Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 01, No. 37 [Week ending November 10, 1991] ================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. ======================================================= Notes 1-2 are critiques of university computer policies. 1. The policy of Ohio State University's Academic Computer Services is too vague. "It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to follow due process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers." <1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org> 2. The policy of the University of Texas Computer Science department is too broad. It does not detail the process leading to a computer expulsion. It offers little privacy protection. It prohibits some Constitutionally-protected speech. <1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org> Notes 3-6 are about the computer policies at Rice University. 3. The policy of Rice University is vague and offers little privacy protection. 4. Rice has a detailed due-process procedure for computer infractions. A description of the procedure is enclosed. <9111091713.AA18825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 5. (A student at Rice:) Rice's requirement that students get permission before using computer media to communicate off-campus is unnecessary and overly restrictive. It also creates the possibility of selective enforcement. <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 6. (The same Rice student:) Rice's policy allows users to be punished for infractions before it has been determined that an infraction has actually occurred. This has happened to me. <1991Nov9.034938.7383@rice.edu> Note 7 is about the offensive-to-many "yehweh" posting. 7. "Those women who received the post via email do have a case for sexual harassment. They should push those cases not [cases based on] the general post [to soc.women]." The general post is like a library book except that with a kill file you can 'rip up offensive material' without effecting the ability of others to access the material. <9111071452.AA06180@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 8-9 are about interlibrary loan policy. Such policy might guide computer network policy. 8. Of the two main interlibrary loan policies, one says that interlibrary loans should only be used to obtain material for research and serious study. The other says that interlibrary loans can be used to request any material. <1991Nov8.210320.15630@eff.org> 9. "For [the National Science Foundation Net] to say 'you can not offer this nonacademic, nonresearch material via FTP' is like the National Interlibrary System telling a library that they can not offer nonserious, nonresearch material via [some other] interlibrary loan system." Such a requirement would violate both interlibrary loan policies. <1991Nov8.221534.17684@eff.org> Notes 10-13 are about Steven Brack's dismissal from Ohio State University and OSU policy, 10. (Steven Brack, a [former] student at Ohio State University:) Enclosed is the letter of dismissal I received from OSU. <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> 11. "How would you feel if you were expelled from school without even knowing what you were being punished for?" Steven Brack's hearing was unfair because "he was not given was the correspondence between his alleged actions and the rules that the actions, if true, would violate." This is "a violation of the procedural due process as guaranteed by the Constitution." <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org> 12. According to the ACLU handbook: _The Rights of Students_, before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the specific rules that those acts violate. <1991Nov6.220216.4349@eff.org> 13. (A former OSU student:) "OSU defines, quite rigidly, whaich entities at the University may impose sanctions, & what sanctions each may impose. [Academic Computing Services] is not listed anywhere in that section of the handbook." It apparently uses this lack of authority as an excuse for ignoring due process. <9111090242.AA25801@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> ================== Remember ================================ The words after the numbers were a short PARAPHRASE of the article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. ======================================================= - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 211 >Ohio State ACS policy (wa<>XX Expulsion. What Happened?) Carl M. Kadie 266 >Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS Carl M. Kadie 46 >Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement Joseph Watters 140 [comp.admin.policy] Rice <>Owlnet Disciplinary Procedures Douglas Triggs 72 [comp.admin.policy] Re: R<> University Computing Policies Douglas Triggs 42 >Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Craig S Nelson 58 [soc.women, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting Carl M. Kadie 71 interlibrary loan policy Carl M. Kadie 63 > Brack 98 Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal Carl M. Kadie 37 > Carl M. Kadie 85 > Brack 46 >Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Computers and Academic Freedom News Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email. For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom README Disclaimer: This CAF-news was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial decisions I make are my own. The addresses for the list are: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. ------------ From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?) Message-ID: <1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org> References: <91309.07: 56: 40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov9.140334.9055@eff.org> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 15:23:36 GMT This is a critique of the policy that was just posted. It is an expanded version of a critique that was posted in late July to CAF-talk. It mentions no particular cases. Everything in quotes ("") is from the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students. > Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks > The Office of Academic Computing > The Ohio State University > Approved June 6, 1990 No details are given as to how this policy was created. (Maybe someone can post a note with this information.) A policy "should be developed at each institution within the framework of general standards and with the broadest possible participation of the members of the academic community." In other words, this policy should be consistent with the University's general policies and should be developed with the help of the system's