Draft of manifesto

New Information Technology and Liberal Education: A Manifesto

Draft (3 April 2000)

Introduction. Sometimes, a manifesto is thought of as a document that signals the end of discussion and the beginning of some sort of more direct political activity. The intent of this manifesto is the opposite: we mean to open discussion, certainly at Furman but maybe at other liberal-arts colleges as well, about the new information technology and liberal education. Because the new technology changes so rapidly, we believe that such a manifesto has a useful life-span about equal to that of an institution's strategic plan. This particular manifesto may be read together with Furman's strategic plan, which itself should be thought of as a document continually under revision. This manifesto means to initiate an ongoing process of assessment, reflection, and decision-making.

It is important to remember that this manifesto arises from a seminar composed almost entirely of faculty, and that it articulates faculty concerns. The impact of the new information technology on liberal-arts institutions spreads wider than the faculty, and the faculty, though their collective voice should be decisive in academic matters, should not pronounce unilaterally on all of the issues involving the institution's use of the new technology. Part of the intent of this manifesto is to initiate discussion among faculty, administration, and trustees on issues-and they are many-that impinge upon but extend beyond the academic program.

Much of this manifesto deals with issues that we think any liberal-arts institution might profitably consider. Other parts of the manifesto are Furman-specific. The Furman-specific parts are enclosed in square brackets.

Definitions and Premises. By "information" we mean whatever can be represented as a string of ones and zeroes. By the "new information technology" we mean ways of representing information that involve use of the digital computer.

It is not so easy to say what "liberal education" is, but for our purposes we begin with a remark of Charles Sanders Peirce on the subject:

. . . the university which is to be the exponent of the living condition of the human mind must be the university of methods. . . . Now although a man needs not the theory of a method in order to apply it as it has been applied already, yet in order to adapt to his own science the method of another with which he is less familiar, and to properly modify it so as to suit it to its new use, an acquaintance with the principles upon which it depends will be of the greatest benefit.

Peirce identified this sort of study with "logic," but what he meant by the term includes considerably more than what is commonly called logic today. In fact, Peirce at times equated logic with semiotics in general.

Education is "technical" when its purpose is to master some particular interpretive system-for example, law, medicine, or electrical engineering. Education is "liberal," on the other hand, when its purpose is to study interpretive systems as such-that is, to understand the ontological, epistemological, and ethical commitments implied in particular interpretive systems, and the workings of those systems as they are applied to their appropriate "contents." Interpretive systems cannot be studied in isolation from the contents to which they are meant to be applied-in fact, ideas become "contents" or "subject-matter" precisely by being brought into relation with some interpretive system. Nevertheless, liberal education is best thought of not as the study of particular subject-matters, but instead as the study of the especially powerful interpretive systems of the culture: for example, the scientific method, or mathematical logic, or textual hermeneutics.

Liberal study, then, amounts to thinking about how people think. New information technology poses one kind of challenge to liberal-arts institutions in that we must find intelligent and economically feasible ways of using the new technology to do "what we have always done"-for example, to access, to organize, and to present information, or, in short, to deal with complexity. But the new information technology poses another kind of challenge if we believe, as many of us do, that the new technology itself represents a new and powerful way of thinking, analogous to but crucially different from the technology of the book.

We believe that certain conclusions about the liberal-arts curriculum and about the notion of intellectual property follow directly from the premises we have just articulated.

Curriculum. The most important question posed for liberal-arts colleges by the new information technology is whether the new technology itself constitutes an interpretive system potentially (or already) as powerful as the interpretive systems traditionally studied in the liberal-arts curriculum. How does the new information technology affect how people think?

Traditionally, in the liberal-arts curriculum students learn how interpretive systems work by practicing them: by taking courses in various disciplines. The liberal-arts curriculum also sometimes provides experiences-typically, "interdisciplinary" courses-in which students are invited specifically to study academic disciplines as such. We can thus imagine two different methods of studying the new information technology considered as interpretive system: (1) courses in which students actually use the new technology to address the questions posed by the traditional disciplines, and (2) courses in which the new information technology considered as interpretive system is itself part of the subject-matter of the course.

[We believe that prototypes of both sorts of courses exist already at Furman. As an example of the first sort of course, we cite the "paired course" taught by Hayden Porter and Bill Rogers: "Communicating in the Digital Era," in which the students used the techniques typically taught in Computer Science 16 to address the tasks typically assigned in English 11. As an example of the second sort of course, we cite the new Humanities 21 taught by Melinda Menzer and Claude Stulting: "The Joy of Texts," in which the students study the technology of the book and, ultimately, confront that technology with the new information technology.]

