Kent State Banning Athletes from Using Facebook

denebian devil links to a Columbus Dispatch story about athletes at Kent State being forbidden to use Facebook — "not by the Web site, but by university administrators." From the article: "Athletics Director Laing Kennedy recently told student-athletes they have until Aug. 1 to remove their Facebook profiles, citing a need to protect both their identities and the university's image. "We're really concerned about the safety of our student-athletes and some of the personal information some of them have on there," he said. ... If student-athletes don't remove their profiles by the deadline, they risk losing their scholarships, he said. Coaches and athletics counselors will monitor the site for violators." denebian devil continues "Arstechnica also has an interesting take on the subject. Makes you wonder why they even bother providing internet connections on college campuses."

Excessive force

[2.7182 (819680)]

Apparently, they just didn't learn their lesson!! Now they are just trying to be controlling digitally.

This belongs in a legal textbook

[by Anonymous Coward]

... under "Prior Restraint." (Which, I'm told, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected.)

A state university with this kind of policy is setting themselves up for the mother of all First Amendment lawsuits. What an amazingly-dumb waste of university funding.

Re:This belongs in a legal textbook

[abandonment (739466)]

Not to mention the fact that Teacher & University administration is notorious for complaining about how they don't have enough time to give these same students a quality education. Now they are supposed to spend HOW long trying to monitoring every website that might allow the students to have a personal profile, online 'persona' etc?

Beyond ridiculous

wow

[joe 155 (937621)]

is this even legal? I would think that what an adult choses to do in their provate time is their business... besides that, how are they any more or less safe on face book than on any internet site/chatroom in which they provide a large amount of information about themselves...

I suspect that this has far more to do with the uni wanting to protect its image - which for some reason it believes would be more damaged by people being on face-book than than this action to put stupid restrictions over what people can do

Re:wow

[rolfwind (528248)]

Not to mention people pay to attend University (well, maybe not some athletes). It's not like the Army where you get paid and benefits in exchange for temporarily signing over your constitutional rights.

I hope the students speak out, because it they who have the power and their presence lets the University run.

Re:wow

[networkBoy (774728)]

Thing is, the only teeth this has is that the student loses their free ride. I think the university may be in the clear on this as whomever is giving away the money can set limits. That said, a paying student should not have said limits imposed, else the 1st rots away further.
-nB

Re:wow

[Skyshadow (508)]

is this even legal? I would think that what an adult choses to do in their provate time is their business...

Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students recieving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say "if you want this free money, you can't use facebook". It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles.

Not that I approve of the practice in this case -- it seems to me that banning social network sites so your jocks don't post up the stupid shit they do is attacking the problem from the completely wrong side. But this is a university system, so expecting them to do things that make sense is a tad unrealistic.

Re:wow

[tenton (181778)]

Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students recieving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say "if you want this free money, you can't use facebook". It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles.

Yeah, but can you retroactively add to the contract? That is, when they signed on (for their scholarships), was that restriction there, or anything remotely resembling it (for example, an NFL contract stating that you can't do dangerous activities, which could be applied to trying to do stupid things on a motorcycle, ala Kellan Winslow Jr.).

Plus, looking at the article, it's a move to "protect" the student-athletes. From the article:

Kennedy said some Kent students who list phone numbers and addresses have been contacted inappropriately, either by strangers or sports agents.

Although Kennedy said he regrets limiting the students' ability to communicate, he sees it as a necessary step.

"It would be irresponsible on our part if this led to something serious," he said.

The move to ban the site came from students and coaches expressing concern over safety and privacy issues. Kennedy said he hasn't seen the site.

Why must the adminstration do something about this? Putting your own information on a public site is not a great way to maintain your privacy, one would think; i.e. if one is worried about privacy, then how about not putting things like your address, phone and class schedule up for all to see?

Re:wow

[Skyshadow (508)]

Yeah, but can you retroactively add to the contract? That is, when they signed on (for their scholarships), was that restriction there, or anything remotely resembling it (for example, an NFL contract stating that you can't do dangerous activities, which could be applied to trying to do stupid things on a motorcycle, ala Kellan Winslow Jr.).

I don't know this for a fact, but I'm guessing that there is language in the scholarship agreement that allows the university to impose restrictions of this type. I mean, I'm guessing that Kent State might have a lawyer that they ran this past.

That aside, I don't see what the big deal is here. It's not as if this is being imposed as a requirement for attendance at the University, it's being instituted as a condition of accepting a free education in exchange for participation in an extra-curricular activity. If you as a student athlete find that unacceptible, you can always take out a loan like the rest of us did.

If you want to start talking about outrages related to athletic scholarships, this is the wrong end of the pool to start in.

Re:wow

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

That aside, I don't see what the big deal is here. It's not as if this is being imposed as a requirement for attendance at the University

Step 1: Become coach
Step 2: Demand female athletes put out on command or lose their scholarship
Step 3: Profit (every day and twice on sunday)

It's okay by you, right? Because they can just drop out of school.

