*******************************************************************************
Please note: This is part of an on-line ASCII text version of the task
force report.

A full text and print-ready PostScript version is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.ucs.ubc.ca in /pub/info/ubc/reports/appropriate-use.ps.
UNIXG account holders will find it on unixg.ubc.ca in the same file.
*******************************************************************************

DISCUSSION

* Fundamental Principles

The terms of reference given to this Task Force call for it "to advise the 
President's office on the appropriate use of UBC information technology 
and facilities in the context of the campus Sexual Harassment Policy."  
The principle underlying the latter policy is that those associated with 
the University are entitled to "the best possible environment for working 
and learning," and the policy itself represents an acknowledgment on the 
University's part that an environment in which sexual harassment occurs 
fails to deliver on that promise.

This Task Force accepts this first principle as fundamental.  Moreover, it 
accepts that an environment in which members of the University 
community are involuntarily exposed to pornographic, racist, 
homophobic and similarly group-related offensive messages and images 
fails to deliver on that promise.  For the members of those groups at 
which such messages and images are targeted -- women, racial, ethnic 
and religious minorities, persons with disabilities, gays and lesbians -- 
such an environment is clearly a hostile one, and one in which both 
working and learning can for them be exceedingly difficult.

The Task Force also, of course, accepts as fundamental the principle that 
those associated with the University, and particularly faculty and 
students, should be entitled to communicate freely with each other and 
the wider community.  Commitment to such a principle is integral to the 
very nature of a university, and certainly, in the view of this Task Force, 
of UBC.  Any form of constraint on this freedom to communicate is 
inconsistent with this principle.

It is apparent that, in some circumstances, these two fundamentally 
important principles come into conflict.  The question is how that conflict 
should be resolved.  To a significant degree, that question has already 
been answered by legislation by which members of the University 
community are clearly governed.  Messages and images which are 
offensive to the Criminal Code provisions relating to obscenity and hate 
propaganda are subject to criminal sanction.  The Civil Rights Protection 
Act renders messages and images caught by its terms subject to civil 
claims.  And to the extent that the B.C. Human Rights Act can be said to 
apply to communicative activities on campus which amount to sexual, 
racial, and other forms of harassment, it too exposes those who engage in 
such activities to civil claims.

In the context of forms of communication which amount to sexual 
harassment, that question has also been answered for members of the 
University community by the campus Sexual Harassment Policy.  Such 
forms of communication are effectively prohibited by that policy, and 
those who engage in them can be subjected to discipline by the President.

It is clear from these legislative enactments and this policy that it has 
been thought appropriate in at least some circumstances to impose 
constraints on freedom of communication in order to protect other 
interests, including the interest in a working and learning environment 
in which people are free from uninvited pornographic, racist, 
homophobic and similar offensive messages and images.  Moreover, it is 
also clear that these constraints operate, either by necessary implication 
or by design, on the campus of this University.

This answer to the question of how the conflict between these two 
principles should be resolved commends itself to the Task Force when 
members of the University community are involuntarily exposed to such 
messages and images via information technology.  In such 
circumstances, the principle of freedom of communication must, in the 
Task Force's view, give way to the principle of a positive working and 
learning environment for all.  This is true not only when such messages 
and images offend one of these legislative enactments or the Sexual 
Harassment Policy but more generally.  No member of the University 
community should be required to consume against his or her will 
offensive messages and images conveyed on information technology.  
There is little if any benefit to be gained and much to be lost by 
protecting the freedom to communicate of those who would convey such 
messages and images to those who, because they find them offensive, do 
not wish to be exposed to them.

With the exception of those messages and images proscribed by the 
obscenity and hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code and the 
Civil Rights Protection Act, the Task Force is not persuaded that it is 
necessary or appropriate at this time to recommend that the University 
ban the communication between willing participants of messages and 
images which others might find offensive.  To do so would be to 
recommend that information technology should be singled out for 
special and more restrictive treatment on this campus than other 
methods of communication -- for example, the telephone, private 
conversations conducted in person, the Library system -- and that the 
Task Force is not prepared to do.  As a medium for communication 
information technology has much in common with the telephone and the 
printed word; our Task Force feels it should be governed by similar 
policies.  Printed materials which would be viewed as offensive to some 
people are available in the UBC Library; they are not in the stacks but 
must be requested specifically by the borrower.  Likewise, a potentially 
offensive discussion on the Internet generally must be sought out by the 
reader: it is rarely inflicted on him or her unknowingly.   The telephone 
system is open to abuse by those who would make harassing phone calls, 
but this potential for abuse does not result in restriction of access to 
telephones. Rather, the harasser is dealt with by social and legal 
sanctions. The same should be true of the Internet.

