🚀 go-pugleaf

sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes:

>About a year ago, immediately after we installed a lab of color
>workstations, a number of students began displaying pictures of women in
>various stages of dress or undress.  The computer science faculty discussed
>the situation (this is a departmental laboratory) and decided to follow, at
>least for the time being, the following policy:

>We do not dictate what students may or may not display on their computer
>screens.  We do, however, feel free to exercise our own rights to free
>speech and tell students precisely what we think of their actions.
          
>........................................ Therefore I see no problem at
>all with calling a student in and telling him the following (I say him,
>because my institution does not currently admit women at the undergraduate
>level -- this will change in 2 years, and so far I have not felt the need
>to have a conversation of this type with a female graduate student or
>faculty member):

>1.  Our department has no policy against display of the kind of material in
>question.

Or, "Nobody wants to take responsibility for making decisions around here."

>2.  I am not going to tell him that he has to remove the pictures.

And, "I can't make decisions either."

>3.  My personal opinion is that he is acting like a adolescent jerk.
                                                     ---------------
You'd rather get personal and start calling him names.
And show him who's boss.

>4.  He should spend some time thinking about the effect the material being
>displayed might have on:
>	parents of prospective students who are visiting the campus,
>	female staff and faculty members who might feel that they are being
>sexually harassed.

But calling someone an adolescent jerk is not an overt form of harassment?
This is a good way to sever communication and foster resentment.
BTW, are you teacher or administrator?

>5.  He should reflect on the fact that soon he will graduate and find
>himself working with, and quite possible for women, and that perhaps he
>should review his attitudes towards women, if for no other reason, than out
>of self interest.

Finally you're getting somewhere!
Now repeat, discarding steps 1 through 4.

>A little over a year ago, I had this conversation with 4 students, and I
>have not seen nudes displayed in our lab since that time.

Are you and they still on speaking terms?  

>Now you can say that although I explicitly told the students they were under
>no compulsion, there was nevertheless coercion on my part.  That is no doubt
>true.  However, my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that students
>react much better to being told to grow up and begin to adopt a professional
>attitude than they do to being told to remove pictures of nudes.

Professionalism works both ways.

>--
>Fred Sullivan                           6060 Wabash Avenue
>Computer Science Department             Terre Haute, IN  47803
>Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology     sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu

Curt Roelle
roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu

In article <roelle.718658120@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>5.  He should reflect on the fact that soon he will graduate and find
>>himself working with, and quite possible for women, and that perhaps he
>>should review his attitudes towards women, if for no other reason, than out
>>of self interest.
>
>Finally you're getting somewhere!

I think I'm missing something here - what is the connection between
viewing or not viewing pictures of naked women and attitudes towards
women?  Is there a similar connection of viewing pictures of naked
men?  Animals?  Food?

By the way, I find it more than a bit tragicomic that someone working
in a place which discriminates against women on student intake has the
arrogance to complain to _students_ about the attitudes towards women
they supposedly project to visitors.

//Jyrki

In article <roelle.718658120@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

   sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes:

   >1.  Our department has no policy against display of the kind of material in
   >question.

   Or, "Nobody wants to take responsibility for making decisions around here."

No.  We made a conscious decision that in general censorship is bad, that we
know of no reasonable objective standard which we could set, and that there
are other ways to deal the problem.

   >2.  I am not going to tell him that he has to remove the pictures.

   And, "I can't make decisions either."

Again, no.  In fact, it is much easier to impersonally write a rule saying
that display of nudes is disallowed than to tell a student to his face that you
personally disagree with his behavior.

   >3.  My personal opinion is that he is acting like a adolescent jerk.
							---------------
   You'd rather get personal and start calling him names.
   And show him who's boss.

Evidently I'm the kettle and you're the pot.  Read your replies to 1. and 2.
above, and tell me you're not getting personal.  In this case I believe that a
student appreciates an honestly expressed opinion, rather than being told to
obey a rule imposed from on high.

   >4.  He should spend some time thinking about the effect the material being
   >displayed might have on:
   >	parents of prospective students who are visiting the campus,
   >	female staff and faculty members who might feel that they are being
   >sexually harassed.

   But calling someone an adolescent jerk is not an overt form of harassment?
   This is a good way to sever communication and foster resentment.
   BTW, are you teacher or administrator? 

It is telling it like it is.  I am on good terms with all of the students
with whom I have had this conversation; communication has not been severed.
Again, if you want to foster resentment, tell someone: "Do this again and
your account will be canceled".  I have had to do that on a few occasions
for other reasons and I can tell you that resentment IS fostered.  To answer
your last question, I am a teacher.

   >A little over a year ago, I had this conversation with 4 students, and I
   >have not seen nudes displayed in our lab since that time.

   Are you and they still on speaking terms?  

