In Summer 1996, an electronic mass mailing came to many campus people, urging that they support a local candidate for office. The e-mail was redistributed internally by some University employees. Responding to complaints about that mailing, General Counsel Howard Ende and Vice President for Computing and Information Technology Ira Fuchs issued a memorandum, sent electronically to all members of the campus community. The memo cited restrictive language from Rights, Rules, Responsibilities regarding use of campus resources, and advised that campus computers and the Internet were not to be used for partisan political purposes.

The memo, intended as a reasonable response to an unwelcome incident, provoked intense campus response. There were individual expressions of concern and contention, and, after involvement of the American Civil Liberties Union, there were local and national headlines regarding Princeton's policies.

In August, after administrative consultations, the same authors distributed a second memo electronically, to clarify Princeton's policy as permitting entirely personal partisan political use of University resources. That resolved the controversy. However, the spotlight which had been aimed at University policy in this area had revealed what seemed to be inadequacies in the existing policies which govern use of the University's computers and Internet access. As a result, President Harold Shapiro asked that there be an examination of the existing policies, and a recommendation made for changes, if any seemed necessary. Vice President and Secretary Tom Wright was charged with the task, assisted by the Office of Computing and Information Technology.

This paper presents the results of the preliminary investigation, and suggests futher courses of action.

A first step was to identify the paper and on-line University publications that set forth policies, guidelines, and related statements regarding use of University computers and network resources. Although a number of documents fall into this category, the two that are of primary concern are Rights, Rules, Responsibilities (RRR) and the ancillary [1995-96] Guidelines published by the Office of the Vice President for Computing and Information Technology. Other documents appeared to be incidental, taking their text and direction from RRR or from operational practices implied by the CIT Guidelines.

Preliminary discussions were conducted with Vice President Ira Fuchs and General Counsel Howard Ende, to get a broad view of concerns from their respective areas. Rita Saltz of CIT's Information Services division was assigned as staff to assist Vice President Wright in collecting and assessing information, and in developing recommendations.

Informal meetings and e-mail exchanges with interested students, faculty, and staff, gave some perspective on the utility, and relevance, of the existing rules and guidelines. Input regarding these also was received from people responsible for disciplinary action when University rules are violated by undergraduates or graduate students, including residential colleges directors of studies and appropriate deans in Student Life and Graduate School. Examples were gathered and examined of new issues related to information technology arising out of faculty research projects, and occurring in the departments and offices of the University.

Policies of other universities and colleges were reviewed and compared with those of the University. At many institutions, the same issues and concerns also are under discussion; the reports of those reviews were observed and noted.

Princeton has had the advantage over many peer institutions that central policy governing use of campus technology always has derived from, and been consistent with, policies governing use of other University resources. This University also has had the benefit of early recognition of both information technology as a scholarly tool, and the importance of interconnectivity with other universities, libraries, and research organizations. In addition, Princeton has a tradition of recognizing undergraduate and graduate students as full partners in the scholarly process, and as such, entitled to use the computing and network resources just as they are entitled to use the University's library resources. As a result of these several factors, the policy language developed to treat technology has served well for most of a decade, and has applied well to all University constituencies.

However, the explosive emergence of the World Wide Web and the geometrically increasing prevalence of electronic mail as a means of exchange represent structures and patterns of use not accurately reflected by the current language of RRR and not sufficiently recognized and described by the attendant CIT Guidelines.

There is another important area of change that impacts the statements of policy and guidelines for computing and networked communications. Formerly, the University's Office of Computing and Information Technology controlled and administered most of the computing resources generally used by the campus community. That no longer is the case. Increasingly, custody and administration of the University's thousands of computer systems has been distributed to academic and administrative departments, and sometimes to individuals within those departments. CIT now has direct authority and responsibility for only a few shared central resources, for scattered student computing clusters, and, most importantly, for the campus infrastructure which ties departmental and individual computer systems to one another and to the world.

