Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 01, No. 39 [Week ending November 24, 1991 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-2 are about academic freedom incidents. 1. (A student:) Mohawk Valley Community College suspended my computer access (without any hearing) for 1) setting the (correct) time on the PCs in the lab where I worked and 2) sharing simple utility programs with other users. Administrative appeals were futile. I failed my English class when the sys admin refused to give me copies of my files. I eventually transferred to another school. <1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu> 2. According to the LA times, 'A reproduction of a famous Goya painting of a nude woman has been taken down from a classroom wall at Penn State following a complaint from a woman professor that it was a form of sexual harassment.' The painting was moved to the student center. When we can't leave, "[w]e should "be free *not* to be subjected to things we find offensive ...". <91319.162616JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Notes 3-7 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University. 3. (Steven Brack:) "The only action I ever performed that had any impact on the system was the fixman command". I ran it the because its manual page led me to think that it would improve the display time of my manual pages. My action was noticed because fixman acts globally, not locally, and because it kept running (for hours) after I thought that I had killed it. <9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> 4. "This brings up an interesting point. Should administrators remove/disable the man pages for administrative commands? "Perhaps a blanket note in the admin man pages is appropriate; something like 'This is an administrative commands; general users should not execute it. This man page is provided for information ONLY!' might do the job." <1991Nov19.215003.27317@ms.uky.edu> 5. (Steven Brack:) "I did everything I could to get the charges & specifications, but OSU wouldn't give them to me." Also, "[a]lthough I disagree that my actions needed defending, I did defend them [at the formal hearing]. I explained each action in terms of why I did it & what its effect was. I also explained how little guidance I had from ACS as to what was permissible & what wasn't." <9111190356.AA14385@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> 6. (Steven Brack:) "I am retaining counsel, and will fight OSU from a legal standpoint, rather than being trapped playing their game, by their rules, on their field." <9111190340.AA14311@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> 7. A student should be given the findings of fact upon which the formal hearing board bases its decision. In the Brack case, no findings of fact were given. This is unfair and likely illegal. (Legal references are enclosed.) <1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org> Notes 8-9 are about universities and the law. 8. According to a monograph (with legal references) by the General Counsel of Southern Illinois University: State universities are constrained by the 14th amendment. The _Goss v. Lopez_ due process decision applies to public universities as well as to secondary schools. Students subject to expulsion or long-term suspension must be given adequate notice (i.e. written, explicit, specific) of charges. <1991Nov23.190239.14673@eff.org> 9. According to a law book: "'In _Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri ... the high Court ruled that the use of ["motherfucker"] in a paper distributed on a college campus was not disruptive of the school environment."' Student control of media decreases the chance university liability. "[T]he _Hazelwood_ decision that allows censorship of sponsored high school newspapers does not, according to a footnote in the decision, apply to universities." <1991Nov19.202845.3261@eff.org> Notes 10-12 are on miscellaneous topics. 10. (A sys admin:) The goal of limiting the user-admin ratio is worthy, but difficult. The goal of communicating and educating users is practical and productive. <1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu> 11. Enclosed is the privacy policy for the University of Pennsylvania Campus Wide Information System (CWIS). It ways that personally-identifiable use records will not be kept. <199111221525.AA11205@eff.org> 12. Rules that outlaw offensive computer expression also outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs because many catalogs contain offensive titles. <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> - Carl] In this issue: Computers and Academic Freedom News Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email. For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom README Disclaimer: This CAF-news was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial decisions I make are my own. The addresses for the list are: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. ------------ From: buck@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Jesse Buckley) Subject: The Buckley Case. Message-ID: <1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 15:28:56 GMT You asked here it is... My story is basiclly this. The first semester I went to MVCC (Mohawk Valley Community College) I found they had a VAX 11/780 running VMS. Well I quickly learned that I'd have to get used to it, so I went and asked the System Admin if I coulod borrow the manuals. I was told they were way to vaulable and she couldn't let them go. Well, what if I just read them here? No, she couldn't let me do that, either. (It's worth mentioning that I was working there as a Lab assistant. (Work Study)) I found myself in the lab