College Papers Won't Rewrite History For Alumni 221
Hugh Pickens writes "The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that as college papers have begun digitizing their back issues, their Web sites have become the latest front in the battle over online identities. Youthful activities like underage drinking that once would have disappeared into the recesses of a campus library are now preserved on the public record, and alumni are contacting newspapers with requests for redaction. Unlike with Facebook profiles, that other notable source of young-adult embarrassment, the affected parties can't remove or edit questionable content. In 2007, a Cornell University alum sued the Cornell Chronicle over a newly digitized article from 1983 that reported he had been charged with burglary while a student at Cornell. The alum found the article after Googling his name and claimed that its new presence online was causing him 'mental anguish' and 'loss of reputation.' But a California judge threw out the case after determining the report to be accurate. Some student papers, like The University Daily Kansan, have found a middle ground by adding the noindex meta tag so that the documents stay online, but search engines such as Google do not index them. 'I thought that would be better than kind of like sticking it to [the alum] and saying the paper is always right and we can publish anything on the Web we want,' says the paper's editor."
Not so simple solution (Score:3, Interesting)
You may notice that it only said that he was *charged* with burglary. Not convicted of it.
Perhaps the problem is that not many people understand the difference? I know I'd be upset if I was falsely accused of some crime and the accusation (but not the exoneration) was easy to find on Google...
Mind you, I don't know this guy. Maybe he was convicted. I'm just trying to point out that it might not be as cut & dried as it seems. I mean, even the article summary only repeats the accusation and doesn't tell us whether or not he was actually convicted of the crime. I'm guessing he wasn't, or he probably wouldn't sue. But, who knows? I mean, I'd have to RTFA for that...
Uhm... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Simple Solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed -- I belong to those who think this is entirely okay.
What's the problem ? That people can now sometimes see -evidence- that you're just human, which includes doing some things in your teenages which you likely wouldn't with 30 ? It's not as if this wasn't always the case, and anyone who's not an idiot knows it.
If you where really much more of an idiot than the average Joe, then well, sucks to be you. But I -really- don't think it's much of a problem that acting like an idiot carries some risk that people in the future will learn that you acted like an idiot.
not a prank, a CRIME (Score:4, Interesting)
We're not talking about mooning the dean of students, or something "fun", if silly/stupid.
The guy was arrested for burglary. It is necessary for him to respond, for the rest of his life, in every job/dating/whatever situation to "what happened?". If the charges were unfounded, then a copy of the record should take care of it. If not, then he should have to explain how his head was so messed up that he could put his victim(s) through the hassle of dealing with their missing stuff, and how, if at all, it is different now, such that he is fit for whatever situation in which the question comes up.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simple Solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the problem ?
In my case, there is an article that I wrote for the editorial of my newspaper when I was a freshman in college. I still stand by my statement, however my statement is not what is printed. The editorial staff took my letter and cut it down to fit into a rather 'blurb' style. The result is that my letter now looks like this:
Statement *rationale for statement* conclusion, with the rationale heavily edited. It nearly changes my statement from a criticism of a policy for very specific reasons into an ignorant sounding rant.
It isn't even that bad, but it isn't what I said. And it shows up when you google my name a few pages in.
Re:Human Resources (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Simple Solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Tough shit. Younger generations are going to be published on the web from the day they're born... if you want to worry about anybody's online reputation, worry about theirs.
Sure, some now-lawyer did something damned stupid when it was 20 years old in college, and it's out there for everybody to see. Guess what? Damned stupid stuff I wrote when I was 14 years old is out there for everybody to see, and I can't do jack to get rid of it. (Plus I share a name with a guy who runs a gay sports blog.)
The greatest thing about the rise of Facebook and LinkedIn is that those pages have pushed the more questionable ones down to the *bottom* 10 of the search results for my name. Well, except the gay sports blogger who is still #2. But I don't mind him as much as the stupid shit I said when I was a kid.
Re:once something has happened no unhappening for (Score:3, Interesting)
I was discussing tattoos with a friend, and when I mentioned forearm tattoos, she pointed out that forearm tattoos can affect future employment, otherwise she would have full sleeves done already.
After thinking about that for a moment, I pointed out that our choices affect the direction of our lives. Her last job was a mindless office job (think Happy Times in "Dead Like Me", Office Space, etc). If she's someone who sees having her arms beautifully tattooed, who's to say it won't have a positive effect on her life? It might close some doors, fairly or not, in something like the corporate world, but it might lead her to a career she loves and may not have discovered otherwise.
I'm not sure how this story fits in with college indiscretions not fading into the past, except maybe a zen-like acceptance that they were choices that shape your life now, and if you don't get that promotion as a result, it might be your drunken, half-naked, publicly urinating 19 year old self sending a message from the past that you're in the wrong job.