Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by freejazz » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 1:54 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #94

chowchowchow wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other…

It’s illegal for Stanford to slander you by saying you are a Nazi for reading Mein Kampf due to anonymous accusations. Yet they do that. And it’s bad that Stanford does that, regardless of whether they are tried for slander. Similarly, it’s true that if McDonalds forced you to quarter their private security forces it would be tresspassing (at least). And it’s bad whether or not they are charged with trespassing.

Yeah, we know those things are bad... that's why they are both illegal. Are you suggesting that before Stanford makes a statement, they have a trial? That seems a bit impractical, no? Like, you are just coming here assuming that slanderous situations are clear, but that's ex post facto logic.

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

#122

Post by didericis » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 1:56 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #66

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?

> Where’s my check?

That right there is the real problem. I’m convinced a huge motivation for a lot of the current performative outrage is a combination of conscious and unconscious anxiety about having very little to no real skill based leverage or ownership/stewardship of things that anchor you to society, like housing and kids. That’s the sympathetic angle. The unsympathetic angle is laziness and greed. Both are applicable.

Everything is so damn complicated and fast paced and fewer and fewer people seem to know how anything actually works. That means fewer and fewer people know what a reliable career track will be. A lot of people can’t pivot their skillset nearly as fast as tech is demanding and they’re worried they’re going to be made obsolete and left without any viable alternative path if the one they’re on dries up.

I think a lot of the performative outrage would disappear if the middle class regained stability and people felt like they owned something rather than felt like a replaceable cog in an unintelligible bureaucratic machine.

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

#123

Post by didericis » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:29 AM UTC

chaps wrote: post #118

didericis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The type of person that becomes a professor isn’t known for slamming kids against the wall. It’s the other way around. You see that frequently in those that go on to teach in troubled districts. Academic types and teachers are some of the most agreeable and easily bullied people on the planet. They’ve already been severely gouged out of payment for the vast majority of the value they provide by administrators. The on…

Is it, though? To be blunt, run a news search for: professor rape for years "complaints" "ignored" Tons of distinct cases there. Many of them ignored until after the victim(s) filed suit. Edit: and at Stanford! [1] [1] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/06/19/a-stanford-professor-se...

If we’re going to be blunt, let’s be blunt about the dark side of reality.

Consider the population of rapists. Who are you more likely feeling safe complaining about: 1) A professor 2) A cop 3) A powerful politician 4) A gangbanger 5) An unhinged uncle

Consider the population of false rape accusers. Are they more likely to be: 1) An immature college student relatively new to determining sexual boundaries marinating in ideological literature that considers looking at someone the wrong way rape 2) A drug addict, prostitute, or other person a cop typically runs into 3) A regular person that knows the abuser has relationships to prosecutors 4) A person with good reason to fear for their life if they report 5) A person who has to deal with family betrayal if they report.

Between the administrative bureaucracy obsessed with student safety, the often rich and well connected protective parents propping up the school, and the often nerdy and agreeable nature of professors, professors are also probably some of the safest people to accuse of rape (rightly or wrongly) on the planet.

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

#124

Post by adharmad » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:30 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #114

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…

It's an important principle and like anything it can't be dogma. Like anything, we need to take into account other important principles and also the higher purpose it serves - let's say 'liberty and justice for all'. Powerful people often threaten those who are less powerful when they abuse them: If you tell anyone, I will ... ruin your career, kill you, hurt your family, prosecute you; harass, humiliate and persecut…

How does one balance the rights of the vulnerable, who sometimes do need to be anonymous for fear of retribution and the people who use anonymous accusations as a harassment strategy or for political purposes or for a witch hunt?

The only way seems to be to have a more-or-less independent panel who would look at the anonymous accusations and make an impartial decision on the same. The legal system, as it exists, seems to be such a body, definitely much more impartial and unbiased than a random administrator in Stanford.

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

#125

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:37 AM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #85

stale2002 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

>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? It's literally trespassing - there is a law against, it need not be a constitutional amendment. Your point actually runs completely against your argument. >Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to…

> It's literally trespassing - there is a law against

So then yes it is bad! Even though a private company is doing it, and it is not the government, it is bad! You agree with me!

And therefore someone saying "well a private company is trespassing, and a private company is not the government" would be making a stupid argument.

> so what's the point?

The point is that the commonly brought up argument of "well it's a private company!" is dumb.

> Trespass law has LONG preceded the constitution

Indeed they have! And the reason is because there is an underlying principle of something that is bad, even if it isn't literally the government doing it. You agree with me.

Therefore someone saying "it's a private company" is making a bad argument.

> that's like a pretty big NO DUH

Oh it is extremely obvious that just because a private company is doing something, that something can still be bad, due to an underlying principle. You agree with me here as well.

And yet despite how extremely obvious this is, people still make this "well it's a private company!" Argument over and over again.

I am glad you agree completely with me, and not only that you think my point is obviously true.

> still really struggling to understand the fundamental brilliance of this argument...

The reason why it is funny is because people legitimately make this "it's a private company!" argument over and over again, which is a really dumb argument.

Have you truly never in your life heard someone making this "it's a private company!" argument?

That could be the confusion here.

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

#126

Post by jgalt212 » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:44 AM UTC

There is no better way to create an environment of fear and general distrust than to allow and encourage anonymous accusations.

Stanford is a community. All members of the community should have a base amount of trust* in all others. If you cannot countenance such a bargain, then one should leave the community.

* a reasonable criticism of the wokes, is that they have no trust in anyone and all mis-steps by members of the patriarchy or those in power are actions of an evil person or cabal; and never merely a mistake or misunderstanding.

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

#127

Post by Clubber » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:45 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #66

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?

I always thought it was a city person trying to be a rancher / cowboy / farmer.

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

#128

Post by Clubber » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:47 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #99

imgabe wrote: post #92

> 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. He has let it roll off his back, he said, but less thick-skinned students should have a path for redress. Maybe less thick-skinned students should just develop thicker skins. Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous…

> Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous accusations are a bad idea. I’m surprised this hasn’t happened already. Since it’s anonymous I would expect 4chan to flood all these stupid policies. Maybe they selectively review and pursue.

Reminds me of pushback against DeBlasio's "snitch line."

New York City had to shut down its social-distancing 'snitch-line' after it was flooded by trolls brandishing penis pictures and Hitler memes

https://www.insider.com/new-york-city-social-distancing-snit...

Americans can be really awesome from time to time. We don't suffer well, and I'm happy for it.

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

#129

Post by mikysco » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:49 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #110

prepend wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous accusations are a bad idea. I’m surprised this hasn’t happened already. Since it’s anonymous I would expect 4chan to flood all these stupid policies. Maybe they selectively review and pursue.

You expect 4chan to fight against anonymity?

Not necessarily.. but they have been known to fight against (ridicule) certain forms of stupidity in the past. Which I feel many here would agree Stanford's policy is a form of.

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

#130

Post by Clubber » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:50 AM UTC

cld8483 wrote: post #35

blindriver wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

That's a really good point. The only counter would be the Catholic Church child molestation scandal. There were so many victims, I think hiding the accuser would have value. I admit that is an extreme circumstance.