Hermenuetics

Comments

The rise of technology brings with it a lot of issues, but violence, especially in this case is not one of them. I have not heard of any violence in the suicide case. Yes these students bullied and harmed the student, but I think it would be a stretch to assert they were violent or that they were trying to get the student to commit suicide.

Conflating different actions with the same motivation does not get us to a point were we can solve the problem. Instead we need to further segment to understand. Violence and bully are related in that usually the person committing them has no real regard for the other. But violence is usually about wanting to hurt the other (physically) while bullying is usually more about power and control of the other. In order to solve problems we need to correctly identify what the problem is.

Posted By: Adam Shields | October 12, 2010 10:31 AM

Her.meneutics’ - hermeneutics fails in this case. You are putting two and two and making it five. The two students can be charged only for what they have (allegedly) done not for Tyler's choice or others wish (like the one you stated above). You seem to have problem with Zuckerberg being an atheist. There are several religious people out there who constantly judge people and place little value for other's values.

Posted By: walker | October 12, 2010 11:39 AM

The death of this young man is a horrific tragedy, and I certainly believe that the two young people charged with invasion of privacy should be appropriately punished. Aside from that, attempting to connect Zuckerberg to this tragedy is highly illogical. It makes about as much sense as trying to implicate the man who designed the George Washington Bridge or the people who manufacture the video camera used in this tragic incident. I believe the author has failed to establish a link between the mission of Facebook and this terrible tragedy. Surely there are valid lessons that deserve our attention in the wake of this incident; I don't believe Zuckerberg's mission is one of them.

Posted By: Melissa Griffin | October 12, 2010 12:28 PM

Thank you for your comment, Walker. Please note that this post expresses the views of one of our guest bloggers, not the editorial staff of Her.meneutics or of Christianity Today magazine. We are simply highlighting one thoughtful analysis of the role of social media in the death of Tyler Clementi.

Posted By: Katelyn Beaty | October 12, 2010 12:30 PM

you seem to have a strong predisposition against zuckerberg. I say this because in this tragic story, the enemy you extract is not really involved. this boy was a serious victim of invasion of privacy but also of extreme immaturity. i dont believe that you can say because the young man posted on his facebook before he died that the website is the reason he did not seek help from a friend.
also, what does zuckerberg's religious tendencies have anything to do with this situation? i understand that you were tryin to make a connection between that and a lack of morals and concience, but as an agnostic, im actually a little offended. i think you should re-evaluate your ideas before you share them with the world

Posted By: jared | October 12, 2010 12:33 PM

Jared, I think she might have some of her facts wrong. As you, I don't find a connection at all between this suicide and facebook. I do agree with her, however, that these two students show no conscience, either in their actions or in defense of their actions. I'm sorry they can't be charged with a greater crime.

Posted By: ms muse | October 12, 2010 12:36 PM

The author here focuses on too many irrelevant points in why Ravi/Wei should have known better.

With all due respect to Rutgers, which is a solid academic experience, most people would NOT consider it one of the "nation's most notable schools." I mean, come on. Given that it's a state school, the admissions staff was reading the essay too carefully.

And what does a near perfect sat score have to do with moral reasoning or ability? Or the fact that the school costs $100k+? That's how much a four-year education costs at most colleges these days if you factor in room/board.

The only thing Wei did wrong was let her high school acquaintance/friend use her computer. We don't know if Ravi told her he planned to use her computer to spy on Clementi. For all we know, he could have said, "hey, my roommate sexiled me - can I borrow your computer?" - a completely reasonable request in college. Clementi himself established that the only thing they could have seen was him kissing the other guy because they moved out of the camera afterward.

While what Ravi did was clearly wrong, Wei only provided the computer - with no evidence that she had any idea what was going on. For all we know, she could have told him to stop watching Clementi.

Also, you have no evidence that Wei, or Ravi for that matter, have no conscience. Most likely they are probably wracked with guilt that a stupid and thoughtless prank resulted in someone's death.

Wei is Christian (or at least, was involved in her church's youth group throughout high school). You could be praying for her and Ravi instead of condemning them for something they never intended.

Posted By: For the record | October 12, 2010 12:57 PM

Please stop blaming Facebook for the products of bad parenting.

Posted By: Andrew | October 12, 2010 1:39 PM

Great Article! You hit the nail on the head. It's time parents taught children respect along with self esteem! Thanks for writing.

