Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 1991 16:39:17 EDT
Message-Id: <91184.163917JCT110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm!jct110@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9106291747.AA21148@eff.org>hi
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Agreements
Thanks to everyone who responded concerning this mess. After I and
several other GTAs asked the grad director about the agreement,
he went to the powers what am and got some fatcs for us. The agreement
only pertains to work specifically contracted by Penn State; it has
no relevancy to GTAs.
Interesting postscript, though: the grad director also asked why
copies of the relevant policies weren't distributed along with the
agreement. They said "We're working on them; they should be ready
this fall." Damn decent of them considering that the form has to be
signed by July 10.
Half a bee | But half a bee
Jim Thomas Philosophically | Has got to be
Penn State Univ. Must ipso facto | Vis a Vis it's entity
Half not be | You see?
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 4 Jul 91 16:35:22 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!ghot@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Bored on the Fourth of July
The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
I don't see what that does not also give the President the power
to decide to forbid any discussion of evolution federally funded educational
institutions.
It is easy to say that this would not happen, but it is not without precedent.
For example, Scopes was convicted of violating a Tennessee statute forbidding
the teaching of evolution. His conviction was appealed to the Tenessee
supreme court which ruled that the state had the right to pass such a law
and that this did not infringe on the first amendment rights of the
state employees. It upheld the conviction but set the decision of the lower
court aside because Scopes had been fined $100 by the judge, whereas the
state constitution required that fines above $50 be imposed by the jury.
I am interested in your comments, but do not send them to me since
my account is about to be deleted because the University of Kentucky
has no status to accord to unaffiliated scholars other than intruder.
Allan Adler
Unaffiliated trash wasting the resources of the university
formerly, ghot@ms.uky.edu
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1991 07:03:55 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!kherron@world.std.com
References: , <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>ink.
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
>forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
>I don't see what that does not also give the President the power
>to decide to forbid any discussion of evolution federally funded educational
>institutions.
The Supreme court's decision amounted to: The government has the right
to attach strings to its funding. Any clinic that wants to discuss
abortion may, but the government is not obligated to fund it. While I
am pro-choice myself I agree with this line of reasoning; I don't recall
seeing anything about abortion clinic funding in the constitution.
I've never studied the Scopes trial, but based on your description their
decision also sounds reasonable. It sounds like a simple case of the
employer setting the rules, and the employee being expected to follow
them. While on the job, Scopes was an agent & employee of the state and
thus was obligated to follow their rules; if those rules included "Don't
teach evolution" then so be it. What Scopes did on his own time was his
business, but from your description this was not a factor.
It's hard to apply this to a presidential rule enforcing the same thing.
The government clearly has the right to attach strings to the money it
gives away; I don't know exactly what consitutional obligation the federal
government has to provide educations. I suspect they could attach such a
string to college-level funding; they've certainly attached enough others.
>I am interested in your comments, but do not send them to me since
>my account is about to be deleted because the University of Kentucky
>has no status to accord to unaffiliated scholars other than intruder.
[The following should not be construed as an official position of
the University, or any department thereof. It is nothing more than
my personal opinion as a University of Kentucky student]
"Intruder" is a strong word, but on what grounds do you you base your
implied contention that "unaffiliated scholars" should have access?
Has UofK ever made any such promise to you? Has anyone ever indicated
that you have a fundamental right to free computer access just because
you consider yourself a scholar?
Why do you pick on UofK in particular? Have you asked for access to,
say, MIT's computers as a scholar, or Nasa's computers as a taxpayer,
or 20th Century Fox's computers as a movie goer? What did they say?
Do you have any suggestions where UofK or any other site might obtain
the near-infinite funding necessary to provide resources to every self-
styled scholar who thinks he deserves it?
-------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 10:49:19 EDT
From: Joe Brennan
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Cc: brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
Message-Id:
As our text for today's sermon:
ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
> The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
> forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
> I don't see what that does not also give the President the power
> to decide to forbid any discussion of evolution federally funded
> educational institutions.
Repeating myself in quoting this, but,
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.
If a law abridges freedom of speech, it's unconstitutional. What other
meaning can this text have? I know about the Supreme Court decision, but I
cannot follow the reasoning of it.
There is a second issue here, of whether contributing funding puts an
operation under the heel of the federal government.
As put by an unnamed contributor here--
> The Supreme court's decision amounted to: The government has the right
> to attach strings to its funding. Any clinic that wants to discuss
> abortion may, but the government is not obligated to fund it.
So the Court believes there are many clinics where they just happen to have
a policy of never mentioning abortion, and that Congress really intended to
fund only those, although the funding law doesn't say so? Hmm. The sad
thing is, I think the quote does in fact sum up what the Court said.
