From warnold Tue Nov 5 12:42:07 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA25978
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 12:11:33 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 12:11:28 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111051711.AA25972@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Nov 5 12:10:32 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : Censorship, Libraries, and the Law
jet@karazm.math.uh : Re: Brack expulsion
haydens@natasha.ju : School Integration (was Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Re
kaul@ee.eng.ohio-s : Re: Brack expulsion
fxjwk@acad3.alaska : Re: (alt.censorship, et al.) No comment...
bhv@areaplg2.corp. : Re: yahweh is good posting
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
whg@INEL.GOV (Will : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
art@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
jkollin@milton.u.w : Re: yahweh is good posting
-- Can someone mail me the Yahwehh posting?
n9141932@henson.cc : Looking for a fair USENET Use Policy
-- Searching for University USENET Use Policy based on Library Policy
cromar@math.rutger : Maddox and Chlorine (was Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes R
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: _Censorship, Libraries, and the Law_
Message-ID: <9111041750.AA17117@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 4 Nov 91 05:50:49 GMT
Anyone interested in the case law regarding libraries (and
library-like computer services?) should look at this book of cases:
------------------------
Bosmajian, Haig A.
Censorship, libraries, and the law / compiled and with an
introduction by Haig Bosmajian ; foreword by Nat Hentoff. New York :
Neal-Schuman, c1983.
xxiv, 217 p. ; 29 cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0918212545 : $$22.95
1. Libraries--United States--Censorship--Cases. 2. School
libraries--United States--Censorship--Cases. I. Title.
ocm09-197409
-----------------------
-------------------
From: jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend)
Subject: Re: Brack expulsion
Message-ID: <1991Nov4.193213.23616@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 91 19:32:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: menudo.1991Nov4.193213.23616
References: <1991Nov02.072502.3024@dogface.austin.tx.us> <1991Nov3.052336.18807@colnet.uucp> <1991Nov3.153459.23701@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Sender: usenet@menudo.uh.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: karazm.math.uh.edu
In article <1991Nov3.153459.23701@rodan.acs.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
>But seriously, if this is true, then OSU has very clearly violated the First
>Amendment rights of the paper's editorial staff (and its students in general).
>
>According to "A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers,"
>by P. Hollander, D. Young, and D. Gehring:
>
> "Student newspapers at public institutions generally cannot be censored
>prior to publication. Student editors usually are permitted to publish and
>take the risk of allegations of libel or obscenity. The student press at
>public institutions is subject to restriction only where college officials
>can 'reasonably forecast substantial disruption or material interference'
>with educational activities, or that the material is clearly libelous or
>obscene."
However, if OSU has decided that the newspaper is actually a "student
lab", they have free reign over its content. This was threatened
at UH, until it was remembered that our student paper ("The Daily Cougar")
was published by a group independent of academic departments.
--
J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
vox: (713) 749-2126 '91 CB750, DoD# 0378, TMRA# 27834 AMA# I-forget
PowerGlove mailing list: glove-list-request@karazm.math.uh.edu
"allow users to create more impactful documents" -- from an Apple press release
-------------------
From: haydens@natasha.juliet.ll.mit.edu (Hayden Schultz x3685 g42)
Subject: School Integration (was Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!)
In-Reply-To: tms@cs.umd.edu's message of 31 Oct 91 19:30:21 GMT
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp>
<1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> <42165@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 91 14:31:28
In article <42165@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (the demolition man)) writes:
So let's look at some of the issue you bring up. School bussing is
largely an anachronism, necessary perhaps to bring some degree of integration
at the start of the civil rights movement; but it's really not necessary now.
But our government - liberal and conservatives alike - hasn't noticed.
I don't know what the neighborhoods and schools are like in Maryland,
but the state of integration here in Boston is not as you describe.
There is a tremendous division in some areas which contain almost
entirely white residents and others which contain almost entirely
african-american residents. There are still problems of integration of
public housing here. Quite a few schools would be all white or all
black if there were no bussing here.
Hayden
-------------------
From: kaul@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rich Kaul)
Subject: Re: Brack expulsion
In-Reply-To: rita@eff.org's message of 4 Nov 91 14:55:50 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: news@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu
References: <1991Oct31.155406.29130@eff.org>
<1991Nov02.072502.3024@dogface.austin.tx.us>
<1991Nov3.052336.18807@colnet.uucp> <1991Nov4.145550.17012@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 20:38:03 GMT
In article <1991Nov4.145550.17012@eff.org> rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
Rob, if you are from OSU, please make clear to these editors
that they are having their first amendmendment rights *trampled*. I'm
assuming OSU is a state school
I'm curious what Ohio State University would be if it weren't a state
school. :-)
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that "the Lantern" (or "the
Latrine" as it is more accurately known) is a lab newspaper. In other
words, the university is the publisher and all journalism majors are
required to work on the paper before they can graduate, so it's not a
student newspaper in the sense you're used to. The university is much
more closely entwined with this newspaper than is typical.
These editors should *immediately* contact their local ACLU
chapter, as well as the Student Press Law Center.
They already have. I expect that we'll see legal machinations soon.
Just a parting observation: the fired editors and reporters have
formed the Students for an Independent Newspaper and SIN has been
trying to get students to protest on the Oval. With all their SIN
placards sitting on the Oval, I kept looking around hoping Brother Jed
was there to cry "You sinners will all burn in hellFIIIRRREEE!" It
would have been a nice touch.
--
Rich Kaul | Ted Kennedy "thought he had the (presidential)
kaul@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu | nomination in his pocket. His problem was he
kaul.2@osu.edu | couldn't find his pants." -- David Brinkley
-------------------
From: fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship, et al.] No comment...
Message-ID: <1991Nov4.115422.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
References: <9111021813.AA15133@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 15:54:22 GMT
In article <9111021813.AA15133@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>
> All Speech is and must remain protected, especially that which we find
> offensive. One of our Founding Patrons (is that more "poltically correct"
> that Fathers here?) stated, "I disagree completely with your views, but I
> defend to the death your right to state them."
*Bzzzt*! Right time frame; wrong continent.... This is actually a really
fun quote, as the true origin is unclear! The original sentence, which is
attributed to Voltaire, is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it." In _A Book of French Quotations_, Norbert
Guterman suggests the probable source is a letter to M. le Riche, which
has, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for
you to continue to write."
No, this is not trivia! ;-)
Oh, and I agree with the content of your message; just couldn't let that slip
get by!
jo
-------------------
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 21:55:29 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Nov4.215529.12781@ecs.comm.mot.com>
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct30.030810.13193@panix.com> <1991Oct31.222812.2593@ecs.comm.mot.com> <1991Nov1.040337.16719@eff.org>
Sender: news@ecs.comm.mot.com (net news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 137.23.47.37
In article <1991Nov1.040337.16719@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
)bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
)>Secondly, it seems to me that the problems with the Yahweh post are more
)>basic than just being off-charter. I think it relates to the issue
)>of obscenity. I think it is both reasonable and desirable to prohibit
)>sexually explicit posts like Yahweh from general newsgroups.
)[...]
)
)If _American Psycho_ is not legally obscene, I doubt "yahweh" is.
Hmmm. I haven't tracked the matter, but last time I heard about the
obscenity issue 'community standards' were "in", so one should presumably
use soc.women standards (assuming one can figure out what they are!) to
judge the obscenity of the post. Unless the legal theories have changed
since then, which is entirely possible.
)[...]
)> However, this broad-mindedness should not prohibit the
)>restriction of such materials to appropriate groups (IMO).
)
)I don't trust the government to judge appropriateness.
I have some sympathy with this position - I think the government / regulators
are in a greater position to cause harm to the net than a few posters like
yahweh.
I still hope somewhat to be able to have some regulation without it becoming
oppressive. Maybe I'm hoping for too much.
-------------------
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov1.183408.1820@solbourne.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 14:39:15 GMT
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>There isn't, there are too many racists in this country, and far too
>many who vote south of the Mason-Dixon. I view that about the same as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I view a disease epidemic, a human scourge that needs to be
>eliminated, not as a reality check as you seem to see it.
^^^^^^^^^^
Barry Shein proposes a "final solution".
>
>
>I remember Lester Maddox, Governor of (hmm, I forget what state) on
>the steps of an elementary school, he was Governor at the time, with
>an axe-handle in hand threatening (to the press) to use it on any
>black child who tried to step foot in the school (elementary school
>kids! what a man!) Almost inconceivable today, that was around 1968.
Lester Maddox was Governor of Georgia. The axe handle incident
took place long before he was elected Governor. It did not occur
at an elementary school but as his own motel-restaurant complex.
As the owner of this complex, Maddox had the foolish idea that
as such he had the right to deny anyone he chose access to his
swimming pool. A group of blacks youths climbed his fence and
jumped into his pool. He began pouring chlorine into the pool
and waved an axe handle at them as they fled.
This act of defiance proved so popular, Maddox was later
elected Governor.
I'm sorry to have taken away some of the dramatics of your
post.
>
>--
> -Barry Shein
>
>Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.011528.4635@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:15:28 GMT
Department of Computer Science
Computer Use Policy
1. Introduction
This policy governs use of computers and related equipment operated by the
Department of Computer Sciences of The University of Texas at Austin. Each
computer user is a member of a community; the purpose of this policy is to
maximize the value of our resources to that community. The intent of the
policy is to permit maximum freedom of use consistent with State Law,
University policy, and a productive working environment. 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.
2. State Law and University Policy
Use of CS computers must comply with Texas law and University policies.
Therefore, CS computers may not be used for commercial or profit-making
purposes (except for the production of drafts of scholarly tests), for
political purposes, or for personal benefit where such use incurs a cost
to the Department and is not academically related.
State law prohibits unauthorized access to computer systems. Access of
or attempts to access another person's directory, files, or mail, whether
protected or not, without permission of the owner is prohibited. Attempts
to access unauthorized machines via the computer network, to decrypt
encrypted materials, or to obtain privileges to which the user is not
entitled are prohibited. The University has signed software licenses
for much of the software that is available on CS computer systems; removal
or transfer of such software without authorization is prohibited.
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.
Sharing of a computer account with other persons is prohibited; each user
must have an individual account. Passwords should be protected, an the user
should not leave a machine logged on when the user is not present unless the
machine is in a secure area, such as a private office.
3. Working Environment
Users of CS machines should conduct themselves in a manner that promotes a
productive working environment. Conduct that creates a disturbance to other
users is prohibited; this includes making noise, taking beverages into the
computer labs, and printing or displaying materials that are unsuitable for
public display. Conduct that intentionally or negligently interferes with
the proper operation of the system or its use by others is prohibited.
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.
4. Use of Resources
Users of CS computers should not consume unreasonable amounts of limited
resources. Resources that are in limited supply include laser printing, disk
space and, in some cases, machine access itself. Laser printing should be
used only when necessary; it should not be used for multiple copies. Picture
files or other large files should not be stored on disk unless they are
academically relevant. Playing of games and other non-academic activities
should be restricted to periods of off-peak usage. The Department may impose
restrictions or limits on use of resources.
--
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: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov>
Sender: news@inel.gov
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov1.183408.1820@solbourne.com> <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 01:46:54 GMT
In article <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>, usenet@swbatl.sbc.com writes:
|>
|> ... A group of blacks youths climbed [Lester Maddox's] fence and
|> jumped into his pool. He began pouring chlorine into the pool ...
|>
Was he trying to bleach them? That is bizarre. I don't say it didn't happen, just
that it's bizarre. Lester Maddox was probably certifiable; ditto Duke.
--
Bill Gray (whg@INEL.GOV) | "Purgamentum init,
Idaho National Engineergin Laboratory | exit purgamentum."
P.O. Box 1625-2090, Idaho Falls ID 83415 | - Gigo
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com's message of Mon, 4 Nov 91 14:39:15 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp>
<1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
<1991Nov1.183408.1820@solbourne.com>
<1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 03:28:32 GMT
I went over to a pretty good bookstore (not great) in an attempt to
nail down some of these Lester Maddox stories. Interestingly, I could
find almost no mention of him other than in passing (of the variety
"such policies were more associated with folks like Maddox or ...")
The only solid mention I found of these axe-handle incidents was in
Ralph David Abernathy's recently published autobiography (I forget the
name, I'll walk back over and look it up if someone wants.) Abernathy
did indeed mention the incident you mention of Maddox wielding an
axe-handle to keep blacks out of his restaurant. But it was just one
sentence and it's a bit hard to determine the details from that or if
there were other axe-handle incidents as I remember.
It's conceivable it wasn't Maddox himself who was wielding the
axe-handle in the story I mention, just someone emulating him
(axe-handles became a bit of a symbol of white racism due to Maddox.)
> This act of defiance proved so popular, Maddox was later
> elected Governor.
Well, hooray for Georgia, cough cough.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: bzs@world.std.com's message of Tue, 5 Nov 1991 03:28:32 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp>
<1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
<1991Nov1.183408.1820@solbourne.com>
<1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 04:11:35 GMT
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
The only solid mention I found of these axe-handle incidents was in
Ralph David Abernathy's recently published autobiography (I forget the
name, I'll walk back over and look it up if someone wants.) Abernathy
did indeed mention the incident you mention of Maddox wielding an
axe-handle to keep blacks out of his restaurant. But it was just one
sentence and it's a bit hard to determine the details from that or if
there were other axe-handle incidents as I remember.
I remember this quite clearly. It was in about late 1963 or early 1964,
just before the 1964 civil rights bill came up. He was in chicken
restaurant, called the Picadilly, or something very much like that,
wielding not an axe handle, but a pick handle. I remember seeing film at
eleven. No doubt.
It's conceivable it wasn't Maddox himself who was wielding the
axe-handle in the story I mention, just someone emulating him
(axe-handles became a bit of a symbol of white racism due to Maddox.)
No, it was him.
> This act of defiance proved so popular, Maddox was later
> elected Governor.
Well, hooray for Georgia, cough cough.
Right, the same state that gave us Jimma Cartuh.
-------------------
From: jkollin@milton.u.washington.edu (J R "Bob" Dobbs)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Summary: Can someone mail me the Yahwehh posting?
Keywords: context, please...
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.055053.8368@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 91 05:50:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1991Nov5.055053.8368
References: <1991Oct31.222812.2593@ecs.comm.mot.com> <1991Nov1.040337.16719@eff.org> <1991Nov4.215529.12781@ecs.comm.mot.com>
I've been reading with mild interest the Yahwehh controversy. I would probably
be more interested if I saw the original posting. Can someone mail me a copy?
I'm not worried about eternal torment by the big red guy with the horns, and
I'm well over 21.
If it pissed off that many people, its probably worth something in the Grand
Scheme of Things...
-------------------
From: n9141932@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Doug Auerbach)
Subject: Looking for a fair USENET Use Policy
Summary: Searching for University USENET Use Policy based on Library Policy
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.090825.25869@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 91 09:08:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1991Nov5.090825.25869
Sender: n9141932@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Doug Auerbach)
It's been mentioned that a few universities have developed policies outlining
guidelines for USENET usage which are based on existing library policies,
including the Library Bill of Rights.
Has anyone actually seen one of these policies? It seems sensible to
modify a university library policy to apply to computer-based information
resources such as the USENET newsgroups.
Is it true that Iowa State University has implemented such a policy?
Here at Western Washington University, we're currently facing a recent
restriction on our newsgroup access. The precedent of another university
adopting a computer use policy based on library policies would make
a powerful statement to our administration.
Any leads would be appreciated.
Doug Auerbach
Western Washington University
--
Doug Auerbach
Western Washington University
-------------------
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Subject: Maddox and Chlorine (was Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Nov 91 13:39:32 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov1.183408.1820@solbourne.com> <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray) writes:
> usenet@swbatl.sbc.com writes:
> |> ... A group of blacks youths climbed [Lester Maddox's] fence and
> |> jumped into his pool. He began pouring chlorine into the pool ...
> Was he trying to bleach them? That is bizarre. I don't say it didn't happen, just
> that it's bizarre. Lester Maddox was probably certifiable; ditto Duke.
You can poison someone that way. Every summer, some swimming pool
somewhere will have an episode of chlorine poisoning. In fact, a few
years back, I was at a swimming pool when such an episode occurred. I
wasn't one of the lucky people exposed; about three of the people who
were had to be rushed to the hospital.
--
--Scott Cromar SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
"Are you sure there are no hidden cameras up there?"
--Arizona Rep. Don Kinney, while stuffing $55,000 into a gym bag
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Wed Nov 6 12:19:07 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 10:13:21 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Nov 6 10:12:39 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
learn@ddsw1.MCS.CO : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
learn@ddsw1.MCS.CO : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Re: Brack expulsion
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.) Re: Brack expulsion
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Re: Brack expulsion
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.college, et al.) Re: Brack expulsion
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att : Falling Totalitarians (Was: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Re
ear@wpi.WPI.EDU (M : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
mem@mv.MV.COM (Mar : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
References: <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:43:44 GMT
In article Barry Shein writes:
>I went over to a pretty good bookstore (not great) in an attempt to
>nail down some of these Lester Maddox stories. Interestingly, I could
>find almost no mention of him other than in passing (of the variety
>"such policies were more associated with folks like Maddox or ...")
They have libraries in Boston and the suburbs, no ??????
>It's conceivable it wasn't Maddox himself who was wielding the
>axe-handle in the story I mention, just someone emulating him
>(axe-handles became a bit of a symbol of white racism due to Maddox.)
In some minds, perhaps. In others it represented individual and privacy
rights. This was also the general time period when laws were passed
regarding the rights of citizens to public accomodation, while permitting
very small mon & pop motels the right to refuse anyone they desired service.
>> This act of defiance proved so popular, Maddox was later
>> elected Governor.
>Well, hooray for Georgia, cough cough.
Is this ordinary stupidity on your part, or is there some spectacular
significance to your Barry-come-lately misunderstandings regarding an
entire segment of our national history of which you very obviously
have no knowledge.
While I'm here and at it, how is it that modern liberals can be so
politically correct as to overwhelm the very essence of liberal
philosophies with "more sophisticated" agenda?
I remind you, Mr. Shein, that your atitude towards your fellow citizens
and the belittling of them, even across the timeframe involved, is every
bit as petty, demeaning, and dimunitive as the behavior of those you decry
as racists. Indeed, the typical Boston snobbery is even more disgusting.
You're tripping over your own ideals. I recommend you get your nose
down out of the air before you fall over the racial problems in your
own rednecked part of the woods. If I had to venture a guess, Atlanta
today probably has fewer racial incidents per capita today than Boston.
Bill Vajk
-------------------
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.131542.1124@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
References: <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:15:42 GMT
In article <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov> William H. Gray writes:
>Was he trying to bleach them? That is bizarre. I don't say it didn't
>happen, just that it's bizarre. Lester Maddox was probably certifiable;
>ditto Duke.
>
>--
>Bill Gray (whg@INEL.GOV) | "Purgamentum init,
>Idaho National Engineergin Laboratory | exit purgamentum."
>P.O. Box 1625-2090, Idaho Falls ID 83415 | - Gigo
>========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
>
>Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
>Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
>implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
>information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
>privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
>endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
>Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
>opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
>United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
>and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
You write three lines of text, followed by 16 lines of sig and disclaimers
and you think Lester's action was bizarre? Get a grip on yourself, man.
Given that the temperament in the old South in those days was still to grab
a gun if folks were 'doing wrong' it seems to me that Lester took a more
rational path.
What is less rational is to sit in the comfort of 1991 and make generalized
statements about a period of which one apparently knows very little. Lester
was subsequently elected the Governor of Georgia, and as best I can recall,
did an admirable job of it.
BTW, it was pick handles. And he made a lot of money selling autographed
pick handles after the news reports popularized his actions in the south,
and made him a laughingtock in the north.
Bill Vajk
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Re: Brack expulsion
Message-ID: <9111051601.AA23185@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Nov 91 04:01:35 GMT
From: IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester)
Date: 4 Nov 91 16:56:00 GMT
Or I suppose this post should be titled "the price for freedom".
Somehow I doubt if these editors will go off and sue their school,
even if they are right. I am sure that a group of college students
are a bit more worried about their future than the school newspaper.
In order to do well in the collegic world you need the administration
to help or ignore you. Otherwise you find you start having funny
problems... paper work gets lost... you dont' get classes you want...
your disertation has disapeared... certain professors who are on
the tenure track and will be decided on this year or next start
giving you bad grades. There are 'courses of action' against every
nasty trick I listed above, but the question becomes "was it worth
it"?
As I am learning. Fighting the system, even if your right, carries a
high price. And personally, I'm not sure its worth it. Because I'll
tell you, its like fighting in the dark. No one seems to want to hold
up a light.
Just a personal view point... this may not be "how it is" but it sure
is "how it looks to ME"...
The Jester
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.] Re: Brack expulsion
Message-ID: <9111051601.AA23203@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Nov 91 04:01:54 GMT
From: kaul@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rich Kaul)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 20:38:03 GMT
In article <1991Nov4.145550.17012@eff.org> rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
Rob, if you are from OSU, please make clear to these editors
that they are having their first amendmendment rights *trampled*. I'm
assuming OSU is a state school
I'm curious what Ohio State University would be if it weren't a state
school. :-)
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that "the Lantern" (or "the
Latrine" as it is more accurately known) is a lab newspaper. In other
words, the university is the publisher and all journalism majors are
required to work on the paper before they can graduate, so it's not a
student newspaper in the sense you're used to. The university is much
more closely entwined with this newspaper than is typical.
These editors should *immediately* contact their local ACLU
chapter, as well as the Student Press Law Center.
They already have. I expect that we'll see legal machinations soon.
Just a parting observation: the fired editors and reporters have
formed the Students for an Independent Newspaper and SIN has been
trying to get students to protest on the Oval. With all their SIN
placards sitting on the Oval, I kept looking around hoping Brother Jed
was there to cry "You sinners will all burn in hellFIIIRRREEE!" It
would have been a nice touch.
--
Rich Kaul | Ted Kennedy "thought he had the (presidential)
kaul@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu | nomination in his pocket. His problem was he
kaul.2@osu.edu | couldn't find his pants." -- David Brinkley
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Re: Brack expulsion
Message-ID: <9111051602.AA23212@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Nov 91 04:02:01 GMT
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 22:01:50 GMT
In article <199111041658.AA20499@eff.org> IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester) writes:
>Or I suppose this post should be titled "the price for freedom".
>
>Somehow I doubt if these editors will go off and sue their school,
>even if they are right. I am sure that a group of college students
>are a bit more worried about their future than the school newspaper.
Sorry Jester, you're wrong. As a *senior* in college, and
senior member of the school newspaper's editorial board, I initiated a
law suit against my university for censorship.
>In order to do well in the collegic world you need the administration
>to help or ignore you. Otherwise you find you start having funny
>problems... paper work gets lost... you dont' get classes you want...
>your disertation has disapeared... certain professors who are on
>the tenure track and will be decided on this year or next start
>giving you bad grades. There are 'courses of action' against every
>nasty trick I listed above, but the question becomes "was it worth
>it"?
As for the administration, bah. My best defense was simply to
make sure I got a certified copy of my transcript every semester (yes,
I had a long history of "dealing with" the administration). In
addition, it doesn't shed very kind light on the university when
things get leaked to the local and national press (a tactic we
perfected to the extent that we were picked up by the AP).
And the English Dept. had enough character to oppose the
admin's position. They were actually extremely helpful to us --
giving incompletes to some members of the e-board who just couldn't
study properly for finals. (The admin. threatened arrest.)
Was it worth it???? OF COURSE! If you don't fight for your
rights; you don't have them.
--
Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation | You can't play with Deadsy unless you've
155 Second Street | got them great, big sex-o-thingies.
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | -- Deadsy
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.college, et al.] Re: Brack expulsion
Message-ID: <9111051601.AA23194@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Nov 91 04:01:44 GMT
From: jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 19:32:13 GMT
In article <1991Nov3.153459.23701@rodan.acs.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
>But seriously, if this is true, then OSU has very clearly violated the First
>Amendment rights of the paper's editorial staff (and its students in general).
>
>According to "A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers,"
>by P. Hollander, D. Young, and D. Gehring:
>
> "Student newspapers at public institutions generally cannot be censored
>prior to publication. Student editors usually are permitted to publish and
>take the risk of allegations of libel or obscenity. The student press at
>public institutions is subject to restriction only where college officials
>can 'reasonably forecast substantial disruption or material interference'
>with educational activities, or that the material is clearly libelous or
>obscene."
However, if OSU has decided that the newspaper is actually a "student
lab", they have free reign over its content. This was threatened
at UH, until it was remembered that our student paper ("The Daily Cougar")
was published by a group independent of academic departments.
--
J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
vox: (713) 749-2126 '91 CB750, DoD# 0378, TMRA# 27834 AMA# I-forget
PowerGlove mailing list: glove-list-request@karazm.math.uh.edu
"allow users to create more impactful documents" -- from an Apple press release
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <199111052106.AA01044@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 5 Nov 91 21:03:15 GMT
On Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:15:42 GMT William Vajk said:
>In article <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov> William H. Gray writes:
>
>>Was he trying to bleach them? That is bizarre. I don't say it didn't
>>happen, just that it's bizarre. Lester Maddox was probably certifiable;
>>ditto Duke.
>>
>>--
>>Bill Gray (whg@INEL.GOV) | "Purgamentum init,
>>Idaho National Engineergin Laboratory | exit purgamentum."
>>P.O. Box 1625-2090, Idaho Falls ID 83415 | - Gigo
>>========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
>>
>>Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
>>Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
>>implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
>>information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
>>privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
>>endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
>>Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
>>opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
>>United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
>>and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
>
>You write three lines of text, followed by 16 lines of sig and disclaimers
>and you think Lester's action was bizarre? Get a grip on yourself, man.
Isn't that exactly the point??? Having visited his place of employment
and gone through the full body radiation scans both going in and out
I understand the security. Complete with guards with 45s on their belt,
combat boots, and camo fatigues. And choppers patrolling the place.
The above is NOT a criticism. It is a description of the security and
control that is necessary at a nuke facility.
I feel my sig disclaimer says the same thing in a few less words (see below)
but I of course don't have to worry about "doing it right" for some damn
government attorneys, either.
Of course with all this censorship crap being attempted, it is not too
unreasonable that the institutions and businesses are requesting or
requiring disclaimers. How soon do you think the families (inspired by
some damn ambulance chasing lawyer) of the folks murdered in Iowa City
last Friday will be suing the Univ of Iowa, the State of Iowa, the
campus cops, and anyone else they can think of for a zillion bucks because
a nutso doc student blew them away? Bet the cases are filed in
no more than three weeks, outside.
dan
*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu *
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu *
* Boise State University *
* Boise, Idaho 83725 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak *
* 208-385-1234 for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM's message of Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:43:44 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>
<1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 21:58:11 GMT
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
>They have libraries in Boston and the suburbs, no ??????
Your neck of the woods too, no? What did you find out? (Nothing, oh
well.)
>While I'm here and at it, how is it that modern liberals can be so
>politically correct as to overwhelm the very essence of liberal
>philosophies with "more sophisticated" agenda?
If eschewing the active practice of racism and advocacy of the
mistreatment of other citizens because of the color of their skin is
"PC" then I'm all for it.
Some day perhaps you will understand that there's no real difference
between condemning racism and condemning someone who rapes your
sister.
At some point, you have to draw a moral line.
If you were to tell me you were too understanding and non-PC to
condemn murderers, rapists and theives, then perhaps you would have an
argument.
But you don't, so you don't.
To the devil with this amoralistic, nihilist babble. You will never
build an argument which convinces me the practice of racism, to the
detriment of others, is to be tolerated.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM's message of Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:15:42 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov>
<1991Nov5.131542.1124@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 22:15:25 GMT
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
>What is less rational is to sit in the comfort of 1991 and make generalized
>statements about a period of which one apparently knows very little. Lester
>was subsequently elected the Governor of Georgia, and as best I can recall,
>did an admirable job of it.
Even in 1964 we knew the difference between right and wrong. And
Maddox was wrong. In 1964 the "Civil Rights Act" was passed putting an
end to things like white and colored bathrooms and water fountains.
Maybe if you were talking about 1864 you'd have some kind of point,
but things weren't so different in 1964, I remember 1964, decent
people weren't axe-handle wielding racists.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Falling Totalitarians (Was: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.000204.1842@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Date: 6 Nov 91 00:02:04 GMT
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
The attributions got kind of confused here, so I'm deleting them;
part was probably from art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
]> how do you give conservatives credit for the collapse of communism?
]> The story is that many of the events in eastern europe took
]> the White House by surprise as we were digging is for many more years of
]> cold war and were trying to rationalize military action against communist
]> exapansion especially in Central America.
...
]>The main reason for the fall was economic disparity*. That coupled with
]>TV, which showed the easterners a vastly different life both in terms of
]>economics and personal freedom.
My view has been that you can't fool all the people all the time,
and TV has certainly helped that. I think part of the Yankee
government's surprise was that they've also been using the Cold War
to keep themselves in power, and they really don't know how to let
us go from a military-oriented economy, where they have the power,
to a civilian consumer-oriented economy that they're not sure how to control.
It's tough to know what to do when you don't have an Enemy,
so they keep inventing Wars on Drugs and duping militaristic foreigners
into starting little wars that will Let America Stand Tall Again.
Maybe if enough Americans are watching the Japanese on TV,
a quieter but similar revolution will happen here?
-----
* I've got a friend who's into the old-line Communist schtick,
who had a Worker's World issue with some articles on the
disparity between East and West Germany, and how nasty it is of
the capitalists that the East German salaries are so much lower
after unification than in the West. Somehow the fact that they
were so much lower when the Communist Worker's Paradise was
running the show didn't quite sink in ......
--
Pray for peace; Bill
#Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# The government borrowed another billion dollars today - like every day.
# That's >$4 they'll steal from you later. How much did you spend on lunch?
-------------------
From: ear@wpi.WPI.EDU (Mr. Neat-O [tm])
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.005922.27@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 6 Nov 91 00:59:22 GMT
References:
How does this relate (if at all) to responsibility of, for example, a BBS on
which there is a posting of the source code or executable of a copyrighted
program? What I mean is, does this mean that a sysop cannot be held
responsible for the contents of his/her BBS? What would happen to the owners
of all the machines which store/distribute this newsgroup if I uuencoded the
executable for, as a made-up example, UltraSoft's popular new game program
"Leather-Bound Executive Accountants from Mars vs Mike Tyson" and posted it
here?
+---------< Eric A. Rasmussen - Mr. Neat-O (tm) >---------+ +< Email Address >+
| A real engineer never reads the instructions first. | | ear@wpi.wpi.edu |
| (They figure out how it works by playing with it.) | | ear%wpi@wpi.edu |
+---------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+
((( In Stereo Where Available )))
-------------------
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: mem@mv.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID: <647@mv.MV.COM>
Date: 6 Nov 91 07:06:17 GMT
References: <1991Nov2.191504.16501@alphalpha.com>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
In article <1991Nov2.191504.16501@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Quoting from clari.nb.telecom,clari.nb.top:
>>decision, the first of its kind, held that computer databases are the
>>equivalent of newsstands or book stores, whose owners cannot be held
>>liable for the content of the papers they sell unless they know
>>beforehand that the stories are false."
Where does that leave the guy who sold a copy of the 2 Live Crew album
in Florida? Didn't he recently lose a second round of appeal?
-mm-
--
Mark E. Mallett MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM ( uucp: ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA? Try MV!
-------------------
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com>
References: <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 17:17:15 GMT
>In article Barry Shein writes:
>
Joe Spencer writes:
>> This act of defiance proved so popular, Maddox was later
>> elected Governor.
>
>Well, hooray for Georgia, cough cough.
If Maddox were elected Governor of Georgia in today's
climate of political correctness, the people of Georgia
could expect punishment for exercising their constitutional
rights in the form of economic blackmail, boycotts, media
ridicule, and an endless array of other sqeeze tactics
and whippings by the intolerant fascict liberals.
After all, the liberals in Boston, Washington, NYC,
and at CBS, NBC, ABC news, and the Kennedys, the Kerrys
and the Metzenbaums know better than the people of Georgia
(or Louisiana) what is really best for them.
Just ask the people of Arizona what can happen if you
vote the "wrong way".
This economic blackmail poses a greater threat to America
and constitutional freedoms than Lester Maddox, David Duke
or an "incorrect vote" in Arizona.
> Barry Shein
>
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Thu Nov 7 10:08:11 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA27403
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 09:47:46 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 09:47:41 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111071447.AA27398@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Nov 7 09:46:56 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
FFDMG@ALASKA.bitne : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
bader@Xerox.com (L : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
robinson@mtsu.edu : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
robinson@mtsu.edu : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
galt@dsd.es.com (G : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
rawdon@cabrales.cs : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: bader@Xerox.com's message of Thu, 7 Nov 1991 01:00:48 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov7.010048.5828@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 02:54:50 GMT
>From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader) [responding to me]
>> The liberals? You mean the sort of people who are sworn to uphold the
>> constitution? The constitution and federal laws (e.g. the Civil Rights
>> Act of 1964) make the sort of views espoused by Maddox et al illegal.
>But I think the above sentence shows your true mind set -- you want to
>outlaw ideas you find objectionable, i.e: you want to restrict the most
>basic of freedoms, the freedom of thought. That is why many people
>so fear and hate the authoritarian left.
No one is arguing for the outlaw of IDEAS. You had to fabricate that
from whole cloth to even have a point to make. I never say that in the
above, the laws are against the material enactment of those ideas in a
way that causes harm or suffering to another human being.
If you want, fantasize all you want about rape/murder/theft/etc, joke
about it to your friends if you must, but go out and do it, and expect
big trouble with the law.
About the same can be said for racism. Go out and harm someone in a
racist way, and you have broken the law.
There's a big difference between an IDEA and an ACTION.
And if you really meant that I want to outlaw objectionable ACTIONS,
well, how unique. Tell us why you think murder, theft, rape etc which,
although objectionable, should not be outlawed.
Otherwise you have no point. And you are flailing against someone
other than me.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 6 Nov 91 17:43:50
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov7.010048.5828@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 03:05:05 GMT
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
>I assume the people who object to the embargo against Iraq on the
>grounds that it hurts innocent children are entirely distinct from
>those who support an embargo against South Africa which hurts innocent
>children or who support boycotting a state for failing to make
>Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday and are unmoved by the
>argument that the boycott hurts innocent people.
Although I for one do not object to any embargo against Iraq I don't
remember the South African govt or Arizona making any particular
points about these embargos hurting children. I suppose this will be
responded to with "reasonable hypothesis" rather than anything
resembling relevant facts.
The reason may be that the embargos (or boycott) were on completely
different goods in each case. Has Arizona had trouble buying food and
medical supplies lately, or selling their vast oil reserves on the
world market?
Is your point so weak that you have to stretch this far to make it?
What is your point, anyhow?
That the objections to the embargo on Iraq were founded solely on the
harm to the children, and therefore any embargo which does harm to
children must be protested to be consistent???
I never got that impression, I got the impression that the objections
were based on a far deeper disagreement with the US's (et al) handling
of the recent Gulf affair in general, and that lacking moral basis the
harm the embargo was causing to children and other non-combatants was
particularly deplorable.
Again, I don't agree with that reasoning.
But I won't play dumb to make that point when I wish to.
It's always easy to find inconsistency when you ignore most of the
facts.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: FFDMG@ALASKA.bitnet (Dean Gottehrer)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <199111070604.AA12624@eff.org>
Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 6 Nov 91 12:03:59 GMT
This may be futile, but let me try anyway. With the utmost respect I'd
like to remind all of you participating in this thread that this group
is about computers and academic freedom. This discussion has been going on
now for sometime and it clearly has nothing to do with either computers
or academic freedom. Some of us who subscribe to this group get it as
e-mail and not as a newsgroup. So we can't just kill the thread and not
have it show up in our mailboxes. Speaking for those folks, and I am one of
them, we would appreciate it if you would take your discussion to another
group where it would be much more appropriate and appreciated and
would not zJclutter our mailboxes with postings that we would prefer not to
receive. I hope you all will be gracious enough to honor our request
and move to another group with your discussion.
Thanks in advance for being considerate of the purpose of this group.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <5275@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 91 04:36:01 GMT
References:
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Distribution: na
Barry Shein writes
+
+ From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader) [responding to me]
+
+ >> The liberals? You mean the sort of people who are sworn to uphold the
+ >> constitution? The constitution and federal laws (e.g. the Civil Rights
+ >> Act of 1964) make the sort of views espoused by Maddox et al illegal.
+
+ >But I think the above sentence shows your true mind set -- you want to
+ >outlaw ideas you find objectionable, i.e: you want to restrict the most
+ >basic of freedoms, the freedom of thought. That is why many people
+ >so fear and hate the authoritarian left.
+
+ No one is arguing for the outlaw of IDEAS. You had to fabricate that
+ from whole cloth to even have a point to make. I never say that in the
+ above, the laws are against the material enactment of those ideas in a
+ way that causes harm or suffering to another human being.
Then take care of your wording...you say 'views...illegal'. Not
actions.
Char
-------------------
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <5277@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 91 04:41:28 GMT
References:
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Distribution: na
Barry Shein writes
+
+ From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
+ >I assume the people who object to the embargo against Iraq on the
+ >grounds that it hurts innocent children are entirely distinct from
+ >those who support an embargo against South Africa which hurts innocent
+ >children or who support boycotting a state for failing to make
+ >Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday and are unmoved by the
+ >argument that the boycott hurts innocent people.
+
+ Although I for one do not object to any embargo against Iraq I don't
+ remember the South African govt or Arizona making any particular
+ points about these embargos hurting children. I suppose this will be
+ responded to with "reasonable hypothesis" rather than anything
+ resembling relevant facts.
Children? What children? Or are they the only innocents???
+
+ The reason may be that the embargos (or boycott) were on completely
+ different goods in each case. Has Arizona had trouble buying food and
+ medical supplies lately, or selling their vast oil reserves on the
+ world market?
+
+ Is your point so weak that you have to stretch this far to make it?
+
+ What is your point, anyhow?
I would say that the point, at least WRT Arizona, is that outsiders are
interfering in things that are, when all is said and done, inconsequential.
And when folks get used to interfering like that, they'll keep doing it.
Eventually they'll tell you what to think, how to think it, and when
to think it.
Long Live Big Brother.
Char
-------------------
From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: news@parc.xerox.com
References:
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 05:35:29 GMT
In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
> From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader) [responding to me]
>
> >> The liberals? You mean the sort of people who are sworn to uphold the
> >> constitution? The constitution and federal laws (e.g. the Civil Rights
> >> Act of 1964) make the sort of views espoused by Maddox et al illegal.
>
> >But I think the above sentence shows your true mind set -- you want to
> >outlaw ideas you find objectionable, i.e: you want to restrict the most
> >basic of freedoms, the freedom of thought. That is why many people
> >so fear and hate the authoritarian left.
>
> No one is arguing for the outlaw of IDEAS. You had to fabricate that
I didn't have to fabricate anything. Since you are either blind,
semiliterate, or dishonest, I will reprint from a few inches above the line
which caused me to draw this conclusion:
> >> The constitution and federal laws (e.g. the Civil Rights
> >> Act of 1964) make the sort of views espoused by Maddox et al illegal.
----- -------- -------
> from whole cloth to even have a point to make. I never say that in the
> above, the laws are against the material enactment of those ideas in a
> way that causes harm or suffering to another human being.
>
> If you want, fantasize all you want about rape/murder/theft/etc, joke
> about it to your friends if you must, but go out and do it, and expect
Where the h*ll did you get the idea that I'm into any of the above. You dumb
sh*t, it's you who are fantasizing.
> big trouble with the law.
>
> About the same can be said for racism. Go out and harm someone in a
> racist way, and you have broken the law.
Recently, there have been efforts to punish people for their thoughts. We see
this in the harassment debate (*), where speech is increasingly legislated not
only between superior and subordinate, where it might be part of implicit
coercion, but also between co-workers, where the only motive for controlling
speech can be to prevent someone from having to know that someone else is
having thoughts about them that they regard as unpleasant, i.e: sexual
advances where there is no implied threat if one does not accept, and politely
made remarks which happen to be politically incorrect. So my thoughts that
there is a desire for thought control and speech control are not unfounded.
(*) Invariably this will lead into the Hill/Thomas thing. Suffice it to
say that I find Hill more credible, but don't think that that case
should be the prism through which we view the entire issue.
>
> There's a big difference between an IDEA and an ACTION.
And my concern was that you didn't grasp it.
>
> And if you really meant that I want to outlaw objectionable ACTIONS,
> well, how unique. Tell us why you think murder, theft, rape etc which,
> although objectionable, should not be outlawed.
These are different cases. It is easy to determine when murder, theft, and
rape have occurred according to the traditional definitions (although the
Dworkin/MacKinnon all-men-are-rapists if-you-didn't-enjoy-it-it-was-rape school
of thought is changing the situation on rape), and uncontroversial to enforce
them. It is hard to tell when discrimination has occurred, and the government
is unqualified to judge the hiring decisions of a private business.
>
> Otherwise you have no point. And you are flailing against someone
> other than me.
No, I've quoted your own words.
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
--
Lars E. Bader
Email: leb@athena.mit.edu, bader@parc.xerox.com
Disclaimer: My views may not reflect those of MIT,
Xerox, or any other organization (and probably don't).
-------------------
From: robinson@mtsu.edu (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Sender: knuth!robinson@uunet.UU.NET
References:
Date: 7 Nov 91 06:01:00 GMT
>I went over to a pretty good bookstore (not great) in an attempt to
>nail down some of these Lester Maddox stories. Interestingly, I could
>find almost no mention of him other than in passing (of the variety
>"such policies were more associated with folks like Maddox or ...")
Hey Barry, next time, try a pretty good library. Bookstores are there
for one reason only ... to sell books. They are *very* unlikely to have
much 'out of date' or otherwise 'historical' information. Libraries,
on the other hand, are just chock-full of this sort of information. As
big a deal as the Lester Maddox business was in the '60's, I bet you
could find reel after reel of microfilmed newspapers with excruciating
details on 'ole Lester. Try searching the old familiar _Reader's_Guide_
_to_Periodical_Literature_. You'll be surprised at how much information
there is on Lester and the entire Civil Rights movement. I'm sorry, but
I'd be suspicious of anyone who depended on a bookstore for historical
information, especially if you want anything other than the author's
(who is trying to sell *this* book, *right*now*) recent opinions. While
I haven't yet read Ralph Abernathy's autobiography (it's in the queue) I
wonder if his recollections have maybe been fogged by the passage of
time. On the other hand, there is justification for suspicion that the
'eye witness' reports of the incidents, lo, these many years ago, could
be biased too... being as how the national news media was very much into
Southern-bashing at the time. (Fire-hoses in Alabama was *such* an
abomination, but riot guns and tear-gas in Chicago was 'prudence'.) ...
keeping an open mind is such a hassle :-)
>Well, hooray for Georgia, cough cough.
This gentleman obviously didn't grow up in the land of grits and kudzu,
y'all. :-)
>--
> -Barry Shein
>
>Software Tool & Die| bzs@world.std.com| uunet!world!bzs
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202| Login: 617-739-WRLD
David Robinson robinson@mtsu.edu
Automation Librarian
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
Disclaimer: They don't ask me to endorse their screwy ideas, I don't
ask them to endorse mine.
-------------------
From: robinson@mtsu.edu (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Sender: knuth!robinson@uunet.UU.NET
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 91 07:30:41 GMT
>>Well, hooray for Georgia, cough cough.
>
>Is this ordinary stupidity on your part, or is there some spectacular
>significance to your Barry-come-lately misunderstandings regarding an
>entire segment of our national history of which you very obviously
>have no knowledge.
>
>While I'm here and at it, how is it that modern liberals can be so
>politically correct as to overwhelm the very essence of liberal
>philosophies with "more sophisticated" agenda?
>
>I remind you, Mr. Shein, that your atitude towards your fellow citizens
>and the belittling of them, even across the timeframe involved, is every
>bit as petty, demeaning, and dimunitive as the behavior of those you decry
>as racists. Indeed, the typical Boston snobbery is even more disgusting.
>
>You're tripping over your own ideals. I recommend you get your nose
>down out of the air before you fall over the racial problems in your
>own rednecked part of the woods. If I had to venture a guess, Atlanta
>today probably has fewer racial incidents per capita today than Boston.
>
>
>Bill Vajk
ahem, (he said quietly,) since the net provides us with the ability to
interject commentary without appearing rude, and since it has *always*
been the essence of southern culture (regardless of race, creed, or
generally 'previous condition of servitude' ... although, we do tend to
frown upon pederasts ...) to perpetuate the classic spirit of common
courtesy and politeness, I'd venture to guess, that Mr. Shein has never
visited the land of Grits and Kudzu. As a gesture, I'd like to offer to
introduce Mr. Shein, and any one else who cares to partake, to the
common life 'down here' below the "Mason-Dixon". Why, shucks, they's
times where'n we'uns even go downtown without 'ar shoot'n 'arns 'r axe
han'les at'all. y'all.
Sorry. I've been out of town for the past week. Remarkably enough,
since I've been gone, there've been several hundred postings to CAF-talk
that consisted of 50 to 200 lines, each of which consisted mostly of
echoed repititions of previous postings and only contributed marginally
to anything more than the general background noise level. (as does this
message, I'm sure :-) When I was about 6 years old, me and my
Grandmother used to watch "As the World Turns" every afternoon. We
could skip it for a week and come back and not feel like we had missed
a single thing. I get the strangest sense of deja vu when participating
in this newsgroup. I'm sure I'm completely off-base, and I'm sure you
will not hesitate in pointing out the errors of my ways :-) but I wonder,
is anyone on this list using participation in CAF-talk, as a
justification for tenure? If so has your committee read the volume of
yammering that goes on here, or have you just submitted excerpts of the
rare pithy commentary, or some previously published document quoted
verbatem by Carl?
Sorry again ... while we Southerners love to talk, we *hate* hearing
the same ol' gossip repeated over and over. If y'all don't have
something new to say, 'get off the porch'. Ooooh, well, I guess *that*
wasn't very polite, was it?
David Robinson robinson@mtsu.edu
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
Disclaimer: MTSU doesn't ask me for my opinion, and I don't ask them
for theirs. So far we've gotten along just fine.
-------------------
From: galt@dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.075406.26626@dsd.es.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.cenorship
Sender: usenet@dsd.es.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.85.107
References:
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 07:54:06 GMT
In article , jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> I assume the people who object to the embargo against Iraq on the
> grounds that it hurts innocent children are entirely distinct from
> those who support an embargo against South Africa which hurts innocent
> children or who support boycotting a state for failing to make
> Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday and are unmoved by the
> argument that the boycott hurts innocent people.
Wasn't someone complaining a few weeks ago about someone who was confusing
embargos and blockades? And of course, if you ask conservatives, they'll
say that an embargo against South Africa will hurt the people, but embargos
against Cuba and Nicaragua were perfectly ok.
So I guess that makes everyone either apolitical or hypocritical.
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"I speak only for myself" -me ) "But if someone came for you one night
_ _ _ _ ___ ) and dragged you away, do you really
( ` D L ( ` /_\ | | ) think your neighbors would even care?"
\7 |\ L \7 | | L_ | ) --Jello Biafra,
(galt@dsd.es.com) ) _Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors_
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.050345.5036@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 05:03:45 GMT
In article <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Steve Brack doesn't no. In other words, the charges that Steven Brack
>were found guilty of are secret, even from Steven.
They are? I thought the letter specifically mentions a hearing.
Perhaps this might shed some light, before you jump to conclusions.
-------------------
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.040733.6768@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
References:
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 04:07:33 GMT
In SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>>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.
>Welcome to the real world.
>Now you have a solid example of how University administrations really operate.
>Illinois may be an exception (I doubt it) but OSU is more the norm in actual
>operation.
>Now you also know that to a University Administration, fancy words in academic
>freedom declarations do not have much impact.
So, does this mean that you support OSU's actions and decisions as represented
in this newsgroup (as you implicitly take the representation to be an accurate
one by your words above)?
Does this mean that you feel people who disagree with the actions and decisions
should continue to fight to make the words mean something in a practical
sense, or do you think we should all just give up because it's hopeless?
Your words say to me that you are missing the very point of what Carl (and
others) have been saying. So let me ask you: What is it about Carl's
statements that prompts you to take such a snobbish and condescending tone
when responding to him? Such a tone probably does little to ingraciate Carl
to you or your position, and it definitely does nothing to sway me.
--
Michael Rawdon rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
Is vi a more advanced version of ai?
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Thu Nov 7 10:32:57 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA27084
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 09:42:35 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 09:42:27 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111071442.AA27073@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Nov 7 09:41:32 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
learn@ddsw1.MCS.CO : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
FANSHEN@ccvm.sunys : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
whg@INEL.GOV (Will : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
jxxl@taurus.cs.nps : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
goehring@mentor.cc : Re: I Move the Previous Question
dks@athena.mit.edu : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
donb@igor.tamri.co : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: (alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk) Re: Steve Brack's Letter
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bader@Xerox.com (L : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
jmc@SAIL.Stanford. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
Message-ID: <9111051343.AA13599@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 5 Nov 91 03:43:23 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
>
>Department of Computer Science
>
>Computer Use Policy
>
[....]
>3. Working Environment
>
[....]
>
> 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.
>
Does this mean that U of Texas does not carry alt.flame? What about
criticizing University or departmental policy? Hmmmm, I'm not sure that
I like this clause too much; it seems overbroad at best. Could someone at U
of Texas report on enforcement of this clause?
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.133746.22621@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 13:37:46 GMT
In article Barry Shein writes:
>From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
>>They have libraries in Boston and the suburbs, no ??????
>Your neck of the woods too, no? What did you find out? (Nothing, oh
>well.)
Barry, you are, as is well established already, a complete jerk.
I don't need to go to the library to review matters which happened
during my lifetime, in particular, in places I was at the time. Getting
reality checks regarding your life and times begins to sound like the
sort of thing you should do.....frequently.
>>While I'm here and at it, how is it that modern liberals can be so
>>politically correct as to overwhelm the very essence of liberal
>>philosophies with "more sophisticated" agenda?
>If eschewing the active practice of racism and advocacy of the
>mistreatment of other citizens because of the color of their skin is
>"PC" then I'm all for it.
Wrong argument, jerko. You participate actively with the same taunts
used by racists. You carefully select victims so that racism is not
an issue, but an identical brutality remains. And it is for similar
reasons. Not to bring about societal or individual change, but to
place yourself, in your eyes, as better than someone else by demeaning
others.
Of course racism is terrible. Does that license identical mistreatment
of other citizens because they are of the same race as you? Your behavior
indicates it does. This leaves you in the untenable position of acting in
a patronizing manner towards minorities. You bash members of your own
race ONLY.
Bashing your own only would be OK, if you weren't doing it under a banner
that screams "Look here, Barry Shein is a good guy. I only dump on Whitey."
You're about as racist as they come, bub. Time to wake up and smell the
coffee. Whatever is inappropriate for you to say to or about a person of
another race is just as equally inappropriate to say to or about a member
of your own race.
>Some day perhaps you will understand that there's no real difference
>between condemning racism and condemning someone who rapes your
>sister.
Once you start patronizing, it seems you just can't quit, eh ?
>At some point, you have to draw a moral line.
I'm condemning your racism, Barry. I'm condemning your criticism of
events past of which you know nothing and about which you can do
absolutely nothing. I'm condemning the lip service you pay to resolving
racism while carefully avoiding actually doing something about it
in your own community. Those of us who pay attention to issues facing
this society know that Boston is one of the most racially troubled
spots in the USA today. There's plenty of fertile ground for doing some
good instead of attacking people who are more aware than you of what
the problems are, and are actively trying to help society progress a bit.
>If you were to tell me you were too understanding and non-PC to
>condemn murderers, rapists and theives, then perhaps you would have an
>argument.
>But you don't, so you don't.
I would much prefer a society which had the resources to consider each
abhorrent behavior as a treatable aberration. We tend, most of us, to
do this with larger groupings deemed a subculture. We condemn individuals
who are part of that subculture.
>To the devil with this amoralistic, nihilist babble. You will never
>build an argument which convinces me the practice of racism, to the
>detriment of others, is to be tolerated.
Please show me where I have attempted to build such an argument.
On top of your obvious racism, Barry, you come off as a flaming liar.
Bill Vajk
-------------------
From: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <199111061638.AA27260@eff.org>
Sender: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu
References:
Date: 6 Nov 91 16:35:06 GMT
With regard to all of us people who know better than the people of
Louisiana what is best for them, I have no problem deciding that Nazism and
racisim are not good. I don't think it is an act of intellectual arrogance
to oppose Nazism and racism, and I don't think it is a threat to America to
boycott states that elect Nazis and racists. I understand that there are
those who are attracted by Nazism and racism and they may want to economically
boycott New York State for not electing Nazis. I can live with that.
Frank Anshen
-------------------
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.160936.23426@inel.gov>
Sender: news@inel.gov
References: <1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov> <1991Nov5.131542.1124@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 16:09:36 GMT
In article <1991Nov5.131542.1124@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes:
|> In article <1991Nov5.014654.18864@inel.gov> William H. Gray writes:
[My previous post deleted.]
Don't press ^n for real now if you want to read this post; the line below is relevant to
my reply:
|>
|> >========== long legal disclaimer follows, press ^n to skip =========
|>
[It will appear again ... sorry :-(]
|> You write three lines of text, followed by 16 lines of sig and disclaimers
|> and you think Lester's action was bizarre? Get a grip on yourself, man.
Your intolerance is showing. Why didn't you press ^n? The disclaimer is added to every
post by our news server at the behest of those who run the place. I have no control over
it. I would replace it with something more appropriate if I could. Chalk it up to legal
paranoia.
|> Given that the temperament in the old South in those days was still to grab
|> a gun if folks were 'doing wrong' it seems to me that Lester took a more
|> rational path.
|>
|> What is less rational is to sit in the comfort of 1991 and make generalized
|> statements about a period of which one apparently knows very little.
I was in GA twice in the early sixties (bus trips). I thought Maddox was an idiot then;
I still do. He may have done an admirable job as governor. Hitler made the trains run
on time. So what?
REMEMBER TO PRESS ^N THIS TIME!
--
Bill Gray (whg@INEL.GOV) | "Purgamentum init,
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory | exit purgamentum."
P.O. Box 1625-2090, Idaho Falls ID 83415 | - Gigo
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
-------------------
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <3254@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 6 Nov 91 17:09:19 GMT
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com>
joe@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) writes:
< If Maddox were elected Governor of Georgia in today's
< climate of political correctness, the people of Georgia
< could expect punishment for exercising their constitutional
< rights in the form of economic blackmail, boycotts, media
< ridicule, and an endless array of other sqeeze tactics
< and whippings by the intolerant fascict liberals.
Think of it, instead, as peer pressure. Think of it as the L-worders
celebrating the joy of living. Think of yourself as a relic of days
gone by. But don't be unhappy: chewing tobacco remains affordable
to all.
John
-------------------
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Nov 91 18:02:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.GOEHRING.91Nov6130204
References: <9C2BD44A804018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<1991Oct30.050017.8234@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct30.170419.23217@eff.org>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
In-reply-to: kadie@eff.org's message of 30 Oct 91 17:04:19 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I hope that a good policy will be helpful in reducing conflict
>between users and sys admins.
A better idea is to hire good sysadmins, and to convince both users
and sysadmins to dump the "us against them" attitude.
--
There's a lot of overweight people in the world, many are arguably
food-addicts. Shall we outlaw chocolate cake?
-- Mike Percy (grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu), alt.censorship
-------------------
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (Dhanesh K Samarasan)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.180823.12668@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 6 Nov 91 18:08:23 GMT
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Nov6.133746.22621@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-10.mit.edu
In article <1991Nov6.133746.22621@ddsw1.MCS.COM> learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes (mostly about Barry Shein):
[...]
>Barry, you are, as is well established already, a complete jerk.
Your comment suggests to me that (at least) one of the following is true:
1. There was a vote on this question and I missed it.
2. You define "well established" [sic] as "Bill Vajk thinks so."
3. You define "jerk" as "one who does not agree with Bill Vajk."
4. Your standard of proof is lower than mine.
>I don't need to go to the library to review matters which happened
>during my lifetime, in particular, in places I was at the time.
Do you ever read local news-papers or watch the local news on television?
If so, why? Do you somehow filter out everything but the raw facts? If so,
how? Do you ever read to find out what your contemporaries think? If so,
where? And if you always generate your own context for everything,
how do you ever change your mind?
>>If eschewing the active practice of racism and advocacy of the
>>mistreatment of other citizens because of the color of their skin is
>>"PC" then I'm all for it.
>
>Wrong argument, jerko. You participate actively with the same taunts
>used by racists. You carefully select victims so that racism is not
>an issue, but an identical brutality remains. And it is for similar
>reasons. Not to bring about societal or individual change, but to
>place yourself, in your eyes, as better than someone else by demeaning
>others.
What "taunts used by racists" did Barry use? It may not surprise you
to hear that they slipped right past me.
Why do you say that Barry selects "victims"? If I "victimize"
someone by criticizing what I perceive to be their mistakes, then
why aren't murderers victims, too? Or is it precisely your point
that racists are victims? If it is, in fact, your point, please confirm.
And if I suspect that someone may feel demeaned when I point out what
I perceive to be their mistakes, then should I remain silent? Or is it
your point that I should try not to demean people when I accuse them
of wrong-doing? If it is, in fact, your point that there is a proper
etiquette to be followed when raising a protest, please confirm.
>Of course racism is terrible. Does that license identical mistreatment
>of other citizens because they are of the same race as you?
When you ask whether "citizens" should be mistreated, are you implying that
non-citizens do not have a right to proper treatment?
But I digress. To address what I take to be your main point, consider the
following statement:
"Most people of my own race are racists."
Would you agree that this statement is inherently racist? If so, please
confirm. Now consider the following statement:
"Most people are racists, and many of them are of my own race."
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether most people are racists,
would you say that this statement is inherently racist?
>Bashing your own only would be OK, if you weren't doing it under a banner
>that screams "Look here, Barry Shein is a good guy. I only dump on Whitey."
>You're about as racist as they come, bub.
If I believe my brother to be a racist, am I wrong to tell him? Or is
it wrong to tell him only if believe myself not to be a racist? Or, can
I only tell him if I also mention our (racist) neighbors so that he does
not feel threatened or demeaned by my criticism? Which is it?
>I'm condemning your racism, Barry. I'm condemning your criticism of
>events past of which you know nothing and about which you can do
>absolutely nothing.
If your point is that people should not be judged by the moral
standards of later times, please confirm. If your point is that
people should not be judged by any moral standards but their own,
please confirm. If your point is that people should not
be judged by any moral standards because moral standards do not
exist, please say so.
>I'm condemning the lip service you pay to resolving
>racism while carefully avoiding actually doing something about it
>in your own community. Those of us who pay attention to issues facing
>this society know that Boston is one of the most racially troubled
>spots in the USA today.
"Those of us who pay attention to issues facing this society"? Please,
give me a break. Do you know anyone who would admit to not doing so?
Why should anyone take seriously such an assertion when it is so obviously
unfalsifiable?
As for your other remarks, Boston may have its problems, and Barry
may be contributing to them, but how do you know? Do you follow him
around?
>>To the devil with this amoralistic, nihilist babble. You will never
>>build an argument which convinces me the practice of racism, to the
>>detriment of others, is to be tolerated.
>Please show me where I have attempted to build such an argument.
If you read carefully, you will see that Barry does not accuse you of
having built such an argument.
As for me, I agree with you even more strongly than Barry does on this
point: I can't see where you have attempted to build any argument at all.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
-------------------
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.164327.9539@igor.tamri.com>
Date: 6 Nov 91 16:43:27 GMT
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com>
In article <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com> joe@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) writes:
> If Maddox were elected Governor of Georgia in today's
> climate of political correctness, the people of Georgia
> could expect punishment for exercising their constitutional
> rights in the form of economic blackmail, boycotts, media
> ridicule, and an endless array of other sqeeze tactics
> and whippings by the intolerant fascict liberals.
> After all, the liberals in Boston, Washington, NYC,
> and at CBS, NBC, ABC news, and the Kennedys, the Kerrys
> and the Metzenbaums know better than the people of Georgia
> (or Louisiana) what is really best for them.
> Just ask the people of Arizona what can happen if you
> vote the "wrong way".
>
> This economic blackmail poses a greater threat to America
> and constitutional freedoms than Lester Maddox, David Duke
> or an "incorrect vote" in Arizona.
Take a Valium, Joe.
Tell me honestly, who's writing your material for you these days:
Clayton?
donb, occasionally Politically Correct, rarely Patriotically Correct
-------------------
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: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk] Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111061957.AA29448@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 6 Nov 91 19:57:24 GMT
From a purely legal standpoint, I was given the charges, i.e. the laws
I was alleged to have violated, but not the specifications, the actions which
resulted in the alleged violations.
-- Steve
-------------------
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 6 Nov 91 23:23:00 GMT
>
>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,
Welcome to the real world.
Now you have a solid example of how University administrations really operate.
Illinois may be an exception (I doubt it) but OSU is more the norm in actual
operation.
Now you also know that to a University Administration, fancy words in academic
freedom declarations do not have much impact.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com's message of Tue, 5 Nov 91 17:17:15 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov4.143915.25381@swbatl.sbc.com>
<1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
<1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 23:42:36 GMT
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
> If Maddox were elected Governor of Georgia in today's
> climate of political correctness, the people of Georgia
> could expect punishment for exercising their constitutional
> rights in the form of economic blackmail, boycotts, media
> ridicule, and an endless array of other sqeeze tactics
> and whippings by the intolerant fascict liberals.
Lessee, if the people of georgia moved towards intolerant racism it
would be unfair if it were not tolerated...
Somehow you seem to be arguing for rights without any responsibility
or rights which are immune to all resistance.
And I assume you feel that blacks in the state who suddenly found
themselves the target of racist legislation would be unfair if they
lifted a finger to oppose this, as clearly they'd just be intolerant
of the "right" to oppress them?
hmm.
> After all, the liberals in Boston, Washington, NYC,
> and at CBS, NBC, ABC news, and the Kennedys, the Kerrys
> and the Metzenbaums know better than the people of Georgia
> (or Louisiana) what is really best for them.
The liberals? You mean the sort of people who are sworn to uphold the
constitution? The constitution and federal laws (e.g. the Civil Rights
Act of 1964) make the sort of views espoused by Maddox et al illegal.
Um, allowing blacks equal protection under the law is no longer
exactly a "liberal" cause. Tho it certainly was 30 years ago. Maybe
you need to catch up?
> Just ask the people of Arizona what can happen if you
> vote the "wrong way".
Indeed, and take warning...
> This economic blackmail poses a greater threat to America
> and constitutional freedoms than Lester Maddox, David Duke
> or an "incorrect vote" in Arizona.
If I don't want to spend a dollar with a racist that isn't my right?
What do you propose? Hold a gun to someone's head and force him into
the racist's "store" (or state) to do business?
In a free-market system getting people to do business with you takes
more than merely exercising your rights to their extreme and showing
you have broken no laws!
I can't even imagine what the alternative you are proposing is.
But I'm pretty sure the system you envision only would apply to people
like yourself. Why else would you defend the "right to be a vicious
racist"? Surely not out of a sense of fair-play!
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM's message of Wed, 6 Nov 1991 13:37:46 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
<1991Nov6.133746.22621@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 23:48:23 GMT
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes, obviously lacking an
argument...
>Barry, you are, as is well established already, a complete jerk.
Well, thank you Bill, I assure you I value your opinion on such things
deeply.
>Of course racism is terrible.
Of course of course. But let's not lift a finger to change it...
Who do you think you're kidding?
Not me, friend.
It would be nice if the rest of your assertions were backed up by any
quotes.
I think you're psychotically locked into a fight with a devil that
ain't me.
You sound like a guy who gets into a fight with his wife or something
and walks out and gives a blast of shit to the first person he meets
on the street.
Sorry for being on the street...
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.010048.5828@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: news@parc.xerox.com
References:
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 01:00:48 GMT
In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> The liberals? You mean the sort of people who are sworn to uphold the
> constitution? The constitution and federal laws (e.g. the Civil Rights
> Act of 1964) make the sort of views espoused by Maddox et al illegal.
I agree you have every right to boycott bigots; I encourage you to do so.
But I think the above sentence shows your true mind set -- you want to
outlaw ideas you find objectionable, i.e: you want to restrict the most
basic of freedoms, the freedom of thought. That is why many people
so fear and hate the authoritarian left.
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
--
Lars E. Bader
Email: leb@athena.mit.edu, bader@parc.xerox.com
Disclaimer: My views may not reflect those of MIT,
Xerox, or any other organization (and probably don't).
-------------------
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: bader@Xerox.com's message of Thu, 7 Nov 1991 01:00:48 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References:
<1991Nov7.010048.5828@parc.xerox.com>
Date: 6 Nov 91 17:43:50
I assume the people who object to the embargo against Iraq on the
grounds that it hurts innocent children are entirely distinct from
those who support an embargo against South Africa which hurts innocent
children or who support boycotting a state for failing to make
Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday and are unmoved by the
argument that the boycott hurts innocent people.
--
"There's not a woman in his book, the plot hinges on unkindness to
animals, and the black characters mostly drown by chapter 29."
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Nov 8 11:39:32 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA06592
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:25:24 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:25:19 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111081625.AA06587@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 8 11:24:14 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex, et al.) Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women, et al.) Re: yahweh is good posting
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
brown@castor.cs.ug : Civil Rights Act of 1964
rickert@mp.cs.niu. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
FANSHEN@ccvm.sunys : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
FANSHEN@ccvm.sunys : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
FANSHEN@ccvm.sunys : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jaw@owlnet.rice.ed : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
marchany@vtserf.cc : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.175959.1475@swbatl.sbc.com>
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com> <3254@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:59:59 GMT
In article <3254@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>joe@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) writes:
>
>< If Maddox were elected Governor of Georgia in today's
>< climate of political correctness, the people of Georgia
>< could expect punishment for exercising their constitutional
>< rights in the form of economic blackmail, boycotts, media
>< ridicule, and an endless array of other sqeeze tactics
>< and whippings by the intolerant fascict liberals.
>
>Think of it, instead, as peer pressure. Think of it as the L-worders
>celebrating the joy of living. Think of yourself as a relic of days
>gone by. But don't be unhappy: chewing tobacco remains affordable
>to all.
Ahhhh, yes. The typical, pompous liberal response.
Subtly attact someone by ridiculing his Southern
heritage and customs.
Spittt.......teeewweyyy!!!!!
>
>John
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9111071452.AA06189@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Nov 91 02:52:39 GMT
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Date: 6 Nov 91 16:57:53 GMT
> 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?
Speaking for myself, I would have responded the same way if it had been
a female
posting the same story. To me, it is the content of the post rather than the
race/gender/orientation of the poster that matters.
David Hunt
Grad Student, Mechanical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
========================================================
My mind is my own, so are my ideas and opinions.
My heart, body, and soul, however, all belong to others.
"There are no personal problems which cannot be solved
by the suitable application of high explosives."
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9111071452.AA06180@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Nov 91 02:52:29 GMT
From: Mortal@cup.portal.com (Craig Scott Nelson)
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <70CCBB6DC2A198B0@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 7 Nov 91 14:57:00 GMT
>>Welcome to the real world.
>
>>Now you have a solid example of how University administrations really operate.
>
>>Illinois may be an exception (I doubt it) but OSU is more the norm in actual
>>operation.
>
>>Now you also know that to a University Administration, fancy words in academic
>>freedom declarations do not have much impact.
>
>So, does this mean that you support OSU's actions and decisions as represented
>in this newsgroup (as you implicitly take the representation to be an accurate
>one by your words above)?
I do not have enough information to agree or disagree with OSU's action. I
may tend to agree with OSU if Mr. Brack was as disruptive as OSU seems to have
claimed he was. The University's primary purpose is not to be a court of
justice but to be an educational institution.
>
>Does this mean that you feel people who disagree with the actions and decisions
>should continue to fight to make the words mean something in a practical
>sense, or do you think we should all just give up because it's hopeless?
>
Whoever fights the administration should know that it is very difficult to
really win. It is almost hopeless, but if you are willing to accept that
eventuality and be counted a martyr to the cause, go ahead, fight.
In other words, to make the words mean something in a practical sense, the
fight should also be a practical fight, not a Quixotic one. When fighting for
your ideals, as when fighting for anything else, your should judge your
opponents strenghts and weaknesses and find the best strategy and tactics
for your attack rather than just blindly forging ahead.
I do not want some poor soul who has no idea of the power of the beaurocracy
to fight. Only those who are fully cognizant of the consequences and likely
outcome and are willing to make the sacrifice should do this.
To put all the above into simple words: Get a good lawyer if you want to
fight.
Mr. Brack may eventually win the fight but it may cost him a few years of his
time.
>Your words say to me that you are missing the very point of what Carl (and
>others) have been saying.
I am not missing the point, I just do not agree with some of them, especially
the ones urging young innocents to action without any idea of the opponent's
real power (sort of like the Children's crusades to free the Holy Land in the
Middle ages)
> So let me ask you: What is it about Carl's
>statements that prompts you to take such a snobbish and condescending tone
>when responding to him? Such a tone probably does little to ingraciate Carl
>to you or your position, and it definitely does nothing to sway me.
>
Whatever gave you the idea that I am attempting to ingratiate Carl or you?
The reason I responded the way I did was that Carl was getting a bit too
emotional in his outrage at Mr. Brack's dismissal. I was surprised that Carl
had not realized that given the charges against Mr. Brack, his expulsion was a
foregone conclusion.
>--
>Michael Rawdon rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
>University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
>
>Is vi a more advanced version of ai?
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: brown@castor.cs.uga.edu (DANIEL BROWN)
Subject: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.173553.5642@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 91 17:35:53 GMT
References:
Sender: news@athena.cs.uga.edu
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>Even in 1964 we knew the difference between right and wrong. And
>Maddox was wrong. In 1964 the "Civil Rights Act" was passed putting an
>end to things like white and colored bathrooms and water fountains.
>
Obviously "we" didn't know the difference between right and wrong. The Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was wrong because it took away the freedom of individual
business owners to engage in free trade - they no longer had a choice of whom
they did business with.
--
Daniel Brown (brown@castor.cs.uga.edu)
"What would you do if the people you knew
Were the plastic that melted and the chromium too?"
-Mothers of Invention, "Who Are The Brain Police?"
-------------------
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 91 17:54:33 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org>
In article <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>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
As I read all this I see something quite different from what Carl
sees.
What show up, as I see it, is the following:
1. Brack commits some minor infractions.
2. OSU brings this fact to Brack's attention, and very clearly
communicates to Brack that he should not do this.
3. Instead of interpreting this as "Thou shalt not commit such
infractions", Brack apparently interpreted it as "Thou shalt
not be found out" so we proceeded to find ways around the
restrictions that had been placed on him.
4. Brack was "found out".
5. OSU people were angered at this apparent direct attack on
their policies, and decided to "throw the book" at Brack.
Did OSU overreact? Probably.
Was Brack asking for trouble? Surely he was. If he didn't understand
the very clear messages OSU was giving him, his IQ would have to be well
below what is reasonable for a college student.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 19:22:12 GMT
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> Did OSU overreact? Probably.
> Was Brack asking for trouble? Surely he was. If he didn't understand
>the very clear messages OSU was giving him, his IQ would have to be well
>below what is reasonable for a college student.
[...]
Steven Brack always assumed that Ohio State University and Academic
Computing Services would follow the law. In this he was mistaken.
Specifically, ACS punished him for breaking nonexistent rules (i.e.
using two Macs, posting "fuck you") and expelled him from ACS
computers without due process (i.e. permanent computer expulsion, no
chance to appeal). OSU refused to specify the charges against him and
then expelled him.
It is possible that both Steven and Ohio State University are in the
wrong. Steven, at the time a freshman, has already been punished with
computer and school explusions. Ohio State University, a government
school, has gotten away scot free.
- 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: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <199111072025.AA07487@eff.org>
Sender: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu
References:
Date: 7 Nov 91 20:22:36 GMT
Sanjay,
I understand the unfairness of Mr. Brack being expelled for violations
which were never specified. And I understand your point that unfairness
does happen in the real world. What I don't understand is your apparent
glee at the juxtaposition of these two facts.
Frank Anshen
-------------------
From: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <199111072033.AA07683@eff.org>
Sender: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu
References:
Date: 7 Nov 91 20:29:57 GMT
John, The boycott of Iraq is the proximate cause of the death of large
numbers of innocent children and the Iraqis have no choice in the
matter given the deliberate destruction of infrastructure by the
liberators of Kuwait. South Africa has more than enough resources to
feed all of its children, with or without a boycott. The lack is will
not resources and the boycott is designed to end the situation in which
the majority of the population lives in abject poverty to support the
minority in fine style. I would be interested to hear of any children
starving in Arizona as a result of the Martin Luther King day boycott.
Frank Anshen
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111072038.AA11513@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 7 Nov 91 20:38:33 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.050345.5036@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> you write:
> In article <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> >Steve Brack doesn't no. In other words, the charges that Steven Brack
> >were found guilty of are secret, even from Steven.
>
> They are? I thought the letter specifically mentions a hearing.
> Perhaps this might shed some light, before you jump to conclusions.
I got a hearing. At my hearing, no connection *was ever made* between
the charges against me & the specific actions committed.
-- Steve
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111072047.AA11739@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 7 Nov 91 20:47:05 GMT
In article you write:
> >
> >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,
>
> Welcome to the real world.
>
> Now you have a solid example of how University administrations really operate.
> Illinois may be an exception (I doubt it) but OSU is more the norm in actual
> operation.
>
> Now you also know that to a University Administration, fancy words in academic
> freedom declarations do not have much impact.
>
But does that mean we shouldn't try?
When persons of reason cease to check the unreasonable acts of others,
we cease to exist as a society.
>>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>
> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov07.204640.17669@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 20:46:40 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>
In article <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>>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
>
> As I read all this I see something quite different from what Carl
>sees.
>
> What show up, as I see it, is the following:
I see it this way:
>
> 1. Brack commits some minor infractions.
Brack did something that OSU considered to be a minor infraction.
It may have not been an infraction at all. It may not even have happened
the way OSU described.
> 2. OSU brings this fact to Brack's attention, and very clearly
> communicates to Brack that he should not do this.
OSU places arbitrary and severe restrictions on Brack as punishment
for these alleged infractions.
> 3. Instead of interpreting this as "Thou shalt not commit such
> infractions", Brack apparently interpreted it as "Thou shalt
> not be found out" so we proceeded to find ways around the
> restrictions that had been placed on him.
Brack, finding these restrictions unacceptable and unwarranted, uses machines
not under the control of the authority punishing Brack. He also allows
someone else to use an account of his not under that authority's control.
That someone else uses that account through a machine which IS under that
authority's control. All things which that authority has no grounds to
prohibit.
> 4. Brack was "found out".
This perfectly legitimate circumvention of the punishment angers the
authority.
> 5. OSU people were angered at this apparent direct attack on
> their policies, and decided to "throw the book" at Brack.
>
> Did OSU overreact? Probably.
> Was Brack asking for trouble? Surely he was. If he didn't understand
>the very clear messages OSU was giving him, his IQ would have to be well
>below what is reasonable for a college student.
Is your solution to "knuckle under" to arbitrary and capricious abuse of
power?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.211315.16440@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org>
Date: 7 Nov 91 21:13:15 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>[...]
>> Did OSU overreact? Probably.
>
>> Was Brack asking for trouble? Surely he was. If he didn't understand
>>the very clear messages OSU was giving him, his IQ would have to be well
>>below what is reasonable for a college student.
>[...]
>It is possible that both Steven and Ohio State University are in the
>wrong. Steven, at the time a freshman, has already been punished with
>computer and school explusions. Ohio State University, a government
>school, has gotten away scot free.
This is your perception, and Brack's perception. It is probably not the
way it is perceived at OSU.
As seen by the staff a OSU, it may well appear that they attempted to
punish Brack, but he successfully subverted their punishment attempt by
gaining network access through another campus computer. This would
cause anger amongst the staff. They probably felt the school expulsion
was thus necessary as the one punishment he could not subvert.
I am not trying to say what is right and what is wrong here. If Brack
can afford a good lawyer, I'm sure he knows how to get a definitive answer
to that. I am commenting on the way people often react when angry. It
seems likely that some actions were undertaken in anger both by OSU and
by Brack. Acting in anger is always unwise. Cooler heads on both sides
could have avoided this situation.
[My comments are based solely on what I have read on usenet. I admit
the possibility that I may have completely misjudged the whole issue.]
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.211919.9343@eff.org>
References: <9111072038.AA11513@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:19:19 GMT
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
[...]
> I got a hearing. At my hearing, no connection *was ever made* between
> the charges against me & the specific actions committed.
[...]
Maybe for each of seven of the alledged actions they decide that the
chance that you had taken the action and that the action was against
the rules was 20%.
20% * 7 = 140% guilty.
- 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: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <199111072129.AA09717@eff.org>
Sender: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu
References:
Date: 7 Nov 91 21:26:31 GMT
Neil, I have no doubt that you are correct in how OSU perceived the
Brack case. He did wrong, they punished him, he still did wrong, they
punished him harder. However, their feelings of frustration are no
excuse for the subversion of due process. Punishing somebody without
specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and
it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the
cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules. This is manifestly
unfair and we should have no sympathy nor give any quarter to those who
act in this manner.
Frank
-------------------
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 20:53:42 GMT
In article <1117>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> As you might imagine, this makes it very hard for Steven to defend
> himself. How would you feel if you were expelled from school without
> even knowing what you were being punished for? It is also a violation
> of the procedural due process as guarenteed by the Constitution.
>
Umm, Universities are not courts of law nor are they federal
governmental entities. The procedural protections of the U.S.
Constitution do not apply. Yes, Steven Brack was probably treated
unfairly and summarily, without being given an adequate chance to
defend himself. But nothing the University did violates anything in
the U.S. Constitution because in this instance they are not subject to
the particular restrictions in that document. And if you were to read
the University's code of judicial procedure, you would probably find
that they acted according to the process set by that code. A
university is not a democracy. It would be nice, but they don't have
to act like one. Generally speaking, universities are amazingly
tolerant of student behavior. Many student actions that are
essentially ignored by the university would land that same person in
jail or in civil court were the action to be performed outside of the
university boundaries.
> 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 the specification of the charges. What he was not
> given was procedural due process. What he was not given was justice.
>
Yeah, Ohio State handled this one pretty sloppily. But if even half of
the charges are true, then Mr. Brack apparently repeatedly antagonized
the University system administrators. Yes, the administrators should
have taken more time to explore what was really going on rather than
simply issuing restrictive edicts. Yes, the University administration
should have been more careful about their specification of charges.
But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
decide that they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or
so.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111072131.AA13032@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 7 Nov 91 21:31:18 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs.niu.edu writes:
> In article <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >
> >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
>
> As I read all this I see something quite different from what Carl
> sees.
>
> What show up, as I see it, is the following:
>
> 1. Brack commits some minor infractions.
>
> 2. OSU brings this fact to Brack's attention, and very clearly
> communicates to Brack that he should not do this.
Untrue. OSU tells Steve not to execute two commands. Steve does not
execute those commands. Steve's article is accidentally crossposted.
Steve loses his account. OSU never communicates to him that he could
not have access via other means.
> 3. Instead of interpreting this as "Thou shalt not commit such
> infractions", Brack apparently interpreted it as "Thou shalt
> not be found out" so we proceeded to find ways around the
> restrictions that had been placed on him.
I would be most interested to know where you get your information.
I posted, with .sig intact, to many USENet groups. I wasn't exactly
hiding anything. I even sent mail to OSU's admins. Also, I didn't
"have restrictions placed on me," I was expelled from my account,
with no hearing, & no appeal possible. I never hid anything from
OSU. OSU, on the other hand, still refuses to state how my specific
actions violate the rules under which I was punished.
> 4. Brack was "found out".
Simply untrue. I never hid my actions.
> 5. OSU people were angered at this apparent direct attack on
> their policies, and decided to "throw the book" at Brack.
OSU people were angered that I "posted messages critical of OSU to
several national bulletin boards" (Quote from Cliff Collins, Asst.
Director for Special Projects, OSU-ACS, & Bill Miller, Assitant Director
for Customer Service, OSU-ACS). No formal charges were proffered until
after I had spoken out.
> Did OSU overreact? Probably.
OSU contravened even the most basic principles of due process.
> Was Brack asking for trouble? Surely he was. If he didn't understand
> the very clear messages OSU was giving him, his IQ would have to be well
> below what is reasonable for a college student.
If a woman "asks for it," is rape excusable?
All I asked for was a fair hearing.
As to your lasdt statement, that is beneath comment.
> Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
> Northern Illinois Univ.
> DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-694
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.215730.10798@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.211315.16440@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:57:30 GMT
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> As seen by the staff a OSU, it may well appear that they attempted to
>punish Brack, but he successfully subverted their punishment attempt by
>gaining network access through another campus computer. This would
>cause anger amongst the staff. They probably felt the school expulsion
>was thus necessary as the one punishment he could not subvert.
[...]
Here is a little more information. Academic Computer Services did lots
of things to Steven Brack, but they didn't expel him from the
University. What they did is give information to Judical Affairs. It
was Judical Affairs that expelled Steven.
In a just world Judical Affairs would have dismissed most of the
"charges" (obscenity, using two Macs) out of hand. But for whatever
reason (ignorance about computers, the sloppiness of their procedures)
they pressed forward and dismissed Steven Brack.
- 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: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <2729@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 91 21:57:37 GMT
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[According to Steven Brack, this is the text of a letter he received
>from OSU. Except as marked, all typo are his own. Posted with
>Steven Brack's permission. - Carl]
>[BEGIN QUOTE]
> 1. While on the HPUXA computer, you attempted to send a command that
> would shut the system off. Your account was suspended. You met
> with Collins and Miller and signed a "Ethical Standards of
> Conduct" form and agreed to abide by the policies of the [sic]
> Academic Computing Services (ACS).
>
Well, I know that Carl has made some of the OSU policies available under
his Computers and Academic Freedom Archives so not having seen it in a
while, I'll risk sticking my neck out on this one. The above quote was
from a letter that Steven Brack received from the OSU admins and this
particular point seems to be the sticker in the whole mess.
IF he did sign such a statement and IF the policy statement "FORBIDS"
such actions as he was accused of doing then I think the OSU was within
their rights to take action against him. IF the policy states that such
violations can result in suspension then the punishment (while seemingly
harsh) is appropriate.
The whole point is that 1) if Steven DID sign such a paper and continued
to "violate" the terms of the agreement, then it's a clear case of a
user (who has AGREED to abide by certain rules) abusing his privilege
to use the OSU equipment.
We cannot judge the "sanity" or "appropriateness" of individual sites'
computer conduct rules from outside the site.
What may be appropriate use at my site may be illegal at yours.
If an individual site (be it company, university, gov't agency)
says "you must wear tuxedos while using our system or else be expelled
with no warning" AND a user signs a doc agreeing to abide by this
(seemingly silly) rule AND then the user violates the terms of the
agreement and gets booted out, then whose fault is it? Seems to me that
the user is at fault.
Again, I don't think any of us outside of OSU can comment on the
correctness of OSU's actions w/o having in our "hands" 2 critical
items missing from this thread:
1) the actual text of the policy statement that was signed by Steven
2) the knowledge/admission that he did indeed
sign a statement agreeing to abide by the policy.
-Randy Marchany
VA Tech Computing Center
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Nov 8 11:42:26 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA06994
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:28:19 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:28:15 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111081628.AA06989@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 8 11:27:37 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
alyoung@silver.ucs : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jaw@pygmy.owlnet.r : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
tai50080@uxa.cso.u : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
ggw@wolves.uucp (G : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov07.215152.18831@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 21:51:52 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
In article <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu> jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
>Yeah, Ohio State handled this one pretty sloppily. But if even half of
>the charges are true, then Mr. Brack apparently repeatedly antagonized
>the University system administrators. Yes, the administrators should
>have taken more time to explore what was really going on rather than
>simply issuing restrictive edicts. Yes, the University administration
>should have been more careful about their specification of charges.
>But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
>at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
>a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
>decide that they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or
>so.
We now have the following remarkable position enunciated: That not only IS
"pissing off the administration" an expulsable offense, but that it is RIGHTLY
so. And by someone apparantely with some authority at a university.
I will note the following: While a university may not be required to follow
the procedural due process accorded the accused in a criminal trial, it is
required to follow it's own due process. If these 'restrictive edicts' were
issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner, then likely the University's
OWN rules were violated.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
References: <1991Nov3.052336.18807@colnet.uucp> <1991Nov3.153459.23701@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 21:49:53 GMT
In article francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes:
> According to "A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers,"
> by P. Hollander, D. Young, and D. Gehring:
>
> "Student newspapers at public institutions generally cannot be censored
> prior to publication. Student editors usually are permitted to publish and
> take the risk of allegations of libel or obscenity. The student press at
> public institutions is subject to restriction only where college officials
> can 'reasonably forecast substantial disruption or material interference'
> with educational activities, or that the material is clearly libelous or
> obscene."
>
>Now, how are the faculty supposed to find material that is "clearly
>libelous or obscene" if they don't look at it?
>
>It's perhaps worth noting that, about two years ago, there was an
>incident where one of the Lantern comic strips depicted one of the
>major campus landlords in a severely negative light. A suit from the
>landlord followed. Now, nothing ever came of that suit; however, I
>could see where caution might be warranted in the future.
Nothing happened to it for a good reason (most likely, I've never seen
the cartoon myself)... an editorial cartoon must
be EXTREMELY bad to warrent a favorable ruling to the depicted in a
case. It must openly LIE and state falsities about the depicted in an
attempt to cause him harm.
>It should also be noted that these nasty, censorous faculty members,
>allowed the Lantern staff to publish one issue of the paper where the
>entire text of the paper was the First Amendment, over and over and
>over, as well as allowing a "Publication under Protest" banner on
>every edition published up until everyone quit. Yup, sure sounds like
>censors to me, boy.
After the initial ruckus, I'm sure they got a little nervous, because
they realized that their students might not just sit back like sheep
like they usually do and let the U sit on them. So, they do that,
because anyone who would refuse to do that would IMMEDIATELY come
under fire from every country lovin' two brain celled person. And
they can sit back and say just what you have... "Oh, but we allowed
THIS..."
If you do one wrong, that's still one wrong no matter how many
'rights' you make.
>[...]
amy
--
==============================================================================
alyoung@ucs.indiana.edu alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu alyoung@iubacs.bitnet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He says, 'I don't know how you do what you do... how do you let the world in?'
Well I say, "Well, there's no way out...' Then I just play out the game. Well
the two of us... Widow and a Dove." -- Stevie Nicks, _Two Kinds Of Love_
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
Message-ID: <9111072231.AA05575@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 7 Nov 91 12:31:41 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
Note: An upstream site was down earlier; I'm reposting this after Carl Kadie
kindly sent me copies. RFSJ
>
>Let me clarify myself. I don't think that an individual on any site has any
>"rights" wrt what comes over the net, and what other people on other sites
>do. Thus, you don't have the "right" not to be offended, or the "right"
>not to have to read innapropriate posts (as a *READER*), etc.
>
>The only right I think you should have on USENET is the right to freedom
>of speech, and thus only posters have rights, not readers. Just like the
>readers of a newspaper have only the right to pitch the thing or write a
>letter into the editor (and thereby become a "poster"...)
>
> Friend,
>>you need to think about what you're saying. One of the major obligations
>>of the legal system is the determination of points at which individual rights
>>become secondary, in favor of group or "societal" rights. The most common
>>analogy is the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" maxim. Your rights to
>>free assembly/speech stop at the other person's doorstep. While the "right
>>to privacy" has never been explicitly given (it has been constructed from a
>>broad range of decisions), it most certainly exists, even in an arbitrary
>>state.
But there is no right-not-to-be-offended.
>>whether you like it or not. There is a point at which the reader's rights
>>can override those of the poster.
No, No, a thousand times no!!!
I as a reader have absolutely no right-not-to-be-offended. If I'm offended by a
particular idea, that's my problem. I have no legal recourse, unless I can
fulfill the legal requirements for libel. Just because I don't like, or am
offended by, certain speech does not mean that I have the right to silence it.
Universities and colleges that do so in the name of "political correctness"
or to combat any of the currently-in-vogue "isms" are wrong. The instant you
begin censoring speech for content you commit the worst abomination known to
to civilizization: the supression of ideas. The free flow of ideas is the
essense of frredom, both academic, economic, and political. It is absolutely
essential that we allow the free flow of ideas.Even ideas we may personally find
repugnant have worth. Notice I did not say value, just worth. We cannot
suppress ideas. If I am offended by an idea, I would suggest that I examine
my own thoughts and ideas to see why.
>
>>I am not commenting on this particular incident, nor am I saying that the
>>"reader's rights" are preeminent in this case. I just wanted to point out
>>that readers DO have rights, within the context of Usenet.
>
>Currently, they really don't. They have the right to express their opinion,
>but thats about it (and of course, they have the right to change the system,
>but then then we wouldn not be considering the current situation). IMHO,
>this shouldn't change much. Right now USENET is an absolutely free forum
>to express any idea that you wish, and I would rather that didn't change
>-- if that means we have to deal with a few idiots like Yahweh, then thats
>the price we have to pay...
I agree wholeheartedly.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.223601.12003@eff.org>
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 22:36:01 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
[...]
>Umm, Universities are not courts of law nor are they federal
>governmental entities. The procedural protections of the U.S.
>Constitution do not apply.
[...]
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).
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental
entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life,
liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and
reputation arm considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to
attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be
required before a student is deprived of either at a public
institution."
"Substantive processes requires, essentially, that policies and rules
must be related to the basic government purpose at hand that basic
fairness be employed. For instance, college rules should be related to
educational matters and applied fairly. Procedural due process
generally refers to the requirement of notice and hearing before being
deprived of a right. For example, before being expelled for
misconduct, students should have notice of what they have done wrong
and a chance to tell their side of the story."
[For more information see the law subarchive of the Computers and
Academic Freedom archive. Send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the lines:
send caf-law README
send acad-freedom README
]
[...]
>Yeah, Ohio State handled this one pretty sloppily. But if even half of
>the charges are true, then Mr. Brack apparently repeatedly antagonized
>the University system administrators. Yes, the administrators should
>have taken more time to explore what was really going on rather than
>simply issuing restrictive edicts. Yes, the University administration
>should have been more careful about their specification of charges.
>But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
>at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
>a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
>decide that they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or
>so.
>--
>Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
>Deputy Director, Owlnet
>Rice University
Universities, both public and private, have a contractual obligation
to their students. (As will as a moral obligation to respect the
academic freedom of their students).
Here is what A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers says:
"Today, courts recognize that when a student pays tuition for a
college education, a legal contract comes into being. The student has
contracted for an education as advertised by the institution in its
catalog and by its representatives. Some like to think of the student
as a consumer of education, and an institution as a supplier of a
product called education. The consumers is entitled to receive what
was paid for. The old days of in loco parentis have been replaced by
the law of contracts and the concepts of consumerism. This contractual
relationship implies a property interest which also triggers
constitutional guarantees at public institutions."
...
"Teacher As Agent of Institution
When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a
teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution. A
teacher's acts, then, are considered to be the acts of the
institution. Thus, a teacher's acts can form the basis for liability
of the institution. For example, if a teach of history refuses to
follow the syllabus for a history course and insists on teaching more
writing skills than history in the course, a dissatisfied student may
sue the institution as well as the teach for breach of contract of
enrollment."
"Sources of Legal Rights and Responsibilities at Public and Private Colleges
[... Constitutions ... Statutes ... Contracts ...]
Policies of Governing Boards
Policies of a board of trustees or board of regents usually set forth
the mission of the college, student admission and graduation policies,
and personnel policies. The policies become implicit and often
explicit terms of the teacher's contract or the student's enrollment
contract.
Handbooks
Student, faculty, staff and other handbooks contains the more detailed rules
and regulations that implement the basic policies set by the governing
board. These rules and regulations also become part of the contracts relating
to teachers and students.
[... Professional Standards ... Custom and Traditions ... Duty and
Reasonable Care Under the Circumstances ...]"
...
"Institutional Liability
[...]
Institutions may be solely liable where there is a breach of the
student contract of enrollment, as where courses advertised in the
catalog are not offered, or where students are suspended or expelled
for misconduct without proper due process."
...
--
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: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 22:06:12 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> Steven Brack always assumed that Ohio State University and Academic
> Computing Services would follow the law. In this he was mistaken.
>
Not the law. The rules of the University. University disciplinary
actions against students do not fall under the realm of the U.S. legal
system. There is no evidence that the University or the ACS did not
follow its own rules.
> Specifically, ACS punished him for breaking nonexistent rules (i.e.
> using two Macs, posting "fuck you") and expelled him from ACS
> computers without due process (i.e. permanent computer expulsion, no
> chance to appeal).
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. 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.
> OSU refused to specify the charges against him and
> then expelled him.
>
If Steven Brack had asked the University to specify charges by matching
offense with rule, they probably would have done it. What he
apparently asked them for was a listing of the offenses that he was
being disciplined for. The University complied. Nowhere is it
documented for the public that the University flatly refused to comply
with a reasonable informational request by Mr. Brack.
> It is possible that both Steven and Ohio State University are in the
> wrong. Steven, at the time a freshman, has already been punished with
> computer and school explusions. Ohio State University, a government
> school, has gotten away scot free.
State Universities are not government schools. They are wholly or
partly funded by state revenues, but they are not government entities.
They are separately chartered institutions, often supported by income
from state owned land that is set aside specifically to provide revenue
for the university, hence the term "land-grant university". The
entity called a "state" and the entity called the "state government"
are not the same thing, just as the United States and the Federal
Government are not the same thing.
Ohio State would only be in the wrong if it had failed to follow its
own rules. There is no evidence that OSU did this. What OSU did may
be seem unfair and harsh, but we don't know what would have happened
had Mr. Brack pursued the appeal routes that were undoubtedly open to
him. One could assert that OSU's rules are inherently unfair and allow
for too much discretion on the part of University employees, but that
is a different issue. But before you level that charge, you should be
very careful to understand what OSU's rules are.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
-------------------
From: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.222747.17418@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 91 22:27:47 GMT
References: <1991Nov6.005922.27@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
ear@wpi.WPI.EDU (Mr. Neat-O [tm]) writes:
>program? What I mean is, does this mean that a sysop cannot be held
>responsible for the contents of his/her BBS? What would happen to the owners
I think that a sysop would still be held responsible for stolen material found
on his/her board. Why? The public/government has accepted CompuServe as
a legitimate enterprise, and therefore has granted it's users a certain level
of 1st amendment rights. BBSs are still considered illegal/subversive, and
as such will be more subject to challenges to their content.
Thomas Aaron Insel
(tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu, or t-insel@uiuc.edu)
"Cute saying and disclaimer go here."
--
Thomas Aaron Insel
(tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu, or t-insel@uiuc.edu)
"Cute saying and disclaimer go here."
-------------------
From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.201426.5439@wolves.uucp>
Date: 6 Nov 91 20:14:26 GMT
References:
X-Md4-Signature: 5a7e8baafc7df3df0c502071c6889813
Sanjay Kapur writes:
>
>But a bookstore owner has an absolute right to carry only those books that the
>owner wants to carry. Even a government owned bookstore is not required to
>carry books it does not want to. If you apply the bookstore analogy to BBS
>systems then Systems administrators have absolute power and can censor
>anything they please.
Yep!
Are you going to tell me (or any other machine owner) that I cannot have
absolute control over what I carry? If so, are you prepared to pay for
the machine you have *confiscated* from me?
Besides, unless the government does it, or if there is no other way to
obtain the information, it isn't censorship.
--
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...duke!wolves!ggw [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]
-------------------
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu
References:
Date: 7 Nov 91 22:53:06 GMT
In article <199111072129.AA09717@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>Neil, I have no doubt that you are correct in how OSU perceived the
>Brack case. He did wrong, they punished him, he still did wrong, they
>punished him harder. However, their feelings of frustration are no
>excuse for the subversion of due process. Punishing somebody without
>specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and
>it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the
>cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules. This is manifestly
>unfair and we should have no sympathy nor give any quarter to those who
>act in this manner.
> Frank
I wasn't trying to judge who was right and who was wrong. I was trying only
to point out the OSU perceives things very differently from the way they
have been described on the net.
As I commented in a private message to Stephen Brack, all of this discussion
is based on an assumption about "the truth". But "the truth" does not exist.
Instead we have "the truth as perceived by Stephen Brack" and "the truth as
perceived by OSU". These two perceptions of the truth are obviously poles
apart. Both sides may well hold their perceptions with great sincerity
and great honesty. Binary TRUE/FALSE logic often doesn't apply where human
nature is involved.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.225419.12738@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 22:54:19 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
> Steven Brack always assumed that Ohio State University and Academic
> Computing Services would follow the law. In this he was mistaken.
jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>Not the law. The rules of the University. University disciplinary
>actions against students do not fall under the realm of the U.S. legal
>system.
[...]
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)
Here is a quote from _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).
--- begin quote----
[Question:] Have due process requirements turned classrooms and schools
into courtrooms?
[Answer:] No. When the Supreme Court ruled in Goss that even short-term
suspensions require some modicum of due process, a hue and cry arose
across the land. School administrators, parents, and teachers were
upset and feared that the decision would force school officials to
consult lawyers before they could take any disciplinary measures in
schools. These fears where ill based. Careful reading of Goss and
other cases indicates that the legal requirements are not at all
excessive and that there is no need for lawyers to be at the side of
administrators or teachers. Conscientious educators used fair
procedures long before these cases ever went to court, and their
procedures amply satisfy the law.
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 ---
--
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: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: bader@Xerox.com's message of Thu, 7 Nov 1991 05:35:29 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 22:53:22 GMT
>From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader) [responding to me]
>> If you want, fantasize all you want about rape/murder/theft/etc, joke
>> about it to your friends if you must, but go out and do it, and expect
>
>Where the h*ll did you get the idea that I'm into any of the above. You dumb
>sh*t, it's you who are fantasizing.
Calm down, that's an editorial (collective, plural) "you", read it as
"If one wants to..."
Sheesh, a little defensive.
>Recently, there have been efforts to punish people for their thoughts. We see
>this in the harassment debate (*), where speech is increasingly legislated not
>only between superior and subordinate, where it might be part of implicit
>coercion, but also between co-workers, where the only motive for controlling
>speech can be to prevent someone from having to know that someone else is
>having thoughts about them that they regard as unpleasant, i.e: sexual
>advances where there is no implied threat if one does not accept, and politely
>made remarks which happen to be politically incorrect. So my thoughts that
>there is a desire for thought control and speech control are not unfounded.
You seem to be confusing thoughts with actions.
Making illegal the directing of thoughts at a specific individual in
the form of actions is nothing new.
Hint: An assault does not require a battery. If I threaten you
verbally it is quite possible I have violated a law, and not a new
law, it can be construed as an assault.
Protected speech tends to find thin ice when directed at a specific
individual, as in the sexual harassment you outline.
But there's nothing new about speech directed at an individual,
particularly speech which threatens or otherwise predicts some further
action against that individual, to be treated as an assault or other
crime.
I assume you would consider certain spoken words directed at you to
not be "protected speech", no? How about harrassing phone calls, for
example?
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Nov 8 12:08:55 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA08340
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:59:04 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:58:58 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111081658.AA08334@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 8 11:57:57 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
chapin@cbnewsc.cb. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
jaw@pygmy.owlnet.r : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
boehm@chippewa.cis : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
jaw@pygmy.owlnet.r : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
john@anasaz (John : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
john@anasaz (John : Re: Duke/Mecham in '96 (was Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
marchany@vtserf.cc : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 8 Nov 91 01:55:00 GMT
>
>Sanjay,
>I understand the unfairness of Mr. Brack being expelled for violations
>which were never specified. And I understand your point that unfairness
>does happen in the real world. What I don't understand is your apparent
>glee at the juxtaposition of these two facts.
> Frank Anshen
It is not glee but I was trying to demonstrate but the simple fact that people
do not realize how dangerous it is to go against a beaurocracy.
What I do not not understand is the unwillingness of people in this forum to
realize that the policies that lead to Mr. Brack's expulsion are not
formulated by Systems administrators but by University Administrators.
Systems administrators are about as powerless to stop the enforcement of these
policies as Mr. Brack was. Mr. Brack was expelled. Systems administrators
who do not agree with the policies of the University Administration are fired.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 8 Nov 91 01:58:00 GMT
>
> But does that mean we shouldn't try?
>
> When persons of reason cease to check the unreasonable acts of others,
> we cease to exist as a society.
He should try only if he is fully cognizant of what he is getting into and
jumps into it with both eyes open.
>
>>>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>>
>> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>>
>
>
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 8 Nov 91 02:03:00 GMT
>
> When persons of reason cease to check the unreasonable acts of others,
> we cease to exist as a society.
>
Who is to decide who the "person of reason" is? You apparently believe that
a duly constituted judicial panel was not composed of "persons of reason"?
Are you sure that this panel was not trying to check the unreasonable acts of
Mr. Brack?
What makes you think that you always know what a reasonable act is? I am not
sure that I can make that judgement correctly 100% of the time.
>>>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>>
>> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>>
>
>
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 01:58:03 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.015803.9669@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
References: <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
Joseph A. Watters writes:
>A university is not a democracy. It would be nice, but they don't have
>to act like one. Generally speaking, universities are amazingly
>tolerant of student behavior.
Yeah, right...they let frat boys get away with rape..but don't let
someone use two terminals (like I'm doing at this moment...) If
their double standards and lack of due process are so egregious, they
are begging to be placed under outside regulation. I think it would
be much preferable if they were to give a bit more heed to the
*ideals* of due process and the U.S. Constitution whether they are
legally bound to or not.
>But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
>at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
>a privilege.
People don't pay tens of thousands of dollars a year, nor put
thenselves in hock for a dozen years for privileges. They pay money
for rights. If it's truly a privilege, then give it away for free.
Did they refund his money for services they stopped rendering?
--
tom chapin tjc@hrccb.att.com
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 8 Nov 91 02:07:00 GMT
>From: Frank Anshen
>
>Neil, I have no doubt that you are correct in how OSU perceived the
>Brack case. He did wrong, they punished him, he still did wrong, they
>punished him harder. However, their feelings of frustration are no
>excuse for the subversion of due process. Punishing somebody without
>specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and
>it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the
>cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules. This is manifestly
>unfair and we should have no sympathy nor give any quarter to those who
>act in this manner.
> Frank
But Mr Brack has admitted that technically he was given the specific charges
that he was accused of. What is missing is the link between the charges and
how they were applicable in the situation. (I may be wrong but in a criminal
trial I was under the impression that this link is made by a jury in its
confidential deliberations.)
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 8 Nov 91 02:09:00 GMT
>
>Maybe for each of seven of the alledged actions they decide that the
>chance that you had taken the action and that the action was against
>the rules was 20%.
>
>20% * 7 = 140% guilty.
>
>- 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.
It is a sad fact that nearly all juries in criminal trials think this way and
this is one of the reasons that prosecutors try to throw as many charges (i.e.
the book) hoping some would stick.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.012302.26274@rice.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 1991 01:23:02 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu> <1991Nov07.215152.18831@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu
Distribution: usa
In article <1126>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> In article jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> >
> >Yeah, Ohio State handled this one pretty sloppily. But if even half of
> >the charges are true, then Mr. Brack apparently repeatedly antagonized
> >the University system administrators. Yes, the administrators should
> >have taken more time to explore what was really going on rather than
> >simply issuing restrictive edicts. Yes, the University administration
> >should have been more careful about their specification of charges.
> >But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
> >at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
> >a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
> >decide that they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or
> >so.
>
> We now have the following remarkable position enunciated: That not only IS
> "pissing off the administration" an expulsable offense, but that it is RIGHTLY
> so. And by someone apparantely with some authority at a university.
>
If you want a "position enunciated" read my first, third, and fourth
sentences in the paragraph you qouted. I disagree with the way OSU
handled the situation. What I am pointing out in the paragraph is that
the University did *not* have to suspend Mr. Brack. There are a lot of
other things they could have done. The fact that they did suspend him
indicates that something in the interaction between Mr. Brack and the
university administrators led them to feel that suspension was the
appropriate disciplinary action. I was also pointing out that the
University had the power to do it. A university decides to let a
student attend, and the university can decide to end the student's
attendance for a variety of reasons. You may not like that a
university can act this way, but that's the way the system is set up.
Again, I was simply pointing this out. And I suspect that if you went
to the Ohio state legislature or whoever regulates the university, they
would agree with that statement.
> I will note the following: While a university may not be required to follow
> the procedural due process accorded the accused in a criminal trial, it is
> required to follow it's own due process. If these 'restrictive edicts' were
> issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner, then likely the University's
> OWN rules were violated.
Well, there is no evidence that anything was done arbitrarily or
capriciously. There is a lot of *opinion* that it was done that way,
but no evidence. I also suggest that you actually read OSU's rules before
you assert that they were violated by the University itself. And as I
pointed out in another posting, Mr. Brack most likely had one or more
avenues of appeal for every disciplinary action that was taken against
him. He either didn't know about them for failure to read information
available to him, or he chose not to exercise them.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
-------------------
From: boehm@chippewa.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.031314.2174@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 03:13:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: cis.1991Nov8.031314.2174
References: <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.004449.15049@eff.org>
Sender: news@cis.ohio-state.edu (NETnews )
In article <1991Nov8.004449.15049@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>boehm@woozie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm) writes:
>
>>There is no paper in the country where a reporter can print
>>soemthing against the publishers wishes. Why should the Lantern be any
>>different?
>[...]
>
>Virtually all campus newspapers are free of prior review. The
>_Lantern_ is the exception, not the rule.
>
>>The law suit that started this whole mess came from a prominent campus
>>landlord. He's generally regarded as a sleaze, and he put up with that
>>without much of a fight. The cartoon in question showed his son selling
>>cardboard boxes to the homeless. When he saw his kids getting drug through
>>the mud he got pissed and sued. Personally I'm glad to see that the
>>University wants to prevent such irresponsibility by the Lantern staff in
>>the future.
>
>The cartoon is likely protected by the First Amendment.
It doesn't matter. Let the cartoonist publish it on his own. The
University, as publisher of the newspaper, has the right to use its
judgement to determine what goes in it. It is not trying
to limit other people freedom of expression, it is trying to gain
control over what its own publication says.
From warnold Fri Nov 8 12:09:57 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA08019
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:57:11 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:57:07 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111081657.AA08011@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 8 11:56:30 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
thakur@zerkalo.har : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
boehm@woozie.cis.o : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jwoodman@magnus.ac : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jgreely@morganucod : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jaw@rice.edu (Jose : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
donb@igor.tamri.co : Thought Feh!
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111072315.AA01025@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
References: <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 91 23:15:05 GMT
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Nov 1991 20:53:42 GMT, jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) said:
> Yes, Steven Brack was probably treated unfairly and summarily,
> without being given an adequate chance to defend himself. But
> nothing the University did violates anything in the U.S.
> Constitution because in this instance they are not subject to the
> particular restrictions in that document.
I'm sorry, this is simply mistaken. OSU is a *state* school, not a
private institution. As a state sponsored and funded institution, it
is entirely bound by the Ohio state Constution as well as the
provisions of the US Bill of Rights that have been extended (by
Federal law or Supreme Court decision) to apply to the states.
This has long been an established principle in Federal jurisprudence.
Your claim that OSU is "not subjet to the particular restrictions in
that document [the US Constitution]" is simply not the case.
> Yeah, Ohio State handled this one pretty sloppily. But if even half
> of the charges are true, then Mr. Brack apparently repeatedly
> antagonized the University system administrators. Yes, the
> administrators should have taken more time to explore what was
> really going on rather than simply issuing restrictive edicts. Yes,
> the University administration should have been more careful about
> their specification of charges. But in the end, a person attends a
> university, even a state university, at the discretion of that
> university. Attendance is not a right, it is a privilege.
No sir, attendance is not merely a matter of privilege. Rather,
attendance is a *contract* -- financially and legally. Court
decisions that Carl Kadie has quoted in this forum describe this most
emphatically. The student retains certain contractual rights, and
first and foremost among them is the right that the contract shall not
be terminated or abrogated (by either side) in ways that violate that
contract.
And by no means does a person attend a university "at the discretion
of that university." That is simply dead wrong.
> Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to decide that
> they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or so.
As someone else has already commented, you make it sound as though
universities are run as personal fiefdoms, where those in authority
reward those they like and expel those they don't.
That simply is not the case -- not even in private corporations (where
you can file suit and win reinstatement if you can convince a judge or
jury that you've been wrongly dismissed or demoted), much less a state
funded and sponsored university.
> Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
> Deputy Director, Owlnet
> Rice University
Sir, I sincerely hope that the personal views you described above do
not also inform the policies and procedures in place at Owlnet or Rice
University. If they do, then I am very glad I am in no way under your
jurisdiction. If they do, then those policies need serious attention
and revising, for they would fail even the most basic tests of
fairness and civility -- a situation unworthy of any university
anywhere.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
From: boehm@woozie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@cis.ohio-state.edu (NETnews )
References: <1991Nov3.153459.23701@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 23:04:02 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:
>After the initial ruckus, I'm sure they got a little nervous, because
>they realized that their students might not just sit back like sheep
>like they usually do and let the U sit on them.
Actually the students here didn't get upset about the Lantern review policy.
Speaking for myself, I'd hate to see my hard earned tuition money go to pay
for a libel suit because some Lantern reporter wanted to shoot his mouth off
without consulting his advisors first. Free speech is great, but if the
University is financially responsible, it has the right to review what goes
in the paper. There is no paper in the country where a reporter can print
soemthing against the publishers wishes. Why should the Lantern be any
different?
The law suit that started this whole mess came from a prominent campus
landlord. He's generally regarded as a sleaze, and he put up with that
without much of a fight. The cartoon in question showed his son selling
cardboard boxes to the homeless. When he saw his kids getting drug through
the mud he got pissed and sued. Personally I'm glad to see that the
University wants to prevent such irresponsibility by the Lantern staff in
the future.
Joe Boehm
boehm@cis.ohio-state.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 23:26:47 GMT
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> As I commented in a private message to Stephen Brack, all of this discussion
>is based on an assumption about "the truth". But "the truth" does not exist.
>Instead we have "the truth as perceived by Stephen Brack" and "the truth as
>perceived by OSU". These two perceptions of the truth are obviously poles
>apart. Both sides may well hold their perceptions with great sincerity
>and great honesty. Binary TRUE/FALSE logic often doesn't apply where human
>nature is involved.
[...]
Even if Steven took every action that was alledged and even if every
action violated a University rule and even if every Unviersity rule
was legally valid, the University was still in the wrong (and in
violation of the law) by denying Steven procedural due process.
- 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: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.230437.29103@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 23:04:37 GMT
In article jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>In article kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> As you might imagine, this makes it very hard for Steven to defend
>> himself. How would you feel if you were expelled from school without
>> even knowing what you were being punished for? It is also a violation
>> of the procedural due process as guarenteed by the Constitution.
>Umm, Universities are not courts of law nor are they federal
>governmental entities. The procedural protections of the U.S.
>Constitution do not apply.
So you might think, but you'd be wrong. OSU is a state agency, and it receives
federal monies for research and other purposes. OSU is bound by the Due
Process clauses of the US Constitution (not to mention the Ohio constitution).
Whether there is an actual violation of due process is a little more iffy.
Steven did get a hearing and was told which regulations he violated. Of course,
he wasn't told how he had violated those regulations and he was not given any
counsel even though he ran the risk of expulsion, so there are some grounds
to say that Steven did not get a fair shake.
>But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
>at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
>a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
>decide that they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or
>so.
Yes, but even if attendance truly is a "privilege" (questionable), the
revocation of that privilege must be done in a manner consistent with
the rights of the individual involved. That may well not have been done
in this case.
Jonathan Woodman
--
Jonathan Woodman \ On being a lawyer: "It's a tough job, but
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu / at the end of the day, when you lay your
The Ohio State University \ head on the pillow, there's a warm feeling
College of Law / knowing you tore someone's heart out."
-------------------
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
In-Reply-To: kadie@eff.org's message of Thu, 7 Nov 1991 15: 37:27 GMT
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: news@cis.ohio-state.edu (NETnews )
References: <91309.07: 56: 40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu>
<1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 23:23:00 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Here are the main letters that Steven Brack received from Ohio State
>(and as typed in by Steven Brack.)
As I hashed out with Steven in e-mail, I was asking if any information
was now available directly from the university. It's not intended as
a slur on his integrity, but all data available so far has come from
Steven, who is an interested party in this affair. I think further
discussion on the net is pointless unless someone on the other side
speaks up.
[old messages deleted]
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov07.231559.20273@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 23:15:59 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
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 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.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: jaw@rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111080026.AA05095@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu>
Sender: jaw@rice.edu
References: <9111072315.AA01025@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 00:26:47 GMT
>
> I'm sorry, this is simply mistaken. OSU is a *state* school, not a
> private institution. As a state sponsored and funded institution, it
> is entirely bound by the Ohio state Constution as well as the
> provisions of the US Bill of Rights that have been extended (by
> Federal law or Supreme Court decision) to apply to the states.
>
Did you attend OSU? I see that your sig indicates that you are at
Harvard. How do you know this?
> This has long been an established principle in Federal jurisprudence.
> Your claim that OSU is "not subjet to the particular restrictions in
> that document [the US Constitution]" is simply not the case.
>
Umm, as I said before, OSU is not a court of law, which if I am not
mistaken, is what the due process clause in the US Constitution refers
to. Lawyers can correct me on this. As you state below, the
arrangement between the student and the institution is a contract. In
that case, contract law applies, and again, lawyers can correct me, but
the concept of due process in contract law is different than the due
process mentioned in the Constitution.
So where do I get this idea? From my own university, which states
quite clearly in its student handbook:
"In the administration of order and discipline on campus according to
the Code [of Judicial Procedure], the University is not assuming the
character of a civil or criminal court, is not bound by the procedures
of the courts, and will not be hindered in taking action according to
the Code because of action taken or pending in any civil or criminal
court."
> No sir, attendance is not merely a matter of privilege. Rather,
> attendance is a *contract* -- financially and legally. Court
> decisions that Carl Kadie has quoted in this forum describe this most
> emphatically. The student retains certain contractual rights, and
> first and foremost among them is the right that the contract shall not
> be terminated or abrogated (by either side) in ways that violate that
> contract.
>
No one in this instance has given *any* evidence that OSU did not
live up to the terms of its contract with Mr. Brack. If the contract
states that Mr. Brack can be expelled for failing to follow University
rules, and Mr. Brack did in fact fail to follow university rules, then
no contract violation occurred.
> And by no means does a person attend a university "at the discretion
> of that university." That is simply dead wrong.
>
Really? The fact that a university (take Harvard, for example) has
unilateral minimum academic standards, both for entrance to the
university and for continued attendance at that university means that
you attend that university at that university's discretion, because
the university decides to admit you and the university decides to
expel you. You cannot ordinarily force your way into the University
regardless of your academic standing and you cannot force the
university to grant you a degree regardless of your academic
standing. That is what I mean when I say "at the discretion of that
university." Discretion in this sense is not to be equated with
"whim". It is to be equated with "power and authority to decide."
> > Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to decide that
> > they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or so.
>
> As someone else has already commented, you make it sound as though
> universities are run as personal fiefdoms, where those in authority
> reward those they like and expel those they don't.
>
I am simply describing a situation based on facts as presented on the
newsgroup. The University could have chosen to do many other things
than dismiss the student, but they didn't. If you want to interpret
that as acting with despotic power, then fine.
> That simply is not the case -- not even in private corporations (where
> you can file suit and win reinstatement if you can convince a judge or
> jury that you've been wrongly dismissed or demoted), much less a state
> funded and sponsored university.
>
The legal doctrine for the vast majority of employment actions in the
United States is "employment at will". There is no contract between
the employee and the employer that states that the employer must retain
an employee for any length of time or for any reason. In private
corporations (especially in private corporations) a supervisor can walk
in and say "you're fired," or "your position has been eliminated." And
you are. No reason need be given. It happens all the time. Now a
company that practices the simple "your fired" technique runs the risk
of having a wrongful discharge suit filed against it, but wrongful
discharge suits have to prove that the employee was fired for reasons
*other* than poor work performance or breaking company rules or the
law. The "you're fired" method gets companies in trouble because they
can't prove that the discharge was based on performance or breaking of
rules or law. The burden of proof is on the company in these
instances. But make no mistake, the law clearly allows for a
corporation to be run as a "personal fiefdom". You might be surprised
at the answer you get from your own personnel director about your
employment status.
The legal status of a student at a university is much weaker than the
legal status of an employee of a company. State funding and
sponsoring doesn't affect the standing much.
> > Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
> > Deputy Director, Owlnet
> > Rice University
>
> Sir, I sincerely hope that the personal views you described above do
> not also inform the policies and procedures in place at Owlnet or Rice
> University. If they do, then I am very glad I am in no way under your
> jurisdiction. If they do, then those policies need serious attention
> and revising, for they would fail even the most basic tests of
> fairness and civility -- a situation unworthy of any university
> anywhere.
>
The statements that you refer to are not my personal views. I pointed
out what I believed to be errors of reasoning and erroneous
assumptions. I described events. My personal view, which I stated, was
that OSU mishandled the situation from an interpersonal standpoint.
