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

61–70 of 169 posts

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

#61

Post by 908B64B197 »

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…

> 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.

That's exactly what happened to Stallman, who was cancelled by a mob citing... an anonymous blog post!

> A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it:

That's the beauty of all these "ethics committees" or "institutional boards" : they don't have to adhere to the much stricter standards of a real court of law. This is, of course, by design.

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

#62

Post by HarryHirsch »

version_five wrote: post #54
Nifty3929 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, yes, and if one continues that line of inquiry further one might argue that things like due process and informal conflict resolution mechanisms are a good idea in employer-employee relationships, just because of the outsize power differential.

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

#63

Post by sys32768 »

>The system is designed to help students get along with one another, said Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman.

So instead of asking a student reading "Mein Kampf" what they are studying and what they have learned thus far from Adolf Hitler's autobiography, we can get along better by reporting them anonymously as a possible Nazi.

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

#64

Post by anigbrowl »

WalterBright wrote: post #56
anigbrowl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But police operate anonymous tiplines and investigate separately. Some people reporting crimes have a fear of retaliation, and sometimes that retaliation might even be rooted in corruption within the police force.

The Supreme Court has ruled (as recently as 2014) that anonymity of report is not a barrier to an investigative stop by police, if the report includes sufficient detail to seem credible (Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014)). That's why I don't think this issue is as simple as you originally presented it to be, notwithstanding the Constitutional language on the topic.

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

#65

Post by db48x »

freejazz wrote: post #60
db48x wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beca…

I was only explaining the comment, not stating that it was a 100% sound legal analysis. The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments.

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

#66

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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…

I'm so done with this performative outrage.

Yesterday somebody called me "dude". According to Wikipedia, dude was a replacement for "dandy" in the late 1800s. I'm gay. How dare thee??!! Where's my check?

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

#67

Post by serverholic »

version_five wrote: post #54
Nifty3929 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Politics is just decision making in groups of people. Similar analyses can be used whether you're talking about government, schools, your workplace, open-source projects, your household, etc.

As a general rule I tend to always interpret these discussions as "how humans interact with each other" unless the discussion itself is about the law.

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

#68

Post by freejazz »

db48x wrote: post #65
freejazz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beca…

I was only explaining the comment, not stating that it was a 100% sound legal analysis. The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments.

That's making a huge assumption on someone else's part, which is a funny thing to do given the comment you responded to. Oh well.

> The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments.

It's not funny at all, it's shockingly ignorant, actually, if anyone thinks what you posted.

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

#70

Post by lapcat »

> The reports are stored in a platform operated by a third party called Maxient, a Charlottesville, Va.-based company that has contracts with 1,300 schools

I'm sure this "anonymous" information will never get out, because of course third parties are extremely secure, and there are never leaks or data breaches.

Post reply on HN