Today, many departments, many hundreds of faculty and staff, and even thousands of students who have computers in their dormitory rooms have the capacity to act as system resources and service providers in the way "computer centers" at colleges did a decade ago. In that context, a code describing appropriate use of University computers is too narrow if it describes and applies to only those resources directly administered by CIT.

Initial investigation into policies regarding information technology at Princeton also revealed another important change: now, other kinds of campus systems are parallel in some ways to the facilities once provided only by computers. Telephone voice mail and television broadcast are two specific items which emerged as significant to this initiative. As the University examines policies which apply to electronic mail, the use of voice mail almost certainly merits analogous treatment. And as the question of publication via the World-Wide Web is examined, it seems sensible to consider also video transmission of original material as a form of electronic publication.

In summary: changes seem clearly required in University policies governing information technologies, first, to take account of very large-scale changes in structure and patterns of use of these systems, second, to address correctly the distribution of authority and control of the systems, and last, to reflect the convergence of a variety of computing and communications technologies that are now present on this campus.

A related topic that has taken on increased importance in higher education as a consequence of changes in information technology is being explored currently under the leadership of Dean of the Faculty Amy Gutmann. Heading a faculty committee still being formed, she is investigating the question of rights to intellectual property as it pertains to materials created by individuals employed by the University and using University resources. The work of this committee is expected to proceed through the 1997-98 academic year.

Other aspects changing information technology as it impacts the University have begun to be addressed by offices such as Trademark Licensing and Technology Transfer. For example, approved electronic versions of the Princeton shield are now available for internal use, and outside requests for use of electronic forms of the shield and other University trademarks are also being addressed. Where useful observations have been made by that office and others involved with the rapid evolution of information technology, those experiences should also inform revisions to the University policies.

There is urgent need to revise the language in RRR that refers to the University's computer systems, and to replace the CIT Guidelines document, before the start of the next academic year. Most of the basic elements of the current policies clearly continue to be pertinent. As a prime example: fundamental to the life of the University is an ethic of respect for others; this continues to apply to the electronic arena as it does to all other areas. Similarly, the well-established principles of academic honesty include materials obtained or published electronically.

Also, there continues to be need for institutional protections: for the University's tax-exempt status; for its good name and reputation; for observance of applicable laws and regulations; for the value of institutional property. These protections must be represented in updated expression of rules for appropriate use of information technology. These issues now must be addressed in the context of distributed control of, and responsibility for, the campus computer systems.

Because a broad range of campus constituencies has an interest in this technology, the task of revising the applicable rules and policies will benefit from a consultative process, and the following proposed courses of action reflect the usefulness of broad consultation.

Three broad substantive issues have been identified as areas requiring attention as work proceeds on development and revision of specific policy language. These are: (1) scope of coverage, (2) political activities, and (3) commercial activities.

(1) With regard to scope of coverage: It should be made clear both in the Guidelines document and in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities, that the interpretations and examples presented in the Guidelines apply to all University-owned information technology as germane, and not exclusively to those administered by CIT. It also should be made clear that the regulations represented by examples in the Guidelines apply to computer systems owned by individuals but connected to the campus resources and/or the Internet through University-supplied connections--for example, students in campus residences, and students and employees using University remote access facilities from personally-owned off-campus computers.

It must also be accepted that when departments or individuals permit "visitor access" to the virtual campus, there is a situation analogous to that when a visitor comes to the physical campus. The campus rules and regulations pertain, the property and reputation of the institution must be protected, and the sponsor must be responsible for the proper behavior of the visitor. Conditions described in RRR regarding campus visitors and in Rules and Procedures of the Faculty regarding collaboration and cooperative research should apply explicitly to outsiders who are virtual guests as well as being applicable to physical guests to the campus.