To address the challenge of the new information technology for the liberal-arts curriculum, we propose that the faculty, with appropriate support (normally, stipends and released time), develop a number of curricular experiences-paired courses, interdisciplinary courses, team-taught courses-that require students to think about how the new technology influences their thinking. [Means of supporting the development of such courses are already available for the humanities, in the endowment from the NEH Challenge Grant. The institution should generate similar support for courses in other divisions.] Such courses should be identified as "technology-conditioned," just as courses at some institutions are identified as "writing-conditioned." Students should be required to take a certain number of these courses during their time at the institution. Obviously, some or most of the courses would fulfill other requirements as well.

In short, the question is how to get the new information technology into the curriculum in the right way. We believe that the answer is a kind of "technology across the curriculum" program.

But it is important to be clear about a couple of points. First, we do not think of the technology-conditioned course as a course in "computer literacy," or even, in most cases, as a course taught by the computer science department. The crucial feature of the technology-conditioned course is not that computers are the subject-matter, but that the course considers how computers affect human thinking about other subject-matters. Thus, the technology-conditioned course will normally have some sort of interdisciplinary component.

Second, we do not think that relying on the new information technology is alone sufficient to qualify a course as technology-conditioned or as appropriate for the liberal-arts curriculum. We may elucidate this point by considering the techniques of "distance learning" enabled by the new information technology. Using these techniques (e.g., Web-based courses, chat-rooms, discussion lists, e-mail, etc.) does not necessarily entail reflection on the crucial issue: that is, the issue of how the technology affects thought. In fact, uncritical use of the new technology can go far toward rendering the technology transparent. Our collective experience suggests that face-to face, personal interaction is an indispensable modality for liberal education, and therefore, in spite of economic pressures, should not be replaced as the main modality of the liberal-arts college. We believe that the techniques of distance education ought to be used to do things that we cannot do in better ways-for example, conferences with distant scholars or virtual attendance at distant events-but it would be wrong to suppose that we are educating our students liberally about the new information technology just because we become invested in the techniques of distance learning.

Intellectual Property. A liberal-arts institution cannot exist without a commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Indeed, the "liberal" in "liberal arts" refers to freedom in the sense of the Latin libertas.

The phrase "intellectual property" seems to suggest that a person or corporation can possess creations of the mind, not merely in their material instantiations, but in their essence. Such a notion is relatively new. In their day, Newton and Leibniz argued over who was the first to create calculus, but it would never have occurred to either of them to claim sole rights to the creation.

Without free access to ideas, liberal education becomes technical education. That is, as Peirce indicates, one may learn how to apply a theory by simply following the patterns demonstrated by others, but understanding implies the ability to adapt a theory to new situations. To do that requires "an acquaintance with the principles upon which it depends." Hence, we find the very notion that products of the mind can be treated as material property to be antithetical to the pursuits of the liberal arts.

No society has ever accepted an absolute right to the possession of products of the intellect. Even in those societies which have copyright and patent laws, the right to so-called "intellectual property," unlike the right to possess material property, is always a limited right. For example, the Constitution of the United States allows Congress, "in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," to grant exclusive rights to authors and inventors for "limited times."

Copyright developed during the age of print as a compromise between the need of a liberal society for the unrestricted flow of ideas and the perceived need of publishers for some guarantee of return for the large expense required to run a printing press. The new information technologies have changed the economics. With the financial barriers to publication lowered, much of the original justification for copyright, at least in the form of a right which may be sold to another, no longer holds.

Today authors may use copyright to protect the way in which their creations are distributed. In particular, faculty at liberal-arts institutions should use copyright to guarantee that their ideas are freely available to the public. It should be the policy of the university that faculty, not the university, own the copyright to their intellectual creations, whether these works be text, hypertext, multimedia, software, or in any other form in which information may be instantiated. At the same time, it should be the policy of the faculty that, where possible, they will make such creations available to the general public under licenses such as the copyleft license advocated by the Free Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft).

It is understood that often a particular work, in order to reach the intended audience, must be published in a journal which requires the surrender of the copyright. However, faculty should recognize this as inconsistent with their mission and should work towards establishing other means of bringing their work to their audience.

