Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2014

Vol. 36, No. 3, 241–256, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.899054

Student use of social media: when should the university intervene?

John Rowe*

Curtin University, Perth, Australia

The phenomenal growth in the use of social media in the past 10 years has dramati-
cally and irreversibly changed the way individuals communicate and interact with one
another. While there are undoubtedly many positives arising out of the use of social
media, irresponsible or inappropriate use can have significant negative consequences.
In the university setting, comments posted on widely accessible forums such as
Facebook, and seen by other students or staff, can damage reputations, create personal
distress and compromise academic integrity. So how should universities deal with this
problem? This article describes the findings of a research project undertaken in 2011 to
address this question. Given that many students would regard their Facebook pages
and Facebook groups as their own private space, one of the key goals of the project
was to establish appropriate limits for university interference in these matters. Another
was to develop a categorisation model for dealing with inappropriate or irresponsible
comments that have been detected or reported.
Keywords: cyber-bullying; Facebook; online bullying; reputational damage;
responsible use of social media; social media; social networking; student misconduct

Introduction
Many university administrations are concerned about student use of social media to post
offensive, insulting and ridiculing comments about staff and other students. All univer-
sities have been struggling to balance freedom of speech and the right to express an
opinion, with reasonable expectations of responsible and respectful behaviour by students,
as well as the protection of staff and student well-being. Surveys of Australian university
students and staff conducted in 2011 have enabled the development of a categorisation
model and guidelines for handling such matters.

Background: the rise of social networking and changes in communication style

The evolution of the Internet from essentially a passive information source to a fully
interactive medium has been transformational, particularly for younger generations. The
ability to ‘self-publish’ via blogs and online public forums has allowed self-promotion and
attention-seeking behaviour to explode in modes of communication and representation –
described as ‘ego casting’ (Rosen, 2005; Vilhena da Cunha, 2007).
Sonia Livingstone (2008) commented on initial broader community feelings towards
Gen Y and social networking sites as follows:

The explosion in social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Bebo and Friendster is
widely regarded as an exciting opportunity, especially for youth. Yet the public response

*Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and
Management
242 J. Rowe

tends to be one of puzzled dismay regarding a generation that, supposedly, has many friends
but little sense of privacy and a narcissistic fascination with self-display.

The growth of Facebook in particular has been phenomenal. By November 2011, there
were over 10.6 million Facebook accounts in Australia. Over 60 per cent of these users
are in the up to 34 age group, generally regarded as Generation Y and Generation Z.
Generation Y has grown up with ‘self-esteem parenting’ (Tulgan, 2009), and common
characteristics are high degrees of self-confidence and less regard for authority. Achieving
and maintaining status with peers is of fundamental importance to Generation Y, more so
than achieving status with authority figures (Tulgan, 2009). The importance of peer
acceptance and gaining kudos in one’s own social groups is a possible explanation for
some of the attention seeking, and at times irresponsible, postings and behaviour seen on
sites such as Facebook. Social networking sites allow individuals to adopt an online
persona that is more outward and confident than they may be comfortable displaying in
normal face-to-face situations. This bravado is no doubt a contributing factor in encoura-
ging rash and perhaps unthinking use of such sites hidden behind the perceived anonymity
of the web. The instantaneous nature of publication on social networking sites is also
highly attractive. Generation Y and Generation Z are insatiable consumers of information
and can multi-task with ease, moving rapidly from activity to activity. Tulgan (2009) sums
this up as follows: ‘Generation Y is like Generation X on fast-forward with self-esteem on
steroids’. (Generation X is generally defined as those born between 1965 and the early
1980s.)

How does this affect university communities?

There are many benefits of the use of social media in a university setting (Collin, Rahilly,
Richardson, & Third, 2011). Group work (particularly popular in large classes) is facili-
tated enormously by the capabilities provided through social networking (Chelliah &
Clarke, 2011; Wheeldon, 2010), and communication generally between staff, students and
their peers can be enhanced by appropriate use of social media.
However, social media’s ease of use has its negatives as well. Sites such as Facebook,
which are primarily geared towards social interaction and ‘fun’ (Graham, Faix, &
Hartman, 2009), almost certainly encourage less considered and potentially risky com-
ments compared to those posted on the more conservative, structured formats made
available to students to provide evaluation and feedback. Comments posted on sites
such as Facebook are often ‘stream of consciousness’ thoughts, expressed with little
regard to their potential impact. It has been shown that many young people set different
boundaries between private and public domains and are willing to not only divulge
personal information about themselves, but also make ‘private’ comments about others
in a public space. Of course, this means that the comment can be seen by more than the
intended audience and attributed to them, sometimes with unexpected consequences.

The changed nature of student comments

For earlier generations, making critical comments about teachers and ridiculing their
mannerisms or appearance was commonplace. But the comments were spoken, not
written, or passed between students via handwritten notes in class or scratched into
wooden desktops or the back of toilet doors. The likelihood of the subject of the
comment, actually seeing it was small and even if it was seen or brought to that person’s
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 243

attention, the likelihood of linking the comment with a particular student was extremely
slim. Furthermore, schools or universities would often immediately remove the offending
comment. In essence, the comments were ephemeral, with a very limited distribution and
a very limited life.
The Internet has changed all this. Although there is extensive use of anonymity and
aliases on social networking sites, many younger people seem quite prepared to post
potentially questionable comments under their own name, perhaps not realising that their
posts are not going to be confined to just their friends. This alacrity can come back to bite
these students. Comments, once posted, may not be able to be withdrawn. Even where the
original posting might be able to be deleted, it may already have been copied or further
distributed. There is no control over subsequent redistribution and re-posting, and a com-
ment can take on a life of its own, appearing on many other sites and persisting in the public
domain even if removed from the original source. As Ardia (2010) commented, ‘Even if an
embarrassing video has been removed from YouTube or a defamatory statement has resulted
in a finding of liability, the injurious information often lives on in social networks, blogs,
and vast online data repositories easily accessed with a search engine’.
From this, it might be construed that comments and criticisms posted in social
networking forums, because of their wider reach and persistence, are of more concern
than the old style ‘scratched in a wooden desktop’ comment. This may well be the case,
but it also needs to be recognised that due to the sheer volume of comments posted and
the speed with which comments disappear off the screen as a consequence of subsequent
posts, many comments that are not re-posted or specifically referenced in subsequent posts
actually have a very short latency. They are often quickly forgotten and replaced with the
next ‘interesting post’.

The growth of university-related student-run social media sites

Many universities run their own social networking sites. At Curtin University in Perth,
Australia, there is an official Curtin University Facebook group that is used to distribute
information and handle queries from existing or prospective students. This is managed
and moderated by university staff, and the university clearly takes responsibility for
controlling posts and other content on this site. In addition to the official university
Facebook group, a number of other Curtin University-related (but not sanctioned)
Facebook groups have been created by students and are run by students. Examples are
‘Overheard at Curtin’, Controversial Curtin and Curtin Memes. An ‘Overheard’ site exists
at many universities across the world. The purpose of these sites is essentially fun – the
sharing of amusing stories and commentary amongst students – but they are also fertile
ground for offensive and inappropriate comments. The Overheard at Curtin group has
almost 11,000 members and therefore has significant reach. However, not all the members
are current students at Curtin University. Membership is open and many members are
former students, students of other universities and friends of students.
If offensive or inappropriate posts are made on these student-run sites, for example,
posts that could negatively impact on the well-being of staff and other students, what is
the university’s responsibility and how does the university respond?

Common issues faced when dealing with inappropriate or offensive posts

Using an alias or nickname is very common on Facebook and other social networking
sites. Even if an identifiable name is used, many students do not protect their
244 J. Rowe

Facebook passwords as rigorously as they might protect a bank password or student

account password. If an offensive or inappropriate post is detected, can it actually be
attributed to the person who appears to have posted it? There have been cases where
responsibility for offensive or inappropriate posts on websites has been denied on the
basis that ‘a friend did it as a joke’ or ‘someone else must have got hold of my
password’. It can be difficult to prove that this is not the case as such situations
clearly do arise from time to time. Threads are a common occurrence on Facebook
and other social networking sites. A particularly interesting or controversial initial
post by a student can generate large numbers of follow up comments. This raises a
number of issues. Does ‘liking’ an offensive or inappropriate comment make the
second student also guilty of the original offensive comment? If the original comment
is posted anonymously but the second student is identifiable, is it appropriate, and is
it fair, to take action against the second student who ‘liked’ the comment, when the
original perpetrator is beyond threat of action due to their anonymity? These issues
must be tackled when dealing with inappropriate posts and can result in time con-
suming and costly investigation.

Development of a proposed categorisation model

Two surveys conducted in 2011 gauged university student and staff attitudes towards a
number of issues around student use of social media to post negative or inappropriate
comments. In particular, the surveys attempted to establish:
● Whether there was consensus on the extent to which universities should concern
themselves about derogatory and insulting posts
● Whether there was a common view across groups on the types of posts that might
warrant intervention of some form or other
● What students and staff felt about the idea of universities monitoring university-
related but non-official (student created and managed) social networking sites for
inappropriate comments
● Whether students would welcome universities contacting them regarding critical
comments they had posted on student-run sites in an effort to make improvements in
services or teaching quality
● The level of sensitivity to comments by different groups (whether teaching staff
were more sensitive to comments than students expected them to be or were more
sensitive than non-teaching staff)
● The extent to which staff thought their employer had an obligation to protect them
by taking action against students who post inappropriate comments.
In addition to specific questions on these issues, the surveys included two sets of 10
‘posts’. One set contained 10 categorised (described) posts, the other set contained 10
sample posts of varying degrees of offensiveness. Respondents were asked to rate these
according to a 4-point scale as shown in Table 1.
Based on experience as a senior university administrator, the author proposed this
model as likely to offer a useful and practical method of categorising and rating various
types of posts on a scale of increasing seriousness. Feedback on its usefulness was sought
in the surveys.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 245

Table 1. Rating scale.

Level Category Action to be taken Description

1 Trivial Take no action These are relatively trivial comments that should
not be reacted to by universities. In fact,
intervening in these cases is likely to be
counterproductive.
2 Minor Optional – possibly contact These are comments that are not particularly
student to discuss offensive but display a lack of respect or
comment judgement. There is no imperative to contact the
student regarding the comment; however, a
university could choose to do so, for example, to
suggest a more appropriate or constructive way
of making that comment or criticism. The
comment is of such a nature that it would not be
appropriate to issue a warning or admonishment.
3 Moderate Issue a warning These types of comments warrant contact being
made with the student. Comments in this
category will generally display a distinct lack of
respect and judgement and should be addressed
via provision of advice and information and
usually a warning regarding appropriate
behaviour. These types of comments are not
considered sufficiently serious that more severe
penalties would be contemplated.
4 Serious Consider more formal These types of comments warrant immediate
disciplinary action contact being made with the student. Comments
in this category would generally be those that
break a law (physical threats, racial vilification,
sexist or other discriminatory comments),
constitute bullying, or are admissions/offers to
engage in inappropriate behaviour in respect of
academic matters (e.g., cheating, plagiarism,
collusion). Generally a warning would not be
considered sufficient in these cases and formal
disciplinary action against the student would
normally be considered. A formal
admonishment would generally be the minimum
action and even more severe penalties such as
exclusion or expulsion might be considered
warranted.

Student and staff surveys

An initial trial survey of a mix of teaching and non-teaching staff was conducted in July
2011. This was followed up with a hard copy survey of senior student administration
practitioners from a wide range of Australian and New Zealand universities in September
2011. These were staff that, in the main, had direct involvement in student discipline
matters as part of their job. In October 2011, a more comprehensive online survey of both
students and staff at Curtin University was conducted. The survey was constructed using
Qualtrics survey software. Response rates to the surveys and the average ratings of the
categorised posts by each of the survey groups are shown in Table 2.
The 10 sample posts each contained specific attributes. Average ratings of these
sample posts by each of the survey groups are shown in Table 3. Posts have been
produced verbatim.
246 J. Rowe

Table 2. Average ratings1 of categorised posts.

Senior student Non-

Categorised post description (ratings administration Teaching teaching
Post no. given on described type of post) practitioners2 staff staff Students

Survey group (n = 765) 68 118 119 460

1 Strongly worded criticism of particular 1.00 1.27 1.31 1.38
University facilities or services
(e.g., computer services, parking).
2 Strongly worded criticism of the 1.55 1.96 2.01 1.90
teaching ability of a member of staff
at the University.
3 A mocking or ridiculing comment 1.96 2.26 2.28 2.07
about the appearance of another
student at the University (e.g.,
choice of clothes or hairstyle).
4 A mocking or ridiculing comment 1.93 2.29 2.30 2.13
about the behaviour or personal
characteristics of another student at
the University (e.g., mannerisms,
style of speech).
5 A mocking or ridiculing comment 1.89 2.31 2.31 2.21
about the appearance of a member
of staff at the University (e.g.,
choice of clothes or hairstyle).
6 A mocking or ridiculing comment 1.89 2.32 2.30 2.23
about the behaviour or personal
characteristics of a member of staff
at the University (e.g., mannerisms,
style of speech).
7 A derogatory or personally insulting 2.07 2.49 2.50 2.25
comment about another student at
the University.
8 A derogatory or personally insulting 2.28 2.55 2.56 2.45
comment about a member of staff at
the University.
9 A racist or sexist comment about 2.55 2.67 2.73 2.48
another student at the University.
10 A racist or sexist comment about a 2.53 2.78 2.80 2.66
member of staff at the University.
1
Four-point rating scale, as per Table 1.
2
Australian and New Zealand universities; all other responses Curtin University.

Survey findings
There was wide consensus amongst both staff and students that the most serious cate-
gories of comments are threats of violence, racist, sexist and homophobic comments, and
admissions of implication in academic misconduct (cheating and plagiarism). This reflects
a high degree of awareness of what constitutes illegal behaviour and also the high value
placed on academic integrity in a university community.
The ratings provided by respondents to the 10 categorised and 10 sample posts show a
significant degree of uniformity of opinion, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. For all survey
groups, the most serious categories of post were racist or sexist comments about staff and
students. With the exception of senior student administration practitioners, these sorts of
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 247

Table 3. Average ratings of sample posts (names used are fictitious).

Senior student Non-

administration Teaching teaching
Post no. Sample post practitioners staff staff Students

1 ‘Why do we keep getting these crappy 1.10 1.27 1.20 1.19

Powerpoints on Blackboard? I wish
they’d do a decent job on them for
once’ (about a unit, not identifiable
from the comment).
2 ‘I hate this unit. It sucks. No one 1.40 1.54 1.40 1.37
should do it unless u want to feel
like sticking needles in your eye the
hole semesta!’ (about a unit, not
identifiable from the comment, but
the student making the comment is
identifiable).
3 ‘yeah, she is a pain in the a***, never 1.25 1.68 1.59 1.61
shuts up she must luv the sound of
her own voice’ (about a female
lecturer, clearly identifiable from
previous comments).
4 ‘Yeah, do u notice she always has time 1.70 2.12 1.91 1.82
for the boys? he he he!’ (about a
female lecturer, clearly identifiable
from previous comments).
5 ‘I didn’t get a supp. Brendan is a 1.95 2.46 2.44 2.33
f***ing a***hole!’ (about a male
unit coordinator, clearly identifiable
from the name of the student
making the comment and his
enrolment).
6 ‘I wish he’d get to the point. He just 1.95 2.36 2.29 2.09
talks and talks and I can’t even
understand him half the time. He
needs to learn f***ing English’
(about a male lecturer, clearly
identifiable from previous
comments).
7 ‘That Chinese chick in our group is so 2.85 3.15 2.86 2.55
lame. She is just freeloading on us
cos she can’t speak English. Stupid
b*****. aaaaargh!!! Go back to
China!’ (about another student,
difficult to identify from the
comment, but the student making
the comment is identifiable).
8 ‘Accounting 100 lecture on Tuesday, 2.50 2.84 2.54 2.21
two guys –
Guy 1: Just had the biggest mind f***
just then... You know those pictures
where if you look at them hard
enough you notice something you
didn’t notice before, and it scares
the s*** out of you...?
Guy 2: ...Yeah
(Continued )
248 J. Rowe

Table 3. (Continued).

Senior student Non-

administration Teaching teaching
Post no. Sample post practitioners staff staff Students

Guy 1: Well if you stare at the front of

the lecture theatre long and hard
enough you’ll eventually notice
there’s a little Indian guy trying to
teach us something in English...’
(about a male lecturer, easily
identifiable
from the name of the student making
the comment and his enrolment).
9 ‘I wish Gina would die!! aaaargh! I 3.10 3.23 3.18 2.86
think I might kill her tomorrow!
Stick a knife rihht in her! LOL!’
(about a female teaching staff
member, clearly identifiable from
the comment).
Category: Could be construed as a
threat to a staff member.
10 ‘Hey! Did u c that toby did the 2.35 2.63 2.28 2.38
assignment already? He said he’d do
mine as well if i want! Score!’
(about another student, difficult to
identify from the comment, but the
student making the comment is
identifiable).

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00
POST 1 POST 2 POST 3 POST 4 POST 5 POST 6 POST 7 POST 8 POST 9 POST 10
Senior student administration practitioners Teaching staff

Non-teaching staff Students

Figure 1. Average ratings of categorised posts.

