Anybody who has gone to college knows that students say dumb stuff - it's a part of the learning process. So long as it's not physically or psychological harmful, I think folks should let it play out. Healthy normalization is better than forced normalization.
Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
71–80 of 169 posts
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith. If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is, so hiding the accuser does nothing. Hiding the accuser is only ""useful"" when the accused is actually innocent. The entire point of hiding the accuser is to deny the wrongfully accused of the opportunity to defend th…
> If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is
That’s only true if the accused knows the potential accusers and there is a small enough number of potential accusers that it could be reasonably narrowed down.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#73Earlier 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…
> trespass and private property are not a thing
So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it?
If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument!
The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because it's not the government doing it, it's a private corporation" are stupid.
Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument?
It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it.
And they are using a funny example of "well what if a corporation forced you to have soldiers in your house".
That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#74Earlier 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.
I think it's better to let the person who made the comment explain it, since you may or may not understand what they meant by it. No offense, but I felt your interpretation of it confused rather than clarified the issue.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous accusations are easy to abuse. They should be treated with a skeptical eye regardless of the context. Any institution that makes decisions on such accusations is going to be rife with petty, vindictive politics.
I don’t disagree. But “should” is different than “fundamental right”.
The original post wasn't saying that the bill of rights binds the behavior of this school in this case, but pointing out that the reason that's protected as a fundamental right in our constitution is that, given cover of anonymity, accusations are highly weaponizable—that's the reason that's included as a fundamental, enumerated right—which fact will apply to most any institution, whether or not it's legally required to allow one to face one's accuser.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#76Anonymous 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…
> A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers
I'm not so optimistic, there is an increasing pressure to erode this right slowly but surely.
We had seen several cases of sexual harassment claims by groups of anonymous people that can avoid the right by the simple process of retracting in the last second and refusing to sue or show proofs. This is basically free for the accuser tagged instantly as "the victim" but very efficient destroying lives and careers of the targeted people.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#77Anonymous 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…
To nitpick the nitpick, Stanford actually is held to some Constitutional standards, thanks to California's Leonard Law, which requires private universities to provide the same free speech protections as public universities. It does not incorporate the 6th Amendment, but to the extent that this system can be used to suppress constitutionally protected speech acts it could run afoul of California's specific requirements.
The law: https://web.archive.org/web/20090430235943/http://www.leginf...
Some analysis: https://academeblog.org/2020/06/27/stanford-and-the-legacy-o...
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#78[deleted]
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#79> 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…
A society that glorifies being a victim and a snitch, and where it is a crime to offend…
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#80Earlier 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…
> you allowed them to stay
The 3rd amendment is about quartering soldiers without your allowance. It's become a kind of joke because it's basically never been relevant since it was written.