> I suspect they could attach such a
> string to college-level funding; they've certainly attached enough others.
This all reminds me though of the law passed a few years back that required
colleges accepting federal funding to check whether men students were
registered for Selective Service. Apparently the Congress believed many
colleges were already doing that and decided to fund only those-- yeah, and
pigs have wings. It's just a tad more likely the Congress saw a way to make
someone else enforce something they wanted.
Strangely enough, much of civil rights law was applied the same way. For
example, equal access for women to athletics, and handicapped
accessibility, were strings attached to colleges' getting federal funding.
I agree with the goals, but what a lousy way to achieve them. It's not
illegal to discriminate in certain ways, you just don't get funded!
The abortion decision made some people happy, and so did the civil rights
regulations. It's hard sometimes to say "I agree with the goal, but the
way it's being achieved is dangerously wrong".
We now have ample precedent to say that because a college accepts -any-
Federal funding, it will be obliged to follow -any- regulation handed down
by the Federal government. That doesn't even stop at free speech. The
fact of the matter is that no college can be competitive today without
Federal funding, but the Court seems ready to rule that the funding is
optional (legally true, but realistically naive), so the regulations are
acceptable. Anything goes, really. Whatever people will stand for.
An even worse example of how funding means control are restrictions the
Federal government puts on States, like the 65/55 mph national speed limits
as a nice example. Traffic laws are clearly (I think??) not Federal
business (no constitutional authority), but again Congress used funding as
a weapon to make States pass speed limit laws and enforce them. This, to
me, is highly dangerous. States have grown accustomed to a share of
Federal funding, and the Congress has started down a road where they can
tell States what laws to pass, not by Constitutional authority but by the
weapon of withholding those funds. Why would this supposed principle be
limited to speed limits?
The only solution to this is to adopt a principle that the Federal
government's authority ends with deciding how the Federal funding may be
used. It cannot extend to telling private or government bodies what -else-
they can or cannot do. The only way to make this stick would be
Constitutional Amendment, and I see no constituency for this sort of
"procedural" amendment. Too bad.
On this 5th of July, we can merely salute our freedoms fading away on the
Federal government's acquiring a controlling interest in pretty much
everything, an ironic example of the free market at work. And the
government is simply -our- representative, using -our- money to do it.
Joe Brennan
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 5 Jul 91 14:33:42 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul5.143342.27855@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!ukma!ghot@world.std.com
References <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.143123.27358@ms.uky.edu>ukma
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Kherron has commented on the various points of my earlier article. His
arguments regarding the various supreme court decisions amount to
articulating what the law currently is but do not address the issue of
whether that is what the law should be. If everyone took that point of
view, there would be no concept of academic freedom, since there would
be nothing more to say than that everyone has the right to do with
his/her funding as he sees fit. The real task is to go beyond complacent
acceptance of the status quo in law and to consider how it is that we
are to make the ideals we cherish a reality. Among these are that a
doctor is something other than a day laborer but someone who must be
responsible to his/her conscience and that the law should not present
him/her with fundamental conflicts of interests by requiring him/her
to suppress his/her better judgement. Similarly, the law should not
be used to make universities something other than places where it is
possible to exchange ideas freely.
Kherron admits that he does not know about the Scopes trial but does not
decline to pass judgement on it. Rather than present the facts of the
case here, let me refer him and other interested parties to the source
I used in arriving at my opinion, namely the book Monkey Trial, The
State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes, edited by Sheldon Norman
Grebstein of the University of Kentucky in Lexington and published by
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1960.
There is one qualitative difference between the recent US Supreme Court
decision about suppression of abortion information at federally funded
clinics and the Scopes trial. In the latter, it was not merely a matter
of firing an employee. It was a matter of bringing criminal charges
against him. Do you still approve, Ken ?
Kherron also addresses the matter of my conflicts with the University of
Kentucky, while disqualifying himself as a spokesman for the university.
Before replying to his comments, I would first like to thank him
for coming forward to discuss the matter. Up until now, no one at
UK has attempted to solicit my point of view or to discuss the issues.
Instead, it has relied on an authoritarian management style, of which
Kherron apparently approves in general, which makes it easier to
eliminate me than talk to me.
I would also like to point out that this debate is not entirely among
equals. First of all, my account will be deleted and his will remain
so that I will most likely not have the opportunity to reply to his
future comments. Second, he is on the computer staff on the computer
I am using to write this, has access to my files, can edit my postings
to newsgroups if he wants, can read my email correspondence, and can
perhaps even play a role in terminating my account even sooner than
the rapidly approaching deadline, if he chooses to do so.
