and con views to create an informative (if entirely copy-pasted) article.
Hopefully we'll see more of this for other subjects, but I think before this gets too out of hand we need a special "-1, Wrong" mod that works differently - rather than only getting to use it if you don't post in the story, you only get to use it if you also post a correction in response to the comment. If your response is itself modded or metamodded incorrect you lose extra karma (to help convince people not to do this if they're not sure what they're talking about) and are banned from making Wrong mods (to keep it from happening again). A -1, Wrong to a correction undoes the -1, Wrong on the originally corrected post. Correction posts should be checked for at least one link pointing anywhere else so that the person has to at least pretend to the software that they've got a citation.
So anyways, if we have M1 moderation and M2 metamoderation, should backslash be M0, or M3?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
Like many readers, BMonger was critical of the almost dupe: "Don't we have a moderation system in place to highlight the best comments? Why the "mega"-moderation?"
Along the same lines, one reader notes that "For the same alleged reason that
Along similar lines, one reader argued "Tim was bored, and wanted to play blogger."
Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above: