Surname 1

Name

Professor

Title

Date

Freedom of Tweets: NCAA student-athletes social media policies and bans

Introduction

Over the past decade, the rise of social media has influenced the way institutions and the

NCAA has reacted towards restricting student athletes on their use of social media. The

reactions have largely been to restrict the usage of social media. This has been borne out of the

necessity to ensure that the institutions keep a low profile and ensuring that they do not violate

NCAA rules. A violation of the said rules comes with fines and severe sanctions (Gay 799). This

research is thus meant to note the key areas which have been restricted, the things that cause

controversy in social media and how to deal with them professionally. It will also include the

evaluation of the best interests of the institutions if any in case messages posted in the social

media go unnoticed. On a light note, a focus on the affected division I schools will be scrutinized

and this will be done with a directive as what should be done to ensure that there is fairness to

the students.

What are the key areas that have been restricted?

Social media usage by student athletes has been sanctioned by the Institutions as a result

of the reaction from the NCAA in disciplining institutions (Epstein and Kisska-Schulze 74).

Institutions and NCAA have established different regulations which include that: students should

not speak via social media. This ban has been established in the Mississippi State University and
 Surname 2

New Mexico State University. Additionally, some Institutions have banned the use of social

media in its entirety.

The NCAA has been proactive too in the restriction on the use of social media. It requires

that institutions ensure that their student athletes are monitored as to their social media use. This

originated from its decision in the University of North Carolina where it punished the institution

due to its athletes misuse of social media. In its decision, the Association was clear that the

school had responsibility to monitor the social media accounts of its athletes (Hernandez 3). In

the current case, the university came under scrutiny in 2010 when a then football player Marvin

Austin posted late night posts on twitter suggesting that he was at a club called LIV in Miami

enjoying bottle service. NCAA descended on the University exposing that some of its players

had been receiving improper benefits from sports agents hence suffering several bans. If Marvin

had not posted this, then NCAA would never have found out and the institutions reputation

would not have been marred.

The association has been pushing to have laws enacted by the state that make it legal to

conduct social media monitoring. Additionally, it has established a ban on the recruitment

process via social media (Hernandez 7). This is without prejudice to the further ban established

restricting electronic communication with prospective student-athlete(s).

The association has recently restricted recruiting in mens basketball by allowing the use

of the electronic modes but only when done privately. Additionally, the institution has not only

barred the use of vague and offensive language in social media sites but it has also in division I

institutions required that the institutions do access and monitor social media accounts a directive

which has been implemented by the Universities of Arizona and Iowa.

 Surname 3

Which are the potential things when posted in social media cause controversy? Why do they

cause it?

There are several things that when posted in social media cause controversy and their

causes to cause the controversy can well be elucidated. The first is the publication of information

by a student-athlete which is likely to cause a misunderstanding as to whether they represent the

views of their institutions or of themselves. Among the array of things that cause controversies as

evidenced by cases dealt with by the courts in America include: posting of political information

as it happened in the Tinker case (protesting the Vietnam war), the delivering of a lewd speech as

it happened in Fraser, allowing publication of private information as it happened in Hazelwood

and the posting information related to use of drugs as it happened in the case of Morse. In all

these decisions, the students were found liable and whereas Tinker has remained a locus

classicus on this field, the case-law established therein has never been eroded (Penrose 524).

The consequence of this has been referred to in the Hazelwood and the Tinker decisions

when evaluating the effect of the posted information i.e. whether the information is likely to

cause disruptions. A potential thing that also causes controversy is the question as to who is best

placed to make decisions as to regulate the activities of students in social media and as to

whether the right to speech is infringed with such regulations. A student-athlete for example may

post using vulgar language regarding a particular situation in school. Can the consequent

punishment and loss of scholarship be regarded as violation of his first amendment rights? Do

the institutions interests conflict with those of the athletes when it comes to social media usage?

The answers would be in the negative and in the positive respectively.

 Surname 4

Why the regulations on social media usage?

The only way to evaluate whether the regulation is merited is to examine the above

question. Many reasons have been posited to explain the current situation. First is the risk that is

associated with athletes posting information on social media. The different examples given

ranging from case law to case studies of previously famous athletes are the negative publicity

that stems. A case in point is the University of Notre Dame in 2012 which also despite its

football teams success, faced a heavy public scrutiny. This sprouted from a player by the name

Mant Teo who was a prolific team player and the week before playing a crucial game against

Michigan lost his girlfriend and grandmother in a matter of hours. However, the said girlfriend

was later found out to be hoax and was only existent on social media profiles created by Teo.

