Xref: utzoo alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:99 comp.admin.policy:358 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto From: otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies) Message-ID: <1991Jun8.035801.11343@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> Date: 8 Jun 91 04:03:58 GMT References: <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu> <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu> <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org> Sender: news@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Usenet News File Owner) Reply-To: otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu Organization: Florida State University Lines: 18 News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4 Nntp-Posting-Host: fsu1.cc.fsu.edu In article <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes... >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. No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee. Even among large groups of students (student governments), problems have arisen recently with the imposition of political correctness doctrines.