 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 249

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00
Post 1 Post 2 Post 3 Post 4 Post 5 Post 6 Post 7 Post 8 Post 9 Post 10
Senior student administration practitioners Teaching staff
Non-teaching staff Students

Figure 2. Average ratings of sample posts.

comments were considered more serious if made about staff than students. Student
administration practitioners reversed this order, but ratings on both were very similar.
The most serious sample post was considered to be the ‘threat’ to a staff member (whether
meant seriously or not), followed by examples of racist comments about other students
and staff. In the sample post ratings, the racist comments about students were considered
more serious than the racist comments about staff, but this is explained by the different
examples provided.

Are academic staff over-sensitive to criticism?

The ratings of the posts used in the surveys show a high degree of alignment between the
views of students overall and staff overall. While teaching staff generally rated posts more
seriously than the other survey groups, the difference in most cases was small. On the
categorised posts, teaching staff and non-teaching staff rated the posts almost identically.
There was greater separation between teaching staff and non-teaching staff on the sample
post ratings, but the relativity of ratings was consistent. Overall, senior student adminis-
tration practitioners, and therefore staff dealing more directly with student discipline
issues, generally had a more relaxed attitude towards the more benign posts. The conclu-
sion that can be reached is that although academic staff are slightly more sensitive to
general criticism of this nature, the difference is not significant. In general, teaching staff
appear to be no more sensitive to comments than non-teaching staff. There is a high level
of sensitivity from both staff and students about comments regarding academic miscon-
duct (plagiarism and cheating).

Should universities actively monitor non-university student-run sites?

Based on the survey responses, the answer is a definitive ‘no’ from students and, to a
lesser extent, teaching staff. Many students and staff responding to the survey expressed
disquiet about the possibility of the university more actively entering the ‘private’ social
250 J. Rowe

Table 4. Should universities actively monitor and seek out inappropriate student comments in
non-university student-run Facebook groups?

Category n Yes (%) No (%) Unsure (%)

Teaching staff 110 30 54 16

Non-teaching staff 116 46 42 12
Students 314 19 72 9

spaces of students and monitoring student-run sites for comments. The results are set out
in Table 4.
Students are significantly more sensitive to this issue than staff. Seventy-two per cent
of students emphatically see student-run sites as ‘no-go’ zones compared to 54 per cent of
teaching staff and 42 per cent of non-teaching staff. Typical comments from students
were:

People use Facebook and other social media sites for their own personal use and I wouldn’t
want to feel that I have to watch what I have to say because the University is monitoring my
actions. Comments should only be identifiable by friends and groups members.

If I had wanted the University to be involved I would have contacted them directly. I believe
people should be freely allowed to express their views without fear of being watched.

Social media is a way for students to connect outside of the University. Just as I would
happily discuss a tutor I wasn’t pleased with friends at a coffee shop, modern communication
makes it so that I can communicate these issues with friends on the Internet. My personal
communication outside the University is my own and I would feel incredibly intruded upon if
the University contacted me about something I said online when venting frustrations about a
unit or a tutor or University program. It would be in the best interest of Universities to stay
out of the affairs of students in social media settings UNLESS there were some absolutely
defamatory comments made (this means going over and above ‘venting’ and saying things
that are untrue or slanderous about a staff member or bullying another student online).

From a student perspective, while there appears to be a high degree of recognition that
certain types of comments posted on student-run forums may warrant intervention and
action by a university (in particular, threats of violence, racist and sexist comments,
admissions of cheating or offers to cheat on academic work), there is also a very strong
view that student-run sites are private spaces and not the domain of universities. Students
feel uncomfortable about universities entering these spaces and actively monitoring them
for what the university may perceive are ‘inappropriate comments’. Students feel very
strongly that this is an invasion of privacy. Interestingly, non-teaching staff were more
inclined than teaching staff to view monitoring of university-related student-run sites as
appropriate. It is clear from these results that there is a very high degree of sensitivity
about ‘monitoring’ and ‘Big Brother’ type behaviour from both students and staff. Any
perception of active monitoring of student-run sites will almost certainly generate con-
cerns from students.
Another concern is that active monitoring of non-university student-run sites could
create the impression that all university-related but student-run sites might be monitored.
This is potentially dangerous ground for universities as it could lead to individuals
believing that the university will react to and deal with negative comments on all
university-related but student-run sites when this clearly cannot be guaranteed. This raises
possible liability issues for the university if illegal or particularly damaging comments on
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 251

such sites are not dealt with. There is also the potential that actively monitoring and
reacting to comments on unofficial sites could undermine the value and effectiveness of
formal feedback mechanisms.

