|
|
| (94 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | [[File:MainDuke.jpg|right]]The '''Duke F*** List''' is a 42-page Powerpoint presentation created in 2010 by a [https://www.duke.edu/ Duke University] senior, Karen Owen. The document shared details of sexual encounters with Duke male athletes during her time at the University. Presented jokingly as a 'Senior Thesis' to her friends, her "faux senior thesis" was accidentally revealed. Becuase of this, legal action was taken by the "victims".
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Karen Owen==
| |
| − | Karen F. Owen grew up in Branford, Connecticut and graduated from high school in 2006. As a college student at Duke, Owen studied History and had a strong interest in sports. <ref name=LifeAfterInfamy>Alptraum, Lux. “There Is Life After Campus Infamy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 July 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/campus-sex-women-exposure.html.</ref>
| |
| − | [[File:KarenOwen.jpg|150px|100px|right]] In 2010, Owen released her "faux sex thesis" in the form of a comically thorough PowerPoint shortly after her graduation. She faced significant backlash from members of the Duke community. Because of this, Owen promptly deleted all of her social media accounts. She was contacted by producers and writers about creating documentaries and books about her, but she declined these opportunities. Owen made a point to avoid the public light. <ref name=Control>Hill, Kashmir. “How Karen Owen and Tyler Clementi Lost Control.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 11 Aug. 2011, www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2010/10/01/how-karen-owen-and-tyler-clementi-lost-control/#681f282b159d.</ref> Owen didn't face any criminal charges, and the incident eventually faded away. <ref name=TheseDays>Magary, and Drew Magary. “What's Duke ‘Fuck List’ Author Karen Owen Up To These Days? Let's Find Out!” Deadspin, Deadspin, 11 Sept. 2018, deadspin.com/whats-duke-fuck-list-author-karen-owen-up-to-these-da-5912350.</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==The List==
| |
| − | ===Creation and Spread===
| |
| − | The F*** List was titled ‘An education beyond the classroom: excelling in the realm of horizontal education’, it was originally emailed to three of her friends.<ref>“Duke University Scandal ‘Excelling in the Realm of Horizontal Academics.’” Today24News RSS, today24news.com/breaking/duke-university-scandal-excelling-in-the-realm-of-horizontal-academics-085330.</ref>[[File:DukeTitle.jpg|right]] Evidently, one of them leaked the list and it quickly spread across campus. This created the domino effect that eventually resulted in the list being easily accessible to anyone as it appeared on sites such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezebel Jezebel] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadspin Deadspin]. These sites released the full version of the document without hiding any of the names of those involved. Most of the men were lacrosse players, which intensified the seriousness of the "study" via news and media coverage, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case Duke Lacrosse Case] it occurred only 4 years prior.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Methodology===
| |
| − | Each athlete was assigned a subject number, followed by details about their sexual encounters with Owen. These details included memorable moments, pros, and cons. Ratings were assigned on a 10 point scale using physical attractiveness, size, talent, creativity, aggressiveness, entertainment, athletic ability, and bonus. Tiebreakers were decided by physical attractiveness.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==The Aftermath==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Following the release of her powerpoint presentation, Karen Owen received a significant amount of backlash from peers and faculty within the Duke community. When Owen wrote the document, she intended to only share with her group of friends as it was supposed to be a private joke. Unfortunately, social media allowed this the document spread quicker in an unexpected fashion and posted on multiple websites.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Owen quickly made it clear that her intention wasn't to share the project outside of her friend group and release personal information of the 13 men. Owen failed to understand that a document would not remain private when shared online. She instantly retreated from any public attention, deleting all social media, excluding an extremely private Facebook profile within days of the list going viral.<ref>Magary, and Drew Magary. “What's Duke ‘Fuck List’ Author Karen Owen Up To These Days? Let's Find Out!” Deadspin, Deadspin, 11 Sept. 2018, deadspin.com/whats-duke-fuck-list-author-karen-owen-up-to-these-da-5912350.</ref> Interestingly, most of the men she exposed lacked a public online presence. Owen spoke to Jezebel, stating, “I regret it with all my heart. I would never intentionally hurt the people that are mentioned on that.” Many saw her as a potential female counterpart to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Max Tucker Max], who she explicitly mentioned in her thesis, but she wanted nothing to do with this style of vulgar writing. Several people identified problematic aspects of college such as the partying culture in which Owen's document revealed and it is something that should be addressed on a larger scale <ref>Alptraum, Lux. “There Is Life After Campus Infamy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 July 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/campus-sex-women-exposure.html.</ref>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Online Reaction===
| |