The Task Force does, however, recommend that it be considered a 
serious abuse of information technology to communicate to anyone 
messages and images which offend the provisions of these special 
enactments.  Situations in which such messages and images are 
communicated should be no less a concern to the University than they 
are to society as a whole, and it is important that the University be 
prepared to take steps on its own to deal with them.

Before leaving this discussion of fundamental principles, mention should 
be made of two others which featured prominently in the thinking of the 
Task Force.  One is the importance of educating the members of the 
University community not only about the specific laws and policies 
which are applicable in this area, but also about the need for all of us to 
treat each other with respect.  The kind of working and learning 
environment that we are seeking to establish here -- "the best possible 
environment" -- is one in which there would be no call for the 
enforcement of such laws and policies because the atmosphere was one 
in which we all respect and take into account the interest of others.  The 
University must take steps to ensure that this message is communicated 
consistently and in a range of different ways.

The other additional principle, which flows out of the first, relates to the 
issue of responsibility.  This Task Force is firmly of the view that the 
responsibility for establishing "the best possible environment for 
working and learning" is a shared one.  The University, as we have 
already made clear, bears a significant amount of this responsibility, but 
so too do individual members of the University community, faculty and 
administrators certainly, but staff and students as well.  They too can 
participate in the educational process, and they too can take steps to 
ensure that the applicable laws and policies are enforced.

* Restoration of Banned Newsgroups

The Task Force recommends restoring access to all Usenet newsgroups 
because of their importance to the teaching and research missions of the 
University, and because of the difficulty and inappropriateness of 
attempting to censor material accessed via the Internet.  We were not 
convinced by arguments that computing resources should be restricted 
to the research and teaching activities of the University, since it is 
extremely difficult to determine the boundaries of such activities.  
Moreover, the additional costs associated with maintaining access to all 
newsgroups versus maintaining access to a subset of newsgroups are 
negligible. Since the University makes no attempt to prevent the use of 
its other resources (buildings, telephones, etc.) for other activities so long 
as the costs incurred by the other activities are minimal, it would be 
inconsistent and undesirable to apply such restrictions to computing 
resources.  

* Education for Appropriate Use of Information Technology

It is essential that all users of UBC facilities, including faculty, staff, 
students and others, be educated in what constitutes abuse of 
information technology and what to do if abuses occur.  Specifically, in 
addition to distributing copies of the relevant legislative enactments, the 
UBC Sexual Harassment Policy and the pending Human Rights Policy to 
all of those at UBC, training sessions should be conducted by qualified 
instructors wherever possible.

There are two places where training in this area is particularly important.  
One is in classes of courses which use computing resources.  Instructors 
should brief their students on what is considered appropriate and 
inappropriate use of the resources,  and tell them what to do if abuses 
occur.  The departments offering the courses must be prepared to follow 
up on complaints in an expeditious and sensitive manner.

Secondly, providers of information technology on campus such as 
University Computing Services, the Department of Computer Science, 
and other departments which issue accounts for use on computing 
equipment, should include a statement of what is regarded as 
appropriate use in their  account application forms.  Sample wording for 
such a statement is given in Appendix G. The penalties for inappropriate 
use should be made clear.  Specific recommendations are made in 
Appendix H.

* Procedures For Dealing With Inappropriate Uses

Even with better education of the UBC information technology user 
community about issues concerning offensive material, incidents in 
which people are offended are likely to occur. Procedures on handling 
offensive material are needed, as well as an educated and sensitive 
environment.  All relevant UBC authorities, from lab supervisors to 
Deans and administrators, must be aware of their responsibilities with 
respect to the issue. They must know to whom complaints can be 
referred, but also deal with specific cases and general problems.  In 
appropriate cases, complaints should be dealt with in consultation with 
the Sexual Harassment or Human Rights offices and the appointed 
individual in UCS.