alot. I'd finish up my assignment quickly, leaving me with time to do other things. I tutored people in the lab and was informed by the SysAdmin that this was not part of my job so it was at "my own risk". (This was understood to mean that she didn't care but I had to do my other work first (putting paper in the printer, etc.)) After a while I got the itch to learn so I discovered 'help'. I learned how to do command files, symbols, etc. (scripts and aliases for you UNIX people) I wrote files to compile fortran and pascal, etc. (In VMS you need to run three commands to compile and run stuff. (fortran, link, run)) A few people asked for copies so they lowered their protections and I copied the stuff in. I mentioned this to her several times, she didn't understand what they did but she didn't care. Then one day I was locked out of my account. (No message just a password change.) It took me two days to find her and then they accused me of tampering with PCs in a lab I worked in. (2 hours a week) I told all I ever did with those PCs to "modify" the configuration was to set the time correctly. She told me I shouldn't have done that. (I did use the free time there to do my english reports.) I was banned from all PC rooms and my account would be locked for the rest of the semester. I left and talked to the director who reiterated this. I asked why? Because I was in other people accounts. No, just their directories (coping those files in). They told me it was the same. I pulled my father in hoping that might at least get me enough CPU time to finish my English stuff and my fortran programs for my classes. I got the fortran account back but still was denied access from the PC labs. I tried to make an academic appeal but, it wasn't covered. I went to the appeal officer, to the acad VP assistant, and then tpo the VP. I got nothing but that I was extreamly bad for doing what I did, according to the ACS people. I finally met with the president and he wouldn't even let me show him that I could get into someones files (with their permission) without logging in as them. ACS said you did it so you did. I asked about my english reports (I had a few that were typed but not printed out.) He said he would have ACS set something up for me. Not fair but good enough I thought, I could at least get this stuff done, and the denial was only till next semester. (10 days left) I finally found this PC and it didn't have either a 5 1/4 floppy or WordPerfect. I told the SysAdmin this and she said she would arrange for me to get the stuff transfered and get WP on the PC. Neither ever happened and I failed English. My prof would take my excuse that it was on the PC as I didn't have to type it up. I couldn't have done those reports over again they took weeks to do. I tried to talk to the president again to tell him ACS never kept their part of the bargain and he said ACS said they did and he belived them. The story doesn't end there. The fifth semester I built many files for myself and opened my dir so people could run them. This time the SysAdmin locked all them out and told them they might get expelled. One person threaten me physically. (grabbed me and pushed me up against a wall.) Well, I can handle getting yelled at but not violence. I went and talk to the VP. He told me he would look into it and I should come back after my next class. When I came back, he told me this was all my fault and that the college would take no action. That was my last semester there. -- -Buck (buck@sunyit.edu) "Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell." -- From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) Subject: Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes Message-ID: <91319.162616JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 15 Nov 91 21:26:15 GMT In article <2924217f.2487@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) says: > >From the Los Angeles Times (11/15/91) > > GOYA'S GOTTA GO: A reproduction of a famous Goya painting of > a nude woman has been taken down from a classroom wall at Penn > State following a complaint from a woman professor that it was > a form of sexual harassment. "Nude Maja" had hung in the music > room on campus for more than a decade. The president of the > Student Government Assn. called it "ludicrous censorship," but > the Liaison Committee of the Penn State Commission for Women > said that female faculty "find if [sic.] difficult to appear > professional when forced to lecture to a class with a picture > of a female nude on the wall behind them." Four other paintings > were taken down to avoid a debate over what should and shouldn't > be displayed. As an addendum to that, I heard that one of the reasons it was taken down was because it was in a classroom where people who could be offended by looking at the picture couldn't just leave the room to avoid looking at it, as opposed to an art gallery where one could just walk out. I think there's some sense to that; after all, I don't feel that something offensive should be foisted on me when I am in class. Not that I find a Goya painting of a nude woman offensive (although perhaps distracting in a classroom), but in a country where we are free to do many things, we should also be free *not* to be subjected to things we find offensive every day without being able to leave. Joy Haftel "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever." JKH107@PSUVM --Keats From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Date: 19 Nov 91 03:35:06 GMT In article <199111181857.AA23498@eff.org> you write: > On Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:45:31 GMT Carl M. Kadie said: > >[Posted for author - Carl] > Interesting...this was apparently written by Mr. Brack, the first > description of what actually happened. > > > What OSU did was to overreact to three or four minor incidents. > > > > The only action I ever performed that had any impact on the system was > > the fixman command, a command that: 1) should not have been open to > > any user, and 2) caused no real damage, only the removal of underlining > > from man pages which were easily restored from backup. > What I would love to hear from Mr. Brack is WHY he did these things? > WHY take out the underlining? For fun? To see if it could be done? To > hassle some system person who would have to restore from backup? > Some other reason? Well, let's see: If the man page didn't warn me that the command was global, if ACS didn't warn me not to use the command , and if access permissions both on fixman, and on /usr/man/* were set to allow me to do what I did, where would I, with about 10-12 weeks of experience with Unix, get the idea that the command was a "bad thing?" The man pages spoke of increased efficiency in displaying manual pages, which sounded like something I'd want to do. A hassling some system people, restoring it from backup is as simple as untaring the usr/man backup set. Not a great hardship. If you don't want people coming in your business, then don't ghive them an invitation (the man page), and don't give them permission to come in. By the same token, giving users permission to run fixman implies somethingh about what users are allowed to do, especially if the user was given no information to the contrary. > Also, if it was such a minor infraction, how did anyone even know > (or care) that the underlining had been removed? Are there "manual police" > there? Did the system report the change to an administrator? Did someone > happen to be casually be reading the manual and note the change? OR, did > the removing of underlining change the meaning enough to make a difference. > In many manuals different typefaces ARE significant to the reader/user. The system was set up to log everything, including what commands were run. The sysadmins seem to operate in full fascist mode most of the time, and so tend to notice everything, no matter how minor. In my case, they noticed the process 2-3 hours after it had started, and about 1.5 hours after I though I had stopped it by logging off. As I said, my knowledge of Unix was not quite perfect. 8) > Agreed it should not be available to any user, but that doesn't mean that > all things that CAN be done SHOULD be done, does it? > You know, they're called permissions for a reason. They indicate what those responsible for the system have given you *permission* to do. > > > Everything else was just thrown in so that the body of evidence against > > me would seem more damning than it actually is. > Well, isn't that part of what happens in many criminal trials? Bringing > in related history or issues to show a pattern? (If you murdered ten other > people I might be more likely to belive you murdered this one too, and aren't > just a "innocent bystander" who happened to be standing around with a > smoking gun you found on the street.) Yes, but an inadvertent crosspost has nothing to do with running fixman, or with criticizing the University in news. > > >> How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens? > >> A few? None? > But that is a fairly bogus argument. If I get caught going 80 on the > Interstate, does it do any good to tell the cop that "You shoulda caught the > SOB who blew my doors off and was going at least a hundred."?? His answer > is likely to be "Yeah, I shoulda, but I caught YOU instead so don't give > me no shit boy, unless you wanna go to jail RIGHT NOW!" That wasn't my point. I meant that OSU may have done this many times before that we don't know about. BTW, if the information I'm getting from sources at OSU is accurate, this has happened more often than originally thought. > > > To clarify, once more: I am the cause of the action. The action, > > however is of far greater scope than anything I did. I admit that > > had I been a "nice person," this wouldn't have happened. But, I > Well, I am NOT defending what did, or didn't, to Mr. Brack at OSU. > But it still seems that it would have been much smarter to be a "nice > person." Just as not hassling the cop in the example above would be > a much smarter thing to do instead of ending up trying to dig up bail > money at some odd hour in some strange town. But, whether I am nice to the cop or not, his requirement to protect my rights is not abated. Who knows, maybe Rodney King was not a "nice person" either. > > hold that even though I wasn't a nice person, my actions did not justify > > dismissal. > Well, maybe mine didn't justify going to jail....but HE had the gun. Having a gun does not make him right, any more than being an admin makes Bill Miller or Cliff Collins right. > > > I was not told of the "wrongness" of my actions until after I had > > committed them. If I had been told prior to that, then I would not > > have committed them. A person cannot be held to a rule which was > > never made public, and which may not have even existed at the time > > he allegedly violated it. > WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the > expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." > Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign" > when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck. But, there was a sign there. I had no warning, and was given nothing even remotely resembling rules or policies until after the fixman incident, and those "rules" said nothing about any of the other "crimes" I allegedly committed. > > I'm glad we have you posting to this group. It's nice to see > > that there's at least one person on the Net who has never made a > > mistake, or been deceived. I wish I had been like you. > I have suffered both. It is part of living and of growing up. > No one promised that life would be fair. Guess what, it often isn't. > I don't have to LIKE that....but I do have to accept it unless I wanna > spend my life bitching and moaning about it. We all make a choice whether to fight for what we believe to be right. I don't begrudge you your choice, but I ask that you understand mine. > > Please note that in none of this do I indicate that anyone SHOULD be > treated unfairly, or that they shouldn't avail themselves of the options > for appeal or redress. They should. BUT, they should know that in real > life that sometimes those appeals may actually hurt you. Plea bargains > offer a good example. To coin a bumper sticker, "Shit Happens." I am not, by any stretch, an idealist. But, I do believe that some principles are worth fighting for, and I simply could not allow ACS's actions to go unopposed. > > dan > > ***************************************************************************** > * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu > * Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu * > * Boise State University * > * Boise, Idaho 83725 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak * > * 208-385-1234 for them and they don't speak for me. * > ***************************************************************************** -- Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com +1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <1991Nov19.215003.27317@ms.uky.edu> Date: 19 Nov 91 21:50:03 GMT References: <9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > > If you don't > want people coming in your business, then don't give them an invitation > (the man page), This brings up an interesting point. Should administrators remove/disable the man pages for adminstrative commands? What about general commands that most users would never, ever use? The admin could make the argument that "users don't need to know anything in section 8 of the manual", while users would argue that "we're students, we want to know that stuff". Which is the stronger point? Perhaps a blanket note in the admin man pages is appropriate; something like "This is an administrative commands; general users should not execute it. This man page is provided for information ONLY!" might do the job. Of course, someone's going to have to go through and edit all the man pages........8( > The system was set up to log everything, including what commands > were run. The sysadmins seem to operate in full fascist mode most > of the time, and so tend to notice everything, no matter how minor. Um, I wouldn't call it fascist mode. Most systems run some form of process accounting. Any user can check the actions of any other users. > In my case, they noticed the process 2-3 hours after it had started, > and about 1.5 hours after I though I had stopped it by logging off. So someone did a ps(1) and saw your process; that isn't really "fascist mode" operation. Any user at all could have seen that job running. I'm not saying that the people involved acted properly; however, the mere fact that a given system runs process accounting does NOT imply that they are fascist. Heck, we wouldn't get 50% of our budget requests without that accounting data to prove the need. Don't misinterpret normal activity as "snooping" or "fascism". -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <9111190356.AA14385@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Date: 19 Nov 91 03:56:39 GMT In article <1991Nov8.162827.16063@ms.uky.edu> you write: > FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen) writes: > >Punishing somebody without > >specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and > >it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the > >cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules. > > As I understand it, Steven *did* participate in a hearing of the charges > and allegations against him. He states that "no connection" was made be- > tween the specific charges against him and the policies which he allegedly > violated. > > My questions are simple: > > - Did he ask for the specific connections? Yes, although I shouldn't have had to. Instead of getting the charges & specifications, I got a list of charges & a list of specifications, with no connection between them. > - If they didn't provide the connectoins, did he press them > to do so? I did everything I could to get the charges & specifications, but OSU wouldn't give them to me. > - Did he have any observers or attorneys present? I was allowed to have a non-attorney advisor present. I chose my father. None of the people I wanted to be witnesses showed up. > - Does he have a transcript of the proceedings? A transcript costs money & is only available on tape. > > - Did he even attempt to defend his actions, or did he > just sit there and say "you're wrong"? Although I disagree that my actions needed defending, I did defend them. I explained each action in terms of why I did it & what its effect was. I also explained how little guidance I had from ACS as to what was permissable & what wasn't. > > In short, did he exercise his rights in the hearing, or did he just > sit there and listen? I exercised what rights I had. For instance, I was not allowed to ask all the questions I needed to, and the hearing was decided by a preponedrance of the evidence, requiring me to basically prove my innocence. > Personally, I'd like to see a transcript of the hearing, if it exists. > Until that occurs, we're right back to "they said this, and they're wrong"; > that approach doesn't get us anywhere. Send me the money for the transcript & I'll send you the tapes. > > -- > morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan -- Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com +1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <9111190340.AA14311@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Date: 19 Nov 91 03:40:28 GMT In article <199111181910.AA23891@eff.org> you write: > >> There is plenty of indication that OSU has a valid appeal process for > >> almost all of the mentioned actions, but Mr. Brack is NOT appealing. > >> This single item calls the whole situation into question. > > > > Much as I'd like to, I can't put my life, job, & education on hold > > to play paperwork games with OSU. I believe what was done was wrong, > > & I will fight it, but I can't fight it now. > >-- > >Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu > VERY interesting. IS it important, or isn't it? The failure to appeal > in a TIMELY manner will seriously hurt the case. In fact, most appeal > processes with which I am familiar have a limited time period during > which an appeal can be made at all. Maybe 30 or 60 or 90 days. A > reasonable amount of time, but limited. > > Have you checked on this Mr. Brack? If the time period expires, you > will have no appeals. I am retaining counsel, and will fight OSU from a legal standpoint, rather than being trapped playing theoir game, by their rules, on their field. > > dan > > * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu * -- Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com +1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal Message-ID: <1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org> References: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 19:28:31 GMT Ohio State University's mishandling of the Steven Brack case has increased my confidence in and appreication of our systlem of justice. How can this be? Well, it seems that almost every OSU action that I consider unfair, is, in fact, illegal. Consider for example, the conclusion of the hearing: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > Well, here it is, the instrument of my dismissal: [...] >Not guilty of: >3335-25-01 (E) Dishonest conduct, including, but not limited to, knowingly >reporting a false emergency; knowingly making false accusation of misconduct; >misuse or falsification of University documents by actions such as forgery, >alteration, or improper transfer; submission to a University official of >information known by the submitter to be false; >Guilty of: >3335-25-01 (F) Theft or attempted theft, or the unauthorized use or possession >of University property or services, or the property of others while on >University premises; >3335-25-01 (G) Failure to comply with directives of authorized University >officials, identified as such, in the performance of their duties, including >failure to identify oneself when so requested; or, violation of the terms of a >disciplinary sanction; >3335-25-01 (J) Disorderly conduct that interferes with University-authorized >activities, including teaching, research, administration, or other activities >conducted, sponsored, or permitted by the University; >3335-25-01 (K) Violation of other published University regulations, policies, >or rules, or any other violation of state or federal law committed on >University premises. This alleged violation resulted from an incident on or >before May 26, 1991, involving use of Academic Computing Services facilities, >equipment, and programs. [...] There is no finding of fact. This is unfair and makes an appeal almost impossible. In _Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986), it says: --- begin quote---- Findings and Conclusions One of the lessons of _Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle_{95} and the above cases is that a board in making its decision should clearly state the findings of fact upon which the board is basin is decision, reciting both the charges made and the facts that support those charges and were used by the board as the basis for its conclusion that disciplinary or discharge actions should be taken. [...] In _State ex rel. Newton v. Board of School Trustees of the Metropolitan School District of Wabash County_, the court noted "the existence of such finding is essential to preserve the limited scope of a reviewing court's inquiry. 'The absence of findings invites a reweighing of the evidence on review, thereby paving the way for judical intrusion into matters committed to administrative decision ...' An administrative body has the duty to make a find of the pertinent facts on which its decision is based in order to facilitate judical review."{108} In _Erb v. Iowa State Board of Public Instructions_, the Iowa Supreme Court noted the requirement to make findings of fact in an adjudicatory proceedings. The court said: "[B]oards are required, even without statutory mandate, to make findings of fact on issues presented in any adjudicatory proceeding. Such finding must be sufficiently certain to enable a reviewing court to ascertain with reasonable certainty the factual basis and legal principle upon which the administrative body acted. _Cedar Rapids Steel Transportation, Inc. v. Iowa Sate Commerce Commission, 160 N.W2d 825,837 (Iowa 1968), _cert den._ 394 U.S. 918,89 S. Ct. 1189, 22 L. Ed.2d 451".{109} [References] {95} Mt. Health City School Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 276 (1977) {108} State _ex rel._ Newton v. Board of School Trustees of the Metropolitan School Dist. of Wabash County, 404 N.E.22d 47, 48-49 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) {109} Erb v. Iowa State Board of Pub. Instruction, 216 N.W.2d 339, 242 (Iowa 1974). _see also_ [{108}] --- end quote--- Here is a sample finding from the book: --- begin quote -- Findings of Fact 1. The Board has jurisdiction to hear this recommendation for expulsion. The student and her parents have received notice of the hearing and the written statement setting forth the specific charges upon which the recommendation for expulsion is based. The student, her attorney, and her mother were present throughout the heading and had the opportunity to ask questions and to present evidence or make a statement to the Board. 2. On February 28 and 29, 1990, the student, a freshman at the High School, was involved in possession and sale of controlled substance or a look-alike controlled substance. 3. The police of the School District prohibited the sale or distribution of any controlled substance or drug look-alike while the student is on any school property or under school supervision. Any student violating the provisions of this policy is subject to recommendations for expulsion. 4. The student violated the aforestated policy, sold a controlled substance or look-alike to other studies while at the High School and is subject to the expulsion procedure of this Board. -- end quote---- In contrast with this sample, Ohio State University merely lists five (vague) rules, labeling each with "guilty" or "not guilty". - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <1991Nov23.190239.14673@eff.org> References: <1991Nov13.215045.3194@eff.org> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 19:02:39 GMT Here is some information from _The Redefinition of the Exclusionary Rule as to Student Procedural Due Process in High Education_. A monograph from the Office of the General Counsel [of Southern Illinois University] by Dr. Larry L. French, General Counsel, 1977. ------------begin----- Introduction The debate whether education is a right or privilege, is no long a subject of controversy, because the student's right to the benefit of a state educational system is an interest protected by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution{1}. [...] The "exclusionary rule", as defined herein, pertains to any policy from which a violation of, could result in exclusion from school either on a temporary or permanent basis. [...] The landmark decision of _Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education_{4} remains as the basic authority providing students in higher education the right to appropriate due process protection in disciplinary proceedings which involve long term suspension or expulsion (dismissal). Such due process means any accused student must be given adequate notice and an opportunity for hearing _prior to_ the initial disposition of his case. [...] Although the facts of [_Goss v. Lopez_{5}] were directed at the secondary level of public education, they are as well applicable to proceedings in high education, both as to academic and non-academic matters. [...] As to what constitutes proper notice of charges, it may be said that a student must be given, at a time reasonably prior to the commencement of the proceedings, a written statement in which the charges are explicitly set forth as well as the the specific ground or grounds, which if proven, would justify the penalty commensurate with the violation. [...] [References] {1} _Board of Regents v. Roth_, 92 Supreme Court 2701 (1972). {4} 294 F2d 150 (5th Circuit, 1961) cert. den. {5} 419 U.S. 565 (1975) ---- end quote---- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Prohibiting four-letter words, liability & prior review, Hazelwood Message-ID: <1991Nov19.202845.3261@eff.org> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 20:28:45 GMT The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988), p. 28, says: "In _Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri{30} ... the high Court ruled that the use of profanity or 'four-letter words' in a paper distributed on a college campus was not disruptive of the school environment." {30} _Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri_, 410 U.S. 667 (1973) On p. 37, it says: "Only two court cases have considered the liability question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was free from liability because control was in the hands of the students."{33,34} ... "Thus, despite arguments by administrators that they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true: Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however, administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation between school administration and editor functions may also result in the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize that substantial funds are beyond their reach. {33} _Mazart v. State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d 1300 (La. App. 1983) Finally, on page 90, it says the _Hazelwood_ decision that allows censorship of sponsored high school newspapers does not, according to a footnote in the decision, apply to universities. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: User/admin communication. Message-ID: <1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu> Date: 18 Nov 91 15:02:15 GMT References: <9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes: > >I would like to propose that to improve this communication [ between users >and admins - Wes ] the following be done: > >1) Like the student-teacher ratio, the user-admin ratio needs to be reduced at >large sites. A worthy goal, but difficult to implement. We have student assistant running our PC labs (they're scholarship students), and they can handle most of the PC questions and some Unix questions. Most of the Unix questions, however, wind up coming to me. That's one admin (me) for 2000 users. When I first started, the flood of user consulting was almost overwhelming (for reasons I'll discuss below); it's not that bad today, now that users are working with each other more. >2) Like class size in a school, the total number of users on a system >should be kept at a manageable level. This one is much too ambiguous. We have several missions: - Support classroom work in the College - Support research work in the College - Develop general computing skills of our students In support of these missions, we have decided that each student in the College needs access to our systems. Therefore, every student has an account on our general Unix system. Presto! There's 1710 users. Is this unmanageable? No, and here's why. During their first two years, our students are not taking many computing-intensive courses. Freshmen and Sophomores tend to use our system almost solely for electronic mail and general Unix experimentation (if they have the time for such experi- mentation). As a result, they do not place a heavy burden on me; handouts and our student assistants can handle the vast majority of their needs. By the time they become Juniors, they are sufficiently Unix-literate that, even through they begin to make more extensive use of our system, their basic knowledge is enough to get them through. I have found that the majority of my user support goes to about 10% of the userbase. Inclu- ding faculty and staff, that's about 175-200 users; that is certainly a manageable number. It's extremely difficult to predict a "manageable" staff/user ratio. Our shop is working fairly well with a ratio of about 400:1; a different group of staff people might choke on that. I've seen computing shops with a 50:1 ratio that fall apart in user support. >3) As many layers of bureaucracy as possible should be removed between the >users and the system administrators. Users should always have direct and open >access to the system administrators. Systems administrators should also have >direct access to the users. There should not be any go-between that either is >required to go through. Bingo! There's the biggest problem I've seen. How many times have we seen something like this in a computing center's newsletter? Q: I'm having a problem dialing in from home. I set everything up as described in your documentation, and I get a carrier, but it just stops unexpectedly. What's going on? A: It sounds like a communications problem. You need to talk to so-and-so or so-and-so to fix it. Q: Why can't I do XXXXXX? According to the help files, it should work, but it gives me this error message "YYYYY". A: We fixed it; it should work now. Why point every question to someone else? Why not explain the problem that caused that software to fail? The purpose of newsletters and Q&A sessions is to EDUCATE your users; what does "We fixed it" do for them? More importantly, what does that do for other users that may be experi- encing the same problem? All that happens is that Mr. so-and-so starts getting more phone calls, and he has to explain the same solution over and over. That's doesn't help; in fact, it makes the problem worse. I usually try to give the users as much information as they can han- dle. When I explain a problem, I always start with "stop me if there's something you don't understand." You can't predict the knowledge of an individual user; part of your task is to keep your explanations within their knowledge. I've read computing center newsletters from around the world, and this seems to be a universal problem. Another major problem is the "can't do that" theme. We had a user who needed to adjust some parameters on a job on another system (outside our site). The consultant told him "that can't be done; you'll just have to work around it". The user came to me, and, after a little digging through manuals, we found that he could accomplish it with a one-line addition. The way I see it, his problem came from one of three sources: - The consultant didn't know how to do it, didn't want to admit that fact, and just gave the user a brush-off. - For some reason, the admins didn't want anyone to do that, so they just told people that "it can't be done". This is usually called "security through obscurity". - The consultant was too lazy to RTFM. In my opinion, none of these are acceptable reasons. The big problem in the user's perspective is the "I'm important" attitude. Many users expect admins (or consultants) to drop whatever they're doing when they need help. I have a sign in my office that reads "A lack of planning on your part does NOT create an emergency on my part". If a student comes in while I'm trying to (for instance) hash out an RFS problem, he's going to get second priority. As soon as I hear the words "but this is due this afternoon (or tomorrow)", my usual response is "I'm sorry, but I can't run from your schedule; this is more important. I'll help you as soon as I can". They may grumble, but they have to accept it. Now, if a user demonstrates that he IS planning ahead, administrators must make every attempt to help them. Most of our users have, after a few epi- sodes such as those I just described, begun to plan ahead. I'm getting more and more questions like "I'm working on setting up electronic mail on my workstation, but I don't really need it for about 2-3 weeks; when can you help me?" Believe me, I'm going to jump through hoops to help that guy before his deadline. The mere fact that he IS planning ahead is going to make my life easier. There are several agendas in a computing center; the admins have one, the bureaucrats/moneymen have a second, and the users have their own. One of our largest responsibilities is the merging