Michigan State to student: Political e-mail is spam
Most schools encourage students to become active in campus politics. Not Michigan State University, which has filed disciplinary charges against a student leader who sent e-mail criticizing an abbreviated fall semester.
Kara Spencer's encounter with MSU's disciplinary apparatus started in September, when the student government member began discussing the shortened fall 2009 schedule with a small group of faculty members and administrators. She followed up by contacting 391 faculty members by e-mail, saying that professors should be aware of the "burden for class schedules and syllabi" the change would involve.
Plant biology professor Katherine Gross, reportedly the lone faculty member irked by the e-mail message about 2009 schedules
(Credit: MSU.edu)The e-mail irked a single faculty member, Katherine Gross, who teaches plant biology. Gross complained to the university administrators, who summoned Spencer to a mandatory meeting and informed her that she would face disciplinary charges.
A formal letter listing Gross as a "possible witness" to the offense said that the e-mail violated university policies saying that students can use the network only for "authorized purposes."
"Students on campus have been supportive," Spencer told CNET News. So has the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, a nonpartisan group in Philadelphia that urged MSU President Lou Anna Simon to halt the disciplinary process in advance of a hearing that was scheduled to take place on Tuesday.
It didn't work: The president rebuffed FIRE and the hearing took place as scheduled. A decision is expected soon.
"To date I have not received any notification from the judicial board regarding the case," Spencer said on Thursday. "The board may take up to seven days to render a ruling, so at this point I am just waiting for their notification."
Gross, the biology professor who complained, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
MSU's bulk e-mail rules say that e-mailing more than a "small set of recipients"--with the maximum number set at 30 people--is verboten. In a statement on Friday, MSU said: "It is clear that this policy is content neutral and is a set of procedural requirements that apply to all bulk use of the e-mail system, as opposed to a policy that makes distinctions based on the content of particular e-mails. It is our belief that such a policy does not impose unlawful restrictions on free speech." MSU declined to comment on specifics, citing privacy laws.
MSU President Lou Anna Simon, who rebuffed a request from a civil liberties group to throw out the case against the student leader.
(Credit: MSU.edu)If MSU were a private school, such strict limits would be a matter of its contract with students and faculty: objectionable and inconsistent with academic freedom, perhaps, but not necessarily illegal. But because MSU is a public school, it is legally obligated to provide students with due process rights and it must protect their free speech rights.
And that's what FIRE thinks has gone wrong with MSU's disciplinary prosecution of Spencer.
Adam Kissel, director of FIRE's individual rights defense program, believes this is the first time he's heard of antispam rules being applied this broadly on campus. "The rule should be: if it's not disruptive, then you can do it," he said.
"The question is: does bulk unsolicited e-mail count as inherently disruptive to the campus?" he said. "I would say no, it doesn't, especially when the message is something that's directly relevant to everything on campus."
FIRE's letter to MSU on November 26 calls on President Simon to halt the "erroneous prosecution of Kara Spencer, who has been under investigation for more than two months for her clearly protected expression. If e-mailing faculty members about common concerns is outside the parameters of acceptable speech at MSU, surely no member of the MSU community can feel safe contacting another about any relevant matter of concern. Is this truly the lesson that MSU wishes to teach to students who will soon be entering into civil society at large?"
If MSU does not back down, FIRE has the option to file a First Amendment lawsuit in federal court. Federal law allows private parties to recover attorneys' fees in a successful free speech case against a government or public university.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
I think that is supposed to read:
"And that's what FIRE thinks has gone wrong with MSU's disciplinary prosecution of Spencer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe
Not disruptive? RU kidding me? How much time a day do you spend deleting spam? It's 2 or 3 hours nearly everyday for me.
Ok, we've stopped the political email, now let's stop political candidates from calling my cell phone and my home phone. While we're at it, let's make those robo-calls disappear too.
What I find ludicrous, is that if the university had a restriction on maximum of 30 recipients per email, why do they not enforce it via system policy? Plus all she would need to do is send out 10 separate mailings to 30 at a time, altering the message slightly to circumvent their rule. If the faculty do not want to hear from students, why would they make their email addresses public? As to jatstuff's comment about using other forums, why is email in today's age not appropriate, and if it is an ineffective medium, why has it garnered so much attention?
If FIRE wasn't backing this girl up, she'd be dealt a harsh punishment. MSU consistently makes bad policy decisions that are based solely in fear. If a professor had complained about a similar email with subject matter that was not an issue with the MSU administration, there is a high likelihood that no significant action would have been taken.
By acting in this manner, MSU implicitly reserves its right to harass and intimidate students with arbitrary and inconsistent interpretations of overly broad policies. The underlying psychological current is the MSU administration's deep-seated fear of resistance to their policy implementations and their need to maintain an image of control, even though more often than not, this school fumbles through its existence, relying on the vigilance (or special interests, as the case may be) of individuals to maintain operations.
MSU also places very strict limits on the maximum space allocated for email. It's easily possible to fill the space with one years worth of emails with limited attachments, or say, two years worth of StatEmail.
This issue appears to demonstrate that the administration discourages students against using the email system in a manner which is certainly more academically productive than what it's used for.
Said Act is very easy to follow if you are not trying to send any misleading emails - just include an option to opt out of future mailings by replying "Remove Me" from the list, and you're good.
Of course, I think.
Of course it sounds like a liberal college you idiot. Liberals are tolerant of your views as long as its their view that you hold. Then watch out, because your labeled a homophobe, racist, sexist, etc. if they don't agree with you, because they don't have the brains to argue a point. Liberal do not tolerate free speech.
She does have a right to free speech but she should not abused the email system of the school for her own opinion, every university school has a paper and she could have sent a letter to the editor for it to be ignored there too. While we are on the subject it is not the faculty that sets the time limits it is the schools board of directors i think,
D~W
GaryC
MSU's policy seems to be very clear even if they choose not to implement a system block. God forbid they actually trust people to follow the rules which are clearly spelled out in the manner both to the restriction and the reasoning behind it. It is their system and their choice to run it. If you do not like it, do not use it. It is just that simple.
She had plenty of opportunity to voice her objections in more effective ways. MSU has its own independent newspaper called The State News which is housed off-campus. East Lansing has a local paper known as the Lansing State Journal. She could have written to either of those papers. Since she was dealing with a faculty issue she could have e-mailed the American Association of University Professors who are the collective bargaining entity for faculty. They would most certainly be interested in these things.
As for the fact she used a listserve, you are all lacking one piece of vital information.... The purpose of that listserve.
You people can blather on and on about liberal fascism and free speech all you want. All you do is give legitimate first amendment violations a bad name. If the powers that be in the hearing decide that she di in fact break the rules, than she broke the rules and will be reprimanded appropriately. You all neglect the fact they could say that she did not and let her off scott free.
(2) Spencer did not use a listserv. As the documents at www.thefire.org show, she carefully selected the 391 faculty members she e-mailed out of a database she constructed herself.
(3) I leave it to readers to decide whether a letter to the editor of the Lansing State Journal would have been a "more effective" way than direct e-mai for Spencer to reach members of the MSU community who had a legitimate interest in knowing about the proposed calendar changes as soon as possible. I also doubt that the local AAUP would have agreed to circulate Spencer's personal views.
Adam Kissel, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
- by AdamKissel December 10, 2008 2:24 PM PST
- BREAKING NEWS: Student Government Leader at Michigan State University Found Guilty of ?Spamming? after Criticizing Administrative Decision
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (32 Comments)http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10020.html