This article was published in CAUSE/EFFECT journal, Volume 21 Number 3 1998. The copyright is shared by EDUCAUSE and the author. See http://www.educause.edu/copyright for additional copyright information.
Why Policy Matters
by Polley Ann McClureOne main goal for the newly consolidated EDUCAUSE is to heighten the association�s effectiveness by combining the complementary strengths of CAUSE and Educom. Nowhere is this likely to be more apparent than in EDUCAUSE�s policy programs. One strength that Educom brought to the merger was its historical advocacy on behalf of our institutions for technology, legislative, and policy initiatives at the national level. CAUSE also worked on our behalf on national issues, channeling many of its activities through alliances with other associations. Educom�s policy emphasis tended to focus on the technology infrastructure and academic issues, whereas CAUSE focused on institution-wide administrative and management policies. Both CAUSE and Educom have thoroughly analyzed and interpreted issues through publications, conferences, and professional development activities. Their efforts assisted us, as information resource professionals, in being more effective leaders in our organizations and institutions. The combined strengths and emphases will be an even more powerful force on our behalf, both within and beyond our campus borders.
The purpose of a policy leadership agenda is to use our collective intelligence and powers of persuasion to effect change (either to bring about new technologies we need or to cause government or industry to allocate resources or to change regulations) to enable some set of activities we deem important. Each of our institutions uses a variety of advocacy mechanisms to accomplish our goals, but typically we use associations such as EDUCAUSE when the changes we seek are larger than we can achieve alone and when we have consensus about the nature of the needed change within a group of institutional representatives who are motivated to take action.
Internet development:
example of successEducom was fortunate to have both an active group of member representatives who could foresee many of the needs of higher education in the information technology domain and a professional staff with the knowledge and interest to translate those needs into strategies for change that could be articulated to policy-makers. Probably the most obvious outcome of this activity is the current Internet. As internetworking technologies began to be developed and proven in restricted research arenas, a group of leading members of our community realized the broader potential these technologies held for communication and collaboration among scholars. They formed the Networking and Telecommunications Task Force (NTTF) within Educom and assumed a policy leadership role, working with legislators, corporations, and government agencies to help bring about a viable national infrastructure. Initially this national infrastructure was just for research and education uses, but the even broader potential quickly became apparent. NTTF understood when the Internet needed to be "cut loose" from the research and education community and allowed to "grow up." When the resulting limited-bandwidth, congested, rapidly growing network proved unusable for current and future needs of higher education, NTTF launched Internet2 to begin the cycle again.
The point of this example is that Educom/NTTF members understood the benefit that advanced communications networks could bestow on individual scholars and on their institutions (and on the whole world) and took steps to systematically remove the barriers to their development. These initiatives were carried out by a relatively small number of individuals and institutions, but we all enjoy the benefits of their work today.
A corollary element of the Educom policy programs carried out by NTTF was the advanced professional development of the involved CIOs and networking staff. Educom�s senior staff sent out regular bulletins analyzing the major issues being discussed in Washington circles. NTTF members met as a group several times a year in conjunction with other conferences, and NTTF sponsored the annual Net 9X conferences in Washington. These efforts gave all of us a much more sophisticated understanding of the topics and enabled our effective participation in the policy process. We were able to more effectively communicate these issues back to our institutions and to plan for appropriate technology on our campuses as a result. As we spoke at conferences and published articles in CAUSE/EFFECT, Educom Review, and elsewhere, the word spread to an even wider circle of people and institutions.
Enlarging the discourse:
grassroots strengthIn my view, one of the most exciting opportunities created by the formation of EDUCAUSE is to more effectively couple the policy process with the needs of a larger and broader cross-section of the higher education community represented by our combined memberships. As in the example of the first Internet, we all eventually benefit from these individual initiatives, but I think the new structure can provide more information more quickly to more of us and increase the rate at which the broader benefits are derived. With a more diverse institutional membership, we also ought to be able to identify a larger array of policy issues that will benefit more of our institutions. And, of course, our voice will be much stronger because we represent the professional information technology focus for all of higher education.
