
The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995) - kitcar
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/15/magazine/the-great-ivy-league-nude-posture-photo-scandal.html?pagewanted=all
======
stephencanon
This story comes up every now and then; I have a hard time seeing it as a
“scandal”. It’s nothing more than a piece of historical anatomical
pseudoscience that happens to tickle the salacious fancies of puritan America
with the proximity of “nudity” and the names of recognizable celebrities.

Might as well be phrenology otherwise.

~~~
yongjik
Taking nude photos of an entire generation of college freshmen (without proper
consent) is not scandalous?

Sure, it's not at the level of secret Plutonium injection, but still...

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Nonsense. All were essentially volunteers. Nobody held a gun to their head;
they just put it on a schedule, and the freshmen lined up to comply.

Its actually amusing; these captains of industry were such sheep when they
were young. Makes you wonder when they grew a backbone, if at all.

~~~
yongjik
Seriously? "Nobody held a gun to their head" is your criterion? For guys and
gals fresh out of high school?

Will you also tell me that employees can't sue for unpaid overtime, hazardous
work environment, sexual harassment etc. because nobody held a gun and they
could always quit? Such sheep, those common workers.

------
brador
I have a vague feeling of reading this on the new york times website years
ago, it was a huge article. Looks like this is a reblogging?

Yup, from 1995: [http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/15/magazine/the-great-ivy-
lea...](http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/15/magazine/the-great-ivy-league-nude-
posture-photo-scandal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

~~~
vacri
This is the longest "Repost!" comment that I have yet seen.

~~~
plantain
Is it a repost if it was before a substantial number of readers were born??

~~~
etfb
A substantials number of HN readers are under 18?

Now I _really_ feel old.

------
etfb
This deep underlying assumption that nudity = scandal is amusing. I'm
Australian, and I thought my culture was pretty similar to the US in a lot of
ways, but the puritanical terror of nudity that pervades ever word of the
article seems very odd indeed to me.

~~~
jccc
For the benefit of those who have not read the 1995 article all the way
through to the end:

"As I thumbed rapidly through box after box to confirm that the entries
described in the Finder's Aid were actually there, I tried to glance at only
the faces. It was a decision that paid off, because it was in them that a
crucial difference between the men and the women revealed itself. For the most
part, the men looked diffident, oblivious. That's not surprising considering
that men of that era were accustomed to undressing for draft physicals and
athletic-squad weigh-ins.

"But the faces of the women were another story. I was surprised at how many
looked deeply unhappy, as if pained at being subjected to this procedure. On
the faces of quite a few I saw what looked like grimaces, reflecting
pronounced discomfort, perhaps even anger."

~~~
yetanotherphd
That quite well illustrates the unacknowledged privilege of women at that
time. The men were so accustomed to being denied privacy, either by cultural
norms at the time, or by force by the government, that being forced to undress
and be photographed was nothing unusual to them. Women, on the other hand,
considered this an affront, because they were not subject to either of these.
Thank you for pointing this out.

~~~
etfb
Or you could see it entirely the other way. In fact, I'm rather surprised that
you saw it as you do. I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.

~~~
yetanotherphd
What is the "other way"?

~~~
etfb
That women, far from having extra privilege in this area, felt extremely
threatened at being made to be naked, knowing that this level of vulnerability
had no upside for them. Whereas men had no particular concern, because their
photos would not likely be misused.

Frankly, the suggestion that women have more power in this sort of situation
is so wrong-headed that I honestly can't imagine how anyone familiar with
Western culture could come up with it.

~~~
yetanotherphd
What was the upside for men?

~~~
etfb
They were doing what they were told, and would therefore get whatever benefits
obedience brings.

Whereas the women now had:

\- a bunch of male scientists leering at them [1];

\- some photos in the hands of those scientists that could be embarrassing;

\- the possibility of those photos being stolen and distributed;

\- a strong sense that they have no right to privacy or dignity in the highly
male-dominated Ivy League world.

That last one would count as an educational bonus, at least.

[1] I'm only guessing that the scientists were male here, but I think it's a
safe bet. Even nowadays, but more so then.

~~~
yetanotherphd
So if it was such a bad idea for the women, why did they do it?

When it is better for men to do what they are told than otherwise, you
classify it as a benefit. When it is better for women to do what they are told
than otherwise, you call it oppression. I'm trying to draw attention to this
double standard.

To be clear: neither the men nor women gained directly from having their
photographs taken.

~~~
etfb
I don't honestly believe it's possible for someone to ask questions like that
without a malicious purpose, so I shall refrain from engaging you henceforth.
I pray that the women in your life, if you have any, can see what you are --
but I'm fairly sure it's obvious, so I'm not worried.

~~~
yetanotherphd
My purpose is to get people to question feminism and see outside a very narrow
worldview in which women are always victims. In your case, I have failed. And
the way you make this argument personal is really pathetic, although not
surprising.

------
dsugarman
>But if you ever see a black and white nude photograph like this floating
around at a flea market, you know what to do.

maybe I missed this part. what do I do?

~~~
Alex3917
Check to see if it's Hillary Clinton.

Also, why are we linking to this blogspam rather than the original?

------
dec0dedab0de
Did the title, _and_ the link just change?

~~~
L_Rahman
Looks like it.

In this case, it makes complete sense. The original was intentionally
inflammatory leading with a line about nude pictures of Hilary Clinton, and
was based on the NYT article to begin with.

~~~
llimllib
Except that now the comments here make no sense at all.

------
ternaryoperator
So in lamenting this weird, invasive study, the author decides to publish
several of the nude photographs? How unnecessary was that?

~~~
TallGuyShort
Fox News and other agencies do the same thing any time they're reporting that
something controversial or offensive took place. It's not because they
actually consider it bad, it's that they know it's inflammatory and gets
viewership.

