From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 02:41:20 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: antjcb@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (J.C.Burns)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 05:57:02 GMT
Carl M. Kadie responds to my critique of taking up space with GIFs of any
kind...
>So you are trying to preseve the medium for what you see as "good"
>material by suppressing what you see as "bad" material. I believe this
>to be a very counterproductive strategy.
I'm not sure I'm even talking 'material' here--and it's certainly not as
binary as 'good' vs. 'bad'--I'm just talking about a waste of space, a waste
of a person's time, and a content-free exchange of information over a public
system that taxpayers fund and universities and others have struggled to
establish.
>If you really believed it was content and idea free, then why would
>bother to suppress it? Because of the copyright or disk use? Do you
>apply the same standards to Snoopy picture?
Yes, I guess I would apply the same standards to a scanned-in, copyrighted
Snoopy picture. Even setting aside the concerns about reproducing
copyrighted material illegally (CNN got in trouble with this a few years
back whenthey used a shot from Time magazine in one of their on-air news
graphics), there is a question of worth and originality. This is about as
bad as the current unsavory trend of digital sampling in music--there's no
original creativity here, it's just someone's facility with a
scanner/sampler. As muchg of a Star Trek fan as I am, I think a bunch of
GIFs from the show are your basic big waste of time. Again, you'd get a
better copy of them if you just bought a Star Trek book (there are
gazillions) or taped one of the shows (for home use, not for distribution.)
I guess it bothers me in a greater way as a waste of bandwidth. pictures,
even with a lot of compression, eat up a lot of bandwidth. Shouldn't they be
worth the trouble?
--jcburns
---------
The pictures, accounts, and descriptions in this message are not
the property of Major League Baseball.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:17:05 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Oct 92 15:22:29 GMT
In article <1992Oct18.224407.220@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
C>>Under the U. of Illinois policy, which I think is typical, you do not
C>>have the responsibility or authority to seek an informal solution.
C>>This responsibility and authority belongs to secretary's supervisor
D>> Fine. Except that computers are often in a grey area of responsability.
D>>The secretaries may work for another person, but use machines that I am
D>>responsable for. So to some degree, I am thier supervisor.
D>>Realistically, if a user comes to you with a complaint, and you do
D>>nothing (even to redirect them) then you aren't doing your job
D>>regardless of what it is.
C>Realistically, if you act outside your authority, you aren't doing
C>your job regardless of what it is.
Realistically, in a working shop our job is to facilitate use of our
systems. Some sysadmins, such as myself, DO have responsibility for
making policy. Others may not have that responsibility, but ARE
responsible for facilitating use of the system. As professionals, we
are usually the ones with experience dealing with the social issues
around the computer as well, and it is not at all out of place for us
to suggest to a user, even one who is high above us in rank, what a
fair or effective solution might be to a computer use problem.
A lot of this depends on the "corporate culture" of your workplace.
However, all real jobs require informal problem solving. It helps to
have a back-up of written policies to cover the BIG stuff, but
real-world problems arise faster than you can codify the solutions,
and real-world solutions involve talking to each other and making
informal decisions.
I admire Carl's dedication, but I would not want to be a system
user or a citizen of a world in which EVERY small decision was
engraved in stone in an official policy. Freedom, to me, involves
keeping rules and regulations in check. Not eliminating them, but
keeping them small and simple and clear. In my ideal world, you
resolve the disputes by talking to people, not by going down a
checklist.
Probably why I am a sysadm and not a lawyer.
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:28:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.152218.27081@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 15:22:18 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:28:14 1992
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.102507.15648@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 10:25:07 GMT
In <1992Oct18.214535.3839@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> antjcb@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (J.C.Burns) writes:
>
> [...]
> >the more we preserve the network and University systems as
> >facilitators for thinking and creating, the better off we are.
>
> So you are trying to preseve the medium for what you see as "good"
> material by suppressing what you see as "bad" material. I believe this
> to be a very counterproductive strategy.
I believe it is a counterproductive strategy to view all things in
black and white. J.C. did not talk of suppressing those things but
merely questioned their use WRT an academic environment. And such
questioning is indeed an integral part of academic freedom, IMHO.
My experience with that whole issue is the more you take it as a
matter of legal battles and 'religious' crusades, the more you get in
trouble with it. Here we have a) a policy that explicitly forbids
viewing Playboy-type material on University screens and b) we run all
available newsgroups. Nobody cares much, and most are thinking this is
the best way to deal with it: not dealing at all. (If someone now
asks, 'how fit a) and b) together?', he probably has not understood
me.)
> >I too, am a strong free speech advocate and would oppose CENSORSHIP
> >of ideas expressed on the network with my dying breath--but this
> >isn't ideas here, it's scanned-in crap from magazines which are sans
> >content to begin with.
>
> If you really believed it was content and idea free, then why would
> bother to suppress it? Because of the copyright or disk use? Do you
> apply the same standards to Snoopy picture?
The question is not of suppressing it, but of making users (by
non-suppressive means!) to abandon overuse and misuse by themselves. I
think the pure technical possibility of distributing gigabytes of
digitized Playmates by USENET does not constitute any *need* to do so.
I strongly oppose censorship in any form, and I think if users think
of it as necessary to have those pictures on their disks, well, may
they, but I keep the right to ask them why. And if they answer
'because of academic freedom', I keep the right to ask them if *that*
is the most valuable part of academic freedom, in their view.
MfG,
Olaf
--
o Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
_ /<_ s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_) +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
One frequently hears horror expressed that a 2M byte machine may have 400K
devoted to its operating system... - Fred Brooks (1975)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:28:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.152159.1469@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 15:21:59 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:28:16 1992
From: antjcb@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (J.C.Burns)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 05:54:59 GMT
Daniel Zabetakis has quite a few things to say about my post, among them:
> The fact of the matter is that pornography is fantastically popular. The
>sex groups are always at the top of the readership list. The picture groups
>would be at the very top if more sites could handle the traffic. If you ask
>people what they want in a computer net, the answer is alt.sex and
>alt.sex.pictures. This is in fact what the net is telling us.
Okay, fine. That's what the net should be for. And putting my most cynical
cap on, that's why we live in a recycled, sampled, mediocre culture these
days, one that is like a videotape copied down one too many generations. If
that's what technology and openness can provide its users, it's sad indeed.
I'm not disagreeing that translating this into policy is fraught with
problems...I'm just saying that there may be something to handling it by
appealing to folks' better nature, higher sense of purpose, and general
concept of quality.
But I've been wrong about matters of these before.
--jcburns
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:28:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.152344.14045@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 15:23:44 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:28:17 1992
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.113827.17687@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 11:38:27 GMT
In <1992Oct18.215005.22960@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu writes:
> In article antjcb@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (J.C.Burns) writes:
>...
> >to keep images of these sort off of their systems. Commercial questions
> >aside, the more we preserve the network and University systems as
> >facilitators for thinking and creating, the better off we are.
> >
> Try translating this into a rea;l policy, and you run into trouble. Do
> you want to ban all image traffic? All recreational image traffic? Or just
> all offensive image traffic? How will your rules be constructed?
Maybe it's a problem of thinking and attitudes that you are always
crying for a everything-gets-regulated policy engraved in stone.
Common sense, on the other hand, seems to be a thing either forgotten
or expilcitly dismissed for the sake of writing rules :-(
> If GIF's are banned from being transmitted by NNTP, what about e-mail?
> How will you stop mailing lists? Will you stop people from bringing in
> pictures on floppies? Will you examine all files to determine if they break
> the rules?
Right, it is not possible to stop these things.
> >I respect the sysops who admonish the folks who do this sort of thing--men,
> >darn near universally--to develop some maturity and some common sense about
> >what the network is there for.
>
> This sort of comment always makes me chuckle. What is the net here for?
> I mean really? In my view, the net is an experiment to see what it is here
> for. The hardware of the net is totally open. You can do anything with it that
> you want. Set up your own personal hierarchy? Sure, no problem.
You *can* do so, but does this mean that this constitutes a sufficient
justification? Part of that 'experiment' is to find *uses* for the
net, not only technical possibilities, IMHO.
> The fact of the matter is that pornography is fantastically popular. The
> sex groups are always at the top of the readership list. The picture groups
> would be at the very top if more sites could handle the traffic. If you ask
> people what they want in a computer net, the answer is alt.sex and
> alt.sex.pictures. This is in fact what the net is telling us.
Why do they want *.pictures?
1. It is the sexiness of the *use of a computer* for any purpose,
combined with the content of the pictures (I don't challenge their
high popularity anyway) that makes them even more attractive. You
mentioned that 'Wow, that high graphics resolution' argument. And do
you think this is *nothing* of childish? I doubt so.
2. It is *getting them for free* or at least the feeling of that.
('Why spend $$$ on a Playboy when the university has the stuff on
disks anyway?')
3. They probably feel more comfort in downloading 'just bits and
bytes' than in buying explicit material where they can be seen by
others...
>...
> Cost? I wonder how much it would cost for everyone who gets 10 gifs to
> go out and buy a magazine? I actually don't think there could be a more
> cost effective way of distributing pictures. Of course, there is the issue
> of who pays for it, but we won't talk about that now :-)
But exactly *that* is the issue here. We had recently (in Germany)
much pressure on universities to censor 'un-academic' newsgroups
*based on the costs*. You can this express as 'Universities provide
students with free porn from tax $$$'. Imagine that headline in your
local newspaper and then try to protect academic freedom :-(
Cost of transmission and storage *is* an issue. And users,
*especially* if being granted net access for free, should become aware
of it. Sooner or later they come into positions where cost has to be
considered.
MfG,
Olaf
--
o Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
_ /<_ s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_) +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
One frequently hears horror expressed that a 2M byte machine may have 400K
devoted to its operating system... - Fred Brooks (1975)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 11:57:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.46
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.155711.20819@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 15:57:11 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n46".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n46
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending September 20, 1992.
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[Several issues still in production - Carl]
Notes 1-4 discuss disallowing users' access to computer resources when
it is suspected that their accounts have been misused.
1. (A system administrator:) If we crack a user's password using
crack, we lock them out by changing their shell. We reinstate the
account when the student shows us their id, and changes the
password. If we allowed unrestricted access to crackers while
waiting for due process, would we be liable for damages done to
other sites?
2. Assuming that the user is an authorized user at your site, your
response should be restrained. "By way of analogy, a student [who]
is accused of breaking a university window should not be expelled
from university pending disposition of the case. ... [In contrast,
a]t some schools, the [suspected] user is barred not for hours but
for days or even weeks." The right of access must be balanced with
other people's right to security.
<1992Sep17.182742.335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. (A system administrator:) All hacking isn't dangerous. However, on
most commercial and many educational systems, assuming that it is
harmless is a bad idea. Temporarily disabling a userid until you
can contact the user is often the prudent thing to do.
<7012@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
4. Lockouts are justified to bar unauthorized users, to prevent
continued serious abuses, or as a result of due process. They
should not be used to "get a user's attention" when a less drastic
method would work.
<1992Sep17.000546.19059@eff.org>
Notes 5-7 concern a policy at Iowa State University which prohibits
posting material on the doors of University residence halls.
5. Most housing contracts contain a clause in which the resident
agrees to obey the policies set by the University. It is unclear
whether that clause is enforceable in this case, but they have more
lawyers than you.
<1992Sep17.220307.1470@eng.umd.edu>
6. "I can't conclude that they've put much 'careful' thought into the
matter. I'm also very skeptical as to what the phrase 'work with
students' means to an administration that attempts to take such
action." Contractual rights of the University cannot supersede the
US Constitution. Applying the rule without regard to the content
of the postings may mean that everyone's right to free speech is
being violated.
<1992Sep18.140341.8023@newstand.syr.edu>
7. Attempting to implement an illegal policy by using a facade of
legitimate concerns, such as fire safety, is also illegal. The
University cannot arbitrarily pick and choose where they will allow
free expression. ... The rule is clearly motivated by *viewpoint
discrimination*. If they thought they could ban only "bad"
displays, they would have.
<1992Sep18.143018.8205@newstand.syr.edu>
Notes 8 and 9 concern the "alt" news groups. Alt news groups are
separate from the "official" Usenet hierarchy. Some users may be
offended by articles in some alt news groups.
8. (A system administrator:) Dartmouth receives and distributes the
alt groups. The decision is made by Computing Services; if a major
problem developed, a Dean or Trustee might get involved. This has
not yet happened. I am not speaking for Dartmouth, but I feel if a
site can afford it, it should provide access to alt.
<1992Sep19.210718.10207@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
9. If the problem is displaying or printing offensive images from the
alt groups, the policy should deal with the inappropriate behavior.
"There's no need to restrict what people may read privately or
store in their account as long as you make clear to users that they
should behave politely in public."
<1992Sep21.020503.9397@Princeton.EDU>
Note 10 is a long declaration of the principals of academic freedom.
10. This note is extracted from _World University Service Academic
Freedom 1990: A Human Rights Report_ by Laksiri Fernando, et al.
It is a declaration on academic freedom from "World University
Service", a 70-year-old international academic organization.
<1992Sep18.174723.21325@eff.org>
- Paul]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF
publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he
or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 12:16:30 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.152848.6076@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 15:28:48 GMT
In article <1992Oct18.224407.220@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1992Oct18.193048.19574@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
[talking about how harrasment rules are the responsabilty of the
supervisor]
>
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>> Fine. Except that computers are often in a grey area of responsability.
>>The secretaries may work for another person, but use machines that I am
>>responsable for. So to some degree, I am thier supervisor.
>[...]
>
>You are not their supervisor. Their boss is their supervisor.
>
Gee, Carl. You usually don't talk in sound bites. Maybe what we need
is a good definition of "supervisor".
>>For example, if users come to the sysadmin rather than thier boss
>>with suggestions or complaints about computer issues (such as "I want
>>to install this software", or "X leaves himself logged in all the
>>time"), then the sysadmin is a supervisor.
>
>So, if I asked the building manager to adjust the temperature in my
>lab, he or she becomes my supervisor? That is not how it works. You
>may be a supervisor of computers, you may be a supervisor other people
>in your department, but you are not their supervisor.
>
I don't agree with this, and I don't think that others do either.
Maybe I just misunderstand what supervisor means. If I start playing
around with the electrical system in my building, it _is_ the building
manager who will yell at me. She _is_ the one I would complain to if
someone was posting deragatory posters about me on the walls. Why shouldn't
she be (in part) my supervisor?
A few month's ago, we needed to hook up a water purifier to our distilled
water supply. I was told that even this simple connection had to be approved
by the Plumbing Supervisor (his real title). Since he had the authority to
tell me that I could or could not do it. Or to modify the connection, or
tell me to connect somewhere else, isn't he a supervisor to me?
I can think of a half dozen people right off the top of my head who
could be considered supervisors of my daily work. I am a biology grad
student. There is lot's of shared equipment that different people are in
charge of. If someone has authority to allow or disallow use, to modify
or move the equipment, and to specify procedures, then they must be a
supervisor because there isn't any other term that works.
>>Realistically, if a user comes to you with a complaint, and you do
>>nothing (even to redirect them) then you aren't doing your job
>>regardless of what it is.
>
>Realistically, if you act outside your authority, you aren't doing
>your job regardless of what it is.
>
I really don't see the point of this. I haven't see you (Carl) advocating
doing nothing before. You are suggesting doing less than I would for the
merest aquaintance in the department.
I might suggest a test that if people feel you are the correct person
to bring complaints to, then you _are_ a supervisor of sorts. If you are
in fact not the correct person, and there is a suitable authority, then
your best move is to redirect the person.