Until recently, most of the policy issues of concern to Educom and CAUSE members remained within the domain of our professional associations. Others within our institutions, with the exception of many in the library community (and on some issues, telecommunications directors), rarely engaged with "our" concerns. Today that is changing. Provosts and presidents are realizing that the Internet, distributed learning, and copyright issues, for example, are central to overall institutional strategy, not just to librarians and technologists. Other associations, including the presidential organizations, have begun to put information technology/resource issues on their agendas.
Meta-collaborations:
logical partnerships for changeThis last year the Commission on Information Technology of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) took the lead in forming the Higher Education Alliance for Information Technology. The alliance represents all of higher education at the highest levels, including members from the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the American Council on Education (ACE), the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), and NASULGC. Its purpose is to speak with a common voice for higher education on national policies that will permit our institutions to exploit and advance the digital environment to carry out our missions. The work of the alliance is supported by EDUCAUSE, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and the University Continuing Education Association (UCEA).
The alliance has identified five areas that will form its current policy framework.
Intellectual property. As technologies for the representation of ideas change, it is important that our interests as producers and as consumers of information be protected. On the one hand, we want to have our intellectual property protected, while on the other we want to have fair use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes. For a third, we wish to promote an environment that supports a robust electronic commerce in intellectual property. Any new laws should facilitate our access to materials as needed to ensure that as formats change with new technologies, we can preserve and migrate scholarly information appropriately. Databases should be governed by the same principles of balance between protection and use as other copyrighted materials. We need to understand the nature of our institutional liability if individual members of our community violate copyright protections when they are using resources provided by our institutions. We should be held accountable for making sure our community is informed about the law and policies, and we should fully investigate allegations of misconduct, but laws should take into account our inability to assume responsibility for all individual behavior within our walls.
Free speech and inquiry. The First Amendment protection from government intrusion into individual freedom of expression must be translated effectively into the digital domain. This protection is often at risk at state and federal levels as government entities seek to limit exposure to various forms of offensive content available through the Internet.
Advanced communications. The evolution of our missions of research, teaching, and service will be enhanced by increased government funding to support advanced communications capability. Internet2 is a partnership among higher education, the private sector, and government to bring into existence the infrastructure and applications for advanced collaboration. As soon as the initial infrastructure is successfully deployed among Internet2 member institutions, we need support to extend it to all other members of the education community. In order to ensure the continued availability of enhanced technologies into the future, adequate funding for R&D should be provided. The government should adopt policies that protect our ability to successfully navigate future generations of Internet technologies through adoption of open standards.
Telecommunications policy and regulation. The convergence of communications technologies has begun to prompt reassessment of federal and state policies regulating the telecommunications industry. It is in our interest as Internet service providers that current freedom from burdensome regulations be continued. We support the philosophy behind the notion of universal service in order that all citizens have reasonable access to new network-based educational services and resources. We need the most extensive access we can get to the broadcast spectrum.
Distributed education. The pace of change and availability of information in the next century make continual learning essential for citizenship and effective participation in the workforce. Government policies should provide for seamless access to educational services from pre-kindergarten throughout a lifetime. Particularly important to this goal is the extension of advanced networking services into all homes, education providers, and workplaces.
Involvement and communication:
keystones for successAs a key member of the professional support team for the alliance, EDUCAUSE will play an active role in the evolution of each of these issues. Clearly these are as important to smaller institutions as to larger, to private as to public, to research-oriented as to teaching, and to for-profit as to nonprofit. All EDUCAUSE members need to be kept informed as the rules change, as the issues evolve, and as new issues emerge. EDUCAUSE helps us stay informed about these issues through the Washington Update, a periodic electronic news bulletin sent to all members, and through its conferences and professional publications.
