University lifts Facebook ban for student athletes


© 2006 Student Press Law Center

July 10, 2006

OHIO — Kent State University has reversed an order that would have required all student athletes at the school to delete their Facebook.com profiles by Aug. 1.

University Athletics Director Laing Kennedy said safety concerns prompted him to tell student athletes in May that they would no longer be allowed to access Facebook, a social networking Web site. In a reversal of that decision, Kennedy said now student athletes will be permitted to use the site, but they must limit public access to their personal profiles by allowing only those that they know to view them.

In addition to requiring athletes to block outsiders from viewing their profiles, the students also must allow their coaches and other academic counselors to access and monitor their personal profiles. Kennedy said this is to ensure that each student is complying with the university’s “code of expected behavior” for athletes.

“It’s like a contract whereupon when we grant an athlete financial aid, you agree to go to class, you agree to complete assignments, you agree to attend team meetings, you agree to be a good citizen and a positive spokesperson for the university and to represent the university at the highest order,” Kennedy said.

Online actions that might be considered breaking the code of expected behavior, Kennedy said, could include posting “provocative” pictures or making excessive references to partying.

Kennedy said the original decision to bar athletes from using Facebook came after officials in the athletics department learned that a female student athlete was “inappropriately contacted” by someone who found her personal information on her Facebook profile. But some First Amendment advocates say concerns for student safety still do not give school officials the right to control what students do online.

“We’re talk about adults here, young adults, yes, but adults,” said Gary Daniels, litigation coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. “They don’t need the university’s help or assistance to decide who to talk to. It’s unwarranted and unwelcomed instruction and oversight from the school.”

If the students know that coaches and others are monitoring their profiles, Daniels said, it might cause a “chilling effect” on their speech, because it could inhibit them from speaking out online about controversial issues.

“What if they wanted to badmouth the university as a whole, or they wanted to say negative things about the team, or how the team is performing or how the coach is performing?” Daniels said. “Or what if they had other controversial sentiments and wanted to say something having to do with immigration, or the war in Iraq, or about abortion or religion? Would they be less inclined to do this, knowing that the university is observing what they say and may take action against them?”

Daniels said the fact that the student athletes will be required to privatize their profiles also raises some First Amendment concerns.

“I don’t see it as essentially any different than the university trying to regulate in some form or another who they’re talking to in person,” Daniels said. “The only difference between the university controlling an athlete talking to someone on the street and someone in cyberspace is that there is a computer involved.”

Kennedy said the university respects the idea that Facebook can be a valid tool for students to use to communicate.

“For example, one of our men’s basketball players ... on Facebook.com he has a picture of our team celebrating the Mid-American Conference Championship, he has a picture of himself helping cut down the net, he has a picture of his mother. That’s not a problem,” Kennedy said. “We should be in a position to allow that kind of communication.”

Kennedy said he has not heard any negative reaction from the athletes about restricting their Facebook profiles, although there has been some criticism from within the university community, as well as some outside institutions. However, he said the decision to change the plan was not a result of community backlash, but instead of a “diligent review” of the code of expected behavior along with input from staff and other academic counselors.

—by Whitney McFerron, SPLC staff writer

Share

For More Information:

< Return to Previous Page