Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Education

Stanford Faculty Say Anonymous Student Bias Reports Threaten Free Speech (thedailybeast.com) 154

Posted by BeauHD from the throwing-a-fit dept.
"A group of Stanford University professors is pushing to end a system that allows students to anonymously report classmates for exhibiting discrimination or bias, saying it threatens free speech on campus (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source)," reports the Wall Street Journal. The Daily Beast reports: Last month, a screenshot of a student reading Hitler's manifesto Mein Kampf was reported in the system, according to the Stanford Daily. Faculty members leading the charge to shut the system down say they didn't know it even existed until they read the student newspaper, one comparing the system to "McCarthyism."

Launched in 2021, students are encouraged to report incidents in which they felt harmed, which triggers a voluntary inquiry of both the student who filed the report and the alleged perpetrator. Seventy-seven faculty members have signed a petition calling on the school to investigate in hopes they toss the system out. This comes as a larger movement by Speech First, a group who claim colleges are rampant with censorship, has filed suit against several universities for their bias reporting systems.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stanford Faculty Say Anonymous Student Bias Reports Threaten Free Speech More

Stanford Faculty Say Anonymous Student Bias Reports Threaten Free Speech

Comments Filter:

  • Ironic (Score:3)

    by grmoc ( 57943 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @05:44PM (#63321248)

    Not at all ironic?
    The defenders of speech must shut down speech to protect speech.

    This isn't easy.

    • Where does it say they're defenders of free speech?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by snowshovelboy ( 242280 )

        Where does it say they're defenders of free speech?

        Its strongly implied right here Some random webpage [mission-statement.com]

        And they make you watch this video at new student orientation that clearly spells it out new student orientation [youtube.com] At around the 1:28 mark.

        • The school says they'll never give you up and they'll never let you down, nor will they make you cry. While that is relatively new for colleges, it's far from unique in this modern cradle to grave society. God forbid you hear an epithet within your lifetime.

    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @06:05PM (#63321290) Journal

      Yes, it's a well-known paradox. [wikipedia.org] Perhaps the moderation system needs a moderation system?

    • They're removing some anonymous reporting system. That's hardly shutting down free speech. Students still have the right to complain.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grmoc ( 57943 )

        Even the Supreme Court thinks anonymous speech is speech. Perhaps surprising given how many times they've messed up, but...

        • Even the Supreme Court thinks anonymous speech is speech. Perhaps surprising given how many times they've messed up, but...

          Whenever the issue of free speech comes up most of the time it is conflated with free action (e.g. anarchy) by its detractors.

          Free speech means I can plot a bank robbery and then carry one out all by speaking since free speech means I can say whatever I please.

          Free speech means I can communicate with voice activated ordinance to blow things up because my freedom of speech is absolute.

          And the most cited of all free speech means I can yell fire in a crowded theater.

          There is widespread failure to separate unde

        • Even the Supreme Court thinks anonymous speech is speech. Perhaps surprising given how many times they've messed up, but...

          This isn't about whether anonymous speech is speech. It's about whether the administration is obligated to listen to and act upon anonymous complaints. There's no restriction of speech either way. People can still complain anonymously all they like.

    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SchroedingersCat ( 583063 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @08:08PM (#63321518)
      Anonymous reporting system that triggers official "inquiry" has very little in common with free speech. In fact, "anonymous reporting" is commonly leveraged by totalitarian dictatorships to silence dissent.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grmoc ( 57943 )

        So is a lack of anonymity.

        The truth is that rarely does "Goldilocks" live at the extremes of anything.

        • They’re not banning anonymity. There’s not a goldilocks zone for free speech. There’s not some quantity of censorship that is desirable, censorship isn’t really quantifiable like that, and every time you prevent someone from sharing their earnestly held opinion, you are hurting discourse,

    • Bias reporting system biased. News at 11.

  • Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @05:48PM (#63321254)
    It's one thing to say or do something discriminatory or hurtful directed at and individual or group of individual; but simply being triggered because someone is reading or writing something you don't agree with is a step too far. Just because one reads something, including Mein Kampf, doesn't mean they agree with; a student of history needs to understand the drivers and motivation behind those making history. And it's not just liberals who want to cancel speech, conservatives seem pretty hell bent on cancelling anything they think is undeserving of protection.

    • And it's not just liberals who want to cancel speech, conservatives seem pretty hell bent on cancelling anything they think is undeserving of protection.

