From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.53 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:30:24 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 53


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: cjzw7l31@stimpy.ir.miami.edu (Jared Danziger)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.53

[Week ending November 1, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

   [This week's guest editor is Jared Danziger,
    cjzw7l31@stimpy.ir.miami.edu - Carl]

Notes 1-2 are about Canada.

1.  At least seven newsgroups from the alt.sex news hierarchy remain
banned at Wilfred Laurier University.  The ban originated in the
actions of Hart Benzer, Director of Computer Services, who personally
considered the material in the newsgroups offensive.  A concurring
opinion from other university administrators resulted in the ban of
these newsgroups.  The newsgroups remain banned at least until a
committee on computers meets.  Similar bans have occurred at other
universities throughout Canada.
    <9210261909.AA25226@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

2.  Amendments to the Canadian Constitution concerning Language Minority 
Rights are empty guarantees due to escape clauses within the constitution.  
In addition, the guidelines established by the amendments are impractical
and do not provide extensive enough coverage. 
    <199210262224.AA15552@eff.org>

Note 3 is about harassment.

3. "The computers in these cases are the means or tools by which harassment 
takes place, they are not the harasser ('Computers don't harass people,
people harass people').  A person can be harassed by someone who sends them
unwelcome, sexually oriented hand-written or typed letters.  Yet we don't
even consider banning paper correspondence...  The law implies that
you should do your best to reduce the probability of harassment... The
only reasonable 'preventive' measure that an employer or school can
take with sexual harassment is to educate the employees or students about 
sexual harassment, give examples of most likely unwelcome behavior, and
explain the possible consequences."
    <Bwt01A.FAw@rice.edu>

Notes 4-7 are nominations for best policy in various categories.  These
policies are merely nominations, they may contain various flaws and may  
not be well suited for many computing facilities.  They are useful models 
for the construction or revision of institutional policies.  

4.  Prohibitions: The EFF in house rules allow a broad range of
actions.  Major points include:
    "2. No use of this or any other EFF system as a staging ground 
        to crack other systems...
     4. No use of this or any other EFF system for illegal or criminal
        purposes.
     9. Obstructing [other people's] work by consuming gratuitously
        large amounts of system resources (disk space, CPU time) or by
        deliberately crashing the machine(s) will not be tolerated....
     11.Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected
        files will be treated with the utmost seriousness"
    <1992Oct29.200346.5545@eff.org>

5. Netnews: "That the same standards and principles of intellectual
and academic freedom developed for university libraries be applied to
material received from the news network... That the same standards of
intellectual and academic freedom developed for faculty and student
publication in traditional media be applied to publication in computer
media."
    <1992Oct29.200825.5648@eff.org>

6. Due Process: "Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics
are treated like any other ethical violation as outlined in the
Student Handbook and applicable faculty and staff handbooks.
Violators may also be billed for illegal use of the computer systems
and may be prosecuted for statutory violations..."
    <1992Oct29.201759.5761@eff.org>
                                                                          

7. Participation: "As constituents of the academic community, students
should be free, individually and collectively, to express their views
on issues of institutional policy and on matters of general interest
to the student body.  The student body should have clearly defined
means to participate in the formulation and application of
institutional policy affecting academic and student affairs... the
actions of the student government within the areas of its jurisdiction
should be reviewed only through orderly prescribed procedures."
    <1992Oct29.202705.5949@eff.org>

Notes 8-9 discuss how the Hatch Act affects federal employees and private 
individuals and corporations who receive money from the federal government.

8.  "The Hatch act applies only to federal civil service employees, not to 
grantees and certainly not to students.  I believe the State's "little 
Hatch Acts" have similar scope.  Moreover, the Hatch Act doesn't forbid all
political activity by covered employees."
    <1992Oct30.192931.20021@eff.org>

9.  "The Hatch act does not forbid Federal employees from engaging in
politics or from expressing political opinions.  It forbids them from
certain official roles in partisan political campaigns, or for
collecting donations from political campaigns, and other than a couple
of little details, that is pretty much it. ...Federal employees still
have First Amendment rights"
    <1cs5g4INN76p@agate.berkeley.edu>

- Jared Danziger]



In this issue:

Carl M. Kadie    44  [WLU _Cord_] "Newsgroups are banned"
U15289@UICVM     24  Canadian Referendum and Language Rights
Joseph Watters  140  >Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Carl M. Kadie   166  Best academic policy: prohibitions
Carl M. Kadie   197  Best academic policy: Netnews
Carl M. Kadie   228  Best academic policy: due process
Carl M. Kadie   110  Best academic policy: participation
Carl M. Kadie    59  >Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Joe Buck         44  >


