October 4, 2000

1:00 p.m. Jesse Phillips 470

Presiding: Frances Pestello

Present: Korte, Miner, Hary, Palermo, Lasley, Gerla, Yungblut, Pestello (Chair), Dandaneau

1. I-98-11—Lecturer Representation on the Senate: The committee discussed the proposed wording for the description of I-98-11. The committee agreed that the definition of "Instructional Staff" should be included in the description. Dr. Palermo suggested that the Provost’s Office could report to FACAS in the Spring about what positions units had requested to be a part of this designation. The designations will also be reviewed by Human Resources, so that they do not conflict with staff designations. The committee approved the wording of the issue, which will be presented at the October 13^th Senate meeting.

2. I-98-17—Policy on Fair, Responsible and Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources: The committee discussed the policy, which is currently before the Senate and will be discussed at the full Senate meeting on October 13^th. Committee members raised a number of issues that should be considered before this policy becomes effective for the entire University. There are some uses that are prohibited in the examples, which faculty see as having legitimate academic purpose. For example, in computer science classes, students learn how to use a computer as a server. Also, faculty have students work together on assignments or exams for some classes. The examples provided may be too restrictive to put this into effect for Faculty. Another concern expressed by committee members were the prohibition against hiding identity. Anonymity might be useful in some academic contexts. Anonymity per se shouldn’t be a violation. Another committee member felt that many faculty, himself included, were not technologically proficient enough to understand the implications of all the examples. It was not clear for some circumstances exactly what was being prohibited. There is the implication that there are harassing statements that would not violate our harassment policy, but would violate this computing ethics policy. Those circumstances should either be spelled out, or the document should refer to the relevant policies and not create ambiguity in the document by referring to unspecified abuses. The committee felt that both the access and dissemination of child pornography should be prohibited. The prohibition against pornography is more problematic. Pornography is more difficult to define, and there may be legitimate academic purposes for disseminating pornography in an educational context. The final question that emerged in the discussion was whether the Electronic Resources Policies Committee replace the Networking Committee. If not, what is the relationship between these two committees?

3. The committee adjourned at 2:00 P. M.