Sometimes, a member of the faculty might not wish to make his or her work available under copyleft, because of a desire to profit financially from the work. For example, a faculty member might wish to sell the copyright to a publisher in expectation of royalties. In such a case, the faculty member should make appropriate contractual arrangements with the University with regard to the use of the faculty member's time and the use of University equipment. Also, in such cases, the university, as well as the faculty, must remember that selling information is not part of our mission. Rather, as stated earlier, what we do "amounts to thinking about how people think." We cannot do this effectively if the flow of ideas is artificially restricted by the economic motives of those seeking to make profits from the sale of that which, in a liberal society, should not be for sale.

Academic Computing. This section of the manifesto deals with decision-making about academic computing. The issues ultimately are acquisition, implementation, and support. But in several cases, instead of attempting to reach specific decisions about these issues, the manifesto proposes that the institution (faculty, administration, and trustees) needs to think through the processes and administrative structures by means of which such decisions should be made. Because academic computing depends crucially on the total technological infrastructure, faculty should not unilaterally determine budgets and organizational charts-nor should trustees and administrators make these determinations without good-faith consultation with faculty. Here, we attempt to articulate from a faculty perspective the functions and relationships by means of which sound decisions can be made about acquisition, implementation, and support with respect to academic computing.

[Furman faculty are evaluated in terms of teaching, scholarly or creative activity, and institutional service; and since Furman is part of the larger community it serves, institutional service often includes community service of various kinds.] Faculty performing activities considered to be part of their job should be supported with new information technology to the limit of the institution's financial ability to do so.

"Support" in this context does not imply "control." Insofar as faculty are teaching or performing scholarly or creative activity, denying them the use of technology customarily provided by the institution, or attempting to control their use of such technology, constitutes a violation of academic freedom.

Minimum Faculty Competencies. It is impossible to relieve all faculty of the necessity of interacting with the new information technology. Therefore, before attempting to specify what kinds of support are appropriate for academic computing, it makes sense to specify a set of basic competencies that faculty members should have and basic responsibilities they should assume. We believe that the following constitutes a reasonable list.

Multimedia equipment:

be familiar with the basic operation of the actual equipment to be used;

know the capabilities of the equipment with respect to the planned use;

where appropriate, know how to change lamps and batteries (where spares are provided with the equipment);

request instruction on use of the equipment;

know what software is needed (e.g. browser plugins or version of software) and verify that it is installed.

Personal computer:

be familiar with the basic operation of the computer provided for everyday use

know where personal files are and how to back them up;

make sure that important files are backed up and archived, where appropriate [Note: this item and the preceding one presuppose the existence of clear policies and procedures for backing up personal files. The issue of backup is extremely complex and is far from settled at Furman. The position of this manifesto is that the Director of Computing Services and the Academic Computing Committee should develop, as soon as possible, the policies and procedures that would make these items reasonable demands.];

keep antivirus software up-to-date;

disinfect computers that are infected by viruses;

know how to use those systems commonly used to communicate with faculty, staff and students;

know the preferred channels for getting support [Note: this item presupposes that C&IS will provide the faculty with current information about whom to contact for support. One possibility would be to include this information on a well-publicized, regularly updated Web page.]

General:

know the university's policies with regard to use of information technology;

know what facilities are available to students;

know what students are expected to know about the use of information technology, and make sure that students have the skills and information necessary to complete any assignments that rely on the students' use of information technology.

The Concept of "Support". One of the main difficulties faculty have in using information technology is lack of time. Even when faculty have the resources to do a project, beginning (and sometimes maintaining) computer-based work takes large amounts of time. Creative thinking and close interaction with students are presumably what liberal-arts faculties do best, and what make liberal education valuable. When work with information technology gets in the way of these activities, instead of fostering them, then the means usurp the place of the ends.

In the same way, and for the same reasons, that institutions provide secretarial support to faculty, institutions need to provide technological support that will enable the faculty to work on innovative projects to improve education and practice their disciplines without eating up time and resources that would be better spent elsewhere. For example, just as institutions typically provide typing and copying services to faculty who need them for their work, institutions should provide such services as the digitization of materials, the writing of HTML code, and the maintenance of course bulletin boards, just to name three.