Yes.  My relationship with all of them is quite good.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is.  Is it that I was too blunt in
expressing my opinion of the students' actions, or that I was wrong in my
assessment?  If it's the first, then I can only say that the students
involved are a better judge than you, and my relationship with them has not
suffered.  If the second, then I think you are wrong.  My point was to get
the students' attention, and to make them think about what they were doing.
I believe that I was successful, with the result that not only are nudes no
longer being displayed in our lab, but four students are a little perhaps a
little more mature, and more sensitive to the difficult issue of sexual
harassment.  I claim it is always more profitable to get someone to realize
that there is something wrong with their behavior and alter it themselves,
than to alter it by force.





--
Fred Sullivan                           5500 Wabash Avenue
Computer Science Department             Terre Haute, IN  47803
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology     sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu

sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes:
>roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes regarding Nude Pics:

>>>1.  Our department has no policy against display of the kind of material in
>>>question.
>>Or, "Nobody wants to take responsibility for making decisions around here."

>>>2.  I am not going to tell him that he has to remove the pictures.
>>And, "I can't make decisions either."

>>>3.  My personal opinion is that he is acting like a adolescent jerk.
>>  						       ---------------
>>You'd rather get personal and start calling him names.
>>And show him who's boss.

>Evidently I'm the kettle and you're the pot.  Read your replies to 1. and 2.
>above, and tell me you're not getting personal.  In this case I believe that a
>student appreciates an honestly expressed opinion, rather than being told to
>obey a rule imposed from on high.

Not being your teacher, supervisor, or authority figure, candid
responses to 1. and 2. above are not exactly intimidating.  My text in
quotes was used to illustrate what thoughts might be going through a
student's head when listening to 1. and 2., which are both 
irrelevant.  There is no policy regarding nude visuals and so pointing
this out is irrelevant and weakens your case.  When criticizing
subordinates or a student one must be careful to avoid the impression
of being menacing, for their well being, and also in avoiding legal
complications.  If "adolescent jerk" is your "honestly expressed
opinion", then in your case honesty may not be the best policy.

>I'm not sure exactly what your point is.  Is it that I was too blunt in
>expressing my opinion of the students' actions, or that I was wrong in my
>assessment?  

It was the first.

>             If it's the first, then I can only say that the students
>involved are a better judge than you, and my relationship with them has not
>suffered.  

Because they were goaded into submission by their instructor we must
therefore conclude that the means are justified?  A judge tries and
convicts a man who is innocent, and the man is sent to prison.  When
questioned about the verdict after the trial the judge replies, "I was
correct in my judgement because as you can plainly see he is now
serving time in prison."

-- Curt Roelle

Well, all this discussion about Nudes on Display terminals has been limited to an 
Academic environment.

What is the general consensus in the Commercial environment regarding the use of
storage resources for the purpose of saving images of what could be considered 
"offensive" material?  Of course, no company can dictate what an employee does on his
own time, or his own property (i.e. Employee's PC in his/her Office).

My concern is two-fold:  Disk Space usage and a Sys Admin's removal on sight of such
images; and another employee bopping around looking at images in say /usr/local/gifs
and stumbling across something he/she finds offensive.

What is a company's "exposure" (sorry, couldn't find a better word) in the second
scenario?
-- 
 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
|  Patrick H. Larkin, Jr.    _| ~-       Interphase Corp.         |
|   System Administrator     \,  _}       13800 Senlac            |
|    plarkin@iphase.com        \(         Dallas, TX 75234-8823   |

In article <mumble>, plarkin@iphase.com (Patrick Larkin) writes:
|> 
|> Well, all this discussion about Nudes on Display terminals has been
|> limited to an Academic environment.  
|>
|> What is the general consensus in the Commercial environment
|> regarding the use of storage resources for the purpose of saving
|> images of what could be considered "offensive" material?  Of course,

From my experience in the commercial environment, the response could
be summed up in the inimitable expression of many folks these days:
Not!  Many companies, especially larger ones, have sexual harassment
policies and policies regarding use of company property for personal
reasons.   In a private office, display of potentially offensive,
though legally protected material may or may not be acceptable.  If
anyone else walks into the office, and it would be hard to imagine a
company office where this would not happen, the display immediately
becomes "public".  This puts it in the realm of sexual harassment, if
the display is of a sexually-oriented nature (this is pretty vague, and
is in the eye of the beholder), and the beholder feels that it creates
an intolerable work environment, and files a complaint.  Most companies
would seek to avoid being set up for this by demanding/requiring the
removal of the material from publc display if it is reported.

|> no company can dictate what an employee does on his own time, or his
|> own property (i.e. Employee's PC in his/her Office).  

Actually, I disagree.  Most companies can and will fire an employee
who is convicted of a crime, even if the crime took place on the
employees own time.  Most employers proscribe drug use or excessive
alchol use.  Many companies have policies regarding intra-company
sexual relationships.  An employer has the right to set employment
conditions that end up affecting what an employee does on his or her
own time.  This is not dictating behavior.  An employee is free to
engage in the acts proscribed by the employment conditions.
Conversely, the employer is free to not retain that employee.  It is
called employment at will and is the predominant employment doctrine
in this country.  However, most companies correctly recognize that if
they set too many employment conditions that affect employee's private
lives, no one will work for them.  For example, back in the Ross Perot
days, EDS would set all kinds of conditions, such as the kind of
people an employee could date, or that they could not cohabit with a
member of the opposite sex, unless they were that employee`s spouse.
I'm sure former EDS employees could contribute other stories.  EDS is
not alone on this either.