In addition to this work, EDUCAUSE has been and will continue to be effective in advocating for our interests and interpreting the landscape on other policy fronts. This year, for example, EDUCAUSE worked with the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) to clarify the implications of the Lifetime Learning Credit and Hope Scholarships provided through the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. A glance at NACUBO�s Web site (see http://www.nacubo. org/website/tra97/results_issues. html) illustrates the complexity of the impact. Each of our institutions will have to ensure that our administrative systems are modified to comply with new reporting requirements. In addition, taxpayers will benefit from required investments in fees and tuition for higher education which in turn should help to promote access to our services. These benefits are less tied to traditional, full-time study than they were in the past. Without EDUCAUSE�s and NACUBO�s extensive support for this legislation, each of our institutions would be required to puzzle out all the implications for ourselves.
Distributed education:
maximizing opportunities and evolving rolesMany of the above issues being addressed by national and state policymakers have massive implications for campus policy. None in my view, however, has greater implications than distributed education. New societal needs pose exciting opportunities and serious threats to the very core of our mission and academic values. Few of our institutions will escape major change as a result of the choices we make about whether and how to alter our traditional missions in response to these new needs.
EDUCAUSE�s National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII) seeks to discover the technological, economic, and policy barriers to distributed and individualized learning and to pursue new ideas for their removal. One of NLII�s most ambitious projects in this regard is the development of a set of standards and proof-of-concept implementation known as the Instructional Management System (IMS). IMS is intended to remove the barriers to the development of broadly useable educational software regardless of user or provider technological environment. Using such a platform, providers can greatly increase their ability to provide individualized access to learners at any location or time, and learners will have access to many more opportunities for education than they do now. New providers will doubtless enter the educational arena. Each of our institutions has the opportunity to exploit new markets if we choose, and we face significant new competition even within our traditional markets.
These questions of institutional strategy and policy are not typically in our domain as technology providers. But the technological capability we manage increasingly brings these fundamental matters to our doorsteps. It is necessary for our institutions to decide them with our help and guidance, and for us to provide the services and facilities to deliver on those decisions. Institutional leaders will come to rely on our interpretation of technological alternatives to help guide them through their own layer of policy-making. EDUCAUSE can help each of us be smarter so we can help our institutions succeed in their individual transformations.
Picking the issues:
who, what, when, and howAn important new issue for EDUCAUSE, because of the much greater diversity of interests among its members since the merger, is how to select which policy questions to tackle, and in some cases--where we may not all agree on the same approach--what, if any, position it should take. One possibility would be to engage an issue and a position only when we can demonstrate a clear consensus among us. This sounds democratic, but would, in my opinion, be fatal. Rarely do these issues come up with adequate time for all of us to learn all that we need to in order to participate in an informed discussion that can lead to consensus. The effort to generate that broad agreement would almost surely retard any progress to such a pace as to be useless, particularly given the pace of change in our environments. EDUCAUSE�s credibility hinges on agile, rapidly applied expertise that takes the form of expert advice and advocacy to policy makers as soon as it is needed. Different kinds of institutions and different professional roles among individuals dictate the need for different responses from EDUCAUSE. One important strength of CAUSE was in creating micro-environments in which diverse interests could participate. We need to find ways for EDUCAUSE to make itself hospitable to policy diversity and be able to advocate with integrity on a broader set of issues and positions than either Educom or CAUSE. The EDUCAUSE staff and Board are committed to the goal of effective leadership for our diverse membership.
For an environment of rapid change, delaying everything to allow for development of complete consensus will cost us in credibility, influence, and the capacity for effective leadership. The consensus that we need is one that supports the notion that got us here--faith in our designated representatives on many issues to lead us and information technology in general through the wilderness before us.
Polley Ann McClure ([email protected]) is vice president and chief information officer at the University of Virginia. She currently chairs the EDUCAUSE Board of Directors.
