The Commission on Student Affairs voted on Feb. 18 to accept the offer of professionals to attempt to mediate between the commission and the Collegiate Times in a dispute over anonymous online comments.
Related: PDF version of the CSA resolution and EMCVT's response.
It also informally authorized sending a drafted response letter to the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech, Inc.
The decisions were the product of a nearly hour-long discussion on the recent communication between EMCVT and the commission.
EMCVT is the independent parent company of the CT as well as the WUVT radio station, VTTV student television, Student Publications Photo Staff, Silhouette literary magazine, Bugle yearbook and College Media Solutions advertising.
Thursday’s discussion centered on how to move forward following the decision by the university administration that the commission’s original resolution — advocating a termination of EMCVT’s funding, revoking offices in Squires Student Center, and denying student organizations from using Budget Board funds for CT ads — was not a legal option.
In a unanimous vote the commission elected to accept an offer from Dale Robinson, manager of Tech’s conflict resolution program, to act as mediator.
EMCVT has stated that the company wants all communication with CSA to continue to be in written form.
“There is no legal action that can be taken,” said Michelle McLeese, CSA chair, to assembled student leaders. She added, however, that individual organizations could voluntarily choose to boycott CT ads.
Matthew Penny, president of the Interfraternity Council, noted that his organization has stopped advertising in the CT.
Ben Wade, representative of the Virginia Tech Union, said his organization was “considering pulling” about $15,000 of allocated funds for CT advertising.
Leighton Villa, chair of the CSA’s subcommittee assigned to the issue, began by reading several comments from the CT Web site to exemplify what he claimed were the detrimental consequences of anonymous commenting, including disparaging remarks on rape and racial groups.
“Is this really what we want our student newspaper to say?” Villa said.
A repeatedly mentioned concern during the meeting was that anonymity endangered violence prevention efforts because threatening comments could not be traced to the poster.
“This is not an issue of censorship. This is an issue of campus safety,” Villa said. “Given our history, how can we not afford to do something about this?”
Others raised the value of anonymity and protection of identity online.
“There is a need for the protection of what people are writing,” said Kristin Carr, chief justice of the undergraduate honor system. “They should feel free to express unpopular opinions.”
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 19 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 52 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I just wanted to leave an anonymous comment on this article while I still had that option. Thanks CT for fighting for my right to do so.
I served on the CSA several years ago and found that they tend to do a lot of talk, but they never really get much action that sticks, at least nothing that is of actual benefit to students. Fight on CT.
Reply to this Top
Same here. I've not only served on the CSA, but fought with the administrators and others who serve on it and make no sense in their arguments. I thought that coming to a prestigious school like this, logic would prevail and Constitutional rights would be respected. Man was I wrong...
Keep up the fight, CT.
Reply to this Top
If you really did serve on CSA, then why don't you at least post your initials? Anyone can claim to have participated in any event, but without tracable data, how can those statements be verfied? ...they can't.
Also, why are you complaining that the CSA is now taking action? Isn't that what you wanted? Perhaps you should have been more proactive and actually DONE something with your opportunity to lead.
To me, it looks like the Leaders are doing something. You had your chance and now you're jealous that they have the gumption to do what you were too feeble to accomplish.
"Step up or step aside." You didn't step up, so others are doing it for you.
BTW, these are my real initials.
Top
I have my reasons for posting anonymously; I can't do anything about that, sorry LV.
The assumption that you make is the same one the media, government, and progressive politics want you to - the ONLY right thing to do is to change. You realize that if we changed things EVERY time something happened, what things would look like? Sometimes doing nothing IS the right answer. To be clear, though, I do not thing "a policy of 'no'" is appropriate, either.
Top
/signed
Anonymous commenting is important and you must take the good with the bad.
Reply to this Top
Anonymous posting is cowardly. Take off your KKK mask.
Top
So the authors of the Federalist Papers were cowards? Just because you don't like the speech doesn't mean it's not protected. I think the real cowards are those who are unable to stand up for rights and liberties, taking the good with the bad.
Aristotle: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Learn to have thicker skins and stronger minds.
Top
I've read the articles twice. Publius, aka Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, were fiercely opposed to the Bill of Rights. Check out #84, brainiac.
And that's a nice quote, Aristotle, but his teacher taught him that, "The unexamined life is not worth living".
The CT is rife with cowards that protect hate speech.
