4 ms·

Again, I believe you are misunderstanding the situation and creating an argument based on a misleading headline from the Think Tank that was sourced for the art

by csydas 8y ago

Again, I believe you are misunderstanding the situation and creating an argument based on a misleading headline from the Think Tank that was sourced for the article. The complaint is not that YikYak wasn't blocked -- it's that no action was taken by the University to investigate the threats properly and readily. Blocking YikYak was simply __an option__ which the University could have taken, but that wasn't the thrust of the plaintiffs' argument at all. The point of Blocking YikYak was more of a point that "well, you absolutely could have done something", rather than a prescribed course of action. * I'm sorry, but you're arguing a point that was not made by the plaintiffs and also is not related to the actual court Opinion either. The crux of the complaint is that in light of real, credible threats, the University took no action whatsoever. The Opinion is more about how the defenses of anonymity made it "impossible" for the University to act and that 1st Amendment protections prohibited [the university] from doing so were considered invalid in light of other case law. *Nevermind that YikYak itself had built in a blackout system like this which would rapidly allow Universities to simple blackout the GPS coordinates of the University if there was a request from the Administration. YikYak had a built-in censorship/disabling tool for a long time. No effort would be needed to specifically block YikYak aside from a simple letter on some department letterhead.

mbrumlow 8y ago
I don't think it is the job of the university to investigate or take action. We already have laws -- use those. Universities are not equipped to investigate and have guidelines to do so with due process. Making them responsible completely bypasses entire sections of law. Somebody threatens you at the gym. It's not the gyms responsibility to investigate and take action. You call the cops. That is what you do. Making other organizations reposnable for legal matters is just a way to bypass the law and do whatever the hell you want. Simply put universities can't be the judge jury and executioner of the law.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  You do realize that almost every university on the US has its own police force? They are absolutely equipped to investigate crimes, or they’re at least as qualified as the town police would be.
  - Fezzik 8y ago
    I was about to write that this was not true, because I could not believe it, but boy was I wrong: “in the 2004-05 school year, 74% of college campuses had sworn officers with the power to arrest, and 90% of these departments were armed”. [0]. That seems absurd to me! I went to tiny liberal arts schools for undergrad/grad school, and we just had nice dudes with pepper spray that walked around occasionally. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    Pro Tip: the university police has a conflict of interest, they will prefer to sweep violent crime under the rug rather than deal with it because bad statistics will make the place look bad. The GP poster is correct to be concerned that investigative and judicial powers are vested in the same entity; we usually keep them separate, and for good reason.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      As someone from the US, universities having their own police forces is between authoritarian and barking mad. It seems downright at odds with both its proposed functionality and goals. The design seems like it would cynically be used to suppress student movements yet it is mostly used to softball enforcement for sake of reputations and not alienating students. Having police for demographics seems inherently suspicious from a standpoint of liberty as it is either for undue crackdowns or undue lenience separate from official legal status. To give an absurd yet rationally based hypothetical - if it was official that it was in the interest of the state and people for college students to get more lenient drug and alcohol sentences because they want to encourage a limited degree of exploration to better innovation they wouldn't need a seperate police force because it was already codified in law. This is distinct from when there are actual practical differences for given groups to be policed - a specialized white collar crime police force makes perfect sense as the needs are different. Similarly military police in a provost [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provost_(military_police) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provost_(military_police)] role are justifiable. I'm not saying campuses should go unpoliced. I'm saying that the approach is suspect for the situation even if it is just a stupid historical artifact. Keeping an office of a police station on a sufficiently large campus but part of the normal state or city policing is fine - just because they are part of a university doesn't mean they are outside their jurisdiction. Deciding to have a security force that specifically don't have policing powers but enforce rules 'privately' is also fine.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  1. A university education is a massive advantage in various measures of success 2. Universities have often been actively hostile towards various groups These two facts caused a lot of government regulation to be applied to universities, which includes the university taking steps to prevent a "hostile environment." This means that policing harassment is often a legal requirement on universities, and was put in place so that the universities could not rely on the existing student body to do the discrimination on behalf of the university. That is to say prior to the laws that are being applied in this case, we had laws against harassment and they didn't work. At least partly this is because harassment is usually not a federal crime, so the federal government could not force the states to enforce those laws.

by csydas 8y ago

mbrumlow 8y ago

I don't think it is the job of the university to investigate or take action. We already have laws -- use those. Universities are not equipped to investigate and have guidelines to do so with due process. Making them responsible completely bypasses entire sections of law. Somebody threatens you at the gym. It's not the gyms responsibility to investigate and take action. You call the cops. That is what you do. Making other organizations reposnable for legal matters is just a way to bypass the law and do whatever the hell you want. Simply put universities can't be the judge jury and executioner of the law.

alistairSH 8y ago
You do realize that almost every university on the US has its own police force? They are absolutely equipped to investigate crimes, or they’re at least as qualified as the town police would be.
- Fezzik 8y ago
  I was about to write that this was not true, because I could not believe it, but boy was I wrong: “in the 2004-05 school year, 74% of college campuses had sworn officers with the power to arrest, and 90% of these departments were armed”. [0]. That seems absurd to me! I went to tiny liberal arts schools for undergrad/grad school, and we just had nice dudes with pepper spray that walked around occasionally. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  Pro Tip: the university police has a conflict of interest, they will prefer to sweep violent crime under the rug rather than deal with it because bad statistics will make the place look bad. The GP poster is correct to be concerned that investigative and judicial powers are vested in the same entity; we usually keep them separate, and for good reason.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    As someone from the US, universities having their own police forces is between authoritarian and barking mad. It seems downright at odds with both its proposed functionality and goals. The design seems like it would cynically be used to suppress student movements yet it is mostly used to softball enforcement for sake of reputations and not alienating students. Having police for demographics seems inherently suspicious from a standpoint of liberty as it is either for undue crackdowns or undue lenience separate from official legal status. To give an absurd yet rationally based hypothetical - if it was official that it was in the interest of the state and people for college students to get more lenient drug and alcohol sentences because they want to encourage a limited degree of exploration to better innovation they wouldn't need a seperate police force because it was already codified in law. This is distinct from when there are actual practical differences for given groups to be policed - a specialized white collar crime police force makes perfect sense as the needs are different. Similarly military police in a provost [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provost_(military_police) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provost_(military_police)] role are justifiable. I'm not saying campuses should go unpoliced. I'm saying that the approach is suspect for the situation even if it is just a stupid historical artifact. Keeping an office of a police station on a sufficiently large campus but part of the normal state or city policing is fine - just because they are part of a university doesn't mean they are outside their jurisdiction. Deciding to have a security force that specifically don't have policing powers but enforce rules 'privately' is also fine.
aidenn0 8y ago
1. A university education is a massive advantage in various measures of success 2. Universities have often been actively hostile towards various groups These two facts caused a lot of government regulation to be applied to universities, which includes the university taking steps to prevent a "hostile environment." This means that policing harassment is often a legal requirement on universities, and was put in place so that the universities could not rely on the existing student body to do the discrimination on behalf of the university. That is to say prior to the laws that are being applied in this case, we had laws against harassment and they didn't work. At least partly this is because harassment is usually not a federal crime, so the federal government could not force the states to enforce those laws.