Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

When Bad Things Happen to Good Campuses Copyright 1996 CAUSE.

From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ magazine, Volume 19, Number 1, Spring 1996, pp. 45-48. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information technology in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: jrudy@CAUSE.colorado.edu WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD CAMPUSES by Sally Webster and Frank W. Connolly Gene Washington, director of acdemic computing, is buzzed by his secretary to take an urgent call from Provost Marion Mossback. "Washington," yells Mossback, "what kind of trouble have you got Ypsilanti University into now?" After a few minutes of gentle probing, Washington has the outline of the "trouble." Mossback has just received a letter from a prominent alumnus and benefactor, Mr. Martin Memorable, threatening to withhold from Ypsilanti his promised $2 million contribution towards the renovation of the University library. Memorable's daughter, Mary Lou, has tearfully told her parents that members of the football team were discussing, on a University-sponsored computerized discussion group, her body parts and sexual practices. Mary Lou is distraught, especially since the men are bragging about their conquest of Mary Lou--a conquest she hotly denies. Mary Lou is so upset by the behavior of the football players that she wants every one of them who discussed her thrown off the team and maybe out of school. Provost Mossback holds Director Washington directly responsible for the problem, since the football players are using software bought and maintained by the academic computing group, which teaches students like the football players how to use the software. Furthermore, Washington and his faculty cronies talked Mossback into agreeing to computer networking, against his better judgment. Washington makes some phone calls to his own staff and to Bucky Tough, Ypsilanti's winningest football coach, and by the afternoon, he has many more details of the situation. Early this fall, some members of the Ypsilanti football team asked Coach Tough to authorize the creation of a computerized discussion group, called a listserv, so that they could discuss football matters. For students to create and "own" a listserv at Ypsilanti, they have to get a faculty member or

administrator to sign a document with the academic computing department agreeing to be responsible for the way the list is used. Tough knows nothing about computers, nor is he particularly interested in learning; but he does know that his players have taken YU to bowl games in six of the past seven years. Revenues from bowl games have made Tough a popular University administrator. The players are stellar fellows, and Tough is inclined to be somewhat indulgent with them. Upon investigation, information from his own staff convinces Washington that Academic Computing has just cause to suspect a breach of its guidelines for using computers, and he has read some of the listserv discussion. The players, at least some of them, have indeed made vulgar, sexually explicit, and possibly untrue comments about Mary Lou and her memorable parts. Somehow, Mary Lou has found out about it, and she's reacting predictably. Now Mr. and Mrs. Memorable have heard Mary Lou's tale of woe and are trying to protect their beloved daughter. The whole sordid tale has dropped into Mossback's lap, and he's trying to control the damage before the president and Board of Trustees hear about it and before Mr. Memorable carries out his threat. What Should Gene Washington Do? We presented this scenario to a group of CAUSE94 attendees who came to our session, "When Bad Things Happen to Good Campuses." Groups of attendees assumed the roles of Mary Lou, Mr. Memorable, Gene Washington, Bucky Tough, some football players, and the dean of students. For forty-five minutes, the characters discussed what had happened, who was at fault, what ought to be done, and who was responsible for doing it. At the end of discussion time, we had absolutely no consensus about who should do what. Everybody did agree that Ypsilanti, and particularly Academic Computing at Ypsilanti, were in deep doo-doo. The discussions accurately reflected far too many real-life ones during such a crisis. Two major themes dominated: campus politics and the pernicious effects of technology, especially the Internet. The coach, the provost, the dean, and the director played hot potato with blame. If the responsibility was not explicitly theirs, they wanted somebody else to shoulder the blame and take necessary actions. Washington's group had written computer use policies, but nobody else at YU knew much about them. Discussion of who was getting hurt centered on YU (loss of at least $2 million, bad publicity, and possible censure by the Board of Trustees), Gene Washington (bringer of sin), and maybe Marion Mossback (for not being vigilant enough). A few participants mentioned damage to Mary Lou's reputation and relationship with her parents; some mentioned damage to the young men who so cavalierly discuss body parts and sexual acts and their relationships with eventual sweethearts, wives, and daughters.