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@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)
Associate Editor: Mark C. Sheehan (sheehan@unixpop.ucs.indiana.edu)
Associate Editor: John F. Nixon (fnixon@sol.utc.edu)
Archivist:        J.S. Greenfield (greeny@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 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, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, 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 Oct 26 14:09:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 1--[WLU _Cord_] "Newsgroups are banned"
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 07:09:22 GMT

An article from _The Cord_, Wilfrid Laurier University Student
Publications, September 17, 1992, p.3. Posted with permission.

Title: Newsgroups are banned

At least seven newsgroups remain banned at Laurier until the
Senate Committee on Computing can meet and discuss their
controversial content.
     The newsgroups, which can be understood as computerized
bulletin boards, were banned in late June and early July after
Hart Bezner, Director of Computing Services, took some computer
output to Don Baker, Vice-President: Academic.
     The output was obtained from the "alt.sex" newsgroups which
deal with topics ranging from bondage and bestiality to
information on sexual diseases and general questions about sex.
     John Weir, who was president of WLU at the time, made the
decision to ban the newsgroups after a meeting with Baker and
Systems Administrator Carl Langford. Weir told the Cord that, "in
my opinion, and in the opinions of others, the material was
offensive."
     Although Weir and Baker had hoped the Senate Committee on
Computing could have dealt with the issue before the start of
fall classes, this has not happened.
     Nora Znotinas, who became chair of the Committee in August,
says the hearings will be delayed until October. She says she
decided not to table the issue until the student representatives,
one grad and one undergrad, were elected to the Committee. She
also said that the meetings would be open to the university
population although those attending are normally not allowed to
address the Committee.
     As for her personal opinion of the newsgroups, Znotinas says
they are difficult to police and that, "I'm one of the people who
would fall into the category of not censoring the newsgroups."
     The newsgroups banned at Laurier have reached a similar fate
elsewhere in Canada with the University of Manitoba and Simon
Fraser University among those opting to ban them.
     The University of Waterloo, which banned and reinstated them
two years ago, has decided to maintain access to the alt.sex
hierarchy.




------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 17:24:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Article 2--Canadian Referendum and Language Rights
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 22:04:14 GMT

In his post to caf-talk last Friday, Hans Johnsen said that the package of
constitutional amendments being voted on today "recognizes official language
minority rights in all of Canada."

It seems to me that this is a somewhat empty guarantee as long as the escape
clause in the original constitution remains in place, which enabled the Quebec
government to keep much of Bill 101 in force even after the Supreme Court had
declared it unconstitutional.  It thus remains illegal, for instance, for a
bookstore in a heavily Anglophone neighborhood of Montreal, selling nothing but
books in English, to display a sign reading "Books."  What is more, what I have
read about the guarantees of access to English-language education in the pack-
age leads me to the conclusion that these will continue to be quite limited if
the referendum passes; the right to schooling in English will be guaranteed
only to children whose parents were educated in English in Canada--allowing
the Quebec government to force the children of many Anglophone, as well as
most Allophone, migrants to the province into the French-language schools.
The "distinct society" guarantees in the package can only aggravate this
situation.

                                                      Mitch Pravatiner
                                                      U15289@uicvm.uic.edu


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 27 19:15:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Article 3--Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 23:31:57 GMT

In article <mumble>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
|>    I don't really go along with this. I think that most rules against
|> harassment are not even this precise. The ones I have seen (posted here
|> or in CU's policy guides) have been what you might call 'complaint oriented'.
|> Even though they might list some specifically illegal actions, they don't
|> clearly delineate between accaptable and unacceptable. They seem to depend
|> on interpretation and mediation by supervisors or special officers.

The rules are complaint oriented for what I feel is a good reason:  the
law does not define specific acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, nor
does it require employers or schools or any one else to define what is
acceptable or unacceptable behavior.  The law requires, as a *first*
action, for the person subjected to the behavior (I include speech and
pervasive environments in this term) to clearly state to the person(s)
engaging in the behavior that they find that behavior *unwelcome*.  If
the behavior ceases, then that's it.

As an alternative to direct confrontation, the person subjected to the
behavior has the option of expressing their dissatisfaction to their
supervisor or teacher or other direct or designated authority.  It is
then up to that authority to convey the unwelcome behavior
message to the person(s) engaging in it.  