My experience is that the vast majority of companies provide employees
with the resources they need to do their jobs, especially items
such as computers.  So in most cases, the storage would take place
on company property.  Even if it was an employee's PC, the company
could quite reasonably argue that while they can't dictate what an
employee does with their own property, they certainly *can* dictate
what that employee can do in the company's office building or plant
site.

|>
|> My concern is two-fold:  Disk Space usage and a Sys Admin's removal
|> on sight of such images; and another employee bopping around looking
|> at images in say /usr/local/gifs and stumbling across something
|> he/she finds offensive.  

Most likely, a company will remove offensive and non-offensive
material under the "no personal use of company property" policy,
rather than any "offensive content" policy, because the latter is very
hard to define and runs into other issues.  Unless the company is
engaged in the business of producing and/or distributing those images,
there is almost certainly no defendable business need for the images
to exist on the system.  Therefore, sys admins may be empowered to
remove them on sight, and other employees discovering them may cause
them to be removed also.

|>
|> What is a company's "exposure" (sorry, couldn't find a better word)
|> in the second scenario?

That answer probably is best left to the company's equal employment
officer and/or legal counsel.  As a guess, if that employee had any
right or authorization to be in that directory, and they discover the
image, they may have cause for a sexual harassment complaint.  An
analogy would be inserting a photograph in a file folder that contains
other business material.  If a file clerk or secretary who has
legitimate access to the files takes out the folder and opens it and
discovers the photograph, they may have a harrassment claim if they
are offended by the photograph, or it creates an oppressive
environment.

-- 
Joseph A. Watters, Jr.		jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas

I am the step parent of 2 adolescents.  Sometimes, the boys behave like
adolescent jerks.  Sometimes, you have to tell the adolescent jerks that they
are behaving like adolescent jerks.

I suspect, based on my own remembereances of adolscence, that I did some
pretty dumb things.  Sometimes, I figured out for myself that what I did was
dumb, and sometimes, somebody helped me figure it out.

For example, the TECO command JEFF SILVERMAN will cause a DECsystem-10
to crash.  The first time I did it, it was completely unexpected.  The fifth
time I did it, it was a dumb thing to do.  People began to tell me that 
this was a dumb thing to do.  I haven't done it since (hopefully, somebody
fixed that bug).

Jeff Silverman, Boeing Commercial Airplane.

In <1992Oct12.133020@iphase.com> plarkin@iphase.com (Patrick Larkin) writes:


>Well, all this discussion about Nudes on Display terminals has been limited to an 
>Academic environment.

>What is the general consensus in the Commercial environment regarding the use of
>storage resources for the purpose of saving images of what could be considered 
>"offensive" material?  Of course, no company can dictate what an employee does on his
>own time, or his own property (i.e. Employee's PC in his/her Office).

>My concern is two-fold:  Disk Space usage and a Sys Admin's removal on sight of such
>images; and another employee bopping around looking at images in say /usr/local/gifs
>and stumbling across something he/she finds offensive.

Well I have the privilege of being the sole administrator of a number of
unix boxes in a relatively small company.

We have a number of gifs stored online (including some "swimsuit" type gifs).
We don't have a company policy about the display of naked gifs (we don't have
a policy about a *lot* of those sort of things - I get to make the rules :-)

I personally don't view such pictures for various reasons, and can see why
others would be offended by the act.

All I need to do is tell someone that such and such a gif is a not a good one
to be stored, because if it offends someone, they would complain, and the
management would ask for all gifs to be removed (they don't view them - and
we are always pushed for disk space).

As for disk space - I put some in /usr/local/gif and keep the area within a
reasonable size. If people have ones that they want, they give them to
me and I put them in the system wide area (anyone should be allowed to view
them), and offline any which haven't been viewed in a while.

As for people having gifs in their home directories, when the disk get full
I go "find(1)ing" for anything that resembles core files, databases and gifs
(among other things). If I find gifs I tell them to put them in the system
area (subject to my opinion of whether they may be offensive) or offline them.

Most (everyone so far) are very understanding. They know the rules and nobody
has bother to complain to me or the upper management.

If it works - don't touch it. So that's the way it'll stay until someone 
objects.

BTW I use a swimsuit gif as my backdrop, but by the time you get 5 active
xterms (not counting 10 iconified ones) on the machines I am working on,
an xbiff, xload, xconsole and nearly fullscreen epoch session, I get
to see her left eye (that area is used to get through to mwm).

Just my personal opinion. I doubt my boss knows what a "JIFF" is :-)

gjn


--
gjn    | Email: gjn@cs.uq.oz.au  (Geoff Newton)                  |  _-_|\
(-|    | ITI Systems Obliterator^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAdministrator| /     *
       |                                                         | \_.-._/
       | "It was working this morning - honest"                  |      v