Mary Lou and her parents threatened to hire lawyers to sue Ypsilanti. The football players claimed they told the truth and that Mary Lou wants her parents to believe she's an angel when she's not. Discussion turned into argument and, in some cases, into shouting matches. And a good time was had by all. Except that nobody addressed the real wrongs in the situation or saw how to use the crisis as a teachable moment. What is Missing from this Discussion? Campus politics and unreasonable fear of computer technology exacerbate an otherwise ordinary, human conflict that is handled more gracefully if approached from a different direction. In institutions where students, faculty, and administrators agree on the educational values to be preserved, the Internet and its services are not seen as bogeymen to be feared or avoided, and those who use them or support and teach others to use them are not agents of Beelzebub. Nor is the method of delivery mistaken for the message or the human agents of conflict. Clearly, limiting the discussion to campus rules and jurisdictions, official responsibilities, and the dangers of technology didn't get us very far towards a useful set of actions. Indeed, many of the participants didn't notice that the situation presented an opportunity for everyone concerned to learn something about acceptable ways for people to treat each other. In his article "The Role of Government in the Evolution of the Internet," Robert E. Kahn says, ... the most important use of the Internet, and indeed the NII (National Information Infrastructure), will be to allow individuals to communicate with each other and to rapidly access the information they require or desire.... A combination of ethics, technology and law are needed to insure the effective development of this important aspect of the network of the future.[1] Kahn's juxtaposition of ethics, technology, and law is telling and invites further examination. (TWO CHARTS NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION) Technology, in all its forms, relentlessly expands into and changes society. Technology has always been dynamic and opportunistic, and its inventors and users cannot anticipate its future uses. Early inventors of the automobile did not foresee the national highway system, suburbs, air pollution, and carjacking. But Americans embraced the auto, and it has become the basis for a large part of our national wealth. The technology of cyberspace possesses characteristics that are important to our discussion. First, the Internet is not bounded by geo-political boundaries. Second, the Internet is not, nor likely ever will be, centrally controlled. Third, we have no national or international enforcers in cyberspace.

Cyberspace at present is inhabited by rugged individuals from all over the globe, answering to no authority and recognizing few laws. It is, truly, the ultimate fantasy. Law, on the other hand, is reactive and minimal. Law seeks to establish a minimum level of behavior. Not being indicted or not being convicted is sufficient "vindication" for ordinary citizens and celebrities. With the law, we study to avoid failing (being caught), rather than to embrace growth or success. Law is created in response to problems, not in anticipation of them. Cars came first, then driving tests, licenses, rules of the road, and laws specifying penalties for sinking below the minimum acceptable level of behavior. To be effective, law requires a means of enforcement. Fear of being caught, charged, convicted, fined, or jailed is a reasonably effective deterrent for some. The possibility of enforcement works only to keep citizens above the minimum acceptable level of behavior. And finally, law is limited by local, state, and national interests. Given these important differences between law and technology, law always lags behind technology, and therefore is an ineffective means to create or maintain a sense of community among the users of the Internet. Ethics, on the other hand, differs from law in that it is based on personal responsibility, internal controls, and common understandings of right and wrong. And thus it might be an effective means of creating community, even on the Internet. Amitai Etzioni in The Spirit of Community says, "The only way the moral integrity of a society can be preserved is for most of the people, most of the time, to abide by their commitments voluntarily."[2] Etzioni refers here to society as we have experienced it in physical space, but his statement can also apply to cyberspace, the society we are creating on the Internet. Kahn rightly understands the need for voluntary compliance with community standards and reliance on ethical practices as elements of one of the pillars of the Global Information Infrastructure. How Would We Apply These Understandings to the Ypsilanti Situation? Since much of the Ypsilanti discussion centered on politics and technology, it was doomed from the start not to reach a satisfying conclusion for any of the participants. First, it was clear from the discussion that the campus had no strong sense of the way its educational values or community standards applied to this situation. True, Academic Computing had a written computer use policy, but it was distinct from other campus policies regulating human behavior, such as the student code of conduct, the