To the limit of the institution's financial ability, support should be based on the needs of faculty who wish to take advantage of it. Just as faculty make decisions about what they ask secretaries to do and what they do themselves, faculty should choose the level and degree of technological support they need. Some faculty members might want to learn how to use a scanner and scan their collection of slides themselves; others might want to ask a support person to scan the collection for them, freeing themselves to focus on developing innovative ways to use the digitized images in their courses. The needs of faculty in different disciplines are likely to vary widely, and the ideal is that the institution supports each instructor and each course as necessary.

For the foreseeable future, demand for support is likely to outstrip supply. Therefore, the definition of "support" as whatever individual faculty members say it is needs to be subject to a rational system for allocating scarce resources. We address this issue below.

[At Furman, support of the kinds we have just been talking about should be delivered through the Collaborative Communication and Learning Center. We recognize that this new responsibility requires a change in the CCLC's philosophy. Currently, the CCLC, based on the model of the "writing center," focuses on developing the students' own skills. Our proposal broadens the CCLC's mandate, asking the center also to help faculty members do their work more effectively with direct support. But the CCLC is the ideal conduit for this technological support. It will have both the resources and the flexibility to respond to individual faculty members' needs. It would be wasteful to create another entity with similar resources, when the CCLC is so well-suited to fill this role. Furthermore, if the CCLC is located in the renovated library in close proximity to Multimedia Services and the help desk, faculty will be provided a one-point source for most of their support needs.]

Acquisition and Implementation. [Furman's policy on academic computing technology, Policy 071.5, drafted by the Academic Computing Committee and issued by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean, is sound. The policy considers the needs of all levels of users and provides guidelines on how those needs should be addressed. The policy was an ambitious one when first issued, and we commend the administration, Computing and Information Services, and the Academic Computing Committee for the strides that have been taken toward its implementation.

However, there are two guidelines in the policy which have not yet been fully implemented and which we believe to be key to the full development of faculty use of information technology. The first is Guideline 4: "Equipment will be allocated to individual users, departments, and academic divisions according to a comprehensive and equitable equipment request system." The current request system may indeed be both comprehensive and equitable, but it is not perceived that way. We need a standard procedure through which faculty may submit requests which are then judged on merit by a competent authority. In regard to minor changes to the standard packages, the request might be judged by a designated member of Computing and Information Services; the case of more extensive requests might require the guidance of a body such as the Academic Computing Committee.

Policy 071.5 addresses such "high-end" requests in Guideline 7. This is the second guideline which has yet to be implemented. In accordance with the guideline, the University should establish a procedure for faculty to apply for information technology grants to aid them in their research and teaching. The Academic Computing Committee should play a role in administering these grants that is similar to the role played by the Research and Professional Growth Committee in the awarding of grants for faculty research.

The introduction of a regular replacement schedule for hardware and software, as called for in Guideline 1 of 071.5, has been a major help in keeping faculty resources up to date. It is important that the Academic Computing Committee continually evaluate the standard packages used in this schedule. At the same time, not all faculty have the same needs. Before receiving new hardware or software, the individual faculty member should have the opportunity to request changes to the standard package that the individual feels necessary for her or his work. Moreover, faculty should be fully aware of request procedures under Guidelines 4 and 7, when they find their current equipment insufficient for their needs.]

We would also like to call attention to Guideline 5, which calls on the University to make "technology-ready" classrooms available to all faculty who require them. Although much progress has been made in this direction, we would like to state clearly that high-speed Internet connections should be made available in all faculty offices and in all academic spaces (i.e., spaces used for classes or for teams working on course-related projects). No academic buildings should be built or renovated without providing for these connections. All academic spaces should have integrated hardware and software that will allow for the presentation of digital materials. No academic buildings should be built or renovated without providing for this hardware and software.

The ideal "smart classroom" should allow a teacher or presenter to be spontaneous. For example, the teacher should be able to walk into the classroom without the intention of using any kind of multimedia, and then, perhaps as a result of a question posed by a student, should have access to electronic resources to illustrate answers to that question, or to explore other ideas that arise during the class. As long as the class is restricted to the use of a predetermined sequence of media resources, we will not have achieved the goal of integrating technology into the process of teaching and learning.

The attainment of such a goal for the classroom requires an expensive infrastructure and an expensive set of hardware and software. It also requires professors who are comfortable with the available technologies and who know how and where to access the information needed at any particular point. It also requires an appropriately qualified consultant to be involved in all stages of implementation, from conceptual design of the room through installation and testing of the equipment. It has proven insufficient to rely in the input of the end-users, of those who support the equipment, and of the vendors of the equipment.

