TBOC!-- "Valid research and educational purposes"

Salon.com Gives TBOC! the Shout Out

"The voice of reason is small, but very persistent."-- Words found on a Vienna memorial to Sigmund Freud

President Dan Sullivan, in a memo to SLU faculty and staff (which we've kindly provided a copy of here), mentions the on-campus block of Take Back Our Campus but refuses to mention our site by name, as he did in an earlier, even more secretive memo. His quietus of Take Back Our Campus is conspicuous; it should give any intelligent reader the indication that Sullivan is trying to hide something from the St. Lawrence community, but I will return to this momentarily.

However, in his latest memo, Sullivan includes a curious passage. "[W]e value and have a duty as a free and open university to facilitate access to any and all resources faculty, staff and students believe will be useful for valid research and educational purposes...." Is Take Back Our Campus a "resource... useful for valid research and educational purposes"? Not only are we funny, we also have important things to say. And we're not the only ones who think so.

--In the fall of 2004, "10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus," a seminar taught by Dr. Margaret Kent Bass, spent several weeks discussing the site. Dr. Bass even assigned her students to write essays about our work.

--TBOC recently (12/4/04) received a nice compliment from Salon.com. [Go here to see the article.]

Writer Richard Bartholomew, in an article about the death of Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia founder Reed Irvine, cites this TBOC! article on the fascist ties of AIM and ex-AIA head (and SLU Republican favorite) Dan Flynn.

--But what's even better than that? The way Bartholomew introduces our blog [along with our Leninist cousin, Ethically Abhorrent (which was blogging about TBOC! in the post to which Bartholomew links)] to his readers. "One aspect of AIM that the reviewers all miss is a rather dodgy connection brought to my attention by blogs Ethically (Abhorrent) and Take Back Our Campus." By "the reviewers," Bartholomew includes none other than the New York Times.

Which campus publication received recognition by a national media outlet? And which campus publication received praise from a national media outlet for covering a story ignored by the New York Times?

The Hill News? Nazza. The Stump? Unless the story was the blind publication of masturbatory poetry, not likely. It was Take Back Our Campus. In ten months, without any kind of funding from SLU (or even a benign attitude-- last Spring, two of our ex-editors were frog-marched by security to isolated offices and forced to give separate written statements about the site without being told exactly which University policies they had violated or what charges were filed against them) our work has been taught in an academic classroom and nationally praised for the caliber of our reportage.

Is there any doubt that Take Back Our Campus is a "resource... useful for valid research and educational purposes"? Want a few more examples?

--This Take Back Our Campus article about the racist origins of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. (Click here to view it.)

--When SLU's Global Studies department was attacked in a FrontPagemag.com article, did anyone on campus bother to investigate the claims? Take Back Our Campus did. And we proved the article a sensational work of intellectually dishonest opportunism. (Click here to read our coverage.)

--When the same FrontPagemag.com article was reposted by the ironically named Students for Academic Freedom, Take Back Our Campus was the first media outlet to expose the link between the self-proclaimed "non-partisan" SAF and the College Republican National Committee. (Click here to read our scoop.)

--When SLU eliminated Upward Bound (a program meant to encourage lower-class children to pursue higher education), we offered a number of articles. (Click here, here and here for our coverage on this tragedy.)

With all that our site has to offer, it seems curious that President Sullivan would choose to impose an on-campus block on TBOC. If this site were really as horrible as he implies, why would he not allow the members of the SLU community to freely access our site and decide for themselves whether or not to continue reading? Surely that would better accord with SLU's stated principle of liberal education.

Instead, the administration has taken a Stalinist stance and rather than respond to criticism or engage in open debate, has attempted to silence any voices critical of SLU policy. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether TBOC will continue (most assuredly, we will), but rather, who's next? Who will next be targeted by a vindictive administration uninterested in free speech and information access? SAGE? The Women's Resource Center? The SLU Republicans? The Sociology department?

By banning TBOC and monitoring e-mails and other personal files, SLU has set a dangerous precedent for academic freedom on campus-- unless the students, staff and faculty of SLU take action.

New Sullivan Memo to Faculty and Staff

For Fun, Get Out Your Red Pen and Mark the Grammatical Mistakes

[Editor's Note: For extra fun, note Sullivan's hypocrisy as he charges that Take Back Our Campus "chills the climate for teaching and learning on campus"-- an accusation of which his recent draconian repeal of privacy and academic freedom, as well as his Soviet-style restriction of information access are apparently free of guilt.]

