Copyright 1998 CAUSE. From CAUSE/EFFECT Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 1997-98, pp. 66-67. 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 resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact Jim Roche at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: [email protected]

Readers Respond

Question:

At Eastern Michigan University, we address employee violations through our progressive discipline procedure, and student violations through our Office of Student Judicial Services. Our administrative and/or academic computing offices collaborate with the Human Resources or Student Judicial Services offices on individual cases. We felt it was important not to isolate the disciplinary process. To date the process has worked very well for us.

Al McCord
Executive Director
University Computing
[email protected]

 

When I was at Central Washington University, we worked through the usual judicial process. After all, computer abuse is more about abuse than about computers. Using that process guarantees due process, and it helps to have people involved who routinely deal with matters of discipline. They know all of the tricks students try and how to question students, and they know when and when not to pursue things. The technical people acted as expert witnesses only. The process worked really well for us.

Jim Haskett
Boise State University
Director of Information Technology
[email protected]

 

Baylor University determined a number of years ago that it was best to let the normal student and employee policy violation process take care of Information System Policies violations. First, we found that if we act in any way as judge or jury, then it gives IT a black eye. (It is essential that IT have a positive image on campus.) Second, there is already a process set up on campus, with an appeal process, etc., that works for other policy violations. (Why reinvent the wheel?) Third, IT staff do not have the spare time to take on this responsibility.

What the IT staff contribute to the established committees and processes is evidence and the role of expert witness about the technical issues involved. We do not make the charges. We may have to explain the policies being violated and the technical evidence, but let others make the official charges. This has worked well for us.

We have two levels of violations. In the case of a minor violation, a university official (who may be an IT staff member), brings in a student, advises them of a violation, and if the conversation goes okay the student is given a warning and sent on his or her way. If the student has another violation then it is submitted to the official policy violation process. Many students just need a warning to get on the right path. If the violation is not considered to be minor, it is submitted through the official policy violation process.

Finally, charges must be put into terms a judge and jury can understand, so there is no need for a technical judge and jury. This is also a good way to educate the administration, faculty, and others regarding the major technology issues that are becoming more important on our campuses. This education process is important for all of us.

Don Hardcastle
Director, Information Technology Center
[email protected]

 

At the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, we involve the police, the general counsel�s office, and/or the appropriate disciplinary process office. We then act in accordance with their policies and procedures. All disciplinary actions are driven by normal university procedures and policies for handling abnormal or unacceptable behaviors.

Don Riley
Associate Vice President and CIO
[email protected]

 

At Princeton University, we handle violations through the campus judicial system. The computing organization is not the judge and jury. That responsibility falls on the appropriate dean or administrative office. We have guidelines for appropriate use which are university guidelines, not Computing and Information Technology guidelines. We investigate the infractions, then report to the appropriate office for action.

Jacqueline Brown
Director of Information Services
[email protected]

 

Nipissing University (Ontario, Canada) has a small campus with few violations to date. The ones that came up were in fact handled through normal processes with input from the computer department as needed. We thought that most of the violations were indeed just historical behavioral ones, disguised by the overlay of �computing.�

Ken Maharaj
Director, Technology Services
[email protected]

Next Readers Respond Question

Has your institution built a new or re-purposed an existing building on campus to support the creative use of technology in teaching and learning? If so, what were the basic planning assumptions and design principles, and what forms of instructional technology are supported? Please provide URLs for any supporting material available on the network.

Please send your response, along with your name, title, e-mail address, and phone and fax numbers, by electronic mail to Elizabeth Harris, CAUSE/EFFECT Managing Editor, at [email protected].

 ...to the table of contents