news and thoughts
NPR today reported on a recent UNC decision to post the names and photos of all persons banned on campus on the school’s website. The site makes the disclaimer that persons listed may or may not be dangerous, but all have violated the school’s code of conduct. However, the specific violations of the students are not detailed. The report stated that while most students support the move, the most popular question on campus is a desire to know what the misdeeds resulting in the decision are. One example was a student accused of a stabbing, which most students supported, but the other side was a young woman whose eating disorder caused her to pass out in the student cafeteria. Students seemed to react to this information differently, and more questioningly. Finally, although support is overwhelming, there are a number of students who question it’s effectiveness, and various privacy rights issues.
I think that in general it’s a good idea. It seems that those students genuinely violent are going to be made known to the students, which should keep them safer. As for those whose bans are of less violent origins, I think that the decision could spark student support for them. Should a student with an eating disorder be banned because she ‘poses a significant risk to her own health’? That seems more like the wording to defend the expulsion of suicidal or addicted students, not those with a more internally driven emotional disorder. And if bulimia or anorexia (I do not know which the student has) is a viable cause for a ban, what then of depressed, OCD, schizoid, or ADD students? Where does the line sit?
I think that by posting this list, the school puts its discipline policy up for review by its most important critics, its customers. Students talk to each other, and soon the reasons for many bans will be known. From there, student activism can work to tighten the wording of policies to allow mental health violators’ cases to be reviewed, revoked, and so on. As for the violent and banned, my only concern is that since their cases may not yet be adjudicated, the posting might represent slander. Further, I do wonder if there are legal ramifications of maintaining people on the list for years and years online, where future employers can find the list, affecting the person’s entire life. A set of allegations may be weighty enough for the college to act upon, but without genuine criminal convictions and a legal structure supporting the accusations, does the University have the right to put the future reputation of the individuals at risk? While a serious concern for student safety on campus is valid, it seems like it quickly risks becoming a ‘Think of the children’ slippery slope, and I never support the ‘think of the children’ argument on its own.
I think that in general it’s a good idea. It seems that those students genuinely violent are going to be made known to the students, which should keep them safer. As for those whose bans are of less violent origins, I think that the decision could spark student support for them. Should a student with an eating disorder be banned because she ‘poses a significant risk to her own health’? That seems more like the wording to defend the expulsion of suicidal or addicted students, not those with a more internally driven emotional disorder. And if bulimia or anorexia (I do not know which the student has) is a viable cause for a ban, what then of depressed, OCD, schizoid, or ADD students? Where does the line sit?
I think that by posting this list, the school puts its discipline policy up for review by its most important critics, its customers. Students talk to each other, and soon the reasons for many bans will be known. From there, student activism can work to tighten the wording of policies to allow mental health violators’ cases to be reviewed, revoked, and so on. As for the violent and banned, my only concern is that since their cases may not yet be adjudicated, the posting might represent slander. Further, I do wonder if there are legal ramifications of maintaining people on the list for years and years online, where future employers can find the list, affecting the person’s entire life. A set of allegations may be weighty enough for the college to act upon, but without genuine criminal convictions and a legal structure supporting the accusations, does the University have the right to put the future reputation of the individuals at risk? While a serious concern for student safety on campus is valid, it seems like it quickly risks becoming a ‘Think of the children’ slippery slope, and I never support the ‘think of the children’ argument on its own.