You point is usually that due process should be observed, and that
academic freedom is a worthy goal. I don't see where "I won't help you
because it isn't my problem" fits into that.
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 12:44:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.164627.19961@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 16:46:27 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 12:44:40 1992
From: unknown@unknown (Bob Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <70@ocdis01.UUCP>
Date: 19 Oct 92 15:10:33 GMT
In article <1992Oct18.162528.16374@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> Two secretaries share a PC. One has set up a screen saver that clears
>the screen to a pornographic image after ten minutes. The other secretary
>comes to you and tells you that they are very offended. What do you do?
You tell the secretary to complain to her boss, who will either be the
other secretary's boss or will be his/her peer. They'll argue and hammer
out the issues. Then, IF you should be involved, YOUR boss will tell you
to take some action. Let's face the facts here, folks. A system admin's
job is to do whatever management tells him/her to. Step over that line
too many times, and they're gonna find someone who's easier to control.
Management should be making the policy decisions, not the administrators.
If management is unable or unwilling to make policy, then we should provide
input, or push them to either make policy or delegate it to us. But we're
not ./God, and if the truth be known, most of us don't want the legal and
ethical hassles that go with the territory. It's easy to take the high
ground when you're arguing hypothetically, but reality ain't so pretty
most of the time.
Usually, when an administrator turns "fascist", it's simply an exercise
in CYA. You know that something is going to turn into a problem sooner
or later, so you try to put an end to it before it becomes a major issue.
As a previous poster said, "The view's different from down here in the
sewer works".
Bob Johnson, Systems Administrator
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 13:53:44 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.175336.24090@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 17:53:36 GMT
================================================================
Let me try to summarize my position:
The line between prohibited sexual harassment and protected expression
is very, very fine. Because of this, universities have set up careful
procedures for enforcement of sexual harassment rules. No one should
try to enforce the rules unless they are authorized by the procedures.
To consider one sceniero, if a user complains to the sys admin of
sexual harassment via the computer, the sys admin should refer to user
to the sexual harassment procedure rather than trying to fix the
problem him or herself.
================================================================
Details:
A supervisor, in the sense used by the U. of Illinois policy, is not
just someone who from time-to-time tells you what you can and cannot
do. Sometimes, in my capacity as on-line archivist for my research
group, I tell my advisor what to do. This doesn't make me his
supervisor (in the sense used by policy).
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that only a supervisor *can*
or *should* or should give advice. I believe than anyone *can* give
advice and, if they know what they are talking about, *should* give
advice.
A supervisor (in the sense used by the policy) is different, however.
A supervisor *must* give advice. Here is the Illinois policy:
============================================================================
An excerpt from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Code on
Campus Affairs and Handbook of Policies and Regulations Applying to
All Students:
"Individuals who believe they have been harassed sexually should first
seek the advice of their academic dean, their supervisor, the dean of
students, the assistant chancellor and director of affirmative action,
the director of affirmative action -- academic, the directory of
affirmative action -- staff, or the ombudsman, in order to determine
whether there can be a satisfactory informal resolution to the matter.
If such is not possible, individuals should utilize appropriate and
existing grievance procedures for claims of discrimination. The person
of initial contact (one of the campus representative mentioned above)
will advise on steps to be taken to begin this process. Grievants
shall follow procedures outlined in the following documents for the
groups indicated: [List of procedures document and where to find them
for faculty, students, etc.]"
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 16:13:58 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.201352.27094@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 20:13:52 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
[...]
>I would not want to be a system
>user or a citizen of a world in which EVERY small decision was
>engraved in stone in an official policy.
[...]
In the case of sexual harassment, the rules and procedures already
exist. For an example, of what happens when the procedures are
ignored, here is an item from the 1991 Banned Computer Material list:
=====================
An article posted by a student at the University of Illinois at
Chicago -- The student was punished for posting the article, which
offended many, to soc.women. The article was canceled. The system
admin justified the punishment saying that the article, posted to an
international unmoderated newsgroup, was not protected speech because
"it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harassment". The
U. of Illinois has no rules on "generalized sexual harassment". The
University's rules on (regular) sexual harassment do not authorize sys
admins to judge and punish infractions. (cafv01n36,cafv01n34)
================================
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv01n36
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv01n34
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
banned.1991
=================
* Computer material that was banned/challenged in academia in 1991
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/news/cafv01n36
pub/academic/news/cafv01n34
pub/academic/banned.1991
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n36
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n34
send acad-freedom banned.1991
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 20:04:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.235912.20442@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 23:59:12 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 20:04:38 1992
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.225527.14641@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 22:55:27 GMT
In article <70@ocdis01.UUCP> robjohn@ocdis01.UUCP (Contractor Bob Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct18.162528.16374@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>> Two secretaries share a PC. One has set up a screen saver that clears
>>the screen to a pornographic image after ten minutes. The other secretary
>>comes to you and tells you that they are very offended. What do you do?
>
>You tell the secretary to complain to her boss, who will either be the
>other secretary's boss or will be his/her peer. They'll argue and hammer
>out the issues. Then, IF you should be involved, YOUR boss will tell you
>to take some action. Let's face the facts here, folks. A system admin's
>job is to do whatever management tells him/her to. Step over that line
>too many times, and they're gonna find someone who's easier to control.
>
Really? If a user puts a porno-screen saver on one of your PC's, you
will tell other users to complain to thier boss, and wait for it to go
around through your boss back to you before taking action? You'll get fired
for incompetance.
I really don't think most syadmins would have to think very long before
taking it off. Or asking the first user to take it off. If the user
refused, then a formal complaint may have to be filed.
The only real question is how much control the sysadmin has over the
machine in question. If it is a public PC, for example, I would just remove
the screen saver. But if it was in a particular office (but my responsability
to maintain), I would ask the user if it were really neccessary. If the user
stands by the screen saver, then I would suggest that the other user begin
a formal complaint (and make arrangments for them to use another PC in
the meantime, if possible).
>Usually, when an administrator turns "fascist", it's simply an exercise
>in CYA. You know that something is going to turn into a problem sooner
>or later, so you try to put an end to it before it becomes a major issue.
>As a previous poster said, "The view's different from down here in the
>sewer works".
This is the sort of thing that we who talk about academic (and other)
freedom seek to avoid. It's always easiest to make up snap rules when you
see that there is about to be a problem, then it is to deal with the
problems when they are small. It seems that you would only take action about
the porno screen saver if: 1) you are forced to by your boss, or 2) it is
about to explode in your face. The first case is a waste of (multiple) bosses
time, and the second leads to "fascist" rules.
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 21:02:55 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.010246.3406@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 01:02:46 GMT
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
[...]
>If a user puts a porno-screen saver on one of your PC's, you will
>tell other users to complain to thier boss, and wait for it to go
>around through your boss back to you before taking action? You'll get
>fired for incompetance.
[...]
(Maybe I'm not clear on the scenario.) No student PC lab that I know
of wants users to leave any program running after they are done with
the machine. If the user has left the machine, the sys admin certainly
has the authorty to remove a screen saver. This doesn't require, the
sys admin to define "porn" or decide what is and isn't sexual
harassment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 21:22:06 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.012159.3686@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 01:21:59 GMT
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
[...]
>[If the machine in question] was in a particular office (but my
>responsability to maintain), I would ask the user if it were really
>neccessary.
[...]
I think asking this question is as inappropriate as a chancellor
taking the editor of the student paper aside and asking him or her if
it is "really neccessary" to criticize some school policy.
To quote just part of the U. of Illinois sexual harassment:
"Individuals who believe they have been harassed sexually should
first seek the advice of their academic dean, their supervisor,
[etc] in order to determine whether there can be a satisfactory
informal resolution to the matter."
It does not say:
"Individuals who believe they have been harassed sexually should
first seek the advice of any member of the University staff in
order to determine whether there can be a satisfactory informal
resolution to the matter."
Why? Because the line between prohibited sexual harassment and
protected free expression is very thin and even determinations about
"whether there can be a satisfactory informal resolution" need to be
handled carefully.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 19 22:54:39 1992
From: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.023622.9061@ra.msstate.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 92 02:36:22 GMT
In article <1992Oct20.012159.3686@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:
: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
:
: [...]
: >[If the machine in question] was in a particular office (but my
: >responsability to maintain), I would ask the user if it were really
: >neccessary.
: [...]
:
: I think asking this question is as inappropriate as a chancellor
: taking the editor of the student paper aside and asking him or her if
: it is "really neccessary" to criticize some school policy.
You really see no significant difference between the two situations?
--
Frank Peters - UNIX Systems Programmer - Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu - Phone: (601)325-7030 - FAX: (601)325-8921
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 10:21:45 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lashlepi@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Phillip Lashley)
Subject: Re: Help on Outsourcing
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.140007.18752@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 14:00:07 GMT
I am intersted in obtaining any information on the area of oursourcing of ones
Information system. I'm looking for both academic work, as well as documented personal experience. I realise this may not be the appropriate newsgroup for such a request and regret any inconvenience caused.
Please feel free to contact me in any media.
Thanks in advance.
Phil
****************************************************************
* Standard disclaimers apply, wit soon available *
* Phillip Lashley. Tel(W) 902-420-7892 *
* Fax 902-420-7858 *
* E-mail: lashlepi@newton.ccs.tuns.ca *
****************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 12:03:48 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.150640.1599@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 15:06:40 GMT
In article <1992Oct20.010246.3406@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>[...]
>>If a user puts a porno-screen saver on one of your PC's, you will
>>tell other users to complain to thier boss, and wait for it to go
>>around through your boss back to you before taking action? You'll get
>>fired for incompetance.
>[...]
>
>(Maybe I'm not clear on the scenario.) No student PC lab that I know
>of wants users to leave any program running after they are done with
>the machine. If the user has left the machine, the sys admin certainly
>has the authorty to remove a screen saver. This doesn't require, the
>sys admin to define "porn" or decide what is and isn't sexual
>harassment.
>
The scnenario is not the same as the first proposed. I was responding
to a person who said that it wasn't the sysadmins responsability to take
any action in the face of user complaints without specific direction from
higher authority. So I gave an example that I think would be clear to most
sysadmins.
Many (most?) computer systems (loosly defined) are not as formally comtrolled
as an undergrad serving system will need to be. In the bio department here
at CU, we don't have much formal comtrol. If someone wants to put software
on a public PC, noone will stop them.
I think our situation is at one end of the spectrum. Our official sysadmin
(it ain't me) is "in charge" of all the PC's in the department. Each user
can put whatever software they want on the machine, but everyone calls the
sysadmin when there is a problem (and will expect him to get the software
to work).
There are several PC's that are not clearly controlled by any person. They
are what I mean by public. Noone other than the sysadmin has any authority
over those machines, but anyone feels they could put software on them. If the
harrasment complaint arose around one of these, then I think the syadmin
would have the responsability to seek a resolution. He may remove the screen
saver, or ask the user to remove it. If the user refuses, or reinstalls it, then
I think there would need to be a formal complaint.
My point is this. In many cases a sysadmin has supervisory responsability
over people who are not technically under his or her control. In dealing with
potential harassment, sysadmin need to be flexable. At the least, they should
be able to direct users to more appropriate means of complaint.
danZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 14:02:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.175928.15318@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 17:59:28 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 14:02:06 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 92 23:47:35 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.234735.24994@mtek.com>
dave@elxr.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[ ... ]
>>If you find the aformentioned teens interesting and enlightening, then
>>I have no basis for invalidating your experience. Nor do you mine. The
>>question is whether what they have to say is informed, thus relevant.
>Define "informed". You seem to be implying "experienced". The two differ,
>as I'm sure you'll agree. Then we can deal with whether "informed" implies
>"relevant".
I do not agree at all. It is difficult to imagine how someone can become
"informed" on a subject absent an experience of gaining new knowledge.
And "informed" does not merely *imply* "relevancy" -- it is a precon-
dition for satisfying it.
>>Relevance may be a meaningless criterion among persons who assume that
>>because both Nobel laureates and fresh high-school graduates wander the
>>same corridors of travel at a university, that the opinions of both on
>>any randomly-selected subject should therefore be regarded with equal
>>gravity simply because both are generic "academics".
>The existence of either title has absolutely nothing to do with the
>relevance, license, or capacity a given person has with respect to
>a system of knowledge.
Exactly. So whether one is or isn't an "academic" can be disregarded
as evidence that his argument should be regarded with any attention
whatsoever. We would appear to agree.
>>I know of no one in the academic profession who actually *believes*
>>this, or would ever accede to the notion that the faculty lounge should
>>thus be opened to everyone who happens by so that debate could be
>>broadened and made more "interesting".
>This is exactly why the titles that academia conferrs are so meaningless,
You expect an *argument*? :-)
>outside of the narrow context in which academia exists. Hierarches work
>fine when everyone is of equal ability. The absence of an infinitely small
>standard deviation in our species (which is a feature and not a bug) is the
>main reason that some people tend to consider most (if not all) opinions
>to test the plausibility thereof.
Ah, well, there is that qualification, again. It must either be *all*
opinions that one considers, or not. If not *all*, then one must decide
the basis upon which such selection shall rest. Mine is whether the
person offering the opinion is even acquainted with the subject matter
(beyond sophomoric gut feel and intuition). Yours may be different.
>In simpler terms: If it works...USE IT. If it doesn't...find out why
>and use THAT.
A perfectly reasonable rule, all other things being equal.
>>Offering up such a suggestion in the real world of modern academia
>>should leave one with little expectation of witnessing the next
>>sunrise.
>May I assume that you are in this "academic reality"? That way I could
>wake up at 5AM and disprove this assertion...
You most assuredly may *not* make that assumption, which I am certain
would deeply offend many academics, both living and dead! :-)
>>But I do seriously doubt you are in any way armed to comment on my
>>"world view", unless you mean by this your own preconceived (but
>>carefully undefined) notions of what that may be.
>Indeed. My only data comes from the wonderfully expressive notions derived
>from your paragraph about "snot-nosed kids" that initiated this barrage of
>pleonastic ego-bonding. Since I barely knew you at the time of my response,
>the blatant dishonor contained within the comment was my only insight into
>your worldview. Admittedly (looking merely at the time I responded) I could
>have been way off base.
No dishonor at all. I stand by the statement. And without apology, since
no one so far has actually trotted out to challenge it as being factually
*wrong*. And will not, I imagine.
>Now, however, the tone and content of your response to my email message
>is giving me MUCH more ammunition for comment. In point of fact, I now have
>data which serves to confirm what I had thought originally. Thanks for your
>cooperation!
'Aim to please.
[ ... ]
>Any "tactic" is allowable. Specific actions used to implement the
>tactic may not be. "Blacklists" have been used over and over again
>by people in positions of power to further counter-productive causes.
>I see no logical reason why productive causes can't use this tactic
>also. Do you have one?
I don't grasp the distinction, since tactics dictate actions.
I am also unclear as to what you mean by "productive". Do you mean those
that are "effective" in carrying out their intent, such as the pograms
in the former Soviet Union? Or do you mean those that you judge to be
"meritorious" (which is obviously a matter of individual opinion about
which honest people can disagree)? These are different criteria. Which
do you mean? Both?
By your standards, stuffing of ballot boxes (because the opposition is
doing it) would be a perfectly acceptible tactic. Rather than assuring
that the opposition were barred from this practice. Having the govern-
ment firebomb the residences of suspected IRA supporters would appear
to be a perfectly valid tactic -- tit for tat -- and more "productive"
than following the normal arrest-arraignment-trial-conviction pattern
provided under ordinary due process, but so laborious and expensive to
carry out.
Surely you cannot be serious that any civil society might view these
different tactics as qualitatively similar.
>>by furthering what you believe to be a good cause. If so, then what
>>they -- and you -- are fighting for may bear closer scrutiny.
