University of Oregon will monitor students' social media statements
Universities can now penalize students for what they do in their private lives&#x27;? Well that&#x27;s dystopian. Reading the article, it&#x27;s pretty clear this can, and will, be used for ideological ends:<p>&quot;Students whose off-campus behavior has a <i>significant adverse impact on the University community</i>, its members, and&#x2F;or <i>the pursuit of its mission</i> and educational objectives.&quot;<p>They do specify that violence is one of the two reasons, however in the current ideological climate, violence has been classified in a super broad way that does not match the conventional description of violence. Some institutes have classified some speech acts as violence. Which is alarming.<p>Also, disrupting the university&#x27;s &quot;pursuit of its mission&quot; is a very ominous turn of phrase. It&#x27;s reminiscent of the phrase &quot;anti-revolutionary acts&quot;. Imagine being sanctioned for &quot;acts which disrupt the mission of the institution&quot;?<p>Others have pointed out that I grabbed an old version of the document to quote. Fair, that said however the text when updated includes:<p>&quot;[that] which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members&quot;<p>Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as &quot;making feel uncomfortable&quot;. The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the &quot;disruption&quot; caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution&#x27;s academic goals. Different wording, same impact.<p>&#x27; Updated from initial wording to avoid spreading mistaken information.