Currently, the optimal situation for classroom presentations appears to be, not shared PCs in the classrooms, but instead individual notebook computers for faculty. Ideally, the standard academic computing environment should provide every faculty member with a notebook computer that may be easily integrated into any academic workspace. In particular, a faculty office should have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, network access, and a backup device into which a notebook computer can be inserted easily; and every classroom should have multimedia presentation hardware and network access into which a notebook can be inserted easily. Such a model would allow faculty the portability they need to be spontaneous in the classroom, while also addressing the common complaints about notebooks (namely, that the keyboard and screens are too small). Some faculty may still require a desktop for their work, but that issue is addressed by the provisions in Policy 071.5 for special requests. Until every faculty member has a notebook computer, the institution should have a clear policy and procedure for deciding which faculty members get the notebook computers first when funds are available.

What we have articulated here is an ideal, which nevertheless suggests some immediate practical consequences. First, with respect to the design of new and renovated classrooms, qualified specialists should be involved at every stage of planning and implementation; second, with respect to equipment, the institution should begin moving as quickly as possible to a situation in which every faculty member who uses a computer in academic workspaces is provided a notebook computer.

Administrative Structures. We believe that the functional units provided for by current policies and practices at Furman are basically sound. We further believe that the structure for support of academic computing at Furman is worthy of consideration by other liberal-arts institutions.

[On the other hand, we believe that at Furman relationships among these functional units often need to be "formalized"-that is, that job-descriptions and policies need to be written or rewritten, or administrative structures need to be altered, to ensure that the functional units in fact maintain the relationships necessary for effective decision-making.]

These functional units operate at three levels: (1) the departmental level, (2) the faculty level, and (3) the institutional level.

At the departmental level, departmental liaisons should determine the needs of the members of the department, communicate those needs to support personnel, represent their respective department to the faculty Academic Computing Committee, and educate the members of their departments about developments in information technology that are likely to be useful to their disciplines. The job of departmental liaison, if properly done, is a big job. Departmental liaisons should have released time, and their performance evaluations should deal explicitly with their performance as liaisons.

At the faculty level, the Academic Computing Committee should advise Computing and Information Services and the administration in general about acquisition, implementation, and support, with respect to academic computing. To function properly, the ACC must be responsive to departmental liaisons-which means, at a minimum, meeting with liaisons regularly to identify problems, solicit opinions, and provide information about larger institutional issues. The ACC should also meet regularly with the administrative committee responsible for overseeing the use of information technology on campus. The ACC should formally include, not necessarily as voting members, personnel from Information Services.

At the institutional level, two functions need to be discussed: (a) academic computing specialists, and (b) the director of information services. Academic computing specialists provide support specifically for academic computing, as opposed to maintaining the infrastructure. Their job is to help faculty implement new technologies in their teaching and/or research. An important part of this job is to remain current with respect to new hardware and software potentially useful for the disciplines the specialists support, and to keep faculty abreast of developments. The position of director of information services, whatever such position might be called and wherever it might appear on the institution's organizational chart, is necessary to ensure coordination of academic and administrative computing.

[The academic computing specialists at Furman, in general, do well at what they are doing. But the difficulties of conceiving and implementing an administrative structure that will ensure appropriate university-wide support for academic computing become most apparent at this level.

For example, when the academic computing specialists are diverted to perform basic support for the infrastructure, their special expertise is underutilized. Stories circulate about how academic computing specialists spend time maintaining labs, swapping out hard drives, setting up discussion groups, or performing other low-level tasks. This sort of thing can happen sometimes at the behest of Computing and Information Services, because immediate problems arise and an academic computing specialist happens to be available. It can happen also at the behest of faculty. When faculty discover that a specialist solves problems, faculty might call directly on the specialist for something that should be referred to the help desk, thus short-circuiting the system and in effect wasting the specialist's time.

That this problem exists demonstrates, first, that the institution is understaffed for meeting the current expectations of the faculty with respect to basic support of the infrastructure. But the problem also illustrates the complexities inherent in maintaining the necessary interface between support personnel and the faculty. The academic computing specialists operate at this interface.

