Mann Wins Again

This past Wednesday, a number of students in our FYS class conducted a mock trial of the State v. Mann case, which originally took place in North Carolina in the 1820's. The case involved a slave named Lydia and her temporary owner, John Mann. Mann claimed that Lydia escaped during a punishment, and as a result he shot and wounded her. A local grand jury found Mann guilty of assault and battery against a slave. As a result, he appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. In December of 1829, the judgement was reversed and entered for the Defendant.

In our mock trial, both sides did their research and brought good arguments to the table. The defense argued that Lydia was given to John Mann by Mrs. Jones, and was therefore in his care. They also mentioned the economic impact that slavery had and the fact that slaves weren't considered "human" by law. I would agree more with the State's side because of their approach, that the actions of Mann were inhumane and unjust, because that is what I would expect to hear in a modern court. In the 1800's, however, slaves were viewed as property and did not receive that kind of equal treatment. That is a reflection of the court's decision to clear Mann of all charges, both in the original case and our class' mock trial.


You can read more about the case and Judge Ruffin's decision in the link below http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Mann.htm

Colleges monitoring the social media accounts of their athletes 

Many college athletes are now having to give up complete freedom of their social media accounts (twitter, instagram, etc.,) in order to maintain their scholarships and statuses as members of their  athletic teams.
Colleges are keeping a watchful eye over their athletes via a monitoring software of their choice that alerts them when certain words are used. This article follows universities in Kentucky, noting the conflicts that the suggested "offensive" words can create, the process by which the universities go through in order to institute the changes into their athletic programs, and student and community reactions to the monitoring.
My immediate reaction to the article was that college athletes should not at all have to hold back their thoughts, whether on the internet or in a face to face conversation, because of the concerns of their school. However, the author introduced an alternate perspective, stating that some coaches are concerned about the way that athletes are representing their universities. That is an understandable fear, considering the tremendous impact a single tweet can have in the growing world of college sports.
Reading through the article, I tried to give these coaches and schools the benefit of the doubt. After about the third example supporting my initial response to the issue, I realized that forcing athletes to do this is completely impractical and intolerable. Here are a few reasons why----
*The University of Kentucky flags hundreds of words. It blew my mind that government officials were alerted because of a tweet containing the word "fight." The tweet read, “God is the only one who can heal me, help me & fight for me."
*Both the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville refuse tell how they punish athletes for inappropriate usage of social media by saying, according to the article, "it would violate student privacy." Seems ironic, huh? 

UK and UL drew attention from the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and other advocates, but it is also important to note that this article only mentions two of the many schools who are forcing students to give up what is protected by the First Amendment. 

Ky. universities monitor athletes’ social-media use