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

21–30 of 169 posts

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

#21

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

But anonymous posters are also exercising their free speech. Sometimes this is out of a genuine fear of political persecution, sometimes it's hateful trolling or spamming (a problem not helped by anonymous domain registration, for example). A prohibition on anonymity has very negative implications for privacy.

I's weird that a rational person like yourself conflates all anonymous speech with criminal prosecutions, a very narrow subset of public communications. Can you clarify what your broader position on anonymity is?

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

#22

Post by blindriver »

yodon wrote: post #16
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…

Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.

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

#23

Post by blindriver »

lliamander wrote: post #14
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.

Agreed. As I mention above, anonymity should be revealed once the investigation has reached a certain point, because now the power balance has shifted and the faculty member or whatnot has lost significant power.

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

#24

Post by burnished »

kube-system wrote: post #9
burnished wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The principles outlined in the Bill of Rights are within the context of a relationship with a government that uses force to apply their actions without any higher recourse. Losing a job is different in magnitude than being sentenced to death or imprisonment.

So you wouldnt suggest that you should generally be able to know who your accuser is (the principle), but rather that is a standard we hold the process of whether or not some one can out you into a little box?

Thats coherent. I was originally thinking about this as a 'good for the goose, good for the gander' situation because the idea that you should generally speaking know who is accusing you and of what seems pretty reasonable.

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

#25

Post by lliamander »

yodon wrote: post #16
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…

> When an anonymous accusation has the potential to be career ending for the accused

I think this is only a problem when people treat such accusations as evidence or proof of wrongdoing, which they absolutely are not. At most, it can be cause to investigate further.

We do have whistle-blower protection laws, and I think those serve an important function in our legal context.

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

#26

Post by xienze »

blindriver wrote: post #22
yodon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.

> or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.

How are either of those things determined? “Bad faith” seems to be a tool used to dismiss accusations without any objective basis, and determining if a claim is fraudulent may very well depend on the accused being able to rebut a claim based on knowing who the accuser in question is.

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

#27

Post by korroziya »

I understand how Stanford is a proper univeristy, but given how the college industry as a whole has done nothing but abuse students with predatory tactics aimed to squeeze every last drop of money out of them, I'm hard-pressed to shed a tear for professors. Not their fault per se, but still.

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

#29

Post by my_usernam3 »

> Senior Christian Sanchez, executive vice president of the Associated Students of Stanford University, the student-government group, said the system is necessary and important. Mr. Sanchez, who describes himself as Chicano, said he has bristled in the past when another student has addressed him as “G,” short for gangster.

Is he implying this is a reportable offense? I've never heard "G" used in a derogatory sense, rather always endearing. Do we not allow language to evolve?

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

#30

Post by chmod600 »

floren wrote: post #13
HALtheWise wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

"if you annoy somebody enough that he and a dozen friends make false anonymous reports to get you kicked out"

There's all kinds of reasons that might happen that aren't your fault. In the past, maybe having the wrong skin color might have done it. In the present, I'm sure you can think of some ways to be unpopular that aren't a good reason to get kicked out.

One-sided power is never good.

Post reply on HN