We specifically recommend the identification of a single individual in 
UCS to whom abuses should be reported in cases involving material that 
is potentially illegal, or sites outside UBC. This individual should be 
responsible for notifying the appropriate authorities external to UBC. 
Moreover, all members of the community should be aware of their 
responsibility to report instances where they feel inappropriate incidents 
have occurred, and the University should ensure that there are non-
intimidating mechanisms for doing so.

Although complaints will be the primary means of identifying problems, 
authorities should also be prepared to deal with abuses of which they are 
aware but about which complaints have not been made.  Additionally, 
complaints should serve as a spark to action: if a complainant prefers not 
to pursue the matter, or the specific complaint is resolved while leaving a 
larger issue open, further action may still be necessary. Not only the 
victim but the University and its administrators have responsibility for 
initiating correction of abuses.

There are a number of different means of dealing with specific incidents, 
and the Task Force feels that all of the following are valid:

1.   Taking direct personal action.  The simplest (but sometimes not 
feasible) procedure is for those who have been offended to deal with the 
source of the offending material directly. This only works when the 
source is identifiable (either as an individual or group), accessible, and 
willing to listen, and when those offended feel comfortable with 
approaching the source of offense.

2.   Notifying an appropriate authority.  It must be made clear that there 
are people within the academic or administrative unit concerned who are 
responsible for addressing incidents which occur. There should be a 
number of such people identified, in case the most obvious person (e.g. a 
lab supervisor) is unsympathetic or unavailable.

3.   Moving up the supervisory hierarchy.  If the problem cannot be 
resolved at the level of the obvious authority, Department Heads or 
other such administrators should be informed and should be available to 
deal with incidents.  Additionally, Heads or equivalent administrators 
should be made aware of incidents occurring within their departments, 
and should have the responsibility of seeing whether internal policies or 
procedures can be implemented to prevent similar incidents from 
occurring in future.

4.   Using alternate avenues. If the problem is not resolved in a way 
satisfactory to the complainant, or if the complainant wishes to pursue 
the issue in a parallel manner, other avenues should remain open and be 
made clear. Examples include the Sexual Harassment Office, any new 
Human Rights Office, the UCS resource person mentioned below, the 
AMS Ombudsoffice, and, depending on the nature of the incident, police, 
human rights agencies, and the courts.  Referral to another avenue of 
complaint should not excuse the previously mentioned authorities from 
trying to reach a resolution or dealing with larger problems while a 
specific case is pursued through other means.

Once action has been taken at any level other than that of direct personal 
communication, i.e. by any authority, the incident and the resolution 
should be publicized by whatever means are convenient and 
appropriate. The user community should be informed of the outcome of 
incidents where sanctions were applied in departments which have 
computing facilities.

* Broadening The Community Of Users

The media is the voice of the community, allowing it to express its 
interests, concerns, and prerogatives.  This applies to information 
technology as much as to any other media, and many of the issues 
concerning offensive material on the Internet may be related to the 
relative narrowness of its community of users.  The community tends to 
be male, of European descent, middle-class, scientifically-oriented, and 
North American and European in location.  Thus the culture that has 
evolved does not include a large part of the wider diverse community.  
Inevitably, the preoccupations and prejudices of the largest group of 
users have coloured the character and development of information-
technology-based media.  Fiat will not change this orientation, although 
it would undoubtedly bring about some degree of subterfuge.  What is 
needed is an end to the effective monopoly over a powerful medium.

Information technology will better serve the entire community if its users 
represent the community's diversity. Women, those of non-European 
origin, those trained in the arts, social sciences and humanities, and 
others presently without a voice in information technology media must 
be empowered to contribute to electronic exchanges.  Here the 
University can take leadership by taking steps to bring in otherwise 
excluded groups.  Institutional initiatives should begin with education, 
both within and without the classroom, and with practical assistance in 
linking into computer-mediated debates.  Without such initiatives, the 
Task Force fears a continuing and growing division between those who 
use and control a powerful medium and those who for one reason or 
another are excluded.  The costs of refusal to address this imbalance are 
substantial, and the benefits of broadening the community of users are 
enormous.