Let me now take his comments in turn.
>"Intruder" is a strong word, but on what grounds do you you base your
>implied contention that "unaffiliated scholars" should have access?
You object to what you think I imply but you would do better to address
what I actually said. I am saying that the University of Kentucky does
not have a definable status for unaffiliated scholars. At places like
Yale and MIT, there is a distinct status called Visiting Scholar (or
words to that effect) with definable rights and priveleges. Having this
status makes it possible to explain someone like me to the administration
and protects the scholar from being the focus of administrative disputes.
By having such a status, it becomes possible for the university to have
guests and to treat them decently. It is of course up to the university
to decide who it will accept as an Visiting Scholar.
>Has UofK ever made any such promise to you?
I have never met UofK socially :). I have met with officers of UofK who
gave me a computer account, a library card with faculty borrowing
priveleges and a mailbox. They wrote letters to other officers of U of K
identifying me and informing them I was entitled to use these facilities.
And they set out the conditions under which I could expect to continue to
use these facilities. So the answer to your question is "yes". However,
the promise was not kept. The reason it was not kept is that UofK does not
have a definable status for someone like me and therefore the officers of
UofK who make these facilities available to me were potentially in
conflict with other officers of U of K, and eventually I became the focus
of these conflicts when they finally emerged.
>Has anyone ever indicated that you have a fundamental right to free computer
>access just because you consider yourself a scholar?
I have met my share of kooks and wierdos who thought they were scholars
and I understand who it is that you imagine you want to keep out. I did
not assert that U of K has any legal obligation to give out computer
accounts.
>Why do you pick on UofK in particular?
I must object to the notion that I am "picking on" UofK, when as nearly as
I can tell UofK is picking on me. I assume that if you had been an English
major instead of a computer science major, you would have written "pick"
instead of "pick on". In that case the answer is simple: a cruel fate
compelled me to move to Lexington, KY and UofK was the only unversity around
which had the facilities I needed.
>Have you asked for access to, say, MIT's computers as a scholar, or Nasa's
>computers as a taxpayer, or 20th Century Fox's computers as a movie goer?
>What did they say?
I asked MIT for Visiting Fellow status and I was duly appointed a Visiting
Fellow for two consecutive years. I was subsequently a Visiting Scholar at
Yale University for a year. It was only when I went to a backwaters place
like UK that I had a problem. At the better universities, they know me
and respect my work.
>Do you have any suggestions where UofK or any other site might obtain
>the near-infinite funding necessary to provide resources to every self-
>styled scholar who thinks he deserves it?
Neither of us is advocating this innovation, so let us not waste time trying
to fund it. The cost of my computer usage is negligible and I was explicitly
informed that this was the case by your boss.
I do feel that I should respond to the suggestion that I am somehow
indistinguishable from the average lunatic who thinks he is a scholar.
I have a PhD in mathematics and I am active in my research. I was distributing
11 of my recent articles as TeX files via anonymous ftp from U of K. Seven
of those articles have been accepted for publication within the last year or
so and one of them will appear as a volume of the series Lecture Notes in
Mathematics. Just before the trouble started here, I was discussing with
one of the professors here the possibility of my running a seminar here
on current topics in algebraic geometry, based on the new Journal of
Algebraic Geometry. This is something that U of K could not possibly afford
to hire me to do and surely would outweigh the trivial use I was making of
university resources.
I consider limited imagination and a fundamental ignorance of the goals of
scholarship on the part of administrators a much more serious threat to the
appropriate use of resources at UK than their legitimate use by serious
scholars, affiliated or not.
I regret that I will not be able to continue this useful discussion since
my account will be deleted within a day or two.
Allan Adler, unaffiliated trash who wastes the resources of the university
by posing as a serious scholar,
formerly ghot@ms.uky.edu
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 5 Jul 91 14:31:23 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul5.143123.27358@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!ghot@world.std.com
References: , <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>h
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Kherron has commented on the various points of my earlier article. His
arguments regarding the various supreme court decisions amount to
articulating what the law currently is but do not address the issue of
whether that is what the law should be. If everyone took that point of
view, there would be no concept of academic freedom, since there would
be nothing more to say than that everyone has the right to do with
his/her funding as he sees fit. The real task is to go beyond complacent
acceptance of the status quo in law and to consider how it is that we
are to make the ideals we cherish a reality. Among these are that a
doctor is something other than a day laborer but someone who must be
responsible to his/her conscience and that the law should not present
him/her with fundamental conflicts of interests by requiring him/her
to suppress his/her better judgement. Similarly, the law should not
be used to make universities something other than places where it is
possible to exchange ideas freely.