MEMORANDUM

TO: St. Lawrence University Faculty and Staff

FROM: President Daniel F. Sullivan

RE: Acceptable Use Policy

DATE: January 11, 2005

Now that many faculty who were away for the holidays are back on campus I write to say that, on the advice of University legal counsel, I have made several revisions to the Acceptable Use Policy which is posted now, in its revised form, on the University web site. I informed the chairs of Faculty Council and ITAC of these changes on December 22 and urged them to share this information with their committee members. I also told them that this memo to all faculty and staff would be forthcoming at a time when it would not likely be overlooked.

The revisions to the Acceptable Use Policy most important to call
to your attention have to do with clarifying necessary rights the University must retain as the owner of our computing resources; giving greater weight than in our former policy to the right of others to be free from intimidation, harassment and unwarranted annoyance; including among prohibited uses those "which violate University policy;" and permitting the President to authorize access to personal files not only in response to a judicial order or other action required by law, but "when access is considered necessary to protect and/or promote the legitimate interests of the University."

In addition, I want you to know that we have blocked access to a web site that was persistently harassing and intimidating specific members of the St. Lawrence community.

We have done this because all resources owned and managed by the University exist to support the academic mission. We have the right to deny access to the campus those influences that harass, intimidate or threaten individuals who study, teach and administer programs here. The external web site to which we have blocked access has been, for several months, an active instrument of anonymous harassment against targeted individuals, interfering with the right of those individuals to pursue their academic goals in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I am sure there will be much discussion about these changes and actions as we reconvene for the second semester. As in so many difficult situations, this one involves important institutional values that are in tension--we value and have a duty as a free and open university to facilitate access to any and all resources faculty, staff and students believe will be useful for valid research and educational purposes; and we also value and have a duty to protect members of the university community from anonymous outside harassment against targeted individuals of a kind that creates a hostile environment for them and chills the climate for teaching and learning on campus. Neither value is absolute. We must use our judgment to find an appropriate balance. I have sought to do so in the policy changes and actions announced in this memo.

"Vice President the University"-- SLU Still Can't Get It Right

SLU's Acceptable Use of Computing Resources Policy was recently revised. The page's header reads, "Revised 12-22-04," but I think it's been changed even more recently.

The delegation of Stalinist power if President Sullivan is unavailable originally read, "...or if the President is unavailable, the Vice President of Academic Affairs...," a position entirely imaginary, as I noted in this 1/1/05 post, guessing that the language referred to Grant Cornwell, Dean of Academic Affairs and Vice President of the University.

Upon rereading the "Revised 12-22-04" AUCRP, I noted that a slight change had taken place. The above selection was altered at some point between 1/5/05 and now, 1/12/05. It now reads, "...or if the President is unavailable, the Dean of Academic Affairs and Vice President the University...."

Yes, I did transcribe that accurately-- "Vice President the University." Some SLU administrator (who apparently still has access to TBOC!) read my 1/5/05 post, realized I was right about the "Vice President of Academic Affairs" being a made-up position, and immediately and unilaterally changed the language of the AUCRP, a sticky wicket when proper procedure for changing University policy is considered. Despite all that, the administration still managed to make a stupid error.

[They went to all the trouble of changing the AUCRP and still fucked it up! Do the administrators all ride to work on the same short bus or something?--Ed. I was going to put it less bluntly, but yes, that's the general point.--CE No thanks necessary.-- Ed. Or offered.--CE]

Top Secret Sullivan Memo Leaked!

TBOC! Saves Sullivan the Trouble of Sending Memo to Entire Campus

[Editor's Note: President Dan Sullivan will be sending this memo (or a rewritten version of it) to all faculty, staff and students shortly after school resumes. We ask that our readers note the gloss applied to the restriction of privacy and academic freedom. As a secondary matter, we ask that our readers note Sullivan's hopeless confusion of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. As a tertiary matter, we ask that Sullivan notes his hopeless confusion of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. In addition, we ask that Sullivan stop referring to himself in third-person, as "the President." It's not incorrect, it's just creepy.]

MEMORANDUM

TO: [Redacted]

FROM: President Daniel F. Sullivan

RE: Acceptable Use Policy

DATE: December 22, 2004


On the advice of University legal counsel, I have made several revisions to the Acceptable Use Policy which is posted now, in its revised form, on the University web site. In addition, you need to know that I have asked that access be blocked to the Take Back Our Campus (TBOC) web site from workstations connected to the University’s network. I will be sending an all-campus announcement on changes to the Acceptable Use Policy after the break, but wanted you to have this “heads up” which you can share with members of your respective committees.

The revisions to the policy most important to call your attention to have to do with clarifying necessary rights the University must retain as the owner of our computing resources; giving greater weight than in our former policy to the right of others to be free from intimidation, harassment and unwarranted annoyance as against the rights of individual users to privacy; including among prohibited uses “uses which violate
University policy;” and permitting the President to authorize access to personal files not only in response to a judicial order or other action required by law, but “when access is considered necessary to protect and/or promote the legitimate interests of the University.”

