Technology Advisory Group

The Information Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) invited TAG (represented by Jeremy Sepinsky) to attend their meeting on November 11, 2011 in order to discuss the preliminary proposal for a new “Incidental Use Policy” proposed by the Division of Planning and Information Resources (PIR). This policy is part of an ongoing effort to update and revise the “Code of Responsible Computing”. Other policy updates will be forthcoming.

The Incidental Use Policy can be found here: Incidental Use Policy.

TAG and IR is currently in the process of circulating this document through the faculty Senate and the union, and we will be reporting our comments on the document from those sources. Concerned individuals are encourage to submit their comments and/or feedback to TAG ( tag-discussion@royallists.scranton.edu) and or Tony Maszeroski in PIR. Comments should be submit by Friday, January 6 so they can be included in next revision.

In what follows, we post the comments and concerns that TAG has already brought up in regards to this policy. Please add your comments, questions, and concerns in the comment section below.

TAG Comments on the Information Use Policy

Summary Comments
• TAG applauds PIR’s effort and interest in bringing this to the attention of the University Community at this early stage in the process when changes can be made and the policy amended. The intent of the policy is well meaning and has an appropriate function. PIR has done a good job of being fair and even-handed with the policy. However, there are a number of places where the policy as written may impact the faculty in unforeseen ways.
• The Incidental Use is not intended to restrict or limit the reasonable use of the University technology infrastructure. Instead, it is meant to provide a context for when and how university services can be accessed for non-university purposes. The primary intent of policy is to state that the non-job-related use of the university’s infrastructure is permissible provided that such use does not interfere with an employee’s job-specific responsibilities and/or compromise university infrastructure.

Specific Comments
• The policy states that the incidental use of university technology resources should not “Create the appearance of impropriety or unethicality” (Page 1, letter d). These terms are ambiguous and could be used against faculty pursuing outreach or research in certain controversial topics. It is important that a policies such as this, if implemented, cannot be used as an additional “tool” for the administration or other faculty to limit or censure faculty use of technology. Statements such as this have the capability of limiting academic freedom if abused. To this end, the American Association of University Professors has this to say about policies such as this (Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications):
  

  The difficulty with language such as “only official university business,” apart from a distressing lack of precision, is the inherent invitation to selective use of such a standard by an administration anxious to impose substantive constraints on faculty activity. Any restrictions that an institution feels it must impose on “acceptable use” must therefore be clearly and precisely stated, must be content-neutral and narrowly defined, and should address only systemic abuses by users, such as the posting or sending of material that would cause the system to malfunction or would severely inhibit the access of other users.

• Similarly, item “e” states that the use not be “of unreasonable time, duration, or frequency”. The definition of “unreasonable” can vary from person to person and department to department. If “unreasonable” is defined as “a time such that it interferes with the employee’s duties”, then it simply falls under item “g” which states that such use cannot interfere with the fulfillment of the employee’s responsibilities.
• The definition of “Incidental Personal Use” on page 2 states that it is something that is unrelated to their “University Employment”. Given the vagueness of the job description of faculty, stating whether or not one’s actions are related to “university employment” is difficult. It is unclear as to who would be making such a determination in the context of the faculty.
• Page 3, in the statement under “Determination of relation to mission” no mention of the Computer Use Board is made. The Computer Use Board is a body that already exists and is defined in the “Code of Responsible Computing”. This is particularly relevant because it is explicitly stated that there shall be faculty representation on the Computer Use Board. The group proposed here does not specifically state the inclusion of a faculty member in the group who determines whether or not such use in “mission-related”. We feel it is necessary for someone who understands faculty use of technology to be included in the judgement of whether a faculty’s use is to be deemed inappropriate. This is also relevant in the determination of the “sanctions” as listed at the bottom of page 3
• On Page 3, under “determination of incidental personal use,” the “senior management of each University department” is the one who determines the nature and extent of acceptable incidental personal use. It is unclear who this body or individual is for the faculty.