 |
Complaints
Prompt Professor to Remove Sex Material on Web
Last week English professor Richard Burt voluntarily took down parts of his Web site after administration officials received complaints about the sexually explicit material. The site was hosted on the University's server, and administration officials believed it violated the Office of Information Technologies' Acceptable Use Policy, according to Kay Scanlan, interim assistant vice chancellor for Communications and Marketing. Burt decided to remove the material April 4 after meeting with English Department chair Stephen Clingman. On April 5, at a meeting with John Dubach, associate chancellor for Information Technologies, Burt said he would keep the page down for the time being, Scanlan said. He later notified Dubach that a non-profit organization has offered to host his Web site at no charge and that he plans to put it up there in a week or so, she said. The site contained photographs of Burt fondling a naked woman and with bare-chested women straddling his lap. "He will put both a disclaimer and the new address on his UMass site, but he said he would not link them," Scanlan said. "The main thing the administration is looking at now is its Acceptable Use Policy as it relates to these kinds of cases," she said. "It's a growing technology, and our campus policies haven't really kept pace with technological advances. The current policy talks about proper use of computers and harassment but it was written with e-mail in mind. A Web page is slightly different." Campus policy states, "University employees and students may use OIT services only for work done for the University, and only when it is appropriate that the work be supported by public funds." It also says, "If a client wishes to make 'objectionable' material available through OIT services ..., the client must clearly label such material. OIT considers displaying or sending unrequested objectionable (as defined by the recipient) material to others to be harassment." A newer policy, adopted by the Board of Trustees last August, and encoded in the System-wide World-Wide Web Guidelines, addresses Web issues more specifically: "The University does allow for employees' personal pages that provide information about an individual that is relevant to that individual's role at the University." At issue, on this campus, as well as others around the country, is how to determine relevance to university roles. "That's an issue for the University to decide," said Clingman. "It's hard to prejudge any of those things. "What editorial control do we have of Web pages? Where is a Web page located? Is it just inside space or is it located on a server? If you own the server, then how much editorial control should you have? Is it censorship? This is something that the University as a whole should probably be discussing." "University policy allows the use of University equipment for purposes relevant to one's role at the University," said Chancellor David Scott. "So far, I have not been convinced that the pages in question are relevant to any intellectual or academic pursuit. "I respect freedom of expression in all of its forms, even when unpopular," Scott said. "After all, this is defended by the First Amendment. But I find it troubling that so many of these types of pages seem to be denigrating to women. One wonders if they contribute to the exploitation of women in our society or to the pervasive violence against women in our society." Burt could not be reached for comment. |
||
|
|
