Universities and the Yik Yak Monster

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."  Me and Bobby McGee, Janis Joplin

When Janis sang about freedom, it was in romantic, if melancholy terms. 

On the internet, by contrast, freedom usually means the right to engage in the chaotic smack-down of anyone you disagree with.  And, by chaotic smackdown, I mean the right to threaten people with whom you disagree with physical harm, rape, torture, public humiliation, and/or death.  There's no better example of this right now than Yik Yak. 

For the uninitiated, Yik Yak is an anonymous social media app.  The preview on I-Tunes says that "Yik Yak acts like a local bulletin board for your area by showing the most recent posts from other users around you. It allows anyone to connect and share information with others without having to know them." 

'Yaks' (anonymous comments) can only be read by people within 1.5 miles of the poster's location.  The geographic nature of Yik Yak makes it  popular on college campuses. There are enough people around to start conversations, and all of those people share some basic things in common (age, shared classes, etc.) that make them inclined to talk to each other.  

Unfortunately, the anonymity of Yik Yak means people feel free to say hateful things they probably wouldn't say publicly, or even in the company of these same peers.   

Last year, when students protested police brutality in Ferguson during peaceful events on American University's campus, for example, yakers on campus sounded like they'd just walked out of George Wallace's Alabama.  For those with the stomach for it, here's a sampling of the vitriol.   

Yik Yak has also been used to denigrate or otherwise humiliate people.  A New York Times story on Yik Yak recounts a student reading a yak that compared her to a hippo.  Professors aren't immune either.  The same article recounts a series of yaks made during a class about a female professor.  Few of them were printable in a family newspaper.  

Most recently, students in a feminist group at nearby University of Mary Washington claim they've been stalked and harassed on yik yak.  Students in the group report receiving threats for their activist work and having their real time movements on campus reported on yik yak--a move that made students feel like they were in constant danger. 

So, how do college administrators respond to all of these problems? 

Well, let's just say that in the hands of college administrators, freedom sounds like a flimsy excuse to do nothing. 

To be fair to college administrators (and their PR hacks), most do issue public condemnations of the content of the yaks.  But, the great majority stop there.  After the ruckus at Mary Washington, for example, the university issued a statement that said in part that the university has "no recourse for cyberbullying" and directed students to complain directly to Yik Yak.  Not surprisingly, companies tell victims to call police--and on a college campus that means calling campus police. And the buck passing begins. 

Colleges can't make their students behave.  But, they could certainly make it hard for them to misbehave.  Many students and professors who have been harassed and threatened on Yik Yak argue that their universities should block access to anonymous apps like Yik Yak on campus wifi systems. 

Unfortunately, most colleges and universities refuse to do so, justifying their inaction on free speech grounds.  In fact, that's exactly how a spokesperson from Mary Washington explained the school's decision to a reporter with the Washington Post:  "There are First Amendment concerns when you are a state institution." 

I don't buy this argument one bit. 

Blocking Yik Yak from a university's wifi does not block speech.  Rather it blocks a particular venue for speech.  And,universities have been blocking venues for free speech for years--the only difference is that these venues are in real rather than cyber space.  Many universities, for example, have set up 'free speech'/'protest' zones.  Normally, they are tucked far away from any venue that might be used to host speakers, and thus draw protestors.  In effect, the university says you can speak freely on campus, but only in designated spaces.   

It feels hypocritical then, to hear universities claim they can't do the same in cyberspace, especially when there's ample evidence that Yik Yak isn't just a venue for hateful speech, but threatening/dangerous speech as well.   

Perhaps universities aren't worried about preserving free speech so much as avoiding lawsuits from Yik Yak?     

Want Metro to run during MLB Playoffs? Let the Students Pay for it.

Truth is usually stranger than fiction.  Today's exhibit?  American University has agreed to pay to keep the metro open late for the Nationals' playoff games this fall.  You can read all about in today's Washington Post.

That's right, a university (funded largely through tuition) is offering to pay an expense a corporate tycoon refuses to pay.  I'd say there's not only some entitlement in the air, but a whiff of desperation as well.

This isn't the first time the Nationals have refused to pay to keep metro open late.  It happened a couple of years ago when the team made the playoffs.  The company Living Social ended up picking up the tab.

To be fair, picking up the tab for extended metro hours during a major league sporting event usually isn't that costly.  In fact, all of the other major sports franchises in the city have agreements to pay the upfront costs.  Why?  Because metro agrees to refund the fee if ridership covers the expense, and it usually does.

So, given all that, why in the hell can't the Lerner family--the entitled tycoons at the center of today's truth is stranger than fiction drama--manage to cough up the cash?  It appears the Lerners, who didn't even pay for most of the stadium their team plays in, think the city should cover it.  Why?  Well, here's what the Nationals PR hack unitteam had to say by way of explanation:  "What matters is that our fans will be able to ride Metro to and from postseason games and not have to worry about missing a second of the action." 

Another interpretation is that what we have here is a classic case of a corporate welfare queen grown so fat and lazy that it's now looking for private largess to add to its government goodie bag.* 

FYI, you know you're in trouble when even the owner of Washington's football team agrees to cover expenses for his late night games.

What about AU's role?  Full disclosure--I teach at AU.  My initial reaction, when my husband read the headline to me this morning, was disbelief.  Why would AU--a university at the other end of town from the stadium--pay for that?  It's not like AU is a well known location for 'natitude.'  Sure, some of the students, staff, and profs like the team, but it isn't visibly noticeable in any way.  In fact, a lot of students are from other cities, and continue to root for their home teams when they come here.

Turns out, AU is a "higher education partner" with the Nationals.  According to the Washington Post article linked to above, the partnerhsip gives the university "high visibility inside the ballpark through signs, T-shirt giveaways and other promotional activities."  I wonder if my smiling face graces any of them? Sigh, a girl can dream. 

You could call this an innovative way to market a university.  Or, you could call it an own goal (sorry to mix my sport metaphors dear reader, but I simply could not resist).  None of the comments at the end of the article applauded AU for the move.  Most comments focused solely on the Nats (and none of them were good).  When AU did get a mention, the tone was blase at best (this is what all universities do) and scathing at worst.  At least two commentators saw a branding effort in backfire mode, as in AU just demoted itself to the amateur league where the community colleges** and for-profit universities play the advert game.   

We seem to have an advertising fail.  So, why don't we create a scholarship win instead?  Take the money and establish a scholarship for a local kid in the DMV who can't afford AU's tuition but wants to come here.  That's a positive way to build a brand in the city and region.          

* It is also possible that MLB is playing hardball, pushing the Lerner family to refuse to pay the fees so other teams in other cities won't have to agree to similar deals.  Even if this is the case, it doesn't make the Lerner's entitlement any better.  It just makes MLB look bad as well.  
** I wish community colleges did more advertising.  They are cheaper than for-profits and they have much higher graduation rates.  Check 'em out!