Part of the problem is clearly with administrative structure. Here as elsewhere, informal relationships that sometimes work well, and sometimes do not, need to be formalized. In the overall support-structure described here, it is important that the academic computing specialists be somehow accountable to the departmental liaisons. Therefore, the Academic Computing Committee (and therefore, indirectly, the departmental liaisons) should be formally involved in deciding how many and what sort of academic computing specialists to hire. Also, the academic computing specialists should not have different reporting structures in different disciplines. Instead of being directly responsible to department chairs in the sciences but not in other divisions, as is currently the case, the academic computing specialists should have uniform job-descriptions that make them accountable, directly or indirectly, not to the chairs but to the departmental liaisons.

For reasons suggested above, support personnel for academic computing ought to be located physically in the CCLC. There are plans already to locate Multimedia Services and the help desk in the renovated library, near the CCLC. There are obvious advantages to having the academic computing specialists located in the CCLC, and in close physical proximity to Multimedia Services, the help desk, and library personnel. But it is far from clear what sort of reporting structure would best fill everyone's needs. The situation is made even more complex by the current confusion in the administrative structure of the CCLC, which will be located in the library, but whose director reports to the Director of the Christian A. Johnson Center for Engaged Learning, to a supervisory committee for the CCLC, and, in regard to matters of tenure and promotion, presumably to a subset of the supervisory committee (although some members of the English Department, whose courses the director of the CCLC teaches, insist that the voice of the English Department should be decisive in matters of tenure and promotion).

We believe that the issue of the administrative structure appropriate for the academic computing specialists can be settled only by careful study and consultation among all the relevant units of the university. Policies, job-descriptions, and the organizational chart should formalize an administrative structure that ensures (1) accountability, direct or indirect, of the academic computing specialists to the departmental liaisons, and (2) appropriate coordination of the work of the academic computing specialists with Computing and Information Services. This issue should be settled, and a perspicuous reporting structure arrived at, by consultation involving the Academic Computing Committee, the Director of Computing and Information Services, the Librarian, the Director of the CCLC, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. In this process of consultation, the ACC would work with the departmental liaisons to determine and represent the interests of the faculty.

The current Director of Computing and Information Services asserts that a person with his responsibilities needs authority and access to deal with the vice presidents of the university as a peer. He asserts further that he currently feels that he has sufficient authority and access, though on an informal basis. He declines to speculate upon whether some other administrative structure would or would not be more desirable or effective.

The faculty who endorse this manifesto, however, believe that the authority and access just mentioned need to be formalized. We accept the argument that centralization is necessary at some point even in a distributed computing environment. Sound stewardship of university resources and the health of both academic and administrative computing depend crucially upon the ability of someone like the Director of Computing and Information Services to coordinate acquisition, implementation, and support university-wide. There are several possible models for formalizing the relationships necessary for this person to function effectively, only three of which we mention here.

There might be a Vice President for Information Services.

There might be a Chief Information Officer, whose job-description would allow this person to function much as a vice president.

There might be a Vice President for Information Systems, to whom both the Director of Computing and Information Services and the Librarian would report.

We do not endorse or condemn any one of these models. Our point is that the administration, in good-faith consultation with the faculty, needs to formalize in the organizational chart the relationships necessary for sound decisions to be made for both administrative and academic computing.

Two points are especially important here. First, although the current Director of Computing and Information Services asserts that relations between C&IS staff and Library faculty and staff appear to be effective and productive, the links between C&IS and the library need to be formalized. This goal may be accomplished in any of several ways: by having a Vice President for Information Systems, as mentioned above; or by rewriting the job-descriptions of the Librarian and the person in charge of information services so as to formalize these links; or by rewriting the job-description of the Systems Librarian so as to guarantee that this person works on a day-to-day basis with information services; or by rewriting mission statements so as to ensure that joint project teams are frequently necessary between the library and information services. But formalizing these links in some way is crucial.

Second, the person in charge of information services, whether or not the person is a vice president, needs to have the same direct access to trustees as the vice presidents currently have. Trustees need access to the highest level of technological expertise available at the university, to help them determine our strategies with respect to the new information technology.]

PROPOSITIONS: FURMAN AND THE NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

1. Furman should develop a "technology across the curriculum" program. The faculty, with appropriate support (normally, stipends and released time), should develop a number of curricular experiences that require students to study the new information technology considered as interpretive system: courses in which students actually use the new technology to address the questions posed by the traditional disciplines, and/or courses in which the new information technology considered as interpretive system is itself part of the subject-matter of the course. Students should be required to take a certain number of these "technology-conditioned" courses during their time at Furman.