(2) With regard to political activities: this issue appears to have been reasonably settled for the moment. In an August 30, 1996 letter to the ACLU, General Counsel Howard Ende said:

Students and faculty are free to use the Internet to express their individual political views and beliefs.... In situations where there is a likelihood that institutional (as distinct from personal) positions might be mistakenly attributed to a use, a disclaimer clarifying that the opinions expressed are those of the author alone and not an official position of the University may be necessary...

Similar new language should be developed for RRR making clear that entirely personal partison activity is permitted, but that institutional resources or support for such activities are not permitted (de minimis excepted).

(3) The third area of concern is much murkier and requires further study under the aegis of the Rights and Rules Committee, namely, the question of commercial use of University computing resources and network access.

Does "commercial" include an employee's posting an advertisement to sell a used baby stroller? A student's applying electronically from a campus computer for a summer job? A faculty member's exhibiting on a Web page examples of work s/he has done, on consulting time, for an organization outside the University?

The definition of "commercial" must be more explicit in the 1997 edition of RRR and must reflect official University policy documents. The Guidelines for use of campus technology and network access must give comprehensive and easily understood examples of what is, and is not, permitted in this regard. The Rights and Rules Committee of the CPUC must address these questions swiftly, as there are many interested parties and there will be significant work needed to produce a strong and viable policy.

Some of the campus constituencies with probable strong interest in this area include Student Agencies, Development and Annual Giving, Alumni Council, Athletics, the recognized student and University organizations, academic departments and programs, the University Research Board, ORPA, undergraduate and graduate students, the Princeton Spigot and Daily Princetonian, WPRB. There also would be strong interest from University affiliates and spin-off groups such as Princeton University Store, Princeton University Press, Ivy Group, PRINCO, Nassau Capital, McCarter Theatre, and the many "Friends of..." groups which support campus activities.

CIT already has extensive experience identifying types of activities that a policy in this area will need to deal with. Further inquiries will be helpful in assembling the widest possible range of examples, including focus groups and inquiries to departments and offices. Proposed language regarding commercial use of University resources must also be reviewed by the General Counsel with particular care toward protecting the University's tax status.

A less controversial, but somewhat parallel, concern is the area of non-profit solicitation. Discussions of commercial use may inform a reconsideration of University policy regarding such on-campus charitable solicitation. Whether such policy is revised or not, the Guidelines document must address this issue also, once the Rights and Rules Committee has developed policy language, to assure that each member of the campus community with control over a University-owned or personally-owned, University-connected computer system understands what is, and what is not, permitted.

As a first next step, this memorandum will be made available to the Council of the Princeton University Community and, in this way, to the University community generally, for comment and suggestions (which should be addressed to Rita Saltz in CIT or Tom Wright).

Second, revision of appropriate sections of RRR should be undertaken as soon as possible by the Rights and Rules Committee of the CPUC, with assistance from the Office of Vice President and Secretary and the Office of the Vice President for Computing and Information Technology. The sections that require amendment are shown in Appendix A of this memorandum, with annotation.

There may be other sections which also require modification in light of the current state and use of information technology.

Approval of revisions would follow normal procedure for RRR material, and the new language, following approval, would appear in the 1997 edition of Rights, Rules, Responsibilities.

At the same time, a draft of language to replace the current CIT Guidelines document should be produced by the Office of the Vice President for Computing and Information Technology including input from and review by Offices of the Dean of Student Life, Dean of the College, Dean of the Faculty, Graduate School, General Counsel, Human Resources, USG, GSU, and University Libraries. Comments and input already received in preparation for this report can be helpful in producing the draft. An open opportunity for review and comment on proposed draft language for both RRR and the CIT Guidelines should be provided via the CPUC.

The resulting documents should be published in paper and electronic form before the start of the 1997-98 academic year. The paper form, or a paper pointer to the electronic location, should be provided to all students and sent to all University employees, at start of the academic year. Human Resources and Office of Dean of the Faculty should include the paper document or pointer as part of the information provided to newly hired employees. The language in the Guidelines should be evaluated on a continuing basis, with corrections and additions made as needed to the on-line version.

