Thursday, April 23, 1998 | 9:59 a.m.
A proposed policy on computer usage at Nevada's colleges and universities is being considered that opponents say could cripple higher education.
"It is offensive to the value of free speech and academic freedom that are so critical to making our universities places where people can be genuinely challenged and can learn," said Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
Barbara Brents, UNLV professor of sociology, said the proposed policy might make it impossible for her, and any other researchers who deal with sensitive information, to conduct business.
For example, for the past three years she has researched Nevada's sex industry.
"We talk to individuals who, if their identities were made public or found out or even casually spread, could face serious consequences," Brents said.
An eight-page draft of the proposed "Computing Resources Policy," authored by attorney Carl Armstrong, has been circulating on campuses across the state for the past month.
Elements in the policy draft some find questionable include:
Richard Siegel, a University of Nevada, Reno political science professor and a member of the faculty senate, said it is the use of vague words such as "inappropriate" that concerns him.
For violating a regulation against inappropriate use, an offender could be denied access to computers.
"Which means the supposed offender would virtually be unable to function as a university professional," Siegel said.
There is no deadline set for the creation of a policy, which ultimately would have to go to the board of regents for approval.
Regent Shelley Berkeley, who attended a faculty senate meeting at which the policy was discussed, said she has heard the concerns of the faculty and she shares some of that concern.
"No policy will be passed by the board until everyone's constitutional rights are protected," she said. "We're treading on new territory here -- we must be careful to balance the needs of the faculty, the administration and the university system."
She said anyone with any concern should contact the legal division.
"It is important to hear the concerns," she said. "We would rather hear them now rather than after a policy is enacted."
Armstrong says a policy is needed because computer technology has expanded so rapidly regulations have not been able to keep pace with usage. That usage sometimes touches upon a variety of issues such as copyright infringement, pornography, software piracy, perpetuation of pyramid schemes and others.
The policy outlines the do's and don'ts of using university computers.
"What happened is technology out-stripped the rules," Armstrong said.
But it has not outstripped rights protected by the Constitution, according to Peck.
"The policy seems to suggest that students, faculty and staff have absolutely no privacy rights whatsoever," said Peck, who also is concerned about the use of many vague words and statements in the policy.
Peck said the policy leaves it up to the university administration to decide when it is appropriate to invade people's computer systems and examine the information stored there.
"It completely misses the way in which this violates the privacy rights of others about whom information is stored," he said.
Brents said the university may have the best intentions in developing a policy, but there is no guarantee that if the policy goes into effect some future administration won't decide to use the vagueness of the policy -- which gives the university the authority to look into any and all of the files on its system if they suspect wrongdoing -- to censor information.
"This has all sorts of implications, especially when you deal with something as morally sensitive as the sex industry," Brents said.
The policy draft overview states that all of the computing resources of the university system, including such things as electronic mail, Internet and central computing facilities among others, are used to support the system.
Armstrong says that since the state owns the computers and computer system, those who use them have no right of privacy and the administration has the right to control how it is used.
According to a statement in the overview, "This policy is not intended to limit UCCSN community members from the free exercise of their First Amendment rights. Rather it is designed to emphasize the laws governing the use of computing resources."
But, Peck says, the policy as written does in fact violate First Amendment and other rights.
"One cannot imagine the policy as it is currently drafted not having a significant chilling effect on the way people use the technology," Peck said. "And that is a shame."
For example, he noted, the computers are supposed to be used for school-related activities.
"We want to make computers like a library -- to use them in a creative and free form way. That doesn't mean we don't realize there is a real resource issue there."
Court rulings across the nation have agreed, thus far, with Peck's analogy.
Judges have compared information in computers with information in books and speech as opposed to information that goes out over the airways using broadcast technology.
National ACLU attorney Chris Hanson is among the leading experts on the issue of computer usage as it affects constitutional rights.
"We brought the first case of censorship in computer use in ACLU v. Janet Reno," Hanson said. "In that ruling the Supreme Court decided the Internet is entitled to the same protection as books, magazines and newspapers, not the more limited protection that is allowed for television and radio."
Siegel doesn't doubt the university's good intentions and says he has a good working relationship with the university attorneys, but he believes the policy will be re-written and become less offensive in the future.
"I and others have conveyed the problems we see in the draft," he said. "Most of them have to do with vagueness. People cannot be expected to know, nor be punished for, policies that are vague and over broad.
"Beyond that we have some problems of privacy, free speech and academic freedom. We do not think Carl Armstrong intended to violate faculty rights, but that is somewhat inevitable when a document like this is drafted. It will raise the concern of faculty, administrators and students."
archive