2. Furman should not replace face-to-face instruction with other modalities enabled by the new information technology, except when a compelling case can be made that the other modalities are not only cheaper, but better in terms of carrying out the mission of a liberal-arts college.

3. Faculty, not the university, should own the copyright to their intellectual creations, whether these works be text, hypertext, multimedia, software, or in any other form in which information may be instantiated. At the same time, faculty, should make such creations available to the general public, where possible, under licenses such as the copyleft license advocated by the Free Software Foundation.

4. When a member of the faculty prefers not to make his or her work available under copyleft, because of a desire to profit financially from the work, the then faculty member should make appropriate contractual arrangements with Furman with regard to the use of the faculty member's time and the use of university equipment.

5. Faculty performing activities considered to be part of their job (teaching, scholarly or creative activity, institutional service) should be supported with new information technology to the limit of the institution's financial ability to do so.

6. Insofar as faculty are teaching or performing scholarly or creative activity, denying them the use of technology customarily provided by the institution, or attempting to control their use of such technology, constitutes a violation of academic freedom.

7. Furman faculty should possess the following basic competencies and assume the following basic responsibilities:

Multimedia equipment:

be familiar with the basic operation of the actual equipment to be used;

know the capabilities of the equipment with respect to the planned use;

where appropriate, know how to change lamps and batteries (where spares are provided with the equipment);

request instruction on use of the equipment;

know what software is needed (e.g. browser plugins or version of software) and verify that it is installed.

Personal computer:

be familiar with the basic operation of the computer provided for everyday use

know where personal files are and how to back them up;

make sure that important files are backed up and archived, where appropriate;

keep antivirus software up-to-date;

disinfect computers that are infected by viruses;

know how to use those systems commonly used to communicate with faculty, staff and students;

know the preferred channels for getting support.

General:

know the university's policies with regard to use of information technology;

know what facilities are available to students;

8. To the limit of the institution's financial ability, support should be based on the needs of faculty who wish to take advantage of it. Faculty should choose the level and degree of technological support they need, with the provision that allocation of scarce resources should be subject to a rational system.

9. Support for academic computing should be delivered through the CCLC.

10. Furman should implement as soon as possible the guidelines of Policy 071.5. Specifically: (1) we need a standard procedure through which faculty may submit requests for computing equipment which are then judged on merit by a competent authority; (2) Furman should establish a procedure for faculty to apply for information technology grants to aid them in their research and teaching.

11. High-speed Internet connections should be made available in all faculty offices and in all academic spaces (i.e., spaces used for classes or for teams working on course-related projects). No academic buildings should be built or renovated without providing for these connections. All academic spaces should have integrated hardware and software that will allow for the presentation of digital materials. No academic buildings should be built or renovated without providing for this hardware and software. In particular, all faculty offices should have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, network access, and a backup device into which a notebook computer can be inserted easily; and every classroom should have multimedia presentation hardware and network access into which a notebook can be inserted easily.

12. With respect to the design of new and renovated classrooms, qualified specialists should be involved at every stage of planning and implementation.

13. The institution should begin moving as quickly as possible to a situation in which every faculty member who uses a computer in academic workspaces is provided a notebook computer.

14. Departmental liaisons should have released time, and their performance evaluations should deal explicitly with their performance as liaisons.

15. The Academic Computing Committee should meet with liaisons regularly to identify problems, solicit opinions, and provide information about larger institutional issues. The ACC should also meet regularly with the administrative committee responsible for overseeing the use of information technology on campus. The ACC should formally include, not necessarily as voting members, personnel from Information Services.

16. Policies, job-descriptions, and the organizational chart should formalize an administrative structure that ensures (1) accountability, direct or indirect, of the academic computing specialists to the departmental liaisons, and (2) appropriate coordination of the work of the academic computing specialists with Computing and Information Services. This issue should be settled, and a perspicuous reporting structure arrived at, by consultation involving the Academic Computing Committee, the Director of Computing and Information Services, the Librarian, the Director of the CCLC, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. In this process of consultation, the ACC would work with the departmental liaisons to determine and represent the interests of the faculty.

17. An administrative structure should be formalized to ensure that the person responsible for coordinating academic and administrative computing at Furman has access and authority to deal with the vice presidents of the university as a peer, including the same direct access to trustees as the vice presidents currently enjoy.

18. An administrative structure should be formalized to ensure that the activities of Computing and Information Services are properly coordinated with the activities of the library.