What is acceptable or unacceptable behavior is essentially entirely in
the hands of the person subjected to the behavior.  Supervisors and
special officers do not make determinations of the acceptability of
behavior.  They are only required to act if a particular person finds a
particular behavior unwelcome, or finds an environment to be
unwelcome.   Their actions are directed at stopping the repeated
occurrence of the particular behavior by the particular individual, or
correcting the environmental problem.

Behavioral correction of one individual is not precedent setting.  In
other words, a complaint by one employee that they find another
employee's patting them on the buttocks unwelcome does not mean that the
company must promulgate a rule, "no employee may pat another employee
on the buttocks,"  because it may not be unwelcome in all cases.  They
will have to tell the individual patter "do not pat employee Y on the
buttocks".  For good measure, they should counsel the patting employee
about other forms of behavior that *may* be unwelcome, and that they
really should have explicit indications that the behavior is not
unwelcome before they engage in it.  Since a person who observes the
behavior instead of being subject to it can find it unwelcome (the work
environment portion of the law), the employee needs to consider this
before they engage in some behavior publicly in the workplace.
Conversely, if a female employee enjoys having her breasts or buttocks
fondled by a particular employee in their closed or locked private
offices where no one else can see them, that is not sexual harassment.
If a company knows about it, they could attempt to stop it by stating
that it is inappropriate behavior for that work environment, but they
could not argue that it was harassment unless someone involved found
it unwelcome.

Very few behaviors are a priori considered unwelcome.  The important
thing to remember is that if no one subjected to the behavior finds it
unwelcome, or expresses that it is unwelcome, then the behavior is not
harassment.   Displays of nudie gifs on computer screens are not
automatically harassment.  A employee patting or fondling another one
on the buttocks is not automatically harassment.  Two (or more)
employees having sex on the conference room table is not automatically
harassment.

|> 
|> comprehensive rules about conduct. The question is, what special rules
|> can be constructed around sexual harassment? What rules would you suggest
|> for a computer system? I don't see much hope here. You can either make a list
|> of forbidden words ('moo') which is silly, or you can revert to draconian
|> restrictions ('no personal e-mail'). How else could you prevent harassment?

An employer or school is not required to "prevent" harassment, since it
cannot determine a priori what is harassment.  An employer or school is
obligated to take action, once informed that a person has been
repeatedly subjected to unwelcome behavior.  The failure of the school
in the Newsweek article was that they were informed of the unwelcome
behavior, and their response was to do nothing, telling the student to
"live with it".  If they had taken action to counsel the boys involved,
or take stronger action (suspension/expulsion) if warranted, then I
seriously doubt that they would have been held liable, *even if the
boys continued the behavior* (e.g. the suspended/expelled boys could
have stood outside the school grounds somewhere and done the mooing as
the girl approached the school).  The court ruling that they failed to
"protect" the student only applies *after* they had been informed that
the unwelcome behavior was occurring.

Special rules about specific behavior do not need to be constructed for
sexual harassment, since almost any behavior of a sexual nature can be
harassment if it is unwelcome and meets some other conditions (the quid
pro quo or hostile environment tests), and no behavior is harassment
if does not meet those conditions.  Again, I use the term behavior to
include speech and pervasive environments.  For computer systems,
special rules, silly rules, or draconian rules are not required.  If
you are really worried about this, go talk to your university's Equal
Employment Opportunity officer.  They are the person responsible for
implementing the university's sexual harassment policy.  Additionally,
an employer or school already has disciplinary tools to deal with
harassing behavior.  The computers in these cases are the means or
tools by which harassment takes place, they are not the harasser
("Computers don't harass people, people harass people").  A person can
be harassed by someone who sends them unwelcome, sexually oriented
hand-written or typed letters.  Yet we don't even consider banning
paper correspondence.  So it is with computers and e-mail, or
electronic images.

|> 
|>    Contrasting this with theft brings up a difference. We can educate people
|> that both sexual harassment and theft is wrong. But if you were instructed
|> to prevent theft of your PC's, you would buy locks. What would you do to
|> prevent harassment?

