Mistaken Goal: Where Student Affairs & Technology Meet

I will be very slow to respond to comments and communications over the course of the next few weeks.  Today is my last day at Sewanee: The University of the South.  This weekend I will be moving to Bloomington, Indiana.  I will begin work as a Project Associate at the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in about a week.  I will also begin full-time study in Indiana University’s Higher Education and Student Affairs PhD program in the fall.  I do not expect either of these new roles to significantly change the content of this blog or my own interests; to the contrary, I expect they will enhance, broaden, and deepen my knowledge in the areas in which I have focused and write about here.

Comments(3)

The last program I attended at the 2007 ResNet Symposium was presented by Dave Futey and entitled “The Evolution of a ResNet Program.” As a fellow member of the ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG), I have had the pleasure of working with Dave for the past three years. In addition to his professional experiences in and out of residential computer networking, he has been heavily involved in the ResNet Symposium for many years and has worn many hats on the Steering Committee. I know that many of the ideas in this presentation are ideas that he has been developing for many years now and I was very glad to finally see him present this material.

The primary focus of this presentation was a theoretical model of ResNet Program Development modeled after Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy is the familiar pyramid describing the order in which people satisfy or meet their various needs. First, people must satisfy their basic physical needs: food, shelter, clothing, etc. The needs become increasingly complex until one begins to achieve or approach self-actualization once all of the other needs are met.

Similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy, Futey proposes a ResNet Pyramid describing the needs of a ResNet program. In order from most essential to most complex, the levels of this hierarchy are:

1. Infrastructure/Development
2. Support Structure
3. Security & Policy
4. Education/Acceptance
5. Integration with Academic Service/ResLife

Futey seems to have built his model based on his own experiences and observations of how ResNet programs evolve and grow. In particular, he hopes this model will help answer the two questions that Futey asserts are of primary importance:

• What do you want the student experience to be?
• What is the student’s experience?

To me, those questions (particularly the second one) point clearly to the need for assessment and data collection/analysis. That appears to be an area of weakness for many ResNet programs but that is a topic for another discussion.

As with many presentations, the discussion and interaction with the attendees was extremely interesting and informative. The two most interesting topics raised during those discussions were:

• Discussions of the role of and challenge developing a unique identity for a ResNet program/service. Some attendees seemed to be asking for advice on how to more firmly establish their program’s identity while others were sharing worries that ongoing and future changes could erode or erase their program’s hard-earned identity. To the best of my recollection (and poor note-taking skills), no one questioned the need for a well-established ResNet identity. Many of us shared some surprise that this topic was raised and discussed so forcefully and with such great interest and enthusiasm; clearly, many attendees feel very strongly about this topic and I can’t recall this often explicitly discussed.
• The relationship and cultural difference between Central IT and Housing/Student Affairs. Attendees shared their experiences in crossing the cultural and political divide between those two (or three) groups, particularly the difference styles of communication that have proven most effective. In particular, there seemed to be some widespread agreement that many IT staff are comfortable with electronic communication whereas personal communication seemed to be most successful with Housing and Student Affairs staff. I’m sure that this observation is not surprising for those experienced or educated in these fields.

Both of these observations could be used as springboards for research, discussions, and presentations. The second observation, the cultural differences between IT and Housing/Student Affairs hits close to home for me because:

• I have training, experience, and education in both areas so the difference are clear to me. However, I don’t think that my experiences and education are common so I have taken this knowledge for granted. Education focused on higher education culture and history, with a particular emphasis on student affairs, may be welcomed by some IT professionals seeking to understand these differences and cross the barriers.  Some institutions offer this kind of training and education to their IT staff but it is also welcomed at professional conferences.  It does not appear to be widespread in the “ResNet world” and that is a need that should be addressed.
• Some student affairs professionals have expressed the exact same frustrations and observations. During one technology-related presentation at this year’s ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting, the attendees (nearly all student affairs professionals, of course) expressed their desire for assistance in understanding and communicating with IT professionals. A few of us in the NASPA Technology Knowledge Community have kicked around the idea of proposing a session for next year’s NASPA conference specifically addressing this issue.

