Xref: utzoo alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:78 comp.admin.policy:310 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!eff!kadie From: kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies) Message-ID: <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org> Date: 6 Jun 91 20:04:57 GMT References: <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu> <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Lines: 25 In ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: [...] >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. In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students). This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest (to use an expression from poker). User participation in the formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes. It may seem counterintuitive, but a overly strict policy may encourage the very problems it tries to solve. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.