Kherron admits that he does not know about the Scopes trial but does not
decline to pass judgement on it. Rather than present the facts of the
case here, let me refer him and other interested parties to the source
I used in arriving at my opinion, namely the book Monkey Trial, The
State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes, edited by Sheldon Norman
Grebstein of the University of Kentucky in Lexington and published by
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1960.
There is one qualitative difference between the recent US Supreme Court
decision about suppression of abortion information at federally funded
clinics and the Scopes trial. In the latter, it was not merely a matter
of firing an employee. It was a matter of bringing criminal charges
against him. Do you still approve, Ken ?
Kherron also addresses the matter of my conflicts with the University of
Kentucky, while disqualifying himself as a spokesman for the university.
Before replying to his comments, I would first like to thank him
for coming forward to discuss the matter. Up until now, no one at
UK has attempted to solicit my point of view or to discuss the issues.
Instead, it has relied on an authoritarian management style, of which
Kherron apparently approves in general, which makes it easier to
eliminate me than talk to me.
I would also like to point out that this debate is not entirely among
equals. First of all, my account will be deleted and his will remain
so that I will most likely not have the opportunity to reply to his
future comments. Second, he is on the computer staff on the computer
I am using to write this, has access to my files, can edit my postings
to newsgroups if he wants, can read my email correspondence, and can
perhaps even play a role in terminating my account even sooner than
the rapidly approaching deadline, if he chooses to do so.
Let me now take his comments in turn.
>"Intruder" is a strong word, but on what grounds do you you base your
>implied contention that "unaffiliated scholars" should have access?
You object to what you think I imply but you would do better to address
what I actually said. I am saying that the University of Kentucky does
not have a definable status for unaffiliated scholars. At places like
Yale and MIT, there is a distinct status called Visiting Scholar (or
words to that effect) with definable rights and priveleges. Having this
status makes it possible to explain someone like me to the administration
and protects the scholar from being the focus of administrative disputes.
By having such a status, it becomes possible for the university to have
guests and to treat them decently. It is of course up to the university
to decide who it will accept as a Visiting Scholar.
>Has UofK ever made any such promise to you?
I have never met UofK socially :). I have met with officers of UofK who
gave me a computer account, a library card with faculty borrowing
priveleges and a mailbox. They wrote letters to other officers of U of K
identifying me and informing them I was entitled to use these facilities.
And they set out the conditions under which I could expect to continue to
use these facilities. So the answer to your question is "yes". However,
the promise was not kept. The reason it was not kept is that UofK does not
have a definable status for someone like me and therefore the officers of
UofK who make these facilities available to me were potentially in
conflict with other officers of U of K, and eventually I became the focus
of these conflicts when they finally emerged.
>Has anyone ever indicated that you have a fundamental right to free computer
>access just because you consider yourself a scholar?
I have met my share of kooks and weirdos who thought they were scholars
and I understand who it is that you imagine you want to keep out. I did
not assert that U of K has any legal obligation to give out computer
accounts.
>Why do you pick on UofK in particular?
I must object to the notion that I am "picking on" UofK, when as nearly as
I can tell UofK is picking on me. I assume that if you had been an English
major instead of a computer science major, you would have written "pick"
instead of "pick on". In that case the answer is simple: a cruel fate
compelled me to move to Lexington, KY and UofK was the only unversity around
which had the facilities I needed.
>Have you asked for access to, say, MIT's computers as a scholar, or Nasa's
>computers as a taxpayer, or 20th Century Fox's computers as a movie goer?
>What did they say?
I asked MIT for Visiting Fellow status and I was duly appointed a Visiting
Fellow for two consecutive years. I was subsequently a Visiting Scholar at
Yale University for a year. It was only when I went to a backwaters place
like UK that I had a problem. At the better universities, they know me
and respect my work.
>Do you have any suggestions where UofK or any other site might obtain
>the near-infinite funding necessary to provide resources to every self-
>styled scholar who thinks he deserves it?
Neither of us is advocating this innovation, so let us not waste time trying
to fund it. The cost of my computer usage is negligible and I was explicitly
informed that this was the case by your boss.
I do feel that I should respond to the suggestion that I am somehow
indistinguishable from the average lunatic who thinks he is a scholar.
