Recently the Pepperdine community has become increasingly aware that the university not only looks at students’ personal Web sites but also will use the material as a basis for disciplinary action.
Some found out about this from the Aug. 29th edition of the Graphic, but others found out over the summer when they received a letter from the university accompanied by incriminating photos. Imagine a student’s surprise when he or she opens a letter sent from school and finds photos of a party he or she attended. True, these students were committing code of conduct violations. But only in the past few months have students realized that online photos could be cause for a judicial hearing because the code of conduct has never contained clauses about online material.
Although Pepperdine’s alcohol rules have a reputation for being strict, one thing students can appreciate is that the university doesn’t look for alcohol offenders. No one is staking out known party houses or patrolling the liquor section at Ralphs. All in all, Pepperdine’s alcohol policies have been hands-off. But this new way of obtaining material seems to be the opposite. Clicking on a Facebook profile is the cyber equivalent of randomly checking dorm room refrigerators for alcohol at random.
Dean of Student Affairs Mark Davis was quoted in the Graphic that he couldn’t “bury his head in the sand” when he saw online material that led to the suspension of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity. In fact, Pepperdine began using online photo Web sites to get students in trouble after individuals outside of the administration brought the sites to the attention of the university. Pepperdine should never look the other way. Pepperdine should, however, question the ethical implications of surfing student sites.
It’s no secret that many employers will do background research on potential employees. However, if the employer finds photos of a marathon keg stand, he or she may choose not to hire that person. If Pepperdine finds these photos while doing a background search of a potential student worker or RA, the student will not get the job and will also face at least an informal disciplinary meeting.
What the university stands behind is that the Internet is open to all and students are the publishers of this self-incriminating information.The Internet is public domain and anyone, including a Pepperdine official, is free to look at whatever it may contain. This is new ground for schools and students across the country.
Some students are having to learn the hard way just how open the Internet is. They can also learn, however, how to create privacy for themselves and those in their photos. Web sites dealing with personal information often have an array of privacy options. One can make a Facebook profile restricted to “friends” or “friends of friends.” One can also select an option that makes a profile not searchable to faculty or staff. Photo libraries often have password protection options. This feature is especially appreciated by people who didn’t make the decision to post photos but who are nonetheless in them.
The scariest part of this situation is that the Pepperdine code of conduct has no specific rules about online material. Davis said the existing rules were sufficient. But the truth is that using this new type of material — material found online — has left students with many questions.
Students must know what constitutes objectionable material. Is it a beer can in hand or three tequila shots in a row? What sites will be viewed: those with links on Facebook or those connected to other photo libraries? Do photos carry the same weight as an RA write-up?The Internet is becoming a place for school work, personal expression and communication. We are well connected to each other, administrators included.
Just as Pepperdine has code of conduct rules for dorms, it should also have rules for Internet, which in this day and age is a second home to most students.
09-08-2005