faculty handbook, policies developed by the dormitories, and the administrative policy manual. Therefore, unacceptable behavior using computing equipment was seen as distinct from unacceptable behavior of the sort addressed in regular campus policies, even though it isn't. Second, worried about whether some piece of paper did or didn't require them to be concerned or to act, too many of the administrators forgot to act like human beings at the scene of suffering. At an accident, bystanders instinctively identify and help the wounded while waiting for the paramedics and the police. They don't need a piece of paper telling them to be compassionate or responsible. The Ypsilanti situation was like an accident, and its satisfying resolution required human beings acting without portfolio, so to speak, to identify and help the wounded. What educational values should underlie the discussion? Who was wounded and needed succor? Who was ignorant and needed to learn? What were the lessons? Who was responsible for healing and teaching? Ypsilanti U's educational values might be academic freedom, access to information, equity of access to education, lifelong learning, personal responsibility, initiative, respect for one another and one another's points of view, and possibly most important, the value of education itself. The people most intimately wounded were Mary Lou and the football players: Mary Lou, because her reputation and her relationship with her parents were at stake; the football players because they were permitted or encouraged to discuss women as sexual objects with consequences which have been widely discussed in America for the last twenty years. Mr. and Mrs. Memorable have also been injured, because they entrusted their daughter to Ypsilanti and had reason to expect YU would protect her better. Furthermore, they give generously to YU's academic program, which they believe in; now a potential scandal links their name with YU in an unfortunate way. And the libelous allegations on the list cast doubt on their success as parents. The provost, dean, and director of academic computing at YU were also injured to the extent that their jobs or reputations rest on a misunderstanding of what happened with the listserv. What happened was locker-room talk which took place in a virtual locker room: no more, no less. It had nothing at all to do with technology, although newish technology facilitated it. Ypsilanti U itself was injured to the degree that it mishandled the people involved and failed to use this teachable moment. This kind of "crisis" is the perfect time to discuss again with students, faculty, and staff the mission of the University and its educational values; to examine ways in which members of the University can learn about the values and how they apply in different situations; and perhaps to revise the actions which are taken when one member treats another badly. The immediate consequences may

be loss of lots of money and momentary bad publicity, and these are bad; however, it would be a serious mistake for YU to act primarily for its short-term gain. What is a good outcome? Let's imagine a good outcome of the Ypsilanti situation, rather than a usual outcome. A good outcome has these characteristics: (1) it fits in with, if not furthers, the educational values of YU; (2) it goes beyond a sterile adherence to any policies or recommendations of University lawyers (remember that law alone is inadequate to deal with these kinds of issues); (3) it comforts the wounded; (4) it satisfactorily addresses the immediate situation; and (5) it works to prevent or retard future occurrences by writing new or strengthening existing policies and by educating students, faculty, staff, and administration. Before anything else happens, Mr. Memorable's letter and Mary Lou's feelings have to be acknowledged in some way. All too often, a complaint is handled well in every way except acknowledgment of and sympathy with the injury, leaving the injured party to feel badly treated in spite of all. Someone has to talk to or write to Mr. Memorable to say the letter was received and that investigations are under way. But it has to be done carefully, possibly after consulting with the University Counsel so the institution doesn't make itself liable. A word of caution: YU needs to walk a fine line here, because too much fear of potential legal action will cause the institution to appear unsympathetic. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; in the same way, if the only opinion you seek is a legal one, every action (even the humane one) appears to be the basis of a lawsuit. Maybe the persons at YU who have worked with Mr. Memorable about the gift to the library can advise the provost if Memorable is the litigious kind. YU should worry more about failing to do what is ethically correct than about being sued. Too often in our litigious society decision-makers abdicate responsibility to lawyers, even when situations are better handled in a non-legal way. Someone, perhaps the dean of students, should talk to Mary Lou about her feelings and recommend some sessions with the University counseling service, if that would be useful. Now that the wounded have been acknowledged and first aid started, some investigation is necessary. Washington has already satisfied himself that the football players were discussing Mary Lou on the list. He should also check that he has a copy of the document Tough approved when the list was set up. What he and Provost Mossback now have to do is review existing policies, including the computer policy, to see if they cover this situation. If time permits, Mossback should call a meeting of people charged with revising or enforcing such policies and ask them to say how existing policies do or could cover the players' actions.