As indicated above, we have also blocked access to the TBOC web site. When asked our reasons for doing this, we will respond with the following statement:

All resources owned and managed by the University exist to support the academic mission. We have the right to deny access to the campus those influences that, in a persistent way, harass, intimidate or threaten individuals who study, teach and administer programs here. We have blocked access to an external web site that has been, for several months, an active and persistent instrument of anonymous harassment against targeted individuals, interfering with the right of those individuals to pursue their academic goals in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I am sure there will much discussion about these changes and actions as we reconvene for the second semester. I wanted you to know about them now, as leaders of key University committees.

We must note the curiosity of this memo's timing. It was issued on 12/22/04, only five days after we first criticized President Sullivan for eliminating Upward Bound at SLU. Retaliation from our sullen and thin-skinned President, perhaps?

In any case, the above private memo stands in stark contrast to a very public 3/22/04 memo issued by President Dan "Sullen" Sullivan and Vice President Grant "Cornfed" Cornwell. All members of the SLU community should bear in mind Sullivan's "passion" and "commitment" to free speech as they enjoy Orwellian monitoring and a Stalinist restriction of academic freedom and information access:

We believe it is our duty to protect the rights of all members of our community to think and speak freely and to foster the conditions that make dialogue possible. We expect members of our community to be passionate about ideas; in fact, we would be troubled if they were not. But passion and commitment only serve our purpose to the extent that they promote lively engagement, not shut it down, to the extent that they foster compelling expression, not impede the capacity to listen.

Has President Sullivan's order to block TBOC! from all University computers "promote[d] lively engagement, not shut it down"? No. Has President Sullivan's order to block TBOC! from all University computers "foster[ed] compelling expression"? No. Has President Sullivan's order to block TBOC! from all University computers "impede[d] the capacity to listen"? Yes, to the detriment of every member of the SLU community who freely chooses to read Take Back Our Campus.

SLU Violates Students' Rights-- Just Not in the Way You Think

"The political locus of tolerance has changed: while it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it is made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies."-- Herbert Marcuse, "Repressive Tolerance," A Critique of Pure Tolerance, 1965

"Fuck the harder way/ We doing this the smarter way."-- Talib Kweli, 2004

One of our readers has insisted that SLU banning on-campus access to Take Back Our Campus is a First Amendment issue. As much as one would hope it is, it's not. St. Lawrence University, as a private institution, is free to do as it pleases (or as the mercenary and mercurial Dan Sullivan pleases) on campus. Clunkily-- as SLU owns the network, it reserves the right to control what is accessed via that network. [See Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), which ruled that workers do not have the right to protest their employer on private property, for relevant caselaw.]

But, your inquiring minds must be asking. If SLU isn't subject to Constitutional law, to what code is the University subject? The answer can be one of two things. Some courts have found that contract law applies to the relationship of the student to his/her University, while others have found that the law of associations (a little looser than contract law) applies to the relationship. But the differences between the two don't really matter. As the Student Press Law Center notes, "[w]hile the legal theories vary slightly, the general notion is the same: where a private school voluntarily establishes a set of guidelines or rules, it must adhere to them. Otherwise, there exists a breach of a legally enforceable promise for which a student may obtain legal relief."

In other words, SLU is obligated to follow its own policies as a condition of the contract it has entered into with a student. By altering the Acceptable Use Policy midyear, SLU has committed what is known in contract law as a unilateral change of contract. This can be acceptable if the original contract allows for one party to change the terms of the contract without the consent of the other. In order to have unilateral change available as an option, SLU would have to explicitly reserve that right in the student handbook. In this instance, however, there's a small problem:

SLU doesn't do that.

What does this mean for the block on Take Back Our Campus and the Stalinist repeal of privacy in the Acceptable Use Policy? Essentially, the changes are invalid. While the changes could be applied to the fall semester, SLU doesn't have the right to institute these changes midyear without the consent of the student body. By doing so, SLU has violated the contractual rights of its students.

Editor's note: For more on contract law and the law of associations as applied to private universities, use LexisNexis to look up the following cites courtesy of the Student Press Law Center.

Contract law: Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992); Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 371 N.E.2d 634 (Ill. 1977); Zumbrun v. U.S.C., 51 ALR3d 991 (Cal. App. 1972); Univ. of Texas Health Science Ctr. at Houston v. Babb, 646 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982); Stanoch v. Breck School, No. CT 02-019852 (Dist. Ct. Hennepin County Nov. 21, 2002)

Law of associations: Clayton v. Princeton Univ., 519 F. Supp. 802 (D.N.J. 1981); Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 404 N.E.2d 1302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980); A. v. C. College, 863 F. Supp. 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Abrariao v. Hamline Univ. School of Law, 258 N.W.2d 108, 112 (Minn. 1977); Baltimore Univ. v. Colton, 57 A. 14 (Md. 1904)

Update: If any of SLU's legal beagles want to bark at us, please send an e-mail to Takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Dan Sullivan Looks Forward to Reading Your E-Mail, Other Personal Files

TBOC! Blocked, IT's Acceptable Use Policy Changed

At the behest of President Dan Sullivan, the University recently blocked access to Take Back Our Campus from all computers on campus, even those privately owned by students using the SLU network. In addition, parts of the Acceptable Use Policy-- which governs student, staff and faculty access to campus-wide computing facilities-- were changed.

