[1480] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: So what is the answer?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Connie Stout)
Thu Oct 10 12:42:34 1991
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 11:35:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Connie Stout <Connie.Stout@tenet.edu>
To: Joe Abernathy <edtjda@magic322.chron.com>
Cc: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com>
I read, with great interest, Joe's recent posting to the Internet
world and have reached some conclusions. It is apparent that Joe
does not know very much about TENET.
One correct statement is that it is true that the Texas Education
Network is accessible by a community of users affiliated
with education.
First, I'll address what may have been the Joe's real question.
How should students have access to the Internet, or at least how are
we attempting to address appropriate ways to give students access
to the Internet. Students play a major role and are members of our
educational community. When and how students gain access has
been carefully considered and planned in Texas. Student have not
been denied access to their own account. It is TENET's policy that
students must be sponsored by their teachers to gain initial access to
the network. It was the conviction of an advisory group, which I will
detail later, that that students should be introduced as
responsible members of the online community before they are
handed open access. Since it is not possible to mandate responsible
behavior, we chose instead to enable them to learn about responsible
behavior first by educating them about new communication
paradigms through modeling and observation under the supervision
of their teacher.
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Abernathy has not reviewed the
materials that have been developed as part of the implementation
of TENET. Three courses have been developed: a users'
guide, a moderators' guide, and a curriculum integration guide.
The moderators' guide introduces the concepts of the new frontiers
and changing communication paradigms within the online
community. While no one can hope to anticipate every need when
introducing full-scale networking to an entire state, we have
conscientiously tried to consider the needs of all members of our
population as they begin to use this new media.
TENET has an Acceptable Use Policy in place. Again, this policy was
developed through a collaborative effort. Among other things, the
policy states that all conferences will be moderated. (There never
was any intention to port Usenet groups.) The purpose for
moderating the conferences is to assure responsible nurturing as
they develop and to provide at least some safeguard against posting
of unsuitable material. Given the network's scope and audience, we
continue to feel this policy is responsible.
Because Joe chose to make his audience such a large one, I feel
compelled to attempt to set the record as straight as I can. Let
me say -- for the record, Joe -- that anything in this message is
not for publication.
I want to address Joe's incorrect statement regarding what he calls
the "major porno incident." The "Texas Incident," as Tom Grundner
referred to it, was hardly "major." Neither is it true that it
occurred within two days of the network's startup. Further,
contrary to Joe's "reporting," it is not true that students were
denied accounts as a result. Oddly enough, Mr. Abernathy failed or
declined to ask any official administrator of TENET any questions
about what he assumed was an "incident" in order the clarify the or
confirm what actually happened.
Had he asked he would have learned that in the implementation of
TENET we had a committee of forty "Master Trainers" who utilized
a prototype system during the summer -- prior to the opening of
TENET on Aug. 26, 1991. As members of the community of users
(teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, etc.)
they viewed various Internet resources. A decision had been made
to use the public domain Usenet software to building our Texas
specific conferences and they learned about Usenet while reading
many posting on the Usenet groups. Among the newsgroups, they
read the communication/dialogue on K12net. Upon reading the
offending posting by the university student on K12net, they
collaborative decided, as responsible members of the online
community with a sincere interest in assuring TENET's success, to
initially exclude K12net as one of the "official" and sanctioned
resources of TENET. As most of you know, the posting in question
was of considerable concern to K12net and steps were considered to
safeguard against such occurrences in the future. The Texas group
decided to put K12net "on hold" and await further developments.
In any event, it is inaccurate to say that the network "shut down
the news feeds." We did not. The postings in question took place
prior to the opening of TENET.
It does seems that Joe is considerably more interested in bringing
attention to himself -- using sex and pornography as his vehicles
-- than in addressing or contributing to serious questions. In
fact, his "questions" are difficult to find amongst his
sensationalist statements, partial quotes, and references to
anonymous sources. Finally, I am as concerned, perhaps more so,
about irresponsible rumor-mongering that puts the inherent risks
of networking -- or any other form of open communication -- out of
all perspective and, thus, is potentially more dangerous than the
material he is citing.
I hope the foregoing clarifies the situation within TENET for you.
I can't resist adding some personal observations and reactions,
however.
Joe writes:
>...the oft-touted comparison of Internet to a library also has
>problems when held up against daylight. No matter what one
>argues, libraries outside of San Francisco usually do not carry
>material as explicit as that found in alt.sex.bondage or Modern
>Primitives, for instance. In test after court test, it has been decided
>that media which circulate in Peoria, Kansas, have to meet the
>community standards of Peoria. Or wherever.
True. And if the community of users within TENET determine that
they do not want to circulate alt.sex.bondage, that is their
decision. The community of users within TENET has every intention
to be responsive to its audience and responsible to its community.
I'm left with the question: what was Joe Abernathy's purpose? I'm
still not sure. My concern is that he has made what have to be
considered abusive statements concerning a statewide network that
is under close observation. To those familiar with computer
networks, Abernathy's articles will probably be laughed at for what,
in fact, they are. But to a community that is sensitive to their
children and totally unfamiliar with the Internet, this can have a
serious and detrimental impact that could negatively affect hundreds
of thousands of teachers and students.
One of the major barriers teachers face today is the lack of access
to telephone lines. If community members feel that networks such
as this will bring in "sex and pornography" -- even if there is a
REMOTE possibility of such a thing -- they will be less than
willing to support any initiatives in that direction. It seems to
me and others here at TENET that responsible reporting should be
in order.
Please feel free to redistribute my posting. (But, Joe, let me
remind you that none of the above is offered or authorized for
publication.)
If you have any questions concerning what we are attempting to do
here in Texas, don't hesitate to call.
Connie Stout (512) 463-9091: voice
Texas Education Agency (512) 463-9090: fax
1701 N. Congress Ave. Connie.Stout@tenet.edu
Austin, TX 78701