      I think free speech is going to be a hotbutton issue in the upcoming presidential election. In fact I hope it will be. And to your point, this Florida bill [politico.com] backed by likely presidential contender Ron DeSantis is really concerning - even though I think most of the contemporary "press" has lowered itself almost to the level of social media.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by quonset ( 4839537 )

        And it's not just liberals who want to cancel speech, conservatives seem pretty hell bent on cancelling anything they think is undeserving of protection.

        I think free speech is going to be a hotbutton issue in the upcoming presidential election. In fact I hope it will be. And to your point, this Florida bill [politico.com] backed by likely presidential contender Ron DeSantis is really concerning - even though I think most of the contemporary "press" has lowered itself almost to the level of social media.

        You ain't seen nothing yet from the wannabe dictator. There is now a bill in Florida [cnn.com] which essentially strips education from the hands of educators and allows the government to dictate curriculims. If you happen to be an educator and stray into cancelled territory, the governor can fire you.

        This reminds me of some wacky, third world country, but I can't think of which one.

        • strips education from the hands of educators and allows the government to dictate curriculims.

          The tax payer was always in charge of the curriculum. Teachers are hired to teach the curriculum set out by the state.

      • Remember for most politicians - freedum is for us, not for them! This applies to free speech too: free speech is for us, not for them!

      • Isn't Politico the organization that James Clapper shoved under the bus for "mischaracterizing" his infamous 2020 intel letter about Hunter's laptop? You'll excuse me if I find their most recent "analysis" suspect.

      • DeSantis has gone coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs. He seemed like a sort of reasonable person for a minute, but he's obviously had some of mental break. I think he may have recovered memories of a queer, black communist who molested him.

      • I don't think it will be super relevant since neither major party seems to care much for free speech anymore.

    • Re:Censorship (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @07:23PM (#63321426)

      It's one thing to say or do something discriminatory or hurtful directed at and individual or group of individual; but simply being triggered because someone is reading or writing something you don't agree with is a step too far. Just because one reads something, including Mein Kampf, doesn't mean they agree with; a student of history needs to understand the drivers and motivation behind those making history. And it's not just liberals who want to cancel speech, conservatives seem pretty hell bent on cancelling anything they think is undeserving of protection.

      This is all true. There are some differences in the back stories, where conservative nutjobs demand that they can say whatever they like, and no one is allowed to react, and the far left kooks demanding that someone reading old Adolph's manifesto is somehow supporting it.

      And both sides of that crazy train want anything they disagree with gone and gone now, and the violator punished.

      It is crazy that someone would assume that a person reading the book in question supports it. I've read a lot of the Bible, and I'm a non-believer.

      Campuses are a weird place, where a sort of groupthink is demanded. Comedians are not permitted if they do not espouse the far left. Which given the nature of comedy, means you are kind of stuck with Amy Schumer.

      Once upon a time, far right pundits were often featured at campus for speeches. Today, there might be a riot. Here's an example https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25... [npr.org]

      And despite the upcoming accusations - I in no way shape or form support that group of cretinist assholes, and wish them nothing good - But it looks like no one is going to hear their idiocy, and potential far right kooks just use this as a recruiting tool. "Look at what the cancel culture just did!"

      • Campuses are a weird place, where a sort of groupthink is demanded. Comedians are not permitted if they do not espouse the far left. Which given the nature of comedy, means you are kind of stuck with Amy Schumer.

        Or Stephen Colbert if you can willfully ignore Strangers With Candy and Jimmy Kimmel if you can look the other way during The Man Show reruns. Even the most devout of believers in the Church of Liberal Orthodoxy is a hypocrite at heart.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by c-A-d ( 77980 )

        As an older student, I spend as little time on campus as possible, I always vote "no confidence" for all student union positions (if possible), and never attend any on-campus or campus-supported events.

        • As an older student, I spend as little time on campus as possible, I always vote "no confidence" for all student union positions (if possible), and never attend any on-campus or campus-supported events.

          I fully recommend online college today, especially for male students.

    • simply being triggered because someone is reading or writing something you don't agree with is a step too far.

      You're so far behind on this. The point of "Critical Theory" is to be relentlessly critical to destabilize social norms. And, as Marcuse advocated in Repressive Tolerance [marcuse.org], to be as absolutely biased as possible in exercising naked group-on-group social power. Everything from your side is completely forgiven, and obsesses of minor transgressions, perceived or imaginary, of anyone who stands in your way.

      Saying this is "a stop too far" is like saying that you disagree with violence in warfare. Yes, it sucks

    • The only speech that needs to be protected *is* offensive speech.

      • The only speech that needs to be protected *is* offensive speech.

