By: Justin Bernard, Staff Writer
Social media has become the main platform for how most college students communicate with one another. Focusing specifically on college student-athletes, a quandary exists for the NCAA and the educational institutions where these students attend. On one side of the argument, these student-athletes have protected free speech rights under the First Amendment. Conversely, the athletic department or administration would argue that freedom of speech is not unlimited and that compliance with their respective social-media policies is expected in exchange for their scholarships. As most schools view the situation, participation in collegiate sports “is a privilege, not a right.”[1]
Cardale Jones, a quarterback at the Ohio State University, helps depict the issues that arise with social media. Jones, who recently helped Ohio State beat Oregon in the first College Football Playoff National Championship game, tweeted back in 2012 how he considered class pointless. This led to his suspension by Ohio State for one game and illustrates a growing concern between the student-athletes, the NCAA, and the educational institutions: Is there a higher standard of scrutiny for these student-athletes in comparison to other college students with social media? If so, where does the NCAA and certain education institutions draw the line between unprotected and protected free speech in relation to social media?
Regarding the NCAA, the governing body takes a limited stance on regulating a student-athlete’s social media. Instead, the NCAA expects the institution to monitor their respective student- athletes.[2] The official NCAA social-media rules are mainly targeted at what a coach can and cannot say to prospective student-athletes on social media during the recruitment process.[3] Also, regarding recruitment, NCAA rules forbid student-athletes from posting or discussing a potential recruit’s campus visit on social media.[4] The NCAA will intervene and deliver sanctions, however, when an institution fails to monitor the social accounts of their student-athletes.[5]
With the university or college’s social-media policies, the regulations and sanctions differ across the board. Generally, a student-athlete can be held liable for the following unprotected speech found on his or her social media: threats, defamatory statements, obscene posts, postings in violation of criminal law, and other postings that violate either team or NCAA rules.
At the University of Southern California, for example, the university’s social media policy lists what the administration deems as inappropriate social media behavior. The behavior ranges from photographs of personal drug, tobacco or alcohol use to even derogatory or unsportsmanlike comments directed towards another institution or opposing student- athlete. If the student-athlete’s social media content is found to be in violation of the school’s policy, the student-athlete is first subjected to a written warning. If the behavior continues, the student-athlete is subjected to a meeting with the athletic director and head coach and can also be subjected to suspension.[6]
Regarding whether or not student-athletes face a higher level of scrutiny, schools like Indiana University seem to think so. In Indiana University’s “Statement of Principles,” the institution states that student-athletes “are public representatives of the University” and that “they are expected to exhibit a higher standard of behavior and maturity than might be displayed by other students, staff, and faculty.”[7]
Some universities have even gone so far as to hire third-party companies to monitor their student-athletes’ social-media use.[8] Texas Tech hired YouDiligence, a social network monitoring service provider, while Ohio State took a similar approach by paying JumpForward, a private company, to supervise their student-athlete’s social networks.[9]
Other universities, like Western Kentucky, have restricted their women’s soccer team from even using their social-media accounts from midnight to 5 A.M.—the hours where most young adults run into trouble on their social networks.[10]
With the implementation of these social-media rules, some have raised constitutional concerns regarding the athletes’ First Amendment rights. Because the social-media postings typically occur outside the classroom, it is more difficult for the institution to restrict the student-athlete’s postings. Consequently, a more practical approach is to view social-media postings as “off-campus speech.” As a result, a favorable test is an institution’s challenged policy should be upheld if the speech in question is (1) a material disruption to the school and/or if it (2) falls under another category of unprotected speech.[11]
With social media being the main communicative tool for young adults, the courts might see a future influx of cases from student-athletes involving their First Amendment rights. Until then, hopefully student-athletes will realize that what they say on social media can have serious implications to their collegiate future.
[1] Case Could Affect Sport as ‘Privilege,’http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2006/Editorial/guest+editorial+-+case+could+affect+sport+as+_privilege_+-+1-16-06+ncaa+news.html
[2] The Official NCAA Social Media Rules, http://www.ncsasports.org/blog/2010/02/02/the-official-ncaa-social-media-rules/
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Information taken from the University of Southern California’s social-media policy.
[7] Statement Of Principles on the Conduct of Participants in Student Athletic Programs, https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1087502/indiana-guidelines.pdf
[8]Social media monitoring widespread among college athletic departments, public records survey shows, http://www.splc.org/article/2014/03/social-media-monitoring-widespread-among-college-athletic-departments-public-records-survey-shows
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11]Unnecessary Roughness: Why Athletic Departments Need to Rethink Whether to Aggressively Respond to the Use of Social Media by Athletes, http://www.uh.edu/web/meetings/documents/Bently-Sports-Law-Article-Dec-2012