But there is no evidence that they did anything illegal,
constitutionally or contractually, and I am simply pointing that out.
The policies and procedures in place at Owlnet and at Rice are
considerably clearer, and I think fairer, than the policies that are
apparently in place at OSU. We are implementing a relatively detailed
and well defined disciplinary system for Owlnet, which describes
numerous things that are "against the rules" and describes the
discplinary actions that we can take and how we can take them. We even
give the students an extra appeal step above and beyond the normal
university mechanisms. Our disciplinary process follows the procedures
set out in the University's Code of Judicial Procedure. We even go so
far as to point out the already existing University appeal mechanisms
that would apply in cases of Owlnet disciplinary action. We are very
careful to gather solid evidence of infractions and we almost always
warn a student at least once before taking any action. The cases where
we don't are cases where the system security or integrity is clearly at
stake, and then our immediate action is to prevent the user from doing
any more damage, or cases where we are reasonably certain that the
student knew that they were breaking the rules intentionally.
> Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
> Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
> Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
>
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr.
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.004449.15049@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov3.153459.23701@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 00:44:49 GMT
boehm@woozie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm) writes:
>There is no paper in the country where a reporter can print
>soemthing against the publishers wishes. Why should the Lantern be any
>different?
[...]
Virtually all campus newspapers are free of prior review. The
_Lantern_ is the exception, not the rule.
>The law suit that started this whole mess came from a prominent campus
>landlord. He's generally regarded as a sleaze, and he put up with that
>without much of a fight. The cartoon in question showed his son selling
>cardboard boxes to the homeless. When he saw his kids getting drug through
>the mud he got pissed and sued. Personally I'm glad to see that the
>University wants to prevent such irresponsibility by the Lantern staff in
>the future.
The cartoon is likely protected by the First Amendment.
--- begin quote ---
The Supreme Court's most ringing recent defense of freedom of the
press came in 1988 (_Hustler Magazine v. Falwell_) when the Rev. Jerry
Falwell tried to recover damages from _Hustler, charging the magazine
and its publisher, Larry Flynt, with "intentional infliction of
emotional injury." Falwell said he suffered emotional trauma after
reading a vicious cartoon parody about himself in the sex magazine.
The cartoon implied that Falwell had had sex with his mother in an
outhouse. Effectively, what Falwell tried was an end run about libel
law. He was clearly a public figure, and rather than have to prove
actual malice and loss of reputation (the parody was so ridiculous and
extreme that no sane person could have believe it, and thus there was
not lose of reputation), Falwell sought to prove that there had been
an intentional infliction of emotional distress on the part of
_Hustler and to try to collect on that tort basis. But the Court
struck down the attempt. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that "in public
debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous
speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms
protected by the First Amendment."
--- end quote ---
- 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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.010901.15582@eff.org>
References: <9111072315.AA01025@zerkalo.harvard.edu> <9111080026.AA05095@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 01:09:01 GMT
jaw@rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>Umm, as I said before, OSU is not a court of law, which if I am not
>mistaken, is what the due process clause in the US Constitution refers
>to.
[...]
State universities are constrainted by the U.S. Constitution. The
Constitution takes precedence over University policy. For example, in
_UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ and in _Doe v. U. of Michigan_,
university polices that resticted speech were overturned on free
speech and due process grounds (First and 14th Amedments).
[For more inforamtion ftp to eff.org:pub/academic/law or send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-michigan
send caf-law README
send acad-freedom README
]
- 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: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com>
Date: 8 Nov 91 00:17:55 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.com>
In article <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.com> bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader) writes:
>Recently, there have been efforts to punish people for their thoughts. We see
>this in the harassment debate (*), where speech is increasingly legislated not
>only between superior and subordinate, where it might be part of implicit
>coercion, but also between co-workers, where the only motive for controlling
>speech can be to prevent someone from having to know that someone else is
>having thoughts about them that they regard as unpleasant, i.e: sexual
>advances where there is no implied threat if one does not accept, and politely
>made remarks which happen to be politically incorrect. So my thoughts that
>there is a desire for thought control and speech control are not unfounded.
No no no.
The sexual harassment debate is NOT about thought control. It is about being
responsible for your actions. If I look at a female co-worker and imagine her
as my love slave, no law has been broken. On the other hand, if a woman
(who DESPERATELY needs her job) starts working with me, happens not to be
comfortable with sexual discussion at work and I TELL her I would like her
as my love slave...then that IS sexual harassment. It would make her work
a living Hell.
Be professional; be adult. If an attractive person starts working with you,
treat them as asexual beings until you find out what level of privacy they
want to maintain. Some people, you will have to treat that way forever;
others will be more ribald than you EVER imagined.
don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be NORML; know WHEN to say NO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin - Software Engineer - e-mail to: donb@tamri.com
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Nov 8 12:17:57 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA08754
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 12:01:29 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 12:01:25 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111081701.AA08749@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 8 11:59:50 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
k083240@hobbes.kzo : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
leavitt@oxy.edu (T : Re: Brack expulsion
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
grant@bluemoon.rn. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
amanda@visix.com ( : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
amanda@visix.com ( : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
amanda@visix.com ( : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Only Two
rita@eff.org (Rita : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
rday@magnus.acs.oh : Re: Thought Feh!
gerry@cs.cmu.edu ( : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: k083240@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Silly Happy Thoughts *GRIN* Steve Gilmer)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.060208.22815@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 06:02:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: hobbes.1991Nov8.060208.22815
References: <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu>
In article <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu> boehm@woozie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:
>
>>After the initial ruckus, I'm sure they got a little nervous, because
>>they realized that their students might not just sit back like sheep
>>like they usually do and let the U sit on them.
Something _MORE_ students need to do is stop allowing the adminstration
to do whatever they want WITH the hard earned money WE give them to
teach US.
>
>
>Actually the students here didn't get upset about the Lantern review policy.
>Speaking for myself, I'd hate to see my hard earned tuition money go to pay
>for a libel suit because some Lantern reporter wanted to shoot his mouth off
>without consulting his advisors first. Free speech is great, but if the
>University is financially responsible, it has the right to review what goes
>in the paper. There is no paper in the country where a reporter can print
>soemthing against the publishers wishes. Why should the Lantern be any
>different?
Every paper is reviewed, but a student run newspaper has the right to
follow it's own wishes. The university's role in providing a publisher
is one of a advising role, not one of a final say. This is the
student's paper, not the university's.
>
>The law suit that started this whole mess came from a prominent campus
>landlord. He's generally regarded as a sleaze, and he put up with that
>without much of a fight. The cartoon in question showed his son selling
>cardboard boxes to the homeless. When he saw his kids getting drug through
>the mud he got pissed and sued. Personally I'm glad to see that the
>University wants to prevent such irresponsibility by the Lantern staff in
>the future.
Irresponsibility?? Where? Do you ever read the editorials in any
newspaper? When they pick on someone you don't like, does that bug you?
If this had been drawn with a member of congress selling cardboard boxes
would you have been offended, probaly not. You probally would have said
it about time someone took notice of the homeless, or it's causes
(sleeazy landlords). How much did this guy pay you?
Also, remember your connection to the net is payed by the university,
not you. Based on what your saying (the univ. is responsible for
publications orignating there), they should censor your postings, since
they may be implicated in something you (or someone) else say's.
Somehow I don't think you would like this very much. To allow any one
to take away our basic constituonial right's is sham. How many people
have died for these right's, you so easily toss away for an editorial
cartoon you didn't really agree with. Think about the implication's of
what your saying (and the univ. is doing), don't look at the issue with
blinders, but with wide open eyes.
>
>
>Joe Boehm
>boehm@cis.ohio-state.edu
>
--
Steve Gilmer
k083240@kzoo.edu
-------------------
From: leavitt@oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt)
Subject: Re: Brack expulsion
Message-ID: <192193@tiger.oxy.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 08:05:16 GMT
References: <1991Oct30.202854.28406@eff.org> <1991Oct31.155406.29130@eff.org> <1991Nov02.072502.3024@dogface.austin.tx.us> <1991Nov3.052336.18807@colnet.uucp> <1991Nov3.153459.23701@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Distribution: na
Man, this is really f-cked. What has been the reaction of the student
body to this? I mean, expelling someone is bad enough, but emasculating
the student paper? They should start up an alternative paper!
Red
-------------------
From: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Nov 91 10:05:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Ed6Nlp200j5uEZnLE6
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org>
<1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> [Clear exposition of thoughts deleted to save bandwidth]
>
> Was Brack asking for trouble? Surely he was. If he didn't understand
> the very clear messages OSU was giving him, his IQ would have to be well
> below what is reasonable for a college student.
You know, I was thinking this sort of thing as well when I first
read the listing...then I read Carl's interpretation and my first
thought was _Who_am_I_supposed_to_believe_ ?
On the one hand, I could believe the claims [which seem somewhat
arbitrary to me] that OSU makes as being the end of the story.
On the other hand, I could believe Carl Kadie's interpretation of
events [theoretically supported by testimony from Brack himself.]
I suppose this is why trials are a necessary thing in this world -
so that we could get a fuller view of the situation and [hopefully]
both sides will be asked specific detailed questions as to what
exactly happened.
Jon "Iain" Boone
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.205459.22709@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 20:54:59 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Specifically, ACS punished him for breaking nonexistent rules (i.e.
>using two Macs, posting "fuck you") and expelled him from ACS
>computers without due process (i.e. permanent computer expulsion, no
>chance to appeal). OSU refused to specify the charges against him and
>then expelled him.
I'm confused. Wasn't a letter listing the charges posted a while back,
and didn't the most recently posted letter talk about appeals? Brack
did complain to me that his hearing didn't connect specific incidents
with specific charges, which is bad, but there seem to be way too many
contradictory charges flying around in here.
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.222644.24433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <9111072038.AA11513@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 22:26:44 GMT
In article <9111072038.AA11513@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.050345.5036@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> you write:
>> In article <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>> >Steve Brack doesn't no. In other words, the charges that Steven Brack
>> >were found guilty of are secret, even from Steven.
> I got a hearing. At my hearing, no connection *was ever made* between
> the charges against me & the specific actions committed.
So the charges weren't secret. Thanks for clarifying. Can you post a
transcript of the hearing?
-------------------
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov08.062001.26944@bluemoon.rn.com>
Date: 8 Nov 91 06:20:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: bluemoon.1991Nov08.062001.26944
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov07.204640.17669@eng.umd.edu>
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>Brack did something that OSU considered to be a minor infraction.
>It may have not been an infraction at all. It may not even have happened
>the way OSU described.
At the time there was more being made of it than a minor infraction.
I got his side of the story as it was my system he turned to locally
to still have access to news and mail.
>Is your solution to "knuckle under" to arbitrary and capricious abuse of
>power?
You know about "sheep", Mathew.
--
\ Grant DeLorean (grant@bluemoon.rn.com) {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!grant /
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation
as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases
which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."-C.A. Beard
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.095014.28095@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 09:50:14 GMT
In article Jon Allen Boone writes:
> I suppose this is why trials are a necessary thing in this world -
>so that we could get a fuller view of the situation and [hopefully]
>both sides will be asked specific detailed questions as to what
>exactly happened.
I'm hoping a transcript of the recent hearing will become available so
we can read what happened. So far all we've heard is Brack's side of
the story.
-------------------
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.113016.1553@visix.com>
Sender: news@visix.com
References: <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu>
<1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu>
<1991Nov07.231559.20273@eng.umd.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 11:30:16 GMT
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
What ACS did was an administrative action which amounted to a
disciplinary action, and there is almost certainly no appeal method
for that.
At Ohio State, there is an appeal method for *anything*, even things
that supposedly can't happen. I know this--I have personally appealed
"irreversible" disciplinary actions at OSU, and quite successfully.
In particular, the University Ombudsman (and to a lesser extent a
student's academic advisor) has quite broad authority to challenge
just about anything. The office exists solely to troubleshoot
situations that students find themselves unable to get out of.
One of the things that has continued to bother me about this whole
escapade is that Mr. Brack, by his very own account, did not attempt
to talk to his advisor, the University Ombudsman (which is, I believe,
a dean-level office), his department chair, or anyone else who might
be able and willing to assist him. Given that ACS is perhaps one of
the *least* popular organizations on the OSU campus (among students,
staff, and faculty alike), Mr. Brack would have had no trouble finding
people to help him, if only for the opportunity to humiliate or annoy
ACS.
Instead, Mr. Brack seems to have decided to try to be an electronic
martyr, with evidently some success.
Checks and balances won't work unless you invoke them and use them.
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"It is impossible for human nature to believe that money is not there. It seems
so much more likely that the money is there and only needs bawling for."
--Dorothy L. Sayers, _Busman's Honeymoon_
-------------------
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Sender: news@visix.com
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu>
<1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 11:38:17 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
How would you feel if you were expelled from school without
even knowing what you were being punished for?
Whoa, there. Stephen has NOT been expelled, according to the letter
he provided. He cannot enroll in classes for a year, but otherwise
his academic standing is undisturbed, and no "black marks" will
appear on his transcript.
As disciplinary actions go, this could be viewed as mild. It's
certainly not in the same class with disciplinary or academic
separation (which is the term OSU used for permanent, documented
expulsion).
It is no doubt mightily inconvenient, but it does no damage to Mr.
Brack's academic record, or future ability to attend Ohio State.
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a
bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher."
--Flannery O'Connor
-------------------
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.114234.1685@visix.com>
Sender: news@visix.com
References: <91309.07:
56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu
<1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org>
<1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
<1991Nov7.223601.12003@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 11:42:34 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.223601.12003@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental
entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life,
liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and
reputation arm considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to
attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be
required before a student is deprived of either at a public
institution."
According to the information supplied by Mr. Brack, OSU has deprived
him of neither of these. It could be argued that he has deprived
*himself* of the first one, to some extent, but the disciplinary action
which OSU has taken carries with it no permanent effect on either
his academic reputation or his right to attend college.
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"I think the awakes are winning over the asleeps by about 3 to 2."
--J. V. Fleming
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: _Only_ Two Terminals?
Message-ID: <9111081424.AA12568@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 8 Nov 91 04:24:59 GMT
One of the charges made against Steve Brack was that he used two terminals at
the same time. Without commenting on the charge itself, or the circumstances,
I just have one question: I'm writing this on a Unisys 386 PC with LAN
connectivity to our mainframes as well as our Goulds and 3b2's here at DSAC.
Our LAN software allows multiple simultaneous sessions, e.g., I can be logged
on to all three mainframes and all eight Un*x platforms, not to mention
innumerable file servers, all at the same time. I wonder what ACS-OSU would
say about that? After all, I'm only using _one_ terminal!!
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.150138.4669@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:01:38 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu> boehm@woozie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:
>
>>After the initial ruckus, I'm sure they got a little nervous, because
>>they realized that their students might not just sit back like sheep
>>like they usually do and let the U sit on them.
>
>
>Actually the students here didn't get upset about the Lantern review policy.
>Speaking for myself, I'd hate to see my hard earned tuition money go to pay
>for a libel suit because some Lantern reporter wanted to shoot his mouth off
>without consulting his advisors first. Free speech is great, but if the
>University is financially responsible, it has the right to review what goes
>in the paper. There is no paper in the country where a reporter can print
>soemthing against the publishers wishes. Why should the Lantern be any
>different?
Wrong. The University is *not* the publisher of the school
newspaper. Even if the printing presses (or macs -- whatever) are
owned by the University, or if the offices are located on university
property, or if the university pays all production costs (which it
doesn't in the case of OSU-- I checked).
Sole responsibility for libel lies with the student editor of
the paper.
The University does not have the right to review the paper.
>The law suit that started this whole mess came from a prominent campus
>landlord. He's generally regarded as a sleaze, and he put up with that
>without much of a fight. The cartoon in question showed his son selling
>cardboard boxes to the homeless. When he saw his kids getting drug through
>the mud he got pissed and sued. Personally I'm glad to see that the
>University wants to prevent such irresponsibility by the Lantern staff in
>the future.
Since when is an opinion irresponsibility? From my experience
with campus slumlords, it was probably a fairly accurate portrayal.
Note: for a libel suit to succeed, the cartoon would have to have been
clearly presented as *fact* and be a flat-out *lie*. Both these
conditions must apply. The fact that it was an opinion piece means it
was not being presented as fact.
We can publish our opinions in the country. Even those others
don't like. Even those that may be construed as "bad" or even
"dangerous". Something called the First Amendment guarantees that
right.
And the First Amendment applies to campus newspapers..
--
Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation | You can't play with Deadsy unless you've
155 Second Street | got them great, big sex-o-thingies.
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | -- Deadsy
-------------------
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.153933.3970@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
References: <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:39:33 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldw
in) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.com> bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader)
writes:
>>Recently, there have been efforts to punish people for their thoughts. We se
e
>>this in the harassment debate (*), where speech is increasingly legislated no
t
>>only between superior and subordinate, where it might be part of implicit
>>coercion, but also between co-workers, where the only motive for controlling
>>speech can be to prevent someone from having to know that someone else is
>>having thoughts about them that they regard as unpleasant, i.e: sexual
>>advances where there is no implied threat if one does not accept, and politel
y
>>made remarks which happen to be politically incorrect. So my thoughts that
>>there is a desire for thought control and speech control are not unfounded.
>
>No no no.
>
>The sexual harassment debate is NOT about thought control. It is about being
>responsible for your actions. If I look at a female co-worker and imagine her
>as my love slave, no law has been broken. On the other hand, if a woman
some stuff deleted.
No, no, no, in , it is (in most cases) sexual harassment if the woman thinks it
is. A friend's father wowuld come into his office and say "good morning ladies"
(there were none of the male workes in the office when he comes in). The
females reported him for sexual harassmaent. He was repremanded. This should
_not_ be sexual harassment, but it is seen as such by some.
Waht we have here is the right of "free speach" vs. the right not to be
hassled.
=
--
* Syr Otto von Schwartzkatz * Robert Eugene Day *
* Shire of Mugmort * The opinions expressed here are *
* Barony of the Middle Marches * my own. (I have no one else to *
* Kingdom of the Middle * blame but myself.) *
-------------------
From: gerry@cs.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Nov 91 15:20:57 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.152103.17925@anasaz>
Nntp-Posting-Host: onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: john@anasaz's message of 7 Nov 91 15:21:03 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.152103.17925@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
What we need is someone of the quality of Clarence Thomas as a politician.
This person could appeal to the same middle class anger, without being
racist or insensitive (God, I HATE that word because of the way it has
been perverted by the politically correct).
First, I object to the notion that my name was even associated with
this post.
Second, Clarence Thomas is the LAST person who should be in ANY
position of governmental athority. He is a fundementalist christian
who does not appear to belive in civil liberties and he may be a
sexual harrasser. Just the person I'd vote for... NOT!
--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cs.cmu.edu) | II - A well regulated Militia, being
Field Robotics Center, | necessary to the security of a free State,
Carnegie Mellon University | the right of the people to keep and bear
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | Arms, shall not be infringed.
(412) 268-3856 |
|
The opinions expressed are mine |
and do not reflect the official |
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, |
or any other organization. |
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.162827.16063@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 16:28:27 GMT
References: <199111072129.AA09717@eff.org>
FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen) writes:
>Punishing somebody without
>specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and
>it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the
>cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules.
As I understand it, Steven *did* participate in a hearing of the charges
and allegations against him. He states that "no connection" was made be-
tween the specific charges against him and the policies which he allegedly
violated.
My questions are simple:
- Did he ask for the specific connections?
- If they didn't provide the connectoins, did he press them
to do so?
- Did he have any observers or attorneys present?
- Does he have a transcript of the proceedings?
- Did he even attempt to defend his actions, or did he
just sit there and say "you're wrong"?
In short, did he exercise his rights in the hearing, or did he just
sit there and listen?
Personally, I'd like to see a transcript of the hearing, if it exists.
Until that occurs, we're right back to "they said this, and they're wrong";
that approach doesn't get us anywhere.
--
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
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.164457.7354@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205459.22709@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 16:44:57 GMT
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>I'm confused. Wasn't a letter listing the charges posted a while back,
>and didn't the most recently posted letter talk about appeals? Brack
>did complain to me that his hearing didn't connect specific incidents
>with specific charges, which is bad, but there seem to be way too many
>contradictory charges flying around in here.
Steven can appeal his dismissal.
There is no procedure for appealing his computer expulsion. There are
of course extra procedural methods (ombudsman, University president,
the Governor of Ohio). I think he has made some efforts in this
direction, but without result.
- 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.
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Mon Nov 11 14:55:34 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA12807
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:27:50 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:27:43 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111111927.AA12802@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 14:26:24 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : RICE's Owlnet (Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Brack Expulsion. What
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
bei@dogface.austin : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
bei@dogface.austin : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
art@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
smithmc@sage.cc.pu : Re: (alt.config) Re: prostitution
smithmc@sage.cc.pu : Dave Duke Slogans
kadie@eff.org (Car : interlibrary loan policy
smithmc@sage.cc.pu : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.164908.7504@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu> <1991Nov8.015803.9669@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> <2730@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 16:49:08 GMT
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
[...]
>Anyway, in Brack's particular case, it appears he signed an agreement
>to abide by the site's policy (point mentioned in the note that detailed
>correspondence sent to him by the admins) and apparently broke that
>agreement. Since we don't have the details of the agreement (with
>respect to the penalties for violations), we cannot say if the site's
>reactions were out of hand.
>The reaction seems harsh but until we see the EXACT policy, it's
>pointless to "monday quarterback" the whole affair.
[...]
Steven should not have to guess about whether this is the reason he
was dismissed. If this is the reason, the letters he received should
have said so clearly.
- 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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.164105.21063@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 16:41:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov8.164105.21063
References: <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.223601.12003@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Umm, Universities are not courts of law nor are they federal
>>governmental entities. The procedural protections of the U.S.
>>Constitution do not apply.
>[...]
>
> 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).
>"The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental
>entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life,
>liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and
>reputation arm considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to
>attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be
>required before a student is deprived of either at a public
>institution."
If there is, indeed, a *right* to attend college, how can public universities
implement selective admissions? How can they establish specific obligations
for students?
Public universities certainly have the obligation to establish disciplinary
rules and procedures. Students agree to abide by those rules/procedures when
they enroll. If they fail to abide by those rules/procedures, they are sub-
ject to disciplinary action. It's an open-and-shut case.
>Procedural due process
>generally refers to the requirement of notice and hearing before being
>deprived of a right. For example, before being expelled for
>misconduct, students should have notice of what they have done wrong
>and a chance to tell their side of the story."
OSU followed this general principle; Steven Brack had official notice of
the charges against him, and he participated in a hearing, during which he
had the opportunity to present his side of the story.
>Universities, both public and private, have a contractual obligation
>to their students. (As will as a moral obligation to respect the
>academic freedom of their students).
Students also have a contractural obligation to the university. These
obligations are "spelled out" in student handbooks and University policy
manuals. I find it hard to believe that Steven did not have access to
these during this incident.
Folks, this is starting to take on the same characteristics of other
famous trials, such as that of the Rosenbergs. We can argue forevermore
about the guilt or innocence of Steven Brack; what will it accomplish?
It's up to him to pursue appeals through whatever means are supported
by OSU.
We can learn from this incident, and we can work to prevent future
such incidents. As far as this case is concerned, it's over. OSU
has apparently followed its established procedures, and Steven had
an open hearing in which to present his side. The board made its
decision, and this phase of the case is over. Personally, I hope
that Steven goes into the appeal process; he may be able to overturn
the Judicial Board's decision.
--
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
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: RICE's Owlnet (Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.170229.8822@eff.org>
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>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 17:02:29 GMT
jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
[description of RICE's computer due process procedure]
They sound much better than most. Can you post them?
Here is what the unoffical, draft Statement on Computers and Academic
Freedom says about Discipline and Due process:
-----start----
II. Policy Formulation
Interpretation: "The institution has an obligation to clarify those
standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational
mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations
and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of [user] conduct, but the [user] should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. 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 [user] participation and published in advance through such
means as a [user] handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations." [Joint Statement]
II. Student and Faculty Discipline
Principle: Suspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious
penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process
protection similar to that given to those facing other serious
penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for
cheating, or suspension from class.
Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user]
should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes [and use computers] 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." [Joint Statement]
-----end---
The only difference I can see is that you lock out users for third
"offenses" before talking to them.
- Carl
p.s. To get the unofficial, draft Statement on CAF (with comments),
send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom README
--
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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.171611.9112@eff.org>
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.223601.12003@eff.org> <1991Nov8.114234.1685@visix.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 17:16:11 GMT
>In article <1991Nov7.223601.12003@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
>Kadie) writes:
> "The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental
> entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life,
> liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and
> reputation arm considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to
> attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be
> required before a student is deprived of either at a public
> institution."
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>According to the information supplied by Mr. Brack, OSU has deprived
>him of neither of these. It could be argued that he has deprived
>*himself* of the first one, to some extent, but the disciplinary action
>which OSU has taken carries with it no permanent effect on either
>his academic reputation or his right to attend college.
[...]
In _Goss v. Lopez_ the Supreme Court said that the student's
privilege/right to attend school was a property right that could not
be suspended or taken away without some due process. (In other cases
the Supreme Court said that an untentured teacher does did not have a
property right to a renewal of his or her employment contract)
Here is a quote from _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).
--- begin quote----
When the Supreme Court ruled in Goss that even short-term suspensions
require some modicum of due process, a hue and cry arose across the
land. School administrators, parents, and teachers were upset and
feared that the decision would force school officials to consult
lawyers before they could take any disciplinary measures in schools.
These fears where ill based. Careful reading of Goss and other cases
indicates that the legal requirements are not at all excessive and
that there is no need for lawyers to be at the side of administrators
or teachers. Conscientious educators used fair procedures long before
these cases ever went to court, and their procedures amply satisfy the
law.
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 ---
--
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: Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.172435.9318@eff.org>
References: <199111072129.AA09717@eff.org> <1991Nov8.162827.16063@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 17:24:35 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>My questions are simple:
> - Did he ask for the specific connections?
He says he did.
> - If they didn't provide the connectoins, did he press them
> to do so?
[...]
He says that they refused.
- Carl
p.s. There is likely a tape of the formal hearing, but no transcript.
--
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.170228.28272@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 17:02:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov8.170228.28272
References: <9111080436.AA17094@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>
> I am a citizen of Ohio.
> My taxes pay for OSU's expenses.
These two statements may be valid; however, they do not logically imply
this statement:
> It is a right, not a privelege, that I attend OSU,
> until such time as I am separated by proper, legal, ethical procedure.
The mere payment of taxes does NOT grant the right to attend a public
university.
--
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
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.004449.15049@eff.org> <1991Nov8.031314.2174@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 17:34:21 GMT
I write:
>>The cartoon is likely protected by the First Amendment.
boehm@chippewa.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm) writes:
[...]
>It doesn't matter. Let the cartoonist publish it on his own. The
>University, as publisher of the newspaper, has the right to use its
>judgement to determine what goes in it. It is not trying
>to limit other people freedom of expression, it is trying to gain
>control over what its own publication says.
[...]
[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
----- begin quote----
School Sponsorship of Student Publications
School authorities often have claimed that they exert more control
over school-sponsored publications than over nonschool material, but
the judiciary has recognized that constitutional protections apply to
both types of student literature. Mere school affiliation does not
remove student literature from first amendment protection. The
judiciary has reasoned that a governmental body "is not necessarily
the unfettered master of all it creates." Thus, 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.
For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [Connecticut, New
York, Vermont - Carl] affirmed a decision in which the federal
district court held that a [high school] principle could not prohibit
the distribution of a school-sponsored newspaper in which students
placed a four-page supplement with information about contraception and
abortion. The court noted that the articles in the supplement were
intended to convey information and that the subjects were treated in a
serious manner. While recognizing that the supplement might create
some controversy, the court reasoned that it did not threaten a
disruption in the educational environment.
Although 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. In essence, school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content. [...]
---- end of quote---
- 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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <9111081740.AA19058@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 8 Nov 91 07:40:26 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Actually the students here didn't get upset about the Lantern review policy.
>>Speaking for myself, I'd hate to see my hard earned tuition money go to pay
>>for a libel suit because some Lantern reporter wanted to shoot his mouth off
>>without consulting his advisors first. Free speech is great, but if the
>>University is financially responsible, it has the right to review what goes
>>in the paper. There is no paper in the country where a reporter can print
>>soemthing against the publishers wishes. Why should the Lantern be any
>>different?
>
> Wrong. The University is *not* the publisher of the school
>newspaper. Even if the printing presses (or macs -- whatever) are
>owned by the University, or if the offices are located on university
>property, or if the university pays all production costs (which it
>doesn't in the case of OSU-- I checked).
>
> Sole responsibility for libel lies with the student editor of
>the paper.
>
> The University does not have the right to review the paper.
>
What is the basis for these comments? The _Lantern_ is a lab newspaper, i.e,
a course offered by the University. The instructor of the course certainly
has the right to determine course content. The fact that the two criteria of
review, i.e., inciting to unlawful activity or libel, are clearly stated is
telling. This is not censorship; no points of view are being suppressed; no
voice is left in the cold. The only reason for review is to protect the
University. Period. The scenario turns, it seems to me, on the fact that the
_Lantern_ is a lab course. If it weren't, possibly there would be censorship.
Back to the earlier statement: What makes an entity the publisher of a
publication: If it isn't ownership, what is it? It seems to me that you are
trying to strip owners of all rights to their property. If this is so, please
clarify.
[....]
>
> And the First Amendment applies to campus newspapers..
>
You're right. And there's no infringement here. If there is, please cite me
the relevant case law that you think would apply in this instance.
>
>--
>Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org
>Electronic Frontier Foundation | You can't play with Deadsy unless you've
>155 Second Street | got them great, big sex-o-thingies.
>Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | -- Deadsy
>
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.174404.10029@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205459.22709@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 17:44:04 GMT
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
[...]
>I'm confused. Wasn't a letter listing the charges posted a while back,
>and didn't the most recently posted letter talk about appeals? Brack
>did complain to me that his hearing didn't connect specific incidents
>with specific charges, which is bad, but there seem to be way too many
>contradictory charges flying around in here.
[...]
The gist of my critism of Ohio State University is that the "charges"
that Steven Brack was given were unconstitutionally vague. I support
this critism with the observation that Steven doesn't know if he was
dismissed for using two Macs or not. I also support it with this
quote:
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)
---- end quote----
--
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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.175131.10220@eff.org>
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 17:51:31 GMT
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> How would you feel if you were expelled from school without
> even knowing what you were being punished for?
>Whoa, there. Stephen has NOT been expelled, according to the letter
>he provided. He cannot enroll in classes for a year, but otherwise
>his academic standing is undisturbed, and no "black marks" will
>appear on his transcript.
[...]
He cannot reenroll unless he is reaccepted. As other have pointed out,
the University is under no specific obligation to accept him as a
student.
It looks like a OSU dismissal falls somewhere between
a suspension and a permanent expulsion.
(If he does reenroll and does get reaccepted, I wonder if
he will be able to get an account on an ACS computer?)
- 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: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID: <1991Nov08.152250.27846@dogface.austin.tx.us>
Date: 8 Nov 91 15:22:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogface.1991Nov08.152250.27846
References: <1991Nov6.005922.27@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Nov7.222747.17418@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
In article <1991Nov7.222747.17418@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) writes:
>BBSs are still considered illegal/subversive, and
>as such will be more subject to challenges to their content.
There's nothing innately illegal about a BBS. BBSes are no more prone to
illegality than their cork equivalent at the local supermarket or convenience
store.
Is a BBS subversive, though? A telephone company would believe so, if it were
possible for a monstrous blizzard of swirling memos revolving at the speed of
light to believe anything. Recent debate over whether modem traffic uses more
or less of the phone network than "ordinary" voice calls has called the method
by which "the cost of a call" is calculated into question. An attorney might
also label a BBS subversive, for they might peer into the richly appointed
offices of the BBS :-) and see none of their brethren's fins slicing through
the water/paperwork.
Subversion, of course, comes in more than one flavor. Working against the
government, while much out of favor, brought this country into being. Were
we to have our same laws but live in England of the 1700s, those laws would
forbid this country from ever being formed. (But it'd make a hell of a TV
show: COPS in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, or Britain's Most Wanted!) A
milder form of subversion, well, that might not be so bad. Subversion of
the traditional, of routine approaches to social, scientific and personal
problems, encourages the diversity that democracy supports. A little more
subversion, a little more original thinking about "How do I solve this
problem?" when the wisdom in vogue has the problem labeled as unsolvable,
can yield substantial, although perhaps intangible, benefit.
How many avenues of mass communication are open to the individual today? TV,
radio, magazines, and newspapers are all edited works, where your words may
appear in abridged form, perhaps out of context. Here's an electronic method
to make your opinions heard to more people than you can reach almost any other
way, that makes modest (compared to the cost of airtime on TV or radio)
demands on your finances... Don't outlaw it, don't ridicule it... encourage
it!
Bob
--
==============================================================================
DOMAIN-WISE: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei
==============================================================================
-------------------
From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov08.153537.27963@dogface.austin.tx.us>
Date: 8 Nov 91 15:35:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogface.1991Nov08.153537.27963
References: <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu>
In article <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu> boehm@woozie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Boehm) writes:
>The law suit that started this whole mess came from a prominent campus
>landlord. He's generally regarded as a sleaze, and he put up with that
>without much of a fight. The cartoon in question showed his son selling
>cardboard boxes to the homeless. When he saw his kids getting drug through
>the mud he got pissed and sued. Personally I'm glad to see that the
>University wants to prevent such irresponsibility by the Lantern staff in
>the future.
On your campus, this man is a public figure. More can be said about him than
about somebody that's less in the public eye. Regarding the depiction of his
son, I don't know whether the public figure label applies to him as well. If
it does, he's fair game.
It is no victory when anyone who doesn't like what's said about them can get
attorney and filing fees together and take their detractors into court. The
end result of alot of this are media devoid of content, with newscasts that
cover events four weeks in the past (after approval by the legal department.)
Bob
--
==============================================================================
DOMAIN-WISE: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei
==============================================================================
-------------------
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: gerry@cs.cmu.edu's message of 8 Nov 91 15:20:57 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <1991Nov7.152103.17925@anasaz>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:13:26 GMT
In article gerry@cs.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
[...]
Second, Clarence Thomas is the LAST person who should be in ANY
position of governmental athority. He is a fundementalist christian
who does not appear to belive in civil liberties and he may be a
sexual harrasser. Just the person I'd vote for... NOT!
Clarence Thomas is an Episcopalian. If you are going to consider the
Episcopalians fundamentalist you'll have to consider all churches
fundamentalist.
-------------------
From: smithmc@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: [alt.config] Re: prostitution group?
Message-ID: <25113@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 19:08:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.25113
References: <199111012155.AA16467@eff.org> <1991Nov1.224649.17991@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
In article <1991Nov1.224649.17991@milton.u.washington.edu>, lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
|> >>okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) writes:
|> >>
|> >>> Naively assuming it isn't [ a bogus call for a new group], this group
|> >>>will support an activity that
|> >>>is illegal in almost every state and providence and is morally offensive
|> >>>to many people. In addition, the newsgroup itself will probably violate
|> >>>several laws, from the U.S. FCC on down.
|>
|> This guy should drop by alt.drugs.
Or maybe alt.evil, or alt.sex.beastiality, or alt.tasteless, or...
Michael Smith
-------------------
From: smithmc@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Don't Try This At Home)
Subject: Dave Duke Slogans
Message-ID: <25117@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 19:12:49 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.214224.10346@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <1991Nov1.224101.22705@unislc.uucp> <+=kd96g@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <+=kd96g@lynx.unm.edu>, nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
|> In article <1991Nov1.224101.22705@unislc.uucp> lae@unislc.UUCP (Leslie Evans,B2C10,5383) writes:
|>
|> >Here's a prediction for the '96 Republican ticket: Duke/Hatch (Orrin that is.
|> >Our wonderful Utah senator who knows "The Excorcist" forwards and back).
|> >Now can anyone think of the appropriate slogan for these two?
|> >
|> >Leslie Evans
|>
|>
|> ...mama, don't let you babies grow up to be negros... ???
|>
|>
or how about "Duke/Hatch in '96; No More Mr. Nice Guy"?
Dont Try This At Home
PS- Do you thing we could take this to alt.tasteless or something?
PPS- Maybe we should form our own newsgroop, alt.dave-duke.resistance
We might need it later...
-------------------
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: smithmc@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <25124@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 20:18:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.25124
References: <5277@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
In article <5277@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
|> Barry Shein writes
|> +
|> + From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
|> + >I assume the people who object to the embargo against Iraq on the
|> + >grounds that it hurts innocent children are entirely distinct from
|> + >those who support an embargo against South Africa which hurts innocent
|> + >children or who support boycotting a state for failing to make
|> + >Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday and are unmoved by the
|> + >argument that the boycott hurts innocent people.
|> +
|> + Although I for one do not object to any embargo against Iraq I don't
|> + remember the South African govt or Arizona making any particular
|> + points about these embargos hurting children. I suppose this will be
|> + responded to with "reasonable hypothesis" rather than anything
|> + resembling relevant facts.
|>
|> Children? What children? Or are they the only innocents???
|>
|> +
|> + The reason may be that the embargos (or boycott) were on completely
|> + different goods in each case. Has Arizona had trouble buying food and
|> + medical supplies lately, or selling their vast oil reserves on the
|> + world market?
|> +
|> + Is your point so weak that you have to stretch this far to make it?
|> +
|> + What is your point, anyhow?
|>
|> I would say that the point, at least WRT Arizona, is that outsiders are
|> interfering in things that are, when all is said and done, inconsequential.
|>
|> And when folks get used to interfering like that, they'll keep doing it.
|> Eventually they'll tell you what to think, how to think it, and when
|> to think it.
You're telling me... I demonstrated against the Gulf War and people threw
things at me. I guess they didn't like the idea that someone didn't like
a "good, patriotic war...for peace" (HUH?)
|>
|> Long Live Big Brother.
Heil Bush.
What really scares me isn't that Duke could be Governor of Louisiana. That
has nothing to do with me. That is one state; I just won't go there
with any non-white friends of mine if Duke gets elected and all the
bad things that we're predicting on this net should come true.
The really frightening possibility is that America will buy his bullshit
about mistakes made in his youth and that he'll dominate the election on
the airwaves, using the mass media to hard-sell his lies. If he does,
then I'd best leave. If I said anything, the police won't have to come
and get me. A crowd of Duke-Happy jackasses will come to my door and
lynch me.
The biggest enemy of reason in America is not the government or the press
or the liberals or the conservatives or even dictators like Bush and
Duke. The biggest enemy of reason is our next door neighbor.
Mussolini mastered the Next Door Neighbor well. He called on gangs of
fascists to physically beat Socialists. The fascists were all too happy to
comply.
In Lybia, Kaddafhi claims to abide by the wishes of the people; his
society is allegedly democratic. Yet people who speak against his
reforms are publicly hanged as enemys of the state. They are not
condemned by Kaddafhi but by a tribunal consisting of members of their
community.
Make no mistake. It could happen here. It is happening here. And
the only way to stop it is to show people what's happening and relate it
to recent history.