Should universities take action regarding offensive and inappropriate comments

discovered on non-university student-run sites?
Where posts are particularly offensive or inappropriate, both staff and students have a
similar view on this point. The answer is clearly ‘yes’. However, while both staff and
students believe it is warranted for universities to take action in relation to these types of
posts, there is also a view that responsibility for taking action could equally be left with
the police or with service providers. Students do not necessarily see it as the university’s
role to be dealing with these matters but appreciate that universities may need to get
involved in order to ensure that quick action is taken to protect another student or staff
member’s well-being.

Do universities have an obligation to protect their staff?

A high proportion of staff believe that their employer has an obligation to take action
regarding negative posts, particularly those that are derogatory or personally insulting, in
order to protect the health, well-being and reputation of staff. Interestingly, a higher
proportion of non-teaching staff than teaching staff support such action being taken.
There is a very clear view that certain types of comments by students – for example,
personal attacks that adversely impact on a staff member’s health and well-being or
unjustified comments that significantly harm a staff member’s reputation and standing
with their peers – should be dealt with by the university as potential student disciplinary
matters, as shown in Table 5.
There is no doubt that individuals have different levels of sensitivity to comments.
What is considered harmful and damaging to one individual may be considered relatively
trivial to another. This study revealed a surprising degree of pragmatism by teaching staff
regarding criticism from students. Many staff indicated that they understood the need for
students to vent and that they, as individuals, and the university should be ‘big enough’ to
tolerate a fairly high level of criticism without intervening in any way. A number of staff
commented that they felt some of the criticisms about facilities or teaching quality posted

Table 5. The university should take action against a student if they.

Category n Yes (%) No (%) Unsure (%)

Criticise my teaching ability or decisions1

Teaching staff 102 41 44 15
Non-teaching staff 106 45 44 10
Make a derogatory or insulting comment about me2
Teaching staff 101 49 37 15
Non-teaching staff 103 53 35 12
Notes: 1Full question: Assume you are the subject of a post on a non-university student-run site criticising your
teaching ability or a decision that you have made. Do you believe the university has an obligation to take action
against the student?
2
Full question: Assume you are the subject of a derogatory or personally insulting post on a non-university
student-run site. Do you believe the university has an obligation to take action against the student?
252 J. Rowe

by students on non-university student-run sites were justified. The general feeling was that
universities should not try to stifle these outlets. Following are some of the comments
from teaching staff supporting the need for action to be taken:

As an employer, the University is morally and legally obligated to provide a safe and ethically
sound working environment. If derogatory comments about me are placed in any public
domain, either e-space or by other means, the University must provide personal protection as
my employer.
The reputation of an academic is their most important asset. An attack on integrity is an attack
on the person and should be dealt with.
It is reasonably foreseeable that a staff member who is the subject of published ridicule from a
student for carrying out their duties may get very upset, stressed and unable to continue their
duties. Students are required to observe a certain code of conduct while undertaking their
studies. The university is entitled to take action against a student who has breached the code
and created harm. The university is vicariously liable if it fails to act.
Students need to realise that comments that they make on social media influence the opinion
of others and may have far reaching implications for both themselves and the object of their
criticism. For example, written negative comments amount to slander and can carry legal
consequences if pursued. In addition, employers now use Facebook and other social media as
part of their vetting process when selecting new employees and so a negative Facebook
profile also hinders the student’s own chances of success in the future.

Conversely, other teaching staff had this to say:

They are students expressing an opinion. I think we should all just get over ourselves. I am
not some important person. So what if someone expresses a negative opinion about me on
some online chat.
What people do in their personal, private lives has no relevance to the university. If it’s on a
university provided forum, sure, take action, but interfering in their private lives is wrong.
Functionally it’s the same as monitoring what they say in their lounge room, because we
don’t provide that resource either.
It is not the University’s role to monitor every person’s Facebook and social media site; it is
an invasion of privacy and civil rights. Social media sites have their own way of dealing with
inappropriate comment; it is easy to shut down an offensive site. Curtin University is not the
police and nor should it be ... Nanny State going overboard! We are here to teach students,
not monitor their social media interactions.

Are posts on non-university student-run sites a valid form of feedback?

While a large number of non-teaching staff believe that comments posted on student-run
sites are a valid form of feedback, the number of students and teaching staff who felt this
way was less than half. Interestingly, students place less value on the comments they post
on non-university student-run sites than do many non-teaching staff and senior student
administration practitioners (see Table 6).
Many of the comments provided in the survey responses indicate that universities
need to be very careful about placing too much weight on posts in non-university student-
run student sites. Certainly they can provide useful information and indicate when there
are particular issues or problems affecting students (providing a crude sort of student
barometer), but many students admit to using these sites to vent and gain attention and do
not feel that their comments should be taking seriously. It is also not necessarily the case
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 253

Table 6. Questions relating to the validity of feedback provided on non-university student-run

sites, whether universities should contact students regarding negative comments, and the suitability
of the categorisation model.

