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

151–160 of 169 posts

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

#151

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

prepend wrote: post #102
Animats wrote: post #20

At least there's a public incident list: https://protectedidentityharm.stanford.edu/news

> What happened: On the morning of Monday, November 29 a student reported seeing two long cords that may represent nooses in a tree near the intersection of Campus Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard, along the Lake Lagunita walking trail. What is being done:Updated as of 5/10/22 Based on statements from staff and students, and photos showing the scene at Lake Lagunita, it was determined the cords in the tree had been…

Wow - I think this highlights the point that is so aggravating. Many people are now searching for any way to be offended, even when an innocuous explanation is much more likely. It's like the "somebody called me 'G'" example: oh no, he's not using that as a term of endearment, but he must think I'm an actual gangster, and heck, I'm Chicano, what a racist!

For example, people use the term "OG" all over the internet, and I think 99% of folks don't even make the connection to "gangster" at all - I think a lot of people just think it's some shorthand for "original" or something. And I don't think I've ever seen "OG" used in any context where it wasn't meant as praise.

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

#152

Post by freejazz »

didericis wrote: post #145
freejazz wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose performative outrage? The complainant from the article, or the one you just responded to? They are both complaints. A huge assumption underlying the post you responded to is that there's some check, waiting. Perhaps this is driven by media reports of examples that titillate viewers, but I think it's a fairly unfounded assumption. Underlying any of those cases is a fact pattern that has to go beyond whatever the…

The cases of actual litigation with a big payout are rare, but the cases of people in paid positions meant to prevent big payouts and to make sure employees are speaking to each other and hiring people in the least risky way possible are not. That’s been a huge industry. I’m not arguing that there’s no legitimate level of complaint or job for helping employees relate to each other better, or that people shouldn’t str…

>The cases of actual litigation with a big payout are rare, but the cases of people in paid positions meant to prevent big payouts and to make sure employees are speaking to each other and hiring people in the least risky way possible are not. That’s been a huge industry.

What does that have to do with people thinking that complaining that someone called you a "G" means you are now going to be rich? Seems completely besides the point. In fact, your whole response is.

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

#154

Post by viscanti »

freejazz wrote: post #57
viscanti wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> so now the gov't is forcing your company to have a trial over your review?

No. But if the consequence of an anonymous report causes you to lose your job, and potentially be blacklisted from any other academic jobs in the future, it seems prudent that some process would exist to make sure things are fair. Otherwise it can be abused and weaponized by people in ways most people wouldn't want to see. I don't see anyone arguing the government should do anything here. It appears to be an argument that institutions instituting new policies like the one mentioned in the linked post should have some kind of process to prevent them from being abused.

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

#155

Post by dokem »

sys32768 wrote: post #63

>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.

It's a funny example you highlight. Traditional, you would think of Stanford or Harvard as specifically being a place where someone could read Mein Kampf out in the open and everyone would assume that they are just learning about Hitler and Nazism because these are the institutions of some of the most curious and learned people. It's now the last place you would want to be caught reading such material.

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

#156

Post by keneda7 »

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…

But the reverse is also true. Professors have the power to ruin a students career before it even starts.

I am a product of public schools and two state colleges. I saw tons of professors that used their personal feelings of a student to determine their grade. Sometimes this would work in the students favor, sometimes it would work against the student. Until no professors are doing that (I would say from my experience over half are) there absolutely needs to be anonymous reporting on faculty.

What you are advocating for it a system where professors can do anything they want and them simply blackball the student who makes a legitimate complaint and have all their professor friends do the same.

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

#157

Post by freejazz »

viscanti wrote: post #154
freejazz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> so now the gov't is forcing your company to have a trial over your review? No. But if the consequence of an anonymous report causes you to lose your job, and potentially be blacklisted from any other academic jobs in the future, it seems prudent that some process would exist to make sure things are fair. Otherwise it can be abused and weaponized by people in ways most people wouldn't want to see. I don't see anyone…

>I don't see anyone arguing the government should do anything here.