users. >The use of computers and computer networks in no wat exempts us from the >nominal requirements of ethical behavior in the University community. Use >of a computer network that is shared by many users imposes certain >obligations. >In particular, data, software, and computer capacity have value and must be >treated accordingly. >Legitimate use of a computer or computer network does not extend to whatever >we are capable of doing with it. Although some rules are built into the >computer's operating system, these restrictions do not limit completely what >we can do and see. We are responsible for our actions whether or not the >rules are built into the system, and whether or not we can circumvent those >rules. Agreed. >The following specific principles of computer and network systems operated >under the direction of the Office of Academic Computing are applicable to Ohio >State students, faculty, staff, and contract employees. As users we must: > o Respect the privacy and rules governing the use of any > information accessible through the computer system or > network, even when that information is not securely > protected. The policy could be improved by mentioned that ACS will respect the privacy and freedom of expression of its users. > o Respect the ownership of proprietary software. For example, > do not make unauthorized copies of such software for your > own use, even when that software is not physically protected > against copying. > o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own > use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of > other users. What is unreasonable? Who decides? Is any warning given? > o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the > system. What procedures? How are they decided? Are they posted? >Those who cannot accept these standards of behavior may be denied access to >the relevant computer systems and networks. Will they be expelled from the computer forever? Can they ask for a hearing? Are the standards every made explicit? Who decides that the user cannot accept the standards? Is there any due process build in? Are students told of their rights? This policy lacks due process protections. The gist of the policy seems to be that 'if we decide that you break a rule (that we created, and you may not even know about), we can expel you from the computer forever.' Note that (at most schools) faculty can not (by themselves) expel a students from a class. It would be very strange of nonacademic University employees could (by themselves) expel students from a computer. Here are excerpts from the Joint Statement about due process. " VI. Procedural Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary proceedings play a role substantially secondary to example, counseling, guidance, and admonition. At the same time, educational institutions have a duty and the corollary disciplinary powers to protect their educational purpose through the setting of standards of scholarship and conduct for the students who attend them and through the regulation of the use of institutional facilities. In the exceptional circumstances when the preferred means fail to resolve problems of student conduct, proper procedural safeguards should be observed to protect the student from the unfair imposition of serious penalties." "The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial bodies, the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials and the regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right to appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in advance." "In all situations, procedural fair play requires that the student be informed of the nature of the charges against him, that he be given a fair opportunity to refute them, that the institution not be arbitrary in its actions, and that there be provision for appeal of a decision." "The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and its community life. [...] Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with significant student participation [...]." "2. Students detected or arrested in the course of serious violations of institutional regulations, or infractions of ordinary law, should be informed of their rights. No form of harassment should be used by institutional representatives to coerce admissions of guilt or information about conduct of other suspected persons." "C. Status of Student Pending Final Action Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." "When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing before a regularly constituted hearing committee." The law on due process is explained in _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. (The book is aimed at K-12 teachers). It says: --- begin quote --- On the other hand, oppressive, authoritarian procedures that do not respect students' rights to know why they are being disciplined and do not provide opportunities for students to present their defense in a fair way are crumbling as a result of the application of the Constitution to the schools. In sum, on may think of the right of due process as applying to student disciplinary matters on a continuum represented in the following diagram: May act without due process: Trivial or vary minor matters, or emergencies. The latter must be followed by due process as soon as possible. Some modicum of due process is necessary: Disciplinary matters that may lead to short-term suspensions or entry on the students' record. Extensive, careful due process is required: Disciplinary matters that may result in long-term suspension or expulsion, or in a significant penalty such as a short suspension during final exams. ---- end of quote --- >Violators may also be subject to >penalties under the regulations of the University and under laws of the State >of Ohio or the United States of America to the extent applicable. >I have read the above conditions and agree to abide by these standards. >Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: ____________ The Univerisity should not (and likely, legally can't) require computer users to sign a statement that impinges on the rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and 14th Amendments. In sum, * There is no indication that the policy was created with user participation. * The policy lacks privacy and freedom of expression guarantees. * The policy is vague. A user would have trouble guessing if a particular action is acceptable. * It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to follow due process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers. This gives the ACS staff more power than professors to penalize students. (It also gives them unchecked power to penalize