To follow your analogy, locks will not absolutely prevent theft.  They
may prevent casual, opportunistic theft, and they may slow down
determined, calculated theft, but odds are they won`t prevent it.  To
be instructed to prevent theft, in an absolute sense, is impossible.
You can reasonably be instructed to reduce the probability of theft,
and make theft as difficult as possible.  Thus it is with harassment.
The law implies that you do should your best to reduce the probability of
harassment, and make it as difficult as possible beforehand.  The only
reasonable "preventive" measure that an employer or school can take
with sexual harassment is to educate the employees or students about
sexual harassment, give examples of most likely unwelcome behavior, and
explain the possible consequences.  The examples of behavior must
emphasize the unwelcome part, not simply the behavior part.  This will
most likely reduce or prevent some of the more trivial forms of
harassment (rude/lewd comments, etc.), but it will probably not prevent
the determined harasser ("have sex with me and I'll promote you"), but
it may slow him or her down a bit (make them think about it).  Note
that the law does not require that you take these measures.  The
danger in not taking them is that the company or school may lose a
lawsuit or EEOC action.  The judge ruled against the school because
they were made aware of some very unwelcome, egregiously humiliating
behavior, and they did nothing.

-- 
Joseph A. Watters, Jr.		jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:03:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 4--Best academic policy: prohibitions
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:03:46 GMT

I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways, but here is my nomination for 

                Best Model Of Prohibitions

I encourage you to make nominations, too, and to critique this and
other nominations. Information on three on-line archives of academic
policy is included at the end of this note.

My nominee is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Although it is not
academic, I feel that its policy would be good for an academic site.

========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/eff.org ===========
>Newsgroups: eff.general
>Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
>From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
>Subject: EFF House Rules (version 2.0)
>Message-ID: <199203312244.AA12060@eff.org>
>Originator: hrose@eff.org
>Sender: hrose
>Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
>Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
>Distribution: eff
>Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 12:44:24 GMT
>Approved: usenet@eff.org
>Lines: 54

 1. No unauthorized attempts to gain root access or access to any account
    not belonging to you on this or any other EFF system.

 2. No use of this or any other EFF system as a staging ground to crack
    other systems.

 3. No use of this or any other EFF system through unauthorized
    dial-up access.

 4. No use of this or any other EFF system for illegal or criminal
    purposes.

 5. All users are responsible for their own telecom access charges, if any.

 6. Any user who finds a possible security hole on any EFF system is
    obliged to report it to the system administrators.  If you're not
    sure, report it, don't try to use it.

 7. Users are responsible for all use of their accounts, including
    choosing safe passwords and ensuring file protections are set
    correctly.

 8. Sharing passwords is not permitted.

 9. Please keep in mind that many people use the EFF systems for day to
    day work.  Obstructing this work by consuming gratuitiously large
    amounts of system resources (disk space, CPU time) or by
    deliberately crashing the machine(s) will not be tolerated.  In
    general we will ask you to clean up your disk space and/or stop your
    own processes except in emergencies; please cooperate by running
    large jobs at night and by using the "nice" command to lower the
    priority of CPU-intensive processes.

10. All users should be on notice that the system administrators do
    periodic security checks of EFF systems, including password checks.
    Any user with a "bad password" will be notified via email.  If the
    user does not change passwords within a timely manner, the account
    will be locked until the person in question contacts, *via
    telephone*, one of the system administrators to reinstate the
    account in question.

11. Electronic mail on this system is as private as we can make it.
    Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected
    files will be treated with the utmost seriousness.  The system
    administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files unless
    absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will treat
    the contents of those files as private information at all times.
    Bounced mail is directed to the system administrators in the form of
    *headers only* for purposes of assuring reliable e-mail service.
-- 
Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
<hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org


======================================================


ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
policies/README
=================
* Computer policies from many schools (with critiques)

Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.

If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
  gopher -p academic/policies gopher.eff.org

The archive is also accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom/policies <filenames>

where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).

=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*

It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".

=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive

The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.


=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/policies/README
  pub/academic/widener/README
  pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:08:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 5--Best academic policy: Netnews
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:08:25 GMT

I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways, but here is my nomination for 

                Best Model Of Netnews Policy

I encourage you to make nominations, too, and to critique this and
other nominations. Information on three on-line archives of academic
policy is included at the end of this note.

My nominee is the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu ===========
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.

