[winflop]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-fa..._permalink

Curious what others think about this. I have my own opinions but I want to hear from others first.

[winflop]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-fa..._permalink

Curious what others think about this. I have my own opinions but I want to hear from others first.

[lex24]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-fa..._permalink

Curious what others think about this. I have my own opinions but I want to hear from others first.

Professor Berman is right, it is a form of McCarthyism. I’m not a fan of anonymous reporting for “speech violations “ at Universities.  I think it’s potentially abused.  And I don’t think it advances the ball on understanding. 

The “Mein Kompf” incident is a good example. The person anonymously reporting obviously assumed the worst (so common in todays society) of the reader. But the more likely scenario is the person is a history student studying Germany circa 1920s through WW II.

Another example - the student who bristles when called G. I understand his anger. (Although I didn’t know G is short for Gangster. But I’m old…..). Instead of anonymous reporting, how about he discuss it with the person that said it? Bring it up, tell the person why it’s offensive.  Have a discussion.  Maybe both will learn something.

Isn’t that what College is about?

[lex24]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-fa..._permalink

Curious what others think about this. I have my own opinions but I want to hear from others first.

Professor Berman is right, it is a form of McCarthyism. I’m not a fan of anonymous reporting for “speech violations “ at Universities.  I think it’s potentially abused.  And I don’t think it advances the ball on understanding. 

The “Mein Kompf” incident is a good example. The person anonymously reporting obviously assumed the worst (so common in todays society) of the reader. But the more likely scenario is the person is a history student studying Germany circa 1920s through WW II.

Another example - the student who bristles when called G. I understand his anger. (Although I didn’t know G is short for Gangster. But I’m old…..). Instead of anonymous reporting, how about he discuss it with the person that said it? Bring it up, tell the person why it’s offensive.  Have a discussion.  Maybe both will learn something.

Isn’t that what College is about?

[Mick]

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

(United States v. Bench, 82 M.J. 388), in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.

Other people who supported anonymous informing on their fellow citizens:

[Mick]

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

(United States v. Bench, 82 M.J. 388), in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.

Other people who supported anonymous informing on their fellow citizens:

[burger]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  The entire process is voluntary.  And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article. Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

There was a similar BS story about how Stanford had "banned" a bunch of words floating around a couple of months ago, and that turned out to be almost entirely untrue as well.

Let's not forget that the first amendment has nothing to say about private organizations. There is only one actual threat to free speech in this country, and it's bills like the "don't say gay" law in Florida.

[burger]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  The entire process is voluntary.  And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article. Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

There was a similar BS story about how Stanford had "banned" a bunch of words floating around a couple of months ago, and that turned out to be almost entirely untrue as well.

Let's not forget that the first amendment has nothing to say about private organizations. There is only one actual threat to free speech in this country, and it's bills like the "don't say gay" law in Florida.

[cardcrimson]

Was going to comment, but I see that the thread has veered way into the political arena, so, as I'm on thin ice here anyway, I won't. Sad to see political shots taken so quickly. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Was going to comment, but I see that the thread has veered way into the political arena, so, as I'm on thin ice here anyway, I won't. Sad to see political shots taken so quickly. . . .

[Mick]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  

Phew! So that necessarily means that there aren't any others and won't be any others. Good to have your guarantee.

And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article.  

Glad we have your guarantee that no discipline of any sort has been raised, implemented or threatened and never will be. Again, good to know. It does, however, raise the question as to why such a system would exist in the first place. If there's no identification or discipline contemplated, why have it?

Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

Again, my bad. I thought it was obvious that I was drawing parallels between authoritarian bodies who encouraged anonymous informing on fellow citizens, and who had disciplinary power over those subjects. 

Hope that clears it up for you. I, for one, am very glad to have your personal guarantee -- implied, not expressed -- that no student will ever be informed upon, or dragged in front of a disciplinary body based upon anonymously delivered information, and that no student will ever be tempted to use such a process to cause grief for another student by naming names -- you should forgive the terminology -- of people who didn't actually cause the offense.

[Mick]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  

Phew! So that necessarily means that there aren't any others and won't be any others. Good to have your guarantee.

And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article.  

Glad we have your guarantee that no discipline of any sort has been raised, implemented or threatened and never will be. Again, good to know. It does, however, raise the question as to why such a system would exist in the first place. If there's no identification or discipline contemplated, why have it?

Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

Again, my bad. I thought it was obvious that I was drawing parallels between authoritarian bodies who encouraged anonymous informing on fellow citizens, and who had disciplinary power over those subjects. 

Hope that clears it up for you. I, for one, am very glad to have your personal guarantee -- implied, not expressed -- that no student will ever be informed upon, or dragged in front of a disciplinary body based upon anonymously delivered information, and that no student will ever be tempted to use such a process to cause grief for another student by naming names -- you should forgive the terminology -- of people who didn't actually cause the offense.

[burger]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  

Phew! So that necessarily means that there aren't any others and won't be any others. Good to have your guarantee.

And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article.  

Glad we have your guarantee that no discipline of any sort has been raised, implemented or threatened and never will be. Again, good to know. It does, however, raise the question as to why such a system would exist in the first place. If there's no identification or discipline contemplated, why have it?

Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

Again, my bad. I thought it was obvious that I was drawing parallels between authoritarian bodies who encouraged anonymous informing on fellow citizens, and who had disciplinary power over those subjects. 

Hope that clears it up for you. I, for one, am very glad to have your personal guarantee -- implied, not expressed -- that no student will ever be informed upon, or dragged in front of a disciplinary body based upon anonymously delivered information, and that no student will ever be tempted to use such a process to cause grief for another student by naming names -- you should forgive the terminology -- of people who didn't actually cause the offense.