I have a PhD in mathematics and I am active in my research. I have
taught at MIT and Brandeis and I have been been a researcher at the
Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research in Bombay, the Max Planck Institute in Bonn and Institut des Hautes
Etudes Scientifiques in Bures-sur-Yvette (a suburb of Paris), all of them
world famous research institutes. I was distributing 11 of my recent articles
as TeX files via anonymous ftp from U of K. Seven of those articles have been
accepted for publication within the last year or so and one of them will appear
as a volume of the series Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Just before the trouble
started here, I was discussing with one of the professors here the possibility
of my running a seminar here on current topics in algebraic geometry, based on
the new Journal of Algebraic Geometry. This is something that U of K could not
possibly afford to hire me to do and having that for free would surely have
outweighed the trivial use I was making of university resources.
I consider limited imagination and a fundamental ignorance of the goals of
scholarship on the part of administrators a much more serious threat to the
appropriate use of resources at UK than their legitimate use by serious
scholars, affiliated or not.
I regret that I will not be able to continue this useful discussion since
my account will be deleted within a day or two.
Allan Adler, unaffiliated trash who wastes the resources of the university
by posing as a serious scholar,
formerly ghot@ms.uky.edu
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 5 Jul 91 20:54:55 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul5.205455.12822@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.143123.27358@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Yes, it's disclaimer time, kiddies!
I do not work for ms.uky.edu, although I am a user of their system.
I speak for no organization except that of my own neurons.
ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>Before replying to his comments, I would first like to thank him
>for coming forward to discuss the matter. Up until now, no one at
>UK has attempted to solicit my point of view or to discuss the issues.
>Instead, it has relied on an authoritarian management style, of which
>Kherron apparently approves in general, which makes it easier to
>eliminate me than talk to me.
"attempted to solicit"? Did you attempt to make your opinion known,
or were you expecting to receive a phone call such as "excuse me, but
your account is slated for deletion; do you have any comments to make?"
You haven't said anything about ANY attempts on your part to discuss
the matter with the system staff, yet now you're a victim of an "authori-
tarian management style" which is striving to "eliminate" you? Isn't that
just a bit strong? Just out of curiosity, what was the *specific* reason
given for the deletion/nonrenewal of your account?
>I would also like to point out that this debate is not entirely among
>equals. First of all, my account will be deleted and his will remain
>so that I will most likely not have the opportunity to reply to his
>future comments.
OK, I can accept that; this is a plain statement of fact.
>Second, he is on the computer staff on the computer
>I am using to write this, has access to my files, can edit my postings
>to newsgroups if he wants, can read my email correspondence, and can
>perhaps even play a role in terminating my account even sooner than
>the rapidly approaching deadline, if he chooses to do so.
This, however, is TOTALLY out of line. Do you suspect that ANY of these
actions have been performed against you? Do you have ANY evidence that
any of these actions have been performed against you? If the answer to
either of these questions is in the affirmative, I would have expected
to hear about it before this posting. Let's stop blazing away with our
twin six-shooters of hyperbole and innuendo, shall we?
I've known kherron for some time, and I have *never* heard any accusations
of this sort against him. In fact, I haven't heard such accusations against
anyone in that department. As a system administrator on the same campus
(in fact, I can see his office from my desk), I think that such things would
reach my ears fairly quickly, don't you?
>>Has UofK ever made any such promise to you?
>
>I have never met UofK socially :). I have met with officers of UofK who
>gave me a computer account, a library card with faculty borrowing
>priveleges and a mailbox. They wrote letters to other officers of U of K
>identifying me and informing them I was entitled to use these facilities.
What was the basis for this entitlement? Was it, perhaps, your status
as a UK student/faculty/staff member? I thought so.
>And they set out the conditions under which I could expect to continue to
>use these facilities.
Did those conditions include the time after your association with the
University ended? Did it include something like "oh, yes, you can
continue to use these facilities, even if you are no longer a UK
faculty/staff/student" I didn't think so.
>So the answer to your question is "yes". However,
>the promise was not kept.
You were explicitly promised use of University facilities, even after
your affiliation with the University was ended? I wonder who made such
a promise. I can't picture any system administrator/manager giving such
a "blank check". Now, I could accept something on the order of "If you
need computing resources after your affiliation with us, we will consi-
der such requests on a case-by-case basis." Is that what was said?
>The reason it was not kept is that UofK does not
>have a definable status for someone like me
What does "someone like me" mean? We can't "get down to brass tacks"
without knowing all the facts. What, exactly, is your status?
>and therefore the officers of
>UofK who make these facilities available to me were potentially in
>conflict with other officers of U of K, and eventually I became the focus
>of these conflicts when they finally emerged.
So you are upset that UK does not have a status for you? OK, then work
to change that situation. I don't think that the implications you have
made are directed at the proper target. If you had posted a message
decrying UK's lack of such a status, I might have agreed with you 100%.