Provided by Alan Baron, ab@csd4.csd.uwm.edu.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolutions Approved by the Computer Policy Committee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
February 21, 1992


               Recommendation from the Computer Policy Committee    
                     on Access to Network News Systems



Background

      Users of the UWM central computer facility (faculty, staff, students)
have access to the network news system, a set of newsgroups concerned with a
wide variety of topics. Members of these groups engage in exchanges of
information on matters of common interest, such as computing, scientific
issues, social and cultural topics, the environment, politics, hobbies,
recreational pursuits, and so forth. This system is the product of a loosely
organized and largely unregulated network which now includes sites throughout
the world. If a site is linked to the network, users can transmit and receive 
messages to and from other sites. There is no central repository for these
articles--they are passed automatically from site to site so that a news
article generated at a particular locale will eventually replicate itself to
network-connected news systems at distant locations. 

      Although the news network has become a valuable resource for university
communities all over the world, objections are raised from time to time
about the content of the messages and articles. These objections range
from complaints that some of the material is frivolous and unrelated to
serious academic pursuits to complaints that certain sexually-oriented
material is obscene or pornographic. Moreover, there have been instances in
which administrators at other Universities have responded to such complaints
by terminating or restricting access to the news network. Unfortunately, such
actions usually have been taken unilaterally, that is, without consultation
with appropriate faculty and student groups.

      Censorship of the news network is not presently an issue here at UWM nor
do we wish to imply that the administration would act in an arbitrary manner
should the issue arise. Nevertheless, the Computer Policy Committee believes
that it would be useful to have a policy in place which would govern access to
and participation in the news network. The four resolutions below are
intended to express such a policy.

RESOLUTION #1

      Resolved: That full recognition and support be given to the valuable
resource provided by the network news system. 

      Rationale: Electronic transmission of information is playing an
increasingly vital role in higher education. This new technology provides a
unique vehicle for the participation of the university community in the 
world-wide exchange of ideas.

RESOLUTION #2

      Resolved: That any action by the UWM administration that might restrict
access to the news network should be contemplated only after consultation
with the Computer Policy Committee and other appropriate faculty bodies. 

      Rationale: Such consultation is required by the principle of faculty
governance at UWM.

RESOLUTION #3

      Resolved: That the same standards and principles of intellectual and
academic freedom developed for university libraries be applied to material
received from the news network.

      Rationale: Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge
and the pursuit of truth, and it has come to be widely accepted that
censorship of library material on partisan or doctrinal grounds is contrary to
these goals. The many similarities of the print and electronic media require
similar standards concerning access to messages and articles received from 
from the news network.

RESOLUTION #4

      Resolved: That the same standards of intellectual and academic freedom
developed for faculty and student publication in traditional media be applied
to publication in computer media.

      Rationale. Messages and articles posted to a newsgroup have many of
the features of a publication. They constitute a means of formulating and
conveying knowledge, including statements of belief and opinion, to the
the university community and to the world at large. Communications to the
the network that originate on this campus should be free of any form of
censorship or prior restraint.

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


======================================================


ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
policies/README
=================
* Computer policies from many schools (with critiques)

Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.

If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
  gopher -p academic/policies gopher.eff.org

The archive is also accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom/policies <filenames>

where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).

=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*

It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".

=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive

The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.


=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/policies/README
  pub/academic/widener/README
  pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:18:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 6--Best academic policy: due process
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:17:59 GMT

I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways, but here is my nomination for 

                Best Model Of Due Process

I encourage you to make nominations, too, and to critique this and
other nominations. Information on three on-line archives of academic
policy is included at the end of this note.

My nominee is the Iowa State University. The gist of the policy is
"Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics are treated like
any other ethical violation as outlined in the Student Handbook and
applicable faculty and staff handbooks"

(Aside: I think the policy's privacy protection is unclear and that
free expression protection is poor.)

====== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu.critique  =========
>Newsgroups: info.labmgr
>From: GA.LJH@isumvs.BITNET (Linda Hutchison)
>Subject:  Ethics statement
>Message-ID: <199204012113.AA20676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 20:55:25 GMT

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
ISU has had a computer ethics statement in place for over a year.  Originally
the statement was a statement of ethics from the Computation Center, but we
worked through the Dean of Students Office, the university lawyer(s) and the
Administrative Data Processing Center (the Computation Ctr is the academic
center on campus) to make this a campus-wide policy.

The Dean of Students Office feels the statement has strengthened their ability
to prosecute computer-related violations.

For what it's worth, the following is ISU's policy (we have a new version in
the works that addresses items such as displaying obscene material on
workstations in public labs, but it's not official thus not ready for
distribution):

*************************%cut here%*******************************************

    Iowa State University endorses the following statement of Software
  and Intellectual Rights that was developed through EDUCOM, a non-profit
  consortium of colleges and universities committed to the use and
  management of information technology in higher education.

