ACLU Brought In As Ghandian Tactics Bring Whiff of Victory in College Exclusion Case

March 3, 2006
Santa Barbara, CA
By Arjuna Ahimsandanda

Here is a complete copy of the

COMPLAINT TO ACLU CALIFORNIA

AGAINST SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE SBCC

REGARDING SURVEILLANCE AND CENSORSHIP OF COMPUTER ACCESS FACILITIES AT ADULT EDUCATION AT THE SELMER O WAKE CAMPUS OF SBCC

Santa Barbara City College

operates several Adult

Education campuses which

includes Computers In Our

Future (CIOF) which is

essentially a public access to

internet and word processing.

The staff monitors what the

registered users print from

the internet, however they do

not have the means to

determine who printed exactly

what. They monitor primarily

to enforce a rule against

"Printing From the Internet"

in that they require users to

copy and paste text into MS

Word and then print from word

rather than printing directly

from Internet Explorer.

Presumably this prevents

people from inadvertantly

exceeding the page limit of

ten pages (10) and from

inadvertantly printing

advertisements.
In practice, this amounts

to two signifigant civil

liberties violations.
First, it constitutes undue

surveillance. Secondly, it

facilitates and has apparently

led to implementation of

censorship.
Hence, this policy raises

serious concerns which fall

within the mandate of the

ACLU. a third and derivative

problem arises from the staff

monitoring of server logs,

which also constitutes an

abrogation of US

Constitutional Amendment 1

free speech.

This complainant authored

several articles including one

article critical of censorship

within the California

education system. Another

series of articles were

respectfully but sharply

critical of a tenured

professor.

Shortly after publication,

Complainant became the target

of a serious of spurious

allegations which the college

has finally waived and which

present no serious questions

of fact. The form of these

allegations were allegations

that several print jobs of the

Complainant violated the rule

against printing from the

internet. Although the college

dropped those charges and they

were never substantiated, the

College continues to allow

untrained or poorly trained

staff to surveill user

activity in a manner which

creates a chilling and

inhibitory effect on the

exercise of Free SPeech

rights.

In a seperate but related

incident, some as yet

unidentified student printed

out some material which lab

assistant N.Bahena pulled off

the printer and denounced as

"offensive". Said lab

assistant directly confronted

this complainant, with whom

said lab assistant had engaged

in a long series of

discussions in which the

surveillance of Complainants

printing, saving and other

computer activities had led to

unsubstantiated allegations of

rules violations. Although the

College apparently has

accepted Complainants'

strenuous disavowal of any

connection to or knowledge of

the contentes of said "Mystery

Print" the College still

permits random monitoring of

student print activity and

server logs. Since there is no

way of determining who is

responsible for any such print

job, any one person may print

out material which staff may

find objectionable, and staff

are then free to cast

aspersions on whomever is the

targeted dissent du jour.

Thereafter, Complainant wrote

a letter to the Vice President

of the SBCC Adult Education

program, Lynda Fairly. Shortly

thereafter, Complainant was

barred from the campus and

from the CIOF lab. After a

series of hunger strikes or

protest fasts, a complaint

with the Office of Civil

Rights, a picket at the

Jonathan Kozol speech and

several pieces of adverse

publicity, SBCC finally

appointed an investigator who

reinstated COmplainant's

campus access. However,

Complainant is still debarred

from the CIOF computer lab,

and the College has not

indicated willingness to

review, much less reform the

policies of the Computers In

Our Future program.

ACLU may wish to review

factual documents; issue an

advisory letter to the college

with respect to prospective

changes in the policies of

CIOF; or refer the matter for

review by ACLU as a possible

litigation in which

Complainant would act a

Plaintiff. Complainant would

also consider filing

litigation Pro Se in which

ACLU may wish either to file

an Amicus Brief; an

Interpleader; or serve in an

advisory capacity for the Pro

Se Plaintiff.

The primary civil liberties

concerns or SBCC policies can

be summarized as such:

1.College staff should place

the printer output under

surveillance (unless there is

a complaint or reason to

believe that said printer

output constitutes a violation

of college policy). There

should not be random

surveillance by staff of the

private scholarly work of

students.

2. Server logs at a two year

college, nor at an Adult

Education program, should not

be placed under surveillance

by any staff, or by untrained

staff, intending to police the

surfing activities of

students, unless there is

specific and egregious

indication of violations of

law or college policies

outweighting the civil

liberties concerns.