Slashdot Mirror
College Papers Won't Rewrite History For Alumni
Hugh Pickens writes "The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that as college papers have begun digitizing their back issues, their Web sites have become the latest front in the battle over online identities. Youthful activities like underage drinking that once would have disappeared into the recesses of a campus library are now preserved on the public record, and alumni are contacting newspapers with requests for redaction. Unlike with Facebook profiles, that other notable source of young-adult embarrassment, the affected parties can't remove or edit questionable content. In 2007, a Cornell University alum sued the Cornell Chronicle over a newly digitized article from 1983 that reported he had been charged with burglary while a student at Cornell. The alum found the article after Googling his name and claimed that its new presence online was causing him 'mental anguish' and 'loss of reputation.' But a California judge threw out the case after determining the report to be accurate. Some student papers, like The University Daily Kansan, have found a middle ground by adding the noindex meta tag so that the documents stay online, but search engines such as Google do not index them. 'I thought that would be better than kind of like sticking it to [the alum] and saying the paper is always right and we can publish anything on the Web we want,' says the paper's editor."
You may notice that it only said that he was *charged* with burglary. Not convicted of it.
Perhaps the problem is that not many people understand the difference? I know I'd be upset if I was falsely accused of some crime and the accusation (but not the exoneration) was easy to find on Google...
Mind you, I don't know this guy. Maybe he was convicted. I'm just trying to point out that it might not be as cut & dried as it seems. I mean, even the article summary only repeats the accusation and doesn't tell us whether or not he was actually convicted of the crime. I'm guessing he wasn't, or he probably wouldn't sue. But, who knows? I mean, I'd have to RTFA for that...
We're not talking about mooning the dean of students, or something "fun", if silly/stupid.
The guy was arrested for burglary. It is necessary for him to respond, for the rest of his life, in every job/dating/whatever situation to "what happened?". If the charges were unfounded, then a copy of the record should take care of it. If not, then he should have to explain how his head was so messed up that he could put his victim(s) through the hassle of dealing with their missing stuff, and how, if at all, it is different now, such that he is fit for whatever situation in which the question comes up.
This is an excellent reason for the UK's Rehabilitation of offenders act. It's illegal to discriminate employment-wise once a conviction is spent - five years for non-custodial sentences, immediately for cautions, longer or forever for anything serious. (There are certain exceptions, however). It's also considered libel to maliciously publish the conviction after that time, and you can lie about it on insurance forms and not be sued for it. (Insurance companies normally don't ask about driving convictions over five years ago, for example).