You chose instead to post a combative argument with little basis in fact.
Essentially, your posting boils down to "The staff is bunch of authoritative
scum who don't care about their users; oh by the way, you know that they
can look at everything you do and forge mail and news postings." You
should state your argument more clearly if you are looking for support.
>I have met my share of kooks and weirdos who thought they were scholars
>and I understand who it is that you imagine you want to keep out. I did
>not assert that U of K has any legal obligation to give out computer
>accounts.
Yet you assert that they are obliged to provide you with one?
>I must object to the notion that I am "picking on" UofK, when as nearly as
>I can tell UofK is picking on me. I assume that if you had been an English
>major instead of a computer science major, you would have written "pick"
>instead of "pick on".
This is a nice touch; you've made thinly veiled accusations against his
professional integrity, and now you attempt to assert the grammatical
"high ground". If you can include sexual harrassment in a future posting,
you'll complete the Circle of Usenet Flame.
>I asked MIT for Visiting Fellow status and I was duly appointed a Visiting
>Fellow for two consecutive years. I was subsequently a Visiting Scholar at
>Yale University for a year. It was only when I went to a backwaters place
>like UK that I had a problem. At the better universities, they know me
>and respect my work.
In that case, why don't you try to change things at UK, rather than
castigating us in this medium? This seems like a waste of energy which
you could apply more effectively elsewhere.
>I consider limited imagination and a fundamental ignorance of the goals of
>scholarship on the part of administrators a much more serious threat to the
>appropriate use of resources at UK than their legitimate use by serious
>scholars, affiliated or not.
If the administrators were not sensitive to your plight, did you attempt
to discuss this with fellow scholars? If not, why not?
Let's have all the facts before we start tying the nooses, eh?
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 5 Jul 91 21:39:41 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul5.213941.22441@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!ghot@world.std.com
References <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.143123.27358@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.205455.12822@ms.uky.edu>edu
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
If you really believe that one should have all the facts before taking
action, you should practice what you preach. In every instance where
you did not know the facts, you assumed the worst and accused me of it.
I can't be responsible for every possible way you might find to misinterpret
what I write. I also did not have time or space to include all details of
the situtation. That means you don't know what I am talking about, not
that I don't.
I was never affiliated with UK. I showed up here and asked the chairman
for the use of facilities here and was granted them. I had a letter from
him granting the facilities. A year later, I asked him for another letter
and got it. That was a couple of months ago.
What happened was that he did not have clear cut authority to do this
although he had some discretionary authority. But I was not told this.
We agree that there is a need to change the policy that independent
scholars are undefinable. There is also no mechanism for me to try
to change that since there is no one whose job it is to talk to me
about it and who has the authority to change it.
This did not start with the computers. It started with the library.
My priveleges were cancelled without warning after I had been informed
that what I was doing was perfectly all right (I used to ask from time
to time if there was an problem). This is because the library did not
think it was ok to give faculty priveelges to an independent scholar.
Later the computer center followed suit.
I was not accusing Kherron of doing anything. I do believe that someone
edited one ofmy postings to news but I don't know who. THe thrust of
my comment about abuse is that there is nothing to prevent it
and that I will not be able to participate in any debates about
what actually went on because my account will be deleted quite soon,
possbily this evening.
When I tried to explain my point of view to the librarian (the chairman
specifically forbade me to discuss the library priveleges with him, but
the librarian invited me to discuss it with her), I found out that
she was treating the fact that I did not agree with her point of view
as a disciplinary problem and notified the chairman. The conclusion I
draw is that persons of inferior status are not entitled to a point of
view.
You are entitled to your opinion, with or without facts, of the situation
and of me in particular. In recognizing the right to diversityu of opinon,
I distinguish myself from what I have seen of UK.
If you agree with me about the need for change, let us put aside this
petty squabbling and work to achieve that change. I will not have my
account any longer but I can receive ordinary mail at the following
address:
Allan Adler
2066 Fairmont COurt, Apt. E8
LExington, KY 40502
Sincerely,
Allan Adler, unaffilated trash who wastes the resources of the university
by posing as a serious scholar,
formerly ghot@ms.uk.edu
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 5 Jul 91 23:01:18 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul5.230118.7043@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: ukma!kherron@husc6.harvard.edu
References <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.143123.27358@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.143342.27855@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
[I started to write a long point-by-point response to Mr. Adler's article,
but after it grew to over 125 lines decided it was too much trouble.
But there is one thing I must respond to.]
ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>I would...like to point out that this debate is not entirely among
>equals. First of all, my account will be deleted and his will remain
>so that I will most likely not have the opportunity to reply to his
>future comments. Second, he is on the computer staff on the computer
>I am using to write this, has access to my files, can edit my postings
>to newsgroups if he wants, can read my email correspondence, and can
>perhaps even play a role in terminating my account even sooner than
>the rapidly approaching deadline, if he chooses to do so.
Yes, I can do these things. Needless to say, I wouldn't. Why do you
have to resort to insults?
--
Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics "So this won't be a total loss, can you make
it so guys get to throw their mothers-in-law in?" "Sure, why not?"
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 6 Jul 91 02:39:32 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul6.023932.15987@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!ghot@world.std.com
References <1991Jul5.143123.27358@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.143342.27855@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.230118.7043@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
In reply to the messages of Ken Herron and Wes Morgan:
It was not my intention to insult anyone. I am sorry if I did. Speaking only
of things that I know, I can only report that the computer staff of the
mathematics department has treated me with the greatest courtesy during
my stay here. In spite of the conflict that I have had with other segments
of the university, I also wish to emphasize that my dealings with Paul
Eakin, who is in charge of the math computers, have left me with the
conviction that of all the administrators I have dealt with at UK, he
emerges as the one with whose objectivity, professionalism and
reasonableness I can find no fault. If it were possible for him to
extend my account, I have now doubt he would do so.
I would also like to emphasize that I am saying this of my own free will.
There is really nothing else the university can do to injure me and there
has been no indication that it will help me either.
Instead, I would like to restore attention to my main point which is
that it is a structural flaw at many universities that there is no
formal status assignable to independent scholars. If I abused Ken Herron's
character in my reply to him, it was only because I was angry at what
sounded to me like Scrooge's "Are there not poor houses and debtor's
prisons ?" or the Wizard of Oz's "So, Tin Man, you dare to ask me for
a heart ?". Again, I apologize for my reaction to that.
I have been advised to approach the administration of the university and
try to convince those in charge that it is desirable to create the
status of Visiting Scholar. I do have a mental picture of appearing to
them something like a martian, saying, "Take me to your leader," but
since no one seems to be coming forward to help present my point of view
from within the UK community, I guess I will have to get used to looking
like a martian.
This newsgroup appeared to me as one of the few fora for presenting my
point of view and I remain to be convinced that there is a suitable forum
within the UK community. The specific events cannot be adequately treated
in short articles posted here nor can the issues be discussed in the
heated atmosphere of the discussions I have seen, including the present
one.
It is therefore my intention to write a report on my stay at the
University of Kentucky at Lexington. I will address the positive aspects
of my stay here, of which there were many, and try to acknowledge
the individual acts of kindness and generosity I received. But I will
also address the ways in which I feel I was mistreated and will attempt
to do so in as detached a manner as I can achieve. I will try to draw
conclusions about that treatment and offer specific recommendations as
to how the performance of the university can be improved in these areas
and in others which are not themselves areas of conflict.
This report will be made available to anyone who wants a copy. When I have
a way of distributing it electronically, it will be possible to distribute
it for free. Before that, I will make it available at the cost of reproducing
and mailing it by US mail. I hope it will receive the attention of the UK
administration and that constructive discussions emerge from it.
Allan Adler
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 6 Jul 91 17:54:55 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul6.175455.23010@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!llama@world.std.com
References <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.143123.27358@ms.uky.edu>=b
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>Rather than present the facts of the
>case here, let me refer him and other interested parties to the source
>I used in arriving at my opinion, namely the book Monkey Trial, The
>State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes, edited by Sheldon Norman
>Grebstein of the University of Kentucky in Lexington and published by
>Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1960. [Allan Adler]
Another good book is:
Center of the Storm
John T. Scopes and James Presley
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967
LCCN: 66-22204
This book gave me a feel for the times that I believe would be missing from
a book which focused solely on the trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107062307.AA05795@eff.org>
From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Thanks in advance for whatever suggestions you can give on the formatting
problem. Hope it doesn't come down to two separate formats...one for the nets
and one for mailing, but if it can be done quickly and easily....ah, fuck it.
Seems that some of the TexBrexClub crowd is off in some world of their own by
pursuing a vendetta that seems not only erroneous, but quite irrelevant.
Your comments on the forthcoming motion raise some questions that you might
shoot over to Bill Vajk. From your summary of the relationship between
austin/chicago, it supports the hypothesis that Bill Cook doesn't really know
what he's doing, isn't the most cooperative, and is generally dooflus. (is
there a unix command for rm Coo*?) The CoFo (or FoCo?) duo may be laying back
because of the suit and are playing it cautiously.