Again, I was very pleased to see Dave present this material and get it out to a wider audience for examination and consideration. Although there has not been research conducted specifically to support or refute this theoretical model, I think that (a) there is some material in the RARG’s most recent research regarding the programs presented at the last 12 years’ ResNet Symposia supporting this notion and (b) such research is possible. I believe that the development of theoretical models such as this one and the application of existing models or frameworks to these domains is critical for the continued maturation and development of residential computing and student IT support.

Comments(0)

Two members of the ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG), Dave Futey and Clifton Pee, joined Rodney Peterson, EDUCAUSE Government Relations Officer and Security Task Force Coordinator, to present results related to security research conducted by those two organizations. Both of these organizations conducted work related to security last year: the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) released the results of their “Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006” study (although the study is only available to ECAR members, the Key Findings are publicly available) and the RARG released results from their “2006 ResNet Security Practices and Policies Survey.”

The bulk of the presentation focused not on survey results but on their meaning. Rodney concentrated his presentation on relating the ECAR data to the new EDUCAUSE/Internet2 Security Task Force’s Confidential Data Handling Blueprint. (although I did not attend SIGUCCS’ Computer Services Management Symposium, I am told that Rodney presented a very similar presentation in Savannah). The RARG data was a selection of results from the larger body of results followed by several questions intended to stir discussion among attendees.

Items raised in the discussion included:

• An observation (initially made by myself but echoed by other attendees) that the experience of small colleges may differ significantly from larger institutions. In particular, we have fewer staff less likely to have the specific skills necessary to address complex legal and technical challenges related to security. We also may perceive of ourselves as “not targets” due to our small sizes as we “fly under the radar” while attention is focused on larger institutions. In response, Rodney observed that some institutions are shifting and training staff instead of hiring new persons.
• What has changed in the last year? Or have we finally caught up to 2003 (a landmark year for ResNet programs as various worms decimated our networks during fall opening)? The primary response to these questions was “there have been no recent incidents.” This perceived lack of incidents led us to question if we are being successful in our efforts, merely lucky, or just untested.
• When asked how often we should evaluate our security plans, Rodney reminded us that the federal government is required to review their plans whenever an incident occurs and at least annually (as required by the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act).
• One attendee noted that her institution is formulating a security plan that encompasses not only IT but also paper forms and data recorded on paper. Rodney agreed that was necessary and advised us to place security in the context of risk and not computers or IT (”people, process, & technology” was the exact phrase he used).
• When asked how we should define success in relation to security, one attendee replied that success has occurred when a culture embracing security has been created. Another opined that you only know when you’re unsuccessful.

Stepping back away from the content of the presentation, it was quite heartening to see this joint presentation between an EDUCAUSE staff member and members of the RARG.  I believe that it’s a sign of healthy maturity that the ResNet organization is reaching out to and being reached out to by other professional organizations.

Comments(0)

I have attended several excellent BOFs at this year’s ResNet Symposium:

• Customer Service vs. Education
• Privacy & Security Awareness: How Do We Influence Student Behavior?
• ResNet Symposium Wiki (I only attended this BOF briefly before running to another meeting)
• Future of the ResNet Organization

Significant amounts of excellent information were exchanged and good ideas were shared at all of these BOFs.  However, I have decided to keep them “off the record” in keeping with their informal nature and out of respect for the very open and trusting nature of BOF attendees.  I value their honesty during these discussions so much that I will not even take a chance that I might compromise their trust.  If you want to know more about what was discussed in these excellent and interesting sessions, I recommend you attend next year’s ResNet Symposium and organize some BOFs yourself!

