In order to provide a rationale for forcing Plans off campus and preventing the reappearance of any similar software, Information Technology Services announced the several changes in the Academic Computer Use Policies which regulate student and faculty use of computers at Grinnell College.
Here are some of the reactions of Grinnell College faculty members to these changes:
Jackie Brown ... Ken Christiansen
Jonathan (Jackie) Brown, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
I've been reading your pages concerning the Plans shutdown and reappearance, for which I thank you. They helped me -- as someone who doesn't use Plans - to understand the events and the depth of anger towards them. I'm taking the opportunity to respond to your comments on the ACUP changes, which have convinced me that there are very important issues at stake here, and not just for software authors. Here goes:
Students developing applications on College systems requiring individual login for membership and offering membership to the broader Grinnell College community have more stringent rules to follow. In the case of virtual communities* based at Grinnell College, Grinnell software authors must ensure compliance with College policies regarding accepted student community standards in addition to standards of academic computer use.
Stone: "It is true that virtual communities that use the College's computer network are constrained both by the Academic Computer Use Policies and by the College rules summarized in the Student Handbook. It is a considerable leap, however, from this observation to the claim that the authors of the computer programs used in the formation and maintenance of student virtual communities must ensure the community's compliance with College policies."
I couldn't agree more with your comment. The emphasis on "ensure compliance" seems completely wrongheaded. Did the authors of the changes really mean this, or were they trying to ensure that authors make users aware of their obligations under community standards or explicit policies? If the latter, then the language is clearly flawed. If the former, the policy change is draconian and ought to be thrown out.
Due process must be ensured before any sanctions of members are carried out.
You interpret this clause as an attempt to discourage autonomous student groups on line. By this, do you mean student groups which determine their membership - and thus could exclude people at will? I can't say I've studied the student handbook, but I suspect there is a distinction between recognized student organizations (who get funding) and unrecognized ones (groups who get together to play music, study, complain about their teachers, or whatever). I can think of lots of reasons why we ought to treat the latter groups very differently than the former when it comes to enforcing college policies, and we ought to allow them to communicate via computer just like we let them communicate face-to-face or via phone lines. Ironically, ITS's Blackboard seems to exist to shut people out, although the administrators determine who that is. You've argued against this in previous emails, so do you think groups of individuals should be able to set up VCs that are closed? I suspect you might argue that the greater community should determine whether this is possible, which I agree with.
Communities or individuals in violation of the Academic Computer Use Policies or standards of student community at Grinnell College are subject to immediate disconnection from the campus network pending completion of review procedures by Information Technology Services or Student Affairs, as appropriate. Accordingly, a system of logging of the community entries on a nightly basis must be in place in order to establish an evidential base for proper hearings of complaints brought by students, faculty or staff to appropriate College committees or boards.
I don't understand whether this means that the software provider is required to log entries nightly or that ITS reserves the right to do this. Part of me (a big part) feels that this shouldn't be necessary and is really frightening, although the 'provider' would have the right to do so. What rights do we have not be recorded? I would object if every word that came out of my mouth was recorded and logged, but would not object if words said in a faculty meeting were. That's because I understand the nature of the setting in which my speech occurs. It seems some of the controversy surrounds the false understanding of Plans as simultaneously public and private. So students don't want faculty to read their Plans, but they want everyone else access to them, but they don't want to be recorded nightly. I don't get it. I guess (cynically) I assume everything I type and send could be read, even though I'd sometimes like the same privacy I assume when I speak with someone in my office. Though I don't use Plans, it would seem possible to create guidelines where people are allowed different levels of privacy, are aware of what those are, and are held accountable for in the same ways they are for non-virtual speech. Would this be possible, or desirable, within Plans?
I admit to being confused about this last issue. I've thought a bit about speech issues during the last year here and, despite what some people assume based on my in absentia motion to the faculty last Spring, I believe we need to strongly support free speech on campus. However, I see a distinction between speech inside the classroom, where it is my role as the instructor to provide a forum for learning which might preclude certain types of speech (personal attacks on individuals are just one kind I'd mention), and speech in the greater community. What's difficult is to consider whether the college has an analogous role in regulating speech within the campus. I don't like that idea at all, and think student groups are closer to a community than to a classroom setting, but it can get to be a messy distinction. I can see in some non-classroom activities the analogy to my desire to maintain a classroom where one person's behavior can't derail my goals for creating an environment where everyone learns. I'm willing to defend such actions in the classroom and be personally accountable for my decisions to limit speech, should it come to that (it hasn't yet). I'd like the college community to talk about where it stands on these issues, rather than protest a single event -- this was the point of my motion.
Finally, thanks for prodding me to look at the Free Software Site. I've already moved over to Mozilla Firebird and will be trying out the other alternatives as well, and will urge my colleagues to do so. I can see that this is the right thing to do.
Kenneth A. Christiansen, Professor Emeritus of Biology
I have read over the changes in policy of ITS towards student (and faculty + alumni) use of the computer at Grinnell and find them at best unnecessary or confusing and at worst pernicious. It appears clear to me that they are aimed at inhibiting and discouraging "personal, egalitarian, and respectful interactions among all members of the community". There are several sections I find particularly obnoxious. The first is: "Grinnell software authors must publish clear, complete, and publicly available guidelines detailing acceptable behavior & membership policies for the virtual community." Just what in the hell does whoever is responsible for this want them to do? No virtual sex on the the site? No foul language (if so according to whose definition)? Use correct spelling and punctuation? the second is : "Due process must be ensured before any sanctions of members are carried out." Does this mean that somebody who is dropped from the list must have a court appearance of some sort? If so where is the court and who serves on it? Who sets the standards for dropping somebody? Perhaps the most pernicious of any regulation is: "The members of student-created virtual communities must be current students, faculty, staff, or Trustees." By this single stroke the ITS has managed to alienate a larger number of members of what we traditionally consider members of the college community than anything I can remember in my 47 years at Grinnell since the strip in to protest sexual exploitation. At least that stupidity had the excuses that the cause was supposedly moral and it was done by students. This one was done by administrators with malice aforethought.
created July 27, 2003
last revised August 9, 2003