Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#2No paywall: https://archive.is/aP6Im
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#3Anonymous 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 of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#4Anonymous 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 extremely hard legal argument to make, that would go up against the first amendment and the idea of freedom of association.
After all, no one is forcing you to teach at Stanford right?
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#5No paywall: https://archive.is/aP6Im
[dead]
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#6This 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 complaining about another student.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#7Anonymous 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…
Its unclear to me the point you are trying to make. It reads to me that you think because that law does not apply here that the principles involved do not?
Your points about freedom of association are likewise illegible in this context.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#8Anonymous 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…
That only applies to criminal prosecution. Can still have, say, your children taken away without ever facing your accuser. In fact the law keeps you from ever finding out who made the complaint. I believe another case ruled it's fine for police etc to make retaliatory civil complaints for your speech, or call CPS, code enforcement etc.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Its unclear to me the point you are trying to make. It reads to me that you think because that law does not apply here that the principles involved do not? Your points about freedom of association are likewise illegible in this context.
The principles outlined in the Bill of Rights are within the context of a relationship with a government that uses force to apply their actions without any higher recourse. Losing a job is different in magnitude than being sentenced to death or imprisonment.
Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech
#10Anonymous 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…
Nitpicking, but I think people here often don't think clearly about the value of expecting Constitution-inspired behaviors from non-government organizations. This frequently comes up when discussing free speech on moderated online platforms.
In particular, there are underlying reasons that we want the US government to respect certain individual freedoms, and to the extent that some other organization is sufficiently government-like, we might want it to respect those freedoms for it's users for similar reasons. In the case of a university, I think it's pretty clear that Stanford is a de-facto government over the students attending there. Sure, attendance is technically voluntary and you can leave at any time, but that's also true of normal governments, especially state and local governments. The key thing is that being forced to leave your home and community to avoid a state government violating your rights would really suck, so that gives them a significant position of power over you, and we have a constitution to ensure they don't abuse it.
Stanford absolutely has that level of power over its students, and so it's totally reasonable to claim that they ought to abide by due process restrictions that are similar to (although probably not identical to) those from the Constitution. These things aren't binary, a university can be government-like in some ways and private-citizen-like in others.