Comments(0)

The keynote address on Sunday morning by Jim Gibson (who also presented a pre-conference session on Saturday) focused on the primacy of the university mission in determining institutions’ responses to allegations of students’ copyright infringement. Specifically, the address focused on file sharing and related copyright complaints and DMCA takedown notices.

First, Gibson noted that universities have a special focus as secular, sacred places where:

• disagreement is valued and promoted
• unpopular views are protected
• the primary mission is to produce informed citizenry with knowledge of their rights and responsibilities

Following from this focus are several key values held by universities:

• openness
• respect for the intellect, including treating students as grownups and exercising a willingness to be convinced
• a sense of independence

Gibson asserted that when confronted with a policy question, the university’s primary reaction should be to ask “What does the university mission dictate we do?” In the case of file sharing and allegations of student impropriety, Gibson asserted that education should be the university’s primary response. Since we must maintain a sense of independence, we must not blindly bow to the demands of the copyright holders. Instead, we should embrace a healthy respect for the intellect and not dumb down the issues when discussing them with students. Discussions of intellectual property should be approached as a critical examination of all the issues involved.

Gibson presented the actions of Swarthmore College when their students were sued by Diebold for copyright infringement as example of a very poor reaction not in keeping with the university’s mission. Although the institution praised the students’ “resolve to act on behalf of an open and fair democracy,” it failed to back up those words with the proper actions. For example, it appears that the institution did not even notify the students of their right to respond to the takedown notice with a counter notice.

Specifically, Gibson recommended that institutions:

• notify students of their legal rights when served with any sort of notice
• notify students of their status with the university and its policies
• ensure they are responding in the appropriate manner to DMCA or DMCA-like notices (remember that institutions are not *legally* obliged to do anything other than terminate repeat offenders if the institution is acting as a “mere conduit”)

Following the keynote address, Gibson took questions from the audience:

• What is the copyright holders’ responsibility to improve their own images? Their image is certainly tarnished but their mission differs significantly from our own. In general, Gibson feels very unsympathetic towards students or others sued for copyright infringement. “[Just because] 98% of your friends didn’t get sued doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.”
• How will our search for funding and change to a commodity change our mission? It’s worrying, particularly in the areas of: big athletics, patents, naming rights, and decreasing public support.
• Some corporations who want us to outsource our ResNet programs are using DMCA notices and copyright issues as leverage. In essence, they are telling us that we can outsource those issues to them just as we can outsource our network and support. What are your thoughts? It depends on the level of involvement.
• What is your take on the potential congressional mandates to use particular technologies to address these issues and shift the burden of enforcement away from the copyright holder and onto the university? Gibson was not worried about sweeping changes to the DMCA or copyright law. Universities are “low hanging fruit” but large commercial ISPs know that if they “let us go” then they will be next. In other words, we (should) have large allies. However, university-specific provisions in the law are a distinct possibility.
• Will copyright owners be able to piggyback on CALEA or similar law enforcement and national security laws? Maybe. Our “reasonable expectations of privacy” (a key legal phrase and test when considering Fourth Amendment issues) change over time, particularly in response to police powers and practices. In other words, we often answer the question “What can the police do?” by asking “What do the police do?” and that is obviously very problematic and eroding of our expectations of privacy.
• What about the RIAA’s pre-settlement letters? The statistics about these letters and the reactions to them don’t seem to exist. However, we probably don’t need those statistics to figure out what our university mission requires of us in these circumstances: forward the letter and provide significant, meaningful context to the student(s). Both openness and our respect for the intellect demand no less.
• Are there any online resources outlining our responsibilities under the DMCA? No, there are not any unbiased resources. There are some biased ones, though, such as the EFF and RIAA.

Comments(0)

In addition to running my PDS session in the morning, I also attended a PDS session in the afternoon.  Entitled “Copyright, Colleges and the DMCA,” it was taught by Jim Gibson, University of Richmond law professor and director their Intellectual Property Institute (IPI).  The IPI’s “What do you think?” video was very popular in last year’s document fair at the ResNet Symposium.