faculty.) * It asks users to sign away their rights. This critique mentioned no particular cases; I look forward to a vigorous defense of the policy by ACS (or ACS staff or others.) - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS Message-ID: <1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org> References: <1991Nov5.011528.4635@eff.org> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:34:09 GMT This is a critique of the UT CS Computer Use Policy. Overall, I think the UT policy is better than most, but in three places I think it is too broad. (References given at the end.) [...] > The policy applies to all those who use CS computers. Depending on > the seriousness of an offense, violation of the policy can result in > penalties ranging from reprimand to loss of account to referral to > University authorities for disciplinary action. [...] The procedure for computer expulsion should be detailed. Who decides to apply expulsions? How can they be appealed? How can a formal hearing be requested? [goss, constraints.constitutional, constraints.contractual] [...] > User acknowledgment of this policy statement authorizes CS computer > systems staff to examine the user's files if required as part of their > official duties. [...] If you believe that academic freedom on computers is important, then you might want to give computer files the same protection as traditional files in University-assigned office space. In any case, there should be protection against unreasonable searches. Making a user sign a statement does not make an unreasonable search reasonable (or legal.) The policy is vauge. Who can authorize a search? For what reasons? Is the user notified before the search? After? Ever? [cole-v-richardson, constraints.constitutional, gillard-v-schmidt] [...] > Users of electronic mail and bulletin boards should avoid sending > messages that are libelous, patently offensive, or that intimidate, threaten, > demean, or harass individuals or groups, or that would otherwise bring > discredit to the University or the Department. [...] This rule likely violates United States law. Most offensive speech, demeaning speech, and speech that brings discredit to the department is protected by academic freedom and the Constitution. University speech restrictions like these are being overturned in the courts. The rule probably also violates the University's general policy on freedom of expression. (Also, "group harassment" is an contradiction in terms.) [uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin, constraints.constitutional, constraints.contractual, doe-v-u-of-michigan, perry-v-perry, rust-v-sullivan, san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd, stanley-v-magrath, student-publications.control, student-publications.libel, student-publications.sharp] REFERENCES CAF Law Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic freedom. It includes both case law and legislation. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: caf-law where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= access.minors ================= Comment from the ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and Artists_ (1984). It says that protecting minors was held to be an inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults' First Amendment rights. ================= bbs.kahn ================= Full copy of "Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin Board Operators and Problems of Proof" by John R. Kahn ================= bbs.riddle ================= Full copy of "THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW" by Michael H. Riddle ================= brandenberg-v-ohio ================= In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.' ================= cole-v-richardson ================= Comment from the ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_, revised edition, by David Rubin, 1984, p.92. It says that there are legal limits to what a (public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.] ================= constraints.constitutional ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the constitutional constraints on public universities including the requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, specific rules. ================= constraints.contractual ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract between the student and school. The University can be liable for a breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules). ================= cubby-v-compuserv ================= Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the stories are false. ================= doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too broad and too vague. ================= ecpa.1986 ================= Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related to e-mail privacy. ================= gillard-v-schmidt ================= Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant. ================= goss ================= Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency. ================= meritor-v-vinson ================= This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a "hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two university speech code decisions. ================= perry-v-perry ================= Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system. It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.) ================= privacy.email ================= "Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex ================= privacy.workplace ================= Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email and other electronic monitoring. ================= rust-v-sullivan ================= The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be allowed. ================= san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd ================= Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine. ================= stanley-v-magrath ================= Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression." ================= student-publications.control ================= Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper". ================= student-publications.libel ================= McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student publications. ================= student-publications.sharp ================= A paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is sharp. ================= uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email. ================= ================= Last update Mon Nov 4 20:00:45 EST 1991 -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement Message-ID: Keywords: Rice University Owlnet