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

51–60 of 169 posts

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

#51

Post by nhchris »

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…

The old "you have power/privileged/are the oppressor, so should not be allowed any means of defending yourself" trick. Also known as "punching up (good)/down (bad)". Quite popular these days.

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

#52

Post by m463 »

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…

how does that work with speed cameras?

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

#53

Post by dragonwriter »

viscanti wrote: post #47
freejazz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the 6th amd? That's a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what the constitution is, which is a document addressing the powers the gov't is entitled over its citizens, it has nothing to do with civil law. Civil law has had its own standards for as long as either of them have existed. Civil law always has a lower standard than criminal law does. Maybe a better avenue, rather than wielding your obtuse misunders…

No. The argument isn't that the 6th amendment applies. It's that the rationale made sense for criminal cases, and because it makes sense there, it should be included by others (say an HR department coming up with a policy on how to do something with anonymous reports).

> It’s that the rationale made sense for criminal cases, and because it makes sense there, it should be included by others (say an HR department coming up with a policy on how to do something with anonymous reports).

The rationale for the explicitly criminal protections in the legal system, whether in the Constitution (like the Confrontation Clause at issue here) or the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that reaches back to English common law, is that criminal convictions regularly and explicitly result in noncompensable loss of rights, sometimes including life.

HR is not imprisoning or imposing corporal or capital punishments, the same rationale does not apply.

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

#54

Post by version_five »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #39
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…

Yes, exactly. And I understand that you are not suggesting that Stanford is violating the 6th amendment, since this is not a criminal prosecution. What you're saying is that Stanford should adopt the same line of reasoning embodied in the 6th amendment, to the extent that being accused in this fashion is a very high cost, and that the accuser should not be able to escape accountability for making false or misleading…

This is a good clarification - there are so many "it's not the government, constitution doesn't apply" comments that ignore that fact that the constitution is generally good advice for large institutions and it's a valid criticism when their policies differ, even of there is no legal requirement

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

#56

Post by WalterBright »

anigbrowl wrote: post #21
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…

"All three said they wouldn’t discuss their views publicly on campus for fear of being reported to the school’s bias-response team for harassing students who disagree with them."

Anonymous complaints are ok and are important to allow. Providing an official method for "name and shame" based on anonymous complaints are not. Having a "bias-response team" come after you based on anonymous complaints is not acceptable.

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

#57

Post by freejazz »

viscanti wrote: post #47
freejazz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the 6th amd? That's a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what the constitution is, which is a document addressing the powers the gov't is entitled over its citizens, it has nothing to do with civil law. Civil law has had its own standards for as long as either of them have existed. Civil law always has a lower standard than criminal law does. Maybe a better avenue, rather than wielding your obtuse misunders…

No. The argument isn't that the 6th amendment applies. It's that the rationale made sense for criminal cases, and because it makes sense there, it should be included by others (say an HR department coming up with a policy on how to do something with anonymous reports).

But those aren't criminal proceedings, they don't have any of the requirements of a fair trial... are you saying that any time a private institution does anything that can have an adverse effect on an individual, they need to employ the standards of criminal law? have you even remotely considered what that would entail? or you are you just being smarmy online.

also, who would enforce it? say your company gives you a negative review because they don't like your work product - they now need to empanel a jury, and a judge? how is that going to work? if they don't, I'd imagine it'd have to be a criminal penalty because what would be the point if it was just civil? so now the gov't is forcing your company to have a trial over your review? give me a break, dude.

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

#58

Post by IncRnd »

m463 wrote: post #52
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…

how does that work with speed cameras?

I don't know of a camera that can write a ticket. My understanding is that the accuser is normally the officer of the court who signed the ticket, after making a determination based upon the camera's recorded video. If you are told that the People of the are the accuser, it doesn't seem as if you can be charged criminally, unless all the People of the State are brought into court.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), so maybe one could respond?

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

#59

Post by erosenbe0 »

my_usernam3 wrote: post #29

> 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, r…

If the accused uses "G" universally as his version of "dude" or "bro," then that isn't bias, just maybe a lack of tactfulness. If he uses "G" for guys who wear nice clothes, "dude" for surfer-looking guys, and "bro" for guys with muscles, it is also not racial or ethnic bias. It would seem that a [legitimate] investigator would need at least some kind of information on that before having cause to investigate.

Perhaps the reporter didn't give us all the info from Mr. Sanchez, and there is more evidence of bias then we were informed of.

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

#60

Post by freejazz »

db48x wrote: post #49
freejazz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish people would just make their points instead of making statements like this as if I'm a mindreader. I don't know what you know. I don't know what you don't understand. Reading this post, I would assume you don't understand a lot about the constitution, so I ask that you make your point clearly.

The third amendment states that no soldier may be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, but since that only applies to the government it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. This was a pretty common tactic of oppression back before the war; it’s harder to plot a rebellion if a squad of Redcoats is camped ou…

McDonald's doesn't have soldiers, but if they did and you allowed them to stay, what exactly would be the problem?

> it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission.

really? trespass and private property are not a thing, or just not in your hypothetical because it would obviously be stupid then? like, are you seriously argue that because the constitution doesn't prohibit people from coming into your homes, people can come into your homes? did you think that through?

Post reply on HN