Posted By: Carol Bertozzi | October 12, 2010 2:10 PM

This article brings ups three issues in my mind (Many more for others) 1. The ethics of technology and the issue of privacy that goes along with it. 2. The ever increasing issue of bullying that is getting more coverage and 3. attitudes in the church over the issue of homosexuality. Regarding the last point (3) conservative expressions of Christianity are given no choice in the issue. Either accept homosexuality as a legitimate sexual preference and support same sex marriage or be accused of being intolerant and promoting hate speech.

Posted By: Basil | October 12, 2010 2:23 PM

I'm sorry I completely disagree with the author on many of the points she's trying to make.

A) Facebook is not the problem. But if you absolutely NEED to blame technology, please feel free to blame the entire Internet. The internet is what has reduced human beings to screen names and the internet has created trolls, spammers and other useless individuals. This problem goes far beyond Facebook.

B) Some 18 year olds are caring compassionate adult human beings. And some are narcissistic cruel individuals. Most are not much different than a 13 year old. And I've seen in my house parenting merely contributes to the potential turn out, but doesn't guarantee a result.

C) Yes it was a horrible awful prank that spiraled way out of control. It was not a hate crime. There is no proof that Ravi "harassed" him. There is no proof he was violent. There is no proof he did anything other than invade his privacy.

And now I pull out MY soapbox.

Hate Crimes in and of themselves are wrong. First they say that one life is more valuable than another. If an African American man is beaten and killed while the attacker yells racial epithets then that attacker gets more punishment than one who simply beats and kills an African American man for his wallet. Therefore the one beaten and killed for his wallet is less valuable than the first guy.

Second hate crime attempts to base punishment on what the attacker was thinking or feeling at the time. Why? If my son is killed I could care less why he was killed.

Punish the act not the thought.

Posted By: Elisabeth | October 12, 2010 2:38 PM

I had trouble with some of the leaps of logic in this article, as well.

If a century or so ago, a troubled young man had telephoned a friend in his despondence instead of walking to the friend's home, would you blame the technology?

If you feel a false sense of intimacy develops due to your Facebook friendships, I believe the problem is the selection of friends, not the medium of friendship.

In any event, I would submit that at this point what we know is what the lawyers assert, rather than any truths about the two students' thoughts/intentions/attitudes. And it is likely to remain this way until all legal proceedings are completed.

Posted By: Sheila Lagrand | October 12, 2010 6:10 PM

By this same logic, the author herself is also complicit in this tragedy by her own admission to using Facebook. I am not suggesting that this young man was not a victim - he was, but we do not need to expand the victimization mentality of our culture by casting the net so wide that everyone shares guilt for everything. If everyone is culpable in a specific crime, then no one is for all practical purposes.

And, again, by the same logic, Ravi and Wei could also claim to be victims of Zuckerberg.

Posted By: Dave James | October 12, 2010 8:52 PM

Where's the invasion of privacy. Didn't the two men share the dorm room or apartment. The problem these days is that sex is allowed in these shared rooms whether or not one of the sharers wants to see or listen to what's going on. I guess the colleges figure it's their responsiblity to see to it students can engage in sex in dorms etc. Get a hotel room, spend the money. It's safer and let the other person sharing the room actually use the room for their educational purposes that the students are there for. Both students are wrong, one for taking the video and posting it and one for doing sex in a shared room and not facing his problem, really, that's what you need to learn about life. The other guy having sex didn't kill himself over it. Paris Hilton is still alive and her video showed a lot more of her. Suicide is unfortunately something noone really knows why a person does it or doesn't do it. My neighbor came home to find his wife hanging from a rafter and to this day he, her parents and her girlfriends say they had no clue. He's lucky he was at work while a girlfriend was the last one to leave her after tea. This student could have decided it was just time for him to leave this world. He obviously had some kind of a emotional problem, maybe seriously mental that he kept from everyone because killing oneself takes a tremendous amount of effort to do so. Think about it. And the video taker should be arrested for stalking and posting the video without the permission of the ones in the video. Happens to girls all the time, you end up in court over pictures and videos not meant by the girls to ever be seen by others. Men, thanks to technology, you can now know what the girls have been putting up with. Equality is equality.

Posted By: Original Anna | October 12, 2010 9:03 PM

I appreciate the post by Ms. Muse (12:36PM). I was beginning to think I was the only person who had noticed the total lack of any factual evidence reported anywhere that would show that Wei participated in or was even aware of what Ravi was doing while in her room. And actually, I haven't even seen anything that shows she was even present at the time. She could have been studying in a common area or doing laundry for all I know. I won't be surprised if evidence against her eventually does come out, but really ... let's wait until then before concluding she's a monster without a conscience.