-------------------
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <5317@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 18:52:35 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.095014.28095@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Distribution: na
Greg Lindahl writes
+ In article Jon Allen Boone
writes:
+
+ > I suppose this is why trials are a necessary thing in this world -
+ >so that we could get a fuller view of the situation and [hopefully]
+ >both sides will be asked specific detailed questions as to what
+ >exactly happened.
+
+ I'm hoping a transcript of the recent hearing will become available so
+ we can read what happened. So far all we've heard is Brack's side of
+ the story.
I doubt that will happen. I don't think that's a releasable document
under the Buckley Amendment (student information privacy clause in
Title X??). Mr. Brack would have to agree to have it made available,
and even then, would have to type/scan it in himself.
James
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Mon Nov 11 15:03:12 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA13628
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:46:09 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:46:03 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111111946.AA13621@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 14:45:13 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: interlibrary loan policy
chapin@cbnewsc.cb. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
dmurray@jasper.tmc : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (news.admin) California State University, Sacram
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
eck@panix.com (Mar : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
elsonliu@leland.St : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
mbarkah@slate.mine : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.181355.12486@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Nov8.015803.9669@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> <2730@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> <1991Nov8.164908.7504@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 18:13:55 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.164908.7504@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Steven should not have to guess about whether this is the reason he
>was dismissed. If this is the reason, the letters he received should
>have said so clearly.
Maybe he was told so, clearly, at the hearing. I'd like to see a
transcript; until then, it seems pointless to complain that the
University didn't say something in a letter if they told him face to
face.
-------------------
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: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.221611.7660@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Date: 8 Nov 91 22:16:11 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.164105.21063@ms.uky.edu>
Distribution: usa
Wes Morgan writes:
>If there is, indeed, a *right* to attend college, how can public universities
>implement selective admissions?
No one asserted a "right" to be admitted to a given college (unless
the college sets certain public criteria, as some do). The right
being asserted is the right to demand that the terms of a contract
be upheld when an agreement has been struck and money has changed
hands.
I note that I have no right to demand an apartment owner lease an
apartment to me, but if the lease is signed, the landlord may not
evict me without due process.
>Students agree to abide by those rules/procedures when they enroll.
>If they fail to abide by those rules/procedures, they are subject
>to disciplinary action. It's an open-and-shut case.
I also note that even if one of us fails to uphold certain clauses in
the lease, the other side is still required to uphold its side until
all the requirements of due process have been observed.
It's not quite so open and shut.
--
tom chapin tjc@hrccb.att.com
-------------------
From: dmurray@jasper.tmc.edu (David R. Murray)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Keywords: Thank you!
Message-ID: <825@hydra.bucknell.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 22:22:34 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.214953.24145@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Nov7.230402.27024@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.150138.4669@eff.org>
Sender: news@hydra.bucknell.edu
Followup-To: soc.college
In article <1991Nov8.150138.4669@eff.org> rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
> Wrong. The University is *not* the publisher of the school
>newspaper.
> Sole responsibility for libel lies with the student editor of
>the paper.
> The University does not have the right to review the paper.
>
> We can publish our opinions in the country. Even those others
>don't like. Even those that may be construed as "bad" or even
>"dangerous". Something called the First Amendment guarantees that
>right.
> And the First Amendment applies to campus newspapers..
Thank you! Finally the voice of logic and reason.
Newspapers are funded by universities because a strong student press
serves a much larger purpose than just regular delivery of current
campus events to students. Campus newspapers are admissions & public
relations tools, forums for debate, hotbeds of controversy, and
official historical records of universities. Students who work on
campus newspapers receive an incredible educational benefit as well.
These 'newspapers of record' are invaluable, and must be funded and
nurtured to survive. They must also be afforded the same rights as any
other community newspaper... which means freedom from censorship!
David R. Murray '92
Editor-in-Chief, _The_Bucknellian_
(The Weekly Campus Newspaper of Bucknell University)
__ ------------------------------
(NCC-1701) -==<__>==- David R. Murray | InterNet:
_||____//_ Box C-475, Bucknell Univ | DMurray@Hydra.Bucknell.Edu
(__________} Lewisburg, PA 17837 | BitNet:
"Live Long & Prosper" 717 / 523 - 5228 | DMurray@BknlVMS.BitNet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] California State University, Sacram
Message-ID: <9111090009.AA16256@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 8 Nov 91 12:09:03 GMT
From: crosenberg@igc.org (Charlie Rosenberg)
Date: 07 Nov 91 19:16 PST
From: Charlie Rosenberg
Subject: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1991 15:21:59 PST
From: "John F. Sandhoff"
Cc: postmaster@csus.edu, syssand@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU
Message-Id: <0095149E.31F7CF00.18644@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU>
Subject: RE: Is this necessary?
Status: RO
> From: Charlie Rosenberg
> Message-ID: <9111070435.AA24241@cdp.igc.org>
> To: postmaster@csus.edu
> Subject: Is this necessary?
> Screw that. Let's just stay here. There's more of us that there are of these
> "industrial computing" cheezballs anyway.
> JLT
> Sac Bee / State H.
> Department of Sociology
Josh is a student at this University. We do not dictate what can and
cannot be said on UseNet (though actual tampering with or inappropriate
use of the resource will be addressed). Although I have a certain
opinion of Josh's actions in general, flame wars over the use of
news groups are best addressed directly to him.
John F. Sandhoff, Network Support
California State University, Sacramento
sandhoff@csus.edu
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111090128.AA25494@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 01:28:19 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.222644.24433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> you write:
> In article <9111072038.AA11513@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
> >In article <1991Nov7.050345.5036@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> you write:
> >> In article <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >>
> >> >Steve Brack doesn't no. In other words, the charges that Steven Brack
> >> >were found guilty of are secret, even from Steven.
>
> > I got a hearing. At my hearing, no connection *was ever made* between
> > the charges against me & the specific actions committed.
>
> So the charges weren't secret. Thanks for clarifying. Can you post a
> transcript of the hearing?
Will you reimburse me the cost of procuring one from OSU?
They won't simply give me one, I have to buy it from them.
-- Steve
-------------------
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.204522.8099@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 20:45:22 GMT
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com>
In <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com>, joe@okepyr.UUCP stated:
>
> If Maddox were elected Governor of Georgia in today's
> climate of political correctness, the people of Georgia
> could expect punishment for exercising their constitutional
> rights in the form of economic blackmail, boycotts, media
> ridicule, and an endless array of other sqeeze tactics
> and whippings by the intolerant fascict liberals.
> After all, the liberals in Boston, Washington, NYC,
> and at CBS, NBC, ABC news, and the Kennedys, the Kerrys
> and the Metzenbaums know better than the people of Georgia
> (or Louisiana) what is really best for them.
> Just ask the people of Arizona what can happen if you
> vote the "wrong way".
>
> This economic blackmail poses a greater threat to America
> and constitutional freedoms than Lester Maddox, David Duke
> or an "incorrect vote" in Arizona.
Assuming that you have any cognitive processes worthy of the term,
Spencer, what did/do you think of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You
wouldn't happen to be one of those folks who think that Congress went
too far, and that nigras should simply have taken their business
only to hospitable public accommodations, would you?
Hmmm.
--
Brokaw knows the frequency. Rather won it from him at racquetball.
- Roy Blount, Jr.
Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111090155.AA25620@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 01:55:32 GMT
In article <1991Nov08.060938.25195@eng.umd.edu> Matthew T. Russotto writes:
> In article Sanjay Kapur writes:
> >
> >Systems administrators are about as powerless to stop the enforcement of these
> >policies as Mr. Brack was. Mr. Brack was expelled. Systems administrators
> >who do not agree with the policies of the University Administration are fired.
>
> That's not the way I see it. This is:
>
> 1) Steven Brack does something to piss off ACS SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS
> 2) ACS System Administrators punish Brack via administrative action
> (revoking/restricting his account)
> 3) Steven Brack breaks/finesses punishment
> 4) ACS SYSADMINS, upset at being circumvented, files formal charges with
> judicial board
> 5) Rubber-stamp judicial board finds Brack guilty, expells him.
>
> There were no policies: Only the whims of sysadmins.
> (someone correct me if there were actual University administrators involved
> in pressing the formal charges against Brack)
The only capricious behavior I could see on the part of the sysadmins
was that they chose which actions of mine to bring to others'
(ie Admins higher up in ACS) attentions.
As I already said to Sanjay, the sysadmins were the fairest of the
people I dealt with @ OSU. It's the higher-ups that were troublesome.
It would be more accurate to say that the departmental admins never
formulated a set policy for dealing with problems. Sysadmins were
forced to decide, on the fly, what to report. Departmental admins
were, as a rule, not as cognizant of the intricacies of the systems
as were the sysadmins, & thus saw my actions as more threatening than
they were. Case in point: the director of ACS is not a computer
science person. Rather, he is known for his work on OSU's
radio observatory project.
-- Steve
> Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090212.AA25693@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 02:12:31 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu> you write:
> In article <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >
> > Steven Brack always assumed that Ohio State University and Academic
> > Computing Services would follow the law. In this he was mistaken.
> >
>
> Not the law. The rules of the University. University disciplinary
> actions against students do not fall under the realm of the U.S. legal
> system. There is no evidence that the University or the ACS did not
> follow its own rules.
ACS has never given me anything even remotely resembling rules,
until after my account had been suspended.
>
> > Specifically, ACS punished him for breaking nonexistent rules (i.e.
> > using two Macs, posting "fuck you") and expelled him from ACS
> > computers without due process (i.e. permanent computer expulsion, no
> > chance to appeal).
>
> 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. 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.
In fact, I contacted the office of the University Ombudsman
regarding my case. I was referred to three different people,
my calls were not returned, & mail I sent them containing
case materials somehow "got lost."
In short, they didn't seem terribly interested in helping me,
so, rather than fighting two beauraucracies, I chose to fight
the more important one.
And you're right. At the time of my expulsion from the computer
system, no one told me I had any right to appeal.
> > OSU refused to specify the charges against him and
> > then expelled him.
>
> If Steven Brack had asked the University to specify charges by matching
> offense with rule, they probably would have done it. What he
> apparently asked them for was a listing of the offenses that he was
> being disciplined for. The University complied. Nowhere is it
> documented for the public that the University flatly refused to comply
> with a reasonable informational request by Mr. Brack.
Because I am going to college, I don't have the time to transcribe
every document I have regarding this matter. I wrote Judicial
Affairs a 12-page letter that requested, in detail, an explanation
of how my actions could be considered to have violated University
rules. Instead, I just got a listing of the actions I was
alleged to have taken, with no correllation at all made between
them and the rules.
> > It is possible that both Steven and Ohio State University are in the
> > wrong. Steven, at the time a freshman, has already been punished with
> > computer and school explusions. Ohio State University, a government
> > school, has gotten away scot free.
>
> State Universities are not government schools. They are wholly or
> partly funded by state revenues, but they are not government entities.
> They are separately chartered institutions, often supported by income
> from state owned land that is set aside specifically to provide revenue
> for the university, hence the term "land-grant university". The
> entity called a "state" and the entity called the "state government"
> are not the same thing, just as the United States and the Federal
> Government are not the same thing.
Whether a private or a public institution, Ohio State must still
abide by the law, and that includes due process, if it chooses to
exercise prosecutorial & judicial powers.
> Ohio State would only be in the wrong if it had failed to follow its
> own rules. There is no evidence that OSU did this. What OSU did may
> be seem unfair and harsh, but we don't know what would have happened
> had Mr. Brack pursued the appeal routes that were undoubtedly open to
> him. One could assert that OSU's rules are inherently unfair and allow
> for too much discretion on the part of University employees, but that
> is a different issue. But before you level that charge, you should be
> very careful to understand what OSU's rules are.
Then, by your curious logic, a University's rules can never be
wrong. After all, they are the rules.
In this country, a jury is given a great deal of latitude in
its actions. This is to allow juries to make judgements.
A jury may find a person not guilty even though there is no
reasonable doubt remaining, if it decides the law is wrong.
As for the appeals system that was "undoubtedly" open to me,
I have given examples of their disinterest in my case. Don't
assume that because the rules say something, that it will actually
happen that way.
-- Steve
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090219.AA25724@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 02:19:06 GMT
In article you write:
>
> <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org>
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 23:23:00 GMT
> Lines: 15
>
> In article <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
> (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >Here are the main letters that Steven Brack received from Ohio State
> >(and as typed in by Steven Brack.)
>
> As I hashed out with Steven in e-mail, I was asking if any information
> was now available directly from the university. It's not intended as
> a slur on his integrity, but all data available so far has come from
> Steven, who is an interested party in this affair. I think further
> discussion on the net is pointless unless someone on the other side
> speaks up.
I have many times invited those on the other side to post on
the issue. I have specifically waived my right to object to
what they say as breaking confidentiality. Yet, they refuse
to discuss it. I can't make them discuss it.
>
> [old messages deleted]
> --
> J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
From: elsonliu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Liu)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.015928.192@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
References: <1991Nov8.004449.15049@eff.org> <1991Nov8.031314.2174@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org>
Distribution: North America
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 01:59:28 GMT
In Message-ID: <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl Kadie) writes:
>Although 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. In essence, school
>authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
>because of displeasure with the content. [...]
What if the given publication was *not* originally created as a free speech
forum? I point to:
In Message-ID:
kaul@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rich Kaul) writes:
>The problem, as far as I can tell, is that "the Lantern" (or "the
>Latrine" as it is more accurately known) is a lab newspaper. In other
>words, the university is the publisher and all journalism majors are
>required to work on the paper before they can graduate, so it's not a
>student newspaper in the sense you're used to. The university is much
>more closely entwined with this newspaper than is typical.
Obviously, student speech is protected under the First Amendment
provided that speech is given in a public forum. However, if OSU did not
create the *Lantern* as such a forum, but rather as part of an academic
program, the university administration retains the right to regulate the
content of the paper. The fact that it had not done so previously does not
necessarily mean it had surrendered that right.
Just my two bits worth...
.....Elson.....
-------------------
From: mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov09.012843.8077@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 91 01:28:43 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.004449.15049@eff.org> <1991Nov8.031314.2174@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org>
[regarding school support for publications]
blankly gazed at the sky, and wrote:
> ... if a given publication was originally created as a free speech
> forum, removal of ... support ... can be construed as an unlawful
> effort to stifle free expression ...
>
Then most schools will get off the hook on technical grounds. That is,
I don't know of any school sponsored publications which was created
as a medium of (specifically) free speech. Education and information
are the two main reasons why a school supports a publication.
A school can easily argue that none of its publications were ever
"originally created as a free speech" forum. They will say that the
school has always reserved the right to edit articles, etc., making
it *not* free speech. The school may further argue that the publications
were created as a journalistic media to provide information, irrelevant
of free speech. And so on and so forth.
The quotation also implies that even if during the lifetime of the
publication a school statement acknowledged the publication as
a free speech forum, but the school did not state that fact
*originally* during the publication's inception, then the removal
of support cannot be construed as being an unlawful interference
with the first amendment.
--
Mahendra Barkah Internet: mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu
--
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090235.AA25779@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 02:35:09 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu> you write:
> In article <199111072129.AA09717@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
> >Neil, I have no doubt that you are correct in how OSU perceived the
> >Brack case. He did wrong, they punished him, he still did wrong, they
> >punished him harder. However, their feelings of frustration are no
> >excuse for the subversion of due process. Punishing somebody without
> >specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and
> >it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the
> >cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules. This is manifestly
> >unfair and we should have no sympathy nor give any quarter to those who
> >act in this manner.
> > Frank
>
> I wasn't trying to judge who was right and who was wrong. I was trying only
> to point out the OSU perceives things very differently from the way they
> have been described on the net.
What is your source of information? Mine comes from OSU.
>
> As I commented in a private message to Stephen Brack, all of this discussion
> is based on an assumption about "the truth". But "the truth" does not exist.
> Instead we have "the truth as perceived by Stephen Brack" and "the truth as
> perceived by OSU". These two perceptions of the truth are obviously poles
> apart. Both sides may well hold their perceptions with great sincerity
> and great honesty. Binary TRUE/FALSE logic often doesn't apply where human
> nature is involved.
The facts, not opinions, as I know, not assume, them, are:
1) ACS never gave me any reason to think my actions were
objectionable until after I had done them.
2) ACS punished me by removing me from its system without
any sort of a hearing on the matter. Further, punishment
of student wrongdoing falls outside the purview of ACS's
authority as defined by the University's Rules.
3) After I "criticized the University on several national
bulletin boards", ACS chose to pursue the matter with
Academic Affairs.
(I do not imply that the two are related, just that they
seem so.)
4) After Academic Affairs found no academic misconduct,
the case was referred to Judicial Affairs.
5) After Judicial Affairs offered to let me off with a
letter of warning that would not enter my academic
records, I chose to take my case to the full University
Judicial Panel for a hearing.
6) I was found in violation of three of the four rules
alleged, but no specific connection was ever made
between my actions & the rules.
These are all **FACTS**, not opinions. What I have written is
exactly what OSU did. If you choose to paint me as a liar,
please present any information you have that contraindicates
what I have written.
Steven Brack
^
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
> Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
-------------------
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
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:00 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:14:08 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 15:13:04 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
doubt@boreal.owlne : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
FANSHEN@ccvm.sunys : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
FANSHEN@ccvm.sunys : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090306.AA25859@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 03:06:52 GMT
In article <9111080026.AA05095@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu> you write:
> >
> > I'm sorry, this is simply mistaken. OSU is a *state* school, not a
> > private institution. As a state sponsored and funded institution, it
> > is entirely bound by the Ohio state Constution as well as the
> > provisions of the US Bill of Rights that have been extended (by
> > Federal law or Supreme Court decision) to apply to the states.
> >
> Did you attend OSU? I see that your sig indicates that you are at
> Harvard. How do you know this?
Because that's the law, as was explained quite clearly in the
post. State institutions are, by law, held to a higher
due process standard than private institutions.
> > This has long been an established principle in Federal jurisprudence.
> > Your claim that OSU is "not subjet to the particular restrictions in
> > that document [the US Constitution]" is simply not the case.
>
> Umm, as I said before, OSU is not a court of law, which if I am not
> mistaken, is what the due process clause in the US Constitution refers
> to. Lawyers can correct me on this. As you state below, the
> arrangement between the student and the institution is a contract. In
> that case, contract law applies, and again, lawyers can correct me, but
> the concept of due process in contract law is different than the due
> process mentioned in the Constitution.
The due process clause, & the 14th amendment, state that persons
have the right to due process of law. Terminating a contract
unilaterally is a violation of due process, & also a civil tort.
>
> So where do I get this idea? From my own university, which states
> quite clearly in its student handbook:
>
> "In the administration of order and discipline on campus according to
> the Code [of Judicial Procedure], the University is not assuming the
> character of a civil or criminal court, is not bound by the procedures
> of the courts, and will not be hindered in taking action according to
> the Code because of action taken or pending in any civil or criminal
> court."
>
Well, that, apparently is something you have let your university
get away with, as, by relevent case law, that provision is
clearly illegal.
>
> > No sir, attendance is not merely a matter of privilege. Rather,
> > attendance is a *contract* -- financially and legally. Court
> > decisions that Carl Kadie has quoted in this forum describe this most
> > emphatically. The student retains certain contractual rights, and
> > first and foremost among them is the right that the contract shall not
> > be terminated or abrogated (by either side) in ways that violate that
> > contract.
>
> No one in this instance has given *any* evidence that OSU did not
> live up to the terms of its contract with Mr. Brack. If the contract
> states that Mr. Brack can be expelled for failing to follow University
> rules, and Mr. Brack did in fact fail to follow university rules, then
> no contract violation occurred.
In OSU's student handbook (a part of the contract), it says that
"every student" may have an e-mail account. Not just the polite
ones, or the ones that never stick up for their rights, or the
ones who play toady to the administration. Clearly, that provision
of the contract was violated.
>
> > And by no means does a person attend a university "at the discretion
> > of that university." That is simply dead wrong.
>
> Really? The fact that a university (take Harvard, for example) has
> unilateral minimum academic standards, both for entrance to the
> university and for continued attendance at that university means that
> you attend that university at that university's discretion, because
> the university decides to admit you and the university decides to
> expel you. You cannot ordinarily force your way into the University
> regardless of your academic standing and you cannot force the
> university to grant you a degree regardless of your academic
> standing. That is what I mean when I say "at the discretion of that
> university." Discretion in this sense is not to be equated with
> "whim". It is to be equated with "power and authority to decide."
We are not talking about academic standing. We are talking
about being removed for dipleasing the administration. Not
all that long ago, many universities had rules restricting
access only to people of certain ethnicities. When you say
"at the [University's] discretion," without any qualification,
then yes, it does equate to "whim."
>
> > > Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to decide that
> > > they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or so.
> >
> > As someone else has already commented, you make it sound as though
> > universities are run as personal fiefdoms, where those in authority
> > reward those they like and expel those they don't.
>
> I am simply describing a situation based on facts as presented on the
> newsgroup. The University could have chosen to do many other things
> than dismiss the student, but they didn't. If you want to interpret
> that as acting with despotic power, then fine.
Administrative anger should never be reason enough to punish a
student, much less expel him.
>
> > That simply is not the case -- not even in private corporations (where
> > you can file suit and win reinstatement if you can convince a judge or
> > jury that you've been wrongly dismissed or demoted), much less a state
> > funded and sponsored university.
>
> The legal doctrine for the vast majority of employment actions in the
> United States is "employment at will". There is no contract between
> the employee and the employer that states that the employer must retain
> an employee for any length of time or for any reason. In private
> corporations (especially in private corporations) a supervisor can walk
> in and say "you're fired," or "your position has been eliminated." And
> you are. No reason need be given. It happens all the time. Now a
> company that practices the simple "your fired" technique runs the risk
> of having a wrongful discharge suit filed against it, but wrongful
> discharge suits have to prove that the employee was fired for reasons
> *other* than poor work performance or breaking company rules or the
> law. The "you're fired" method gets companies in trouble because they
> can't prove that the discharge was based on performance or breaking of
> rules or law. The burden of proof is on the company in these
> instances. But make no mistake, the law clearly allows for a
> corporation to be run as a "personal fiefdom". You might be surprised
> at the answer you get from your own personnel director about your
> employment status.
I think we're looking at opposite sides of the same coin. What
we're both saying is that a private employer must be prepared
to give valid reasons for discharging an employee.
>
> The legal status of a student at a university is much weaker than the
> legal status of an employee of a company. State funding and
> sponsoring doesn't affect the standing much.
With all due respect, like h*ll. I have been writing a database
application for a local beautician's school. You would not believe
the requirements imposed on the school because it accepts federal
student financial aid. Even ignoring the paperwork needed to
guard against fraud, there are the quota reports, the polygraph
agreements, the mandated filing of forms when a student is dismissed,
explaining the reasons for the dismissal. The list is endless.
> The statements that you refer to are not my personal views. I pointed
> out what I believed to be errors of reasoning and erroneous
> assumptions. I described events. My personal view, which I stated, was
> that OSU mishandled the situation from an interpersonal standpoint.
> But there is no evidence that they did anything illegal,
> constitutionally or contractually, and I am simply pointing that out.
But, your assumptions about errors made are based not solely on fact,
but on your own purely personal point of view. Much of the
case law relating to this has been posted. Do you dispute the
case law?
>
> The policies and procedures in place at Owlnet and at Rice are
> considerably clearer, and I think fairer, than the policies that are
> apparently in place at OSU. We are implementing a relatively detailed
> and well defined disciplinary system for Owlnet, which describes
> numerous things that are "against the rules" and describes the
> discplinary actions that we can take and how we can take them. We even
> give the students an extra appeal step above and beyond the normal
> university mechanisms. Our disciplinary process follows the procedures
> set out in the University's Code of Judicial Procedure. We even go so
> far as to point out the already existing University appeal mechanisms
> that would apply in cases of Owlnet disciplinary action. We are very
> careful to gather solid evidence of infractions and we almost always
> warn a student at least once before taking any action. The cases where
> we don't are cases where the system security or integrity is clearly at
> stake, and then our immediate action is to prevent the user from doing
> any more damage, or cases where we are reasonably certain that the
> student knew that they were breaking the rules intentionally.
>
So, as I understand what you have just said, OSU should probably
have told me what the rules were before I stood accused of
violating them? As I have said before, OSU gave me nothing
regarding rules, policies, or procedures, until after I had
allegedly violated them.
> > Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
> --
> Joseph A. Watters, Jr.
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090309.AA25871@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 03:09:38 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.015803.9669@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> you write:
>
> Did they refund his money for services they stopped rendering?
Where do you think we are, America? 8| (I'm not sure
I should smiley
anymore)
> --
> tom chapin tjc@hrccb.att.com
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090325.AA25957@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 03:25:11 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.012302.26274@rice.edu> you write:
> In article <1126>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> > In article jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> > >
> > >Yeah, Ohio State handled this one pretty sloppily. But if even half of
> > >the charges are true, then Mr. Brack apparently repeatedly antagonized
> > >the University system administrators. Yes, the administrators should
> > >have taken more time to explore what was really going on rather than
> > >simply issuing restrictive edicts. Yes, the University administration
> > >should have been more careful about their specification of charges.
> > >But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
> > >at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
> > >a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
> > >decide that they didn't need him there anymore for at least a year or
> > >so.
> >
> > We now have the following remarkable position enunciated: That not only IS
> > "pissing off the administration" an expulsable offense, but that it is RIGHTLY
> > so. And by someone apparantely with some authority at a university.
>
> If you want a "position enunciated" read my first, third, and fourth
> sentences in the paragraph you qouted. I disagree with the way OSU
> handled the situation. What I am pointing out in the paragraph is that
> the University did *not* have to suspend Mr. Brack. There are a lot of
> other things they could have done. The fact that they did suspend him
> indicates that something in the interaction between Mr. Brack and the
> university administrators led them to feel that suspension was the
> appropriate disciplinary action. I was also pointing out that the
> University had the power to do it. A university decides to let a
> student attend, and the university can decide to end the student's
> attendance for a variety of reasons. You may not like that a
> university can act this way, but that's the way the system is set up.
> Again, I was simply pointing this out. And I suspect that if you went
> to the Ohio state legislature or whoever regulates the university, they
> would agree with that statement.
As I understand it, you disagree with their handling of the matter,
but approve of their doing so. Forgive me, but I don't quite
understand your reasoning. Further, "that's the way it is" is no
reason for believing a policy to be right, much less endorsing it.
>
> > I will note the following: While a university may not be required to follow
> > the procedural due process accorded the accused in a criminal trial, it is
> > required to follow it's own due process. If these 'restrictive edicts' were
> > issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner, then likely the University's
> > OWN rules were violated.
>
> Well, there is no evidence that anything was done arbitrarily or
> capriciously. There is a lot of *opinion* that it was done that way,
> but no evidence. I also suggest that you actually read OSU's rules before
> you assert that they were violated by the University itself. And as I
> pointed out in another posting, Mr. Brack most likely had one or more
> avenues of appeal for every disciplinary action that was taken against
> him. He either didn't know about them for failure to read information
> available to him, or he chose not to exercise them.
A lack of evidence to the contrary does not prove anything.
Besides which, their actions, prima facie, are capricious, showing
no justification for the action taken.
>
> Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090327.AA25978@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 03:27:36 GMT
In article you write:
> >From: Frank Anshen
> >
> >Neil, I have no doubt that you are correct in how OSU perceived the
> >Brack case. He did wrong, they punished him, he still did wrong, they
> >punished him harder. However, their feelings of frustration are no
> >excuse for the subversion of due process. Punishing somebody without
> >specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and
> >it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the
> >cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules. This is manifestly
> >unfair and we should have no sympathy nor give any quarter to those who
> >act in this manner.
> > Frank
>
> But Mr Brack has admitted that technically he was given the specific charges
> that he was accused of. What is missing is the link between the charges and
> how they were applicable in the situation. (I may be wrong but in a criminal
> trial I was under the impression that this link is made by a jury in its
> confidential deliberations.)
In order for there to be a legitimate charge, there must be specific
actions alleged to be in violation of the specified rule. In the
law, this is called "charges & specifications." Both must be present
for a valid charge to be produced.
>
> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
-------------------
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil W Rickert)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <30308.689657758@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu
References: <9111090235.AA25779@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 91 15:35:58 GMT
> These are all **FACTS**, not opinions. What I have written is
If these are **FACTS** provide me with a complete film record of all
that transpired, with signed affidavits by three or more independent
witnesses.
> exactly what OSU did. If you choose to paint me as a liar,
> please present any information you have that contraindicates
> what I have written.
I did not paint you as a liar. If you wish to interpret what I said
as painting you a liar, that is your right. But by insisting on that
interpretation you are only confirming my point that different people
can interpret the same events quite differently and can each hold totally
contrary views, and can each be totally convinced that they have the facts
and the other side is deliberately lying.
Does it occur to you that there are probably (or indeed almost certainly)
people at OSU who are convinced that they have the **FACTS** and that you
are lying?
---------
Did you watch the recent senate confirmation hearings? Both sides claimed
that they had the **FACTS** and that the other side was lying. Both sides
presented quite persuasive testimony to support their view.
Such is the power of the human mind at self deception.
---------
As far as your problem is concerned, I do not accept you view as being
**FACTS**. I do not accept the OSU view as being **FACTS** either. The
actual **FACTS** are forever lost in history and will never be known.
What I do believe is that the final outcome is something that should never
have happened. The unfortunate outcome resulted from unwise acts and
decisions made on both sides, exacerbated by an unwillingness to compromise.
-NWR
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090346.AA26052@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 03:46:32 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu> you write:
> In article <1135>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> > In article <> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Yes. The support entities at Rice (Information Systems, and in
> particular Owlnet, the school of engineering educational network)
> cannot take disciplinary action in the form of suspending or expelling
> a student. But we do have the power to deny access to our computer
> systems to a student as a disciplinary action for the student's
> 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
> are informed of the specific policy involved and the action that they
> are alleged to have taken that violates the policy. This information
> is presented to them electronically when they attempt to access the
> system after lockout, and a written statement is sent to their known
> mail address. The electronic and written statements also indicate what
> action the student must take (who they must meet with, etc.). The
> initial access denial is used as a form of "arrest", as a method to
> strongly encourage the student to come in and talk to the
> administrators face to face. Having talked with the student and
> ascertained as best as possible the facts surrounding the allegations,
> we either unlock the student's account or impose further disciplinary
> action, with credit for the lockout time that has already passed.
Well, your policies show much more respect for student's rights than do those of OSU.
>
> Obviously, anything more than a few days access denial has the
> potential to have academic consequences, since much of an engineering
> student's coursework is done on Owlnet. Owlnet has a committee of
> seven faculty members who set policy for it and are responsible for
> conducting a hearing in the case where the recommended disciplinary
> action taken against a user would result in severe academic
> consequences. The hearing takes place before the disciplinary action
> is imposed. Beyond that, the student has a defined (in the student
> handbook) appeal process for academic grievances. The procedure covers
> any actions that would affect the student's course work, academic
> record, or fulfillment of degree requirements. Actions taken by
> IS/Owlnet that would result in academic consequences are appealable
> through this mechanism. The appeal process goes all the way up to the
> president of the University. On Owlnet, if at any time the
> disciplinary action is overruled or the punishment imposed ends up
> being shorter than the time the student was actually locked out, and
> the student suffers academic consequences as a result of the
> unwarranted portion of the lockout, then the faculty committee is
> charged with redressing the unwarranted academic consequences suffered
> by the student.
As a guage of how well your system works, how many users have
won their appeals?
How many admins have been charged with wrongdoing in their
dealings with users?
>
> Since the network is generally only available to engineering students,
> the internal Owlnet disciplinary procedures and appeal process is not
> in the Student Handbook, but it will be available in a printed and
> electronic on-line Owlnet policy handbook that all new users get for
> free and all other users can either purchase or obtain for free. All
> Owlnet users sign an agreement upon applying for an account where they
> acknowledge that they are bound by the computing policies of Owlnet and
> the University, as well as certain other conditions regarding ethical
> use of software and some liability clauses.
Ah! A written policy. Another very good idea that OSU seemed
to have neglected. Also, spelling out what is expected of the
users is a very good thing to do, as it lets them avoid getting
into trouble.
>
> Where the disciplinary action imposed or the access denial would not
> result in severe academic consequences, the support organizations again
> have the power to take action based on violations of policy, and the
> student has the right to request a hearing with the committee and has a
> separate, defined appeal process in the student handbook for non-academic
> grievances, including those taken by any administrative entity on
> campus, such as the support organizations. Again, the appeal process
> can go all the way to the president of the University.
So, even at your system, users cannot be expelled from the system
for beijng disliked by the sysadmins?
>
> In both academic and non-academic grievance processes, the first step
> in the appeal is to informally appeal to the organization involved.
> There are then formal processes through boards and committees set up
> specifically to handle academic and non-academic grievances.
While your institution provides multiple appeals, OSU only provides
one or two appeals levels, then nothing.
>
> One of Owlnet's policies concerns abuse of the system. This is the
> main policy where administrator discretion is involved, as not every
> action that is abusive is defined in the policy, although the nature
> of actions that would be considered abusive is defined (i.e. actions
> that interfere with another user's ability to use the system.) But
> the potential for arbitrary or capricious system management or
> administrator decisions on this one is blunted by the previously
> described hearing and appeals procedures.
But you do define what sort of actions are considered abuse,
which far surpasses the amount of information OSU gave me.
>
> 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.
Gee, maybe OSU should do something like that.
>
> > >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.
>
> Well, for the answer to that, someone needs to get out the OSU
> Judicial procedures and student handbook.
Believe it or not, I consulted the student handbook before I went
to the hearing. ACS does not have the authority to punish anyone.
>
> --
> Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090350.AA26060@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 03:50:35 GMT
In article <2730@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> you write:
> In article <1991Nov8.015803.9669@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
> >People don't pay tens of thousands of dollars a year, nor put
> >thenselves in hock for a dozen years for privileges. They pay money
> >for rights. If it's truly a privilege, then give it away for free.
> >Did they refund his money for services they stopped rendering?
>
> hmmmm, I thought rights were free and you paid for privileges.....
> If not, we must certainly owe the government a lot of money for the
> rights accorded us under the Constitution. :-)
In either case, the fact that I paid for the services the university
agreed to provide, but later failed to, including an e-mail account,
procedural due process, & good faith, provides a reasonable cause of
action, from what I understand of the law.
>
> Anyway, in Brack's particular case, it appears he signed an agreement
> to abide by the site's policy (point mentioned in the note that detailed
> correspondence sent to him by the admins) and apparently broke that
> agreement. Since we don't have the details of the agreement (with
> respect to the penalties for violations), we cannot say if the site's
> reactions were out of hand.
The policy agreement was given to me after the violation took place.
>
> The reaction seems harsh but until we see the EXACT policy, it's
> pointless to "monday quarterback" the whole affair.
I suppose Carl could repost the OSU policy made public after I
had allegedly violated it.
> -Randy Marchany
-------------------
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.043332.28948@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu
References: <9111090235.AA25779@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 91 04:33:32 GMT
In article <9111090235.AA25779@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu> you write:
>>
>> I wasn't trying to judge who was right and who was wrong. I was trying only
>> to point out the OSU perceives things very differently from the way they
>> have been described on the net.
>
> What is your source of information? Mine comes from OSU.
My source of information comes from Stephen Brack, who posted various
reports on the net.
It is your right to claim that only you are capable of drawing the correct
interpretation, and that anyone else who interprets the same information
differently is a liar. You can claim that. Others don't have to believe
it. It is your unwillingness to admit that others might have very different
interpretations which got you into this mess.
> The facts, not opinions, as I know, not assume, them, are:
>
> 1) ACS never gave me any reason to think my actions were
> objectionable until after I had done them.
You have no way of knowing that. What you can say is that you did not
interpret any information ACS gave you as giving you reason to believe
your actions were objectionable. Unless you have a complete transcript of
everything that ever transpired between you and ACS, both written and verbal,
you can not assert as a fact that they never gave you a reason.
> 2) ACS punished me by removing me from its system without
> any sort of a hearing on the matter. Further, punishment
> of student wrongdoing falls outside the purview of ACS's
> authority as defined by the University's Rules.
Do you have any written documentation that the ACS action was intended
as "punishment". If not, it is not fact, but your interpretation. To
determine the fact requires mind reading abilities which I don't have, and
which I very much doubt you have.
> 3) After I "criticized the University on several national
> bulletin boards", ACS chose to pursue the matter with
> Academic Affairs.
> (I do not imply that the two are related, just that they
> seem so.)
If you do not imply the two are related, why do you list this in your
list of "facts".
> These are all **FACTS**, not opinions. What I have written is
No. These are not **FACTS**. These are your interpretations of the
**FACTS**. The real **FACTS** are forever lost in history.
> exactly what OSU did. If you choose to paint me as a liar,
I never once called you a liar. That is something which any reader
of these postings can verify. You choose to interpret my statements
as calling you a liar. That is interpretation. That is not fact.
The human mind is very capable of coming up with many different
interpretations of the same evidence. Your interpretation is very
different from the OSU interpretation. Just because I point out this
very great difference of interpretations on the net does not mean
I am painting you a liar.
Let me make it clear: I am not a true believer in the gospel according
to Stephen Brack. I am not a true believer in the gospel according to
OSU. I remain skeptical of both.
This whole unhappy episode should never have occurred. It did occur
because of failures of human relations, for which both sides must share
some blame.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
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: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <199111090618.AA26097@eff.org>
Sender: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu
References:
Date: 8 Nov 91 18:22:28 GMT
Certainly both sides perceive themselves as right. Very few people
perceive themselves as acting in bad ways. However, this fact does not
prevent us from looking at the situation and making judgements about who
is right and who is wrong. I think this is a very clear case of a university
which is wrong. They have expelled a student without clearly specified
charges ("you acted bad" is not a clear specification, nor is "you broke the
rules") and without specifying the actions which led to their verdict. In
addition, with even the most unfavorable to Mr. Brack reading of the reported
actions, the punishment was grossly disproportionate and clearly of the "we'll
show this jerk he can't mess around with us" variety. Given this, the fact
that the university thinks it is right does not, I feel, prevent us from
making the independent judgement that OSU has acted very badly indeed.
Frank Anshen
FANSHEN@SBCCVM
-------------------
From: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <199111090618.AA26105@eff.org>
Sender: FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu
References:
Date: 8 Nov 91 18:40:10 GMT
But Mr Brack has admitted that technically he was given the specific charges
that he was accused of. What is missing is the link between the charges and
how they were applicable in the situation. (I may be wrong but in a criminal
trial I was under the impression that this link is made by a jury in its
confidential deliberations.)
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
I may be wrong too (isn't it fun to play lawyer. However I have heard a
rumor that even lawyers are wrong on occasion.) but I am reasonably
certain that an indictment must specify the specific actions which
violated specific laws.
Frank Anshen
FANSHEN@SBCCVM
My opinions are those of my university, or at least would be if my
university were smarter.
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:01 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:16:34 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 15:15:09 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
amanda@visix.com ( : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
k083240@hobbes.kzo : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
mbarkah@slate.mine : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Expulsi
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
clear@cavebbs.gen. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.053149.10635@visix.com>
Sender: news@visix.com
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu>
<1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org>
<1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com> <1991Nov8.175131.10220@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 05:31:49 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.175131.10220@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
He cannot reenroll unless he is reaccepted. As other have pointed out,
the University is under no specific obligation to accept him as a
student.