If you don't understand the difference between protections against government abuse and attempts by private organizations to ensure a safe environment, then don't comment on them

Again--THERE IS NO DISCIPLINE HAPPENING HERE.  It's a voluntary process.  The university already has codes against hate speech etc. when that happens.  No discipline--just like the article says.

Much ado about nothing.  Pretty typical for people of a certain political persuasion nowadays.

[burger]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  

Phew! So that necessarily means that there aren't any others and won't be any others. Good to have your guarantee.

And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article.  

Glad we have your guarantee that no discipline of any sort has been raised, implemented or threatened and never will be. Again, good to know. It does, however, raise the question as to why such a system would exist in the first place. If there's no identification or discipline contemplated, why have it?

Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

Again, my bad. I thought it was obvious that I was drawing parallels between authoritarian bodies who encouraged anonymous informing on fellow citizens, and who had disciplinary power over those subjects. 

Hope that clears it up for you. I, for one, am very glad to have your personal guarantee -- implied, not expressed -- that no student will ever be informed upon, or dragged in front of a disciplinary body based upon anonymously delivered information, and that no student will ever be tempted to use such a process to cause grief for another student by naming names -- you should forgive the terminology -- of people who didn't actually cause the offense.

If you don't understand the difference between protections against government abuse and attempts by private organizations to ensure a safe environment, then don't comment on them

Again--THERE IS NO DISCIPLINE HAPPENING HERE.  It's a voluntary process.  The university already has codes against hate speech etc. when that happens.  No discipline--just like the article says.

Much ado about nothing.  Pretty typical for people of a certain political persuasion nowadays.

[lex24]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  

Phew! So that necessarily means that there aren't any others and won't be any others. Good to have your guarantee.

And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article.  

Glad we have your guarantee that no discipline of any sort has been raised, implemented or threatened and never will be. Again, good to know. It does, however, raise the question as to why such a system would exist in the first place. If there's no identification or discipline contemplated, why have it?

Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

Again, my bad. I thought it was obvious that I was drawing parallels between authoritarian bodies who encouraged anonymous informing on fellow citizens, and who had disciplinary power over those subjects. 

Hope that clears it up for you. I, for one, am very glad to have your personal guarantee -- implied, not expressed -- that no student will ever be informed upon, or dragged in front of a disciplinary body based upon anonymously delivered information, and that no student will ever be tempted to use such a process to cause grief for another student by naming names -- you should forgive the terminology -- of people who didn't actually cause the offense.

If you don't understand the difference between protections against government abuse and attempts by private organizations to ensure a safe environment, then don't comment on them

Again--THERE IS NO DISCIPLINE HAPPENING HERE.  It's a voluntary process.  The university already has codes against hate speech etc. when that happens.  No discipline--just like the article says.

Much ado about nothing.  Pretty typical for people of a certain political persuasion nowadays.

The issue of Free Speech is an important one.  And not just in the context of within the First Amendment.  It (at least at one time) was a core value of this country. And if you  truly believe that the only threat to free speech comes from the right, then let me suggest you’re simply not paying attention. Take a look, for example, at what the ACLU has to say about speech codes and the like on college campuses. I don’t think the ACLU is a right wing organization. Is it?

 I actually tried to start a respectful discussion. Guess that can’t happen.

[lex24]

I call bullshit.  Only one instance of a student actually being reported discussed in any detail.  

Phew! So that necessarily means that there aren't any others and won't be any others. Good to have your guarantee.

And no instances of actual discipline of any sort were mentioned in the article.  

Glad we have your guarantee that no discipline of any sort has been raised, implemented or threatened and never will be. Again, good to know. It does, however, raise the question as to why such a system would exist in the first place. If there's no identification or discipline contemplated, why have it?

Mick's mention of Mao and the 6th amendment is a sad joke--no one is being prosecuted by the government.

Again, my bad. I thought it was obvious that I was drawing parallels between authoritarian bodies who encouraged anonymous informing on fellow citizens, and who had disciplinary power over those subjects. 

Hope that clears it up for you. I, for one, am very glad to have your personal guarantee -- implied, not expressed -- that no student will ever be informed upon, or dragged in front of a disciplinary body based upon anonymously delivered information, and that no student will ever be tempted to use such a process to cause grief for another student by naming names -- you should forgive the terminology -- of people who didn't actually cause the offense.

If you don't understand the difference between protections against government abuse and attempts by private organizations to ensure a safe environment, then don't comment on them

Again--THERE IS NO DISCIPLINE HAPPENING HERE.  It's a voluntary process.  The university already has codes against hate speech etc. when that happens.  No discipline--just like the article says.

Much ado about nothing.  Pretty typical for people of a certain political persuasion nowadays.

The issue of Free Speech is an important one.  And not just in the context of within the First Amendment.  It (at least at one time) was a core value of this country. And if you  truly believe that the only threat to free speech comes from the right, then let me suggest you’re simply not paying attention. Take a look, for example, at what the ACLU has to say about speech codes and the like on college campuses. I don’t think the ACLU is a right wing organization. Is it?

 I actually tried to start a respectful discussion. Guess that can’t happen.

[martyup]

Sorry folks, we have to shut this thread down.  It's political and we've had several complaints already.  Remember, this is a Stanford sports board.  There are plenty of other places to debate these important issues.

[martyup]

Sorry folks, we have to shut this thread down.  It's political and we've had several complaints already.  Remember, this is a Stanford sports board.  There are plenty of other places to debate these important issues.