Here we have two possibilities: either existing policies cover this situation and it can be handled in a "regular" way, or they don't. Even policies that do not explicitly mention computer networks may be interpreted to cover the situation, if the focus is on the behavior, not its method of delivery. If existing policies do cover the situation, Washington and Mossback can turn over the case to the appropriate body (such as a judicial board) for disposition. Washington should send a member of his staff to the meetings of this body to explain how a listserv works (in particular, how it's an electronic version of a locker room conversation). If the situation isn't covered by existing policies, YU has three major tasks: to handle the immediate situation, to make sure any future similar situations are covered by policies, and to educate students, faculty, and staff about the policies and their relationship to YU's educational values. Now YU, probably in the person of the provost or some group he assigns this to, must decide how such behavior should be handled and by whom. If the small group on University policies is meeting, they can suggest remedies and consequences. Once a decision has been made on this, the provost should talk to Tough and explain his responsibilities. Tough's "contract" with Academic Computing forms part of the paperwork for this meeting. One of the sanctions should be a note in Tough's personnel jacket. Ideally, the other sanctions are the same as they would be if the players did the same thing without using the electronic list. The provost can now meet with the team members, in Tough's presence, to explain what is wrong and what the consequences are going to be. Note that in all this, Mary Lou's actual actions are irrelevant. The players may try to excuse themselves by saying they just told the truth about her. Even if the content of the list discussions of Mary Lou's behavior is accurate, using University resources to discuss the situation is off limits. Following these meetings, but not by too many days, are a series of actions which fall into the "prevention" category: * Revise existing policies to cover misbehavior concerning computers and computer networks. Here, the computer policy may be folded into existing policies, or at least all policies should be made consistent. * Schedule a series of meetings through regular sources (i.e., in the dorms, through the student government, sororities and fraternities, faculty meetings, dean's council, and so forth) to review the revised policies and notify students, faculty, and staff of their responsibilities toward others. Use the campus newspapers and newsletters for more notification. * Develop a written policy for owners of YU-sponsored lists, so they understand what they have agreed to as

owners. Consider requiring list owners to regularly monitor list activities. When these actions have been taken or planned, the provost should notify the Memorables what the resolution is going to be. Again, YU's lawyers probably have to be involved, because both liability and privacy rights may be at issue. At a minimum, the Memorables ought to be told of the various activities undertaken, even if they aren't told all the details. In the ideal resolution, Mr. Memorable, in addition to being a doting father, is a man of the world and accepts YU's response to his complaint as appropriate, acceptable, and one that helps all parties learn about themselves and their roles in a community. From YU's perspective, the resolution is one that furthers its mission and principles, educates its community about the responsibilities of those who use and sponsor listservs, and establishes a framework and precedent for addressing such issues in the future. It is the best that can come from a regrettable incident. ============================================================= FOOTNOTES: [1] Robert E. Kahn, "The Role of Government in the Evolution of the Internet," Communications of the ACM 23 (August 1994): 18. [2] Amitai Etzioni, _The Spirit of Community_ (New York: Crown Publications, Inc., 1993), p. 30. ************************************************************* Sally Webster (swebster@mailbox.syr.edu) is Assistant Professor of Computer Applications at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, where she teaches most of the computing courses. She was co-editor of the ETHICS KIT: Dilemmas in the Ethical Use of Information (Primis/McGraw Hill, 1994) and is co-author of the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Electronic Learners (1993), available on the World Wide Web (http://www.luc.edu/infotech/sae/ bill-of-rights.html). Frank W. Connolly (frank@american.edu) is a Professor of Information Systems at American University in Washington, D.C. He presently heads the AAHE project on the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Electronic Learners. Dr. Connolly is a frequent speaker, writer, and consultant on policy issues related to the legal, ethical, and appropriate uses of computers and networks.