| − | Online, many people began to attack Owen for her actions and lack of real accountability once the dust had settled.<ref>Kinslow, Tom. “Karen Owen Duke: The Latest From a Messy, Sexy Scandal.” Bleacher Report, Bleacher Report, 17 Sept. 2017, bleacherreport.com/articles/484093-karen-owen-duke-the-latest-from-a-messy-sexy-scandal#slide9.</ref> Interestingly, Tucker Max spoke out and defended her actions, claiming that people accessed her diary and her personal information was compromised. <ref>Max, Tucker. “Home.” Tucker Max, 20 Nov. 2011, tuckermax.me/karens-owens-and-the-duke-fuck-list/.</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Ethical Concerns==
| |
| − | ===Privacy===
| |
| − | Richard Mason states in Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age that, “Collections of information reveal intimate details about a person and can thereby deprive the person of the opportunity to form certain professional and personal relationships.”<ref>Mason, Richard. (1986). Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age. Management Information Systems Quarterly - MISQ. 10. 10.2307/248873. </ref> This case violated the males’ privacy, as these bedroom tales are the most intimate details about an individual. While Owen did elect to send this Powerpoint to her friends, her own privacy was compromised as well that of the list. It is not a coincidence that almost all parties involved have retracted themselves from the online sphere. Much of Mason’s writing discusses companies collecting data online about their users. This situation is more difficult, however, as the information was collected in the most private setting possible. I think Max was correct in comparing the list to a diary. It was meant to be shared with a few friends but instead was spread to the world. Nevertheless, Owen threw away the males’ privacy as soon as she started her thesis.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Anonymity===
| |
| − | While Owen originally made an oversight, the news sites that published the list failed to protect the anonymity of the men involved. Kathleen Wallace states in Online Anonymity that, “computer-mediated or online communication may encourage the impression that one is anonymous”.<ref>Wallace, Kathleen A. “Online Anonymity.” The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, by Kenneth Einar. Himma and Herman T. Tavani, John Wiley & Sons, 2008, pp. 165–189.</ref>
| |
| − | While this communication of information started in person, the men didn't expect that this information would surface online. They acted in a manner that was accepted by all immediate parties involved, not with the judgment and opinions of those who ended up being privy to their actions as a result of the list being posted online. But when Jezebel and Deadspin posted the list without blacking out any of the names, is proof that maybe they should have. Deadspin has since updated the article to exclude names.<ref>Daulerio, A.J. “The Full Duke University ‘Fuck List’ Thesis From A Former Female Student (UPDATE).” Deadspin, Deadspin, 17 June 2013, deadspin.com/the-full-duke-university-fuck-list-thesis-from-a-form-5652280.</ref> Names, pictures, education, and extracurricular activities of all the men were instantly spread across the web, not to mention the grotesque details of sexting, dirty talk, and unconventional sexual activities. These websites committed atrocious oversight when releasing information about people to the entire world.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Distributed Accountability===
| |
| − | If you searched Karen Owen on the internet today, nine years later, all of the results are regarding the Duke scandal. Even if Karen Owen wanted no longer wanted this information about her to be online, she simply does not have the right to be forgotten in the United States of America. “Digitization and cheap online storage make it easier to remember than to forget, shifting out ‘behavioral default’”<ref>Toobin, Jeffrey. “The Solace of Oblivion.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 June 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion</ref>. Information online today is more durable and retrievable than ever before, so it is nearly impossible for Karen Owen to get the Duke Scandal disassociated from her name. However, if you were to search the men involved in the scandal, you would find their LinkedIn profiles and knowledge pertaining to what they are doing now. Ben Grisz is a Senior Analytics Consultant at IBM, Zach Howell is a banker, and Jake Lemmerman is an analyst at Taco Bell. The Duke scandal does not come up in their Google searches, while it is what solely comes up In Karen Owen’s. The internet holds Karen Owen completely accountable, while the men are unaffected. There is much public debate regarding this double standard and questions are raised as to whether or not this situation would be different if a male were the author instead of a female.
| |
| − | [[File:Karen owen.png|460px|thumb|left|Google image results for Karen Owen]]
| |
| − | [[File:Zach howell.png|460px|thumb|right|Google image results for Zach howell]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Conclusion==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It is true that Owens implicated anonymity and privacy from the moment she wrote this thesis. Ironically, the public forgot a key point she had no intention of showing this thesis to anyone outside of her friend group. It makes one wonder as to why she was the only person being potentially charged with the crime. The public seems to forget that one of her friends posted without her knowledge or permission, therefore, that person should have been in the midst of the potential legal action. However, one can only hope that this was was a public lesson for others as to be more careful and considerate of how privacy and anonymity can implicate someone and potentially limit future opportunities for the potential "victims".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | =References=
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | [[Category:2019New]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Information Ethics]]
| |