user agreement Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager)) References: <1991Nov8.205943.26769@rice.edu> Distribution: usa Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 17:16:47 GMT [I'm crossposting to both comp.admin.policy and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.] In <1991Nov8.205943.26769@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes: >The following is the text of the user agreement that all account >applicants electronically sign when applying for an account. All new v>users are provided a paper copy of this agreement. Other >organizations have permission to use portions of this text in their >own agreements. [...] >6) You agree not to interfere with other users on this or any other > networks which you access from this account. This is vague. >7) You understand that Owlnet system management reserves the right to > examine any and all data and files that exist on the system, at any > time, without your prior consent. [...] Is this consistent with the University's general privacy policy? How does it compare to the privacy protection for personal files in university-assigned space in an office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's desk)? The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says "1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied by students and the personal possessions of students should not be searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom application should be made before a search is conducted. The application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects or information sought. The student should be present, if possible, during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution, the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed." - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Rice Univ, Owlnet Disciplinary Procedures Message-ID: <9111091713.AA18825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 20:33:35 GMT Per Carl Kadie's request, the following is Rice University's Owlnet disciplinary action/due process procedures. There are three other postings related to this one: Rice's appeal processes as listed in its student handbook; Owlnet and Rice University computing policies; and the Owlnet user's agreement that all users electronically sign when applying for an Owlnet account. Please keep in mind that the disciplinary procedures may change a bit due to student input to be gathered in about a week, and they may also change a bit due to comment/discussion on this newsgroup and from information gathered from the draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom. -- Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu Deputy Director, Owlnet Rice University Enforcement of Owlnet Policies Levels of Disciplinary Action Depending on the nature and severity of the policy violation, Owlnet may take one or more of the following disciplinary actions: Electronic mail warning (1 to 2) Temporary access revocation (lockout) (up to 1 semester) Severely restricted system usage (1 semester to until obtain degree) Permanent access revocation Alternative punishment not involving access or usage restrictions If warranted, Owlnet will refer the case to an appropriate University, Local, State, or Federal authority for further disposition. General Enforcement Guidelines Unless otherwise stated in a specific policy, the following enforcement guidelines will be used by Owlnet management and administration in dealing with policy violations: For non-system security, integrity, or performance related incidents, the user will generally receive at least one warning before a lockout. However, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction, and/or the generally recognized awareness level of the user, a lockout on the first offense may be implemented. The purpose of the initial lockout is to force the user to meet with the Director or Deputy Director about the incident. Suspected, attempted, or actual system security or integrity related incidents will be addressed by immediate lockout followed by more thorough investigation. The purpose of lockout in these cases is to prevent further damage to the system or data, and to force the user to meet with the Director or Deputy Director. Demonstrated intent to violate policy will be considered the same as an actual policy violation. Violations or intended violations of University Appropriate Use of Computers Policy will be considered violations of Owlnet policy as well. Notification of Infraction Users who are locked out will be notified the next time they attempt to access the system that they have been locked out, the specific incident that led to the lockout, the policy that the incident violated, and any further action they are expected to take, such as to meet with the Director, Deputy Director, or Steering Committee. Users with a known mailing address will be sent a written notification containing the same information. Disciplinary Process Initial disciplinary action will be authorized or taken by the Director or Deputy Director of Owlnet. A user who is locked out will normally be directed to meet with the Director or Deputy Director regarding the incident. The lockout will remain in effect at least until the user meets with the Director or Deputy Director. Depending on the nature and severity of the incident, the Director or Deputy Director may, based on the information gathered in the meeting with the user, unlock the account, impose additional punishment, and/or refer the case to the Steering Committee, the University, Local, State, or Federal authorities for disposition. Incidents where the recommended punishment would be expected to result in severe academic consequences for the student will be referred to the Steering Committee. Incidents where it appears that University, Local, State, or Federal statutes or regulations have been violated will be referred to the appropriate authority for investigation and disposition. For violations that do not require referral to other authorities, a user has the right to a fair hearing by the Owlnet Steering Committee concerning the policy violation and the disciplinary action taken. A user may send a written statement concerning the incident to the Owlnet Steering Committee by way of the Committee Chair, the Director of Owlnet. If the user wishes to appear in person to the Owlnet Steering Committee, this request should be given, in writing, to the Director or Deputy Director, and a meeting with the Steering Committee will be arranged. If appropriate, the user's faculty advisor or supervisor may be informed of and involved in the Steering Committee review of the incident. The