Category n Yes (%) No (%) Unsure (%)

Do you think comments posted on non-university student-run sites are a valid form of feedback and
therefore something that universities should pay attention to?
Senior student administration practitioners 68 48 26 26
Teaching staff 110 41 35 24
Non-teaching staff 116 69 22 9
Students 314 45 41 14
A negative comment is posted in a non-university student-run Facebook group about some aspect of
the university. For example, a comment about the poor quality of facilities or the poor quality of
teaching in a particular unit. In this situation, should the university attempt to contact the student
to discuss their concerns?
Senior student administration practitioners 68 22 65 13
Teaching staff 94 34 47 19
Non-teaching staff 114 46 42 12
Students 312 31 54 15
Do you think this categorisation model adequately covers all likely situations?
Senior student administration practitioners 68 86 5 10
Teaching staff 101 61 25 14
Non-teaching staff 100 77 13 10
Students 276 69 18 12

that comments posted on these sites reflect the views of the majority of students. These
sites can be vehicles for the most outspoken and outrageous, or those with a particular
agenda. Typical comments from students were:

On social networking sites, people often say things simply to agree with their peers, not
necessarily to reflect their own views and opinions.
Responding to petty whining on the Internet only encourages petty whining. Sometimes these
things are just vents.
Venting on a Facebook page is different to providing thorough balanced feedback.

Concerns posted are not usually true. They are written as a way to get sympathy from close
friends.

The value of social networking feedback versus formal feedback mechanisms

Most students appear to value the formal feedback mechanisms provided by univer-
sities and believe universities should rely on these as the vehicle for formal comments
and feedback, not social networking sites, whether set up by the university or student-
run. This view is based on a feeling that social networking sites such as Facebook
encourage spur of the moment, stream of consciousness types of comments. It is felt
that many comments posted on Facebook are not well thought out or are made with a
view to a wider audience than just the university – for example, a student may make a
more outrageous or provocative comment on Facebook, even on an official Facebook
page, than they would in a formal feedback mechanism because they know it will also
254 J. Rowe

be seen by friends and peers and it is an opportunity to gain attention and notoriety. The
message in this for universities is that the use of social networking services such as
Facebook to run university-sponsored or -administered groups, while useful in many
respects, can also generate a different style of comment than would be obtained through
a formal feedback mechanism. The posts on social networking sites are likely to be less
considered and thoughtful and may not have the same value as feedback obtained
through formal mechanisms. This needs to be taken into account when reacting to
feedback provided through such forums. Another factor is the potentially high cost of
constantly monitoring such sites and reacting to comments and questions posted on the
sites.

Would students welcome ‘constructive’ approaches from universities regarding their

comments and criticisms on non-university student-run sites?
The majority view of students is that they would not welcome contact from universities,
even constructive contact, regarding comments they had posted on student-run sites. See
Table 6. This particular question in the surveys generated a large number of comments
from students, many of whom expressed strong concerns that the university would be
monitoring student-run sites or would consider taking this sort of action. The following
comments sum up the feelings of the majority of students on this issue.

It is a privacy issue. I would be very concerned if Curtin was monitoring my personal social
media accounts.
Actively contacting students who have posted negative comments or feedback feels like ‘big
brother is watching’, a little bit creepy.
I would feel like the university had been ‘spying’ on me.
Being monitored on a forum such as Facebook is frankly creepy. Although this is a semi-
public forum, messages posted on it are generally intended for a limited audience only (i.e.,
members of the group). Unless it is made very clear that a university representative is a
member of the group, all comments made in such a forum are intended to ‘blow off steam’
not as honest feedback. Thus, the best course of action for a university is not to read them, but
to make other valid avenues available for students to give feedback (such as end of semester
teaching quality surveys.
I don’t like the idea that the University is monitoring me or being a ‘Big Brother’ scenario. I
give feedback to the university via the end of the semester surveys.
It would be awkward and unexpected. Also I would question how the university knows about
the comment and contact the admin of the Facebook group to find out who it is and kick the
person, as is common practice in current uni Facebook groups I am a part of.

Is the proposed categorisation model useful?