According to the letter you posted, the disciplinary dismissal does
not affect his academic standing and remains confidential. He will
not have to re-apply; he just can't register for classes for a year.
After that, he can just register for classes again, with nothing
appearing on his academic record or affecting his academic standing.
Anything that would affect his ability to register for classes after
the period of the dismissal must peforce affect his academic standing.
I am assuming, of course, that your transcription of the letter was
accurate.
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"You can measure a programmer's perspective by noting his attitude on
the continuing viability of Fortran." --Alan Perlis
-------------------
From: k083240@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Simply Wonderin' Steve Gilmer)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.075352.24567@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
References: <1991Nov8.031314.2174@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org> <1991Nov09.012843.8077@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 07:53:52 GMT
In article <1991Nov09.012843.8077@slate.mines.colorado.edu> mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah) writes:
>
>[regarding school support for publications]
>
> blankly gazed at the sky, and wrote:
>
>> ... if a given publication was originally created as a free speech
>> forum, removal of ... support ... can be construed as an unlawful
>> effort to stifle free expression ...
>>
>
>Then most schools will get off the hook on technical grounds. That is,
>I don't know of any school sponsored publications which was created
>as a medium of (specifically) free speech. Education and information
>are the two main reasons why a school supports a publication.
>
>A school can easily argue that none of its publications were ever
>"originally created as a free speech" forum. They will say that the
>school has always reserved the right to edit articles, etc., making
>it *not* free speech. The school may further argue that the publications
>were created as a journalistic media to provide information, irrelevant
>of free speech. And so on and so forth.
>
>The quotation also implies that even if during the lifetime of the
>publication a school statement acknowledged the publication as
>a free speech forum, but the school did not state that fact
>*originally* during the publication's inception, then the removal
>of support cannot be construed as being an unlawful interference
>with the first amendment.
If a school did not state that the publication was created for purposes
_other_ than free speech, then one must assume that it is for free
speech since it is a basic given right in America. If the university
later acknowledge that the publication was a free speech forum, that
only serves to back up what was already known.
We must always assume that free speech is a given, if we don't then the
constituion might as well be forgotten. Remember that the university
exist's for the student's, not the student's for the university. If the
university is given the right to stamp out freemdom of speech, where
does it stop? Don't ever forget your basic rights, or compermise them.
Those basic rights have given you the right to debate a subject such as
this. In many other countries, if we had heard about this, we (if even
dared) would talked about this in hushed, private circles of friends,
not on the net for anyone to read. Do you wish your right's to be
removed also? If you do keep supporting the university, after all you
payed them to supress you, right? I know I sure as hell didn't, and I
won't stand for any other university trying it. This will be settle in
court, by people who know the law much better then I do, but I know a
land that can find Ollie North innocent, can certianly find the
university guilty. If you stand by the basic right's you are given,
then you will at least make the right attempts in life. Don't support
suppression, look at the horrors in the third world countries that are
suppressed. While maiming children is a long step from this discussion,
you are laying the ground work by giving up the basic rights we have
been given, and I really doubt that you would support these horrors.
[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]
[Steve Gilmer | We should all be concerned about the future because we ]
[k083240@kzoo.edu | will all have to spend the rest of our lives there ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.221030.15822@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Nov8.095014.28095@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <5317@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 22:10:30 GMT
In article <5317@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>I doubt that will happen. I don't think that's a releasable document
>under the Buckley Amendment (student information privacy clause in
>Title X??). Mr. Brack would have to agree to have it made available,
>and even then, would have to type/scan it in himself.
Then I hope he will so agree. It's hard to get all worked up after
hearing only one side of the story; I want to hear both.
-------------------
From: mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov09.104431.21503@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 91 10:44:31 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org> <1991Nov09.012843.8077@slate.mines.colorado.edu> <1991Nov9.075352.24567@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
[regarding assumption on free speech]
The argument was given by Steve Gilmer that free speech should be
a given in our society, although it is not expessedly stated.
I'm all in support of free speech. I for one, come from a country
where free speech is not guaranteed at any cirmumstance. In fact,
I probably realize the value of free speech more than most of you
who have been spoiled with it, and take it for granted, or for
argument's sake.
But I don't agree that when an organization establishes a publication,
free speech is automatically implied. That is a blatant violation
of the rights of the organization !
Freedom of speech is guaranteed, in a sense that any individual can
say (almost) anything he wants, excluding blatant lies, public
endangerment, libel, etc. In fact, in its pure sense, Freedom of Speech
is actually freedom of opinion, and the right to express such.
Restricting the medium of speech does not necessarily restrict that
freedom of speech, if done within law. For example, if I own a newspaper,
and I want it to be, say, liberal in point of view, I have the right
as owner (and perhaps editor) not to publish one of my staff's articles
because it is too conservative. Vice versa. That will not be a violation
of freedom of speech, since I did not restrict his (the staff's)
opinion, nor did I make it unreasonably difficult for him to express
his views. He can take his papers elsewhere, publish it on his own,
go to the town's park and read it out loud, send it to the White House.
It become MY right to restrict what will be published on MY paper. That,
in fact, is MY freedom of speech, and *I* take precedence because I
_am_ the rightful owner of the paper.
Same applies to Schools which directly owns and created its papers.
I do believe that freedom of speech becomes unlawfully and unjustly
restricted when students are not allowed to talk about an issue,
and are subject to expulsion, regardless of where they talk about it.
Or when someone gets fired because he went to the press to tell
about something bad that was going on.
But restricting what goes on a publication is *not* a violation of
free speech. Free speech cannot be taken for granted on such
publications, because it violates sovereign rights of the publisher.
Americans are too spoiled. One censorship and they cry. Who really
gives a damn about not being able to publish something on a
school newspaper ! Wake up, people. There are more to this world
in communications than a school newspaper. Go to a real newspaper.
Fight real free speech issues, such as information suppression by
your government, freedom of information access, etc. If one is
*so* concerned about free speech, why is he/she wasting the time
fighting a school board about a school paper ? And if someone
tells me, "because one thing leads to another," that's just
avoiding the issue. The fact remains that there are real freedom
of speech issues out there, beyond academics, which are being
neglected by these warriors of free speech. How about Joe Schmuck
who was fired from his job last Wednesday because he said something
against his boss ? Or Jane Dane who is threatened to be fired if
she says something about the latest Risk management report ?
And you people cry about a school newspaper, when someone is
sitting in a prison cell after he yelled a politically incorrect
slogan.
--
Mahendra Barkah Internet: mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu
--
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion...)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.132152.8288@eff.org>
References: <9111090306.AA25859@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 13:21:52 GMT
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
[...]
> I think we're looking at opposite sides of the same coin. What
> we're both saying is that a private employer must be prepared
> to give valid reasons for discharging an employee.
[...]
I don't believe that is is correct. In most states, if you don't have
an employment contract with a private employer you can be discharged
and no explanation is required.
None of this applies to education, however (see _Goss v. Lopez_).
If you look in a law book like the giant _Constitutional Law_ by
William Lockhart, et al, you'll find a whole section on "Procedural
Due Process in Non-Criminal Cases".
- 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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.134533.8524@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
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> <1991Nov9.034938.7383@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 13:45:33 GMT
[I'm directing followups to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. If you don't
get this newsgroup, you might wish to politely ask your sys admin to
subscribe. Alternatively, you can read it as a mailing list. For
information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom caf
send acad-freedom README
- Carl]
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
[...]
doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs) writes:
>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.)
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
"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."
The unofficial, draft Statement of Computers and Academic
Freedom says the same thing, except that it replaces
"student" with "user".
[To get these documents send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include
the lines:
send acad-freedom student-freedoms
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom README
]
In article <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu>, jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu
(Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> 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.
doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs) writes:
>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.
[...]
The Joint Statement (and the CAF Statement) says:
"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
[user] participation and published in advance through such means as a
[user] handbook or a generally available body of institutional
regulations."
It's good that Rice already has faculty participation and is working
toward (for whatever reason) better student participation.
- 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: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.135351.8796@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org> <1991Nov09.012843.8077@slate.mines.colorado.edu> <1991Nov9.075352.24567@hobbes.kzoo.edu> <1991Nov09.104431.21503@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 13:53:51 GMT
mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah) writes:
[...]
>Americans are too spoiled. One censorship and they cry. Who really
>gives a damn about not being able to publish something on a
>school newspaper !
[...]
I do. A campus paper (and netnews facilites) should be free
of censorship because:
"Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in
establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible
discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a
means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and
the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on
various issues on the campus and in the world at large."
[Joint Statement. Also adapted for the unofficial, draft CAF Statement]
- 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: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.140334.9055@eff.org>
References: <91309.07: 56: 40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 14:03:34 GMT
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
[...]
>As I hashed out with [a student -cmk] in e-mail, I was asking if any
>information was now available directly from the university. It's not
>intended as a slur on his [or her -cmk] integrity, but all data
>available so far has come from [the student -cmk], who is an
>interested party in this affair. I think further discussion on the
>net is pointless unless someone on the other side speaks up.
[...]
If Academic Computer Services (ACS) can't comment on particular cases,
perhaps they will discuss on their relatively new policy instead.
Here is the policy (first posted to CAF-talk on July 24th):
[From: Mitchell D Dysart - Carl]
Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks
The Office of Academic Computing
The Ohio State University
Approved June 6, 1990
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.
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.
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.
o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
system.
Those who cannot accept these standards of bahavior may be denied access to
the relevant computer systems and networks. 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: ____________
--
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: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.151359.9987@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov8.004449.15049@eff.org> <1991Nov8.031314.2174@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org> <1991Nov9.015928.192@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: North America
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 15:13:59 GMT
elsonliu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Liu) writes:
[...]
>Obviously, student speech is protected under the First Amendment
>provided that speech is given in a public forum. However, if OSU did not
>create the *Lantern* as such a forum, but rather as part of an academic
>program, the university administration retains the right to regulate the
>content of the paper. The fact that it had not done so previously does not
>necessarily mean it had surrendered that right.
[...]
I would guess that the _Lantern_ case will come down to the "duck
test". If the paper looks like a student campus newspaper
(subscriptions, tradition of independence, circulation in the 1000's
or 10,000's, considered by most the paper of record for the campus),
then the courts will likely say that it is a student campus newspaper.
As far as administration asserting for the first time it's authority
to regulate. It may have already lost that authority. Something
similar happened in _San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd_., 790 F.2d
1471 (1986). I'm enclosing excerpts from that decision.
- Carl
-- begin quote ---
III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
[...]
The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under
certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to
its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which
may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these
public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the
government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's
mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee
access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly,
merely permitting public access to a government facility does not
necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...]
However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act
unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448.
In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
"{i}n these quintessential public forums, the government may not
prohibit all communicative activity. For the state to enforce a
content-based exclusion it mush show that its regulation is necessary
to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to
achieve that end. The state may also enforce regulations of the time,
place and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly
tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open
amble alternative channels for communcations. _Perry_
[...reference...]"
The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
forum is quite restricted:
"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest." [refs]
"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
of the specific forum that has been established.
The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The
Court stated that
"{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may
reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref]
"The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a
nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in
reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_,
105 S.Ct. at 3454.
IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
[...]
Thus, the Board has allowed certain members of the public -- various
military recruiters -- to use its newspapers to engage in speech that
is not essentially commercial in nature but that combines elements of
political and commercial speech. As a result, the Board's _actual_
policy and practice leads, under _Cornelius_, to the conclusion that
the Board has established the school newspapers as a limited public
forum in which students can discuss any topic, and in which
non-students can engage in commercial speech generally and in speech
which is both political and commercial with respect to at least on
important and highly controversial topic -- military service. Because
the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of
advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question
by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements
on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate.
[...]
B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based
discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military
recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one
side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to
those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without
a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the
same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was
engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated,
"{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a
monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of
constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words,
"the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
forum. _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint
discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the
school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated
the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement.
--- end quote---
--
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: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 12:20:28 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
{ diatribe against OSU deleted for brevity }
>against Mr. Brack and that the charges are then dropped and that his
>computer expulsion is ended. In the future, I hope that ACS will
>handle problems less hysterically and more professionally by:
ass for all concerned and I would be extremely surprised to find that OSU
did not examine the situation with extreme thoroughness before taking
extreme measures.
How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens?
A few? None?
How many thousands of students are there at OSU? Doesn't it seem odd that
you are publicly championing someone who, by espousing terms of injured
innocence, is trying to convince The World that it's not his fault that
OSU happen to be picking on him?
>1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
>written policy
Define "good". What you consider good and what other people consider
workable may turn out to be completely different things.
>2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
You're assuming an egalitarian relationship where none exists. Brack was
instructed to do some things and specifically not to do others. You're
telling the world (in deleted text above) that the administrators concerned
should have accepted deliberate disobedience and let Brack do as he liked.
Wonderful precedent you're trying to set.
>3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms
of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without
having them interspersed with inanities.
>4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
>necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
Are you saying that the entire Brack affair was some sort of esoteric
play-by-mail one-sided farce? On review of the facts, it would appear
that he had ample opportunity to put forward his "case" to the appropriate
people. He simply failed to avail himself of the chances given to him to
clean up his act. Why should we even be discussing this case when in
essence, Brack failed to communicate effectively with administrative staff?
His lack of communication, and apparent unwillingness to behave in
accordance with accepted norms, caused the suspension. What has that got
to do with Usenet and computers and networks?
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Thank God for that. You had me worried there.
--
Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221
Fax +64 4 564-5307 | Room for witty saying - please ignore placeholder
The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 5643429 V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:02 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 18:56:48 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 18:56:12 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Rice Univ, Owlnet Disciplinary Procedu
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Rice University's Owlnet User Agreemen
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agre
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet and Unive
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet and Unive
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) They said it couldn't happen here: alt.se
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Rice Univ, Owlnet Disciplinary Procedures
Message-ID: <9111091713.AA18825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 05:13:48 GMT
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
Message-ID: <9111091716.AA18839@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 05:16:36 GMT
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 20:59:43 GMT
The following is the text of the user agreement that all account
applicants electronically sign when applying for an account. All new
users are provided a paper copy of this agreement. Other
organizations have permission to use portions of this text in their
own agreements.
Owlnet has an on-line application system. The system is tied into the
University registrar's database, so we can get a one-to-one
correspondence between the user's typed in name as acknowledgement of
their agreement to abide by the conditions in the agreement, and the
identification of that person as recorded by the university. In
addition, the application system asks the user for two pieces of
personal information that the university would have, but that another
person probably wouldn't (birthdate and student ID number). The system
is set up so that it would be extremely difficult for a person to
mis-represent their true identity in obtaining an account. In
addition, users are required to appear in person with a picture Rice ID
in order to get the account information (userid and password).
There are three other related postings: Owlnet enforcement/due
process policies, Rice and Owlnet computing policies, and Rice appeal
procedures as described in the student handbook.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
SPECIAL NOTE: When you have successfully completed your application,
you will get a message which starts with "Your application has been
saved and will be reviewed as soon as possible." If you do *not*
get this message, your application has not been submitted.
Welcome to the on-line application system for Owlnet. This
introductory message contains information about the purpose of Owlnet
and some conditions upon which your use of the network is based. To
apply for an account, you should read and understand this document,
then complete the application process which follows. If you are just
checking on a previous application, press 'q' to go to the main menu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owlnet exists to provide educational computing resources to students,
faculty and staff of the George R. Brown School of Engineering. An
undergraduate student who is not majoring in engineering is eligible for
an account only if he/she is taking a course that uses Owlnet and is
offered by an engineering department. This account will be active
only for the duration of the course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX USERS AGREEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice University is licensed by Sun Microsystems, Inc., to use the
fourth Berkeley release of the UNIX operating system for educational
and research purposes only. The terms of the license require that all
users of the system agree to observe the following rules:
1) The UNIX software will be held in confidence and will not be
disclosed to persons outside of Rice University who are not themselves
licensed by Sun Microsystems, Inc. This specifically includes all
source and object code associated with the UNIX system and all of its
components.
2) No copies of the UNIX system or any part thereof will be made in
either printed or machine-readable form, except if authorized by the
system administrator and by Sun Microsystems, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OWLNET USE AGREEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting and keeping an Owlnet account is based on your acceptance of
and continuing compliance with the following conditions regarding use
of the system. Violation of these provisions are grounds for
forfeiture of your account and/or disciplinary action by the
university.
1) Students may NOT use accounts to actively support research
projects. Research computing activities are outside the scope of
Owlnet.
2) Accounts may not be used for a commercial venture or for personal
profit. You agree that any gain you accrue in violation of
this rule may be forfeit by you to the university at the
university's discretion.
3) So that others may not use your account, you agree to
use your account for your own work and to keep your password
confidential. You agree to report the use of your account by others
to Owlnet system management.
4) You understand the ethical and legal use of software, recognize
that the unauthorized use or copying of software is illegal, and
agree to refrain from any illegal and unethical actions involving
software as an Owlnet user.
5) If you are a student, you agree not to use the account for
off-campus electronic access to data and other resources (including
sending electronic mail off-campus) without written permission from
the Vice President for Information Systems.
6) You agree not to interfere with other users on this or any other
networks which you access from this account.
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.
8) You understand and agree to abide by the computing polices of Rice
University and Owlnet.
9) You understand that while Owlnet makes every attempt to preserve the
integrity of your data and files stored on the system, if a conflict
arises between keeping the system operational and maintaining the
integrity of your data, keeping the system operational will take
precedence.
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Rice University, its
employees, and agents, from any claim, demand, liability, cause of
action, suit, judgement, or expense (including attorneys' fees),
arising out of your breach of this agreement.
You agree that Rice University, its employees, and agents, are not
liable for any damages you suffer as a result of any action or inaction
by Rice University, its employees, and agents which results in a loss
of your data stored on the system.
You understand and agree that each time you access the Owlnet system,
you are bound by the terms of this agreement along with any changes or
additions to this agreement and the terms of all Owlnet policies that
are in effect at the time you access the system.
A copy of this agreement will be provided to you when you pick up your
account information.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
Message-ID: <9111091726.AA18883@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 05:26:23 GMT
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 00:00:38 GMT
In article <1165>, emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes:
> In article <1164> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
> OWLNET USE AGREEMENT
> [...]
>
> 5) If you are a student, you agree not to use the account for
> off-campus electronic access to data and other resources (including
> sending electronic mail off-campus) without written permission from
> the Vice President for Information Systems.
>
> How readily is this permission granted? Seems to me like a university
> system without ready access to the outside world is just this side of
> useless. Most academic systems which I'm aware of spend a fair amount
> of their effort educating the user about resources on the Internet and
> how to get to them, especially when those resources are directly
> related to coursework.
>
> The NSF has spent a lot of money to put together networks that support
> and encourage just this kind of communications - I don't understand
Permission is very readily granted. In fact, to my knowledge, no one
who has sought permission has ever been refused. The purpose
of the permission is to have some modicum of assurance that the
student is aware of the issues involved in using the Internet, and the
students' responsibilities in using it. The responisibilities are
basicially spelled out in the University Appropriate Use of Computers
Policy, which is the originating policy that led to that statement in
the user agreement. The permission form simply has the student
identify themselves (Name, userid, campus address) and then asks them
to state what resources they wish to access and why. A faculty member
then signs the form agreeing that the student's desired use of the
off-campus resource is reasonably connected to education. When the
student signs the form, they acknowledge that they have read the
Appropriate Use of Computers Policy and understand the rules and
responsibilities for using the off-campus resource. This is
University policy, not Owlnet policy. If a student needs access to
the Internet in order to do work for a research project or for
as part of their student job, then the faculty member or supervisor of
the student can grant permission directly, without having to go to the
VP IS.
By the way, there are no actual barriers to students using the net. A
student could use it without obtaining permission. We simply trust
that the students are honorable and will obtain very easy to get
permission to access off-campus resources. Rice is not restricting
access to the net. It is simply asking that the student acknowledge
that they are aware of their responsibilities and that their use of
the net be reasonably connected to education, which is one of the
purposes of the net.
> how you can justify restricting access this way. Imagine getting
> expelled for signing onto the card catalog at another school!
>
You can imagine it, but a student is more likely to win the state
lottery than to be expelled for something that trivial.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111091727.AA18892@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 05:27:17 GMT
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 06:26:56 GMT
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder what user input was used in making those policies?
Sean
--
Sean Casey |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
U of KY, Lexington| conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
606-258-6000 x280 | of, but something to be danced with.''
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 05:28:37 GMT
From: doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs)
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.173753.12732@eff.org>
References: <9111091708.AA13026@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 17:37:53 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>Now I would not say that both criteria for regulation fulfill _Perry_'s
>requirements above. The first criterion for review is whether a particular
>item is libelous. Is this a reasonable regulation? Yes, I believe so. The
>State, ie., OSU, wishes to avoid the cost and trouble of a libel lawsuit,
>which can run into huge expense and negative publicity. Given that libel is
>an actionable offense, and that responsible publishers would wish to avoid it,
>this is a resonable regulation. Is it narrowly drawn? Yes. The regulation
>specifically mentions libel (which in itself is specifically defined), and
>there is no other way for OSU to get the same effect without reviewing the
>publication.
[...]
The issue of libel has come up in the courts many times.
From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe:
---start quote---
[p.124]
Permissible and Impermissible Content
While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content
of student publications, they are more inclined to support
disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl]
[s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the
material distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process,
is libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or
unlawful activity.
[...]
Courts also have ruled that the mere discussion of controversial
issues cannot be barred from student publications. The judiciary has
recognized that material dealing with war, drugs, abortion, and birth
control information is not too controversial for high school students.
[...]
--- end quote---
--
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@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] They said it couldn't happen here: alt.sex hysteria at BU
Message-ID: <9111091752.AA18989@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 05:52:16 GMT
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 21:37:25 GMT
I never thought I'd be writing about my own university, but this article
appeared in today's _Bradley_Scout_ and I thought you'd get a chuckle out
of it. The reporter seems to be copycatting the brouhaha at University of
Washington....
"Dorm Computers Access National Pornography Files"
by Dean Nielsen, production assistant
A broad selection of pornographic stories is available to Bradley
University students, faculty, and staff on university computers.
The material, available from a worldwide service called USENET,
contains articles of interest in over 1,000 "newsgroups" or topics
including, but not limited to, those of a sexual nature.
Bradley, along with most other major universities, government
agencies, and many other large corporations, has access to this network.
To receive the newsgroup, each user must "subscribe" to whichever topic
they want to view.
"Each user has to learn how to access the service," said Joe (sic)
Hartman, associate provost for information technologies and resources.
"It's not that easy to access the files."
Although the files are available through the service, the
university may ask not to receive particular newsgroups. Some universities
reportedly ask not to receive the eight or so "alt.sex" newsgroups, which
contain most of the pornographic material on Bradley's system.
"We decided (when the system was begun) not to prevent anyone on
campus from receiving any group," said Hartman. "We do not censor
material. That decision is best left to faculty and students."
Bradley does not receive either the "alt.sex.pictures" newsgroup,
which features sharp, clear, color pictures or "alt.sex.bestiality", in
which subscribers write about sex with animals.
"We do not receive the picture files because of technical capacity
of the system," said Hartman.
Alan Galsky, associate provost for student affairs, said that it
was not the same as the NC-17 movie ruling, made last week by the
university as a result of the showing of the film "The Cook, the Thief, His
Wife, and Her Lover". Future NC-17 movies will be reviewed on a case by
case basis.
"There is a thin line between personal freedoms and what is best
for the university and its constituents," said Galsky. "But these
(pornography files) are not a university-sponsored activity, and are done
in the privacy of (students') own rooms."
A recent sampling of the "alt.sex" newsgroup included detailed
description of acts of physical and sexual torture of a woman. Another
story contained descriptions of oral sex between a couple and their
babysitter.
The system also receives personal advertisements soliciting "erotic
e-mail". Similar ads seek "sexual slaves", or "domaneering masters".
-------------------------
Here is my letter to the Scout editor. They probably won't run it, but
here's what it says:
To the editor:
I was utterly appalled at the hopelessly sensationalistic slant
taken by Mr. Dean Nielsen in his article "Dorm Computers Access National
Pornography Files" on November 8. Mr. Nielsen's trash-tabloid approach to
the subject is a gross disservice to what the national Usenet network is
all about.
Mr. Nielsen's article depicts the Usenet newsgroups as some
electronic equivalent of The Playboy Channel. What he failed to mention is
that the alt.sex newsgroups make up only eight out of the 1070 newsgroups
available through the Usenet. The vast majority of newsgroups concern
topics of computer science, the pure sciences, sociology, and various
recreational topics including music and other fine arts. Computer users
drawn to the Usenet expecting full-colour reproductions of _Penthouse_ will
be sorely disappointed.
I personally think it is a sorry commentary on our society that,
in spite of all the progress we have made, sex continues to be a topic that
seemingly cannot be discussed freely. Mr. Nielsen's "examples" seem to
suggest that torture stories and blatant solicitations are the norm on the
alt.sex groups, when in reality they make up only a tiny fraction of the
total volume of discussion. The vast majority of traffic in the alt.sex
groups are simply frank, uninhibited discussions of sex and sexuality
between consenting, (mostly) mature adults.
It is true that of all the Usenet newsgroups, the alt.sex
newsgroups are probably the most controversial. Recently, the University
of Washington system found itself embroiled in such a controversy, but it
elected to keep the groups under the premise that such a blatant
demonstration of censorship ran against what the university stood for, a
place for the free exchange of ideas, regardless of the topic.
The opinions in this letter are my own through my experience at
Bradley as a former student active in the computer community and well-versed in
the use and purpose of Usenet, and may not reflect the official opinions and
policies of Computing Services or Information Technologies and Services.
I find it doubly ironic that the same issue of the Scout that
lambasted the Usenet for 'pornography' failed to mention even in passing the
fact that one of the most outspoken defenders of free speech and
expression, Jello Biafra, will be speaking on campus November 14th. I
guess we know where the Scout stands on censorship now, anyway.
David L. Vessell
---------------------------------------------
To put things from the students' perspective, here are a few selected
recent postings from our local newsgroup bu.banter:
******
I am completely in awe of the Scout. Each week, I think I've seen
the absolutely saddest edition of this tabloid. And then, next week comes.
For those of you who have not picked up the Scout yet, there is an
article on the Usenet alt.* groups in there on page 4. The headline: "Dorm
computers access national pornography files". This article makes no mention
of the comp.* files, the rec.* files, or anything like that. Just zooms in
on the alt.sex group, and the newsfroup containing "erotic E-mail", with
ads seeking "sexual slaves" or "domineering masters". Has a couple quotes
>from Joe (!!!!!!!) Hartman & Alan Galsky (who sez the groups are different
than the controversy surrounding "The Cook, His Dancing Instructor, Their
Bed, and Its Crayons" or whatever).
The tone of the article is not what I would call impartial (read
"informed"). The way they have it sounding, there's PORNOGRAPHY RAINING
ON CAMPUS!!! The way they describe the groups is as follows: "...articles
of interest on over 1,000 `newsgroups' or topics including, but not
limited to, those of a sexual nature." If I were an Unwashed Heathen, that
would sound to me like there's an emphasis of sexually explicit material
(oops, sorry... PORNOGRAPHY!!!!!) on the groups, with maybe a record review
or something as an aside.
Maybe I'm just being a little too harsh on the Scout (and "Bob"
knows they've taken their share lately). But I really didn't expect to wake
up this morning and find it was raining pornography on our innocent li'l
haids.
Oh yes, BTW, Jello Biafra will be on campus Thursday the 14th at
7:30 PM. There. I've just told you what the Scout didn't. Unless I'm
mistaken, there's not one mention of the lecture in this week's Scout
(something that I thought would at least rate a pre-event story). And even
if there is, it can't even compare to the front-page article headline right
next to the one on the racial clash: "BRADLEY SNAGS HOWIE MANDEL". Howie
Mandel is front page news, to the Scout.
Let us pause and reflect on how our tuition is being spent.
(Oh yeah... .-) .-) .-) for the humor-challenged)
jma
*******
In <1991Nov8.151909.29811@bradley.bradley.edu> jima@buhub.bradley.edu (Jim Allenspach) writes:
> I am completely in awe of the Scout. Each week, I think I've seen
>the absolutely saddest edition of this tabloid. And then, next week comes.
The Scout: Pick up a distorted copy of YOUR world! It really makes me sick.
Last year, they distorted the condom debate, making people who wanted condom
machines intstalled on campus look like perverted radicals, and at the peace
rally, instead of showing the various fraternities shouting down Dr. Salamini,
yelling sexist comments at her and later grabbing the microphone, showed them
"patriotically" displaying a yellowed, 48-star flag (which legally should have
been burned under the laws of the Flag Code) in front of Bradley Hall, making
them look like these heroes instead of what REALLY happened at that rally.
> For those of you who have not picked up the Scout yet, there is an
>article on the Usenet alt.* groups in there on page 4. The headline: "Dorm
>computers access national pornography files". This article makes no mention
>of the comp.* files, the rec.* files, or anything like that. Just zooms in
>on the alt.sex group, and the newsfroup containing "erotic E-mail", with
>ads seeking "sexual slaves" or "domineering masters". Has a couple quotes
>from Joe (!!!!!!!) Hartman & Alan Galsky (who sez the groups are different
>than the controversy surrounding "The Cook, His Dancing Instructor, Their
>Bed, and Its Crayons" or whatever).
What else is new? In Washington state, sysops are getting demoted or fired
for allowing it. And in fact, half of what's in alt.sex isn't even pornography
even in the broadest sense of the word.
> Oh yes, BTW, Jello Biafra will be on campus Thursday the 14th at
>7:30 PM. There. I've just told you what the Scout didn't. Unless I'm
>mistaken, there's not one mention of the lecture in this week's Scout
>(something that I thought would at least rate a pre-event story). And even
>if there is, it can't even compare to the front-page article headline right
>next to the one on the racial clash: "BRADLEY SNAGS HOWIE MANDEL". Howie
>Mandel is front page news, to the Scout.
I saw that too. Last year, they said little over the anti-apartheid writer
who was recently allowed to return to South Africa (forgot the name; sorry),
but they just DROOLED over the arrival of Mike Ditka. Shows you where the
hearts and minds of this campus are.
But anyway...
************
I must agree. That article is quite appauling. Although I don't read those
groups, I wouls say that was a very unfair representation. The notes aren't
all sex groups, which it led you to believe. That was a ridiculous article.
/\/\usicman
**********
>> I am completely in awe of the Scout. Each week, I think I've seen
>>the absolutely saddest edition of this tabloid. And then, next week comes.
>The Scout: Pick up a distorted copy of YOUR world! It really makes me sick.
I for one, was really offended.
I checked pretty carefully, and I couldn't find one single Matt Hale
reference. I mean REALLY!! It's HIS paper anyway...
I'm surprised they didn't interview him about all this horrible
pornography that military computer technology is bringing us...
I don't know if I can make it through another week without the lastest
Gospel according to Saint Matt Hale...
[Matt Hale is a well-known student
white-supremacist activist on campus who seeminly has an letter to the
editor in every _Scout_.---DLV]
I think I better go call his answering machine again....
*********
[This was MY posting to the group....--DLV]
jima@buhub.bradley.edu (Jim Allenspach) writes:
> For those of you who have not picked up the Scout yet, there is an
>article on the Usenet alt.* groups in there on page 4. The headline: "Dorm
>computers access national pornography files".
This article was written by Dean Nielsen (seattle1), the same guy who
posted in bu.banter earlier about our opinions on 'pornography' on the
Usenet. When I confronted him in e-mail, he claimed that he has had a long
history of being an anti-censorship advocate. He told this to at least one
other person I know of. I think he's a blatant hypocrite. I've since
written him again informing him of my distaste for his tactics.
> Oh yes, BTW, Jello Biafra will be on campus Thursday the 14th at
>7:30 PM. There. I've just told you what the Scout didn't. Unless I'm
>mistaken, there's not one mention of the lecture in this week's Scout
>(something that I thought would at least rate a pre-event story). And even
>if there is, it can't even compare to the front-page article headline right
>next to the one on the racial clash: "BRADLEY SNAGS HOWIE MANDEL". Howie
>Mandel is front page news, to the Scout.
While I will concede that having Mandel on campus is news, I am rather bent
out of shape myself that they completely ignored Biafra's appearance. I
wonder if they'll even cover the lecture. And to think I actually *voted*
for Diane Thompson for editor when I was on Comm Council....my mistake.
> Let us pause and reflect on how our tuition is being spent.
*BLORTCH*. I think that's an appropriate reflection.
Notice: NO SMILEYS.
--------------------------------------------
And now, comments of my own.....
This is obviously a case of showboating on the part of Mr. Nielsen. He
must have seen the discussion here recently on UW and thought it would do
his journalism career some good by being our own Geraldo Rivera. Bradley
administration, particularly Computing Services administration (my bosses)
have seemingly already made their peace with the existence of the groups
and have the insight to see them for what they are. I don't hold Bradley
accountable. What I *am* worried about is whether or not other previously
disinterested parties are going to decide to make a stink about the
newsgroups. I'm not worried that Usenet is getting press coverage. I
think Usenet is the most glorious form of mass communication, precisely
because in spite of its lack of a governing body it governs itself quite
well.
A few words on the Scout.......I find it amazing that in two short years
its gone from a respectable (well...) student-run newspaper to a right-wing
propaganda sheet. As was already mentioned, they didn't even bother to
mention that Jello Biafra is speaking here next Thursday, but they give
Howie Mandel the front page.
I'm not sure what can even be done about all this. I guess I'm just
wondering what you all think of this. I guess it's a strange turn of
events when the student newspaper is more conservative than the
university's administration....
--
========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.========
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug....
(David Vessell) (Bradley University Computing Services) (dave@bradley.edu)
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:03 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 19:12:51 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 19:11:41 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
kevin@rotag.mi.org : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
karish@pangea.Stan : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
kevin@rotag.mi.org : Re: Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Exp
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Exp
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
eck@panix.com (Mar : Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.censorship) Re: They said it couldn't happen here: a
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Rice University's Owlnet and Universit
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
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
>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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.172222.29564@rotag.mi.org>
Date: 9 Nov 91 17:22:22 GMT
References: <9111072038.AA11513@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov7.211919.9343@eff.org>
In article <1991Nov7.211919.9343@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>
>[...]
>> I got a hearing. At my hearing, no connection *was ever made* between
>> the charges against me & the specific actions committed.
>[...]
>
>Maybe for each of seven of the alledged actions they decide that the
>chance that you had taken the action and that the action was against
>the rules was 20%.
>
>20% * 7 = 140% guilty.
Er, how about (1 - ((1 - 20%)^7)) ~= 79% chance of the University prevailing
on at least one count.
Probabilistically yours,
- Kevin
-------------------
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.180817.3381@morrow.stanford.edu>
Sender: news@morrow.stanford.edu (News Service)
References: <1991Nov9.075352.24567@hobbes.kzoo.edu> <1991Nov09.104431.21503@slate.mines.colorado.edu> <1991Nov9.135351.8796@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:08:17 GMT
mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah) writes:
>Americans are too spoiled. One censorship and they cry. Who really
>gives a damn about not being able to publish something on a
>school newspaper !
I do. The assumption that students are somehow not part of
the real world and don't have "real" rights is repugnant to me.
Universities are free to establish house organs that print
only the official line, and most of them do so. That doesn't
mean that all communications that bear the university's name
should be subject to the same constraints.
--
Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 karish@forel.stanford.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.184028.14143@eff.org>
References: <9111072038.AA11513@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov7.211919.9343@eff.org> <1991Nov9.172222.29564@rotag.mi.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:40:28 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.211919.9343@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Maybe for each of seven of the alleged actions they decide[d] that the
>chance that you had taken the action and that the action was against
>the rules was 20%.
>
>20% * 7 = 140% guilty.
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Er, how about (1 - ((1 - 20%)^7)) ~= 79% chance of the University prevailing
>on at least one count.
The "20%" I referred to was (suppose to be) the University's
subjective probability of Steven Brack's guilt (e.g. "We, the Judicial
Committee, think that there is a 20% chance that he is guilty of the
first action and the first action is a violation of the rules". I was
not referring to my (or your) subjective probability that the
University would find him guilty of an action (e.g. "I, Carl Kadie,
think that there is a 20% that the University will find him guilty of
the first action.")
The combination rule I suggested (Addition) was meant to be
descriptive, not normative. The normative combination rule
I would suggest is Max.
For example,
The_Judicial_Committee's_subjective_probability_that_he_is_
guilty_of_some_charge = max(.20,.20,.20,.20,.20,.20,.20) = .20
In other words, they should decide the merits of each "charge"
independently of the other.
- 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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
Message-ID: <9111091900.AA14799@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 9 Nov 91 09:00:55 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I write:
>[...]
>>Now I would not say that both criteria for regulation fulfill _Perry_'s
>>requirements above. The first criterion for review is whether a particular
>>item is libelous. Is this a reasonable regulation? Yes, I believe so. The
>>State, ie., OSU, wishes to avoid the cost and trouble of a libel lawsuit,
>>which can run into huge expense and negative publicity. Given that libel is
>>an actionable offense, and that responsible publishers would wish to avoid it,
>>this is a resonable regulation. Is it narrowly drawn? Yes. The regulation
>>specifically mentions libel (which in itself is specifically defined), and
>>there is no other way for OSU to get the same effect without reviewing the
>>publication.
>[...]
>
>The issue of libel has come up in the courts many times.
>
> From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha
>McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe:
>
>---start quote---
>[p.124]
>Permissible and Impermissible Content
>
>While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content
>of student publications, they are more inclined to support
>disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl]
>[s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the
>material distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process,
>is libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or
>unlawful activity.
>[...]
>
>Courts also have ruled that the mere discussion of controversial
>issues cannot be barred from student publications. The judiciary has
>recognized that material dealing with war, drugs, abortion, and birth
>control information is not too controversial for high school students.
>[...]
>--- end quote---
O.K, Carl. First, the above quote does not mention the case you yourself cite
before, i.e, _Perry_, which states criteria for prior review of public-forua
and limited-public-fora publications. Second, you neglected to include my
analysis of the second OSU review criterion, which concluded that it was
probably overbroad. I'm using the case you cite to agree with you. _Perry_
suggests that certain time/manner/place regulations are permissible if they
are reasonable, and that any content-based restrictions be narrowly drawn and
effectuate a compelling state interest. Accordingly, under _Perry_, the libel
criterion is permissible legally, while the inciting-to-unlawful-activity
criterion isn't. This means that OSU is probably wrong, which is what you have
been claiming, and with which I now agree.
Which is it going to be? If you cite _Perry_ you must be
prepared to go along with the consequences of doing so; this includes
accepting that it may be interpreted counter to your position. Do Ms.
McCarthy or Ms. Cabron-McCabe indicate whether _Perry_ is applicable or not?
What cases do _they_ cite to support their claim? And most importantly, which
are you going to support? Are you repudiating _Perry_? If so, then I
repudiate my prior posting. If not, then please show how the
McCarty/Cabron-McCabe analysis fits with the analysis under _Perry_.
I'm amazed that you can continue to quibble over every single subpoint of an
argument. I'm also disappointed that you seem not to be able to accept
victory gracefully, but must attempt to continue twisting the dagger down to
the very hilt. I publically repudiated my prior staements on the OSU
_Lantern_ situation. Are you willing to accept that, or must we keep arguing
about it?