Steering Committee will recommend punishment by the end of the day of the hearing. If a user is locked out for policy violations, the user may remain locked out during the hearing process. Lockout time accrued prior to and during the hearing process will be credited against the total punishment imposed. After the hearing process has concluded, if a student has suffered unwarranted academic consequences (i.e. consequences that occur because the hearing process resulted in a lockout that was longer than the punishment that was imposed) then the Owlnet Steering Committee and/or the Committee on Examinations and Standings will take steps to redress those consequences. Appeal of Owlnet Disciplinary Actions Given that disciplinary actions taken by Owlnet can result in significant academic consequences for the affected student, appeals of disciplinary actions should follow the procedures set forth in Section XXXII, Student Grievance Procedures, of the Rice Student Handbook. Disciplinary actions by Owlnet fall under part A, Academic Grievances. If a user is locked out for policy violations, the user may remain locked out during the appeal process. Lockout time accrued prior to and during the appeal process will be credited against the total punishment imposed. After the appeal process has concluded, if a student has suffered unwarranted academic consequences (i.e. consequences that occur because the appeal process resulted in a lockout that was longer than the punishment that was imposed) then the Owlnet Steering Committee and/or the Committee on Examinations and Standings will take steps to redress those consequences. END From: doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs) Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies Message-ID: <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 08:49:07 GMT In article <1991Nov9.062656.23834@ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes: > > |The following are the current set of computing policies which Owlnet > |users and/or Rice University users are expected to abide by. > > [policies deleted] > > With all due respect, I have never seen such an uptight, authoritarian > unrealistic, and chilling set of rules in my computer career. I have a > hard time believing any academic institution would dare embarrass > itself by admitting to these rules. (^: Geez, I feel much better now. I've been complaining about the atmosphere around here for a while, and about the way the rules work. Haven't complained too much directly to Joseph Watters, but as he said, there's an open meeting coming up next Wednesday. > Require permission ahead of time to send email or use ftp offsite? > Lock accounts with no warning? My God, why not just shoot them in the > head? It'd be kinder. In one way, it isn't so bad. For the most part, the rules are not enforced except when problems occur. But, as students, we don't know when they will be enforced and when they won't. That makes it rather oppressive, not to mention that despite Rice's rather better than average facilities, we essentially are prohibited from doing anything at all interesting, because it might interrupt with the "smooth" working of the system. If I wasn't already here, and didn't think Rice was such a damnfine place to be, I'd much rather be someplace with a much better atmosphere even if I had to give up the quality of facilities I have access to now. > This is the 90s. Encourage use of the system! Encourage email and ftp > and exploration. Don't hang a hundred rules over their heads. No small > increase in orderliness will outweigh the chilling effect upon the > users, both individually and collectively. That's one problem I have with Owlnet. Creativity and exploration are anything but encouraged. If you mess up, you get locked out. And the whole attitude of people like Joseph Watters seems to be wholly professional, wholly bureaucratic, and somewhat coldly legal. > Perhaps we should rate the policies of various academic institutions > and corporations. Rice would rate way way into the "unreasonable" > category, especially where due process is involved. Unreasonable? I wouldn't call it that. Oppressive to work under, yes. > I wonder what user input was used in making those policies? Beats me. We've been making a little noise lately, though, and we'll have to see what comes of it. I doubt it will significantly change the underlying organization of things, but it might help incrementally. The phrase "though police" does get tossed about at times here, and it applies to IS (Information Systems -- the umbrella over almost all of the computer facilities here, unfortunately) as much as Owlnet (which is just the undergraduate engineering network). Lots of ugly politics around here. doubt -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "If I make it to breakfast, it probably means I haven't gone to sleep yet." | +------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | // Douglas Triggs | COMPUTER IS HUNGRY. | doubt@owlnet.rice.edu | | \X/ GM # 8400000E | PLEASE FEED. | Rice University | +------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+ Disclaimer: All opinions of Rice University are their own. (^: From: doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs) Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <1991Nov9.034938.7383@rice.edu> Date: 9 Nov 1991 03:49:38 GMT References: <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu> <1991Nov07.231559.20273@eng.umd.edu> <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu Distribution: usa In article <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu>, jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes: > violation of stated Owlnet and University computing policies. Except > in cases of violation of system security or integrity, users are > generally given one or two warnings, usually written, on the first > and/or second policy violation. Subsequent offenses of the same type > are addressable by access denial. If a student is denied access, they ??? This doesn't seem to be quite the way it works here. I've been on the recieving end of one of the "access denials," and wasn't wasn't given a warning of any sort ahead of time, nor does this seem to be the general practice. Of course, the reason given for my more or less immediate lockout was that I knew what I was doing, which is true. (The violation was not threatening the security of Owlnet in any way.) > And by the way, Owlnet will be conducting an open meeting in a week or > so where the student users will be able to give comment and input on > the formulation of the internal Owlnet process. So we will have a > policy and procedure that (hopefully) the students