However, while drastically altering (see below) some parts of the document, the University either forgot or was too lazy to reread the document as a whole, leading to a schizophrenic final product. For example, consider this statement at the beginning of the AUP:

Acceptable use is governed by the following broad principles: the enhancement of the University’s academic mission, the academic freedom of users, the reasonable privacy of users, and the maintenance of the integrity of computer resources.

Read it alongside these words from the (now-changed) "Privacy" section:

The University will make every reasonable effort to respect a user’s privacy. However, faculty, staff and students do not acquire a right of privacy for communications transmitted or stored on University resources.

Interesting, our readers may be saying. What exactly does this lack of privacy entail? Read on, as it does get scarier:

The University will make every reasonable effort to respect a user’s privacy. However, faculty, staff and students do not acquire a right of privacy for communications transmitted or stored on University resources. In addition, in response to a judicial order or any other action required by law or permitted by official University policy or as otherwise considered reasonably necessary to protect and/or promote the legitimate interests of the University and the University community, the President (or if the President is unavailable, the Vice President of Academic Affairs) may authorize the Vice President of Information Technology, or an authorized agent, to access, review, monitor, and/or disclose computer files associated with an individual's account.[Emphasis added.]

In plain English, if the invasion of your privacy may serve the (intentionally) vaguely defined "legitimate interests of the University and the University community," President Dan Sullivan may authorize IT to investigate your personal correspondence as well as any files you may have stored on the University network. If President Sullivan is unavailable (golf, banjo lessons, etc.) this power is granted to the "Vice President of Academic Affairs," an entirely imaginary position. (Assumedly, this is meant to refer to Grant Cornwell, Dean of Academic Affairs and Vice President of the University.)

SLU is very fond of "teachable moments," real life situations that can be used to illustrate academic concepts. Perhaps this instance can be used to teach students the meaning of "Orwellian."

Update (1/5/05, 11:08 p.m.): The administration has blocked all network access to Take Back Our Campus. Even students with their own computers cannot access our site on campus. We are working hard to circumvent this. Please use these proxies to continue reading our site and stay tuned. Story Developing!

Update: SLU Imposes Ban on TBOC! From Public Terminals

These Fuckin' Hatas Breathin' Down Our Necks

SLU has imposed a block on students, staff and faculty accessing Take Back Our Campus from computers available in SLU labs and in the Owen D. Young Library.

We encourage all students, staff and faculty to access our page using the anonymity-giving sites listed in this post.

Thankfully, the University community is still able to visit the following (apparently non-offensive, according to the SLU administrators) sites listed here via SLU computers:

RapedTeens.com-- The name of the deranged and profit-loving site speaks for itself.

The North American Man-Boy Love Association-- An organization that openly advocates for the legalization of pedophilia ("paedophilia," for our British friends).

Stormfront: White Pride World Wide-- The internet home of anti-Semitic neo-Nazis.

While Take Back Our Campus has been deemed unacceptable by the SLU administration, students are free to access the propaganda of Osama Bin Laden. Are we really worse than voyeuristic rape-fantasists, pedophiles, Nazis and Al-Qaeda? Why does the University object to our right to free speech? Why is the administration so fearful of what we have to say?

Let us know in our comments section or at Takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

SLU Set to Ban TBOC!- Book Burning Enters the Digital Age

All the Fucking Hatas Get on Our Backs-- Story Developing!

We recently received a letter from one of our sources in the administration. President Dan "Sully" Sullivan has issued orders to the Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) to block all "University work-station" (i.e. SLU computers found in labs and the library) access to Take Back Our Campus!. Sullivan's memo to the entire SLU community is forthcoming, expected shortly after school resumes.

Despite the clearly Stalinist implications of blocking student access to a website, we are most upset about the reality of the situation. While the edict from Sully's on-high will not preclude students rich enough to buy their own computers (or have their daddies buy a Dell laptop for them) from viewing our site, the poor students who lack rich daddies (or White sugar daddies, which we highly recommend) to buy them computers will no longer see our site unless they view it in the room of a PC-owning friend.

If any of our readers are upset by SLU's upcoming restriction of free speech, please send an e-mail to President Dan Sullivan.