Collegiate Times

sounds like a form of censorship

I now regret that I cried wolf (see, I can be funny too) so quickly and didn't hear what commission members wanted to say. It would have been better for all of us to have a dialog. I do care about what students think, and my comment here is an example of how well our comment section works.

Kelly
x

I'm proud of the Hokie Nation and all its members, regardless of how they act under the cloak of anonymity.


Charles Steger
x

I share Kelly's regret of acting hastily and not learning more about the disagreement between the Commission on Student Affairs and the Collegiate Times before commenting on it. It was just too tempting to write a sensationalist piece. I'm glad the CT has this comment section where we can set things straight. Right?

Tonia

I think it's clear that some are upset about the ruling...given the posters above. Clearly they are not happy with the outcome, and frankly, I say too bad.

The whole idea of anonymity thrives on the internet. Look at any major newspaper, blogs, etc. People have more power and say things they wouldn't otherwise say if they had their real name listed. Is it unfortunate that these things happen? Yes. Should it be controlled by someone? No.

If you are taking posts on the internet personally, then it seems like you need to look somewhere else for sympathy.

It appears as if the Div. of Student Affairs was again trying to unilaterally impose their "unjust" will, as they've done in the past against several previous colleagues.

Each of the responsibility bullets identified on the Div. of Student Affairs webpage should not be just mere words, but actually be upheld and practiced by everyone.

And always remember: what goes around, comes around!!

In defense of the Division of Student Affairs, it had nothing to do with this dispute. The Division did not try to impose any will on anyone. The Commission on Student Affairs, with its membership of students representing many major and smaller student organizations, faculty and staff, expressed concerns about the on-line commenting system of the CT, and attempted to use some leverage to get the CT to engage in a real dialog. There was never a threat to prohibit advertisement in the CT; rather, there was a recommendation to potentially restrict certain (student activities fees) funds to be used for advertising in the CT.

Stop impersonating me, or you're in big trouble young man.

Charles Steger
x

I'm the real Charles Steger. This is entirely inappropriate for the comments section for the CT. You two jerks should be ashamed of yourselves.

Charles Steger
x

How much school money is wasted on commissions like this one or the one they formed on Alcohol use at tailgate parties? Aren't we having a budget crisis? Aren't there better things for the school to focus on than anonymous comments that no one reads?

The bottom line is that "recommendation" was a threat, pure and simple. I've read these documents and shared with a wide audience of fellow university staff - we're all outraged that a committee would attempt to stifle the right to anonymous free speech, particularly by the use of coercion. This is the same tactic used by the Mafia to extort "protection" money. "It sure would be a shame if..."

I do want to compliment Larry Hincker on the University's reply - you said what we wanted to hear.

To readers of the CT, it is evident that there has been a real dialogue, described more than once in columns like this one: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14739/moderating-comments-an-ongoing-concern-of-the-ct It just seems the CSA didn't like the outcome and doesn't acknowledge that there are many different opinions on the anonymity issue.

Wow, what a convenient way to shut down criticism as April 16 trials are coming. Great idea Ed Spencer, "withdraw their support of the media association"! (yeah, he said it, see the "commission" minutes linked in the PDF.) It's way too much trouble to have dissent and VT employees criticizing the fact that you didn't follow your own emergency protocols. Just put an end to it by banning anonymous comments! Love, one of your staff

I am glad Virginia Tech's administration responded quickly to an ill-advised direction proposed by the Commission of Student Affairs. I do agree with the need for a dialogue within and about the university community; however, using part of the organizational governance structure, advisory or not, to exert or force that dialogue is inappropriate. I believe we at EMCVT responded directly and proportionally to assure students' rights were protected.

Moreover, I think the core of the issue highlights the need for administrators and staff of public education institutions to go beyond any "student affairs education" and embrace the fact they are also public administrators. This notion implies knowing when issues are of constitutional concern and when they are not. I was shocked to see some members of the administration did not realize or acknowledge the fundamental constitutional rights that were concerned. For issues that step on speech and expression the University and its commissions must always review then with strict scrutiny, in the least.

My greatest concern was the lack of any deliberative, in-depth thought given to the Commission's decision to attempt to enforce the speech code espoused by the Principle of Community. We are students, faculty, staff, and participants of a community of higher education in a constitutional republic - we should know better.

Here's to future dialogue versus monologue.

If you're not willing to sign your name to a comment you want to make, you should keep your mouth shut. The problem with this is that people who want to criticize others and make highly inappropriate comments under the condition of anonymity are cowards. Virginia Tech is supposed to be better than that!

Absolutely no money is wasted, as its run mostly by student representatives. Make sure you do some more research before you go lambasting an organization for inappropriate reasons. There is plenty to target from the actions of the CSA, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Also, are you no one? Obviously this statement is inaccurate as well.

Well, there are a lot of faculty who spend time on it, and a secretary who writes up the trivia they talk about. We students are paying them to do that. While they spend there time at these meetings, they are not doing more useful things that might actually help us.

Said by an anonymous poster.

Haha, flipping hysterical, how ever would one with the last name Wolffe think to use it as a pun...how original. We as a student body are glad you are in a leadership role to impart professionalism in all aspects of your position, not knee-jerk reactions, fairness, and a great sense of humor to your students.

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Shut off all comments and charge $10 month for online access to CT. You will get badly needed funds from 2 people and you won't have to worry about censorship online.

Interested Thin,bit security department shall enemy most obviously anybody around vast need light too initial close hope sum wash hardly association conclusion organization liberal speak independent drink right reader damage institute kid slowly happen comment text available route end fly product list reduce best improvement elderly variation concern commercial voice agree link thing she likely enable type blow agency area market farm author cultural author no-one would criminal fail argue carefully working bus quarter evidence open baby energy individual hear position outside annual mean soil considerable type