will find fair and > reasonable also. Some of us here see this as a sort of misdirection. (^: We made a big ruckus recently about certain actions that the administration had undertaken... And now they're holding a meeting for us. I must admit that sort of thing that happened with the Brack expulsion seems to have never really a possibility here. While we consider some of the policies of Owlnet here to be somewhat braindead, no one is really too worried about being unfairly wiped out by the Owlnet administration. Owlnet here is somewhat responsive, but things could always be better... doubt -- #### No Bananas Allowed ################################# Banana Free .sig #### # # # # # // Douglas Triggs # COMPUTER IS HUNGRY. # doubt@owlnet.rice.edu # # \X/ GM # 8400000E # PLEASE FEED. # Rice University # ############################################################################### Disclaimer: It wasn't me... I matriculated LAST year... From: Mortal@cup.portal.com (Craig Scott Nelson) Subject: [soc.women, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting Message-ID: <9111071452.AA06180@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 5 Nov 91 07:07:41 GMT First I want to state that I pay to access Usenet and I feel that it should be an open forum for anyone to speak their mind. No Censorship at all. What if the poster had been a woman? I know this seems impossible, but if it had been a female law student who was seeing if she could push the bounds of free speech on the net, wouldn't a post like the "Yahweh is Good" be the perfect attention getter? But unfortunately the poster is male, according to the sysop at the posters site. He posted what he did to get attention and we, including my self, have been suckered into it. Mr Poster, I would like to know why you posted what you did and nothing else, no add homen attacks, just your reasoning for posting what I would call "junk without any redeeming purpose"? The only problem he can't answer those questions because he has been censored by his sysadmin for a while. I would want to hear him defend the junk he put on here and not just be allowed to escape from his responsibility for posting it. Those women who received the post via email do have a case for sexual harrassment. They should push those cases not the general post. The analogy of the library is still valid. The net is like wandering around the library and just picking up books bye looking at the titles on the spine. Most libraries have different sections, reference, young adult, etc... If you find a book out of place in the library what do you do? A) You give it to the librarian and he/she puts it in the right place B) You steal it and throw it away later C) You rip it up right where you are. Most people here I believe agree that A is the answer, this deserves to be put in alt.sex.bondage.really.sick.stuff. But unlike the library you have the C option with kill files. You can make it never exist in your world. Most of the people are egocentric by saying that they shouldn't have to be exposed to it. I am exposed to homeless people everyday and I think I we shouldn't have to have homeless people in the world. Or I hate nuclear bombs and I don't want my tax dollars going into building offensive weapons of war. Get Real, Life is full of stuff you that will offend you. I understand that women have it a bit tougher than men. Why don't you fight back? Tired of being made an object by construction workers, turn the tables with a group of your friends and cat call the construction workers. Got a little off the subject. Censorship I feel is bad no matter what is being censored. The net has a potential to put power into the common man's opinion. That power will be abused but we have to put up with the kooks so that we can be free. Freedom has its sacrifices. I will let myself be offended to keep myself free. I really hate that guy who keeps posting the anti-Holocast stuff, but I feel he has the right to post it as I have the right not to read it. Thank you for listening "Language is a Virus From Outer Space"- William S. Burroughs From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: interlibrary loan policy Message-ID: <1991Nov8.210320.15630@eff.org> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 21:03:20 GMT About a month ago, we had a discussion that if a local computer site is like a library, then maybe NSFnet is like an interlibrary loan system. So, what are the approate/acceptable use polies for interlibrary loan systems? In article <1991Oct7.115649.39@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com wrote: >For more information consult > > Boucher, Virginia. Interlibrary loan practices handbook. Chicago : > American Library Association, c1984. > > >excerpts from the National Interlibrary Loan Code (1980), a copy of which >is found in an appendix in the book above. > >II. Purpose > >The purpose of interlibrary loan as defined in this code is to obtain, for >research and serious study, library material not available through local, >state, or regional libraries. > >IV. Responsibilities of Borrowing Libraries > > F. The borrowing library should carefully screen all requests for loans > and reject any that do not conform to this code. > > [...] Here is a quote from another interlibrary loan policy in the same book: ---begin-- Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special Groups of Libraries [...] II. Purpose The purpose of interlibrary loan as defined in this code is to obtain library material not avalable in the local library. [..] III. Scope Under the terms of this agreement, it is permissible to request on interlibrary loan any type of library material [if they want libraries can make an exception for items like rare books, etc - cmk] [...] Any member of the borrowing library's clientele should be eligible for interlibrary loan. -- end -- So, when does each policy apply? The preface of the model code says: "The 'Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special Groups of Libraries' is intended to provide guidlines fo -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: interlibrary loan policy Message-ID: <1991Nov8.221534.17684@eff.org> References: <1991Nov8.210320.15630@eff.org> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 22:15:34 GMT [I posted that last note before I finished it. Here is a continuation.] So, when does each policy apply? The preface of the model code says: "The 'Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special Groups of Libraries' is intended to provide guidelines for any group of libraries interested in developing an interlibary loan code to met special needs. The Model Code, while complementing the "National Interlibrary Loan Code, 1980" allows libraries more flexibility and creativity in satisfying interlibrary loan needs in a specific situation." Here is the interlibrary for the National Interlibrary Loan Code, 1980: "Interlibrary loan is essential to the vitality of libraries of all types and sizes and is a means by which a wide range of material can be made available to users. This code is designed primarily to regulate lending relations between research libraries and between libraries operating outside networks or consortia. It is recognized that through specific agreements, libraries organized geographically, by mutual subject interest, or other bases will have developed code of their own. It is not the intent of this code to prescribe the nature of interlibrary lending under such arrangements. (See 'Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special Groups of Libraries'). So, if the NSFnet is like an interlibrary loan system can it restrict use of, say, anonymous ftp over NSFnet to material that is "for research and serious use"? One policy says yes the other says no. Let's look leave this question and look at another. Is it the leading or the borrowing library's resonsibility to enforce the code? The more restrictive National Interlibrary Loan Code says: IV.F "The borrowing library should carefully screen all request for loans and reject any that do not conform to this code." V.A "The decision to loan material is at the discretion of the lending library. Each library is encouraged, however, to interpret as generously as possible its own lending policy with due consideration to the interest of its primary clientele." Applied to NSFnet, I would interpret this to mean that it is the person or organization who is requesting the FTP transfer who is reasonable for the NSFnet rules, not the archive owner. I suppose that if NSFnet was the only net around, it might make sense to share responsibility. But many sites are connected to several nets (including campus nets). For NSF to say "you can not offer this nonacademic, nonresearch material via FTP" is like the National Interlibrary System telling a library that they can not offer nonserious, nonresearch material via any interlibrary loan system. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal Message-ID: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Date: 6 Nov 91 03:39:45 GMT Well, here it is, the instrument of my dismissal: [BEGIN QUOTE] T H E Office of Student Life Student Life Services O H I O 2060 Drake Union S T A T E 1849 Cannon Drive UNIVERSITY Columbus, OH 43210-1267 Phone 614-292-0748 October 29, 1991 Steven Samuel Brack 2021 Roanwood Drive Toledo, OH 43613 Dear Mr. Brack: At your hearing befoZeI:he University Judicial Panel on October 25, 1991, the panel found you in violation of Rules 3335-25-01 (F), (G), (J), and (K), but not in violation of [Rule] 3335-25-01 (E), of the _Code of Student Conduct_ and imposed the following disciplinary action: Disciplinary dismissal from The Ohio State University effective immediately and continuing for the next four quarters. You will be eligable to reapply to the University Winter Quarter[,] 1993. }iThis action will not affect your grades or academic standing. It remains confidential within the University system. You have the right of appeal. An appeal must be submitted to the Dean of Student Life (208 Ohio Union, 1739 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio, 43210) within 14 days of the date of this letter. You must state the reasons for your appeal, as listed in Rule 3335-27-07 of the Code, If you have any questions about the sanction or an appeal, please contact the Judicial Affairs office. Sincerely, Peter Pappas [SIGNATURE] Peter Pappas Chairperson University Judicial Panel PP:de Enclosure cc: Dean, College of Engineering [END QUOTE] Not guilty of: 3335-25-01 (E) Dishonest conduct, including, but not limited to, knowingly reporting a false emergency; knowingly making false accusation of misconduct; misuse or falsification of University documents by actions such as forgery, alteration, or improper transfer; submission to a University official of information known by the submitter to be false; Guilty of: 3335-25-01 (F) Theft or attempted theft, or the unauthorized use or possession of University property or services, or the property of others while on University premises; 3335-25-01 (G) Failure to comply with directives of authorized University officials, identified as such, in the performance of their duties, including failure to identify oneself when so requested; or, violation of the terms of a disciplinary sanction; 3335-25-01 (J) Disorderly conduct that interferes with University-authorized activities, including teaching, research, administration, or other activities conducted, sponsored, or permitted by the University; 3335-25-01 (K) Violation of other published University regulations, policies, or rules, or any other violation of state or federal law committed on University premises. This alleged violation resulted from an incident on or before May 26, 1991, involving use of Academic Computing Services facilities, equipment, and programs. As you can see, my "victory" was Pyhrric at best. 8) -- Steve From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal Message-ID: <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org> References: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 19:51:06 GMT brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > Well, here it is, the instrument of my dismissal: [...] So was Steve Brack expelled from Ohio State University for posting "fuck you" to alt.flame? Or was it for accidentally posting the message to rec.aquaria? Or was it for using two Mac computers at once in an empty computer lab? Or was did they decide that he most likely did use the account of another after being expelled from ACS computers? If the letter that Steve Brack posted is all there is, we don't know. Steve Brack doesn't no. In other words, the charges that Steven Brack were found guilty of are secret, even from Steven. As you might imagine, this makes it very hard for Steven to defend himself. It is also a violation of the procedural due process as guarenteed by the Constitution. How would you feel if you were expelled from school without even knowing what you were being punished for? Steven *was* given something. He was given a list of actions he was accused to taking, for example, using two Macs. He was also given a list of rules, for example, rule 335-25-01 (K): "violation of other published University regulations, policies, or rules...". What he was not given was the correspondence between his alledged actions and the rules that the actions, if true, would violate. What he was not give were charges. What he was not given was procedural due process. What he was not given was justice. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal Message-ID: <1991Nov6.220216.4349@eff.org> References: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:02:16 GMT Ohio State's refusal to give Steven Brack a specification of the charges makes it impossible for Steven Brack to defend himself. Their refusal is likely also a violation of law. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. -----------begin quote---------- [Question:] What is the right to adequate notice of charges? [Answer:] Before you can be severely punished, you have a right to know the specific acts you are charged with committing. A hearing is useless if you have no idea what accusations you're supposed to be defending your self against. This idea is one of the oldest in criminal law and is now established in such administrative proceedings as school suspension hearings. Often a student is charged with "violating school rules" or "serious misconduct" -- phrases that fail to give any idea of offense has been committed or what rule as been violated. That is not adequate notice. A federal court in Washington, D.C., has required that the notice "state specific, clear and full reason for the proposed action, including the specification of the alleged act upon with the disciplinary action is to be based and the reference to the regulation subsection under which such action is proposed." In addition, some courts have required that, for longer suspensions, that student be provided with a short summary of the evidence to be used against him or her.{67} A Wisconsin federal court held that a letter given to student's parents stating "your son ... continues to conduct himself in an irresponsible and disruptive manner" and "has been deliberately defiant of reasonable requests by teachers ... on three occasions within the past few weeks" did not satisfy due process requirements of adequate notice of the charges.{66} The court found that the lack of specificity of the charges adversely affected the student's ability to prepare his defense and thus the meaningfulness of his opportunity to be heard. In addition, courts have held that students have a right to know the charges sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit them "to examine the charges, prepare a defense and gather evidence and witnesses."{69} The Supreme Court in _Goss_ held that the notice given to a student in a case involving the possibility of a short suspension could be either oral or in writing. For longer suspensions, however, other courts have held that notice must be in writing.{70} [...] A student suspension cannot be based on charges other than those specified to the student in advance of hearing.{73} In other words, schools cannot change students with one offense and then find them guilty of another, because to do so would "render meaningless" the "opportunity to present their side of the case," in the words of one judge.{74} [References] {67} _Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia_, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972); _Vail v. Board of Education of Portsmouth Schools Dist._, 354 F. Supp. 592 (D.N.H. 1973); _Quintanilla v. Carey_, Civil Action No. 75-C-829 (N.D. Ill., 3/31/75). {68} _Keller v. Fochs_, 385 F. Supp. 262 (E.D. Wis. 1974). {69} _Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District_, 307 F. Supp. 1328 (S.D. Tex. 1969); _Fielder v. Board of Education of School District of Winnebago (Nebraska)_, 346 F. Supp. 835 (N.D. Tex. 1972); _Esteban v. Central Missouri State College_, 277 F. Supp. 649 (W.D. Mo. 1967), _aff'd_, 415 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1969), _cirt. denied_, 398 U.S. 965 (1970). {70} _Pervis v. LaMarque Independent School District_, 466 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1972). [...] {73} _Strickland v. Inlow_ 519 F.2d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 1975). {74} _John A. v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist._, 654 P. 2d 242 (Calif. 1982) -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <9111090242.AA25801@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Date: 9 Nov 91 02:42:39 GMT In article <1991Nov07.231559.20273@eng.umd.edu> you write: > In article <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes: > > >Wrong. What we know is that Steven Brack did not pursue an appeal, and > >we suspect, given the posted record of events, that the University > >adminstrators did not advise him of the available appeal routes at the > >time that they disciplined him. They may have, but nothing is recorded > >either way. These facts in no way mean that there was no appeal route > >open to him. I will lay odds that if you were to check the Ohio State > >University Student Handbook or its equivalent, you will find at least > >one, if not more, appeal procedures that cover the various types of > >University discplinary actions. > > Out of curiosity, is there any provision for disciplinary action by > non-academic support entities (such as ACS at OSU) defined in the Student > Handbook at YOUR university? I know there isn't at mine-- furthermore, there > is, therefore, no appeal process available. The action simply isn't > provided for, and thus itself violates the rules of the University. OSU defines, quite rigidly, whaich entities at the University may impose sanctions, & what sanctions each may impose. ACS is not listed anywhere in that section of the handbook. > > >OSU also probably has an office akin > >to a Dean for Student Affairs that will act as a neutral advisor for > >students involved in disciplinary actions. Steven Brack either did not > >know about the appeal methods and advisory resources because he failed > >to carefully read the handbook, or he knew about them and chose not to > >use them. A response from someone at OSU to confirm the information > >present in the student handbook would be helpful. > > What ACS did would not be considered a disciplinary action-- THAT can usually > only be carried out by certain parts of the university specifically authorized > to carry out such actions. What ACS did was an administrative action which > amounted to a disciplinary action, and there is almost certainly no appeal > method for that. ACS disciplined me without going through any disciplinary procedure, hence they avoided all that messy due process stuff. Just my luck, the one time OSU cuts through the red tape, it has to be to work against me. 8) -- Steve > Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu --------------------