Xref: utzoo alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:67 comp.admin.policy:284 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!nmsu!opus!ted From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies Message-ID: Date: 5 Jun 91 20:38:55 GMT References: <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu> <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu> Sender: news@NMSU.Edu Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Organization: Computing Research Lab Lines: 40 In-reply-to: russotto@eng.umd.edu's message of 5 Jun 91 14:38:33 GMT In article <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: ... The university has a process that staff and faculty can use against students-- why shouldn't students have a process to use against staff and faculty? the use of the word `against' is symptomatic of very deep structural problems in the organization. once it gets to the point where system administrators consider users to be trouble to be avoided, and users consider system administrators to be obstacles to be bypassed, then there is essentially no hope for constructive action. i know of no way to get out of this sort of situation. i do know from personal experience, both on the user and the administration side that it isn't that hard to avoid getting into this sort of situation in the first place. my own checklist of things to do includes the following axioms for administration include: 1) the systems are there for users to use 2) i am here to make the systems work as well as possible 3) the only purpose for user restrictions is to enhance the user environment strict application of these rules from the beginning tends to make the environment much less confrontational. -- When in doubt, take the trick. Hoyle & Hoyle (quoting Hoyle)