        Along with that is free speech doesn't automatically mean freedom from consequences, nor is anyone required to promote or allow it using their resources or platforms, just that the government can't censor it.

  • What's wrong with reading mein kampf? (Score:3)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @05:50PM (#63321262)

    Nazism is wrong, but a person of sound mind such as myself can read Mein Kampf without being convinced of Nazism. To believe otherwise is the equivalent of believing in Nazism. So it becomes, who do we believe are qualified to read Mein Kampf and not become convinced of Nazi ideology? Now I agree that there are some morons who might read Mein Kampf and start to agree with its BS .. but there are some people such as myself who can read it and the only thing gained would be an understanding of how twisted and deviant a hateful mind can be. How they build argued with cherry picked facts and build narratives based on selective discussion. How the masses can be convinced by mere bravado and sound-bite messaging.

    • Maybe you wouldn't be converted, It obviously worked on a few million people. Believing what has been demonstrated by history makes one a Nazi? Do you even know what a Nazi is? Maybe you should read the book.

      • Uh, yeah. A Nazi believes those of "Aryan descent" are better and more "valuable" than others. A Nazi subscribes to a belief in an inherent "superior value" of his own lineage, and that other races are inferior in various ways such that it is OK to inflict any level of cruelty upon those races. They believe that certain characteristics exclusively present in their own race's genetics makes them endowed with certain rights that other races do not have.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Saffaya ( 702234 )

          Is that what they really did, or is that what their enemies said of them?
          History is written by the victors after all.
          Haven't read the book.

          • Did? History? I am talking about the present. I am talking about what people today actually believe, say, and do.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • It's interesting that you brought up Trump since I think he's the perfect example of why this kind of censorship DOES NOT work. Most people who voted for him weren't racist (unless you believe half the country is racist, at which point you have bigger problems that no censorship can fix).
          Most of his voters voted for him because no one spoke about their issues. No one acknowledge their existence and they were instantly dismissed as backward hilly billies. When people's voices aren't allowed a platform of exp

      • Maybe you wouldn't be converted, It obviously worked on a few million people.

        1. Religion worked on billions.
        2. Those millions of people, well, if you look at that historic era in detail, you'll see that, just like in pretty much any other place and/or time, most people didn't give a shit about politics. Dictators and tyrants all rise to power because most people (in that nation) let them through inaction, either because alternatives are perceived as being even shittier, or because there is no alternative at all at the moment. From Pol Pot to Castro to Hitler to Stalin, Putin, Saddam

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Well the key here is having access to a full body of evidence - that is not just mein kampf, but also opposing media, history and other evidence. Most of those who subscribed to nazi beliefs in the 1930s did not have access to any alternative, or were convinced to dismiss them as enemy propaganda.

        Those who follow extreme ideologies don't seek to learn about the ideology in detail, or about any opposing ideologies. They are generally angry people looking for someone to blame, so they read the selective parts

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Actually, it did not. Most of these "few million people" got recruited in other ways. Maybe you should have a look at _actual_ history before claiming buillshit?

        Now, there may be people weak of mind that should not read any books pushing any ideology (a hot candidate is a publication called "The Bible" for example), but apart form that this book is not any more dangerous than other books telling you what to think.

    • Re:What's wrong with reading mein kampf? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @07:25PM (#63321428)

      Hell... when I was in college, I was REQUIRED to read not just Mein Kampf, but also The Communist Manifesto. I also had to read excerpts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mao's "little red book." These were for my sophomore "20th Century History" class. And as despicable as both groups were, and their admirers and wannabes still are, nazis and communists were a pretty goddamned big part of the 20th century, and really of history in general. Ignorance of history and the motivations behind historical events serves no one. And as the old saying goes, that ignorance often dooms people to repeat that history. And to crib on another old saying, "knowing thy enemy" if the first step towards defeating them.

      And no... not one of those titles converted me to either fascism or communism by my reading them.

    • Knowledge should never be prohibited - only certain practices.

    • And how can one criticize Mein Kampf without having read it? Sounds like the far right douches who ban books they haven't read either.

      • Same way one can criticize anything without having read it: my friend/fuckbuddy/favorite singer told me to.

        Alternatively, it's about time management.

        I'll cop to doing that. I read White Fragility. But I'll eat broken glass before I read any of Ibram Kendi's bullshit...because having read one of these idiot tracts, I know what kind of retard he is to one decimal digit or so and that's enough.

    • I tried reading Mein Kampf back when my high school library actually had a copy and would loan it out. It pretty much convinced me that Hitler was a raving lunatic. I'm not sure there's much harm to that...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      a person of sound mind such as myself can read Mein Kampf without being convinced of Nazism.