~~~
kevinpet
What does Fox News have to do with anything?

~~~
TallGuyShort
Are you kidding? My response was 2 sentences about how I've seen them
especially, and TV news in general, replay things they were saying were so
"edgy" for TV, _on TV_. Just like the re-distribution of these images in an
article about how inappropriate the taking of these images was. I don't know
how to explain that more clearly?

~~~
humanrebar
From my initial reading of your comment, I thought you were defending the
posting the photos on the grounds that FoxNews does it too. That is an excuse
(a bad one), not justification.

It seems that wasn't what you meant. Maybe you would like to rephrase?

~~~
datamart
He was providing the reason for why the authors would have published the
photos (by using Fox News as an example), not defending or justifying their
having done so.

------
greenyoda
I wonder if anyone actually refused to strip for the researchers, and if so,
what the consequences were.

------
lnanek2
Not exactly strange. We still employ people to stare at nudes at the new
airport scanners after all.

~~~
rayiner
We do not: [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-completely-
remo...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-completely-removed-full-
body-scanners-rep-article-1.1360143)

~~~
pak
So the machine takes the same picture, but simply pre-processes it into a
cartoon image using "Advanced Imaging Technology" (now there's a hilarious
non-description) before throwing it up on the monitor? Where do the originals
go? Do they ever get audited or offloaded for quality control purposes--how
else can they expect to be sure the algorithm works?

The news reports on this switch are all over the place in terms of quality,
and you happened to pick one of the worse ones. I'm not the only one asking
these questions: [http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/travel/tsa-
backscatter](http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/travel/tsa-backscatter)

 _" We'd like to see clearer rules about the collection of the images,"
Rotenberg said. "Are they deleted? Are they saved? Is some analysis being done
and can they be linked to passengers?"_

Not to mention the enormous waste of money it must have been to install and
then remove the old machines. And what now happens to all the pictures they
took, which are probably accumulating dust on some DHS subcontractor's hard
disk somewhere in America?

~~~
gizmo686
I have no idea how it is actually implemented, but it seems like it could be
implemented in a perfectly acceptable way.

The first step is to define what acceptable is. As I do not understand why
nudity is unacceptable in the first place, I will not attempt to do so, and
will instead employ the time honored tradition of hand waving.

In the new system, a reasonable implementation would be to discard the
original image imidietly. Quality control can be done by putting the machine
into debug mode and using consenting individuals as test subjects (or seeing
if the cartoon image detects when the target things are present). There is
also no guaranteed that the old pictures were ever stored. Although in both
cases, I suspect they would store the data, in some form, for at least the
short term to assist in a post-hoc analysis if their is a security failure.

Also, I think it was a software update only, the machines are still the same.

------
sp332
So, why are you publishing the photos?

------
john_b
Note: article is NSFW.

~~~
tlrobinson
...in America.

~~~
jMyles
Not even most places in America. This is not obscene in any way, there's just
a bit of nudity.

~~~
jamesrom
So you'd be fine with co-workers seeing that on your screen?

~~~
kome
During lunch time? Yes, I would be absolutely fine.

During working hours: no.

------
hawkharris
It's interesting how the word "nude" boosts posts to the top of the social
hierarchy on HN, Reddit and YouTube, among other sites, even in cases when the
content would be otherwise irrelevant or uninteresting to the communities.

~~~
munificent
> It's interesting how the word "nude" boosts posts to the top

We're mammals. Despite our large cerebrums and ability for abstract reasoning,
we're still primates. Of course we're drawn to sex, food, and emotion.

I think it's more interesting that we're _surprised_ by this. Sure, it's good
to try to overcome your bestial nature, but pretending it isn't there at all
seems a bit silly.

~~~
gizmo686
We seem to be the only mammals that are particularly attracted to nudity. As
far as I can tell, no other mammal even notices when one of their species is
naked.

~~~
nisa
How can they? Do any other animals have a concept of clothing?

------
koski
When I hopefully will be 70 one day, I wonder if i would actually like to see
such photos of me. I think I might. "Once I was young, and I looked so
awesome. Oh, those were the days..."

------
Pxtl
Why am I not surprised that Paglia loves this stuff? Wherever there's a well-
bred controversy, she's in the thick to concern-troll with grotesque absurd
sophistries.

------
antonius
From the article: _" No written permission of any kind was ever given by the
students."_

What's the statute of limitations on something like this? I'm guessing since
this occurred so long ago, nothing can be done.

~~~
at-fates-hands
It usually varies by state law. Here's some good information:
[http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/07/q-statute-of-
limitation...](http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/07/q-statute-of-limitations-
for-use-of.html)

"Because copyrights are governed by federal law, there is only one statute of
limitations for copyright claims. Copyright infringement claims are rights of
the copyright owner of the photograph and have a three-year statute of
limitations from the date of the infringement. See 17 USC 507(b). Some courts
start counting the three years when you had a reasonable chance to discover
the infringement."

~~~
phantom784
The subjects of the photos wouldn't have a copyright claim on the photos, as
they did not take them (the university did, and would own the copyright). I'm
sure there's other laws at play though, such as personality rights.

------
yeukhon
I just the whole article and now I wonder what happened to these photos and
with this long article a reader would expect to see some photos... any source
on this?

------
Fundlab
This thread is all too interesting. I found myself revisiting the dictionary
for definitions of words I never knew.Everyday I learn something new from HN

------
mkramlich
"Take off your clothes."

 _slap_ "No!"

"I am an authority figure. I have <good> reasons."

"Oh, well then that's fine."

 _strips_

Humans. We're funny sometimes.

Repeat ad nauseum.