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion...)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.182247.29802@rotag.mi.org>
References: <9111090306.AA25859@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov9.132152.8288@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:22:47 GMT
In article <1991Nov9.132152.8288@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>
>[...]
>> I think we're looking at opposite sides of the same coin. What
>> we're both saying is that a private employer must be prepared
>> to give valid reasons for discharging an employee.
>[...]
>
>I don't believe that is is correct. In most states, if you don't have
>an employment contract with a private employer you can be discharged
>and no explanation is required.
Actually, case law tends to support the view that an employee cannot be
discharged as long as they are performing their appointed tasks diligently,
competently, honestly, etc. At least, this is true in Michigan. This legal
reality often comes as a nasty shock to bosses who still cling to the
"employment at will" anachronism, and wind up as the loser in an MESC action,
or in Circuit Court.
(Layoffs due to economic circumstances are another matter, of course, even if
they are "indefinite" layoffs, but, in the case of layoffs, there are certain
special rules to be followed when economic circumstances improve and it comes
time for the employer to "recall" the laid-off employees).
>None of this applies to education, however (see _Goss v. Lopez_).
Arguably, _Goss_ is irrelevant, since it concerned the suspensions of HIGH
SCHOOL students. High school attendance is -mandated-, and thus a much clearer
exercise of coercive governmental power than college education, which is
mostly a contractual arrangement. Consider the following quote from _In the
Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.), Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L.
Solomon (Contrib. Authors):
On January 22, 1975, The United States Supreme Court issued its
decision in _Goss v. Lopez_ [footnote reference - "Goss v. Lopez, 419
U.S. 565 (1975)]. By a five-four vote the Court affirmed the decision
of the three-judge court which struck down Sec. 3313.66 of the Ohio
Revised Code. The opinion of Justice Byron White, writing for the
majority (Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart and Marshall) was
straightforward. After reviewing the facts and Ohio statutory
authority for suspending students Justice White addressed the crucial
threshold question: did the students have a constitutionally protected
interest? Neither his affirmative answer nor his reasoning represented
a startling doctrinal innovation. For the purpose of determining
whether plaintiffs had a constitutionally protected interest the
majority did not view the student as markedly different from a
governmental employee, a welfare recipient, a prisoner, or a parolee.
The constitutionally protected property interests which any of these
groups had, the majority stated, were:
"not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and
their dimensions are defined" by an independent source such as
state statutes or rules entitling the citizen to certain
benefits. [footnote reference - "_Id._ at 572-3"].
The Court accepted the argument that plaintiffs and the _Amici_ made
in their briefs; i.e., that Ohio laws guaranteeing free public
education and compelling school attendance created an entitlement:
Here, on the basis of state law, appellees plainly had
legitimate claims of entitlement to a public education. Ohio
Rev. Code Ann. subsec. 3313.48 and 3313.64 (1972 Supp. 1973)
direct local authorities to provide a free education to all
residents between five and twenty-one years of age, and a
compulsory-attendance law requires attendance for a school
year of not less than thirty-two weeks. Ohio Rev. Code Ann
Sec. 3321.04 (1972). [footnote reference - "_Id_ at 573."]
Whether the principles of _Goss_ can be legitimately extended to college
situations is still an open question in my mind. Can anyone cite actual
precedents for extending _Goss_ to college-level education?
- Kevin
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.202810.17604@eff.org>
References: <9111091708.AA13026@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:28:10 GMT
I apologize if my first reply seemed mean spirted. That was not my
intention. Here is a more careful reply.
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>See below. I would tend to agree based on the the cases Carl is quoting.
>Barring other precedent that has not yet come to light, I would reluctantly
>agree that that the advisor's regulations are unconstitutionally overborad and
>thus are impermissible under the First Amendment.
[...]
>Of course, _Perry's_ standards for regulation are open to interpretation, but
>it seems to me that any case would turn on whether the advisor's regulations
>were "reasonable time, place, and manner regulations" and whether they were
>"narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest."
[....]
>Since the
>regulation does not appear to be reasonable, and if the _Lantern_ is in fact a
>limited public forum then the regulation would appear to be unconstitutionally
>overbroad. I note also that this regulation would appear to fail the second
>prong of the _Perry_ test: the content-based prohibition doesn't appear to be
>narrowly drawn to effectuate a compeeling state interest. Inciting to
>unlawful activity is subjective in each reader's eyes; what is inciting to the
>advisor may not appear so to other readers or the editorial staff. Since the
>compelling state interest here is also not clear, it would seem that the
>regulation is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face.
[...]
I think you've caputure the gist of the "libel quote" that I posted.
It is my impression that the courts feel that prior review is
unreasonable.
- 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: Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion...)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.204235.17839@eff.org>
References: <9111090306.AA25859@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov9.132152.8288@eff.org> <1991Nov9.182247.29802@rotag.mi.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:42:35 GMT
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Whether the principles of _Goss_ can be legitimately extended to college
>situations is still an open question in my mind. Can anyone cite actual
>precedents for extending _Goss_ to college-level education?
_Doe v. U. of Michigan_ doesn't mention _Goss_ but does say (in
reference to campus speech restictions) "The terms of the Policy were
so vague that its enforcement would violate the due process clause.
See Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 285-88, 82
S.Ct. 275, 279-281, 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961)."
Also, Here is what A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers says:
"Today, courts recognize that when a student pays tuition for a
college education, a legal contract comes into being. The student has
contracted for an education as advertised by the institution in its
catalog and by its representatives. Some like to think of the student
as a consumer of education, and an institution as a supplier of a
product called education. The consumers is entitled to receive what
was paid for. The old days of in loco parentis have been replaced by
the law of contracts and the concepts of consumerism. This contractual
relationship implies a property interest which also triggers
constitutional guarantees at public institutions."
...
"Teacher As Agent of Institution
When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a
teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution. A
teacher's acts, then, are considered to be the acts of the
institution. Thus, a teacher's acts can form the basis for liability
of the institution. For example, if a teach of history refuses to
follow the syllabus for a history course and insists on teaching more
writing skills than history in the course, a dissatisfied student may
sue the institution as well as the teach for breach of contract of
enrollment."
"Sources of Legal Rights and Responsibilities at Public and Private Colleges
[... Constitutions ... Statutes ... Contracts ...]
Policies of Governing Boards
Policies of a board of trustees or board of regents usually set forth
the mission of the college, student admission and graduation policies,
and personnel policies. The policies become implicit and often
explicit terms of the teacher's contract or the student's enrollment
contract.
Handbooks
Student, faculty, staff and other handbooks contains the more detailed rules
and regulations that implement the basic policies set by the governing
board. These rules and regulations also become part of the contracts relating
to teachers and students.
[... Professional Standards ... Custom and Traditions ... Duty and
Reasonable Care Under the Circumstances ...]"
...
"Institutional Liability
[...]
Institutions may be solely liable where there is a breach of the
student contract of enrollment, as where courses advertised in the
catalog are not offered, or where students are suspended or expelled
for misconduct without proper due process."
And, 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).
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental
entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life,
liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and
reputation are considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to
attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be
required before a student is deprived of either at a public
institution."
"Substantive processes requires, essentially, that policies and rules
must be related to the basic government purpose at hand that basic
fairness be employed. For instance, college rules should be related to
educational matters and applied fairly. Procedural due process
generally refers to the requirement of notice and hearing before being
deprived of a right. For example, before being expelled for
misconduct, students should have notice of what they have done wrong
and a chance to tell their side of the story."
--
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: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <5360@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 91 17:53:57 GMT
References: <1991Nov09.104431.21503@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Distribution: na
Ade Barkah writes
+ Restricting the medium of speech does not necessarily restrict that
+ freedom of speech, if done within law. For example, if I own a newspaper,
+ and I want it to be, say, liberal in point of view, I have the right
+ as owner (and perhaps editor) not to publish one of my staff's articles
+ because it is too conservative. Vice versa. That will not be a violation
+ of freedom of speech, since I did not restrict his (the staff's)
+ opinion, nor did I make it unreasonably difficult for him to express
+ his views. He can take his papers elsewhere, publish it on his own,
+ go to the town's park and read it out loud, send it to the White House.
+
+ It become MY right to restrict what will be published on MY paper. That,
+ in fact, is MY freedom of speech, and *I* take precedence because I
+ _am_ the rightful owner of the paper.
+
+ Same applies to Schools which directly owns and created its papers.
This is all well and good. You have put your money into it, and you
have the ultimate say. But, in a *state* supported paper, that's
not true. *Everyone* supports it, directly or indirectly. Now *who's*
say is it? Yours? Mine? Some Nameless, Faceless Administrator??
+ Americans are too spoiled. One censorship and they cry. Who really
+ gives a damn about not being able to publish something on a
+ school newspaper ! Wake up, people. There are more to this world
So, a little censorship is a good thing? As my father might say,
if a little is good, more is better. See were this leads to?
+ in communications than a school newspaper. Go to a real newspaper.
+ Fight real free speech issues, such as information suppression by
+ your government, freedom of information access, etc. If one is
Isn't that the case at Ohio State - a *state* university??? Not
a private one. As for the 'real' newspapers, which one do you
want? One owned by the Hearsts? Or one owned by one of their
competitors?
+ neglected by these warriors of free speech. How about Joe Schmuck
+ who was fired from his job last Wednesday because he said something
+ against his boss ? Or Jane Dane who is threatened to be fired if
+ she says something about the latest Risk management report ?
Hey, come on, that's just like if you owned your own newspaper.
The employers didn't like the editorial comment and exercised
their rights.
+ And you people cry about a school newspaper, when someone is
+ sitting in a prison cell after he yelled a politically incorrect
+ slogan.
Who? When? Where?
Char
-------------------
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.020513.14993@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 02:05:13 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.173553.5642@athena.cs.uga.edu>
In <1991Nov7.173553.5642@athena.cs.uga.edu>, brown@castor.cs.uga.edu stated:
>
>Obviously "we" didn't know the difference between right and wrong. The Civil
>Rights Act of 1964 was wrong because it took away the freedom of individual
>business owners to engage in free trade - they no longer had a choice of whom
>they did business with.
Business owners retained, and retain to this day, the power to refuse
business to deadbeats, to obnoxious drunks, and to inconsiderate
jerks.
They may not, however, use race or gender -- *any* race or gender --
as a proxy for the above. That includes white males, in case you're
curious.
If you have a problem with that, I suggest you reacquaint yourself
with the two constitutional provisions that have dominated this half
of the century: the commerce clause and the 14th amendment.
--
Brokaw knows the frequency. Rather won it from him at racquetball.
- Roy Blount, Jr.
Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: They said it couldn't happen here: alt.sex hysteria at BU
Message-ID: <199111100155.AA22497@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Nov 91 15:55:16 GMT
From: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Date: 9 Nov 91 18:41:09 GMT
dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes about an article by
Dean Nielson in the Bradley Scout.
I fear that the hysteria will soon be spreading here in Champaign-Urbana,
also. I recently overheard a reporter from the Daily Illini, our campus
paper (and a rather liberal one at that) surveying in a room of mainframe
terminals. Among the questions she asked were, "Do you use news
services?" and if so, "have you ever seen anything on the mainframe which
offended you?"
--
Thomas Aaron Insel
(tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu, or t-insel@uiuc.edu)
"Cute saying and disclaimer go here."
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111100158.AA20341@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 13:58:18 GMT
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Date: 8 Nov 91 20:45:38 GMT
The following are the current set of computing policies which Owlnet
users and/or Rice University users are expected to abide by. Other
organizations may freely use text from this posting for inclusion in
their own policies. The text of this posting was pulled from LaTeX
source and run through detex, so there may be some formatting funnies
that I did not catch. These policies are available in printed and
electronic form to all Owlnet users. All new users are given a copy of
them.
The last policy, the University Appropriate Use of Computers Policy,
was originally issued in memo form on August 10, 1990 over the
signature of George Rupp, president of Rice University.
There are three other related postings: Owlnet's enforcement/due
process policies, Rice's appeal procedures as published in the student
handbook, and the Owlnet user's agreement that all users
electronically sign when applying for an account.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Owlnet Policies
Owlnet's exists to provide educational computing resources to members
of the School of Engineering. The policies adopted by the Owlnet
Steering Committee are intended to further this goal. This section of
the User's Guide describes the policies all users should be familiar
with. Policy statements can also be found on the newsgroup
rice.owlnews.policy.
Abuse of the System
People who use Owlnet inappropriately will be locked out of the
system. There may not be any first warnings or second chances,
depending on the severity of the offense. If a user abuses Owlnet or
the networks connected to Owlnet, the user's account will be locked and
the user directed to meet with the Director or Deputy Director
concerning the incident.
Inappropriate use includes, but is not limited to:
o allowing anyone else to use your account
o using anyone else's account
o modifying other users' files without permission
o attempting to circumvent disk quota, screen locking, or laser
printer charging restrictions
o accessing files or sending mail to/from off-campus sites without
the permission of the Vice President of Information Systems
o running file commands on large filesystems
o running programs which disrupt someone else's display
Again, inappropriate use is not limited to the above situations. You
should send mail to consult@owlnet asking about anything that
might be questionable before you do it. You risk having your
account locked otherwise.
Work Priorities
Owlnet has become an intensively used resource. Its use has increased
steadily every semester since it was founded in 1987. Playing games,
experimenting with graphics tools and reading bulletin boards can be an
important part of the educational process; however during times when
workstations are being heavily used, these pursuits need to make way
for users trying to complete course assignments. Therefore, Owlnet
users must abide by the following priority system:
Priority Type of Work
1 Development of Courseware by Faculty or Class Labbies
2 Completion of Course Assignments by Students
3 Reading Electronic News
4 Experimentation with Games and Graphics
In addition, students whose course work requires a color workstation
(such as VLSI design) have priority on the color workstations over
other students.
If you have work to do that is a higher priority than that of the user
occupying a seat, then you have the right to ask that user to vacate
their seat.
Playing Games
Playing games on Owlnet can contribute to the educational experience.
However, this activity must make way for users trying to complete
course assignments, and cannot unduly interfere with the operation of
the system as a whole. The following policies apply to games on
Owlnet.
Playing standalone games is permitted under the following
conditions:
Anyone playing a standalone game when the last seat in the room becomes
occupied must vacate his or her seat.
If you have school work to do and a person is playing a game, you have
the right to ask that person to vacate the seat if no other
workstations of the same type are available in that room.
Users playing games who refuse to vacate should be reported to Owlnet
management via electronic mail (director@owlnet).
Playing network games, or games that unduly affect system
resources is not permitted.
A network game is defined as one that allows two or more players to
interact with each other from more than one workstation. The game
makes use of the network facilities to accomplish this.
Games that unduly affect system resources include, but are not limited
to standalone games that require excessively large files, or excessive
computational or input/output resources, or can render all or part of a
system inoperable due to minor mis-configuration of the game files or
directories.
As they are discovered, network games, or standalone games that
interfere with the system resources, will be rendered inoperable and
eventually removed from the system. The owner of the game shall be
notified via electronic mail that these actions have occurred.
Electronic Mail and Privacy
Owlnet management will not regulate in any way the content of private,
consensual electronic mail communication between users.
Sending electronic mail directly to an unofficial automatic mail
handling program is not allowed. Using an automated method to direct
any incoming mail to an unofficial program is not allowed.
Although Owlnet will not regulate the content of electronic mail or
other files, Owlnet system management reserves the right to examine any
and all files that exist on the system, at any time, without your
prior consent.
Research
Owlnet currently does not support research activities during the Fall
and Spring semesters. Research activities include the following:
1. Computational activities that are undertaken to directly support
a Masters or Doctoral thesis.
2. Computational activities that are undertaken at a faculty
member's direction to support any faculty member's research.
These definitions apply whether someone is actually using Owlnet
computers for the computation or activity, or is using Owlnet
workstations to remotely login to non-Owlnet systems where the activity
is taking place.
Research activities do not include the following:
1. Undergraduate independent projects as a structured part of an
undergraduate degree.
2. Structured projects or coursework as part of a professional
(non-thesis) masters degree.
3. Structured projects or graduate coursework that does not directly
support a thesis.
Preventing Access by Others
Leaving your workstation unattended is dangerous to your personal
files, reputation, and to system security. People have taken advantage
of such unwary users by erasing their files, sending rude mail to third
parties, changing the unfortunate user's password to something unknown
so that they are locked out of their account, and setting up ways to do
all of these things again in the future. Obviously, such actions are
undesirable and will be punished; however, punishment of the malicious
user comes after the damage is done.
When you are running a windowing system (such as X Windows or SunView),
programs are available via menu options to lock a workstation's
screen. You should use these programs whenever you are going to be
away from your station for a short period of time. The lockscreen
programs available on the system will log you out of your workstation
at the end of a twenty minute period . This should be enough time to
go to the restroom, pick up a printout, or get a labby's attention.
Users are not allowed to use their own versions of lockscreen
programs.
Background Jobs
Putting a program into an unattended state while it continues to
execute and logging out of a computer is known as putting the program,
or `job' into the background. Running a program on one machine and
displaying its output on another via X Windows is not considered
backgrounding the job. All background jobs must have their execution
priority set to a level lower that that for interactive processes. The
job priority levels range from 1 to 19, with 1 being the highest
priority. Background jobs must be set to a priority of 10 or lower
using the UNIX command nice. Please read the manual page for nice
to find out how to do this, or consult Chapter 2, Introduction to UNIX
in the _Owlnet Notes_ , or consult the Information Systems document
``Introduction to UNIX''.
Background jobs are currently only allowed on the compute server
flammulated. If a background job is found running on a disallowed
workstation or server, it will be killed. If it is running on the
acceptable machine but its priority is not set low enough, then it will
be set to the lowest priority level possible (19).
Remote Login Sessions
Owlnet users may only remotely login to the Owlnet system flammulated.
This applies to remote login sessions from any system on or off campus
and includes login sessions through the campus terminal server
charon.rice.edu. The full domain address of the system is
flammulated.owlnet.rice.edu. Generally speaking, flam can be
substituted for flammulated.
Users discovered to be remotely logged into any other Owlnet system
will be asked to move to flam. Users who repeatedly or
egregiously violate this policy will have their accounts locked until
they meet with the Director or Deputy Director of Owlnet.
System Administrator Talk Requests
Sometimes the Owlnet system administrators notice unusual activity
occurring in or by a user's account. Often the administrators attempt
to investigate what is going on by initiating an interactive electronic
talk session with the userid in question.
Sometimes the user refuses to respond to the talk request and logs off
immediately. This behavior raises the suspicion that the user may be
violating system or University policies, or even more serious, the
person using that userid is not the true owner of the userid.
Given Owlnet's need to maintain continuous service for over 1500
users, the system administrators will treat a user refusing a system
administrator's talk request by logging off as a potential security
violation. *In this situation, the system administrators have been
authorized to immediately lock the account of that user.* This
prevents any further activity with that account, which will protect the
system, and if the user account has been compromised and is being used
by someone other than the true owner, prevents any further possible
damage to that user's or other users' files. The owner of that userid
will then have to meet with the Director or Deputy Director to explain
the incident in order to have the account unlocked again.
Many users routinely disable incoming talk messages, presumably to cut
down on distracting conversations with other users. We would advise
that you not disable incoming talk messages as a matter of course.
This will reduce the possibility that a system administrator who may be
trying to talk to you will misinterpret your actions. Message
receiving is enabled by default, so if you do not taken action to
disable it, you have nothing to worry about.
University Computing Policy
Policy No. 832-90
APPROPRIATE USE OF COMPUTER FACILITIES
Rice University maintains computers, computer networks, connections to
external computer networks, and subscriptions to external computer
services, collectively referred to as ``Computer Facilities'', for the
purpose of conducting and fostering the instructional and research
activities of the University.
Rice University licenses copyrighted and proprietary programs, data and
documentation, collectively referred to as ``Licensed Software'', for
its Computer Facilities. In the course of their use of Rice's Computer
Facilities in support of the University's instructional and research
activities, the faculty, students, and staff of Rice University and its
subcontractors and agents develop programs, data and documentation,
collectively referred to as ``Software''.
In order to maximize usefulness of Computer Facilities to instructional
and research activities, the University provides access to such
Computer Facilities in the most open manner permitted by the owners or
providers of such Computer Facilities. However, individual users are
responsible for obtaining authorization prior to use of any Computer
Facility. The failure of a Computer Facility to prevent unauthorized
use does not relieve the user of this responsibility.
Proscribed Activities
The following activities involving use of Computer Facilities are
prohibited:
Transmitting unsolicited information which contains obscene, indecent,
lewd or lascivious material or other material which explicitly or
implicitly refers to sexual conduct;
Transmitting unsolicited information which contains profane language or
panders to bigotry, sexism, or other forms of discrimination;
Communicating any information concerning any password, identifying
code, personal identification number or other confidential information
without the permission of its owner or the controlling authority of the
Computer Facility to which it belongs;
Creating, modifying, executing or retransmitting any computer program
or instructions intended to gain unauthorized access to, or make
unauthorized use of, a Computer Facility, Software or Licensed
Software;
Creating, modifying, executing or retransmitting any computer program
or instructions intended to obscure the true identity of the sender of
electronic mail or electronic messages, collectively referred to as
``Messages'', including, but not limited to, forgery of Messages and/or
alteration of system and/or user data used to identify the sender of
Messages;
Accessing or intentionally destroying Software or Licensed Software in
a Computer Facility without the permission of the owner of such
Software or Licensed Software or the controlling authority of the
Facility;
Making unauthorized copies of Licensed Software;
Communicating any credit card number or other financial account number
without the permission of its owner;
Effecting or receiving unauthorized electronic transfer of funds;
Violating any laws or participating in the commission or furtherance of
any crime or other unlawful or improper purpose;
Using the Computer Facilities in a manner inconsistent with the
University's contractual obligations to suppliers of Computer
Facilities or with any published University policy.
Mailing Lists
It is the responsibility of any user of an electronic mailing list to
determine the purpose of the list before sending messages to the list
or receiving messages from the list.
Persons subscribing to an electronic mailing list will be viewed as
having solicited any material delivered by the list as long as that
material is consistent with the purpose of the list. Persons sending
to a mailing list any materials which are not consistent with the
purpose of the mailing list will be viewed as having sent unsolicited
material to the mailing list.
Student Use of External Computer Facilities
Student use of external Computer Facilities is permitted in the
following circumstances:
With the permission of the Project Director when the student's formal
involvement in a sponsored research activity requires such access,
With the permission of the supervisor when employment by a University
department requires such access, or
With the permission of the Vice President for Graduate Studies,
Research, and Information Systems when a member of the Faculty affirms
in writing that a proposed use is required by or enhances the student's
education.
Exceptions
The Vice President for Graduate Studies, Research, and Information
Systems is the point of contact for approval of any activities at
variance with the above practice.
Governing Law
In addition to University policy, unauthorized access to Computer
Facilities, Software and Licensed Software is the subject of both
Federal and State Law. A brief summary of Federal and Texas Law
relevant to this issue follows. Note that the laws of other states may
be applicable depending on the actual location of the Computer
Facility(ies) in question.
Federal Law
It is a violation of Federal Law intentionally (1) to access a computer
without authorization and thereby to obtain classified information; (2)
to access a computer without authorization and thereby to obtain
financial records of a financial institution; (3) to access any U. S.
Government computer without authorization if such conduct affects the
use of the Government's operation of the computer; (4) to access a
Federal computer without authorization with the intent to defraud; (5)
to access a financial institution or U. S. Government computer
without authorization and thereby alter, damage, or destroy information
which causes losses to others or which modifies or impairs medical
diagnosis, treatment, or care; or (6) with intent to defraud to traffic
in passwords or similar information through which a computer may be
accessed if the trafficking affects interstate commerce or the computer
is used by the U. S. Government. The penalty can be a fine or as
much as 20 years in the Federal penitentiary for certain of these
violations (18 USCA 1030).
Copyright is a constitutionally conceived property right which is
designed to promote progress of science and the useful arts by securing
for an author the benefits of his/her original work for a limited time
(US Constitution Art. I, Sec. 8). Congress has passed the Copyright
statute (17 USCA 101 et seq) to implement this policy by balancing
the author's interest against the public interest in the dissemination
of information affecting areas of universal interest.
Texas Law
It is a violation of Texas Law intentionally (1) to use a computer
without the consent of its owner or to access data stored in a computer
system without the consent of its owner or licensee if you know there
is a security system intended to prevent your doing either of these
things; (2) to give passwords, or similar confidential information
about a computer security system to another person without the consent
of the person employing the security system to restrict access to a
computer or its data; (3) to cause a computer to malfunction or to
interrupt operation of a computer system without the consent of its
owner; or (4) to alter, damage, or destroy data or a computer program
in a computer without the consent of the owner or licensee of the data
or computer program. Convictions under the Computer Crimes section of
the Texas Penal Code can result in a sentence of a fine up to $5,000
and a jail sentence up to ten years (7 Texas Penal Code, sec 33).
George Rupp
August 10, 1990
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:03 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 18:55:25 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 18:54:50 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
clear@cavebbs.gen. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : This is not a Trivial Matter!! Was: OSU Lantern, etc.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: OSU Lantern
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Ohio State ACS policy
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
References: <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1991Nov09.124319.5063@cavebbs.gen.nz>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 12:43:19 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Even if Steven took every action that was alledged and even if every
>action violated a University rule and even if every Unviersity rule
>was legally valid, the University was still in the wrong (and in
>violation of the law) by denying Steven procedural due process.
And that makes everything Steven did right?
Hmm. I read stuff like this on the other side of the world, and I
find it extraordinary that you can even consider stating such a viewpoint.
What is your grasp of the concept of accountability? Are you convinced that
a person can do anything they like in defiance of legitimate authority and
in abeyance of accepted normal conduct, without being held accountable for
their actions?
I still don't understand where you're coming from. "Procedural due process" -
Brack's refusal to do as he was told resulted in procedures being taken
against him. He was duly processed by the system and spat out the other side.
Where's the beef? Sounds perfectly normal to me.
--
Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221
Fax +64 4 564-5307 | Room for witty saying - please ignore placeholder
The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 5643429 V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand
-------------------
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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.161114.11052@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:11:14 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
[...]
cmk> against Mr. Brack and that the charges are then dropped and that his
cmk> computer expulsion is ended. In the future, I hope that ACS will
cmk> handle problems less hysterically and more professionally by:
clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear) writes:
cl> From what I have read in the last few months, Brack was a royal pain in the
cl> ass for all concerned
In general, being a royal pain in the ass should not be grounds for
dismissal.
cl> and I would be extremely surprised to find that OSU
cl> did not examine the situation with extreme thoroughness before taking
cl> extreme measures.
You are more trusting than I.
[...]
cl> How many thousands of students are there at OSU? Doesn't it seem odd that
cl> you are publicly championing someone who, by espousing terms of injured
cl> innocence, is trying to convince The World that it's not his fault that
cl> OSU happen to be picking on him?
I'm defending Steven Brack's right to due process and freedom of
expression. Even if he did everything that he was accused of (and
more), he would still have these rights and these rights would, in my
opinion, be worth defending.
cmk> 1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
cmk> written policy
cl> Define "good". What you consider good and what other people consider
cl> workable may turn out to be completely different things.
I would hope that a good policy would respect academic freedom. (For
details, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send
acad-freedom caf-statement). I've seen no evidence that academic
freedom and computers are incompatible.
cmk> 2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
cl> You're assuming an egalitarian relationship where none exists. Brack was
cl> instructed to do some things and specifically not to do others. You're
cl> telling the world (in deleted text above) that the administrators concerned
cl> should have accepted deliberate disobedience and let Brack do as he liked.
cl> Wonderful precedent you're trying to set.
The precedent I'd like to see set is that deliberate disobedience of
legitimate instructions is punished with due process.
cmk> 3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
cl> Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms
cl> of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without
cl> having them interspersed with inanities.
At least in the U.S., we do not recognize a blanket freedom not to be
offended (unless that offense is so inescapable and directed that it
constitutes harassment).
cmk> 4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
cmk> necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
cl> Are you saying that the entire Brack affair was some sort of esoteric
cl> play-by-mail one-sided farce?
Yes.
cl> On review of the facts, it would appear
cl> that he had ample opportunity to put forward his "case" to the appropriate
cl> people.
[...]
How can one put forward a case without adequate notice of the charges?
- 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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: This is not a Trivial Matter!! Was: OSU Lantern, etc.
Message-ID: <9111091619.AA12342@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 9 Nov 91 06:19:05 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[regarding assumption on free speech]
>
>The argument was given by Steve Gilmer that free speech should be
>a given in our society, although it is not expessedly stated.
>
>I'm all in support of free speech. I for one, come from a country
>where free speech is not guaranteed at any cirmumstance. In fact,
>I probably realize the value of free speech more than most of you
>who have been spoiled with it, and take it for granted, or for
>argument's sake.
Uh oh, another holier-than-thou speech from a non U.S. citizen:
>
>But I don't agree that when an organization establishes a publication,
>free speech is automatically implied. That is a blatant violation
>of the rights of the organization !
It depends on the organization, as well as who would edit the speech. May I
suggest that you read the U.S. Constitution as well as 1st Amendment case law
before you go spouting off about free speech in the U.S.? Contact Carl Kadie
at eff.org for sources.
>Freedom of speech is guaranteed, in a sense that any individual can
>say (almost) anything he wants, excluding blatant lies, public
>endangerment, libel, etc. In fact, in its pure sense, Freedom of Speech
>is actually freedom of opinion, and the right to express such.
Freedom of speech and of the press is generally absolute when done by private
individuals in the U.S. The situation becomes much more murky because OSU is
a state-funded institutiton. This means that the 1st Amendment applies through
the Fourteenth Amendment. The OSU _Lantern_, however, is a lab newspaper. It
is created specifically to teach principles of journalsim and to allow
interested students to get hands-on experience that they might not otherwise
be able to get. The debate turns on whether the First Amendment applies to
the _Lantern_ through the Fourteenth.
>
>Restricting the medium of speech does not necessarily restrict that
>freedom of speech, if done within law. For example, if I own a newspaper,
>and I want it to be, say, liberal in point of view, I have the right
>as owner (and perhaps editor) not to publish one of my staff's articles
>because it is too conservative. Vice versa. That will not be a violation
>of freedom of speech, since I did not restrict his (the staff's)
>opinion, nor did I make it unreasonably difficult for him to express
>his views. He can take his papers elsewhere, publish it on his own,
>go to the town's park and read it out loud, send it to the White House.
>
>It become MY right to restrict what will be published on MY paper. That,
>in fact, is MY freedom of speech, and *I* take precedence because I
>_am_ the rightful owner of the paper.
>
>Same applies to Schools which directly owns and created its papers.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Public schools are under stricter First Amendment
regulation than private schools or private newspapers. Once again, please
read applicable case law.
>
>I do believe that freedom of speech becomes unlawfully and unjustly
>restricted when students are not allowed to talk about an issue,
>and are subject to expulsion, regardless of where they talk about it.
>Or when someone gets fired because he went to the press to tell
>about something bad that was going on.
That's not a First Amendment violation. It may be unfair, but I don't think
you could make a First Amendment case out of it, unless you were the New York
Times about to publish the Pentagon Papers.
>
>But restricting what goes on a publication is *not* a violation of
>free speech. Free speech cannot be taken for granted on such
>publications, because it violates sovereign rights of the publisher.
If the government or a governmental agency does the restricting, you be that's
a First Amendment violation. Allow me to repeat myself: The debate here
turns on whether OSU is justified in reserving the right to restrict on
carefully specified grounds because the _Lantern_ is a lab newspaper and is
directly under the auspices of the Dept. of Journalism.
>
>Americans are too spoiled. One censorship and they cry. Who really
>gives a damn about not being able to publish something on a
>school newspaper ! Wake up, people. There are more to this world
>in communications than a school newspaper. Go to a real newspaper.
>Fight real free speech issues, such as information suppression by
>your government, freedom of information access, etc. If one is
>*so* concerned about free speech, why is he/she wasting the time
>fighting a school board about a school paper ? And if someone
>tells me, "because one thing leads to another," that's just
>avoiding the issue. The fact remains that there are real freedom
>of speech issues out there, beyond academics, which are being
>neglected by these warriors of free speech. How about Joe Schmuck
>who was fired from his job last Wednesday because he said something
>against his boss ? Or Jane Dane who is threatened to be fired if
>she says something about the latest Risk management report ?
>And you people cry about a school newspaper, when someone is
>sitting in a prison cell after he yelled a politically incorrect
>slogan.
You have missed the point. _Any_ potential violation of freedom of speech or
the press is significant. The U.S. legal system is based on the idea that
government is limited. Any action that would relax a governmental limitation
is suspect. I'm surprised that you, who come from a country with no
guaranteed freedom-of-speech, don't see that. We Americans, who are so
spoiled and cry censorship at every provocation, value our rights a great
deal. This issue _is_ a "real free speech issue." We are not avoiding the
issue. In American jurisprudence, one thing often _does_ lead to another.
Precedent is the legal idea that cases that have already addresses the same or
similar circumstances are more-of-less binding on the case at hand. Precedent
does not apply if one litigant can show that the circumstances are different
enough from past cases to warrant a new examination of the issues.
Precedence is used in U.S. Constitutional law all the time. Why do you think
I'm constantly haranging Carl to cite court cases when he makes one his
pronouncements? Because precedent is controlling. If this situation goes to
court, and a new ruling is made that establishes a new precedent, then one
thing _will_ have led to another. Other courts could use this case in
determining their decisions. So please don't get on your high horse and tell
us that we're whining. We aren't. We are seriously addressing a real issue
that could have significant impact on one of most basic political rights and
one of the foundations of the U.S. legal system. In fact, it's one of the
reasons the U.S. was founded in the first place. So please don't play
holier-than-thou, at least in this forum. I think most of us are extremely
cognizant of the implications of this situation, something which apparently
you aren't.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.162412.11273@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org> <1991Nov09.124319.5063@cavebbs.gen.nz>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:24:12 GMT
In article <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>Even if Steven took every action that was alledged and even if every
>action violated a University rule and even if every Unviersity rule
>was legally valid, the University was still in the wrong (and in
>violation of the law) by denying Steven procedural due process.
clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear) writes:
>And that makes everything Steven did right?
No. In general, it is quite possible for both a user and an
administration to be in the wrong.
[...]
>I still don't understand where you're coming from. "Procedural due process" -
>Brack's refusal to do as he was told resulted in procedures being taken
>against him. He was duly processed by the system and spat out the other side.
>Where's the beef? Sounds perfectly normal to me.
[...]
Academic freedom (and in this case, U.S. law) requires that the
procedures be fair. For example, it requires that the accused be given
adequate notice of the charges against him or her.
- 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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern
Message-ID: <9111091624.AA12418@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 9 Nov 91 06:24:51 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[much stuff deleted]
>
>Americans are too spoiled. One censorship and they cry. Who really
>gives a damn about not being able to publish something on a
>school newspaper ! Wake up, people. There are more to this world
>in communications than a school newspaper. Go to a real newspaper.
>Fight real free speech issues, such as information suppression by
>your government, freedom of information access, etc. If one is
>*so* concerned about free speech, why is he/she wasting the time
>fighting a school board about a school paper ? And if someone
>tells me, "because one thing leads to another," that's just
>avoiding the issue. The fact remains that there are real freedom
>of speech issues out there, beyond academics, which are being
>neglected by these warriors of free speech. How about Joe Schmuck
>who was fired from his job last Wednesday because he said something
>against his boss ? Or Jane Dane who is threatened to be fired if
>she says something about the latest Risk management report ?
>And you people cry about a school newspaper, when someone is
>sitting in a prison cell after he yelled a politically incorrect
>slogan.
I have already responded to the gist of this paragraph in a previous post. I
address the specific examples here.
If Mr. Schmuck was indeed fired after "saying something against his boss,"
that is not a free speech issue; it's at best a contractual issue or a
disciplinary one. No freedom of speech issues are involved here.
If Ms. Dane is threatened to be fired, and she is not a Federal employee
(Federal employees have certain protections under the whistle-blower statutes
and regulations) then that is between Ms. Dane and here supervisors. Once
again, no free speech issues are involved.
You mentioned that someone has been jailed for saying somwething politically
incorrect. Was this true? Could you give details? If this is so, and
happened in the U.S., then it should be brought into the open.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy
Message-ID: <9111091632.AA12547@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 9 Nov 91 06:32:11 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Here is the policy (first posted to CAF-talk on July 24th):
>
>[From: Mitchell D Dysart - Carl]
>
> Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks
> The Office of Academic Computing
> The Ohio State University
> Approved June 6, 1990
>
>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.
>
>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.
Does that mean ACS will respect the albeit unofficial rules that govern
Usenet? Will calling people names in alt.flame be cause for disciplinary
action?
>
> 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.
I think this is a good idea.
>
> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
> other users.
This is too.
>
> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
> system.
>
This isn't. It doesn't list the procedures involved, not does it refere users
to a document or documents where they are stated. Certainly if anything is
overbroad, this is.
>Those who cannot accept these standards of bahavior may be denied access to
>the relevant computer systems and networks. 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.
>
At least reference should be made as to where the university regulations are;
that's not ever stated here.
Generally, this policy has a lot of loopholes that can be probed, by both
administrators as well as users. It should be tightened up and made much more
explicit.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: I've changed my mind Re: the Lantern
Message-ID: <9111091708.AA13026@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 9 Nov 91 07:08:24 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Obviously, student speech is protected under the First Amendment
>>provided that speech is given in a public forum. However, if OSU did not
>>create the *Lantern* as such a forum, but rather as part of an academic
>>program, the university administration retains the right to regulate the
>>content of the paper. The fact that it had not done so previously does not
>>necessarily mean it had surrendered that right.
>[...]
>
>I would guess that the _Lantern_ case will come down to the "duck
>test". If the paper looks like a student campus newspaper
>(subscriptions, tradition of independence, circulation in the 1000's
>or 10,000's, considered by most the paper of record for the campus),
>then the courts will likely say that it is a student campus newspaper.
>
>As far as administration asserting for the first time it's authority
>to regulate. It may have already lost that authority. Something
>similar happened in _San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd_., 790 F.2d
>1471 (1986). I'm enclosing excerpts from that decision.
>
See below. I would tend to agree based on the the cases Carl is quoting.
Barring other precedent that has not yet come to light, I would reluctantly
agree that that the advisor's regulations are unconstitutionally overborad and
thus are impermissible under the First Amendment.
Bob
>- Carl
>
>
>-- begin quote ---
>
>III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
>
>[...]
>In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
>forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
>of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
>focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
>been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
>"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
>circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
>
>The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
>"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
>place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
>this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
>by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
>to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
>public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
>place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
>the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
>the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
>groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
>Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
>discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
>discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
>
>Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
>impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
>forum is quite restricted:
>
>"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
>character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
>same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
>time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
>content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
>compelling state interest." [refs]
Of course, _Perry's_ standards for regulation are open to interpretation, but
it seems to me that any case would turn on whether the advisor's regulations
were "reasonable time, place, and manner regulations" and whether they were
"narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest."
