[gotothedoctor]

Are you really confused? Leaving the law & federal funding requirements aside, Universities seek to have successful graduates & thus it is in their best interest to provide an environment that equips their students to learn. Being harassed undermines these goals, so regardless of the law, it is in their best interest to prevent such disruptions.

I'm not sure I understand the bird analogy. Is the point that Universities can't control birds? Well, Universities can & do already actually demand that their students not harass other students as a condition of their attendance.

[gaius]

Universities seek to have successful graduates

Once, yes, but I wonder if that is true anymore in these days of $60k+/year fees. Do universities make more from undergrads or alumni donations these days? Because if their goal really is successful graduates then they are not setting their students up for success by policing every dispute. It would be completely different obv if YikYak was the "official" app on campus, but the university administration is nothing to do with it, and wouldn't have the power to block it even if they were. What are you expecting them to do exactly?

If a crime has been committed, go to the police, the real police.

[gotothedoctor]

Successful graduates become alumni who make donations.

To be clear, no one is suggesting that Universities should be "policing every dispute." I am stating that Universities can and do seek to create the most effective learning environment for their students--and that harassment undermines this goal. This is why Universities, as indicated in the article, blocked (aka geofenced) YikYak (& though it is not mentioned, other apps as well).

Not sure I understand how that's relevant, but most University rules are not laws--but, while breaking them may not be criminal or even illegal,it can still get you thrown out of school.

[pitaa]

At this point I could take this to mean that you're arguing for safe spaces. While creating an "effective learning environment" sounds noble, some students seem to be interpreting this to mean they shouldn't have to hear viewpoints they disagree with [1].

Coddled students don't make successful graduates, as evidenced by the interns that were fired last year after writing a petition about the office dress code that they thought was unfair [2], failing to understand that their job was not a democracy.

Of course, there are times a university should get involved, such as if the harassment is coming from a professor or university-owned email address. But at some point, the most I think should be expected from the university would be a referral to a therapist so the student can work through things and learn coping strategies. It may sound callous to say, but like it or not there are plenty of things that can be upsetting, hurtful, or emotionally damaging to someone without actually being illegal or even reasonably preventable. The university could help to make their graduates successful by making sure they are capable of coping with this fact of life.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shu...

[2] https://www.inc.com/alison-green/about-those-interns-fired-f...

[gotothedoctor]

No, I'm not arguing for "safe spaces" here at all. Nor am I suggesting students shouldn't "have to hear viewpoints they disagree with."

I am arguing that, along with legal duties, Universities have an interest and an incentive to prevent their students from being harassed. To be clear, being harassed is not being disagreed with.

I don't see the relevance of this anecdata & punditry to the issue, nor do I know what "coddled" really means or why such a generalization would apply to every University. Regardless, pattern recognition over decades of experience tells me that people who are new to the workforce inevitably behave as if they are new to the workforce. And also, that with each new generation, pundits offer some variation of "kids these days." On the plus side, if we've moved on to "coddled", maybe people will stop complaining about those damned millennials!

Anyway, even if we disagree, I am glad that you do think that sometimes the University should get involved & that mental health services are useful.

[gaius]

If people are being harassed and threatened over an app, that is no different to them being harassed by POTS - the police can deal with that.

But if people are going to their university and saying hi, I installed this app that you didn't write or tell me to install, and I don't like it, sort it out for me, then that's an unreasonable ask, IMHO. It's like getting angry with a bakery because they won't repair your bicycle.

[mythrwy]

You bring up "interest" but original post is about "duty".

They aren't the same thing. Universities might have an "interest" in protecting students from online harassment. That doesn't mean a lawsuit alleging the university has a "duty" to protect students from online harassment has merit.

[gotothedoctor]

I was trying to leave law aside:)

But, yes, Universities also have legal duties to their students. However, these vary significantly based on too many different factors to speak usefully in generalities (eg based on city & state, public or private, is it a research university, is there some kind of consent decree, etc) and of course, the facts of each case.

More simply: whether a University has a legal duty to protect students from online harassment will depend on the specific situation, but, in all cases, the University will have an interest.

[nawitus]

The important question is actually "should there be legal duties", which you can determine from the original point: "I am just shocked at the amount of control, influence, and involvement into their students' lives universities are expected to have."

I (for one) believe universities should not have a legal duty to prevent online harrassment, even though it may be of interest to universities.

[gotothedoctor]

Kindly, I don't think that is the important question because that's not how legal duty works. Basically, there are always legal duties, some of which are codified & some of which are common law.

I'm not arguing there is always a legal duty here, nor that there always should be. I'm stating that whether there is a duty will always depend on the individual fact pattern & the laws/regulations that apply to that specific University.

Not only do Universities operate under different jurisdictions with different rules & laws--but their level of "control, influence and involvement" varies along too. This changes what duty there is--as do the specific facts.So such generalizations are not applicable.

Hope this makes sense; its not easy to explain!

[wand3r]

> Equips them to learn

I would argue it equips them for the real world. The internet extends off campus with them when they graduate.

[golemotron]

If street corner pay phones and phone books were introduced today someone would sue because of the anonymous harassment they enable. It's hard to see where we are now as societal progress.