Re:wow

[murphyslawyer (534449)]

Yeah, but can you retroactively add to the contract? That is, when they signed on (for their scholarships), was that restriction there, or anything remotely resembling it

At least back when I was in school (5 years or so ago now), my scholorships were renewed on a semester-by-semester basis, and I'd have to fill out a sort of mini application each semester to continue getting my funds. My guess is they just new added legalese to the form, and while they can't retroactively make students comply right now, they can certainly prevent them from getting future money.

Re:wow

[garcia (6573)]

I don't know how it works at Kent but when I went to BGSU (as a scholarship athlete) we had to sign tons of paperwork including a "Code of Conduct"-like document that would have waived my right to pretty much anything legally binding.

If you weren't 18 you couldn't sign it without your parents co-signing it. I was 18 and thus a legal adult. I assume that Kent would be doing something very similar (hell they probably use the same paperwork being that they're in the same conference).

Kent doesn't exactly have an "image". They are just another college in the Midwest that no one cares about.

Dumb Students

[ggKimmieGal (982958)]

At my own college, security uses facebook to find out about parties and underage drinking on campus. Chances are, someone put stupid info up and has ruined i for everyone. Do I feel bad for them? Not at all.

Drunk photos on facebook

[TexasDex (709519)]

Protect the university's image

"Our students don't drink! Honest"

I can attest to the fact that lots of students post drinking photos, even joining groups like "I was drunk when my facebook profile photo was taken". Kent state is worried about this. While I'm guessing they're wringing their hands at such open bragging about underage drinking that sort of thing is a fact of life, from long before facebook existed.

Myspace?

[Cherita Chen (936355)]

Why Facebook and not Myspace? I've never even heard of "Facebook"...

One more step down the road...

[Control Group (105494)]

...away from the internet as a network for data exchange, and towards the internet as a one-way pipe by which to push content your way.

It's all about the moolah

[Zork the Almighty (599344)]

Is your free speech for sale ? It is if you want to keep that scholarship. This is a great example of how growing economic inequality spills over into other aspects of life. A well off student can afford to take a stand on principle here.

reveals the true nature of their concerns

[revery (456516)]

It is fairly obvious that the school is less concerned with preventing students from engaging in illegal activity and undesirable behavior than it is with preventing it from becoming public knowledge that students are engaging in illegal activity and undesirable behavior. If they had come out and said, "If we catch you confessing to activities that violate our code of conduct, you will face disciplinary action", that would be quite another thing altogether. (Not that people wouldn't complain, I'm just saying I think they could make a pretty decent defense of their actions.)

Attention: Kent State Athletes

[Avillia (871800)]

Click me for free money! [aclu.org]

My Favorite Part

[richdun (672214)]

The move to ban the site came from students and coaches expressing concern over safety and privacy issues. Kennedy said he hasn't seen the site.

So not only has the guy making the policy not even seen the site, but the move supposedly came from students and others - the same students who were posting there in the first place? "Higher" education is so smart.

Why?

[finkployd (12902)]

"Makes you wonder why they even bother providing internet connections on college campuses."

Oh you know, research, email, that sort of thing. This may surprise you but the original intent of providing internet access was not to pass around mp3's, pictures of yourself drunk, and porn (well, that last one is debatable).

You would think students over the years would have gotten better about using the internet but it seems it has regressed quite a bit. I am reminded of reports of students at the university where I work getting busted selling drugs on facebook and posting pictures of themselves doing illegal things. In the papers they always seem quoted as indignantly saying "I didn't know the police could monitor that stuff, that is really scary" as though cops looking at facebook was on par with warrant-less wiretapping.

Look, I'm a Fight The Power, Go EFF, Die MPAA kinda guy. However, the way I see it is if a school is giving you tens of thousands of dollars for your education and they decide they want you to either (1) not advertise that you are a drunken asshole all over the net, or (2) risk losing that free money, then that is their right. I think it is a little harsh to ban facebook altogether, I think I might have seen one or two actual mature entries in it, but that is certainly on more solid legal ground than subjectively taking it on a case by case basis.

Also, you can look at it as preparing these student athletes for the future. If they make it to the pros and become the typical corporate whore, they will have to get used to being told how to act, what to say, and what to do. College is actually preparing them for the real world ;)

Finkployd

Re:The Only Problem

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's definitely my thought process. If I go look for the Kent State football players on Facebook and don't find any, the obvious conclusion is that the National Guard must have killed them.

Re:The Only Problem

[GPLDAN (732269)]

Tin soldiers and Bush is coming,
We're finally on our own website.
This summer I hear the clicking, Four spreads in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Firewalls are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her spread nude on the page
How can you link when you know?
Gotta get down to it
Firewalls are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her spread nude on the page
How can you link when you know?

Tin soldiers and Bush is coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the clicking, Four spreads in Ohio.

Re:This is unfortunate...

[by Anonymous Coward]

This does nto violate any aspect of the United States Constitution.

Why not?

The school did NOT say "You can't do this."

The school DID say "If you want to participate in our optional program, or continue to receive funding from us, then you will not do this."

There's a difference.

The kids can do what they want. If they want to participate in the athletic program, then they have to meet the terms provided for participation. It is a voluntary course of action. We're not talking about people who have no choice, or even people limited to a binary set of choices.

Re:No surprise

[Feyr (449684)]

-
At least these are college students instead of pedophiles, adolescents, and aspiring criminals
-

you mean that's not the same?