This led to disrepute not only to the University by to Teo who was later labeled as the most

disliked athlete in America.

A need for regulations is thus necessary to ensure that the student-athletes do not drain

themselves as can be derived above and the institutions. The rules are necessary for them to

abide by. If the ordeals such as Teos or Marvins were never found out, the institutions close

scrutiny by the media and NCAA would never have occurred.

Which is the justification that the institutions and NCAA have?

The institutions do not have to wait till damage is done by the students own recklessness

as exhibited by the Teos story. The student athletes also covenant to abide by the requirements

and if they wish not to, they can willingly stop being athletes. Additionally, due to the unique

nature of these students, they have more responsibility than other normal academic students
 Surname 5

(Hernandez 3). Social media like Twitter as Kansas Jay Hawks coach noted hinders team

performance since it is a distraction.

Some athletes like freshmen have been blamed of being complacent and unable to use

social media well. Notably is that information posted has previously been proven that it does not

only damage the athlete but also the institution as seen from Manti Teo and Marvin Austin

ordeals. The problems herein are complicated by overindulgence and over exposure by the youth

to social media (Browning and Sanderson 514). In addition, all institutions have their own SACC

which allows the students to consent to being athletes and to therefore abide by the rules set

therein irrespective of how they vary. Furthermore, is the fact that the institution and the team

will continue being in existence irrespective of whether the team player continues being in the

team or not. Therefore, team first policy is well justified and it would be uninstructed not to

realize that student-athletes are role models too (Penrose 546).

What Criticisms exist?

All in all, despite the justification of the limitation on student-athletes rights, it would be

nave to assume that all are reckless. Furthermore, there are recent developments as noted by

Snyder et al that the athletics in schools have been commercialized adding the title employee to

the term student-athlete (50). Their rights should thus be interpreted/expanded to those

employees too. State laws have also been enacted by some states preventing the student-athlete

from being required to give up their accounts details and passwords to institutions. The laws

however do not prevent punishment to students as a result of posting information that is

considered inappropriate by the school.

 Surname 6

The federal government has also proposed the enactment of the SNOPA law which has

been blamed for failing to cover social media but regulating email monitoring (Snyder,

Hutchens, Jones and Jeffrey 59). Benefits accruing to students have been associated with social

media monitoring however other normal students also access scholarships and thus athletes

should not be treated differently. Notably too is that the test used to determine liability is also

controversial as it relies on the schools officials to prove that the post caused school disruption

which is unjust. The athletes should also be given a chance in deciding such cases. Arguments

for and against leave discombobulation to the researcher, however the puzzle can still be tackled.

How to resolve the conundrum

It is futile to presume that the courts are wrong by concurring with the old precedent in

Tinker on student-athletes limited/tampered rights .There are several ways to balance between

the rights of the students and their responsibilities to their institutions. This can be done via

limiting the time when social media should be used but not to ban it absolutely. This lacuna can

also be resolved by instilling of positive character traits on the athletes. This can be done by

educating them on the essence of team over the individual. To crown it all, the institutions should

set their standards by which they offer game equipment conditionally with regards to adhering to

social media rules.

Finally, social media restriction may be focused on particular subjects, increasing fines for

violators and recognition that high school and college levels of restrictions should not be the

same. This should thus be done in strict institutions such as the Universities of Alabama, Florida

and the Texas A&M University. The Apposition used in above supports it all.
 Surname 7

Works cited
Browning, Blair, and Jimmy Sanderson. "The Positives and Negatives of Twitter: Exploring How

Student-Athletes Use Twitter and Respond to Critical Tweets." International Journal of

Sport Communication 5.4 (2012): 503-21. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Epstein, Adam, and Kathryn Kisska-Schulze. "Northwestern University, The University of

Missouri, and the Student-Athlete: Mobilization Efforts and the Future." Journal of

Legal Aspects of Sport 26.2 (2016): 71-105. Web.

Gay, J. W. "Hands Off Twitter: Are NCAA Student-Athlete Social Media Bans

Unconstitutional?" Florida State University Law Review, vol. 39, no. 3, 2012, pp.

781-794

Hernandez, Aaron. "All Quiet on the Digital Front: The NCAA's Wide Discretion in Regulating

Social Media." Texas Review of Entertainment and Sports Law, vol. 15, no. 1, 2013, pp.

53-64

Penrose, Meg Mary Margaret. "Outspoken: Social media and the modern college athlete."

(2013).

Snyder, Eric M., et al. Social Media Policies in Intercollegiate Athletics: The Speech and

Privacy Rights of Student-Athletes. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes

in Education 9.1 (2015): 5074. Web