Maybe work on your reading comprehension? People are literally saying that due process should apply... I had a dozens-long interaction with someone insisting that the constitution is a set of principles that apply to any human interactions... there's massive misunderstanding proliferated around here, so I don't agree at all.

> It appears to be an argument that institutions instituting new policies like the one mentioned in the linked post should have some kind of process to prevent them from being abused.

No shit - did you see anyone arguing that they should just be processes that are rife for abuse? The question is "what is the standard?"

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

#158

Post by pvaldes »

wolverine876 wrote: post #115
pvaldes wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 instan…

Which cases? Is there evidence that it's different than before? And how do we protect victims from retribution?

For example. Sylvester Stallone: Accused of raping a minor in the 90's. The complainant's name has never been publicly released. Dismissed by lack of evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-enough-evidence-cha...

Ian Cole:

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/nhl-finds-no-evidence-for...

And there was also the (particularly outrageous) Shitty Media Men list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitty_Media_Men

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

#159

Post by yodon »

keneda7 wrote: post #156
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…

But the reverse is also true. Professors have the power to ruin a students career before it even starts. I am a product of public schools and two state colleges. I saw tons of professors that used their personal feelings of a student to determine their grade. Sometimes this would work in the students favor, sometimes it would work against the student. Until no professors are doing that (I would say from my experience…

> What you are advocating for it a system where professors can do anything they want and them simply blackball the student who makes a legitimate complaint and have all their professor friends do the same.

No.

I hear that you had bad experiences. That said, the right to challenge one's accuser dates back hundreds of years. It has survived as a foundational principle across millions of legal cases across all domains and including astronomical numbers of cases in which parties on either sides of the arguments have faced as much or more collusion risk than is claimed here. Anyone who thinks they can just type a few words into an internet comment thread and construct a legal system that better handles all the subtleties and realities of actual proceedings than we have in our court system today is either mistaken or the greatest legal mind in millennia.

The problem is not that we need you to try to invent a better system than the US legal system. The problem instead is we need to stop allowing bogus pretend legal systems that administrators at universities and similar institutions have tried to put in place using similarly naive legal theories. Those administrators suffer from the same hubris as anyone who thinks they can just sit down and write up how to do a functioning legal system in a paragraph or two. Each such system is deeply flawed in a different way, but all are deeply flawed. Real world accusations are always hard and messy, regardless of the domain, and coming to the correct resolution is never as easy as a one sentence "correction" to hundreds of years of jurisprudence would like to imply.

The "legal" systems constructed by these administrators are indeed deeply flawed, but arguing against core legal principals that have formed the foundations of legal theory for hundreds of years is not likely to be the path to improvement (and if it were to be, one is probably better off taking that once in a millenium legal insight in other directions of far greater impact to the world than complaining about a particular university's poorly conceived dispute structure).

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

#160

Post by keneda7 »

yodon wrote: post #159
keneda7 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the reverse is also true. Professors have the power to ruin a students career before it even starts. I am a product of public schools and two state colleges. I saw tons of professors that used their personal feelings of a student to determine their grade. Sometimes this would work in the students favor, sometimes it would work against the student. Until no professors are doing that (I would say from my experience…

> What you are advocating for it a system where professors can do anything they want and them simply blackball the student who makes a legitimate complaint and have all their professor friends do the same. No. I hear that you had bad experiences. That said, the right to challenge one's accuser dates back hundreds of years. It has survived as a foundational principle across millions of legal cases across all domains a…

You hit the nail on the head but you did not actually say it. The current system is NOT part of the legal system. We are not arguing about the legal system. We are arguing about the administrative system these administrators/professors put in the place. The exact ones ruining students lives on a whim.

If you want to say the professors/admins get the right to challenge ones accuser then they can no longer be involved in the process at all. Furthermore there needs to be criminal charges and jail time involved in any situation its warranted that is found true and the same for the accuser if it is found false. However this is NOT how it is. The staff are the process. Judges, juries, and executioners. Until that changes, my opinion is: no they do not get the right to face the accuser.

Curious how you feel about anonymous whistleblowers?

Post reply on HN