Curious about why it takes a "meeting of committee" to respond to Mike---are
the clubbers trying to develop some key issue or just throw coconuts? They'd
be taken more seriously if their actions were not so disruptive and moved
beyond flaming into something substantive.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 7 Jul 91 06:07:54 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul7.060754.3327@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci.
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!agha@world.std.com
References: , <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>v
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
In article <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
|> ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
|>
|> >The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
|> >forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
|> >I don't see what that does not also give the President the power
|> >to decide to forbid any discussion of evolution federally funded educational
|> >institutions.
|>
|> The Supreme court's decision amounted to: The government has the right
|> to attach strings to its funding.
The government is not like any other employer..
The constitution prohibits the government from promoting any particular
religion or belief system.
The prohibition of discussing abortion is inspired
by particular religious ideas that the government is seeking to establish.
These ideas contradict an unenumerated right to privacy that the Court
claims to have found (under the ninth amendment) and applied
to declare a right to abortion.
|> I've never studied the Scopes trial, but based on your description their
|> decision also sounds reasonable. It sounds like a simple case of the
|> employer setting the rules, and the employee being expected to follow
|> them.
Wrong again. The government was seeking to establish a religious
ideology and may not do so (as subsequent rulings agreed).
It must show a compelling state interest any time it interferes
with someone's beliefs (well more recently, the conservative
Court has lowered this standard to "should not have targetted
particular beliefs).
--
Peace,
Gul
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 7 Jul 91 16:01:53 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul7.160153.20042@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!ukma!kherron@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul7.060754.3327@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
agha@cs.uiuc.edu (Gul Agha) writes:
>In article <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>|> >The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
>|> >forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
>|>
>|> The Supreme court's decision amounted to: The government has the right
>|> to attach strings to its funding.
>
>The government is not like any other employer.. The constitution prohibits
>the government from promoting any particular religion or belief system.
>
>The prohibition of discussing abortion is inspired
>by particular religious ideas that the government is seeking to establish.
>These ideas contradict an unenumerated right to privacy that the Court
>claims to have found (under the ninth amendment) and applied
>to declare a right to abortion.
Abortion is a moral issue, not per se a religious one. It's true that
the church plays a large part in shaping morality, but this doesn't mean
that the government can't make laws based on moral issues. There are
plenty of atheists on both sides of the abortion issue.
The clinic funding rule has not outlawed discussion of abortion, it simply
prevents the government from helping clinics that do (help that the gov't
is not required to give anyway). No constitutional right is absolute; any
law could be applied to some situation where it could intrude on freedom of
speech; this doesn't make every law unconstitutional. The recent SC
decision on nude dancing contains mention of this. (Trivial example:
a judge can order a jury sequestered and prevent them from discussing the
case they're trying. This is constitutional because the defendant's
right to a fair trial and the public's right of justice override the
jury's right to freedom of movement and speech, and because jury service
is a constitutional duty).
Look at it another way: A clinic does not give up any rights by refusing
to accept government money; it doesn't have a right to government money,
and it doesn't have a right to exist if it can't pay its way. The clinic
must *ask for* and *accept* the money with full knowledge that it can't do
abortion counseling. Thus, it must *voluntarily* give up its right to
do abortion counseling. All of this is legal; a person (or in this case
a legal entity) may give up his constitutional rights and then be bound
by that decision.
>|> I've never studied the Scopes trial, but based on your description their
>|> decision also sounds reasonable. It sounds like a simple case of the
>|> employer setting the rules, and the employee being expected to follow
>|> them.
>Wrong again. The government was seeking to establish a religious
>ideology and may not do so (as subsequent rulings agreed).
>It must show a compelling state interest any time it interferes
>with someone's beliefs...
This is a good point which I didn't consider earlier. The court should
have recognized that the law was grounded in a religious belief. However,
Wasn't Scopes tried back around 1925? There was probably more room for
doubt about the correctness of the theory of evolution back then, so
the law could more reasonably be defended on secular grounds, ie was
evolution worth teaching or not? (I'm sure that the case has been
analyzed to death; I'm just spouting off)
Let me add that Mr. Adler was attacking the decision on academic freedom
grounds; he implied that the law was wrong (and the court wrong for
upholding it) because it limited Scopes' academic freedom, not because
of religious issues. Like I said, I am not really familiar with the
case and was going by his (and your) description of it.
--
Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics "So this won't be a total loss, can you make
it so guys get to throw their mothers-in-law in?" "Sure, why not?"