>Are you implying that the tactics used to further a cause have anything
>to do with that cause's legitimacy?
Perhaps everything. "Legitimacy" is a function of perception. Nixon's
fall did not result from a failure of foreign or domestic policy, but
because he resorted to the tactic of covering up connection of his
campaign with certain criminal acts he did not order. He also had an
Enemies List. And he used unnice language in private conversations.
The coverup tactic was the only substantive basis for the House to
initiate impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- which
have been defined as "whatever the majority of the House and two-
thirds of the Senate think them to be". But the other stuff (dirty
tricks and ugly personal characterizations) were the tactics that
finally denied him the legitimacy to govern.
Legitimacy is the basis for democratic civil authority. Which tactics
are pursued weigh heavily in preserving that authority. Or bringing
itself down.
>>Does it not strike you as rather odd to find yourself lecturing others
>>about "tolerance and understanding" while defending a list which has
>>been roundly criticized precisely because of its *notable* absence of
>>either of these qualities?
>Of course, those institutions that were named on that list were *shining*
>examples of both qualities.
Depending on which of these alleged "BANNINGS" you are referring to
(since all have been thrown together into the same undiscriminating bag),
it is difficult to generalize about whether they do or do not represent
a pervasive pattern at a particular institution. Nor do all agree that
each of these limitations imposed on behavior are, on their face, proof
positive that some perverse evil is taking place.
>>The subject at hand is whether -- specifically -- it was appropriate
>>for Carl to publish his "BANNED" list or not, and why or why not.
>>...it most *rightly* brings into question the propriety of one specific
>>act performed on one specific occasion. And compounded thereafter.
>I still have not seen a logical argument that soundly demonstrates that
>the tactic was immoral. I haven't even seen the standard of conduct.
You are posing a false criterion for proof, since you reject entirely
the notion that the quality of the tactic matters at all. Which would
make it impossible for you to recognize *any* standard of conduct,
even if it struck you squarely between the orbs.
[ ... ]
>The fact that I have failed to criticize something hardly means that
>I agree with its every precept. I have not had the opportunity simply because
No one would suggest that you might. My point was only that no need
exists to speculate about what those precepts are.
>I have not been aware of your policy. To be perfectly frank, I don't even
>know you beyond your criticisms of Carl and "snot-nosed kids".
And you are probably the better for it. :-)
>>Those views are, indeed, largely antithetical to *any* universal,
>>canned policy expression which presumes to the claim that "one
>>size fits all". Just as I see no evidence that one political party
>>"fits all", or one religion "fits all", or one profession "fits
>>all", or one suit of clothes "fits all". To believe any of these,
>>one must be either a fool or a fascist. (The former is arguably
>>even more dangerous than the latter.)
>Then how, by any stretch of the fantastic, can you argue that "all
>high-school kids are X"?
How can you argue that "all high-school kids are *not* X"? Please
re-read what I wrote. The word "all" is neither specified nor implied.
The presence of even two "snot-nosed teens" fulfills my stated
criterion. And the common cold is sufficiently widespread that I'm
certain at least two exist out there at any given time.
>>[Long and stylized argument omitted for brevity]
>>So how does this square with your professed attendance to "tolerance
>>and understanding with respect to policy"? And how is it *evidenced*
>>by your truly Jesuit defense of such an inquisitorial device as
>>Carl's odious list?
>Granted that what you are saying holds a lot of my own worldview within
>it. Your arguments hold if that list had a negative effect much
>like Mr. Rodney King experienced that fateful day some months ago.
It is worthwhile pointing out that Mr. King also had some very critical
comments opposing the tactics some people resorted to in protesting the
jury verdict. To his great credit and humanity.
>Here, on USENET, all we banter about is words. Carl merely organized
>facts in a particular way and presented it to the public. What is done
Likewise. So what's your beef? If words mean so little, then why do you
take issue with mine? Hmmmmm? :-)
>with the data has nothing whatsoever to do with the organization and
>presentation of it.
>Dissent works both ways. How else to express dissatisfaction with certain
>large educational institutions which may have ruined the lives of a small
>number of human beings over something as trivial as freedom of expression?
Oh, dear. Have people's lives been "ruined" in *all* the cases cited? Or
are you simply exercising a bit of poetic license in this statement? :-)
The notion that *anyone* might have his life "ruined" by such a decision
is frankly doubtful.
To state that a freedom is trivialized because limits have been set upon
it is also plain nonsense. By this criterion, the libel laws would have
to be repealed because they place *some* limits on freedom of the press.
*All* freedoms have some outer limit set short of a grant of absolute
personal license. In other words, the law places some limits on which
tactics are available in pursuing one's guaranteed freedoms. This can
hardly be news to anyone who is past puberty. Which should include most
(though not absolutely *all*) college students.
>The point of the entire matter is the freedom to express that dissent.
>I certainly grant you your opinions, and apparently you grant me mine...
>why not Carl his?
This begs the question about the admissibility of tactics. And we
clearly don't agree on that subject.
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 14:02:06 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!ukma!morgan
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Problems with Images, (was Re: Facist Systems)
References: <1992Oct17.191914.25611@midway.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.131432.2258@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Sender: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 17:14:32 GMT
Lines: 141
alee@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
>I hear posts on here describing whether this should be allowed or that.
>Look, does viewing nudes on a computer pose any security problems for the
>system? No! It doesn't! The system admins sole purpose should be to make the
>system more efficient for the users, and cure any security problems.
>
>If admins go beyond the line where they're not supposed to go, (like suggesting
>not viewing nudes on a computer), then the system has become facist. It no
>longer serves the people, rather only the admins.
Interestingly, I just received (in today's mail) a brochure from the Presi-
dent's Office (the University President, not the White House), entitled
"Sexual Harassment is Prohibited and Illegal - A guide for Faculty, Staff
and Students". Let me share a few excerpts.....
{begin quote}
UK>Sexual harassment - a form of sexual discrimination - include unwelcome
UK>sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical
UK>actions of a sexual nature when:
UK>
UK>[...]
UK>
UK>- Such conduct substantially interferes with an individual's work or academic
UK> performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or
UK> academic environment.
UK>
UK>University of Kentucky Administrative Regulation A.R.II-1.1-9, November 1984
{end quote}
OK, so our Admin Regs specify that conduct in a "working or academic environ-
ment" may consititute sexual harassment.
Are there examples? Yes, the very next paragraph states (in part):
{begin quote}
UK>Harassment may also arise from behavior which has the effect of creating an
UK>intimidating, hostile or offensive educational or working environment. In
UK>this regard, the following types of acts are examples of impermissible sexual
UK>harassment:
UK>
UK>[...]
UK>
UK>- display of sexually explicit materials in the work place or its use in the
UK> classroom without a compelling educational purpose.
{end quote}
I think we can all agree that a public computing lab is a "work place"; in
some cases, it may also serve as a classroom (many of our professors teach
classes in the public labs on occasion; other students are allowed to use
any facilities unused during the class).
Note the use of the phrase "compelling educational purpose". The use of
the word "compelling" indicates (to me, anyway) that the educational needs
of the student/instructor must OVERRIDE the nature of the material. I don't
believe a GIF-viewing user would have such a "compelling educational purpose",
UNLESS such viewing was required for coursework or research AND could not be
conducted in a more private working environment.
A recent poster asked about "a workstation in an office". I don't consider
office PCs/workstations as "public work places" by default. If a professor
(or anyone with a PC/Mac/workstation in their private office) chooses to view
or display potentially offensive material, it's their choice; my responsibility
does not extend to such "private" working environments. (I might point out
that some visitors to the office might be offended; I believe that I should
inform my users of such things as a friend, not as an authority figure.)
Finally, one more quote, from the President of the University:
{begin quote}
UK>It is the responsibility of each of us to prevent sexual harassment and to
UK>respond appropriately to such illegal behavior when it occurs.
{end quote}
The President of the University just told me, as an employee, that I have
the responsibility to PREVENT sexual harassment. That would seem to indicate
that some level of control must be established BEFORE any offense occurs.
That's a tall order. How should I handle it?
Well, I'm responsible for a certain subset of the academic and working en-
vironments of my users, namely the public labs and the computer systems which
I administer. I see several options:
1- I can just sit back and wait for a complaint. Given the fact that
many people will not, for whatever reason, lodge official complaints,
this is unacceptable; the damage is done before a complaint is ever
lodged.
2- I can start an "active" ban on such material; I could root through
user files, searching for potentially harassing material. This is
absolutely unacceptable!
3- I can coordinate cases of "compelling educational purpose" with
users BEFORE problems occur. Most of our policies have provisions
for exceptions; I see no reason for this one to be different. If
a class required the viewing of such material(s), I could set up
a PC/Mac/workstation that faces the wall (to prevent incidental
viewing or offense).
4- I can establish a simple policy that prohibits the viewing of sexu-
ally explicit material in public labs without prior coordination.
Informing the users of this policy removes me from "active" enforce-
ment, and violators can be handled by the established due process
system of the University.
5- I can "troll through" the labs every day, rendering judgements
"on the fly" about the suitability of the displays I see. This
is unworkable (I have other responsibilities too), ineffective
(some of our facilities are open 24 hours, and they are unstaffed
at night), and far too dependent on my personal taste.
I believe that options 3 and 4, taken together, provide the best environment
for my users. I should certainly make every effort to serve the educational
needs of my users, but (as stated in our University policy) those needs must
be COMPELLING before the general public's "freedom from harassment" may be
overridden.
Here's a final comment; the original poster said:
>If admins go beyond the line where they're not supposed to go, (like suggesting
>not viewing nudes on a computer), then the system has become facist. It no
>longer serves the people, rather only the admins.
In many cases, the admins serve as agents of the users. When we go into
budget meetings, I'm certainly asking for money and facilities for my users.
When I establish resource limits, I'm trying to distribute the resources
among my users. When I implement a policy to prevent sexual harassment,
I'm trying to maintain a better working and academic environment for my users.
"Academic freedom" does not equal a "blank check"; the rights of ALL users of
public facilities must be considered. As the admin, that's my responsibility;
I have to manage our facilities in a fashion that respects EVERYONE'S rights
under the established policies/laws of the University, this State, and the
nation.
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 14:12:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general,alt.sex
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Ontario does/doesn't ban material at universities
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.181236.15507@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 18:12:36 GMT
The following memo was sent last month by Deputy Minister Bernard
Shapiro to the presidents of Ontario's colleges and universities. Mr.
Shapiro is the deputy minister of colleges and universities for the
province of Ontario. That makes him the top civil servant, reporting
directly to the (elected) minister of education.
I called the Deputy's office and received significant
"clarifications". Notes from that conversation follow the memo.
===========================================================================
MEMORANDUM TO: Executive Heads all Colleges and Universities
INFORMATION
COPIES TO: OPSEU,CFOE,COPUS,COU,COUSA,CUEW,BAC,OCUA,OTFA,OCUFA,
OCCSPA,OEICC,OFS,OGA,OCOU,SULFO,CUPE
FROM: Bernard J. Shapiro
SUBJECT: Computer Pornography
________________________________________________________________________
It has recently come to my attention that computer systems at Ontario's
colleges and universities, normally used for the exchange of information
between academics and scientific researchers, may be providing access to
pornographic and/or racist material through international computer networks.
It is the ministry's position that publicly-funded postsecondary
institutions in Ontario should have appropriate policies and procedures
in place to discourage the use of their computing systems for purposes
of accessing or sending racist or pornographic materials. Furthermore,
offensive material should be removed when it is identified, and appropriate
sanctions should be in place to deal with offences.
I realize that private computer companies offer their subscribers access
to international computer networks and that virtually anyone in Canada
with a computer and telephone link can gain access to this material.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that publicly-funded institutions should be
seen to support either access to, or distribution of offensive material.
It is my expectation that each institution will have policies and procedures
in place to discourage the use of its computer systems for access to, or
sending of, racist and/or pronographic material. Please write to me at your
earliest convenience indicating your institution's policies and plans in
this regard.
Thank you for your early attention to this very serious issue.
========================== End of Memo ==================================
I called Deputy Sharpio's office, was transferred to the office of
Peter Wright, Director of Policy and Programs, was transferred to
Diane Crocker, a Senior Policy Analyst. (If you like any of these
phone numbers or Ms. Crocker's email address, send me email.)
I asked Ms. Crocker how the policy was made; if it was made in
consultation with the universities.
She said that it was made without consultation with the universities.
She mentioned (before I asked) that the Ministry has no authority to
intervene in the universities, that the universities are autonomous.
(She mentioned the Ministry's lack of authority several times.)
I asked if the Ministry was concerned only with illegal material
(obscene material, hate speech) or with all racist or pornographic
material. She said that they were concerned with all material and
reiterated that they didn't have the authority to do more than express
concern.
I asked if the Ministry had or would express a similar concern about
library material. She said that she understood that the computer
material was different from library material because it was forced on
people. She said it was "an issue of choice." I said that most
computer material is not forced on people, that it is comparable to
material on a library shelve. I said that the memo might cause schools
to over react. For example, in the neighboring province of Manitoba,
the U. of Manitoba banned all on-line discussion of sex. She agreed
that U. of Manitoba over reacted and reiterated that the Ministry was
only concerned about people being harassed by being *forced* to see
pornographic or racist material. She also expressed confidence that
the university presidents, to whom the memo was addressed, would
understand the Ministry's position and authority.
==================== END of my notes ==================
I still fear that universities will over react to the memo. I
encourage academics in Ontario to make sure their university sees this
clarification or that it gets its own clarification. Also, without
help, this article will not reach all of Ontario's universities. If
you know someone at an Onterio university who might be interested in
this information, please forward it to them.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf
=================
* About the CAF mailing lists (and newsgroups)
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
banned.1992
=================
* Computer material that was banned/challenged in academia in 1992
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/caf
pub/academic/banned.1992
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom caf
send acad-freedom banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 14:38:29 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.183823.16067@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 18:38:23 GMT
In article <1992Oct20.012159.3686@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) says:
> I think asking this question is as inappropriate as a chancellor
> taking the editor of the student paper aside and asking him or her
> if it is "really neccessary" to criticize some school policy.
fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>You really see no significant difference between the two situations?
A difference? Yes. A significant difference? No.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 15:01:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.185221.27731@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 18:52:21 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 15:01:44 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <73@ocdis01.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 92 14:30:08 GMT
In article <70@ocdis01.UUCP> I wrote:
>>You tell the secretary to complain to her boss, who will either be the
>>other secretary's boss or will be his/her peer. They'll argue and hammer
>>out the issues. Then, IF you should be involved, YOUR boss will tell you
In article <1992Oct19.225527.14641@news.columbia.edu> you wrote:
> Really? If a user puts a porno-screen saver on one of your PC's, you
>will tell other users to complain to thier boss, and wait for it to go
>around through your boss back to you before taking action? You'll get fired
>for incompetance.
Daniel - you're arguing in circles here. Read the original post again (even
though YOU wrote it). You said two secretaries share a PC. You're talking
about a situation where two users of the same system have a problem with
each other. That's like two people fighting over the setting of a thermostat,
and one calls the site support engineer to settle the squabble. And on top
of that, you have the sexual harassment overtones. Sorry, but I stand by my
earlier response - I'd tell the secretary to settle his/her own differences
with his/her co-worker, or take it up with their boss[es]. If the screen
saver is that much of a problem, I think the other secretary is the one
who's job is on the line, not mine. If it were a truly serious problem,
I'd take the problem to my boss, who'd go the secretary's boss and resolve
the issue. He who ignores the chain of command gets smashed by it.