      Those who think they are immune [wikipedia.org] to manipulation are the ones who are the most vulnerable to it.

  • "...Speech First, a group who claim colleges are rampant with censorship..."

    Not, however as much as grade schools.
    https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]
    https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]

    Is Speech First worried about that?

    • ... as much as grade schools.

      The articles clearly specify the state of Florida, which they must because every state has its own curriculum, although Texas tends to set the standard for textbooks.

      Florida is forbidding schools to hold novels about American slavery or Women suffragettes, or any other discrimination found in US history. They're also reinforcing current discrimination by removing all references to LGBTQ sexuality and, of course, anything that 'I have more rights than you' activists such as Moms 4 Liberty considers

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by theCoder ( 23772 )

        Florida is forbidding schools to hold novels about American slavery or Women suffragettes, or any other discrimination found in US history. They're also reinforcing current discrimination by removing all references to LGBTQ sexuality and, of course, anything that 'I have more rights than you' activists such as Moms 4 Liberty considers âoepornography.â

        What are you talking about? Florida is trying to prevent elementary schools from giving pornographic books to third graders (i.e, 8 year olds) and y

  • Almost anonymous makes more sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OneOfMany07 ( 4921667 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @05:55PM (#63321276)

    Seems like safety when reporting is useful, but so is finding when someone abuses the system.

    And the only solution to my mind is to record all actions and who made them for possible later use. Then someone (hopefully many someones) can review the record in case there is worry about reverse bias. Or "punishing others with a protective system".

    Wonder if a system that requires X number of reviewers together would be possible?

    • Seems like safety when reporting is useful, but so is finding when someone abuses the system.

      I have no doubt as long as it is truly anonymous it will be abused; whether just because you can for the laughs or to target people. Others may use it to point out inherent fallacy of such as system by targeting popular beliefs and actions. After all, someone somewhere is triggered by something.

    • Re:Almost anonymous makes more sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by taustin ( 171655 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @06:10PM (#63321302) Homepage Journal

      The right to confront one's accuser is one of the most fundamental building blocks of any justice system.

      Imposing negative consequences based on anonymous accusations doesn't invite abuse, it is abuse. If the victim is afraid of making the accusation, the accused isn't the problem, the system that doesn't protect the accuser is. Abusing the accused - whether they are guilty or not - doesn't solve the problem, it creates a second one.

      • If the victim is afraid of making the accusation, the accused isn't the problem, the system that doesn't protect the accuser is.

        When that system abuses the abuser [cnn.com], then what?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dirk ( 87083 )

      I wonder if this system is anonymous though. While it says it is anonymous, it also says "students are encouraged to report incidents in which they felt harmed, which triggers a voluntary inquiry of both the student who filed the report and the alleged perpetrator".It seems we need more info before we just assume it is anonymous and open for abuse.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by c-A-d ( 77980 )

        It's probably run like a "human rights tribunal" where the plaintiff is believed and provided with council, and the defendant can go f*** themselves.

  • Actual lynch mobs to deal with the accused.

  • The weapons we create. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tyr07 ( 8900565 ) on Friday February 24, 2023 @07:22PM (#63321418)

    Everyone creates new weapons to 'defend' themselves. Never once thinking of the consequences when others adopt these weapons and use them against. Society is becoming a soecial-political warzone.

    Basically it comes down to reporting people who have different views than yours and you consider it a threat if you break it down. Those people you reported are also going to report your behavior as they find it harmful and discriminatory as well. You won't get to decide the only things considered discriminatory are the ones that support your views.

    "I don't know what weapons will be used in World War 3, but in World War 4 it will be sticks and stones."

  • Get some skin (Score:2, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 )

    >"Anonymous Student Bias Reports Reports Threaten"
    >"Last month, a screenshot of a student reading Hitler's manifesto Mein Kampf was reported in the system, "

    The problem is not primarily due to being anonymous. The problem is that it is such stuff is reported and/or acted on in the first place.

    >"Launched in 2021, students are encouraged to report incidents in which they felt harmed,"

    THAT is the problem. "Harm" is primarily physical. Seeing someone read something you don't like, or wearing somethi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grmoc ( 57943 )

      If words do not harm, then the words of students reporting other students cannot do harm, and also, clearly the ills of victim mentality (which is just words) can do no harm.

      Oh, "but I said 'primarily' physical."

      so.. where do you draw that line?

      I'll maintain what I said at the top. This isn't easy, and if you think it is, you're just wrong.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        The words do not harm, but the actions taken in response to those words can.

