Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!learn
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: I Accuse (the New Gestappo...)
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.025811.4155@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 27 Jun 91 02:58:11 GMT
References: <1991Jun16.171754.24492@athena.cs.uga.edu> <1991Jun18.023039.10671@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Jun18.044042.8266@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 105


Michael Covington Writes:

>William Vajk writes:

> I was not even the one who brought the charge. (The Athena sysadmins
> did that.) I am one of several who were asked what we thought would
> be an appropriate punishment.

> Counselors in the Office of Judicial Programs did all the kinds of
> reviewing you ask for, and took about a week to make their decision,
> which is now undergoing further review as the student is exercising
> his rights to an appeal.

You know, this keeps going in circles which seem to be getting more
stupid. You wrote that you were a witness for the prosecution. But now
you're only 'one of several who were asked what would be an appropriate
punishment.' Then you turn right back around and disclaim any knowledge
regarding the student, his life, his needs, ad nausium, but maintain that
you feel a suspension for two quarters seemed just right to you.

Perhaps you can tell me just how you arrived at such a recommendation when
you weren't, by your more recent admission, privy to enough "facts" to
justify your position.

> That's a lot of accusing!  We bent over backward to be compassionate.
> As for noticing the student, he's not a student in my program and I had
> never set eyes on him before. I have no idea what his teachers thought
> of him. The Office of Judicial Programs presumably contacted people who
> knew more about him.

One would think, assuming fairness was important, that this information
became known to all concerned during the proceedings. Here you are stating
"presumably" someone looked into the student's background, but you really
don't know, you really don't know anything about him, but you were qualified,
in the opinion of the prosecution, to be a wittness against this student.

Having butted heads with university administrations (not Ga) on several 
occasions, I'm somehow not at all surprised.

>> I accuse you, and the Georgia Tech administration 

> What does the administration of a different university, 80 miles away,
> have to do with this?  

Beats me. Should have been University of Georgia. I regret the error of
place & name and apologize. 

>We especially ruled out computer-related community service (e.g., making him
>work, unpaid, at a help desk) because of the widespread myth that if you get
>caught cracking passwords, some employers will view this as proof that you
>are a computer genius. We wanted to make it clear that unethical behavior is
>never a qualification for a technical job, paid or unpaid.

The implication is that the students are 'foaming at the mouth' for technical 
jobs, and the university is unable to provide them. This begs the simple 
question, Why ??? Isn't something pretty basic is lacking here.

Why do you preclude some options which might well be far better than what 
you're presently doing?  Rhetorical question, I'm afraid. You tell me it
is because you're afraid that it might appear you're rewarding unethical 
behavior. Is the function of the hearing to resolve a problem, or to relieve 
the frustrations of some system administrators by beating up on a misguided 
student??  If you achieve the goals required by justice, why concern yourself
with appearance. Is there something more important than being just ?

>>Once more you are more concerned about what others might think. What 
>>business is it of yours to be concerned with anything other than doing
>>those things necessary to do justice to this student.

> We are responsible for educating _all_ our students, not just this one.
> If we establish a policy that "the way to get a helpdesk job is to get
> caught hacking" we'll have a whole generation of hackers.

I understand and sympathize with the dilemma presented. But still, even 
here, your response repeats the same concerns regarding other events and 
other persons than the case at hand. I continue to question "why you would
be concerned with anything other than doing those things necessary to do
justice to this student." So I've asked the same question once more.

That you're responsible for educating all the students is without question.
How have you educated the rest of the students with the action you've
taken ? Haven't you been teaching them that the administration is a mindless
embodiment of the old testament ethic, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth?

I ask you in perhaps a different way, since my other question seems to 
overwhelm. Given that you have a student in front of you who has presented
you with a problem which the administration feels requires redress, what
is your function? Here, I'll provide the answer. Your job is to address the
issue(s) at hand and to do justice to all concerned, bearing in mind that
the only unempowered one is the student who stands in front of you, and he
has placed himself in your care as regards education and discipline. It is a 
disgrace that your response is to shut him out; to place him outside the very
system which pruports to thrive on challenges instead of offering some form of 
positive response and method of resolving all the issues WITHIN the system. 
Thus you reaffirm my contention that the administration hasn't the imagination 
necessary to be true educators. It is just like the local schools who have 
"special education" students who aren't given the standardized examinations 
even where applicable, for fear that they'll pull down the school's apparent 
average scores. Copouts, my dear sir. 'We have no problems with students at 
Perfection U.' Of course not, you trounce any of them who come to your 
attention for any reason not to your liking. 'Final solutions' seem to have 
that in common.

Bill Vajk