Top
I find you calling me a "brainiac" an offensive, hurtful, and hateful attempt to separate me from the rest of the community... Not really but maybe, scratch that, hopefully you'll get my point. (and even if I did I would fight for your right to say it anonymously on these forums)
Top
Broadcasting hate speech is an "actual benefit to the students"? Obviously you have never been the target of irrational hatred.
Reply to this Top
The CT made an interesting yet irrelevant explanation as to their allowance of Anonymous posts in saying that other news organizations do this all over the country. This is irrelevant because, unlike these other news outlets which are of and for themselves, the CT is a de facto representative of the university and therefore has certain responsibilities in this area. VT never said they could not publish the CT, simply that they might no longer contribute to its operation. I see no reason why the CT cannot pre-moderate the commentary sections whereby comments are not posted UNTIL they have been screened for inappropriate content (profanity, racist/sexist statements, etc). I have no problem with Anonymous postings under these conditions. If the CT will not pre-moderate then no anonymous posting should be permitted, have people create verified accounts that post their name for all to see. Rule of thumb: If you think something you are going to say is going to infuriate, attack, or otherwise seriously offend a large group of people perhaps you should accept the consequences of saying it. Just a thought from a VT alum.
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
Kelly Wolff and the CT keep going out of their way to say that the CT doesn't get any of the 70K provided by the university. If that's the case, then the university should completely cut the CT loose and fund the other publications differently. If the CT wants to be independent, let it be independent.
Reply to this Top
Wow, I guess either contract law is way over your head, you just didn't bother to read the contract specifically preventing any form of censureship by the University, or maybe you just don't think it matters when the contract isn't the way you like it.
Reply to this Top
I would recommend that Kelly and the CT learn more about how the mediation process actually works rather than dismissing that option out of hand. Being willing to at least investigate a process that may allow for a constructive outcome would be a wise step, and is likely to benefit both organizations.
Reply to this Top
Where's the middle ground with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It's either free or not. There's no compromise.
If you don't like the comments don't read them. People don't offend other people; people take a offense. The onus is on the individual to avoid things that unbalance their delicate constitutions.
Reply to this Top
That this commission is now worried "about the children" aka safety of students etc. due to online comments, well then, I want to hear what online comment anywhere that has lead to physical violence against any student at Tech or anywhere else by said anonymous poster. WHAT!?! There is no evidence? Who knew....welcome to the USA where you don't have the right to NOT be offended. I fully support the CT and will continue to do so. Comments can posted by any reader of the CT WORLD wide. Keep it that way, keep it free, let masses police themselves. All the degrading comments get buried and those that are insightful rise and are read.
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
Ooops, I made a mistake in my Roanoke Times article about yesterday's CSA meeting. My apologies to Frank Shushok, whom I called a Tech professor, when in fact he is associate vice president for student affairs. I promise I'll do better with my fact checking next time.
Respectfully,
Tonia
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
You don't have a right to wear a KKK outfit in public.
Why does the CT hide behind the constitution and anonymously post racist slanders?
COWARDS!!!
Reply to this Top
The better question is why is the CSA so hell bent on holding people "accountable" for their distasteful opinions? Sounds a little like the McCarthyism of the mid-1900s.
How dare anyone have un-American ideas or anti-principle of community ideas.
p.s. I believe you are mistaken about the right to wear KKK hood (& other garbs) in public. If you check federal court cases in Kentucky and Indiana you'll find anti-mask ordinances were over turned on first amendment grounds.
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
You cannot wear a mask in the commowealth. And you cannot hide this argument in the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that gives you this right.
The CT protects hate speech and the haters that utter them. They don't even have to be a member of the university community. SHAME!
Reply to this Top
guess Halloween is boon then for reaping fines from adults and children who flaunt the law...
Reply to this Top
I wonder if Burqa's are considered masks too?
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
The only people who have never been the target of irrational hatred are the people who are spineless and have never stood for anything in their lives. They don't deserve any special treatment here.
Reply to this Top
the comment above this should not have been buried, so I'm reposting it.
"Remember when the administration wanted all faculty to take a diversity oath to keep their jobs? I read some of the best commentary on that issue right here, but most were anonymous. Do you really think any faculty would risk losing his or her job by speaking out against the provost's ideological agenda openly? Plenty did so anonymously, and the community was enriched.
There is a hostile working environment at Tech for those who don't buy into the prevailing ideological tone of the administration. They need a safe venue to speak out."
Reply to this Top
Do you mean that people need a safe venue to speak out against people of other races, genders, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc.? Doesn't that kind of ideology engender a hostile environment?