As copyright is a very broad topic, the session was limited in scope to those issues that ResNet professionals are likely to encounter; entire important areas of copyright such as fair use were omitted or covered only in the briefest sense.  The PDS began with a basic overview of copyright, including discussions of liability with a significant focus on secondary liability as it is the issue ResNet professionals are most likely to encounter.  The presumption is that institutions are unlikely to knowingly engage in copyright infringement.  Instead, ResNet professionals are likely to be dealing with copyright holders as they work to address the alleged infringement of their copyrights by students.

To this end, Gibson spent a significant amount of time discussing the safe harbors in the DMCA.  In particular, the “transitory communications” and “system storage” safe harbors were discussed in detail.  Gibson stressed that:

1. The DMCA “notice and takedown” process does not apply if the institution is acting as a “mere conduit” of network data.  By the letter of the law, we are not required to react to, follow up on, acknowledge, or comply with letters from copyright holders asserting our users are infringing on their copyrights if the alleged infringement is only occurring on our network (as opposed to occurring on our servers, referred to as “system storage”).  We are, however, required to keep track of repeat offenders as the DMCA requires us to “adopt, publicize, and reasonably implement a policy of terminating repeat infringers” (Gibson’s words, not directly from the DMCA).  Of course, we could also choose to ignore even that provision of the DMCA if we are willing to give up our “safe harbor” defense.
2. Safe harbor defenses only provide immunity to monetary damages; we may still be subject to injunctions e.g court orders to deny access to materials or users.
3. Even if we give up or do not meet safe harbor requirements, the copyright owner must still prove his or her case in court.  In other words, safe harbor is not the only defense available.  The other traditional defenses such as fair use are still potentially available.
4. Unless the network operator is acting as a mere conduit - a very big “unless!” - copyright owners can utilize the special provision in the DMCA to subpoena identifying information about alleged infringers.  In those cases where a network operator is acting as a mere conduit, copyright owners must file suit (John Doe suits) to file subpoenas.

Most of the questions asked seemed to be either requests for clarification or contrived examples seeking to better understand the complex legal issues presented and discussed.  That some of these are complex and confusingly similar likely contributes to our widespread ignorance of these laws and how we should be reacting to alleged infringement.  There was also widespread discussion of the shared opinion that colleges and universities are being disproportionately targeted by the RIAA, an opinion shared by Gibson.

Comments(0)

The room in which I will be presenting my Social Networking Services Professional Development Seminar (PDS) session tomorrow at the ResNet Symposium is less than perfect. To assist the attendees, I have made the presentation available here (minus the videos) so they can follow along on their own monitors.

I’ll post a proper follow-up to the PDS later tomorrow reflecting on lessons learned and interesting observations.

Update: I will not be posing a proper follow-up to my PDS session except to say that I very much enjoyed the experience and I think it was very well received. I greatly enjoyed and appreciated the interaction with and feedback from the participants. Other than that, I don’t know what else to say that would be appropriate to post in a public venue. I’ll provide an update once the class materials are uploaded and the video made available.

Comments(0)

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has released a copy of their version (warning: 534 page pdf) of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. There have been rumblings that some legislators may try to insert legislation related to online copyright infringement or even change safe harbor and related laws to force colleges and universities to address online copyright infringement in a manner more pleasing to Congress. That seems much more likely to happen in the House than the Senate.

In any case, the only mention I can find in this very early copy of the proposed bill from the Senate is an amendment to 20 U.S.C. 109. This section requires institutions to “carry out information dissemination activities for prospective and enrolled students” where the specific information is listed in the law. Right now, it includes things like available financial aid, the costs of attending, accreditation status, and campus crimes (the specifics of the campus crime reporting, the Clery Act, is also in this section of the law). The proposed bill would add, among other things, a requirement that institutions notify students about:

“Institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement that informs students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution’s information technology systems, including engaging in unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject students to civil and criminal penalties.”