      • >"If words do not harm, then the words of students reporting other students cannot do harm"

        Your logic is flawed. The only reason to report words would be for action to be taken against the person reported.

    • It falls under "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

      Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can incite and entire society to do that to you.

      I'm sure to get downmodded for wrongspeech by the "free speech" crowd for implicitly referencing a number of historical events which actually happened.

      • >"Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can incite and entire society to do that to you."

        Incitement is extremely narrow, and is already actionable, just like liable. You know very well the context is students claiming "harm" based on the examples I listed. Not things actually illegal.

        >"I'm sure to get downmodded for wrongspeech by the "free speech" crowd"

        It would be correct to do so, yes. Mostly as "off topic"

        • Tell me, as a "free speech" kind of person, why are you and people who hold free speech so apparently dead so keen on destroying it?

          Free speech is important, and one might say only important precisely because it is of great power. It is of course interesting that you decided to go for the legalistic definition of incitement as if the only provable crimes according to your local criminal code are the only harmful things. You loonies who keep pretending it's inconsequential are doing more damage than just ab

          • >"Tell me, as a "free speech" kind of person, why are you and people who hold free speech so apparently dead so keen on destroying it?"

            There is no freedom of speech if speech is outlawed. There is no freedom of speech when people believe in nebulous things like "hate speech." There is no freedom of speech when people equate speech to violence.

            >"Free speech is important, and one might say only important precisely because it is of great power."

            I would never claim otherwise. It is exactly why it is s

            • Just because something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal or banned.

              You wrote your posts as if I made that argument. I did not.

              And, conversely, just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

              Then why was your first argument strictly a legalistic one?

  • "a system that allows students to anonymously report classmates"

    "triggers a voluntary inquiry of both the student who filed the report and the alleged perpetrator"

    So, how does the university inquire into a purportedly anonymous person who files a report? And if the inquiry is "voluntary," is the voluntary aspect with respect to the filer, the accused, or the university?

    Anonymous reporting systems are swatting magnets. The easiest way to get rid is the system is to file 1000 anonymous reports against the adm

  • Classic woke culture (Score:3)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Saturday February 25, 2023 @01:47AM (#63321864) Homepage

    This is classic wokeness: They fully support your right to free speech, just as long as you say the right things.

    Someone read Mein Kampf? Horrors. Maybe they were trying to learn more about history. Even if not, surely they can read whatever books they want?

    Someone was anti-abortion? Oh no, an opinion I disagree with, how intolerable. Someone criticized BLM? Ditto.

    These poor babies are in for a surprise, when they get out in the real world...

    • At least "the babies" have lived in more than just 1 world. They will have culture shock if they are so isolated and clueless... but the people who didn't experience being in another subculture are going to lack the wisdom and humility of such an experience and be worse off their whole life.

      As far as college students making foolish mistakes-- that is normal. It's a good time to take idealistic extremes and mistakes to learn boundaries.

      This is similar to how people over-react when a teenager does something r

  • irony? (Score:3)

    by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Saturday February 25, 2023 @03:34AM (#63321944)

    This would be the same Stanford that, for decades, pretended to be all about "free speech" while implementing speech codes and censorship.

    Only about two months ago, they rolled out a new list of stuff students cannot say [reason.com] and I would have provided a link to it on the university's own page, but it no longer works - they've decided to hide it as the folks at Reason have discovered.

    This is hardly new, they've previously lost court cases over this stuff, as in Corry v. Stanford [wikipedia.org]

    The idiots who run Stanford are even so blind to basic concepts that they have an official "free speech zone" on campus - which of course only highlights the point that the rest of the campus is NOT a "free speech zone" [facepalm]

    Americans used to teach all our children a basic rhyme: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". This was meant to inculcate the basic concepts that [a] everybody will encounter speech they may not like, and as a society we expect each person to tolerate that, and [b] nobody gets to shut another person's speech off by claiming to be hurt by it. The modern snowflakey crap of claiming that some speech HURTS and therefore may be shut down by force is fundamentally anti-American and can only ultimately result in the suppression of political freedom.

    • I remember the 90s fad in tolerance which was being taught in schools too... and I remember FOX opposing that "indoctrination" as well. Clearly, FOX and Russia have won that battle with the help of social media. Intolerance is the problem and it's spread to the "left." So now we've got the old book burning, wrath of management, death threats, and hate... of the "right" with our flank now under attack by the intolerant "left" with their versions of the same old shit.

      Hypocrisy and contradiction are practicall

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close