There was a high degree of support for the proposed model from all categories of
respondent as shown in Table 6. This is encouraging, particularly the high degree of
support from senior student administration practitioners involved in handling student
misconduct. Eighty-six per cent of these respondents thought the model was useful.
Teaching staff saw less value in the proposed model than non-teaching staff. The reasons
for this will be explored further in an effort to refine the model.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 255

Conclusions
There appears to be a high degree of consensus that comments posted on official university
forums are clearly within the rights of the university to monitor and react to. However, the
threshold for taking action needs to be carefully considered to avoid negative reactions from
students. There is no doubt that racial vilification and sexist or homophobic comments,
highly offensive insults or ridiculing comments, threats of violence or admissions of
cheating or offering to cheat, if made on official sites, should be acted upon. More benign
criticisms, however, even of individual staff teaching ability, may not warrant intervention.
In some cases, it may be considered appropriate to contact the student to remind them of
their obligations to act with respect to others (most universities have a student charter or
code of conduct that requires students to show respect and act constructively in the learning
environment). In other cases, it may be appropriate to contact the student, not overtly to
caution them, but to suggest that there are better ways to provide feedback that will have a
higher chance of being acted on and result in a productive outcome for students. However,
universities need to be careful not to overstep the mark and display too much sensitivity to
student criticism. If action is taken, universities run the risk that this will drive these types of
comments from the official site to non-university student-run sites, diluting the value of the
feedback provided through formal mechanisms.
Universities need to be even more careful about taking action in regard to comments
posted on non-university student-run sites. The results of the survey show that there is a
very clear view that universities should not be actively monitoring non-university student-
run sites or actively seeking out offensive or inappropriate comments on student-run sites.
It is accepted that if an offensive or inappropriate comment is reported on a student-
run site, universities may need to take action, but this should only be as a response to a
complaint or report, not the result of detection via active monitoring, and universities
should get involved only in the most extreme cases.
If a complaint or report concerning an offensive or inappropriate post on a student-run
site is lodged with the university, for example, by a staff member, a student or a member
of the public, universities should be very careful about getting involved in an official
capacity. In most cases, the preferred option is to advise the complainant to approach the
relevant group administrator or social networking provider direct to have the post
removed and, where appropriate, the offending site or user account de-activated.
Facebook has a set of rights and responsibilities that require users to commit to not
bully, intimidate or harass any other user, post content, that is, hate speech or threatening,
or do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious or discriminatory. If these responsibilities
are breached, the offending post can be removed and the users account deactivated.
Generally, reporting offending posts to the administrator or service provider of the site
will be the appropriate action to take. If, however, the post is particularly offensive (e.g.,
an extreme racist or sexist comment about a staff member or another student) or involves
a possible threat to the safety of an individual, more direct action on behalf of the
complainant may be appropriate and necessary in order to have the matter dealt with
quickly and to show support for the complainant or victim of the post.

References
Ardia, D. S. (2010). Reputation in a networked world: Revisiting the foundations of defamation law.
Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, 45, 261–328.
Chelliah, J., & Clarke, E. (2011). Collaborative teaching and learning: Overcoming the digital
divide? On the Horizon, 19, 276–285.
256 J. Rowe

Collin, P., Rahilly, K., Richardson, I., & Third, A. (2011). The benefits of social networking
services – literature review. Melbourne: Cooperative Research Centre for Young People,
Technology and Wellbeing, Inspire Foundation, University of Western Sydney and Murdoch
University.
Graham, J. M., Faix, A., & Hartman, L. (2009). Crashing the Facebook party – One library’s
experiences in the students’ domain. Library Review, 58, 228–236.
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of
social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. London School of Economics
and Political Science, UK. New Media and Society, 10, 393–411.
Rosen, C. (2005). The age of egocasting. The New Atlantis, 7, Fall 2004/Winter 2005, 51–72.
Retrieved from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-age-of-egocasting
Tulgan, B. (2009). Not everyone gets a trophy: How to manage Generation Y. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Vilhena da Cunha, M. I. (2007). The egocasting phenomenon and the identity issue. Universidade
Catolica Portuguesa. Mestrado em Communicacao e Gestao Cultural – Industrias Culturais.
Retrieved from http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/cunha-ines-egocasting-phenomenon.pdf
Wheeldon, E. (2010). A social society: The positive effects of communicating through social
networking sites. Online Conference on Networks and Communities, Department of Internet
Studies, Curtin University, 25 April 2010. Retrieved from http://mitcher.yolasite.com/resources/
A%20Social%20Society.pdf
Copyright of Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management is the property of Routledge
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.