From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
ACLU Brought In As Ghandian Tactics Bring Whiff of Victory in College Exclusion Case
Arjuna Ahimsananda has fasted, picketed and complained to the Office of Civil Rights against Santa Barbara City College which excluded him "on trumped up charges fabricated from whole cloth" after he complained about some college policies and penned an article critical of censorhsip in higher education. Today he filed a formal compaling with the California ACLU.
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.
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.
For more information:
http://indybay.org/news/2005/12/1792709.php
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Earlier this activst filed a formal official complaint with the Office of Civil Rights.
For more information:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/14806...
Folktivism is a very cool sight and I felt honored that my original thread on my fast was picked up there by Shannon Murray. - Arj Ah
PS I notice that IMC India went down on the eve of Bush's vist it India!!!
PS I notice that IMC India went down on the eve of Bush's vist it India!!!
For more information:
http://folktivism.net/modules/news/article...
This links to the Santa Barbara newswire Feature on when I picketed to raise attention to this issue which seems to finally be coming to some resolution as my three protest fasts and other action sinks in to college officials...
For more information:
http://www.sbindymedia.org/newswire/displa...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network