         "Respect for intellectual labor and creativity is vital to
       academic discourse and enterprise.  This principle applies to
       works of all authors and publishers in all media.  It encom-
       passes respect for the right to acknowledgment, right to
       privacy, and right to determine the form, manner, and terms of
       publication and distribution.

         "Because electronic information is volatile and easily
       reproduced, respect for the work and personal expression of
       others is especially critical in computer environments.
       Violations of authorial integrity, including plagiarism,
       invasion of privacy, unauthorized access, and trade secret and
       copyright violations, may be grounds for sanctions against
       members of the academic community."

    The above statement provides a guide for the ethical use of computer
  facilities whether one is using a microcomputer, minicomputer, mainframe
  computer or supercomputer, or computer network, and whether the computer
  files, programs, or data are stored on floppy disk, hard disk, magnetic
  tape, or other storage media.  Computer facilities and files owned by
  others should be used or accessed only with the owner's permission.

    Viewing or using another person's computer files, programs or data
  without authorized permission is unethical behavior and an invasion of
  that person's privacy.  Such behavior, if used for personal gain, is
  plagiarism.  Ethical standards apply even when material appears to be
  legally unprotected.  Improper use of copyrighted material may be
  illegal.

    The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State
  University:

    #  Unauthorized access to restricted data bases is unethical.

    #  Use of computer facilities by an individual must be authorized by
       the owner or administrative unit.  Prior permission to use another
       user's computer account or user-id must be acquired from the owner
       of the account, who is responsible for its use.  Changing another
       person's password is considered a form of harassment and is
       unethical behavior.

    #  Users are responsible for their use of computer hardware, accounts
       and user-ids.  These should be used only for the stated purpose;
       e.g., instructional class accounts must be used only to support the
       given courses.  University computer facilities are not to be used
       for private monetary gain unless specifically authorized for such
       use.

    #  Users must not browse, access, copy or change private files without
       authorization, nor change public files without authorization.
       Users must not attempt to modify the computer systems or software
       in any unauthorized manner.  The use of invasive software, such as
       "worms" and "viruses" destructive to computer systems, is unethical
       and illegal.  Copyrighted software must only be used in accordance
       with its license or purchase agreement.  Users do not have the
       right to receive and/or use unauthorized copies of software, or
       make unauthorized copies of software for themselves or others.

    #  University computing facilities are a valuable resource for
       University use and they should be conserved.  Users should properly
       utilize these resources to minimize any unnecessary impact of their
       work on others; i.e., users should avoid excessive game playing,
       etc.

    #  Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
       or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden.  Also disallowed
       are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
       nature.  BITNET users must also abide by the BITNET Usage
       Guidelines.

    #  Hardware, software, manuals, supplies, etc., must not be removed
       from computing sites without proper authorization.

    #  Abuse or misuse of any computer hardware or software will be
       regarded as illegal and/or unethical behavior.

    Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics are treated like
  any other ethical violation as outlined in the Student Handbook and
  applicable faculty and staff handbooks.   Violators may also be billed
  for illegal use of the computer systems and may be prosecuted for
  statutory violations, including Chapter 716A, Computer Crime, of the
  Iowa Code.

                         #########################
                Copyright (c) 1989 by Iowa State University

  Permission to reproduce all or part of this document for noncommercial
  purposes is granted, provided the author and Iowa State University are
  given credit.  To copy otherwise requires specific permission.



Linda Hutchison                      ||
Manager, Consulting and Publications || (515) 294-1578
291 Durham -- Computation Center     || BITNET: GA.LJH@ISUMVS
Iowa State University                || Internet: GA.LJH@ISUMVS.IASTATE.EDU
Ames, IA  50011-2041                 || FAX: (515) 294-1717




=======================================================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
policies/README
=================
* Computer policies from many schools (with critiques)

Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.

If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
  gopher -p academic/policies gopher.eff.org

The archive is also accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom/policies <filenames>

where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).

=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*

It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".

=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive

The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.


=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/policies/README
  pub/academic/widener/README
  pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:27:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 7--Best academic policy: participation
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:27:05 GMT

(I don't have a nomination for this one.)