1. The paragraph on page 6 of RRR (1995 edition) which describes distribution of written material by members of the University currently states, "The University requires that the identity and telephone number of the sponsoring organization or individual be included in any written material (e.g., petitions, posters, and leaflets) distributed on campus by a member of the University." This should be expanded to include electronic forms of publication and distribution, such as via e-mail, electronic newsgroups, and the World-Wide Web, and perhaps even voice mail and video broadcast.

2. The section on page 8 which addresses off-campus misconduct states: "In general, the University does not impose disciplinary penalties for misconduct off campus beyond the local vicinity. In certain cases, however, in which the activities violate a stated University regulation, or are of such a serious nature as to indicate danger to members of the University community and others, the responsible University official may initiate disciplinary proceedings, whether or not legal sanctions have been incurred." The committee should consider whether language might be added to this section to cover misconduct within information technology which either originates on campus but produces results at off-campus locations, or originates off-campus but uses the technology identified with the campus.

3. The section on "computer use" on page 11 (1995) states:

Princeton University makes available computing and network resources which may be used by University undergraduates, graduate students, faculty and staff. The resources administered by the Office of Computing and Information Technology (CIT) are intended to be used for educational purposes and to carry out the legitimate business of the University. Members of the University community are expected to act with considerate regard for central and distributed computing facilities, to behave in their use of the technology in a manner consistent with the University's code of conduct, and to adhere to the guidelines established by the Office of the Vice President for Computing and In formation Technology. Appropriate use of the resources includes instruction, independent study, authorized research, independent research, and the official work of the offices, departments, recognized student and campus organizations and agencies of the University. The computing and network resources of the University may not be used by members of the University community for commercial or political purposes or for financial gain. Unauthorized or fraudulent use of the University's computing resources is a serious violation of University regulations. Duplicating software which is protected by copyright or trade secret law is a violation of the law (see the section "Violations of Local, State, or Federal Law," page 8).

This section probably should be reformulated, for ease of reference and clarity of communication. The revision should include the broader concept of information technology (e.g., voice and video systems as well as computer systems), and make clear that rules apply to all University-owned information technology resources not just those administered by CIT. It also should be made clear that network and Internet access provided by the University even to personally-owned computer equipment obliges the owner to observe University policies. As noted in the body of this memorandum, the sentence which prohibits use of the resources for commercial or political purposes or financial gain must be clarified.

4. The section presenting guidelines relating to the tax-exempt status of the University and political activities states on page 14, as item number 6:

The University's Computing Center is intended to serve the educational, research, and administrative needs of the University.

a. It is proper for the University Computing Center to be used for bona fide academic research which may include projects related to current political issues and to the positions taken by various candidates for public office. Time for research of this kind, so long as it is consistent with accepted academic canons, may be charged to regular departmental accounts.

b. Studies which in and of themselves might be bona fide academic research (such as roll-call analysis) may also be designed for partisan political purposes. The University Computing Center cannot be used for such work nor to advance other causes not directly related to the mission of the University, unless it is paid for from non-University funds or at the regular rate plus the standard surcharge applicable to such work. Similar principles and rules apply to use of all University computer facilities.

The references to the University Computing Center must be changed to reflect the distributed nature of today's campus information technology. The Committee also might want to include explicit reference to the Internet access from princeton.edu, the University's defined Internet domain.

5. Item number 7 in the same section states: "Insofar as they involve or employ people not members of the Princeton University Community, campus-based organizations claiming national or regional status must base that portion, or all, of their activities off campus. Such organizations must also obtain and use post office boxes or other off-campus mail addresses." This language should be extended to include e-mail addresses and Web page servers.

6. The section on pages 84-85 of the 1995 edition, treating charitable, political, or religious solicitation requires revision to recognize and include electronic distribution of literature as well as paper.

Comments and suggestions should be sent to Rita Saltz rita@princeton.edu or to Thomas H. Wright.