Posted By: dnnj56 | October 12, 2010 9:43 PM

Correction -- it looks like it was "For the record" (12:57PM) that pointed out the lack of evidence against Wei. Ms. Muse, in the preceding post, looks like another one that likes to convict before the facts are known.

Posted By: dnnj56 | October 12, 2010 9:47 PM

Karen, thank you for this insightful post. I loved your comparison between the Hopi belief of protecting the soul and our neglect of this online. Thank you for bravely sharing your thoughts.

I appreciate your struggle over facebook's merits and dangers. There are both, which you acknowledge, and Zuckerburg is just one of the factors in a dynamic, untraceable though tragic event. I did not read this article to say facebook's creator is at fault, but surely his views of his own creation that was so intertwined with this man's death deserve to be looked at. It's one side of the issue, and you explored it well.

Posted By: Stephanie S. Smith | October 13, 2010 7:28 AM

I undersand what many commenters are saying - yes many teenagers are just plain immature and irresponsible regardless of whether they have a facebook account. However, to what extent does facebook enable and encourage such behaviour? If facebook is simply a neutral device, then why is it changing the fabric of western social interaction as we know it? People are both agents of their own actions and influenced by the culture they experience.

The problem with society today, in my opinion, is that nobody engages critically with culture. They simply consume. Later, when side effects arise, a certain group of people will point the consequences out and THEN question what we have been doing. In other words, too little too late. I, on the other hand, at the risk of sounding elitist, have never had a facebook account, for many of the objections that are only NOW just surfacing. And this slow, torpid reaction of society in general continues to amaze me.

Posted By: Nadine | October 13, 2010 11:26 AM

It seems that the author pointed out the fact that Zuck is an athiest because he consequently appears to have no conscience or moral values regarding other peoples' privacy. He feels that he has no ultimate authority that he will have to answer to. By using other peoples' privacy to make a profit (evidenced by his IM conversation at Harvard), he is serving money and not God. Therefore athiesm does matter in this context. Zuck's actions appear to result from it which in turn has affected millions of people.

Posted By: dana | October 13, 2010 12:45 PM

Unfortunately this article is loaded with ludicrous reasoning and arrogance. Positing that Zuckerburg's "atheism, youth and arrogance" inexorably led to his complicity in a tragic suicide is devoid of any logical consistency. His atheism in no way leads to his alleged devaluing of the privacy of others, his youth he obviously has no control over, and his "arrogance" is merely the subjective opinion of the author. Furthermore, to claim that the suspects using twitter to broadcast their heartlessness in any way implicates twitter, FB or Zuckerburg is ridiculous. And, by extension, there's no ethical or legal standing by which to hold FB accountable for the victim posting his farewell message on his FB account. If someone sent out a farewell email through his Google account and then committed suicide would we hold Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, accountable? Of course not. The author may have good intentions here, but this is just a remarkably lazy piece of writing.

Posted By: TJLaw | October 13, 2010 2:08 PM

TJLaw -

The difference between email and facebook is that email does not claim to be a social network. It does not try to replace real social relationships the way facebook does, and it does not encroach on personal privacy. Facebook is by nature public - it's a public posting board where people post intimate details and pictures. Email is by nature private.

Furthermore, email is not driven by an underlying current of vanity (striving to be popular and remaking our own digital image) and exploitiveness (encroaching on people's privacy), like facebook is.

The purpose of email is mainly to convey information. Do you really think that's the purpose of facebook? If it was, why would we need it? We already have email.

Posted By: Nadine | October 15, 2010 10:46 AM

Ever since Tyler Clementi took his life there have been many trying to pin the blame on someone else. Various individuals and groups are all lining up to inform us that Tyler apparently did not jump, he was "pushed". Many scream "homophobia", Her.meneutics, it appears, is screaming murder and seeking to incriminate Zuckerburg.

"Jumping off the gw bridge sorry" is all he wrote. No "note" explaining why, yet many believe they no why. His friend and room-mate "outed" him that's why. His "privacy was invaded" that's why. Even though in the grand scheme of things neither of these normally lead to suicide they are being blamed nevertheless.

What caused Tyler Clementi to jump? Was it extreme embarrasment? A strong and deep sense of shame? Was it loss of "face"? Was it the fear of what those he truly cared about would feel or say? Was it how this disclosure would affect his future? He did not say, yet everyone thinks they know.

