4 ms·

Fair, however the text when updated includes: "which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members" Again, disruption to mem

Fair, however the text when updated includes: "which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members" Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as "making feel uncomfortable". The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the "disruption" caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution's academic goals. This is functionally the same point, just couched in slightly more vague terminology.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Yes, but it doesn't say that the school is actively monitoring anything. The title of the article makes it sound like they are requiring passwords to people's social media accounts--like the US government does for visa applicants.
ncallaway 5y ago
Okay, fine. I totally understand some people might have complaints with the previous language and the new language. Can you help me understand how the headline of linked post isn't just...factually wrong, though? The headline is: "University of Oregon will monitor students' social media statements". Unless I'm missing something that's just factually incorrect. What I'd like to get to is: Did I miss something, or is that headline just wrong? A sentence from the article is: "Now, the Board of Trustees at the University of Oregon have approved a vague policy that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other “conduct” of its students" I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document. Again, I'm trying to figure out: did I miss something or fail to understand something, or is that sentence just factually wrong?
- trutannus 5y ago
  > I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document. You're correct. Digging deeper, I find no mention either. The title is factually incorrect. I will make updates to my comment to reflect this so as to avoid providing false information. That said, this sort of action is still deeply concerning given that someone can now bring social media posts and speech to the attention of the university for sanction.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Couldn't they do that before this change? And why is it deeply concerning? I'm pretty sure if someone tweeted "gonna plant a bomb on campus tomorrow" or "planning to burn down my professor's house at 123 Main St, anyone interested DM me, good luck @ProfessorBrown" the school could have done something about it even without this policy. And if not, this new policy is clearly necessary. If you think the policy is too broad and covers more than just these extreme examples, I'd love to see a rule that only covers such extremes and can't possibly be abused.
    - trutannus 5y ago
      The thing is, this sort of activity is already covered under criminal law like you said. The rules from the university form a redundant legal system, and as a result are open to abuses given the lower standards of harm and evidence used. So, to answer your question, the regulation could sanction people convicted of violent offences when the violent offenses pertain the the university and/or it's members. Therefore: "The university reserves the right to sanction members of its community who have been convicted of acts of violence, or convicted of making credible threats of violence, against it's members."
      - burkaman 5y ago
        Ok, but since getting suspended or kicked out of school is a much lighter penalty than getting put in prison, we can easily imagine behavior that doesn't quite rise to the level of criminal assault or harassment, but does deserve university punishment. It's also common for the legal process to take years, and we can imagine a student continuing to attend the university normally and graduating, and then finally being convicted of something that happened in their junior year. "lower standards of harm and evidence" are used because the consequences are lower. As the importance of an organization grows, the standards grow. At the lowest end of the spectrum, you don't need any evidence or process to kick someone out of a house party, because the stakes are very low. At the highest end, you need a ton of evidence and process to kick someone out of society by imprisoning them, because the stakes couldn't be higher. There's a big spectrum in between - banning someone from a store/sports stadium/airline, kicking someone out of a professional organization, firing someone from a job, etc. I don't know the details of UofO's process, but I do think it's appropriate that they have lower standards and faster responses than a criminal prosecution.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

Yes, but it doesn't say that the school is actively monitoring anything. The title of the article makes it sound like they are requiring passwords to people's social media accounts--like the US government does for visa applicants.

ncallaway 5y ago

Okay, fine. I totally understand some people might have complaints with the previous language and the new language. Can you help me understand how the headline of linked post isn't just...factually wrong, though? The headline is: "University of Oregon will monitor students' social media statements". Unless I'm missing something that's just factually incorrect. What I'd like to get to is: Did I miss something, or is that headline just wrong? A sentence from the article is: "Now, the Board of Trustees at the University of Oregon have approved a vague policy that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other “conduct” of its students" I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document. Again, I'm trying to figure out: did I miss something or fail to understand something, or is that sentence just factually wrong?

trutannus 5y ago
> I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document. You're correct. Digging deeper, I find no mention either. The title is factually incorrect. I will make updates to my comment to reflect this so as to avoid providing false information. That said, this sort of action is still deeply concerning given that someone can now bring social media posts and speech to the attention of the university for sanction.
- burkaman 5y ago
  Couldn't they do that before this change? And why is it deeply concerning? I'm pretty sure if someone tweeted "gonna plant a bomb on campus tomorrow" or "planning to burn down my professor's house at 123 Main St, anyone interested DM me, good luck @ProfessorBrown" the school could have done something about it even without this policy. And if not, this new policy is clearly necessary. If you think the policy is too broad and covers more than just these extreme examples, I'd love to see a rule that only covers such extremes and can't possibly be abused.
  - trutannus 5y ago
    The thing is, this sort of activity is already covered under criminal law like you said. The rules from the university form a redundant legal system, and as a result are open to abuses given the lower standards of harm and evidence used. So, to answer your question, the regulation could sanction people convicted of violent offences when the violent offenses pertain the the university and/or it's members. Therefore: "The university reserves the right to sanction members of its community who have been convicted of acts of violence, or convicted of making credible threats of violence, against it's members."
    - burkaman 5y ago
      Ok, but since getting suspended or kicked out of school is a much lighter penalty than getting put in prison, we can easily imagine behavior that doesn't quite rise to the level of criminal assault or harassment, but does deserve university punishment. It's also common for the legal process to take years, and we can imagine a student continuing to attend the university normally and graduating, and then finally being convicted of something that happened in their junior year. "lower standards of harm and evidence" are used because the consequences are lower. As the importance of an organization grows, the standards grow. At the lowest end of the spectrum, you don't need any evidence or process to kick someone out of a house party, because the stakes are very low. At the highest end, you need a ton of evidence and process to kick someone out of society by imprisoning them, because the stakes couldn't be higher. There's a big spectrum in between - banning someone from a store/sports stadium/airline, kicking someone out of a professional organization, firing someone from a job, etc. I don't know the details of UofO's process, but I do think it's appropriate that they have lower standards and faster responses than a criminal prosecution.