of those agendas into a cohe- sive whole. Don't forget, administrators wouldn't be here if users didn't exist. Each of these groups has to understand and respect the agendas of the others. -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu From: updegrove@a1.relay.upenn.edu (Dan Updegrove) Subject: Privacy rights of CWIS end users Message-ID: <199111221525.AA11205@eff.org> Date: 22 Nov 91 05:02:01 GMT As part of the final preparations before rolling out PennInfo, the University of Pennsylvania's CWIS, we have been concerned about assuring the end user community that their individual use of the system would in no way be monitored. At the same time, we wished to disclose that each session will leave some trace in log files, such that aggregate usage statistics could be compiled and bugs fixed. To this end, we have drafted and received approval from our General Counsel's office for the following document to be added to the "About PennInfo" folder. We would be interested in any comment on the document, general issues of privacy-vs.-instrumentation, and experiences with such issues in actual CWIS practice. Thanks, Dan Updegrove Assistant Vice Provost Privacy Rights of PennInfo End Uses The University of Pennsylvania is committed to protecting the privacy rights of individuals who access PennInfo. As a matter of policy, no one will be authorized to make any attempt to determine how any individual uses PennInfo or peruses certain documents. Users should be advised, however, that log files are maintained to enable the Office of Information Systems and Computing (ISC) to diagnose technical problems and monitor overall system usage. It will be possible, for example, to determine how many times each document is accessed and the average duration of PennInfo sessions. The individual log files provide no way to determine who accesses any given document. Log files and PennInfo system software are maintained on a tightly-secured computer, and only properly- authorized ISC staff have login priveleges on this computer. Questions or concerns about PennInfo privacy protection should be addressed to _____ . From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs Message-ID: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 18:23:40 GMT Universities that prohibit offensive expression in computer media, may be prohibiting on-line searches of library catalogs. Libraries all of the world are working to make their on-line catalogs available via the Internet. But do these on-line catalogs violate the speech restrictions on some universities? For example, suppose you telnet into Illinet Online ("telnet garcon.cso.uiuc.edu 620"). This on-line catalog has holding information for most the the libraries in the State of Illinois. You are looking for an arts magazine: ----Illinet session--- LCSgated>f t magazine of the arts SUMMARY DISPLAY RESULT: 38 bibliographic items. LCSgated>s 24 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS NEW YORK uc 10-053242 LCSgated> ---- end session------ Now that your interest has been aroused, you try: ---- Illinet session----- LCSgated>f t fuck $ all BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY 1. Moe, David Ishtar Robinhood fuck spelling : a poem / c1978. 5 leaves, sewn at center; unpaged ocm04-147599 2. Fuck hate : :poems / ca. 1966: :4: p. ocm07-408611 3. FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS uc 10-053242 4. McCloskey, Michael. FUCK YOU; A VOLUME OF SHORT STORIES. uc 12-031984 5. MICHELS, PETER M. FUCK THE WAR. 1972. uc 17-000346 6. B.A.L.L. (Musical group) Period (another American lie) :sound recording: / :1987: 1 sound disc ocm17-376469 LCSgated> ---end session--- It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to cut their connections to on-line catalogs. The on-line catalogs also might violate the restrictions of the Computer Science Department at the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Newcastle's University Computing Services, and James Madison University. (I'm enclosing the relevant parts of the polices.) Conclusion: I see nothing wrong with narrowly-drawn rules against harassment, but there is no place for rules against offensiveness in a University. As this example shows, to prohibit offense, is to prohibit free inquiry. - Carl =================================================== The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu] Ohio State University, in at least one case, characterized the the phrase "fuck you" as obscene and brought a student up on charges for posting it. [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brack@ohio-state.edu] The Computer Science Department at the University of Texas at Austin says "Users of electronic mail and bulletin boards should avoid sending messages that are ... patently offensive ... ." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu] (While the phrase "patently offensive" is not defined, it is the same phrase used by the FCC in its definition of indecency. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the "words that can't be said on TV" might be prohibited at UT.) The University of Newcastle's University Computing Services says: "You may not use the University's computing facilities to send ... offensive ... messages." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/newcastleu] The Draft Computer Ethics Statement at James Madison University says "The following are examples of unethical or irresponsible use of the computer: ... Sending electronic mail messages containing material offensive to the receiver." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/jmadisonu] ======================================================== -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me.