In a recent opinion piece published in the UT Daily Beacon, Jinning Wang shared his view on the University of Tennessee’s ban on TikTok.

简体中文

SB 0843 was filed for introduction on Jan. 30 to prohibit a public institution of higher education that provides internet access to students, faculty, staff or the general public from allowing an individual to access a video platform using the institution’s network if the video platform is owned by a company headquartered outside of the United States.

Then, Amendment 1 was made to the bill on Mar. 2 to specify the range as social media platforms operated or hosted by a company based in the People’s Republic of China.

UT’s Swift Response to TikTok Law

Following the signing of the law by Gov. Bill Lee on April 13, Ramon Padilla, CIO and Vice Chancellor for IT and Innovation, on behalf of the University of Tennessee, sent out an email on April 14 to inform the University of Tennessee system on the newly implemented “TikTok Law.”

With zero prior notice to students, UT blocked access to WeChat, Sina Weibo, Tencent QQ, Tencent Video, Xiao HongShu, Douban, Zhihu, Meituan and Toutiao on campus Wi-Fi.

Potential Inappropriate Aspects of the Policy

While the policy of blocking access to certain social media platforms may have been implemented with good intentions, there are potential aspects of the policy that could be deemed inappropriate or concerning.

The policy was put into effect without prior notification or discussion with the entire university community, which has led to confusion and frustration among students, faculty and staff.

The lack of transparency and inclusivity in the decision-making process for implementing the policy has raised concerns about the university’s commitment to engaging all members of the community in issues that affect them.

In order to foster a more inclusive and transparent decision-making process, it is imperative that the university actively engages with all members of the community, especially international students and scholars, during policy development and implementation. This will ensure that the university takes into account diverse perspectives and promotes a culture of inclusivity and fairness.

Disproportionate Reaction to the Law

The law in question pertains specifically to social media platforms, yet the university’s ban encompasses a broad range of apps without providing detailed justification. For example, WeChat is primarily a private messaging service for person-to-person communication rather than a social media platform.

As guided by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, the social media platforms from China are listed as Douban, Qzone (QQ), Sina Weibo, Tencent Weibo and Youku.

Further, it guided the applicants by saying, “Please provide the name of the platform and the associated unique social media identifier (username or handle) for each social media platform you would like to list. This does not include private messaging on person-to-person messaging services, such as WhatsApp.”

UT’s ban seems to be a disproportionate reaction to the law that only concerns social media platforms. This is especially concerning because WeChat is primarily a private messaging service and not a social media platform like those listed on the DS-160 form. Furthermore, the lack of clear reasoning for the selected apps raises concerns about the negative impact on individuals who rely on these apps for personal communication.

Appeal to UT

Following an examination of the concerns raised by the university community in response to the recent policy of blocking certain social media platforms, I, as a Volunteer, strongly urge the University of Tennessee to take action and reevaluate the policy.

It is crucial to listen to the voices of the community members and address their concerns in a transparent and inclusive manner. A reevaluation of the policy may involve refining or modifying it to ensure that it aligns with the university’s values of promoting inclusivity, respect and diversity.

While the university has a duty to comply with state law, it is equally important to safeguard individual rights, ensuring that the rights of all Volunteers, including specific groups, are not infringed upon.

The university can explore a better action to follow the coexistence of the university’s duty to comply with state law and its obligation to safeguard individual rights.

Mitigating Negative Effects

Moreover, the author appeals to the university to actively work on mitigating the negative consequences resulting from the policy’s implementation.

This may involve revising the policy to determine a reasonable list of banned apps on campus. To achieve this, the university should proactively engage with affected students and scholars to understand the extent of the impact and address their concerns accordingly.

Additionally, the university should explore offering alternative resources and support to those affected by the policy, such as providing supplementary assistance and access to other social media platforms.

By taking these steps, the university can demonstrate its unwavering commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive learning environment for all students, regardless of their country of origin.

Acknowledgment

As a proud Volunteer, the author would like to express gratitude to UT for its ongoing support in promoting a safe and inclusive academic and study environment for all members of the university community.

Further, the author would like to express his appreciation for the help from other Volunteers, including but not limited to the timely report from The Daily Beacon and the Center for Global Engagement’s upcoming Listening Session to Support the Chinese Community.