It’s a bit silly to remind people that “breaking the law is illegal” but a reminder can’t really hurt. This is something that we should all be doing anyway to address this challenge. Much worse things could be inserted into this bill and we should be on the lookout for them, particularly when we start see public action in the House. We’ve got a long way to go before this is even close to becoming a law.

Comments(0)

The ResNet Symposium begins on Saturday and I’ve been busily preparing for the two activities in which I will be heavily involved:

First, I’m running a pre-conference session entitled about social networking sites. They keep changing the title of the session (it was “The Impact of Social Networking on ResNet Users” and now it’s “Social Networking and Student Life”) but the idea has remained the same. Those who follow this blog and the resources I catalog and collect will recognize the themes and ideas I’ll be discussing. I’ll be sharing most of the materials (slideshow(s), notes, bibliography, etc.) freely once I’m done with the session. We also plan to videotape the session and make it available to NASPA members (or maybe everyone - I don’t know why we couldn’t do that even unless NASPA insists that it only be available to NASPA members since NASPA is paying for the videotaping costs).

In any case, this has allowed me another opportunity to gather my thoughts and resources. The session will be divided into three parts:

1. Foundation and generalities: research and background of SNS, including working towards a definition (group activity!); boyd’s work will feature heavily in this section (not just because she’s an expert in these areas but also because she makes so much of her work, including videos of presentations and recordings of discussions, conveniently available; there’s a lesson there, scholars and would-be-scholars!)
2. Facebook: an overview of the research that has specifically focused on Facebook, the most popular SNS among traditional American college and university students; Stutzman will be featured in this section but there will be a lot drawn from others, including some excellent undergraduate research
3. Practical implications and practices: policy implications, brief legal discussion/warnings, and examples from other institutions

The program is “sold out” so there’s obviously a high level of interest in this topic. I hope this program will garner a lot of interaction and meaningful discussion and thought. We’ll have three hours so we can explore some of those thoughts in detail and I hope to provide a very firm theoretical, historical, and multidisciplinary foundation for those discussions. I’m not an expert in this stuff (I don’t think anyone is, yet) but this program should arm attendees with some of the knowledge necessary to understand not just what’s going on today with Facebook but what is likely to happen in the near future as these challenges and opportunities continue to evolve and change.

Second, I’m continuing my work with the ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG) and we will have one-and-a-half presentations at this summer’s symposium. Entitled “RARG: Then and Now: A ResNet Retrospective,” the “one” presentation will focus exclusively on our current research project that has analyzed the presentations from the previous 12 symposia. We’ve utilized qualitative content analysis, a methodology borrowed from media analysis, to spot trends in the presentations. In particular, we’ll be discussing the themes that are typically present in symposia presentations and other related ideas that will help us understand this profession, its history, and its ongoing challenges more clearly. It’s very exciting original research in several ways (both content and process) and I’m very pleased to have been involved in it; it’s a big step forward for the profession to understand its history and conduct serious and meaningful introspection.

The “half” presentation is entitled “EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research and ResNet Applied Research Group Security Survey Results” and it will be a presentation of data from a security survey we conducted last year. The data are beginning to get “stale” but it’s still the most detailed data available on the topics it covered. As you can tell by the title, it’s only half of a presentation because we’ll be sharing the bill with Rodney Peterson, Government Relations Officer and Security Task Force Coordinator at EDUCAUSE; Rodney will be sharing data from an ECAR security study published last year. It’s great the Rodney will be attending this year’s symposium as he’ll be participating in other events (I believe he has one presentation all to himself and he’ll also be coordinating a Birds of a Feather session). Between this collaboration with EDUCAUSE and my work with NASPA, I think the ResNet Symposium is on the right track in forging and maintaining some key relationships.