Reply to this Top
People need and have a right to a safe environment to speak out. What they speak and the reception of the content will vary on the audience. Some people like, some people don't like -- welcome "free and open expression of thoughts and opinions..."
Top
If the CT wants to talk about censorship, how does it explain the deleted comments following this article? The paper's own online guidelines say that comments will be "buried"--not deleted. CSA has asked for a system that requires people to register online with an email address; they can they post under a user name and write whatever they want. It's a measure of some accountability--not censorship. However, deleting comments does, in fact, amount to censorship.
Reply to this Top
Now the deleted comments, which said "removed by administrator" are gone. Hmm. Seems like censorship to me, CT.
Reply to this Top
This pisses me off the CT banned my IP address for a nothing comment. It's against the rules to disagree apparently. You've always been a rag CT but now you have reached new lows for being irrelevant. You're not only censoring offensive comments, which you out of line to do, you are also censoring any conservative ideological comments while leaving the other side alone. Congratulations you are an ideologically biased publication, worse than a cable news outlet because they have competent staff. It's ironic that you have a news section because it's all opinion now that you have forsaken any semblance of journalistic integrity. Slow clap everyone for a waste of trees and ink.
Reply to this Top
What the CSA is trying to do is a violation of the First Amendment - whether someone posts with their name or annonymously, they still have the right to voice their opinion.
As an alumni who reads the online CT to stay updated on campus news, 95% of the comments are fine and valid points/opinions. You always have to take the good with the bad, and yes occassionally there are hurtful annonymous posts.
I am disappointed in the university and CSA and that they have stopped promoting free speech and using "campus safety" as a reason to censor and track online comments. It's a little too "Big Brother" for me.
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
Hokies need to wake up and put on their thinking caps. VT administration didn't want a stop to the anonymous postings on CT out of concern for "hate speech." They wanted to clamp down on it because it gives too free an outlet for student criticism of the University. They are after all, an omniscient and infallible institution which is always looking out for your best interests.
Reply to this Top
Not true. It wasn't the administration that asked the CT to change the commenting system. It was a commission led mostly by students.
Reply to this Top
I just read the blog posting on this site about the new IP banning system (http://www.collegiatetimes.com/blogs/news/2010/02/22/fyi-the-cts-current-comment-moderationburial-system/). I tried to leave a comment, and it required me to leave a name AND an email address, just like CSA wants for the regular comments. Why is there a difference?
Also, won't an IP banning system have the effect of banning all AOL users, etc.?
Reply to this Top
I think that is a default setting from wordpress, which if you look at the code is what the CT uses for blogs
Reply to this Top
Tasteless. This is just interesting.
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
Who is pulling the strings on the US Congress to use the powers of the government, who are also in the car building business now, to destroy it's competitors in Japan?
Is it China who now own the US and it's gov't officials?
Seems like any educated group of folks in this nation have a lot larger concerns that who is posting what on a college paper comments section.
Step outside your comfort zones and take a look at the reality you are inheriting, it ain't pretty..............
Worry about what really matters, get your priorities in order, you're being scammed by your school admin, the state government and your national gov't, again who cares who is posting what on here?
Reply to this Top
The administration should be more concerned about the campus climate in which these feelings exist, not the CT. Keep fighting CT!
Reply to this Top
Remember that CSA is mostly made up of students, representing major student organizations. What the STUDENTS are saying is that the comments on the CT website, which aren't necessarily from VT community members, contributes to a poor campus climate.
Reply to this Top
no, a poor campus climate contributes to a poor campus climate. have you ever heard of the difference between a symptom and the problem???
Top
You can try and ban me but I'll just post through proxies. You've stopped nothing CT. We will not sacrifice freedom for the illusion of security. Get your head straight CT.
Reply to this Top
***Leighton Villa, chair of the CSAs subcommittee assigned to the issue, began by reading several comments from the CT Web site to exemplify what he claimed were the detrimental consequences of anonymous commenting, including disparaging remarks on rape and racial groups.
Is this really what we want our student newspaper to say? Villa said. ***
The newspaper isn't publishing such remarks - individuals commenting on the Collegiate Times' articles are publishing them. Why should a student run newspaper be punished for statements made by those not associated with or employed by EMCVT?
Reply to this Top
And see...Anonymous, that is the problem. No one can know for sure that none of the EMCVT or CT staff aren't writing those comments under anonymous names...any of the staff members, or all of them for that matter could be doing it. Do you get the point now?
Reply to this Top