Slashdot Log In
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: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: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.
"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.
... [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 ;)"
Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above:
Moderation system... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Moderation system... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same alleged reason that
Parent
Re:Moderation system... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, I'm just happy that now at least they've got a category for dupes, so that nobody has to complain about it in the comments anymore!
(But I know they're going to anyway, because they're too stupid or lazy to just turn off the category.)
Re:Moderation system... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Moderation system... (Score:2, Funny)
"Double Moderation!!"
"Mega Moderation!!"
"M-M-M-M-MONSTER MODERATION!!"
Re:Moderation system... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Moderation system... (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:Moderation system... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Also, Offtopic (ironically): Comments discussing the nature of this type of article
Re:Moderation system... (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice how the common defense of Slashdot for complaints about the quantity, quality or timeliness of news is "I come here for the comments, not for the articles"?
Well, there you have it.
That's my theory, anyway.
Re:Moderation system... (Score:5, Funny)
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:
Parent
Consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net] -- Exercise for the rest of us.
Re:Consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's almost as if the ones making the decision have no understanding of the internet at all.
Parent
Re:Consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The University's problem isn't that drunk pictures of their players are showing up on the web, it's that the players are putting them there in a way that cannot be denied.
I can go on MySpace and pretend to be someone who I know well.
Not so on Facebook.
Parent
Re:Consistent? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end, this just ruins it for everyone that is not abusing the alcohol, all so that some guy can say to his friends 'look at me, I'm a badass, I breakin' the law, and no one can do anything to me!"
I am not saying that 18-20 year olds drinking and carousing is a good thing. But when these pictures
Re:Consistent? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's Facebook's main advantage (sorting people into nifty hierarchies) but I suspect it'll bring Facebook down (this KSU situation is just a beginning.)
Facebook made sense as a little website for Harvard, but aggregating this much information on people all sorted by college email address I just can't see working out in the long run (privacy issues, school identity issues, etc.)
Facebook will likely have to adopt Myspace's ope
Re:Consistent? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Skidmore's hook-up server (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Skidmore's hook-up server (Score:3, Funny)
So it is basically like Myspace, but without pretending to be about music, friendship, clubs, etc.
There used to be general public websites like that, but I suspected they were used solely to get lists of valid email addresses for spamming purposes.
Finkployd
Re:Consistent? (Score:2)
Personally I do not have a great problem with this. Those sites do represent the school, and do you really want some college kid responsible for the
Brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Brilliant (Score:2, Offtopic)
?? This was more like an AP article
Re:Brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
-stormin
Re:Brilliant (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
If what we do best is have good discussion, doesn't it make sense to treat the good discussion as resource?
I, for one, almost never go past the first page of comments because you just get lost in the maze. So even with the mod system, I retrospective on the discussion itself - as long as it's not over done and the comments are chosen with some talent - makes a lot of sense to me.
Besides, I'd definit
Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I realize that. But A - I prefer to read at -1 for the most part and it's a pain to change back and forth and B - I definitely wouldn't want to ready at just +5 because in general I'm more interested in seeing a developing discussion rather than discrete, disjoint points.
The difference is that timothy picked a sprinkling of points that were not only insightful, but diverse. I'd have to read through a ton of +5 points to see the diversity he got there. I don't think it's a replacement for seeing the argument unfold myself, but if I'm too busy (and I often am) than I'd rather have a good editor assemble the best points then sift through dozens of +5 points myself.
If you're really not suggesting they refrain from trying out new ideas, than we have no disgreement. But despite your protests to the contrary if you say "this has never worked in the past, therefore it will never work in the future" you are discouraging new ideas. As long as they think they have a way of making "original content" (as you put it) then I say they should go for it. It costs me nothing to have one "BackSlash" post up there experimentally. If it succeeds, fine. If not; try again in a few days or weeks or months with something else.
-stormin
Parent
I'll say it again.. (Score:2)
If you don't like their policy, just leave the school. Eventually they will see the error in their ways. This is just a growing trend and is going to get worse. Social networking sites are a rather new addition and once the hype dies down, so will stupid stories like this.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]new feature... (Score:5, Funny)
[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.
Re:new feature... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know your joking a bit.. but if you hadn't noticed, there's an unofficial digg vs. slashdot thing that has been going on for some time now. This is
Isn't competition grand
Re:new feature... (Score:3, Funny)
Finkployd
Infuriated (Score:2, Insightful)
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 a
Re:Infuriated (Score:2)
Re:Infuriated (Score:2)
> they've gone too far.
But that implies that athletes get an education.....
Can you blame them? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:3, Funny)
Private U's "Fighting Ethicists" vs. State U's "Bad Behaviorists" Hmmm, who do I bet on?
sports as entertainment (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
False representation of person (Score:2)
How well would an argument of "You accessed my profile illegally to bring charges against me!" work?
Re:False representation of person (Score:2)
Re:False representation of person (Score:5, Funny)
-=[ 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 [facebook.com] if you haven't already, and read the Member Conduct section closely.
Parent
Re:False representation of person (Score:2)
This Editor Piece introduces bias. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Bias? Balance, perhaps. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Drinking Age (Score:3, Interesting)
KSU is being an ostrich (Score:3, Informative)
Many of these photos and entries are timestamped and certain events in Kent only happen once a year Thus it would be easy enough to demonstrate that the breach occured within the time specified in the contract.
According to university policy if a breach is reported they have to investigate it and if the reporting person is agitated enough the university then faces another legal issue. A large enough wager/bribe on an important game and a few well placed free-beers and digital cameras would make a good payday for someone.
If it matters, I'm a KSU student. Graduating (escaping) in August. I suspect this might have something to do with Kents new president, but don't give a shit so long as they give me my diploma.
Don't donate to Kent State, and discourage others (Score:3, Informative)
OK. So don't donate to Kent State's athletic scholarship program [kentstatesports.com]. Put a note on your website and blog encouraging others not to do so. Write to Tim Hall, Associate Athletic Director for Development at Kent State [mailto] and tell him what you did. Starve the beast.
If you're in Ohio, write to your state legislator and complain about the "arrogant state employees at Kent State" who think they have the right to muzzle their students.
If you're at Kent State, step one is to register to vote, and get as many other students as you can to register. You know what to do after that.
Re:so... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:so... (Score:2, Informative)
As an aside, it looks like they're making use of this part of the TOS:
Re:so... (Score:2)
Re:so... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent