Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 06 [Week ending February 9. 1992 [This week's guest editor is Adam C. Gross, ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu. The February 2nd issue is still in production. - Carl] ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-6 are about the Eric Jefferson case at Carnegie Mellon, where a student was accused of sexual harrasement because of a series of his postings to a local bboard. 1. The university's threats of an investigation if the postings don't stop promotes self censorship. <46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org> 2. "Users were and are free at any time to refrain from reading articles from the poster in question. They apparently did not do so. Therefore, they _chose_ to read more from the poster, thus invalidating the unwantedness criterion of the EEO definition. [of sexual harresment]" <9202032245.AA03081@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> 3. Public universities are probhibited from banning 'politically incorrect' speech because of the _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ rulings. <1992Feb4.210805.11317@eff.org> 4. [A CMU student:] The university supported mail readers do not allow a user to suppress another individuals posts. <0dXzHyC00UgII0ilcP@andrew.cmu.edu> 5. "CMU is embarking on a slippery slope, as do all who wish to supress expression for any reason. It is impossible to objectively determine what might be "intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing." The search for truth is compromised when _any_ expression is supressed." <9202071322.AA09866@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> 6. [A CMU student:] "[This] IS about suppressing speech that was merely offensive." "[H]ow can it be harassment when one can easily ignore the message or not even read it at all?" Notes 7-9 are about the disclosure of personal information on the U of Illinois systems through such programs as finger. 7. [A U of Illinois student:] "Before the new software was installed, an account holder could alter how he/she was identified when another computer user on the same or a connected system requested information about that person using the finger program. The current software has the fingerd program return part or all of the person's legal name. I must protest this change, and request that the problem be fixed." <1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 8. [A member of the U of Illinois Computing Services Office:] "CCSO believes the perception of anonymity leads to increased belligerence and decreased sense of responsiblity for one's actions. The fact that one is ultimately traceable does not have the same effect as being immediately identified." <1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 9. Under what curcumstances can the university disclose or require personal information about a student? Enclosed excerpts from the Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act provide a partial answer. <1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Note 10 is about the availability of some newsgroups at U of Oregon. 10. [The director of Network Services at the U of Oregon:] Techincal limitations of the most popular Mac newsreader force limited USENET availability. <199202052354.AA01561@eff.org> - Adam] In this issue: Howard Goldstein 49 Speech Restrictions On Cm Robert F Solon 90 >Speech restrictions on CMU computers Carl M. Kadie 27 >Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards John W Hollis 23 > Robert F Solon 57 The Dark Ages Revisited (<>Re: Supression on speech on CM C M Restifo 50 >Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Memphis TN 81 Complaint letter about fingerd change Steve Dorner 71 >an open letter to the cso.gods Carl M. Kadie 138 Requiring students to release directory information JQ Johnson 33 >Usenet News Selection Policies Computers and Academic Freedom News Managing Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Administration: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au) Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu) 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 ftp.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 abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, 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. 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 caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992 From: Howard.Goldstein@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Howard Goldstein) Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Speech Restrictions On Cm Message-ID: <46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 92 17:40:00 EDT In Message-ID dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce) writes: DAL>greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes: DAL>> Sorry. The Dean has the power to examine the situation himself and make DAL>> a categorical determination that this type of behavior is not harassment. DAL>> (This is a policy decision, not a fact-bound decision based on the DAL>individual DAL>> case.) A disciplinary committee is not an policy-making body. It is a DAL>> fact-finding, and policy-enforcing body. DAL>There was no attempt to determine whether this action was considered DAL>to be harrassment. What the university did was a brush off; it tried DAL>to avoid taking any action by telling Eric that the matter would be DAL>pursued further if his actions continued (that of bringing in DAL>complaints). This is a very standard police action. [...much omitted] It seems to me that the university's conditional forebearance puts student in a rather awkward predicament. Student speaks? Student suffers investigation. Student censors himself? No investigation. With such a patent cause-effect relationship, I believe a clearer example of the "chilling effect" that Jonathan Greenfield mentioned could not be easily imagined. (but fact being stranger than fiction...) It further seems the only one to suffer actual harrassment is the fellow who was threatened with a process potentially leading to expulsion. (The school was the harrassor) Expulsion results in a form of blacklisting, in that the occurrence must be noted on many applications requiring background checks. I believe the events surrounding the Un-American Activities Committee is a valid historical analogy, and demonstrates how the mere charge of impropriety is capable of irreparably harming (much more than harrassing) those wrongly accused. Legally, it may be CMU's business. But ethically, it instills its students with the false expectation that the real world shields adults ears from brutish, offensive speech. In an academic setting, this is, perhaps, irresponsible. -- Internet: Howard.Goldstein@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!20!Howard.Goldstein Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write to root@psycho.fidonet.org. From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computers Message-ID: <9202032245.AA03081@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Date: 3 Feb 92 21:45:41 GMT I've been disturbed by much of what I read in this newsgroup, but I'm not sure that I've ever been _more_ disturbed than now. I have been hearing that speech that is offensive, even in a public forum, may be censored. Although none of the correspondents defending the CMU action have come right out and said so, I believe that this is the intent. Consider: 1. The bboard in question is a public forum. John Gardiner Myers and others have called it so. (Incidentally, if this assumption is correct than it's possible that speech on it is protected under the "limited Public forum" doctrine. Send e-mail for more info.) 2. A poster to this board posted allegedly harassing messages, not once but several times. 3. Complaints were filed alleging harassment of the complainants and others. 4. The CMU administration took action by suggesting that an inquiry might be convened, the result of which might be the curtailment of the poster's academic endeavors at CMU. Defenders of the University's actions have stated that harassment has inpeded the free exchange of ideas. Of course, these individuals have already found the poster guilty of harassment. I fail to see how harassment could have taken place. After the first or second posting by this correspondent (the one doing the alleged harassing), users of the bboard were free to ignore further posts by the individual. Harassment, by EEO definition, must first of all take place in the workplace, which point I will grant for the moment. But harassment must also be unwanted, of a sexual nature, and be tending to create a hostile working environment. Forgetting for the moment that the EEO definition does not on its face apply to educational institutions, the criterion of unwantedness is still not satisfied. Users were and are free at any time to refrain from reading articles from the poster in question. They apparently did not do so. Therefore, they _chose_ to read more from the poster, thus invalidating the unwantedness criterion of the EEO definition. Thus, I would say (although I'm neither lawyer, judge, nor jury) that the individual was not guilty of harassment. This is not a tempest in a teapot. The implications of the CMU action are staggering. Consider Brother Jed. (Many of you may know of Brother Jed. He goes around to college campuses and preaches fire and brimstone to any that will listen.) What the CMU policy says is that Brother Jed could be stopped from speaking, (even in a public forum like a campus quad), if his speech is offensive to someone. We could also consider a student running for student office. If he os she said something in a public forum that was offensive in any way, shape, or form, then that person could be punished under the CMU policy. The upshot of the CMU policy is this: the search for truth has been superceded by the idea that people's egos and psyches are so fragile that they must be protected from any and all offense. Even if we can't objectivelly define what it means to be offensive, that's ok, say the CMU apologists. Truth is now irrelavant. Of course, I would suspect that if the poster had been railing at those on the political right instead of the political left, he would not now been in the same situation. The problem with PC is the same problem as with any group of extremists, whether they be Nazis, KKK members, or whatever: they feel that they are the only correct thinkers, and that they have the right to silence those who don't think the way they do. Sounds totalitarian to me. I thought totalitarianism fell in 1991. I was wrong. It's alive and well at CMU. I stand for all speech. Each person, regardless of background, race, sex, color, sexual orientation, gender, or any other criterion you'd care to name, has the moral, intellectual, and legal right to search for truth. Unfortunately, I don't think those at CMU care much about truth. If they did, they wouldn't be advocating such extreme policies. The above is my own opinion, and does not reflect any policy, either inherent or stated, official or unoffical, of the United States, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency, nor any subpart thereof. -- Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!" Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS) DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV: 850-8256 From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Feb4.210805.11317@eff.org> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 21:08:05 GMT jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes: [...] >The point being that as employers may be held liable for >"discriminatory speech" which is not necessarily directed at an >individual, one can conclude that such speech can be sexual >harassment and can be harmful. While the school may not necessarily >be held liable for the speech, it is entirely justified in prohibiting >it where possible (e.g. on its own systems) [...] In _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_, the courts said that, at least for state schools, such prohibitions are not justified. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu= From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992 From: jh4y+@andrew.cmu.edu (John William Hollis, III) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <0dXzHyC00UgII0ilcP@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: 5 Feb 92 14:30:22 GMT Excerpts from cmu.opinion: 30-Jan-92 Re: Speech restrictions on .. John Gardiner Myers (1264) > Stating that persons that do not wish to be harassed by Mr. Jefferson > do not need to participate in these electronic forums is like stating > that people who do not want to be victims of obscene phone calls need > not answer the phone. I don't know what system you use to read bboards and mail, but the major ones that are supported here at CMU (MacMail, EZ Mail, and AMS) all allow you to skim through the subject headers and pick which messages you wish to read. The phone analogy would have to include the phone announcing who's calling and why they're calling before the person decides whether or not to answer. The choice, and therefore the responsibility, lies with the person who decides to read the message and feel harrassed. Sean From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) Subject: The Dark Ages Revisited (Was Re: Supression on speech on CM Message-ID: <9202071322.AA09866@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Date: 7 Feb 92 03:22:12 GMT In reply to the mail from ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >....which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to >suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about >suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually >harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a >crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm. > CMU is embarking on a slippery slope, as do all who wish to supress expression for any reason. It is impossible to objectively determine what might be "intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing." The search for truth is compromised when _any_ expression is supressed. Mill argued that even the most obnoxious and terrible of ideas might contain a small kernel of truth. By not allowing such ideas, as hateful and uninformed as they might be, we risk losing some of the truth. Surely and especially at an academic institution, that should be a primary goal. In the case of shouting fire in a theatre, one can show that there is an objective effect, i.e., determination of harm does not rest with the recievers of the expression, but can be made by an outside observer. In the case of Mr. Myer's examples, there is no way for an outside observer to be able to objectively determine that a given expression is intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing. Therefore, supression of such expression is unwarranted, IMHO. I would suggest that instead of attempting to supress undesirable speech one would instead want to educate all individuals about such topics as harassment, and multiculturalism. These are worthy goals, and education is a worthy way to achieve them. Finally, let me ask this: Have things gone so far that we can sit here and discuss supression of expression for any reason? The liberal tradition sets inquiry, questioning, and critical thought as among the highest goals of people everywhere. And yet, there are those who wish to limit the inquiry to only "correct" topics, or to inquire only in "correct" ways. These individuals seem to sacrifice the search for truth for some ever-changing, ever-undefinable ideology that stifles the human spirit and that would seek to force conformity, not by persuasion, but with the brute force of the law. Sounds familiar? Ever here of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism? How about Maoism? People died in Tiananmen Square for the freedom to inquire. People died attempting to cross the Berlin Wall to escape such "theories." We fought a world war to stop another such "theory" from subjugating Europe. Men and women have fought for thousands of years for the freedom to think for themselves. And yet here, in the U.S. of A., the bastion of freedom and democracy, there are those who think nothing of using the the methods of Stalin, Mao, Deng, Hitler, and Castro to impose their own ideological framework on us all. Have we learned nothing? From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992 From: cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 92 13:32:29 GMT Excerpts from netnews.alt.censorship: 6-Feb-92 Re: Speech restrictions on .. John Gardiner Myers@andr (442) > ...which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to > suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about > suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually > harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a > crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm. why not let them all know what is happening, john? the very question of harassment is what is being argued here. how many people here, in the paper and on the bboards, have said that what knauer, newman, and masco did was wrong? And since these people DID make themselves the self-appointed moral arbitrators of the system, it IS about suppressing speech that was merely offensive. simple questions to which i want answers: 1) how can it be harassment when one can easily ignore the message or not even read it at all? 2) if i "yell" on a bboard that women in general are bitches, how does that do harm? (and i mean REAL harm--harassment, etc. not this "well, he's not contributing to a healthy learning environment junk) 3) just what is 'intimidating" speech? how can i intimidate someone on a bboard to such an extent that they feel harassed when I don't mention any particular names? 4) why is it that when someone reads something offensive, they instantly claim "oh i'm being harassed" or "it's not conducive to the free exchange of ideas because it makes me afraid to speak out"? since when did the principle of openly taking issue with what someone else said become the responsibility of the that person (who spoke first) to "not upset" everyone else? those who defend this current form of speech restriction have yet to offer good answers that hold up to close scrutiny. "The reason for time is so that | Chris Restifo everything doesn't happen at once." | cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu -The Banzai Institute | Carnegie Mellon (no U) Disclaimer: One who disclaims. This thing don't claim anything. It's at times like these that you should be glad I don't work for the Post Office... From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: uiuc.general From: memphis-tn@uiuc.edu (Memphis TN) Subject: Complaint letter about fingerd change Message-ID: <1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 22:46:47 GMT This is a copy of a letter I have sent to the director of CSO. I post it here for your examination. <> 1011 S. Wright St. Champaign, IL 61820-6278 February 3, 1992 Mr. George F. Badger, Jr., director Computing Services Office 1120 DCL, MC 256 1304 W. Springfield Urbana, IL 61801 Dear Sir: I hereby file an official complaint about the recent change of the fingerd program on the mainframe computer, uxa. Before the new software was installed, an account holder could alter how he/she was identified when another computer user on the same or a connected system requested information about that person using the finger program. The current software