Young people all over the world commit suicide daily. In some countries (Japan) it is the number one cause of death among youth. Two young people made someone's private act very public, yes, but why is it so hard for some to acknowledge that a young man took his own life, and that it was not his friend, room-mate, Facebook or Zuckerburg?

I, am not buying it!

Posted By: Steve Skeete | October 17, 2010 2:03 AM

The New York Times has this article in which we learn of the last messages from Clementi posted on a homosexual site which seems to have been a hangout of his, including this message:

"Revenge never ends well for me, as much as I would love to pour pink paint all over his stuff ... that would just let him win."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/nyregion/01suicide.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=tyler%20clementi&st=cse

The Times article, is about the messages Clementi posted in the days leading up to his suicide, they do not indicate that he was tormented or felt humiliated by the broadcasting of the images of him with a male student, which apparently consisted of only kissing. Yes, he was annoyed and angry at what his roommate had done to him, but he seems calm, thoughtful and clear thinking about the situation. He does not show the signs of a despair and unhappiness that would lead one to suicide.

Could Clementi have commited suicide as an act of revenge. Far from being a tortured innocent driven to end his own life, he may have killed himself for the cold purpose of wreaking revenge on the people who had embarrassed him. It would allow him to go down as the ulimate victim and could have been a deliberate act on his behalf, knowing it would lead to the arrest and prosecution of those who wronged him.

None of this takes away from the fact that Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei commited an act of evil when they put on the Web images of Clementi engaged in a private physical act. But it does let us see this situation in a different light.

Posted By: The Phantom Blogger | October 17, 2010 1:29 PM

There are some, myself included, who wish the two were facing manslaughter charges.

Posted By: Dating Rule Book | October 17, 2010 10:20 PM

Nadine, I take your point but it's still completely irrelevant. Not only do you make quite a few assumptions, you also miss my much larger point, which is that logically, ethically and legally, accusing FB of complicity in a suicide is simply spurious. My example of email could just as easily been any other form of technology (why not blame cellular companies? or macintosh? or apple? or the manufacturer of discreet cameras?) as previous commentors have already pointed out.

To your point regarding FB and email, you've made quite a few assumptions. First, asserting that FB is inherently public and email is inherently private is quite simplistic, as FB users do have quite a few controls over what people see (I, for example, would not have been able to see this young man's farewell post if his privacy settings were properly adjusted as I was not his "friend"), and email can be as "public" as we would like it to be. Regardless, even this distinction is irrelevant, as the question here is not the nature of the technology that this young man used, it's that the author seems to believe that because he decided to turn to FB instead of loved ones in a time of great desperation, that's somehow the responsibility of FB. And it is extraordinarily clear that this is a baseless, indeed nearly dangerous, accusation.

Second, claiming that "email is not driven by an underlying current of vanity (striving to be popular and remaking our own digital image) and exploitiveness (encroaching on people's privacy), like facebook" is extremely subjective, and is hardly a matter of fact. To claim that 500 million people are on facebook merely to satisfy their vain obsession with personal gratification and status is absurd, and conversely, to state that email is used for "informational" purposes only is just as simplistic and absurd. As a result, you're arguing in a circle, as you're confusing subjective opinion with objective fact.

There is no doubt that FB and other social media platforms pose significant ethical and legal challenges with respect to individual rights, autonomy and privacy. But accusing FB of manslaughter upon a platform of sloppy reasoning and conjecture is not the place to start.

Posted By: TJLaw | October 18, 2010 12:14 PM

I've rethought some things since my previous comment. First, I guess I'm a prude, but this boy had at least 2 sexual encounters in one week, after being away from home less than a month. Maybe this is what kids do when they get away from home - it just seems a little excessive to me. Secondly, I may have over-reacted with the girl involved. Like some of you have suggested, she may have inadvertently been made a part of this tragedy by the actions of someone else. Finally, I wonder what happened during the 24 hours between the time when he was "a little upset" and when he killed myself, and what role does his sexual partner have in all of this. But, once again, is Facebook to blame? That's absurd!

Posted By: muse | October 18, 2010 2:49 PM

"To claim that 500 million people are on facebook merely to satisfy their vain obsession with personal gratification and status is absurd"

Why?

Also, I never used the word "merely", which suggests "only". I used the phrase "underlying current", which suggests that it's a SUBTLE and even unconscious motivation, which people may or may not possess, or may or may or may not realize that they possess.