> The only real question is how much control the sysadmin has over the
>machine in question. If it is a public PC, for example, I would just remove
>the screen saver. But if it was in a particular office (but my responsability
>to maintain), I would ask the user if it were really neccessary. If the user
>stands by the screen saver, then I would suggest that the other user begin
>a formal complaint (and make arrangments for them to use another PC in
>the meantime, if possible).
If it's a public PC, and I'm in charge of it, then I'm ./god and I could
and would remove offending material in a flash. If it's an office PC that
I'm responsible for maintaining, but I'm NOT in charge of it, then the
problem MUST be handled by the person in charge of that area. You're
talking about a personnel problem - not a system administration problem.
>>Usually, when an administrator turns "fascist", it's simply an exercise
>>in CYA. You know that something is going to turn into a problem sooner
>>or later, so you try to put an end to it before it becomes a major issue.
> This is the sort of thing that we who talk about academic (and other)
>freedom seek to avoid. It's always easiest to make up snap rules when you
>see that there is about to be a problem, then it is to deal with the
>problems when they are small...
Huh? I was trying to say that many times you'll try to "nip it in the bud"
while it's small, rather than waiting for it to blow up. By the way, enjoy
your academic freedoms while you can - the real "bi'ness" world doesn't work
that way. They have this funny notion that since the bought the durn thing
they can darn well control how it's used. Talk about fascist...
>It seems that you would only take action about the porno screen saver if:
>1) you are forced to by your boss, or 2) it is about to explode in your
>face. The first case is a waste of (multiple) bosses time, and the second
>leads to "fascist" rules.
Gimme a break. That's not what I said at all, so don't try to put words
in my mouth. What I'm saying is: your example is a personnel problem, not
a sysadmin problem, and if you go arbitrarily nuking stuff on user PCs in
the real world you're likely to get canned for it.
Just for the record, I think arguing about "academic freedoms" as they
relate to pornographic screen savers on shared office PCs is completely
ludicrous. I apologize for the wasted bandwidth.
Bob Johnson, Systems Administrator
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 15:23:02 1992
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.170544.14272@wolves.uucp>
Date: 20 Oct 92 17:05:44 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>[...]
>> Under you policy, how would you handle this:
>>
>> Two secretaries share a PC. One has set up a screen saver that clears
>>the screen to a pornographic image after ten minutes. The other secretary
>>comes to you and tells you that they are very offended. What do you do?
>[...]
>>A typical harrassment policy will tell me to seek an informal
>>solution (ask the first person to stop), and then to direct the
>>second person to the appropriate authority to file a more formal
>>complaint.
>[...]
>
>Under the U. of Illinois policy, which I think is typical, you do not
>have the responsibility or authority to seek an informal solution.
>This responsibility and authority belongs to secretary's supervisor
>and one of several designated university officers.
[And in further discussion, Carl argues that the sysadmin doesn't have
any authority and *has* to buck it to the secretaries' real boss.]
Carl, you've got such a closed, idealized view of this particular
argument that I can't stand it! You may like to think that every site
has (or should have) some kind of clearly defined hierarchy and well
defined policy about all manner of little things.
Unfortunately, this is seldom the case in a real situation. Who is
responsible for what can change rapidly over time and as folks attempt
to claim or avoid authority/responsibility for something. It may be the
delay factor, but I don't see a response from you for the situation of a
user posting a picture in the terminal room, and the user's boss saying
that the terminal room is the domain of the admin, and the admin saying
that the problem is the domain of the user's bosses.
Adding to the complications may be the admixture of employees in
addition to students in an educational setting. The rules are very
seldom the same for students and employees (pity the work study who has
to deal with both sets of rules!) For example, there are some strict
guidelines here about the appearance of harassment in the employee side
of affairs, but the students fall under quite a different set of
guidelines that have the explicit intent of maximizing freedom of
expression for the students. (Employees don't have much in the way of
free speech/expression guarantees -- unless you're a professor!)
Also, in many real world cases, the "official" assignment of
responsibilities may be mere paper fictions, and the lines of command
may be much more casual. (For example, a research institute, where
there are a few special "talent" folk who are expected to float and
apply those talents to any problem that arises. The actual assignment
of tasks and work flow can seem quite chaotic, but a consensus process
and regular status meetings keeps things on track. The system admin
tasks are "distributed" and one of the "talent" folks is the institute's
Unix "guru" - who may be doing code, may be fixing the network, or may
be scanning in some older reprints as the need demands.)
In such a case, the system admin may in fact be the appropriate person
to begin the process of solving the problem by suggesting that person A
should refrain from insulting person B by changing the picture
displayed. "A" might not realize that "B" is offended, or may be trying
to intentionally upset "B" and the situation can be solved without
making it a matter for the rest of the folk.
(Personal observation: I keep a small set of "interesting" images off
line in some private files. One of the other employees asked for a
particular picture, so I lent them a floppy to do their own copying --
with a warning that there were other pictures they wouldn't really want
to see [I know the persons tastes and foibles.] Despite the warnings,
they looked at one of the other images, and spread it around the office.
When the "showdown" came, they ended up looking foolish when I asked
them how they came into possession of the disk, and whether or not they
were warned that the other images were there. Needless to say, when
someone asks for pictures now, I just make the copies for them instead
of letting them borrow the collection.)
The real world is not nearly as neat and proper as you might wish it to
be. And personal respect and responsibility are not nearly as
widespread as pettyness and whining.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 15:39:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general,alt.sex
From: tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli)
Subject: conversion to yes
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.190513.650@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 19:05:13 GMT
I have managed to convert each and every person I have met that
was either undecided or going to vote no, to vote yes.
Has anyone had similar experience? I haven't heard a single good
arguement to vote no. Every no arguement appears to be outright
false, incomplete in context with respect to the whole agreement,
blatantly inconsiderate of the rest of the federation.
In addition, the no side offers no alternatives to the Charlottetown
Accord. I find it hard to reject this deal that all have worked so
hard on to acheive consensus. Its a fine set of proposals and
overall, its a good enough deal. No country has a perfect constitution.
And I don't expect Canada to be the exeption. But I do know that
this is the best country in the world and I think the CA fairly
represents the Canadian situation for now and several years to come.
Tony.
--
[Tony Cifelli ][Phone: 613-765-2798 ][BNR is not accountable]
[Bell-Northern Research ][FAX: 613-763-7043 ][for the opinions ]
[P.O. Box 3511, Station C ][Internet: tcifelli@bnr.ca][expressed herein. ]
[Ottawa, On. K1Y 4H7 CANADA]["Still looking for a dramatic quote to put here!"]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 15:43:34 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Problems with Images, (was Re: Facist Systems)
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.192932.21030@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 19:29:32 GMT
morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Interestingly, I just received (in today's mail) a brochure from the Presi-
>dent's Office (the University President, not the White House), entitled
>"Sexual Harassment is Prohibited and Illegal - A guide for Faculty, Staff
>and Students". Let me share a few excerpts.....
UK>Sexual harassment - a form of sexual discrimination - include [...]
UK>verbal actions of a sexual nature when [... s]uch conduct [...]
UK>creates an [...] offensive [...] academic environment.
This part of the definition is unconstitutional. [References enclosed]
UK>In this regard, the following types of acts are examples of
UK>impermissible sexual harassment: [...] - display of sexually
UK>explicit materials in the work place or its use in the classroom
UK>without a compelling educational purpose.
What is "sexually explicit"? Bare breast? Bare other parts? We have
several nude statues on the grounds of U. of Illinois. The grounds are
also a work place for the grounds keepers. The statues are not there
for any compelling educational purpose. Are they then, under the U. of
Kentucky rule, impermissible sexual harassment?
The policy also seems to apply the same standards to University
employees as customers (i.e. students). I believe this is legally
incorrect.
UK>It is the responsibility of each of us to prevent sexual harassment and to
UK>respond appropriately to such illegal behavior when it occurs.
So a grounds keeper can, on his or her own initiative, remove any nude
statues that he or she sees?
But what is the "appropriate response"? What is the U. of Kentucky
procedure for alledged sexual harassment? It surely doesn't include
suppressing behavior that a staff members thinks is sexual harassment,
but really is not.
>The President of the University just told me, as an employee, that I have
>the responsibility to PREVENT sexual harassment. That would seem to indicate
>that some level of control must be established BEFORE any offense occurs.
>That's a tall order. How should I handle it?
Not by illegal prior review. Don't take the President's words to
seriously. Most sexual harassment policies are make by trustees or
senate, not by Presidents.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 1
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended
The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 2
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
law/cohen-v-california.3
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 3
Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing
_Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is
protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment
of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
* Expression -- Gag Rule -- 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.
=================
law/young-conservatives-v-sau
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Young Conservatives v. SAU
A UPI story that tells how Stephen F. Austin University originally
banned a groups "sexist" flyers, but when challenged, the ban was
lifted and a cash settlement was given to the students whose
free-speech was violated by the ban.
=================
law/meritor-v-vinson
=================
* Expression -- Harassment -- 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.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Student Publications -- Misc
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that prior review is generally forbidden.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.3
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/young-conservatives-v-sau
pub/academic/law/meritor-v-vinson
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law young-conservatives-v-sau
send acad-freedom/law meritor-v-vinson
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 15:46:40 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.194631.17446@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 19:46:31 GMT
news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
[...]
>You may like to think that every site has (or should have) some kind
>of clearly defined hierarchy and well defined policy about all manner
>of little things.
>Unfortunately, this is seldom the case in a real situation.
[...]
Every university that I know of has a detailed sexual harassment
policy.
>Who is responsible for what can change rapidly over time and as folks
>attempt to claim or avoid authority/responsibility for something. It
>may be the delay factor, but I don't see a response from you for the
>situation of a user posting a picture in the terminal room, and the
>user's boss saying that the terminal room is the domain of the admin,
>and the admin saying that the problem is the domain of the user's
>bosses.
Under the U. of Illinois policy, the boss is not allowed to pass the
buck: "The person of initial contact (one of the campus representative
mentioned above) will advise on steps to be taken to begin this
process."
Under the policy a grievent doesn't have to talk to a supervisor.
"Individuals who believe they have been harassed sexually should first
seek the advice of their academic dean, their supervisor, the dean of
students, the assistant chancellor and director of affirmative action,
the director of affirmative action -- academic, the director of
affirmative action -- staff, or the ombudsman"
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 16:02:21 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.163031.2981@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 16:30:31 GMT
In article <1992Oct20.012159.3686@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
[still going on about the definition of supervisor]
>
>To quote just part of the U. of Illinois sexual harassment:
>
> "Individuals who believe they have been harassed sexually should
> first seek the advice of their academic dean, their supervisor,
> [etc] in order to determine whether there can be a satisfactory
> informal resolution to the matter."
>
>It does not say:
>
> "Individuals who believe they have been harassed sexually should
> first seek the advice of any member of the University staff in
> order to determine whether there can be a satisfactory informal
> resolution to the matter."
>
But it might say "who you believe to be your supervisor."
If someone comes to you because they believe you are in authority to
deal with thier complain, either 1) you are the correct person, or
2) you are not. If you feel that you are the correct person, then you can
deal with the issue. If not, then you have the responsability to
redirect the person.
If both you and the person with the complaint feel that you are the
correct person to deal with the complaint (as specified by the harassment
rules) who is going to deny this?
I am not saying that all sysadmin can deal with harrassment complaints.
I am saying that in some cases, a sysadmin is a supervisor, and may be
the correct person to make first contact with.
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 16:40:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.suit.att-bsdi, et al.] BSD Net/2 Distribution by UCB/CSRG Suspended!
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.202608.11871@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 20:26:08 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 16:40:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: BSD Net/2 Distribution by UCB/CSRG Suspended!
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Oct 92 04:14:32 GMT
Out of curiosity, and figuring maybe it would be a good idea to buy a
copy, I contacted UCB about obtaining a copy of the Net/2 freeware on
tape.
I was informed by Pauline Schwartz (UCB/CSRG) that it is not being
distributed, she cannot tell me why but I should check back "in a
month or two".
I asked if this was due to a technical problem? She said, no, but she
really couldn't talk about it (fair enough, I thanked her and ended
the conversation.)
This is what is known in law as a "chilling effect". No decision, no
court case (yet), but people are changing their behavior as if they
were under a court order.
Very disturbing. Universities should not be bullied like this.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 17:11:38 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Problems with Images, (was Re: Facist Systems)
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.170738.23315@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 21:07:38 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) wrote:
>morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
Carl gives a lengthy critique, based on explicit legal precedent.
I'm neither a lawyer nor a student of the law; I have no intention
of debating precedent. From a strict legal perspective, Carl is
absolutely correct. [Those of you familiar with the previous
Kadie-Morgan discussions may wish to have that last sentence bronzed. 8)]
HOWEVER......
The reality of sexual harassment is independent of the law.
I know a student (at another University) who was allegedly sexually
harasssed by her advisor. She waited until after graduation to sub-
mit a complaint. In her words, "I'd never get a degree from that de-
partment if I filed a complaint". Unfortunately, her assessment was
probably correct. Many (if not most) victims of sexual harassment are
more afraid of "raising a stink" than putting up with the harassment.
[This is somewhat related to the controversy over publicizing names of
rape victims.]
I'm reminded of the segregationists who said "it must be okay, because
they aren't complaining".
I agree with you that I have no business determining "appropriate response";
nor do I possess the definitive opinion of "sexually explicit"; none of us
can make such a claim. However, I still have this obligation to provide a
conducive academic/work environment in public labs. How can I do this?
>Not by illegal prior review.
Hmmmmm......would a complete ban on GIF viewers remove the "prior review"
problem? What about a policy which said "you can view anything you like,
but you MUST cease such display upon request"? A sexual harassment complaint
usually leads to days of memos, testimony, and judicial boards; must every
single incident go that far? There's got to be some middle ground that
doesn't bog everyone down for days.
I would point out that we currently have no curricular use of
image processing in these labs, nor do we provide software with
this capability......at this point, we have no need for it.
As I said, there has to be some middle ground between absolute legal
interpretations and reality. Most of us commit (technically) illegal
acts every day; however, the compromise between law and reality is in
effect. Is there such a compromise here?
>The policy also seems to apply the same standards to University
>employees as customers (i.e. students). I believe this is legally
>incorrect.
How so? You've lost me on this one......why can't the University establish
a policy that applies to students, faculty, and staff alike?
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 17:27:47 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 20:36:50 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.203650.28482@utoday.com>
In article <1992Oct14.200218.13330@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
#The chartered
#purpose of the U.S. Government is to secure individual rights. That is the
#light in which the Constitution *must* be viewed if it is to live up to the
#purpose set for it by our Founding Fathers.
I'd like to see some source citation for this rather broad and
sweeping statement. The purpose of the Constitution, as I understand
it, was originally to preserve the rights of local governments against
encroachment by a central state. The idea of individual rights is a
modern gloss - though one I heartily endorse.
The best that could be said in support of your assertion is that the
Constitution was designed to product the rights of white, land-owning
males who were either born in the U.S. or are natural citizens. And I
heard a rumor that you could add "non-Catholic" to the list - an
unconfirmed source said that the prohibition against presidents owing
allegiance to a "foreign potentate" was actually a reference to the
Pope.
-- mitch w.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 20:22:10 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Problems with Images, (was Re: Facist Systems)
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.224020.11409@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 22:40:20 GMT
Wes Morgon points out that much sexual harassment goes unreported and,
therefore, unpunished. I agree. The flip side is that some activities
that are not sexual harassment are reported and inappropriately
punished (e.g. the action against the user at U. of Illinois at
Chicago). We could call this the "Central Dilemma of Sexual
Harassment".
morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>However, I still have this obligation to provide a conducive
>academic/work environment in public labs. How can I do this?