Now I would not say that both criteria for regulation fulfill _Perry_'s
requirements above. The first criterion for review is whether a particular
item is libelous. Is this a reasonable regulation? Yes, I believe so. The
State, ie., OSU, wishes to avoid the cost and trouble of a libel lawsuit,
which can run into huge expense and negative publicity. Given that libel is
an actionable offense, and that responsible publishers would wish to avoid it,
this is a resonable regulation. Is it narrowly drawn? Yes. The regulation
specifically mentions libel (which in itself is specifically defined), and
there is no other way for OSU to get the same effect without reviewing the
publication.
The second criterion for review is items that would incite to unlawful
activity. Is this regulation reasonable? I'm not sure. Although not wanting
to cause a riot is admirable, it's not necessairly clear that any given
statement would do so, or cause other unlawful activity. Since the
regulation does not appear to be reasonable, and if the _Lantern_ is in fact a
limited public forum then the regulation would appear to be unconstitutionally
overbroad. I note also that this regulation would appear to fail the second
prong of the _Perry_ test: the content-based prohibition doesn't appear to be
narrowly drawn to effectuate a compeeling state interest. Inciting to
unlawful activity is subjective in each reader's eyes; what is inciting to the
advisor may not appear so to other readers or the editorial staff. Since the
compelling state interest here is also not clear, it would seem that the
regulation is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face.
As I said earlier in this note, barring other precedent that has not yet been
offerred, I would say that that the OSU _Lantern_ is being impermissibly
reviewed prior to its publication.
The above views do not represent those of the United States, the U.S.
Department of Justice nor any subpart thereof, the U.S. Department of Defense,
the Defense Logistics Agency, nor any subpart thereof; they are my own views
and opinions only.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:04 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 19:59:48 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 19:58:23 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
fsars@acad3.alaska :
hampe@scotty.nas.n : word of warning on academic "no black marks"
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
chapin@cbnewsc.cb. : Re: Brack Expulsion. What
chapin@cbnewsc.cb. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) STL Post-Dispatch articles on the freedom
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.m : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
HALLAM@DESYVAX.BIT : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
unknown@disk.uucp : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
amanda@visix.com ( : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jwoodman@magnus.ac : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jwoodman@magnus.ac : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
news@wolves.uucp ( : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
jwoodman@magnus.ac : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM : Re: Thought Feh!
marchany@vtserf.cc : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject:
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.224838.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
References: <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 02:48:38 GMT
In article <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> In article <1991Nov9.062656.23834@ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
[His stuff deleted]
> 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.
Here at UA Fairbanks we are a lot looser than the norm. We allow
virtually unrestricted access to the Internet. Our rules state that
unsolicited abusive/obscene mail messages are prohibited, but unlike
Rice, does not give any definition of "unsolicited". Our rules were
written before USENET was available on our system so it doesn't even
address that aspect.
Anyway, we don't have rules here that mandates our sysadmins to
intercede against users when the system doesn't run "smoothly" and the
result is that our system is oppresively slow during the day. In
addition, our terminal area often has games players that are
disruptive and the result is that our terminal area is often not
a good study environment for people trying to get work done. Users
are encouraged to call security if there are disruptive users when
staff is not on (we have 24 hour access to terminal room), but I have
never heard of it done.
>
> 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.
>
Because of funding restrictions, our department is run almost by
undergraduate students. While it has gotten better of late, when this
crop of students first got hired 2 years ago, they contributed to the
disruption. They treated the office like a club house, and often were
rude to patrons (sometimes they didn't realize they were rude, we're
talking teenagers here). I'm one of those students (I'm not a
teenager) and one reason I hired on was to change some attitudes among
that staff "from within". I don't know if I've made a difference or
whether my peers have matured (or both) but I like a professional
attitude. On the other hand, I don't approve of a bureacratic
attitude and feel that one should be helpful. I've worked in a
department store when I was younger, as well as a convenience store
and I look at every student staff and faculty member who comes in as a
custumer. Of course we aren't sysadmins but consultants, though we are
given some priv's to do our job (account creation/modification
privs).
My last comment is on the terminal use priorities of owlnet in their
computer center. It places faculty above students when using the
terminals. I don't know about Rice, but at UAF most professors are
able to log on remotely (I notice some of that is prohibited by
Owlnet) from their offices. I suspect that Rice faculty have the
resources at their disposal to do their work w/o having to kick
persons doing legitimate student work off. The students should, if
not come first, be equal to the faculty in priority. There isn't one
w/o the other.
=== Al Sparks
-------------------
From: hampe@scotty.nas.nasa.gov (Andrew F. Hampe)
Subject: word of warning on academic "no black marks"
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 13:33:04 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.133304.13018@nas.nasa.gov>
In article <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com>, amanda@visix.com (Amanda
Walker) writes:
|> In article <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
|>
|> How would you feel if you were expelled from school without
|> even knowing what you were being punished for?
|>
|> Whoa, there. Stephen has NOT been expelled, according to the letter
|> he provided. He cannot enroll in classes for a year, but otherwise
|> his academic standing is undisturbed, and no "black marks" will
|> appear on his transcript.
Once upon a time I made a similar agrement with a school
over a difference of opinions about 'academic goals.'
I was advised then that we were seperating with a mutual
understanding and that "no black mark" would appear on
my record.....
At Least Not until I tried to get a transcript from that
school to attend another school.
ciao
drieux
ps: once was a time when a man's word was his bond....
So steven would be best advised to get in writing
exactly what they WILL be putting in his record,
and get them to notorise it.
HAVE THEM SIGN IN BLOOD WHAT THEY SAY THEY MEAN.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.155315.12434@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 15:53:15 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 22:24:05 EST
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
In article <1991Nov7.205459.22709@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> you write:
>
> I'm confused. Wasn't a letter listing the charges posted a while back,
> and didn't the most recently posted letter talk about appeals? Brack
> did complain to me that his hearing didn't connect specific incidents
> with specific charges, which is bad, but there seem to be way too many
> contradictory charges flying around in here.
A valid legal "charge" consists of two parts:
1) The charge: the law broken
2) The specification: the action alleged to have violated the
law.
An appeal is only as good as the system behind it. The people who
handled my case were not computer people, & were easily swayed by
the statements of ACS.
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.155632.12497@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 15:56:32 GMT
[posted for author - Carl]
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 22:27:12 EST
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
In article <1991Nov8.095014.28095@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> you write:
>
> I'm hoping a transcript of the recent hearing will become available so
> we can read what happened. So far all we've heard is Brack's side of
> the story.
When I have the money to get a transcript, I will.
Anyone willing to provide some financial aid?
-- Steve
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
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:
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.161605.12827@eff.org>
References: <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov9.224838.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 16:16:05 GMT
fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
[...]
>Here at UA Fairbanks we are a lot looser than the norm. We allow
>virtually unrestricted access to the Internet.
[...]
In fact, you are the norm. Rice is much more restrictive than most.
There was a survey on this posted to comp.admin.policy last month. It
was reposted to CAF-news. You can get a copy by sending email
to archive-server. Include the lines:
send caf-news cafv01nn33
send caf-news README
send acad-freedom README
- 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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.162958.13033@eff.org>
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 16:29:58 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[For information about a student's right to know the charges against
>him or her, sent email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
> send caf-laws mills-v-bd-of-ed
> send caf-laws README
> send acad-freedom README
> ]
Instead of "caf-laws", it should be "caf-law". So ...
For information about a student's right to know the charges against
him or her, sent email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send caf-law mills-v-bd-of-ed
send caf-law README
send acad-freedom README
Sorry, for the mistake.
- 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: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.170258.9981@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Date: 10 Nov 91 17:02:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1991Nov10.170258.9981
References: <2730@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Distribution: usa
Randy Marchany writes:
>Tom Chapin writes:
>>People don't pay tens of thousands of dollars a year, nor put
>>thenselves in hock for a dozen years for privileges. They pay money
>>for rights. If it's truly a privilege, then give it away for free.
>
>hmmmm, I thought rights were free and you paid for privileges.....
Sigh, that's how it was sposed to be...but the way it turned out,
you get all the rights you have the money to pay for.
>If not, we must certainly owe the government a lot of money for the
>rights accorded us under the Constitution. :-)
Have you looked at your tax return lately?
I'd say we've paid for a lot more than we've received...
--
tom chapin tjc@hrccb.att.com
-------------------
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.173628.10472@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Date: 10 Nov 91 17:36:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1991Nov10.173628.10472
References: <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz>
Charlie Lear writes:
>From what I have read in the last few months, Brack was a royal pain in the
>ass for all concerned ...
Though most folks get along with me very well, I am sure that there
must be a few who think I'm a royal pain in the ass. I suspect
there might be some who consider you a royal pain in the ass. In
fact, I would have a hard time finding *anyone* who isn't considered a
royal pain in the ass by at least someone. So if I should decide,
based on a few experiences, that you are a royal pain in the ass,
what rights may I, after due consideration, remove from you without
giving you due process?
Due process isn't there to deal with people who consider each other
the most wonderful people in all the world--they can resolve their
differences through mild, pleasant negotiation. Due process is
there specifically to ensure that people do not remove rights from
each other merely because they consider each other to be pains in
the ass, royal or common.
Remember, the weak justification you use today to excuse removing
other people's rights WILL be used against you as soon as someone
decides they dislike YOU, for reasons good or bad.
--
tom chapin tjc@hrccb.att.com
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] STL Post-Dispatch articles on the freedom of speech
Message-ID: <9111101809.AA22875@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 06:09:16 GMT
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Date: 9 Nov 91 15:23:58 CST
As part of their on going series commemorating the 200th anniversary of the
ratification of the Bill of Rights, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published
a set of articles on the freedom of expression as guaranteed under the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. November 5, 1991, Section B.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is available in libraries, newstands, and on-line
services.
Here are the titles of the various articles:
Freedom of expression under growing attack.
Students, educators fight for free speech in schools.
Chicago: Censors at work
Winds of controversy blow through city.
Obscenity: A tough, elusive issue
Supreme Court still appears to be refining the legal definition.
Art Censorship linked to hard, violent times.
And from a sidebar titled "Some facts on censorship in the schools"
The People for the American Way, a liberal group, reported 229 incidents
of attempted censorship last year, up 33 percent over 1988-1989.
The American Library Association reported 500 requests for assistance
in censorship matters, estimating that the figure represented only
about 15 percent of censorship incidents.
The Student Press Law Center reported 929 requests for legal assistance
from high school and college newspapers in 1990, up from 548 in 1988--
the year of the Hazelwood decision.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
From: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:40:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: mthvax.khr69hINN8l4
References: <1991Nov10.155632.12497@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Distribution: na
>> I'm hoping a transcript of the recent hearing will become available so
>> we can read what happened.
> When I have the money to get a transcript, I will.
Just curious, how much is OSU asking for in order to get a copy
of the transcript?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.215610.17212@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:56:10 GMT
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:43:48 EST
[Posted for author. I've reformatted a few of the lines. - Carl]
[BEGIN QUOTE]
Agreement
Ethical Standards of Conduct
Academic Computing Services
The Ohio State University
I[,] _Steven S. Brack_[,] agree that I will abide by all rules
and regulations governing the use of computers owned and/or operated
by dhe [sic] Academic Computing Services at The Ohio State University.
I further agree to abide by the policies as explained to me by the
system administrators and laboratory managers or their
representatives, policies as distributed to users, an policies as
published in the Academic Computing Services Newsletter.
I further understand that I only have permission to use, look at,
or enter those files or programs that are expressly made available for
my use or to use those files that are mine.
I will not look at or use files or programs that belong to other users
without their specific consent to do so even though the files may be
unprotected.
I will not attempt in any manner to interfere with the operation of any
computer or any computer system under the supervision of Academic Computing
Services[,] nor will I alter or delete any files or programs that are part of
the system.
I will not[,] at any time[,] engage in an activity that could be
considered "hacking", [sic] trying to explore other user's [sic]
files, either on computers at The Ohio State University or connected
through SONNET[, the on-campus network,] or the internet[sic].
I will not "pirate" software, illegally copy software, or use software
in a manner inconsistent with the licensing by the manufacturer.
I understand that failure to abide by the above agreement could
result in legal action, university imposed sanctions, or the loss of
privelege for use of any computer equipment owned or operated by
Academic Computing Services.
Signature _Steven S. Brack_
Date _February 8, 1991_
Witness _Del Waggoner_
Widness _Clifford A. Collins_
[END QUOTE]
Note: This was typed in verbatim. Items in brackets were added by
me. Except where indicated by [sic], all typographical errors
are mine.
-- Steve Brack
PS: This item was presented do me after my first "offense."
Before that, I had no guidelines at all for using the system.
--
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: HALLAM@DESYVAX.BITNET
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Nov 91 22:43:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Just a thought, I don't know what Ammerican law is like but under
English I'm sure that the Letter of dismissal would if not substantiated
constitute Libel.
The only way to overturn it would be an appeal to natural justice. This
however does not mean that you can challenge the decision, only the process.
You would have to show that the process itself was inherently unfair and that
the unfairness affected your particular case.
The letter looks as if it is drafted as a legal catch all with the
maximum possible number of get out clauses for the University.
Of course under British law you can be put in jail for twenty years
despite ample evidence that the police fitted you up because to beleive
that the police could lie is an `apaulling vista'
that the police could lie is an `apaulling vista' so I doubt English law
would help much.
PHB
-------------------
From: unknown@disk.uucp (unknown)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.213757.4686@disk.uucp>
References: <1991Nov09.012843.8077@slate.mines.colorado.edu> <1991Nov9.075352.24567@hobbes.kzoo.edu> <1991Nov09.104431.21503@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:37:57 GMT
How can you say that students rights to free speech is not as important as anyone elses? Everyone has a right to free speech, students included!!
That kind of thinking is the reason so many people in America DON'T fight for their rights. "Oh, who cares, it's just some college kids"... But most
college students are over 18 and are legal adults. Saying that their rights are any less important than anyone elses is definitely wrong. We can't have one of the most important influences on people teach them to give up their rights.
in the fight for civil rights there's no battle not important enough to fight
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Shawn Beltz :) :) :) The opinions expressed in this message are
unknown@disk.UUCP the opinions expressed in this message are
uunet!ukma!corpane!disk!unknown the opinions expressed in this message....
-------------------
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.234101.17664@visix.com>
Sender: news@visix.com
References: <1991Nov10.155632.12497@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 23:41:01 GMT
In article <1991Nov10.155632.12497@eff.org>
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven Brack)
When I have the money to get a transcript, I will.
Anyone willing to provide some financial aid?
Tell us how much. I'll pitch in if other people will...
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"Does pasta explode if it comes into contact with anti-pasta?"
--Allen Sherzer
-------------------
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.003736.19354@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com> <37290@usc.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:37:36 GMT
In article <37290@usc.edu> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes:
>A one-year suspension is only mild in comparison to harsher
>disciplinary actions. I don't know anyone who would say a one-year
>suspension is a mild punishment.
I want to make sure that when we use phrases like "one-year suspension"
to describe Steven's punishment, we are all aware that at the end of one
year may not simply resume classes at OSU. He must reapply for admission,
and there is no guarantee at all that he will be readmitted, in which case
the punishment will in effect be indistinguishable for a permanent expulsion.
Jon
--
Jonathan Woodman \ On being a lawyer: "It's a tough job, but
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu / at the end of the day, when you lay your
The Ohio State University \ head on the pillow, there's a warm feeling
College of Law / knowing you tore someone's heart out."
-------------------
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.005353.19455@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 00:53:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1991Nov11.005353.19455
References: <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org> <1991Nov09.124319.5063@cavebbs.gen.nz>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
In article clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear) writes:
>I still don't understand where you're coming from. "Procedural due process" -
>Brack's refusal to do as he was told resulted in procedures being taken
>against him. He was duly processed by the system and spat out the other side.
>Where's the beef? Sounds perfectly normal to me.
Charlie, let's say I arrest you and say, "You have broken the law!"
and I take you to jail. After that, I take you to a court and the judge says,
"The law says you cannot kill another person, and you can't lie on the witness
stand and you can't cross the street against the light and you have broken one
of these laws." and then he puts you in prison. We never told you what you
did to break the law and we certainly never proved it to anyone. But you did
know that all those things we against the law and you were duly processed
by the system and spat out on the other side. Do you have a beef with that?
Maybe now you are beginning to grasp what all this "due process" stuff is
all about and why Americans seem to make such a fuss about it. Otherwise you
end up with kangaroo courts and star chambers and the like.
Until Steven is told by OSU what he did that violated the rules and how,
he will not have received due process.
Jon
--
Jonathan Woodman \ On being a lawyer: "It's a tough job, but
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu / at the end of the day, when you lay your
The Ohio State University \ head on the pillow, there's a warm feeling
College of Law / knowing you tore someone's heart out."
-------------------
From: news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.235824.8984@wolves.uucp>
Date: 10 Nov 91 23:58:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: wolves.1991Nov10.235824.8984
References: <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz> <1991Nov9.161114.11052@eff.org>
X-Md4-Signature: 903f55e05128bc1c4d1a6c1ab3377623
One question for Carl....
Have YOU talked to anyone in a postion of authority at OSU?
I feel somewhat sorry for Mr Brack, but until I hear/see independent
validation that OSU did, in fact, violate due process, I will take this
whole affair with a gram or two of salt.
There is plenty of indication that OSU has a valid appeal process for
almost all of the mentioned actions, but Mr. Brack is NOT appealing.
This single item calls the whole situation into question.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account. stinking disclaimers"
-------------------
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.011459.19526@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
References: <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz> <1991Nov9.161114.11052@eff.org> <1991Nov10.235824.8984@wolves.uucp>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 01:14:59 GMT
In article news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves) writes:
>There is plenty of indication that OSU has a valid appeal process for
>almost all of the mentioned actions, but Mr. Brack is NOT appealing.
>This single item calls the whole situation into question.
I believe that while Mr. Brack has no yet formally appealled his expulsion,
he is investigating the proper means of appeal with the intention of appealing.
Jon
--
Jonathan Woodman \ On being a lawyer: "It's a tough job, but
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu / at the end of the day, when you lay your
The Ohio State University \ head on the pillow, there's a warm feeling
College of Law / knowing you tore someone's heart out."
-------------------
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.233029.8955@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
References: <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox. <1991Nov8.153933.3970@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 23:30:29 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.153933.3970@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
>
>No, no, no, in , it is (in most cases) sexual harassment if the woman thinks it
>is. A friend's father wowuld come into his office and say "good morning ladies"
>(there were none of the male workes in the office when he comes in). The
>females reported him for sexual harassmaent. He was repremanded. This should
>_not_ be sexual harassment, but it is seen as such by some.
>
>Waht we have here is the right of "free speach" vs. the right not to be
>hassled.
>
>
It is my opinion that the harassment thing is going to create a LOT
of tension in the workplace were females are subordinate to males. If I
were a boss, I would like to be friends with my employees--no matter what the
gender. I would talk about and joke about EVERYTHING with my friends. I
don't know what exactly happened with the Thomas guy, but if what happened
was he talked to her about porn flicks and stuff--one could say that it was
something that friends would talk about. (I do not know if they were
friends.) In addition, I do not know if Hill told Thomas that she objected
to what he was saying.
I think this whole thing will make many superior (in job-position,
nothing else) males very uneasy about becoming friends with female
employees.
(Flames to /dev/null--comments welcomed.)
--
Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
WHY CAN'T I BE A CABBAGE AND HAPPY LIKE ALL THE UNTHINKING MIND SLAVES!
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world/I am he that aches with
amourous love/As it is now it always was and ever shall be.
-------------------
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <2740@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 02:04:39 GMT
References: <1991Nov10.215610.17212@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <1991Nov10.215610.17212@eff.org> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>[BEGIN QUOTE]
> Agreement
> Ethical Standards of Conduct
> Academic Computing Services
> The Ohio State University
> I[,] _Steven S. Brack_[,] agree that I will abide by all rules
>and regulations governing the use of computers owned and/or operated
>by dhe [sic] Academic Computing Services at The Ohio State University.
>I further agree to abide by the policies as explained to me by the
>system administrators and laboratory managers or their
>representatives, policies as distributed to users, an policies as
>published in the Academic Computing Services Newsletter.
[deleted for brevity, see original post for the details]
> I understand that failure to abide by the above agreement could
>result in legal action, university imposed sanctions, or the loss of
>privelege for use of any computer equipment owned or operated by
>Academic Computing Services.
> Signature _Steven S. Brack_
> Date _February 8, 1991_
> Witness _Del Waggoner_
> Widness _Clifford A. Collins_
>[END QUOTE]
>
> -- Steve Brack
>PS: This item was presented do me after my first "offense."
> Before that, I had no guidelines at all for using the system.
Well, this thread has gotten so convoluted that I've forgotten just how
many alleged offenses occurred. However, it seems to me that if there
were additional 'offenses' AFTER the signing of this agreement (as
implied by Steve's PS to his post), then we certainly have something
wrong here.
In any event, rather than waste any more time on trying to figure out
whether OSU and/or Steve were the heavies in this affair, I would like
to make a suggestion in an effort to get something constructive of
of this whole thread.
I would ask the readers of this group to help formulate a generic
draft on "Acceptable Use of Computing Resources". It seems to me that
we will benefit more from debate/discussion of this than to go on and
on about something that none of us (except for the afflicted parties)
have the COMPLETE story for examination. We can start off assuming a
university environment but I don't think that has to be a restriction.
Points to consider:
1. Respect for individual rights/privacy
2. Assumption of responsibility/liability for misuse
3. Enforcement/Education procedures
4. Scope of authority
5. Appeal processes
I think the challenge to us in this group will be to come up with the
appropriate language for such a policy. We benefit from the discussion
that will certainly follow which will raise our awareness AND we
have a starting template to use at our own sites.
We can start off with an existing text or from scratch. So, how about
it? With due respect to Steven and OSU, I think we've gone as far as
we can with this thread.......
-Randy Marchany
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:04 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 19:57:40 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 19:56:35 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agre
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agre
john@anasaz (John : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
fsars@acad3.alaska : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: This is not a Trivial Matter!! Was: OSU Lantern, etc.
kurtzman@pollux.us : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kevin@rotag.mi.org : Re: Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Exp
The addresses for the list are now:
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
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
Message-ID: <9111100158.AA20350@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 13:58:35 GMT
From: emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti)
Date: 8 Nov 91 21:46:56 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.205943.26769@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
OWLNET USE AGREEMENT
[...]
5) If you are a student, you agree not to use the account for
off-campus electronic access to data and other resources (including
sending electronic mail off-campus) without written permission from
the Vice President for Information Systems.
How readily is this permission granted? Seems to me like a university
system without ready access to the outside world is just this side of
useless. Most academic systems which I'm aware of spend a fair amount
of their effort educating the user about resources on the Internet and
how to get to them, especially when those resources are directly
related to coursework.
The NSF has spent a lot of money to put together networks that support
and encourage just this kind of communications - I don't understand
how you can justify restricting access this way. Imagine getting
expelled for signing onto the card catalog at another school!
--
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, MSEN Inc. emv@msen.com
MSEN, Inc. 628 Brooks Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 741 1120
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
Message-ID: <9111100159.AA20359@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 13:59:05 GMT
From: doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs)
Date: 9 Nov 1991 08:26:48 GMT
> In article <1991Nov8.205943.26769@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
> OWLNET USE AGREEMENT
> [...]
>
> 5) If you are a student, you agree not to use the account for
> off-campus electronic access to data and other resources (including
> sending electronic mail off-campus) without written permission from
> the Vice President for Information Systems.
>
> How readily is this permission granted? Seems to me like a university
> system without ready access to the outside world is just this side of
> useless. Most academic systems which I'm aware of spend a fair amount
> of their effort educating the user about resources on the Internet and
> how to get to them, especially when those resources are directly
> related to coursework.
Quite readily, as far as I know. I don't know of anyone who's ever been
turned down. It is a somewhat worrisome policy to some of us, however, but
not in the hands of Owlnet, but the University, as far as I know. Not to
mention that the current policy seems to be if a user doesn't cause any
actual trouble, don't throw the book at them. But we thought that was the
case with regards to another policy and got burned.
> The NSF has spent a lot of money to put together networks that support
> and encourage just this kind of communications - I don't understand
> how you can justify restricting access this way. Imagine getting
> expelled for signing onto the card catalog at another school!
Rice could do a much better job handling this, I think. The way it is,
it sometimes seems as if the administration would just as soon have the
Internet go away (well, not really. After all, Joseph Watters is posting
here. (^:). Things have been getting incrementally better, but the status
quo still falls short. There has been a lot of discussion on just this
issue around here...
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: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.182843.11902@anasaz>
Date: 8 Nov 91 18:28:43 GMT
Keywords:
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
]The reason may be that the embargos (or boycott) were on completely
]different goods in each case. Has Arizona had trouble buying food and
]medical supplies lately, or selling their vast oil reserves on the
]world market?
No, but the OUTRAGEOUS boycott of Arizona by the NFL and various
convention groups has brought:
-A significant loss of revenue
-A very strong backlash against those who would enforce political
correctness ideas against the expressed (via democratic action)
will of the people
-Those who would hurt us for no crime other than a SYMBOLIC act. But then,
PC'ism IS about symbols, rather than realisty, isn't it?
-A strong distrust of national media, who greatly distorted the situation
in Arizona. Did you know that:
-Arizona DOES have an MLK holiday. It is on a Sunday.
-Arizona is the ONLY state in the union to have a referrendum on
MLK holidays
-All major municipalities in Arizona already have paid MLK holidays
-The vote was very close and may have been decided by the fact
that the NFL, a couple of days before the vote, leaked a memo
stating that they would pull the superbowl from us if we voted
the political incorrect answer
-There were two simultaneous MLK initiative measures, which confused
voters, and which may have led to the defeat of both.
-Arizona does not have a holiday for the following great Americans:
-Roosevelt (take your pick which one you like)
-Sara Bernhardt
-Eisenhower
-Cochise
-Arizona has lost around $50,000,000 in lost convention business already.
Do you think that this doesn't hurt children?
-Arizona will lose a lot more before this craziness is over.
-I will NEVER vote for a paid MLK holiday after what has been done
to us in the name of political correctness. Many other people feel
the same way.
To hell with the politically correct. ASAP!
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <6E360544A24164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 03:43:00 GMT
>From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
> The facts, not opinions, as I know, not assume, them, are:
>
> 1) ACS never gave me any reason to think my actions were
> objectionable until after I had done them.
>
> 2) ACS punished me by removing me from its system without
> any sort of a hearing on the matter. Further, punishment
> of student wrongdoing falls outside the purview of ACS's
> authority as defined by the University's Rules.
>
> 3) After I "criticized the University on several national
> bulletin boards", ACS chose to pursue the matter with
> Academic Affairs.
> (I do not imply that the two are related, just that they
> seem so.)
>
> 4) After Academic Affairs found no academic misconduct,
> the case was referred to Judicial Affairs.
>
> 5) After Judicial Affairs offered to let me off with a
> letter of warning that would not enter my academic
> records, I chose to take my case to the full University
> Judicial Panel for a hearing.
>
> 6) I was found in violation of three of the four rules
> alleged, but no specific connection was ever made
> between my actions & the rules.
Someone on this list has mentioned that the prosecution has to establish this
connection. I would like to know a little bit more about the legal theory and
the law itself in this respect.
>
> These are all **FACTS**, not opinions. What I have written is
> exactly what OSU did. If you choose to paint me as a liar,
> please present any information you have that contraindicates
> what I have written.
>
> Steven Brack
> ^
I am not judging the rightness of the actions of the OSU administration in
what I am writing here but just trying to speculate on the reasoning that
might have gone on in the minds of the OSU administrators.:
Mr Brack made the mistake of not accepting the letter of warning mentioned in
5) above. I suspect, although I have no way of knowing it, this letter of
warning was most probably something that would have satisfied ACS and as
punishments go, it is lighter than a slap on the wrist.
Mr. Brack rightly or wrongly pissed off the administration when he refused to
accept the letter. At this point it was no longer a legal issue but a
test of power and a test of will. The outcome was more or less foregone
given the power and will of a huge beaurocracy versus that of a lone student.
Pissing off the administration should not be an offense in an ideal world
and it is normally not in any written code. None the less it is a very
dangerous act that has to be done now and then to keep the "powers that be" in
check.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <75FF515C684164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 04:39:00 GMT
>From: dmurray@jasper.tmc.edu (David R. Murray)
>Thank you! Finally the voice of logic and reason.
>
>Newspapers are funded by universities because a strong student press
>serves a much larger purpose than just regular delivery of current
>campus events to students. Campus newspapers are admissions & public
>relations tools, forums for debate, hotbeds of controversy, and
>official historical records of universities. Students who work on
>campus newspapers receive an incredible educational benefit as well.
>
>These 'newspapers of record' are invaluable, and must be funded and
>nurtured to survive. They must also be afforded the same rights as any
>other community newspaper... which means freedom from censorship!
You mean like the community newspaper in a company town?
>
>David R. Murray '92
>Editor-in-Chief, _The_Bucknellian_
>(The Weekly Campus Newspaper of Bucknell University)
>
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <76DFF154084164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 04:45:00 GMT
>
>Although 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. In essence, school
>authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
>because of displeasure with the content. [...]
>
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
One more time: The court decisions seem to be all for High Schools. Maybe a
University administration does not want to bring it to court fearing it will
lose. However as it stands now, I seem to have missed any reference to court
decisions that apply to University Student newspapers.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <790488EF184164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 05:00:00 GMT
>Steven should not have to guess about whether this is the reason he
>was dismissed. If this is the reason, the letters he received should
>have said so clearly.
You want a bureaucrat to write the reason for some action clearly? You must
surely be kidding :-)
One of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats have the power they have is
that they are very skilled in the art of obfuscation.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: john@anasaz's message of 8 Nov 91 18:28:43 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <1991Nov8.182843.11902@anasaz>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 05:12:12 GMT
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
>No, but the OUTRAGEOUS boycott of Arizona by the NFL and various
>convention groups has brought:
blah blah blah ... the discovery that with rights come
responsibilities (and attempts to duck that when it doesn't suit
Arizona.)
I have a better idea. Why don't y'all just vote an MLK holiday if it
pisses off customers so much and is driving you bankrupt?
I know, "the principle" of the thing.
Well, hey, eat your principle then.
I have no idea how to otherwise fix your problem. If the NFL doesn't
want to hold their superbowl in Arizona in reaction that's their
business.
I don't see anything immoral or illegal about their decision, Arizona
had its choice, the NFL got theirs. They're all adults. They're all
EMPOWERED adults with complete free choice to weigh their options,
consider the possible implications, and make their decision and live
with it (so spare me the strained comparisons with racism, where
parties are not so free to participate in their end of the decision
making process.)
As they say, you buttered your bread, now sleep in it.
Hard to feel sorry, you know where the voting booths are.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <7BF3C956884164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 05:21:00 GMT
Date sent: 10-NOV-1991 00:16:20
>
>We must always assume that free speech is a given, if we don't then the
>constituion might as well be forgotten. Remember that the university
>exist's for the student's, not the student's for the university.
Never let a University administrator or a senior faculty member hear you
utter such blasphemy :-)
>
>
>[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]
>[Steve Gilmer | We should all be concerned about the future because we ]
>[k083240@kzoo.edu | will all have to spend the rest of our lives there ]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.193946.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
References: <1991Nov09.104431.21503@slate.mines.colorado.edu> <5360@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:39:46 GMT
If I remember correctly, one of the posters in this thread said that
OSU's rag is run by the journalism department so that its students can
write/publish articles for its classes.
I assume there is a student association on campus that collects some
sort of activity fee from students when they register. For crying out
loud, fund the paper (or create another one) from student fees. I
doubt that OSU administration will censor that paper. They probably
won't feel they need to. It means it is in no way an official organ
of the University, but of its students. This doesn't sound to me like
it's as big a deal that is being made. Let's not confuse editorial
perogative with censorship.
=== Al Sparks
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <814E6E0AE84164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 06:00:00 GMT
>It become MY right to restrict what will be published on MY paper. That,
>in fact, is MY freedom of speech, and *I* take precedence because I
>_am_ the rightful owner of the paper.
Umm, I suspect your are confusing Freedom of the press with Freedom of speech.
Both are in the first amendment, both are important.
Let me quote the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution along with my
commentry:
> AMENDMENTS
>
> The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights. Passed by
> Congres September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
>
> AMENDMENT I
>
> 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.
As you can see, freedom of speech and press are two distinct freedoms which
complement each other along with the peaceable assembly and petition rights.
You are right in saying that freedom of speech of the owner of a press is
somewhat like freedom of the press.
The fourteenth amendment extends these rights to states.
Note also that there are no exceptions for cases like yelling fire in a
theater. The prohibition against making laws restricting freedom of speech is
absolute. The words are: "Congress shall make NO law", not "Congress shall
make laws to enforce" or "Congress shall make no law except in a dangerous
situation"
> AMENDMENT II
>
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed.
The 2nd amendment is no longer valid in most parts of this country and I fear
the same fate for the first amendment. I do not know how judges, who
swear to uphold the constitution, find any Gun control law constitutional. If
judges can find Gun Control laws constituitional, what is to prevent them from
finding Speech Control laws constitutional?
> AMENDMENT IV
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
>oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
>and the persons or things to be seized.
This is one of the main pillars of the privacy right which itself is not
specifically enumerated.
> AMENDMENT V
>
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
>crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
>cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
>service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
>the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
>compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
>deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
>shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Many persons on this list claim that Mr. Brack was denied his Due Process
rights.
> AMENDMENT VI
>
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
>speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
>wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
>previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
>the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
>compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
>assistance of counsel for his defense.
I am not sure if Mr. Brack was covered by this amendment.
> AMENDMENT VII
>
> In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
>twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
>tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United
>States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Mr. Brack certainly has the right to a jury trial EXCEPT that technically,
the State of Ohio can exempt itself from being sued can can extend
that exemption to OSU.
Of course this right does not mean much if you can not afford a lawyer.
> AMENDMENT VIII
>
> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I will pass on this one.
> AMENDMENT IX
>
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be con-
>strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is the other pillar of the privacy right.
> AMENDMENT X
>
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
>prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
>to the people.
This is yet another pillar of the privacy right.
The fourteenth amendment extends the Bill of rights to states, so that the
first line in the first amendment can be modified to effectively read:
Congress and/or the States shall make no law...
> AMENDMENT XIV
>
> Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
>
> Section 1.
>
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
>jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
>wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
>shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
>equal protection of the laws.
The equal protection clause and the deprivation of life, liberty or property
clause is for all persons, not just U.S. Citizens who are currently under U.S.
jurisdiction. The Bill of Rights applies to all persons under U.S.
jurisdiction and not just to U.S. citizens.
Another interesting clause of the original U.S. Constitution is the loyalty
to the Constitution clause (Article VI, section 3.)
> ARTICLE VI
>3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of
>the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
>both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath
>or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall
>ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
>United States.
I guess all executive officers of a State, including all employees at a State
University are required to take an oath (as I was) to support the U.S.
constitution.
>--
>Mahendra Barkah Internet: mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu
>--
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <828A6382984164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 06:09:00 GMT
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>
>I would guess that the _Lantern_ case will come down to the "duck
>test". If the paper looks like a student campus newspaper
>(subscriptions, tradition of independence, circulation in the 1000's
>or 10,000's, considered by most the paper of record for the campus),
>then the courts will likely say that it is a student campus newspaper.
That may be so.
>
>As far as administration asserting for the first time it's authority
>to regulate. It may have already lost that authority. Something
>similar happened in _San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd_., 790 F.2d
>1471 (1986). I'm enclosing excerpts from that decision.
>
That applies to a High School not a University. A student normally has little
choice as to what high school the student attends, therefore governemnet
control is more odius. A student has a lot more choice on which University to
attend and this freedom also makes restrictions imposed by the school less
odius.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: This is not a Trivial Matter!! Was: OSU Lantern, etc.
Message-ID: <83BB958BA84164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 10 Nov 91 06:17:00 GMT
>
>Uh oh, another holier-than-thou speech from a non U.S. citizen:
And I thought that this was an international forum.
I also believe that every human being is entitled to free speech and all the
other rights that are enumnerated in the U.S. constitution bill of rights.
It should not matter if they live in this country or in Cuba or in
The People's Republic of China.
Bob, are you seriously suggesting that people who live in other countries are
not also entitled to these rights?
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
>Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
>DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
>
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <37290@usc.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 91 06:39:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: usc.37290
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Nntp-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu
In article <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>Whoa, there. Stephen has NOT been expelled, according to the letter
>he provided. He cannot enroll in classes for a year, but otherwise
>his academic standing is undisturbed, and no "black marks" will
>appear on his transcript.
Only a one-year hold which will require explanation if he gets a
job with an employer who wants to peruse his transcript or if
he applies to another university. How will he explain it? Well,
I suppose he could tell the truth, which is tantamount to getting
a black mark. On the other hand, the gap almost forces him to lie,
if not by comission, then by omission.
>As disciplinary actions go, this could be viewed as mild. It's
>certainly not in the same class with disciplinary or academic
>separation (which is the term OSU used for permanent, documented
>expulsion).
A one-year suspension is only mild in comparison to harsher
disciplinary actions. I don't know anyone who would say a one-year
suspension is a mild punishment.
>It is no doubt mightily inconvenient, but it does no damage to Mr.
>Brack's academic record, or future ability to attend Ohio State.
No damage to his record, only to his name and reputation.
--
Stephen Kurtzman | "where desire writhed there stands a stone;
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | the change was sudden and complete"
| -- Maggie Roche
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <199111100652.AA01567@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 10 Nov 91 06:51:30 GMT
On Fri, 8 Nov 1991 16:44:57 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
>
>There is no procedure for appealing his computer expulsion. There are
>of course extra procedural methods (ombudsman, University president,
>the Governor of Ohio). I think he has made some efforts in this
>direction, but without result.
Oh, Carl....come on...you usually have it pretty well together.
How can you call the items in parens above "extra-procedural"??
By even CREATING an Ombudsperson, that _de_facto_ creates an appeal
procedure. I am also sure that any ombudsperson worth his/her salt
will set up their own procedures, too.
I am not just trying to be picky....but to emphasize that they ARE
a regular part of the appeals process...and if the student handbook is
worth a damn, it will explicitly list them as well. It may not list
federal courts, the Supreme Court, etc. But even they are procedural.
dan
*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu *
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu *
* Boise State University *
* Boise, Idaho 83725 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak *
* 208-385-1234 for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
-------------------
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Digression: Employment at will (was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion...)
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.044706.1138@rotag.mi.org>
References: <1991Nov9.132152.8288@eff.org> <1991Nov9.182247.29802@rotag.mi.org> <1991Nov9.204235.17839@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 04:47:06 GMT
In article <1991Nov9.204235.17839@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Whether the principles of _Goss_ can be legitimately extended to college
>>situations is still an open question in my mind. Can anyone cite actual
>>precedents for extending _Goss_ to college-level education?
>
>_Doe v. U. of Michigan_ doesn't mention _Goss_ but does say (in
>reference to campus speech restictions) "The terms of the Policy were
>so vague that its enforcement would violate the due process clause.
>See Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 285-88, 82
>S.Ct. 275, 279-281, 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961)."
>
>Also, Here is what A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
>Teachers says:
>
> [lots of interesting stuff]
Thanks. I don't necessarily -approve- of OhioU's handling of this affair,
but I just wanted to make sure that _Goss_ was not the only legal precedent
being relied upon. Given these other cites, it would appear that Brack is on
pretty solid legal ground here...
- Kevin
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