As we strive for a more balanced approach in addressing various concerns, we acknowledge and appreciate the university’s steadfast commitment to fostering a diverse, equitable and inclusive community through its policies and initiatives.

关于中国应用禁令，田纳西大学可以遵守州法律并保护个人权利

SB0843于1月30日提交，旨在禁止向学生、教职员工或公众提供互联网接入的公立高等教育机构允许个人使用该机构的网络访问总部位于美国以外的公司拥有的视频平台。 然后，在3月2日，通过了对该法案的修正案1，将范围具体化为由中华人民共和国境内的公司运营或托管的社交媒体平台。

田纳西大学对TikTok法案的迅速反应

在州长 Bill Lee 于4月13日签署法案后，田纳西大学信息技术和创新副校长兼首席信息官 Ramon Padilla 代表田纳西大学，于4月14日发送了一封电子邮件，通知田纳西大学系统关于新实施的“TikTok法”。

在未事先通知学生的情况下，田纳西大学在校园网络上封锁了微信、新浪微博、腾讯QQ、腾讯视频、小红书、豆瓣、知乎、美团和头条。

政策的潜在欠妥之处

尽管封锁某些社交媒体平台的政策可能是出于好意实施的，但这项政策有可能被认为是不当或令人担忧的。

学校在缺乏事先通知与讨论讨论的情况下实施了这项政策，这使得学生与教职员工产生费解和沮丧。

在实施该政策的决策过程中，缺乏透明度和包容性，这引发了对大学是否致力于在涉及他们的问题上与社区所有成员互动的担忧。

为了促进更具包容性和透明度的决策过程，大学在政策制定和实施过程中积极与社区所有成员，特别是国际学生和学者互动至关重要。这将确保大学考虑到多元化的观点，并促进包容和公平的文化。

对法律的过度反应

相关法律旨在社交媒体平台，但大学的禁令涵盖了广泛的应用程序，却没有提供详细的理由。例如，微信主要是一种面向个人通信的私人消息服务，而不是社交媒体平台。

按照美国国务院领事事务局的指导，来自中国的社交媒体平台包括豆瓣、Qzone（QQ）、新浪微博、腾讯微博和优酷。

此外，该局指导申请人说：“请提供您想要列出的每个社交媒体平台的名称和相关的唯一社交媒体标识符（用户名或句柄）。这不包括像WhatsApp这样的面向个人通信的私人消息服务。”

田纳西大学的禁令似乎是对仅涉及社交媒体平台的法律的不成比例反应。这尤其令人担忧，因为微信主要是一种私人消息服务，而不是像DS-160表格上列出的那些社交媒体平台。此外，缺乏对选定应用的明确理由引发了对依赖这些应用进行个人沟通的用户产生负面影响的担忧。

向田纳西大学发出呼吁

在对学校就最近封禁某些社交媒体平台的政策提出关注进行评估之后，我作为一名志愿者，强烈敦促田纳西大学采取行动，重新审视该政策。

倾听社区成员的声音并以透明和包容的方式解决他们的担忧至关重要。重新评估政策可能涉及对其进行完善或修改，以确保其符合大学推动包容、尊重和多样性的价值观。

虽然大学有义务遵守州法律，但同样重要的是保护个人权利，确保所有志愿者，包括特定群体的权利不受侵犯。

大学可以探索更好的行动，以实现遵守州法律的义务与保护个人权利的义务的共存。

减轻负面影响

此外，作者呼吁大学积极努力减轻政策实施所产生的负面后果。

这可能涉及修改政策，以确定校园内合理的禁用应用程序列表。为实现这一目标，大学应主动与受影响的学生和学者互动，了解影响的范围并相应地解决他们的担忧。

另外，大学应探索为受政策影响的人提供替代资源和支持，例如提供补充援助和访问其他社交媒体平台的途径。

通过采取这些措施，大学可以展示其对培养所有学生的热情和包容的学习环境的坚定承诺，无论他们来自哪个国家。

致谢

作为一名自豪的志愿者，作者感谢田纳西大学持续建设一个安全和包容的学术和学习环境。

此外，作者感谢其他志愿者的帮助，包括但不限于《The Daily Beacon》的及时报道和CGE即将举行的支持中国社区的听证会。

在我们努力寻求更加平衡的方式来解决各种关切时，我们承认并感激大学通过其政策和举措坚定地致力于培养一个多样化、公平和包容的社区。