[...]
>A sexual harassment complaint usually leads to days of memos,
>testimony, and judicial boards; must every single incident go that
>far? There's got to be some middle ground that doesn't bog everyone
>down for days.
At least in the Illinois Policy, "simple" complaints need not lead to
judicial boards: "Individuals who believe they have been harassed
sexually should first seek the advice of [one of the listed campus
represenatives] in order to determine whether there can be a
satisfactory informal resolution to the matter."
As far as what you should do, I suggest
Post the sexual harassment policy.
Post examples of likely violations (and identify the authority
who says that the example is a likely violation).
Be ready to refer anyone who complains to the appropriate authority.
The things I don't think ordinary university staff should do are
Compel or intimidate someone to cease an activity because you
think that activity might (or is) sexual harassment.
Punish someone for what you think might (or is) sexual harassment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 20:27:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general,alt.sex
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: conversion to yes
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 20:20:23 GMT
In article <1992Oct20.190513.650@bmerh85.bnr.ca> tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>I have managed to convert each and every person I have met that
>was either undecided or going to vote no, to vote yes.
How lovely of you. Perhaps your friends are stupid or gullible?
>Has anyone had similar experience? I haven't heard a single good
>arguement to vote no. Every no arguement appears to be outright
>false, incomplete in context with respect to the whole agreement,
>blatantly inconsiderate of the rest of the federation.
First of all, I dont' agre with the concept of the senate configuration.
I dont' like exceptions.
Secondly, I don't like the permanence of the referendum. If we screw up now,
it's a big screw up.
Thirdly, I don't like this political tactic. Vote for ALL of the points to
be included, or Canada will fall to it's knees. I will NOT vote for a
referendum if I only agree with 2/3'rds of it's concepts. The way I
see the vote:
Vote YES if you agree with it close to a 100%
Vote NO if you agree with less than that.
Otherwise, you're short-changing yourself and the country by providing
an alteration to the BASIS of canadian politics that you do NOT agree with.
I do not like the Distinct Society portions for the French society,
which basically ignores and suppresses any other ethnic minorities within
Quebec and outside...
I do not like the ration of Supreme Court Judges.
I do not like the guarantted distribution of House of Commons seats.
I do not like the referendum. Go ahead. Change my opinion.
steve
--
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 22:29:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.022454.22765@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 02:24:54 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 22:29:43 1992
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.211939.8770@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 21:19:39 GMT
In article <73@ocdis01.UUCP> robjohn@ocdis01.UUCP (Contractor Bob Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct19.225527.14641@news.columbia.edu> you wrote:
>> Really? If a user puts a porno-screen saver on one of your PC's, you
>>will tell other users to complain to thier boss, and wait for it to go
>>around through your boss back to you before taking action? You'll get fired
>>for incompetance.
>
>Daniel - you're arguing in circles here. Read the original post again (even
>though YOU wrote it). You said two secretaries share a PC. You're talking
I left the exact status of the PC unspecified. I think you were reading
more into it than I was suggesting. That's the danger with hypothetical
examples. You have to make up too much on the fly.
I don't think we really disagree on this, because:
>
>If it's a public PC, and I'm in charge of it, then I'm ./god and I could
>and would remove offending material in a flash. If it's an office PC that
>I'm responsible for maintaining, but I'm NOT in charge of it, then the
>problem MUST be handled by the person in charge of that area. You're
>talking about a personnel problem - not a system administration problem.
>
...is pretty much what I meant.
As for any remaining differences, I'll just let them go...
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 22:29:45 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.022412.13598@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 02:24:12 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Under the U. of Illinois policy, which I think is typical, you do not
>have the responsibility or authority to seek an informal solution.
>This responsibility and authority belongs to secretary's supervisor
>and one of several designated university officers.
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
>There is some evidence to suggest this may not be typical at all, even
>though it certainly is what I'd imagine many of us would have expected.
>
>In a survey conducted last year, a widely overwhelming majority of
>sites (both academic and commercial) reported the sysadmin was primary
>in both definition *and* enforcement of policy (!).
[...]
Not sexual harassment policy.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 22:29:46 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.022233.27777@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 02:22:33 GMT
RE: Possible Headline:
'Universities provide students with free porn from tax $$$'
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[...]
>As odd as it may seem to citizens of other Western democracies, such
>a headline would probably never be printed because it wouldn't now
>be deemed "newsworthy", [...]
[...]
There have been such articles in the U.S., Canada, and Germany.
- Carl
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/library.porn.real
=================
* Library Porn -- the newspaper article parodied
A real newspaper article published in the Houston Chronicle. The
parody is in file library.porn.
=================
news/cafv02n38: Message-Id: <1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.38
2. These are articles by Peter Moon of The Globe and Mail, Toronto.
The first is "Network Sex: Is increasingly explicit material on some
computer bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity." The second is
"Network lets users say what they think." Reprinted with permission.
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id: <199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Notes 1-3 are about Netnews removals at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln and in Germany.
3. A story in the German paper "EMMA" resulted in the banning of the
"sex" news groups at several universities. Among the groups banned was
"alt.sexual.abuse.recovery."
=================
news/cafv01n41: Message-Id: <393@news.duke.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 01.41
3. According to a Duke University [staff -cmk] member, who received his
information from a College Press Service paraphrase, the University
of Washington stopped carrying "...a computer channel containing
pornograhic materials...." presumably alt.sex.pictures. Apparently
the University stopped this group in response to a negative article
about to be printed in the Seattle _Post-Intelligencer_.
=================
news/cafv01n33: Message-Id: <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 01.33
Notes 1-10 are related to the brouhaha in the State of Washington.
Notes 1-2 are about what happened.
1. A state auditor's criticism of game playing and pictures of naked
people on computers at Central Washington University (CWU) lead to
a demotion at CWU, newspaper criticism of the University of Washington
(UW), and newsgroup removal at Western Washington University (WWU).
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
A critique to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press:
11. "Usenet is *most positively* an invaluable resource. If anything
represents the free flow of information and expression of ideas that
our institutions of higher learning purport to value, this is it."
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/library/library.porn.real
pub/academic/news/cafv02n38
pub/academic/news/cafv02n23
pub/academic/news/cafv01n41
pub/academic/news/cafv01n33
pub/academic/news/cafv02n30
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/library library.porn.real
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n38
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n23
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n41
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n33
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n30
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 21 08:40:44 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Problems with Images, (was Re: Facist Systems)
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.83754.29551@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 12:37:54 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) wrote:
>As far as what you should do, I suggest
> Post the sexual harassment policy.
> Post examples of likely violations (and identify the authority
> who says that the example is a likely violation).
> Be ready to refer anyone who complains to the appropriate authority.
>
>The things I don't think ordinary university staff should do are
> Compel or intimidate someone to cease an activity because you
> think that activity might (or is) sexual harassment.
What about informally saying "I've received some complaints about this;
could we find some way for you to do it without bothering others?" I'd
also mention (informally) that the offended parties have the right to file
a formal complaint, but that I would have no part in any such complaint.
I think that I and any given user, as adults, should be able to at least
attempt an informal solution before getting involved in the bureaucracy.
> Punish someone for what you think might (or is) sexual harassment.
I would NEVER punish a user for sexual harassment without direction from
the appropriate University authority; as I said in an earlier posting, I
can't claim to hold the definitive outline of "sexual harassment".
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 21 10:52:27 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.092051.11415@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 09:20:51 GMT
In tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>I rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
>(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
>one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
>never enters their minds.
Okay. Just tell me what "due process" means. -S.
--
Alumni of Stuyvesant HS of New York: e-mail stuy@panix.com
if you wish to participate in compiling an alumni e-mail directory
--------- simona@panix.com or {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona ----------
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, though I do have an opinion on everything.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 21 19:44:45 1992
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.224117.4632@wolves.uucp>
Date: 21 Oct 92 22:41:17 GMT
In article <1992Oct19.201352.27094@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>
>[...]
>>I would not want to be a system
>>user or a citizen of a world in which EVERY small decision was
>>engraved in stone in an official policy.
>[...]
>
>In the case of sexual harassment, the rules and procedures already
>exist. For an example, of what happens when the procedures are
>ignored, here is an item from the 1991 Banned Computer Material list:
Carl:
One or two anecdotal example do NOT make a uniform or universal
solution to a problem. When are you going to learn to think
realistically?
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 21 19:44:47 1992
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.224417.4712@wolves.uucp>
Date: 21 Oct 92 22:44:17 GMT
In article <1992Oct19.175336.24090@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>================================================================
>Let me try to summarize my position:
>
>The line between prohibited sexual harassment and protected expression
>is very, very fine. Because of this, universities have set up careful
^ some or most - certainly NOT all
>procedures for enforcement of sexual harassment rules. No one should
>try to enforce the rules unless they are authorized by the procedures.
>To consider one sceniero, if a user complains to the sys admin of
>sexual harassment via the computer, the sys admin should refer to user
>to the sexual harassment procedure rather than trying to fix the
>problem him or herself.
>================================================================
Once again, your solution is not universal or even applicable outside of
the limited environment your involved in.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 22 15:19:39 1992
From: mark@drd.com (Resident.Alien)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct22.151238.17764@drd.com>
Date: 22 Oct 92 15:12:38 GMT
In article <1992Oct14.200218.13330@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>The chartered
>purpose of the U.S. Government is to secure individual rights. That is the
>light in which the Constitution *must* be viewed if it is to live up to the
>purpose set for it by our Founding Fathers.
perhaps: s/the U.S. Government/Bill of Rights/;
In article <1992Oct20.203650.28482@utoday.com> wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes:
>I'd like to see some source citation for this rather broad and
>sweeping statement. The purpose of the Constitution, as I understand
>it, was originally to preserve the rights of local governments against
>encroachment by a central state. The idea of individual rights is a
>modern gloss - though one I heartily endorse.
How about Amendments 1 through 10 ?
--
mark.lawrence@drd.com (918)743-3013
DRD Corp., 5506 South Lewis Ave., Tulsa, OK 74105 (918)745-9037 fax
From caf-talk Caf Oct 22 17:44:00 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Oct 92 20:22:00 GMT
In article <1992Oct21.224117.4632@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>>betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>>[...]
>>>I would not want to be a system
>>>user or a citizen of a world in which EVERY small decision was
>>>engraved in stone in an official policy.
>>[...]
>>
>>In the case of sexual harassment, the rules and procedures already
>>exist. For an example, of what happens when the procedures are
>>ignored, here is an item from the 1991 Banned Computer Material list:
>Carl:
One or two anecdotal example do NOT make a uniform or universal
>solution to a problem. When are you going to learn to think
>realistically?
When he gets out of law school and gets a job somewhere and learns how
decision making is implemented in the real world. I admire Carl's
dedication, and I agree that it is useful to know what legal
precedents are involved in a given situation, because as managers we
never do know when a given case can be the one which gets turned into
a court case.
However, negotiation and an open office door, combined with a focus
on getting WORK done, suffices for almost every one of the problems
discussed here, without needing to involve the courts. It seems to me
that the folks who end up in litigation are the ones who shut out
users or shut off services without taking the time to talk to all
sides first.
I stil have faith in moderation and reason....
Betsy (a working sysadmin in a university cs dept, with a policy that
seems to be working :-)
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Oct 22 19:06:28 1992
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312))
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: conversion to yes/no
Date: 22 Oct 1992 22:57:53 GMT
Message-ID: <1c7blhINNnsm@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
In article <1992Oct20.190513.650@bmerh85.bnr.ca> tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>I have managed to convert each and every person I have met that
>was either undecided or going to vote no, to vote yes.
>
>Has anyone had similar experience? I haven't heard a single good
>arguement to vote no. Every no arguement appears to be outright
>false, incomplete in context with respect to the whole agreement,
>blatantly inconsiderate of the rest of the federation.
Actualy, yes, I have had similar experiences, that is,
people who I have talked to, who were going to vote yes, listen
to what I have to say and agree with the major points. They may
not vote NO now, but at least they have listened. I am having
lunch with a "yes" person tomorrow, whom I think I can sway.
I am voting NO because:
- I do not like the way the yes people are "blackmailing"
Canadian citizens, nor do I like the smear campaign against public
figures who are against the deal. If the constitutional deal is
so great why can't the yes side campaign on the supposed MERITS of
the deal.
- the agreement has failed to gain the support of many women's
groups whom my wife and I respect, indicating to me that the accord does
not treat women's issues fairly.
- I do not believe that Quebec is entitled to 25% of the senate
regardless of the percentage of the population of Canada it holds.
- I do not believe Quebec is entitled to three out the eight
supreme court judges.
- this referendum is costing too much money and wasting too much
time for what it will accomplish.
- the referendum should not have been cast as a go-no go question,
it is much too complex an issue.
- we might as well get the constitution agreement right
because if there is something wrong with it now it's going
to be very dificult to fix it later if the accord is passed.
- today, Mulroney has suggested that if in the event of a
"slim" win by the no side in certain provinces (i.e. B.C.) those
provinces should rehold the referendum. I don't get this, are we
supposed to vote and vote again until we get it right?
Also today in the mail I got yet another peice of bueatifully produced,
presumably very costly piece of "YES" propoganda. I would like to
address a few of its FACTS:
"Voting _YES_ will put the economy at the top of the national
agenda" - if it wasn't there already where the hell was it?
"British Columbia will be better represented that ever before" -
How so? With central Canada holding most of the senate, parliment and
supreme court?
"Canada's quality of life is number one in the world. The
agreement will help safeguard our standard of living" - I disagree,
this flys in the face of my personal experiences. A while back(8mo-1 yr)
when I had time to do some volunteer work tutoring at the Carnegie
Centre and programming at the ALS society I came in contact with
many homeless and many disabled people who were not enjoying a
decent "standard of living". I myself, as a student, sometimes
have to choose between eating a decent meal or buying new school
supplies. I certainly don't have a high standard of living. And
I don't beleive that the majority of Canadians have as high a
standard of living as the might want to.
As well in the same paragraph they claim "the Royal Bank
predicts a substantial increase in our standard of living if the
agreement goes through" - maybe for the managers of the Royal
Bank. How can they make such a "prediction"? psychic maybe?
I will adress the other points later if you like..
>
>In addition, the no side offers no alternatives to the Charlottetown
>Accord. I find it hard to reject this deal that all have worked so
What did you say about lies before, Tony? I have heard
many fine proposals from the "NO" side, none the least of which
is simply a rewording of the reforendum question to break it into
five or six smaller questions, or how about going back and
doing it right the next time.
>hard on to acheive consensus. Its a fine set of proposals and
>overall, its a good enough deal. No country has a perfect constitution.
>And I don't expect Canada to be the exeption. But I do know that
>this is the best country in the world and I think the CA fairly
Canada is certainly the best country in the world, and a
NO vote will not destroy it! Obviously, from the lack of support the
agreement is getting, it does not represent the Canadian situation.
>represents the Canadian situation for now and several years to come.
>
>Tony[Cifelli].
-----------
Richard Nistuk Nn N OOO
4th yr. physics UBC N n N O O
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca N nN OONewsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general,alt.sex
Subject: Re: conversion to yes
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1992Oct20.181236.15507@eff.org> <1992Oct20.190513.650@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Keywords:
From caf-talk Caf Oct 22 19:34:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.51
Message-ID: <1992Oct22.233407.5321@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 23:34:07 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n51".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n51
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending October 18, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[This week's guest editor is Aaron Barnhart,
Aaron.D.Barnhart@gagme.chi.il.us. Several previous week's issues are
in production. - Carl]
Note 1 is about computing structure at some small-medium colleges.
1. (P_PARTELLO@UNHH.UNH.EDU:) "Last week I asked people about the
structure of computing on small-medium campuses." Here are the
responses from Florida State, Cornell Med, Shawnee State (O.), Cal
State/Dominguez Hills, Bradley Univ., Wisconsin-Parkside, St. Mary's,
U. of Michigan-Dearborn and the U of M Business School, and Babson
College.
<199210121907.AA23324@eff.org>
Notes 2-5 are about the display of "offensive" material.
2. "My opinion, as a part-time sysadmin: Public *display* of computer
images is usually covered under the same rules as posters,
calendars, etc. If someone else walks in and sees it, and is
offended, they have grounds for a complaint".
<1992Oct13.141359.4701@nastar.uucp>
3. "If someone looks over someone else's shoulder in a computer lab
and sees nude photos, how is that different from looking over
someone's shoulder in a University library and seeing pictures in the
copy of, say, Playboy which (s)he is reading? I believe that any
attempt by a librarian to ban the latter would be absurd; it's
clearly censorship to say that, although the library carries X, you
are not allowed to read it."
<1992Oct14.034619.6797@news.cs.indiana.edu>
4. "I've always been troubled by the assertion that the visible
presence of erotic images in some part of a workspace--independent of
either content, context, or intent--should be considered _per se_
sexual harassment." Needed is a definition of harassment that's "more
nuanced with respect to content, context and intent than most of the
rather broad definitions advanced in recent years, in these pages and
elsewhere."
<199210142013.AA03362@eff.org>
5. "There is an Audio-Visual lab in Frost Library at Amherst. If I
need to watch a film for a class, a videotape is placed in the A/V
lab and I can go down and watch it (with headphones) on one of the TV
sets there. If I were to watch something sexually explicit, whether
or not for class, would that constitute an offensive working
environment? I don't think it would."
Note 6 is about newsgroups supposedly banned in Australia.
6. "I can't help but feel that if [ARPAnet] would just remove the ban
[on alt.sex and alt.drugs newsgroups], and prepare to stand up to
hysterical media identities who would scream about 'tax payer dollars
funding a porno net', it would all be so much simpler."
<1992Oct14.063635.13759@cltr.uq.OZ.AU>
Note 7 is about Rice University's computer policy.
7. Rice's policy "allows searches and disclosure without
authorization, notification, or documentation. Contrast this with the
4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution" ...
<1992Oct15.135354.17230@eff.org>
Note 8 concerns attitudes toward students by academic computing staff.
8. "I think it WRONG WRONG WRONG to blame every intrusion/security
risk/breach to students in the first place. This attitude towards
students is responsible for a rather un-academic climate in many, if
not most academic installations. [...] Students are NOT a security
risk in the first place. This attitude leads to an active
discrimination where students are denied all rights and privileges,
if logically sound or not, for 'security reasons'."
<1992Oct15.142915.293@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Note 9 is a CFV on two additions to the comp hierarchy.
9. "This is a CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of two new newsgroups for
discussions and news on academic freedom on computers and networks.
The RFD was first posted on 1 Sep 1992. The last day to vote is 10
Nov 1992." The groups, comp.society.acad-freedom.{news,talk}, would
replace their counterparts currently in the alt hierarchy.
Note 10 continues discussion of the Banned Computer Material 1992 list.
10. "Whatever happened to the notion that 'honest persons can
disagree'? Has the *academic* 'mindset' so overreached itself as to
now assert that the *only* honest and admissible decisions are those
made by people who obey the academic.freedom.police? And that any who
do not thus conform should properly expect to find themselves
pilloried on a wanted poster published under that same threadbare
cloak of doubtful authority [the aforementioned list]? Would such
intolerance of *actual* dissent not make absurd any 'moral' claim
upon the abstract notion of preserving the *right* to dissent?"
<1992Oct16.155454.11788@mtek.com>
Note 11 considers academic freedom from one sysadmin's viewpoint:
11. "Sure I can get away with viewing or doing anything I want in my
own environs, with my own money. But when I'm using equipment that's
not my own, or at my place of work, suddenly rules start popping up.
In my own house, I can walk around naked. If I do this at work, it
would surely raise a few eyebrows at the very least."
<71625@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Note 12 is a critique of Mankato State's computing policy.
12. "Do you really mean to prohibit e-mail, etc. and random
experimentation? Your policy seems to be that students may use the
systems only to perform the exact tasks assigned by their
instructors."
- Aaron Barnhart]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF
publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he
or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 22 21:55:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: confused@cwis.unomaha.edu (stephen richard smith)
Subject: This is really scary
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 01:24:41 GMT
I just got finished reading the list of banned comp. material the root on
my sys. here. Thank God that UNO still believes in free speech(I think).
I can remember when people in this country believed that someones point
of view- no matter how offensive to others was considered sacred. From reading
that list that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. from what I see the good
old US has degenerated into something akin to Orwells 1984.
some how I thought that elctronic info was still immune to "politicaly
correct" restrictions I guess I was totaly wrong.
I will from this point foward subscribe to this and alt.comp.acad-freedom
.new. And if ever UNO attempt to institute any of the politicaly correct rules
and regulations You guys will read about Me in the papers because I will SUE
SUE SUE for a violation of my civil rights
--
__________________________________________________________________________
| the federal government is basically one enormous, ongoing meeting from |
| HELL-----Dave Barry |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:55:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.044600.18546@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 04:46:00 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:55:19 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <92066@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>
Date: 22 Oct 92 12:39:07 GMT
In a fundamental sense, just being a user of a computer system
carries no particular rights. ( Note that the UNIX part is
irrelevant except that it generally implies multi-user
capabilities.) There may be general things like privacy and
due-process considerations, but they don't derive from being
a computer user.
You have to look at who owns the system and what contractual
relationships exist between the system owner and the user.
There are big differences between a company-owned computer used
only by employees, a university system used by students, commercial
systems where the users buy time, and private systems where user
accounts are given out to friends.
The poster's comments inidcate a university environment. Is it a
public or private institution. Are we talking about student accounts,
or faculty/staff, or sponsored research accounts paid for by outside
funding?
In the specific case mentioned, I suspect that the problem is not mailing
to everyone, but rahter that the system was used for partisan political
purposes.
---
Robert Haar InterNet : rhaar@gmr.com
Computer Science Dept., G.M. Research and Environmental Staff
DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is
personal opinion, not an official statement of General Motors Corp.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:55:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.044612.21944@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 04:46:12 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:55:20 1992
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 13:08:42 GMT
In article <9210212328.AA24105@cs.ep.utexas.EDU> spedroza@CS.EP.UTEXAS.EDU (Samuel Pedroza) writes:
> ... was
> wondering if someone could brief me on these rights as a user should
> some admins consider removing accounts because they disagree with
> some action. We have such a case here at our university when some
> facts about Bill Clinton were mailed to everyone just for
> information.
At Amherst we hold freedom of expression in extremely high esteem, and
do not take it into account when considering disciplinary actions like
this. However, unsolicited mass mailings on *any* topic are
prohibited, because they tend to load up the machine (and, on VMS,
cause disk space problems when you send mail to users who have never
logged on). We don't use this as a reason to remove someone's
account, but simply make an appointment with the user to discuss
"reasonable use" of computer systems. We have never had a second
offender that I know of, but I imagine that further offenses would be
marked by successively more severe punishments.
The fact that this is a case of unsolicited political opinion may be
construed obnoxious (I certainly do), but no more or less severe an
infraction than a mass mailing saying "Good luck with your finals!"
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:55:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.044525.20616@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 04:45:25 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:55:21 1992
From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct22.030348.10856@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 03:03:48 GMT
In my opinion, unless the user owns the machine, the only "right" they have
is the privacy of their e-mail. Sure they have free speech, but not on your
system unless it's by your rules. Free speech rights extend to standing on the
street, not guaranteed access to e-mail and Usenet.
Scott
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Farrow - Student Programmer & Operator, Computing & Network Services
University of Colorado at Boulder, (303) 492-4428 ,farrow@spot.colorado.edu,
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:56:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.044504.20104@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 04:45:04 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:56:45 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <9210212328.AA24105@cs.ep.utexas.EDU>
Date: 21 Oct 92 23:28:10 GMT
There was discussion sometime here in one of these groups concerning
removing a users account. The discussion centered around whether it
was proper to take such immediate action in removing someones
account for a violation without taking into consideration that users
rights since free speech, etc, does extend to media such as Email
(or that is what I recall that I read). I think the discussion was
started in comp.unix.admin or something to that sort and was
wondering if someone could brief me on these rights as a user should
some admins consider removing accounts because they disagree with
some action. We have such a case here at our university when some
facts about Bill Clinton were mailed to everyone just for
information. Well, the chairman pretty much had a fit (since all
the facts showed how Arkansas was ranked pretty much near the bottom
of all 50 states in areas such as Education, Crime, Economy, etc etc
etc. It was all fact with sources cited and no opinions included
whatsoever. Well, use of our machines in such a manner is
threatened to be terminated by removing user accounts. Can someone
help me on this? I would appreciate all responses and if anyone
wants the facts that were spread here, I'd be glad to mail them to
anyone as well.
Thanks!
sam
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:56:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.044535.18462@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 04:45:35 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 00:56:45 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Date: 22 Oct 1992 07:14:22 GMT
Message-ID: <1c5kceINN4j8@gap.caltech.edu>
In <1992Oct22.030348.10856@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:
>In my opinion, unless the user owns the machine, the only "right" they have
>is the privacy of their e-mail. Sure they have free speech, but not on your
>system unless it's by your rules. Free speech rights extend to standing on the
>street, not guaranteed access to e-mail and Usenet.
Frankly, from the sound of the original post, the problem may have
been less the content, and more the fact that it was a large unsolicited
emailing (or so the original post basically said...'were mailed to
everyone just for information'... more or less)
In my guess, most administrators at universities could care less
what political opinions you have, and express among your friends with
email.
however, mass mailings can represent a non-trivial load on the machine.
Mass unsolicited mailings are often a problem, especially since
it amounts to the university funding junk mail and advertising from
those who sent it.
That at least, would be my opinion here.
Keith
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 01:21:07 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.050254.20807@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 05:02:54 GMT
[Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. This is just a layman's opinion.]
(In the context of a state university:)
There are two issues:
1)
Is the user being punished for his or her viewpoint,
(such punishment would be illegal)
or for being disruptive, (punishment would be OK)
or for using a forum is a way that is in practice not allowed?
(punishment would be OK)
[If pro-Clinton mass mailings have been allowed in the past,
you're home free.
If mass mailings are allowed, but have never been "controversial"
before, you've got a good case.
If all mass mailings in the past have been subject to warnings
or discipline, you better start apologizing.]
2) Is the user receiving due process?
[If the user didn't get chance for a hearing
or won't have a chance for appeal, then he or she probably is not
getting due process. (The user may not want a formal
hearing, if he or she can get an informal warning instead.)]
[3). If all else, fails is the action against the student
being kept confidential. If not, the department is likely
in violation of the FERPA.]
I'm enclosing a lot of references on these two(three) points.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
* Constitution -- Public University -- Constraints
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.
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Student Publications -- Misc
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/clergy-v-chicago-board-of-ed
=================
* Expression -- On Campus -- Clergy v. Chicago Board of Ed
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ 3rd Edition,
1988 about access to school facilities by students and outsiders. It
says if use by students is not disruptive, use should be allowed.
Also, "if any facility is made available to one group, the school may
not then deny other groups the opportunity to use that facility."
=================
law/tinker_v_des_moines
=================
* Expression -- On Campus -- Tinker v. Des Moines
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
=================
* Expression -- On Campus -- Tinker v. Des Moines -- 2
A few excerpts from the majority decision in _Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District_ (1969). It concerned
non-disruptive political expression in schools. The Supreme Court held
that two students had the right to wear black armbands to school as a
protest against the Vietnam War.
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Overview -- San Diego Committee v. Gov Bd
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A
decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
* Due Process -- When Required -- Goss v. Lopez -- Fischer
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.
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
* Due Process -- When Required -- Goss v. Lopez -- Mnookin
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). 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.
=================
law/ferpa
=================
* Privacy -- School Records -- FERPA -- Excerpts
Excerpts from _College and University Student Records: A Legal
Compendium_, Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989. Details the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act's (Buckley Amendment's) provisions on
directory information.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/clergy-v-chicago-board-of-ed
pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
pub/academic/law/ferpa
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law clergy-v-chicago-board-of-ed
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines.2
send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.fischer
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.mnookin
send acad-freedom/law ferpa
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 02:25:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.062203.25816@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 06:22:03 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 02:25:22 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct22.192636.11381@hal.com>
Date: 22 Oct 92 19:26:36 GMT
> Users rights are part of the Electronis Communications Privacy Act;
> and the various states' laws. Many universities are writing their
> policies respective of these laws.
And many companies are not. There are large, blue-colored, three-
initialed companies (whose initial shall remain nameless... ;-) )
who view their computers as just that... *their* computers.
While I, Joe User, might not be crazy about the idea of being
prohibited from keeping personal e-mail or the odd stock analysis
program on my disk at work (because, really, what *is* it going to hurt?),
I will defend any private entity's or person's right to say how computer
equipment they own will and will not be used. I, Joe User, have every
right to decide I don't want to work for a company that would make a
requirement that I find unreasonable.
Companies have guidelines for proper behavior and use of property. I'm sure
my company wouldn't want me storing my wardrobe in my desk drawers, either.
And it's *their* desk, so they can tell me what I can and cannot put in it.
If I don't like it, that's another issue. In general, I don't put anything
unreasonable in it and they don't come around and look to see what I have
put in it. ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I agree users have rights to be respected and treated
with certain privacies. I am vehemently opposed to a policy that filters
or otherwise examines someone's electronic mail. That's *invasion*. But
if a company wants to dictate that I will not use electronic mail for
personal communications, that is their business to do, they are paying for
the resource. We all know that in general, dictating such a policy usually
fails (just as dictating no personal phone calls usually creates much more
ill will than it saves in a few lost minutes here and there). But it *is*
the company's right to decide how the resources it pays for will be used.
> Postings for things such as USEnet news, are IMHO a grey area tho'.
And this will become an even larger issue as time goes by. There is
certainly a *lot* of useful information available from "the net." There is
also a *lot* of garbage (the garbage probably wins big these days). At what
point to you accept the loss of the good to eliminate the bad? At what point
do you accept the trash to get the good that will help your technical staff?
It's a hard problem, but with the ever decreasing signal-to-noise ratio,
it's becoming an easier decision for a lot of sites.
A computer isn't a universe, it isn't Cyberspace, it's a tool, it's
a glorified screwdriver. Misuse it, and your mother will take it
away from you ("you could put an eye out with that thing!!"). ;-)
One day, we'll all have a Unix box at home with our own Internet
connection and we'll have only ourselves to answer to (many have this
today). And we'll be paying for our own resource, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Ables HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
ables@hal.com 8920 Business Park Dr., Suite 300
+1 512 794 2855 Austin, TX 78759
---------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: my first paragraph was *not* a jab at IBM, merely what
I thought was a cute phrase... many large companies have fairly
restrictive computer use policies. IBM is, in fact, loosening up
from what I understand. Hopefully responsible use of these resources
on all our parts will encourage more companies to do the same.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 02:36:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.062154.25905@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 06:21:54 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 02:36:04 1992
From: sblair@upurbmw.dell.com ()
Subject: Re: UNIX users' rights? What are they?
Message-ID: <1992Oct22.183111.27959@raid.dell.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 18:31:11 GMT
Users rights are part of the Electronis Communications Privacy Act;
and the various states' laws. Many universities are writing their
policies respective of these laws.
I suggest that everyone interested do what I've done -- FTP from
ftp.eff.org
Whether or not we like it, these laws do affect what we as administrators
of public &/or semi-public services have as explicit responsibilities.
Postings for things such as USEnet news, are IMHO a grey area tho'.
--
Steve Blair DELL NETWORK SERVICES sblair@dell.com hostmaster@dell.com
===========================================================================
they weebles-they wobles-they weebles-they wobles......... the FDDI family
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 09:07:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: This is really scary
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.90050.11532@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 13:00:50 GMT
confused@cwis.unomaha.edu (stephen richard smith) wrote:
> I just got finished reading the list of banned comp. material the root on
>my sys. here. Thank God that UNO still believes in free speech(I think).
> I can remember when people in this country believed that someones point
>of view- no matter how offensive to others was considered sacred. From reading
>that list that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. from what I see the good
>old US has degenerated into something akin to Orwells 1984.
You should remember that the sites listed in the now-infamous "Banned
Computer Material" represent less than 1% of the sites participating
in Usenet (and an even smaller percentage of the systems participating
in the world-wide "Internet").
While "Banned Computer Material" certainly sets a rather evil tone, don't
base generalizations on its information. By and large, things are clicking
along just fine........
Remember, too, that this newsgroups tends to be a home for the "dark side"
of academic computing; our discussions don't really get going until there's
a particular "evil" to discuss. Don't let the nature of this newsgroup
color your attitudes toward the rest of us. 8)
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 12:11:39 1992
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: conversion to yes/no
Message-ID: <13322@hans>
Date: 23 Oct 92 12:53:27 GMT
I'm not sure why I am doing this, since it is unlikely I will sway any
opinion, but here goes anyway.
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312)) writes:
> I am voting NO because:
> - I do not like the way the yes people are "blackmailing"
>Canadian citizens, nor do I like the smear campaign against public
>figures who are against the deal. If the constitutional deal is
>so great why can't the yes side campaign on the supposed MERITS of
>the deal.
You should be voting on the merits and flaws of the deal, not on how
the sleazy politicians on both sides have been using blackmail,
innuendo and character to sell/trash it.
> - the agreement has failed to gain the support of many women's
>groups whom my wife and I respect, indicating to me that the accord does
>not treat women's issues fairly.
I should point out that NAC rewrote the Canada clause the way they
want it and THEY STILL SAID THEY WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE DEAL. Now if
they can't put exactly what they want into a constitution who can?
I HAD a lot of respect for judy Rebick before this happened (not the
'no' decision but this rewiting of the CC), I am losing respect fast.
And besides, the former leader of NAC had a debate with Judy Rebick and
intelligently countered each of her concerns. I am not saying that Judy
is definitely wrong, but just that there is disagreement within NAC
about the deal.
> - I do not believe that Quebec is entitled to 25% of the senate
>regardless of the percentage of the population of Canada it holds.
I believe you mean the commons, as QC gets 6 senate seats, just like
every other province. Other that that I agree with you, but I do not
feel that this is a show stopper, since QC's population is unlikely
to drop too much below 25% (perhaps 20% at lowest), and if you crunch
the numbers this doesn't leave any single province significantly
underrepresented (IMHO of course). Also, they are not the only province
with a minimum representation. Even BC had a minimum, although it is no
longer necessary since their population has grown.
> - I do not believe Quebec is entitled to three out the eight
>supreme court judges.
The constitution states that 3 out of the 9 (not 8) supreme court
judges must have been submitted to the QC bar (ie: the only civil
code bar in Canada). I believe that it is important to have a significant
representation for the civil code on the supreme court. If only one
or two judges had to know civil code, there would be more room for a
single judge's mistaken opinion about the civil code to be enforced.
> - this referendum is costing too much money and wasting too much
>time for what it will accomplish.
Consulting the people is NEVER too costly. Besides, what will happen with
a No? Will they turn around and concentrate on the economy or will they
try to hash out another deal before the next federal and QC elections
(both will be sometime next year)? I'm fairly certain they will try to
get another deal, because both Robert Bourassa and Myron Baloney will
feel that it is their best bet for reelection.
> - the referendum should not have been cast as a go-no go question,
>it is much too complex an issue.
What would you like, a yes/no to each part of the deal? This wouldn't
work. Then we'd have overwhelming NO to the proposed senate in central
Canada, overwhelming NO to anything referring to QC in ROC, etc.
In short, it would not be conducive to compromise, which is absolutely
essential to obtaining a constitution for Canada.
> - we might as well get the constitution agreement right
>because if there is something wrong with it now it's going
>to be very dificult to fix it later if the accord is passed.
I haven't seen anything in this deal which will make it more
difficult to change the constitution. It has taken us at least 10
years to change the current one, if we wait for a perfect deal it
may take forever. I personally believe that the constitution should
be a living document, which means that it will be changing constantly
to reflect the changes in Canadian society.
> - today, Mulroney has suggested that if in the event of a
>"slim" win by the no side in certain provinces (i.e. B.C.) those
>provinces should rehold the referendum. I don't get this, are we
>supposed to vote and vote again until we get it right?
I can't believe I'm defending BM, but he was quoted out of context.
In fact, he was asked whether it was possible that there would be
a second referendum if some provinces voted a close NO, and what he
said was that there was an historical precident in the 1949 NFLD vote.
> "Voting _YES_ will put the economy at the top of the national
>agenda" - if it wasn't there already where the hell was it?
Playing back seat to the constitution.
> "British Columbia will be better represented that ever before" -
>How so? With central Canada holding most of the senate, parliment and
^^^^^^
>supreme court?
BC will have 6 senators, just like ON and QC. BC is underrepresented
in the current parliament, with no guarantees that it will be corrected.
This deal gives those guarrantees.
> "Canada's quality of life is number one in the world. The
>agreement will help safeguard our standard of living" - I disagree,
>this flys in the face of my personal experiences. A while back(8mo-1 yr)
>when I had time to do some volunteer work tutoring at the Carnegie
>Centre and programming at the ALS society I came in contact with
>many homeless and many disabled people who were not enjoying a
>decent "standard of living". I myself, as a student, sometimes
>have to choose between eating a decent meal or buying new school
>supplies. I certainly don't have a high standard of living. And
>I don't beleive that the majority of Canadians have as high a
>standard of living as the might want to.
Yes, but these things you mention happen everywhere. Canada's SOL has
often been rated #1 in the world by international agencies. Unless you
are suggesting that the agencies are biased, you will have to accept this
as true. Although what it has to do with the referendum I'm not entirely
certain.
> As well in the same paragraph they claim "the Royal Bank
>predicts a substantial increase in our standard of living if the
>agreement goes through" - maybe for the managers of the Royal
>Bank. How can they make such a "prediction"? psychic maybe?
Well, I suppose that their economists studied it and perhaps even
modelled it with computers and found that the certainty of a Yes
vote would lead to greater investment in Canada. Of course it still
comes down to a best guess on their part about an issue which is at
its base emotional, but there is no doubt that there is SOME science
behind this opinion.
> What did you say about lies before, Tony? I have heard
>many fine proposals from the "NO" side, none the least of which
>is simply a rewording of the reforendum question to break it into
>five or six smaller questions, or how about going back and
>doing it right the next time.
I have never heard this from the organized NO side in Central Canada.
Even so, it would not work, for the reasons I outline above. All of
the NO material I have seen either simply says it is a bad deal and
sometimes says why. Some of it even says that if we vote NO there
can be a moritorium on the constitution for 5 years. As Homer Simpson
would say, If you believe that will happen then you're living in a fairy
land where little birds fly around and little frogs wear little hats
and hop around.
> Canada is certainly the best country in the world, and a
>NO vote will not destroy it!
I will note that the Yes side is (finally) beginning to admit this.
It will however increase the chances of QC separation in the near
future. Jacques Parizeau is already beginning to speak about
independance now, and the referendum hasn't even gone to NO yet.
> Obviously, from the lack of support the
>agreement is getting, it does not represent the Canadian situation.
Well, you might argue that it doesn't represent the situation that
the majority of Canadians want it to, but I don't think you can say
that it doesn't represent the current situation in Canada better than
the current constitution. It has a more equal senate to reflect the
grwing distrust of the larger provinces by the smaller. It recognizes
that QC has a distinct society due to its civil law and majority french
population. It recognizes the place of the civil code within Canada
by putting 3 CC judges on the SC. It recognizes official language
minority rights in all of Canada. It recognizes the native fact in
Canada. The list goes on.
--
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
From caf-talk Caf Oct 23 18:07:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] harrasment/acad-freedom and the sysadmin, again.
Message-ID: <9210232211.AA04055@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 12:11:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Oct 20 14:02:06 1992
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: harrasment/acad-freedom and the sysadmin, again.
Message-ID: <1992Oct23.193222.2611@news.columbia.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 92 19:32:22 GMT
There is one other reason that I think a sysadmin may be a good first
contact for harassment complaints. If the person you go to with a complaint
does not understand the situation surrounding the complaint, then they will
not be in a good position to offer reasonable advise or take reasonable
action. In many cases, the 'proper' person to take the complaint to may
have _no_ knowledge of the computer systems involved in a computer related
harassment complaint.
It is very important that the person making descisions about harassment
be well informed. But since many rules I have seen about harassment mention
confidentiality, this may not be the case. Columbia's policy states that
initial contacts (at least) will be so confidential that no notes will be
made. Can we be sure that such a person will seek out all facts regarding
the situation?
What is the danger? I think there are two problems. One is that
harassment complaints might be ignored if the person in authority doesn't
understand the situation. I can easily imagine many of the proffessors
here telling a harassment victim "Just don't read e-mail anymore!" regardless
of whether is was neccessary for the victims work or not.
The second problem is on the other side of the issue. In many departments,
the people with the power to make changes to the system (ie have the grant)
may not understand fully the way systems work. Going to this person with
a complaint may generate snap rules that are very bad for academic freedom.
I can easily imagine a committee of professors here making up rules like
"All e-mail must be specifically related to [short list of projects]".
I am not saying that sysadmins are always resonsable for harassment
complaints. I am saying that there are benifits in some cases to having
a sysadmin involved. Most harassment policies (including the U Ill.
policy that Carl likes to quote) emphasize informal solutions. This means
solutions found outside of the normal grievance procedured (or does it?).
I see no reason why a sysadmin shouldn't be involved in an informal
solution if both the victim and the sysadmin feel it is appropriate.
Specifically excluding sysadmins from the group who can deal with
harassment complaints will (IMHO) create more problems than it could solve.
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 24 00:17:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: conversion to yes/no
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 03:53:23 GMT
In article <1c7blhINNnsm@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312)) writes:
I am voting NO because:
- I do not like the way the yes people are "blackmailing"
Canadian citizens, nor do I like the smear campaign against public
figures who are against the deal. If the constitutional deal is so
great why can't the yes side campaign on the supposed MERITS of the
deal.
Mostly because few Canadians are consitutional lawyers.
- the agreement has failed to gain the support of many
women's groups whom my wife and I respect, indicating to me that
the accord does not treat women's issues fairly.
It ignores woman's issues.
- I do not believe that Quebec is entitled to 25% of the
senate regardless of the percentage of the population of Canada it
holds.
I WISH Quebec had been offered 25% of the Senate. That is what they
have now. EXCEPT, some Western provinces insisted that the Senate
become the place where PROVINCIAL interests are expressed, so Quebec
gets only 10% (less once the North becomes three provinces) of the new
Senate. The 25% floor of Quebec seats in the Commons (the
"rep-by-pop" house), proposed in Charlottetown was supposed to be a
way to appease Quebec's losses in the Upper House.
- I do not believe Quebec is entitled to three out the
eight supreme court judges.
Quebec civil law is different than in the rest of Canada. A minimum
of three justices is required for ruling on Civil cases. How can
people without professional competence in the Quebec Civil Code rule
on Civil cases from Quebec? Also, one need not be a Quebecer to be a
member of the Quebec bar. There are courses at Universite' de
Montreal and at McGill University that train lawyers in the Quebec
Civil Code.
- this referendum is costing too much money and wasting too
much time for what it will accomplish.
The money has already been spent. Voting NO won't bring it back.
One of the arguments against the 'cheaper' Meech Lake Accord was that
it was decided by twelve men in closed doors. The so-called "Canada
Round" cost all the money it did in an (apparently unsuccessful)
attempt to bring the average person into the discussion. We had
dozens of commissions, at the provincial and federal level, and now we
have a $125 million referendum campaign, just so that the public can
be consulted.
- the referendum should not have been cast as a go-no go
question, it is much too complex an issue.
Absolutely. But since the deal was an "Accord", it represents
give-and-take by the various parties. Having people select the parts
of it they like would be unproductive.
- we might as well get the constitution agreement right
because if there is something wrong with it now it's going
to be very dificult to fix it later if the accord is passed.
No harder than it has been in the past. Canada did not repatriate its
constitution in 1931 like the other "Dominions" because the provinces
and parties couldn't agree on an amending formula. It took someone
with the will of Trudeau, ignoring the wishes of the premier of the
second most populous province, to repatriate it.
- today, Mulroney has suggested that if in the event of a
"slim" win by the no side in certain provinces (i.e. B.C.) those
provinces should rehold the referendum. I don't get this, are we
supposed to vote and vote again until we get it right?
I believe he has been looking to Denmark for inspiration.
Also today in the mail I got yet another peice of bueatifully
produced, presumably very costly piece of "YES" propoganda. I
would like to address a few of its FACTS:
"Voting _YES_ will put the economy at the top of the national
agenda" - if it wasn't there already where the hell was it?
"British Columbia will be better represented that ever before" -
How so? With central Canada holding most of the senate, parliment and
supreme court?
British Columbia will have as many seats as PEI, Ontario, or Quebec in
the Senate.
"Canada's quality of life is number one in the world. The
agreement will help safeguard our standard of living" - I disagree,
this flys in the face of my personal experiences. A while back(8mo-1 yr)
when I had time to do some volunteer work tutoring at the Carnegie
Centre and programming at the ALS society I came in contact with
many homeless and many disabled people who were not enjoying a
decent "standard of living". I myself, as a student, sometimes
have to choose between eating a decent meal or buying new school
supplies. I certainly don't have a high standard of living. And
I don't beleive that the majority of Canadians have as high a
standard of living as the might want to.
As well in the same paragraph they claim "the Royal Bank
predicts a substantial increase in our standard of living if the
agreement goes through" - maybe for the managers of the Royal
Bank. How can they make such a "prediction"? psychic maybe?
It's called Economics. While still soft science, it is considerably
more reliable than ESP.
--
Stewart M. Clamen Internet: clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
From caf-talk Caf Oct 24 01:17:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: Re: conversion to yes/no
Message-ID: <1992Oct24.032104.29820@dragon.acadiau.ca>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 03:21:04 GMT
hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>I'm not sure why I am doing this, since it is unlikely I will sway any
>opinion, but here goes anyway.
>ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312)) writes:
>> I am voting NO because:
>> - I do not like the way the yes people are "blackmailing"
>>Canadian citizens, nor do I like the smear campaign against public
>>figures who are against the deal. If the constitutional deal is
>>so great why can't the yes side campaign on the supposed MERITS of
>>the deal.
>You should be voting on the merits and flaws of the deal, not on how
>the sleazy politicians on both sides have been using blackmail,
>innuendo and character to sell/trash it.
I disagree. I don't like how the government has been pushing this deal.
>> - the agreement has failed to gain the support of many women's
>>groups whom my wife and I respect, indicating to me that the accord does
>>not treat women's issues fairly.
>I should point out that NAC rewrote the Canada clause the way they
>want it and THEY STILL SAID THEY WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE DEAL. Now if
>they can't put exactly what they want into a constitution who can?
>I HAD a lot of respect for judy Rebick before this happened (not the
>'no' decision but this rewiting of the CC), I am losing respect fast.
>And besides, the former leader of NAC had a debate with Judy Rebick and
>intelligently countered each of her concerns. I am not saying that Judy
>is definitely wrong, but just that there is disagreement within NAC
>about the deal.
'Tis true. I hear a lot of disagreement from within minority groups. Here in
Nova Scotia, the 'Media' reports that Natives are torn, and an organization has
recently formed to represent a visual minority "Yes" campaign (and I hope for
other reasons, too).
>> - I do not believe that Quebec is entitled to 25% of the senate
>>regardless of the percentage of the population of Canada it holds.
>I believe you mean the commons, as QC gets 6 senate seats, just like
>every other province. Other that that I agree with you, but I do not
>feel that this is a show stopper, since QC's population is unlikely
>to drop too much below 25% (perhaps 20% at lowest), and if you crunch
>the numbers this doesn't leave any single province significantly
>underrepresented (IMHO of course). Also, they are not the only province
>with a minimum representation. Even BC had a minimum, although it is no
>longer necessary since their population has grown.
>> - I do not believe Quebec is entitled to three out the eight
>>supreme court judges.
>The constitution states that 3 out of the 9 (not 8) supreme court
>judges must have been submitted to the QC bar (ie: the only civil
>code bar in Canada). I believe that it is important to have a significant
>representation for the civil code on the supreme court. If only one
>or two judges had to know civil code, there would be more room for a
>single judge's mistaken opinion about the civil code to be enforced.
I didn't know this about civil code. Thanks.
>> - this referendum is costing too much money and wasting too much
>>time for what it will accomplish.
>Consulting the people is NEVER too costly. Besides, what will happen with
>a No? Will they turn around and concentrate on the economy or will they
>try to hash out another deal before the next federal and QC elections
>(both will be sometime next year)? I'm fairly certain they will try to
>get another deal, because both Robert Bourassa and Myron Baloney will
>feel that it is their best bet for reelection.
Well, how many trees were chopped for this? What about news devotion to other
topics. Personally, I wish we were discussing NAFTA and voting on that.
>> - the referendum should not have been cast as a go-no go question,
>>it is much too complex an issue.
>What would you like, a yes/no to each part of the deal? This wouldn't
>work. Then we'd have overwhelming NO to the proposed senate in central
>Canada, overwhelming NO to anything referring to QC in ROC, etc.
>In short, it would not be conducive to compromise, which is absolutely
>essential to obtaining a constitution for Canada.
THis is a hard point to address. However, I sincerely believe that they should
go back a few steps and have the premiers consult the provinces allowing active
participation by all who wish to participate.
>> - we might as well get the constitution agreement right
>>because if there is something wrong with it now it's going
>>to be very dificult to fix it later if the accord is passed.
>I haven't seen anything in this deal which will make it more
>difficult to change the constitution. It has taken us at least 10
>years to change the current one, if we wait for a perfect deal it
>may take forever. I personally believe that the constitution should
>be a living document, which means that it will be changing constantly
>to reflect the changes in Canadian society.
So we vote every year? Every ten years?
I'm afraid I've had to drop out of the rest of this discussion (which is a fine
one, indeed- too bad everyone in Canada can't participate), I have three
midterms on Referendum Day.
*******************************************************************************
Trish Turliuk
Acadia University
Wolfville, Nova Scotia
trish.turliuk@acadiau.ca
From caf-talk Caf Oct 24 14:06:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: conversion to yes/no
Message-ID: <1992Oct24.173339.27778@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 92 17:33:39 GMT
In article <1992Oct24.032104.29820@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>I disagree. I don't like how the government has been pushing this deal.
Add me to the list - I don't either. I take particular umbrage at the use of
the phrase "unity agreement," which is painting a deliberately nasty mental
snapshot of anyone in the 'no' camp, and demonstrating amazing contempt for
the Canadian electorate.
>>> - the referendum should not have been cast as a go-no go question,
>>>it is much too complex an issue.
>>What would you like, a yes/no to each part of the deal? This wouldn't
>>work. Then we'd have overwhelming NO to the proposed senate in central
>>Canada, overwhelming NO to anything referring to QC in ROC, etc.
>>In short, it would not be conducive to compromise, which is absolutely
>>essential to obtaining a constitution for Canada.
>THis is a hard point to address. However, I sincerely believe that they should
>go back a few steps and have the premiers consult the provinces allowing active
>participation by all who wish to participate.
I would like to see amendment proposals dealt with one by one, in the manner
of the United States. It would be much easier to deal with less-contentious
issues without bringing PQ into every other sentence. How is it that we
decided to re-write the whole damned book?
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
(604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
< voting NO on Monday >
From caf-talk Caf Oct 24 18:03:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] E-mail:same as using company letterhead?
Message-ID: <9210242208.AA17151@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 12:08:08 GMT
From: vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: E-mail:same as using company letterhead?
Message-ID: <4201@novavax.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 92 05:53:06 GMT
Hello,
Is sending e-mail to another party from your unix account at
work or at school analagous to using the company's or the
school's letterhead for personal use. Does a disclaimer at the end
of the mailed or posted message offer some protection to the
company/school against libelous, slanderous, or "obscene" messages?
Does the disclaimer offer protection to the user against discharge
for questionable(in the opinion of the company/school) content of
the messages?
I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this, maybe this subject
is brought up in another newsgroup under FAQS.
Thanks
Nick
From caf-talk Caf Oct 25 05:42:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: cavrak@emba-news.uvm.edu.UUCP (Steve Cavrak)
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] E-mail: same as using company phone?
Message-ID: <1992Oct25.094634.20009@uvm.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 09:46:34 GMT
vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) Nick asks:
Is sending e-mail to another party from your unix account at
work or at school analagous to using the company's or the
school's letterhead for personal use. [?]
Is mail the correct analogy? Perhaps the telephone might be a closer
in spirit?
When we teach our e-mail courses here, we are very explicit in pointing
out that e-mail, at least in the way we are able to offere it, is very
easily "forged" and should never be considered "private." It's much
more like a party line or a (singing) telegram or a post card ...
In this context, a disclaimer is superfluous.
Of course, we're a University. Some corporations might have a very
strict "company use policy" -- in which case, I suspect that a
disclaimer would be invalid!
Ciao
Steve
From caf-talk Caf Oct 25 08:23:44 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 09:46:17 GMT
In article <1992Oct21.092051.11415@panix.com> simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes:
>In tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>>I rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
>>(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
>>one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
>>never enters their minds.
>Okay. Just tell me what "due process" means. -S.
Look it up in a dictionary. Dictionaries are always right and give
perfect and complete definitions of all words.
(I guess I must give and start using smileys.
Btw, do Americans always interpret "the majority" to include the speaker?
I doubt I've ever used it that way ...)
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 25 08:44:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.50
Message-ID: <1992Oct25.134414.26895@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 13:44:14 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n50".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n50
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending the 11th of October, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 discuss Carl Kadie's list of academic sites which have
banned various computer materials during 1992.
1. Carl Kadie explains his principles with regard to academic freedom
on academic computer systems, and his interpretation of those
principles, leading to the overall conclusion that "computer polices
should be consistent with general university codes and widely accepted
statements on academic freedom such as the Joint Statement on Rights
and Freedoms of Students."
<1992Oct6.200521.794@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. Academic freedom is not unlimited. It does not extend to actions
which disrupt the essential operation of an organisation, constitute
harassment or slander, injure individuals or property, or which are
otherwise illegal.
<1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org>
3. The list of banned materials "served no real purpose other than to
misrepresent the entire issue of `what is acceptable use' at a site,"
especially since (1) no attempt was made to verify the accuracy of the
list by contacting relevant persons at each site mentioned, and (2)
each site was denied due process by not being given the opportunity to
verify the information before it was publicized.
<7863@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
4. "Enough Americans feel that there should be some limit to what can
be depicted and described that we have obscenity laws in this country.
Why should we ridicule universities and other organizations that
choose to enforce the law of the land?"
<199210072113.AA22128@eff.org>
5. Most of the material mentioned in the banned list is protected
under the American constitution. Moreover, many US states explicitly
exempt academic institutions from the effects of obscenity laws.
<199210090359.AA22655@eff.org>
6. "The [American Library Association] policies are simply the
feelings of a particular group of people with a particular political
bent and do not hold any authority over individual professional
librarians nor to library organizations in general, nor should they in
any way be confused or considered in the same light as constitutional
and legal law and precedent."
<199210102149.AA02334@eff.org>
Notes 7 and 8 concern the selective enforcement of rules, a discussion
which came out of the debate over Carl Kadie's list of banned computer
materials.
7. It would be wonderful if rules could always be applied to everyone
in the same way, but mitigating - and exacerbating - circumstances,
along with imperfect detection systems, will always mean that they
will not be.
8. Prohibiting users from owning materials with which they might be
able to break certain rules only increases ill-feeling, creates
unnecessary work for the system administrator, and may stop users from
doing legitimate work.
<9210101214.aa14686@Paris.ics.uci.edu>
Notes 9 to 11 discuss whether or not displays of nude pictures should
be allowed on computing facilities.
9. "What should sys admins do about nude pictures and displays of nude
pictures in public terminal rooms? Is a special rule banning such
pictures and/or displays needed?" Perhaps a distinction should be made
between ownership and private viewing, and public display, since the
former may the constitutionally protected while the latter may
constitute sexual harassment.
<1992Oct9.010021.18858@eff.org>
10. In my lab the display of sych pictures is not prohibited, but
those who do display them are informed of my view of their
intellectual and social merit, and encouraged not to display them.
Repeat `offenders' are rare!
11. The University of Karlsruhe Computing Center's HP Workstation
Manual states that: "Use of the workstations not related to scientific
research and education, especially playing games and the abuse of
graphic displays for displaying non-work-related pictures, is
prohibited. This is to explicitly notify you that abuse can result in
account revocation."
<1992Oct9.185121.12205@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Elizabeth]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF
publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he
or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 25 17:09:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38026@uicvm.uic.edu
Subject: The Government and Public Education
Message-ID: <92299.160623U38026@uicvm.uic.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 22:06:23 GMT
What is the Government Doing About Public Education?
Public education in America is under attack. Government funding of
higher education is declining, with no end in sight. In addition,
public universities are being transformed from centers of education and
learning into research centers for private corporations. This dual
attack of decreasing funds and changing priorities is bringing about a
qualitative change <197> on the one hand, tax monies earmarked for
public education are being used to provide free research facilities for
the corporations, while, on the other hand, the working people are being
denied access to university education.
Federal and state governments are continually slashing funds for
education. During the Reagan administration, more than $5 billion was
cut from federal funding for higher education. Federal aid to help
working class students pay tuition and fees was also slashed. Social
security benefits for college students were eliminated. George Bush,
the <169>Education President<170> has continued the policy of gutting
education funds. He has cut more than $10 billion in Pell Grants and
other forms of financial aid. State governments are also cutting
funding for university education. Between 1978 and 1988, for example,
the proportion of the state budget allocated for higher education in
Illinois was cut from 34% to 26%. Last spring, Illinois permanently
added a 10% surcharge onto its state income tax, allegedly to fund
higher education, yet this fall all Illinois state colleges and
universities had their budgets severely cut back.
The Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, also has plans for education.
In order for American businesses to remain competitive on the global
marketplace, Clinton insists that public universities must re-orient
their priorities. (Clinton's plan is outlined in his report to the
national Governors' Association Task Force on Jobs, Growth and
Competitiveness: <169>Making America Work<170>). Clinton writes:
<169>States need to promote technology development in a manner
consistent with their priorities, and establish working partnerships
between educational and research institutions and business to focus on
and accelerate that research.<170> Clinton wants public universities to
help businesses build research and development centers on campus, and
allow faculty release time to work on the commercial applications of
research. <169>States should support incubators for new firms that are
commercializing technological advances. In addition to...low-rent
space, office support, computer access, and on-site technical services,
these specialized incubators can provide technological expertise and
management services such as patent and licensing information.<170> In
addition to providing all these services gratis to the private sector,
Clinton also wants states to <169>review university policies on patent
rights to allow public institutions and researchers more control over
commercialization and licensing of findings and provide for the
retention of earnings from patents.<170> All of this is to help
businesses increase their profits by providing laboratory facilities and
equipment free of charge or at low cost, and a low-paid labor force of
graduate student assistants. The universities invest millions of
taxpayers' money in research, and the private corporations reap the
profits.
Another aspect of this plan is to focus higher education on high
technology fields, in order to meet the needs of business. Clinton
argues that we need to graduate more <169>world-class<170> scientists
and engineers in order to be competitive. He suggests that states
should <169>create an independent skills corporation [to] function as a
broker between industry and training institutions... the corporation
would be administered by a board primarily from the private sector.<170>
In other words, the business owners should decide what should be taught
at our universities!
The result of Clinton's program is to restrict public education to what
the capitalist corporations need <197> an elite force of technicians and
engineers <197> while closing the doors of the university to the masses
of working people. It is clear that the objective of this plan is to
make public universities serve the interests of private business. It is
equally obvious that all the hype about budget cuts due to the
recession, etc., is only to divert attention from what is really going
on. There is money, but where is it being spent? The priorities of the
government and the university are to spend more money on research, and
less on public education.
All of this amounts to fraud <197> to diverting public funds, slated for
education, into the pockets of private businessmen. Under this plan,
the resources of the universities would be more and more directed toward
research, while the instruction of undergraduates would be pared down to
the minimum. While the capitalist corporations owe billions in unpaid
taxes, they want to appropriate the taxes paid by the working people for
their own interests, i.e., building research laboratories to increase
their profits. At the same time, the workers who are bled dry by the
tax collectors are unable to send their children to college because of
skyrocketing tuition costs and shrinking financial aid. The cutting of
funds for financial aid to students, and rising tuition costs are
already restricting who can obtain a college education. Clinton's plan
is to use public universities for the education of an elite class of
technicians and engineers, while denying education to the masses of
working people.
The University of Illinois at Chicago is a living example of the
implementation of this plan. The present campus, built in 1965 as a
result of the mass pressure of the working people who demanded
affordable public universities, is being turned precisely into a
<169>Research I<170> university. This year, while UIC will spend more
than $85 million on research ($65 million of which comes from tuition
and state-appropriated funds), tuition continues to skyrocket and more
and more working people simply cannot afford the price of admission.
It is the masses of people <197> the working people <197> who should
determine where their tax money is spent. While the federal government
has unlimited funds for bailing out the S&L thieves, it keeps cutting
back funding for public education. And even the little money earmarked
for education is increasingly winding up in the pockets of the big
corporations. The politicians who are making these decisions are
nothing but appointed servants of the capitalist class <197> they are
not at all accountable to the masses of people, who pay the bills.
The people must come out and make their voice be heard. The first
priority of the government's budget must be to meet the needs of the
masses. Money allocated for education must be spent on education for
the people. Public education was founded in this country because the
people demanded that education be a right for all. It should not
now be turned into a means for generating greater profits for private
business. The working people demand that society should move forward,
not backward. University education should be available to all; it
should be expanded and broadened, not restricted and cut back <197> and
the resources exist for this to be possible.
*************************************************************************
If you have any questions, comments, or like sources of information send
me e-mail at U38026@UICVM.UIC.EDU Also check out our newsgroup at
University of Illinois at Chicago (uic.the-student).
"An affordable and qualitative education is a right, not a privilege."
*************************************************************************