I never said I agreed that the creator of facebook is responsible for his friend's death, so at least half of your post is misdirected.

"conversely, to state that email is used for "informational" purposes only is just as simplistic and absurd"

I didn't say "only", that's a misquote again. I said "mainly".

"you're arguing in a circle, as you're confusing subjective opinion with objective fact"

All of my statements are arguments, and therefore subjective. You are of course allowed to disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they're circular!

Posted By: Anonymous | October 19, 2010 11:24 AM

Whoops that was me above.

Also, privacy in facebook land? That honestly makes me laugh. Privacy is an illusion in facebook.

"No, it's private, honest, I only have 107 friends!!! It's completely closed off to everyone else!"

Posted By: Nadine | October 19, 2010 11:28 AM

I think a lot of people may have missed the point of the post. My impression, at least, was not that the blogger was trying to incriminate Zuckerberg or Facebook in Clementi's death but that she was asking questions about the role of social networks in dismantling the time-honored tradition of basic respect for other people and their boundaries.

I think those are legitimate questions. Social networking can be used as a tool for good, but it can be used even more easily as a tool for evil--both the "benign" evil of excessive preoccupation with the self and the more dangerous evils of bullying, fraud, violation, and so on. By erecting an artificial wall of separation between people, social networks like FB encourage would-be perpetrators to further depersonalize their victims.

Zuckerberg may not be personally responsible for Clementi's death, but he's responsible for starting an Internet phenomenon that doesn't adequately protect privacy, as we've seen even recently when it was revealed that FB apps were relaying personally identifiable information to third parties. Whenever another scandal hits, he does a lot of apologizing and backtracking, but it's hard to trust someone after several such occurrences.

I hope more of us will question what our kids are learning about respect for others when they participate in social networks...and what we're condoning when we participate in them as well.

Posted By: TheLordIsMyShepherd | October 25, 2010 2:22 AM

Facebook has a shelf life, just like any other social networking site (Xanga, MySpace or BlackPlanet anyone?). However, morality and decency should not have a shelf life. My prayer is that God will restore these values to our world.

That he was kissing someone, engaging in homosexual acts is not the issue. Zuckerberg's religion or lack thereof is not the issue. The beginning of the bloggers article explains the issue. Where is the sense of right and wrong? Why do people feel entitled to exposing the activities of others? Why didn't the feeling "I shouldn't post this in Twitter" kick in right before the young man streamed live?

It's all very disturbing.

Posted By: Beverly | October 27, 2010 10:33 PM

"[Wei and Ravi] are students at one of the nation's most notable schools. A basic four-year education at Rutgers runs upward of $100,000 or more. It has been reported that Ravi had a near perfect SAT score.

Any kid capable of writing an essay that grants them entrance into Rutgers knows the difference between a prank and invasion of privacy."

I learned from the Unabomber -- a highly-educated man with at least one PhD -- that strong intelligence is no guarantee of a strong conscience, at all. A highly intelligent, God-less man is unfortunately in a position to do great harm. MLK hit the nail on the head when he said that what really matters is a man's character. In our unending quest for more and more intelligence, we often forget or neglect the far-greater need for Godly character.

The Bible speaks of people who have a 'seared conscience'. This means their hearts are so hardened, they are so de-sensitized to sin, they are beyond feeling, beyond any sense of guilt or grief over wrongdoing. The implications of this are truly frightening for our culture.

Posted By: jules | October 31, 2010 2:07 AM

it isn't technology that makes people act like that; rather it's how society has changed. everything has become about personal gain. i was raised heavily on morals, not just christian but human morals of humility, kindness, patience, etc. children in this generation are not being raised the same way. if our country were to move away from such a machiavellian focus on "success" and material wealth, parents would be spending more time with their children and less at work, children wouldn't be left to their own devices or raised at daycare, and parents would be held accountable for the way their children "turn out."

in my experience an appalling number of people with whom i rarely engage use cell phones and the internet to harass others, including me. but the fact is, these people would still be horrible people without the internet. the internet and cell phones are simply giving these people a vehicle, and allowing them to show who they really are. i don't honestly think that the truly evil people i've encountered would be good if not for technology, i think they just wouldn't be exposed.

people act like that because they know there are no consequences. those students wanted attention, and they wanted to hurt their victim. if laws were in place to punish them, they would have thought twice about their actions--unfortunately, not because of the wrong, but for their own selfish concern. still, though, at least it would have stopped them.

Posted By: s | March 29, 2011 2:16 AM