Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 169 posts

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#11

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

burnished wrote: post #7
afraid_to_speak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this is the actual issue? HR doesn't have to be upheld to the sixth amendment. If someone makes a complaint about me at work, I don't exactly have the right to know my accuser. The issue is that the people that now make up these corporations and various education administrations don't care about these protections people are granted when dealing with the federal government. Maybe they should be? That would be an…

Its unclear to me the point you are trying to make. It reads to me that you think because that law does not apply here that the principles involved do not? Your points about freedom of association are likewise illegible in this context.

Those don't apply to "at-will" employment - you have freedom of speech in that you won't be sent to jail, but you can easily be fired for something you say. That law actually doesn't apply here because the situation is different. This affects freedom of association because it supports the rights of individuals to form organizations, and also for the organization to deny membership, so the school has the right to remove a professor if the student body doesn't want them for some reason

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#12

Post by lliamander »

afraid_to_speak wrote: post #4
WalterBright wrote: post #3

Anonymous accusations are a fine way to harass and intimidate anyone you disagree with or have a grudge against. As the article points out, it's a fine tool for oppression. A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it: > Sixth Amendment > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…

Isn't this is the actual issue? HR doesn't have to be upheld to the sixth amendment. If someone makes a complaint about me at work, I don't exactly have the right to know my accuser. The issue is that the people that now make up these corporations and various education administrations don't care about these protections people are granted when dealing with the federal government. Maybe they should be? That would be an…

> After all, no one is forcing you to teach at Stanford right?

Sure, the point is not that the bill of rights applies to Stanford. The point is that the teachers are morally right, for the same reason that we have the 6th ammendment.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#13

Post by floren »

HALtheWise wrote: post #10
afraid_to_speak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this is the actual issue? HR doesn't have to be upheld to the sixth amendment. If someone makes a complaint about me at work, I don't exactly have the right to know my accuser. The issue is that the people that now make up these corporations and various education administrations don't care about these protections people are granted when dealing with the federal government. Maybe they should be? That would be an…

Nitpicking, but I think people here often don't think clearly about the value of expecting Constitution-inspired behaviors from non-government organizations. This frequently comes up when discussing free speech on moderated online platforms. In particular, there are underlying reasons that we want the US government to respect certain individual freedoms, and to the extent that some other organization is sufficiently…

> In the case of a university, I think it's pretty clear that Stanford is a de-facto government over the students attending there. Sure, attendance is technically voluntary and you can leave at any time, but that's also true of normal governments, especially state and local governments. The key thing is that being forced to leave your home and community to avoid a state government violating your rights would really suck, so that gives them a significant position of power over you, and we have a constitution to ensure they don't abuse it.

Not to mention that moving to another state requires... a U-Haul and an apartment lease. Becoming a "citizen" of Stanford takes a hell of a lot more work, and if you annoy somebody enough that he and a dozen friends make false anonymous reports to get you kicked out, well, that was your chance, hope you like CSU Chico.

edit: actually I googled Chico and it looks pretty nice, I was just trying to think of a "remote"/unfashionable state school, no offense meant to Chico grads

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#14

Post by lliamander »

blindriver wrote: post #6

This should all be looked upon through the lens of power structures. If you're talking about an a student launching a complaint against another student, it should be non-anonymous because they are at the same power level. If you're talking about a complaint against a faculty member or the school itself, or the government, anonymity should be allowed. In this case, anonymity should be removed when it's a student compl…

I think we are in basic agreement.

> If you're talking about a complaint against a faculty member or the school itself, or the government, anonymity should be allowed.

I would just nuance this by saying yes, but so long as such anonymous complaints are only the beginning of the investigation, rather than the end.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#15

Post by dragonwriter »

WalterBright wrote: post #3

Anonymous accusations are a fine way to harass and intimidate anyone you disagree with or have a grudge against. As the article points out, it's a fine tool for oppression. A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it: > Sixth Amendment > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…

> In all criminal prosecutions,

...not in non-criminal government actions, or in private contexts.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#16

Post by yodon »

blindriver wrote: post #6

This should all be looked upon through the lens of power structures. If you're talking about an a student launching a complaint against another student, it should be non-anonymous because they are at the same power level. If you're talking about a complaint against a faculty member or the school itself, or the government, anonymity should be allowed. In this case, anonymity should be removed when it's a student compl…

When an anonymous accusation has the potential to be career ending for the accused, the simplistic assessment of relative power between parties ceases to be correct. This is why the constitution (which doesn't apply here but was very thoughtfully designed) requires that defendants be given the right to face their accusers.

Valid accusations and false accusations happen in all forms of law. There are commonly power or status differentials in the context of accusations. The constitution and 200+ years of case law have left our legal system far from perfect but far better than the ad hoc, administrator-defined, corporate insurance rate protecting pretend legal systems put in place by universities and the like.

The right to face your accuser is a critical right that exists to facilitate legal systems arriving at the truly best right answer.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#17

Post by erosenbe0 »

afraid_to_speak wrote: post #4
WalterBright wrote: post #3

Anonymous accusations are a fine way to harass and intimidate anyone you disagree with or have a grudge against. As the article points out, it's a fine tool for oppression. A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it: > Sixth Amendment > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…

Isn't this is the actual issue? HR doesn't have to be upheld to the sixth amendment. If someone makes a complaint about me at work, I don't exactly have the right to know my accuser. The issue is that the people that now make up these corporations and various education administrations don't care about these protections people are granted when dealing with the federal government. Maybe they should be? That would be an…

Stanford takes lots of federal money so HR is bound to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, plus Title IX and Section 504. If the bias investigations result in a discriminatory disparate impact or some kind of double standard they will eventually get steamrolled.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#18

Post by viscanti »

dragonwriter wrote: post #15
WalterBright wrote: post #3

Anonymous accusations are a fine way to harass and intimidate anyone you disagree with or have a grudge against. As the article points out, it's a fine tool for oppression. A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it: > Sixth Amendment > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…

> In all criminal prosecutions, ...not in non-criminal government actions, or in private contexts.

It appears the argument is that was included for a good reason for criminal cases and shows a precedent for it. The argument isn't that civil cases are currently covered, but that they should be.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

HALtheWise wrote: post #10
afraid_to_speak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this is the actual issue? HR doesn't have to be upheld to the sixth amendment. If someone makes a complaint about me at work, I don't exactly have the right to know my accuser. The issue is that the people that now make up these corporations and various education administrations don't care about these protections people are granted when dealing with the federal government. Maybe they should be? That would be an…

Nitpicking, but I think people here often don't think clearly about the value of expecting Constitution-inspired behaviors from non-government organizations. This frequently comes up when discussing free speech on moderated online platforms. In particular, there are underlying reasons that we want the US government to respect certain individual freedoms, and to the extent that some other organization is sufficiently…

> Nitpicking, but I think people here often don't think clearly about the value of expecting Constitution-inspired behaviors from non-government organizations

Especially when even for the government, those rules don't apply outside of the criminal sphere.

(Those rules that apply to government outside of the criminal sphere are more often appropriate expectations for fairness in private interactions; “due process” in broad terms is appropriate, whereas the specific criminal procedural protections generally are not.)

Post reply on HN