has the fingerd program return part or all of the person's legal name. I must protest this change, and request that the problem be fixed. The change in how the program works presents two problems. First, many people do not wish to be commonly known by their given name. This is true in the case where people are called by a more familiar form of their given first name (e.g., Bill instead of William), or when they are called by a middle name, which is not returned with the current version of fingerd on uxa. Second, this change does not permit uxa account holders to suppress their legal names from public access, a clear violation of University policy and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, both of which state that the following items of information about a student must be suppressed from public access at the student's request: name, address, phone numbers, college curriculum, major field of study, class level, date of birth, dates of attendance, full/part-time status, eligibility for status in registered University honoraries, degrees, honors, certificates received or anticipated, participation in officially recognized activities, and sports and institutions previously attended. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the USENET newsgroup, uiuc.general on this subject over the past few days, discussing the possible ramifications of this policy change. I direct your attention there for other comments made on this topic. I respectfully request that the appropriate action be taken to ensure the right to privacy, as defined in the Family Education and Privacy Rights Bill of 1974, for the users of uxa. Such action may be, but is not limited to: 1. Restoration of the former fingerd program and the restriction of public access to the really program and database. 2. Immediate institution of a program through which individuals may request that their common name or no name at all be returned by the fingerd program rather than their given name, and the publicization of such a program. Although I am willing to be held academicly and legally responsible for my actions taken and comments made on uxa, irc, and USENET, I value my right to privacy highly. I will guard that right jealously, and I intend to take appropriate action, if necessary, to protect that right. Yours truly, Michael D. Adams (memphis-tn@uiuc.edu; mda46419@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) electronic copies: badger@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu root@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu memphis-tn@uiuc.edu posted (USENET) on: uiuc.general -- Michael "Memphis" Adams memphis-tn@uiuc.edu (internet) +1(217)344-4857 From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: uxa.general,uiuc.general,cso.general From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) Subject: Re: an open letter to the cso.gods Message-ID: <1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 19:33:35 GMT memphis-tn@uiuc.edu writes: >I am still entitled to air my grievances >until I get a rational answer. I'm not sure what you want a rational answer for. Why Paul made the change to fingerd? Anyway, it seems to me that it's time to dull the shouting just a bit. Let me try to do so: Why CCSO Wants to Identify Users on the Net CCSO believes the perception of anonymity leads to increased belligerence and decreased sense of responsiblity for one's actions. The fact that one is ultimately traceable does not have the same effect as being immediately identified. Thus, CCSO wishes to stamp each piece of outgoing mail and news with the person's real name. As this is technically difficult, fingerd made a reasonable alternative in the short term. Uxa And the Privacy Act As a uxa account is in no way required by the University, there is merit to the argument that forcing identification on uxa users is not a violation of the act. On the other hand, since uxa is offered freely to all students, there is also merit to the argument that denying information suppression on uxa accounts amounts to discrimination against the legitimate exercise of rights. Quite honestly, I have no idea how the courts would rule on the issue. However, the act, as quoted in this newsgroup, is perfectly clear. If you have not filled out a suppression form, you have not a legal leg upon which to stand, and the claim that your rights have been violated is utterly spurious, no matter how loudly it is made. Uxa And University Policy Uxa is a CCSO service, not one mandated by the University. The University has in the past been without such a service. The University targets no money to uxa, and the computer fee committee has never funded it to any extent, despite CCSO requests. Therefore, I find it hard to imagine that the University administration will place much value on uxa as a service, should push come to shove. It is well within the bounds of possibility that, should the courts rule that we cannot divulge the names of students who own accounts, CCSO will simply get out of the business of providing accounts to the general student populace. If you wish to discuss these points rationally, fine; I'm happy to do so. In point of fact, I've modified my own position in the course of this debate; I think it has been on the whole useful. However, I have a purely personal request to make. Let us please stop making dogmatic assertions of that which we cannot support. Let us please stop impugning the motives of all involved. Let us please lose the shouting. Let us please read before we respond, and reread our own words before we post. I'm making this request not of the privacy advocates only, but of both sides. Otherwise, I will opt entirely out of this discussion, as I do not care to be involved in a shouting match. I do not hold myself entirely blameless (having used all caps a few times myself), which is all the more reason I want to see this toned down. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner Apparently-To: does more harm than good. From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uiuc.general From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Requiring students to release directory information Message-ID: <1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 23:31:59 GMT Here is one interesting question to come out of the current discussions at UIUC: If a student decides to surpass directory information, can the university *legally* refuse to offer some services based on that refusal? [The moral question is interesting, but distinct.] For example, Can the university require student athletes to disclose their name to the outside world as a condition for being on the team? Can the university require students to disclose their name to the outside world as a condition for getting a free student computer account? Can the university require students to disclose their name and phone number to the outside world as a condition for getting a free student computer account? Can the university require students to disclose their name and phone number to the outside world as a condition for getting a class computer account? Can the university require students to disclose their name and phone number to the outside world as a condition for sending email? Can the university require students to release their name and phone number as a condition for early registration? Can the university require students to release their name and phone number as a condition for continued enrollment. I would guess the answer to the first question is "yes" and that the answer to the last is "no". I don't know the answer to the middle questions, but can provide some additional information: [From _College and University Student Records: A Legal Compendium_, Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989] ================== p. 119 =============== The regulations ... were significantly modified in 1988. ... The new regulations amend the definition of directory information and establish a standard for the designation of directory information. The new definition is: ' ... information contained in an education record of a student which would not be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to, the student's name, address, telephone list, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially-recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, date of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended.' The new standard -- that which would not be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed -- permits the educational institution to exercise its discretion in the designation and and release of directory information provided that the eligible student does not object to the disclosure. ======================== p. 106 ============ [From the regulations: 34 C.F.R., 99.37 (1988)] 99.37 What conditions apply to disclosing directory information? (a) An educational agency or institution may disclose directory information if it has given public notice to parents of students in attendance and eligible student is attendance at the agency or institutional of -- (1) The types of personally identifiable information that the agency or institution has designed as directory information; (2) A parent's or eligible student's right to refuse to let the agency or institution any or all of those types of information about the student as directory information; and (3) The period of time within which a parent or eligible student has to notify the agency or institution in writing that he or she does not want any or all of those types of information about the student designed as directory information. ================== p. 155 ================ [from a reprint of an article printed in 1982 in _Computer/Law Journal_ by a Ms. Hyman.] ... A waiver of FERPA rights made pursuant to section 99.7 must be exercised by the student {109} and can apply to all FERPA rights {110}. Wavers must be signed {111}, and are most commonly given regarding letters of recommendation for admission {112}. Institutions may request students to waive their right of access to these letters, but they may not require a waiver as a condition for admission or services.{113}. [References] {110} 34 C.F.R. 99.7(a) (1980) {113} 34 C.F.R, 99.7(b) (1980) [Which I think cooresponds to this section of the 1988 regulations - cmk] ====================== p. 104 ================= [34 C.F.R. 99.12 (1988)] 99.12 What limitations exist on the right to inspect and review records? ... (b) A postsecondary institution does not have to permit a student to inspect and review educational records that are -- ... (3) Confidential letters and confidential statement of recommendation places in the student's records ..., if (i) The student has waived his or her right to inspect and review those letters and statements; ... (c) A waiver under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section is valid only if -- (i) The educational agency or institution does not require the waiver as a condition for admission to or receipt of a service or benefit form the agency or institution; ... ============================================ -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l From: jqj@DUFF.UOREGON.EDU (JQ Johnson) Subject: Re: Usenet News Selection Policies Message-ID: <199202052354.AA01561@eff.org> Date: 5 Feb 92 23:42:36 GMT The U of Oregon has generally implemented a de facto policy on news groups of "anything that's legal." We therefore do not carry feeds of the restricted-distribution news hierarchies like clari.*, but do carry most other things. We have been concerned about resource consumption, but in general the major resource in short supply had always seemed to be disk space on news servers, so we finessed that issue by expiring the groups my staff and I didn't care about (e.g. the alt.* and talk.* groups) fairly rapidly. However, we have noticed a new technical issue that is getting in the way of this policy. One of the favorite news reading user agents on campus, NewsWatcher for the Mac, is effectively limited to 32K chars of data in its equivalent of a .newsrc file. If we were to carry all the news groups we have access to, we'd see nearly twice that in news group names. So, to support our Mac users we currently trim the list of news groups carried on our major public news server not to include groups of what we believe to be low local interest (e.g. local news hierarchies for other campuses). I could easily see users on campus complaining about this policy, though (for example, before I implemented the policy I was a regular reader of several Stanford su.* news groups. I'd personally much rather keep those groups than alt.american.automibile.breakdown.breakdown.breakdown and such.). We are not in a position to invest much time in picking and choosing news groups, so we need a better fix. Does anyone have suggestions? -- JQ Johnson Director of Network Services Internet: jqj@oregon.uoregon.edu University of Oregon voice: (503) 346-1746 250E Computing Center fax: (503) 346-4397 Eugene, OR 97403-1212 -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=