If you’ll be attending the symposium, please say hello if we cross paths. If you will not be attending the symposium and you are interested in what you’ll be missing, I plan on writing extensively about the presentations I attend as I did for the ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting; it’s time consuming to attend and then write about the presentations in that level of detail but it’s very helpful for me to “force” myself to think about and analyze the information and the experiences. If you’re not at all interested in ResNet-related information or discussion, I hope you are at least enjoying the summer and warm weather!

Comments(0)

Last week, The Chronicle told us that the House Committee on Science and Technology will be holding a hearing on peer-to-peer filesharing on college and university campuses. That hearing, entitled “The Role of Technology in Reducing Illegal Filesharing: A University Perspective” has been scheduled for tomorrow afternoon at 2:00 EDT. The Hearing Charter (pdf) is a very good, relatively unbiased summary of the issue and related challenges. Aside from the continued use of the word “piracy,’ (yes, I know we’ve lost that battle), the only major gripe I have with the document is the uncritical acceptance of “piracy loss” figures from the industries and their “research.” Four of the five witnesses are university administrators, including Cheryl Asper Elzy who is involved in Illinois University’s Digital Citizen Project; the fifth witness is the president of Audible Magic.

There is what appears to be a link to view the hearing live using Real Player or a compatible player.

Update: The video of the panel is now online as are the chairman’s opening statement and the written testimonies of each of the witnesses:

• Rep. Bart Gordon, Chairman
• Dr. Charles Wight, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Undergraduate Studies of University of Utah
• Dr. Adrian Sannier, Vice President and University Technology Officer of Arizona State University on leave from Iowa State University
• Mr. Vance Ikezoye, President, CEO ofAudible Magic Corporation
• Mrs. Cheryl Asper Elzy, Dean, University Libraries of Illinois State University and Management Team member of ISU’s Digital Citizen Project
• Dr. Greg Jackson, Vice President and Chief Information Officer of the University of Chicago

This hearing was much more balanced that the recent one held by the Judiciary Committee. Most of the committee and all of the witnesses agreed that not only is there not a 100% effective technological solution to this challenge but that education must also be a component. Mrs. Elzy noted that not only is technology not the only answer but that too much reliance on technology could actually harm other efforts. The current offering of legally-available music and movie options were severely criticized by witnesses as failing to meet consumers’ demands and driving much of the copyright infringement. In his opening statement, Dr. Jackson said that current offerings meet consumers’ needs “inconsistently, incompatably, inefficiently, inconveniently, and incompletely.” Dr. Sannier noted that the single biggest step forward in meeting this challenge is the development of DRM-free music legally available for purchase; he later reinforced this point when he told the committee that his campus’ current product, Ruckus, does not work with students’ iPods thus undermining its usefulness. Fair use was strongly defended by witnesses, most memorably by Dr. Sannier who asserted that “if we were to allow stringent enforcement of copyright to erode fair use, the country as a whole would be much the worse for it.”

Two of the more bizarre or harsh incidents in this hearing both came from congressmen. In comparing this challenge to immigration and the money necessary to secure the border, Rep. Hill (D-IN) asked if we should also be willing to spend what it takes to meet this challenge. He then stopped this line of questioning by reminding the witnesses that they knew where that money is going to come from; I wish he had told us because I was completely baffled by this comparison and that statement. The harshest moment came when Rep. Feeney (R-FL) reminded the witnesses that not is he also on the Judiciary Committee but they are still taking this issue very seriously and that they will not “be patient for long with universities that have not been aggressive” in addressing this challenge. He also expressed his disappointment that some of the witnesses had, in his opinion, minimized the role of technology, a charge that the witnesses refuted.

I’ve uploaded my messy, incomplete, and hastily scrawled transcript if anyone would like to wade through it to pick out other gems. I think I’ve covered the meat of the hearing above but you’ll only get it all if you watch the hearing (you can skip the first 30-35 minutes if you read the witnesses’ opening remarks).

Update 2: Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle have provided their takes on the hearing.

Comments(0)