I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways. Can anyone make a nomiatation for:

                Best Model Of Participation

The ideal, in my opinion, is described in the Joint Statement on
Rights and Freedoms of Students:

=== excerpts ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup ===

[P]olicies and procedures should be developed at each institution
within the framework of general standards and with the broadest
possible participation of the members of the academic community.
[...]
      As constituents of the academic community, students should be
free, individually and collectively, to express their views on issues
of institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the
student body. The student body should have clearly defined means to
participate in the formulation and application of institutional policy
affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the student
government and both its general and specific responsibilities should
be made explicit, and the actions of the student government within the
areas of its jurisdiction should be reviewed only through orderly and
prescribed procedures.

======================================================


ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
policies/README
=================
* Computer policies from many schools (with critiques)

Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.

If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
  gopher -p academic/policies gopher.eff.org

The archive is also accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom/policies <filenames>

where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).

=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*

It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".

=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive

The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.


=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/policies/README
  pub/academic/widener/README
  pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 14:29:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 8--Re: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 19:29:31 GMT

john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

>}>       Certain types of communications are expressly forbidden.  This
>}>       includes [...] the facilities for [...] political purposes.

>[I]t is based on state and federal laws.  I do not know the exact
>state statute(s) so I can't comment on their wording.  I believe the
>federal statute is the "Hatch Act" which I believe only covers those
>working under federal grant money (which given that ISU runs the
>USDOE Ames Laboratory is quite a large number).

The Hatch Act applies only to federal civil service employees, not to
grantees and certainly not to students. I believe the States' "little
Hatch Acts" have similar scope. Moreover, the Hatch Act doesn't forbid
all political activity by covered employees [_United States Civil
Service Commission v. National Assocation of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S.
548 (1973)]. According to the ACLU Handbook _The Right to Protest_:

"Disallowed activities include serving on party or partisan campaign
committees or organziations, active campaigning in partisan election
campaigns, political fundraising, publically endorsing partisan
candidates, and running for partion office. Permitted activites
include wearing campaign buttons, displaying bumper stickers, working
with nonpartisan groups, contributing to political parties, attending
politcal fundions, and even extensive campaigning in nonpartisan
candidate or referendum election campaigns." [5 C.F.R. -- 733.111 and
733.121 and _Biller v. United States Merit System Protection Board_,
863 F.2d 1979 (2d Cir. 1988)]

At my school, in 1961, the Trustees added this to the rules on
visiting speakers:

   "2. Political Speakers. University building and grounds shall not be
used for political purposes except for candidates for nomination or
election to state-wide or national offices may appear in person to
make political address."

However, the current rules have no such restrictions. They say:

"2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities
should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear
to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest
speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the
views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution."

I don't know the law in Iowa, but I'm confident that the ISU computer
speech restriction is overly broad.

- Carl



-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 15:24:58 1992
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
Subject: Article 9--Re: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Date: 30 Oct 1992 20:21:24 GMT


Carl Kadie writes:
}I don't understand this prohibition. A literal reading would mean that
}the political science department is banned from using email. Is the
}the rule based on a state law? If so, what does the law say? (The law
}likely only bans some *partisan* political uses.) Are political clubs
}also banned from using campus facilities?

John Hascall replies:
>Yes, it is based on state and federal laws.  I do not know the exact
>state statute(s) so I can't comment on their wording.  I believe the
>federal statute is the "Hatch Act" which I believe only covers those
>working under federal grant money (which given that ISU runs the USDOE
>Ames Laboratory is quite a large number).

John, you are misinformed about what the Hatch Act is and what it does.

The Hatch Act applies only to Federal employees.  It does not apply to
you merely because you take money from a Federal grant.  It does not
apply to government contractors, even if every dollar they make comes
from Uncle Sam.

Furthermore, the Hatch Act does not forbid Federal employees from engaging
in politics or from expressing political opinions.  It forbids them from
certain official roles in partisan political campaigns, or for collecting
donations for political campaigns, and other than a couple of little
details that is pretty much it (things like: you can't wear political
buttons while on the job).  Also, it applies only to civil servants,
not to political appointees.  Federal employees still have First Amendment
rights.

If your university is making policy based on this kind of ignorance,
it's time for your decision-makers to get educated.

>Ideally, I suppose that sentence should say "for political purposes
>which violate applicable state and federal statues".

Please find an actual statute.  Perhaps the state of Iowa has one;
there are no federal laws that impose restrictions on political
expression on campus computers.


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu




------------------------------

End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.grad-student.tenured,soc.college.grad,soc.college.gradinfo