The U’s new policy to censor websites that host information and media deemed inappropriate for college students lacks any basis in reason. Although the scope of the censorship might seem minimal since it is applied exclusively to the UGuest server, the rationale in doing so only makes the U look worse.
“The main focus is prospective students,” said Steve Scott of the Management Office of Information Security. “The U prefers a clean image when prospective students, their families or patients at the U Hospital visit the Web via the U.”
It is classless to purport to have “clean” Internet for prospective students and their families and then drop the pretense after admission. I guess the U not only knows how to educate, but can sell some snake oil on the side.
This rationale is a feeble attempt to deceive, and the deception is not even relevant to the college students who pay for it.
China is the global mascot of censorship today. Yet this is the way the U is going, which gives a whole new meaning to “Go Red!”
Nevertheless, the U is now blocking YouTube and Google Video because that would look bad to prospective students—they’re not ready for those websites, at least not until they’re admitted.
Among others, there’s The Onion, also blocked now. The reason given in this case is that the content is rated R. The only interpretation for this move is that it’s political—and that’s where I lose my cool. The Motion Picture Association of America specifies an “R” rating as requiring children under 17 to be accompanied by an adult. Obviously this has nothing to do with college students.
“It is a mandate from the State Legislature,” Scott said.
It might be a mandate, but the U could push back, which it evidently has chosen not to do. It doesn’t matter how the argument for censorship is made. The rationale fails.
The Salt Lake City Public Library also censors content for some users—the children’s section. Adults, like college students, can browse the Web without bars, according to librarian Mark Rex. Ignorant dialogue yields only more ignorance. Such are the fruits of censorship. So does democracy wither on the vine.
Because part of our education at the U is moral, blocking off parts of the map merely cripples students’ moral development. Now, who would pay for that?
Most of all, the U protects no one by censorship. It cashes checks by selling itself as a research institution, then acts like China to visitors. That’s classic bait and switch. Let’s not put our money there, if that’s all they’re selling.
The university is the one place in society where free thought must be maintained—otherwise education devolves into indoctrination. People are never protected by censorship. It does not further our development, nor does it make us “better people.” It’s a mental version of foot binding.
BYU should be having a good, long laugh right now.
Block child pornography sites—I’m 100 percent for that. Sure, there are many less clear-cut cases, but however fuzzy the standards might be, I trust we can establish standards that successfully discriminate between sites that promote harm, and the rest.
Let’s discuss the other kinds of sites before making moral judgments. My point is, dialogue will win out. Let’s learn from one another before we decide.
Many parents pay for their children’s tuition at the U. This expression of doubt by the U about its children’s judgment is an affront to the parenting skills of these paying customers. That’s not going to sound good at the next shareholders/Regents meeting.
Your money is now going toward censoring a political voice I and many of my colleagues affirm. This is when I see red.
Students are financing the servers and the salaries of those who operate them. Now we’re being told what we can and can’t handle. U visitors are relegated to the children’s section in the public library. The U should abandon this practice or its “university” title.