New Policy?

Anybody have any idea what this email (sent on Monday) is about?

A message from HAROLD WASHINGTON COLLEGE

STARTING APRIL 23RD PERSONS WITHOUT VALID SCHOOL Identification MUST SURRENDER A VALID STATE OR PHOTO IDENTIFICATION TO LOBBY SECURITY

I know we’re all guessing that it has something to do with the incident at Olive Harvey (anyone know anything more about that, by the way?), but this seems like EXACTLY the kind of policy that some of us were concerned about being put in place when those stupid gates went up in the first place…a policy that will keep students out of their classes while not solving any problem–actual or potential. At least none that I can think of. Can anyone enlighten me?

And then what is the meaning of the one we got last night?

A message from HAROLD WASHINGTON COLLEGE

STARTING APRIL 23RD PERSONNEL WITHOUT VALID SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION MUST SURRENDER A VALID STATE OR PHOTO IDENTIFICATION TO LOBBY SECURITY

Is that a revision, limiting this policy to apply only to personnel? Or is it a clarification that the policy extends ALSO to personnel?

What the hell?

UPDATE: From your email:

In response to questions raised on the Harold Lounge, Harold Washington College’s Safety and Security team wanted to share information behind the change in procedure…This new policy is in direct response to feedback received from students who have reported unauthorized people entering the College. Discussions with students highlighted their concern with the policy for guests entering the building. This update is to ensure we know who is in the building and when they leave, helping to create a safe and secure campus.
I wish I could say that this kind offer clarified things for me, but it seems to raise more questions–who talked to these students? How many were there? Was SGA involved? Shouldn’t they be? How about faculty council? The Office of Instruction? And what sense is there that these students (and their concerns) are representative of the students (and admins, faculty, staff, and visitors) affected by this policy? Clearly they were taken to be, but on what basis and is it true?
(sigh)
And, of course, there is the remaining question of whether this new policy will really allow security to know who is in the building and when they leave (and, if so, whether that will do anything to create “a safe and secure campus”). The assumptions driving both of these claims are questionable, at least, I would say. Unsurprising, though.

The Background on the New Authorship Policy

So, there’s been more than a little drama about posts and authorship over the last six months while I’ve been mostly absented from the blog helm. For selfish and other reasons related to giving things enough wait time that they solve themselves (masterful inactivity one might call it), I tried to stay uninvolved for the most part. Alas, I am no longer uninvolved and opinions over the last six months have strengthened with opinion holders becoming much more vocal that “something must be done.” But what? And how? And why? Well, here’s my version of things: (more…)

A Programming Note and New Policy for the Lounge

As of Monday morning, authorship and editorial status on the Lounge will require that authors be:

  1. Full-time Faculty members;
  2. Clearly identifiable by name, either by writing under their own name or writing under a pen-name that is easily traced to the person using it.

The second criterion is new and means either the disclosure of all authors’ identities or the end (or spin-off onto another blog) of the Realist and 12Keystrokes projects. I do not know what they will do, but I guess we’ll find out by Monday morning.

I will have more to say about how this decision evolved (probably tomorrow) and why, but the short version is that two editorial sidebars, conducted by email–one back in March, and one this week–revealed support for, first, taking some kind of action, and second, taking this particular one.

This policy ONLY applies to posts. Readers will still be able to comment by name or pseudonym or anonymously.

Reminder: Sabbatical Applications Due on Friday

Just in case you’re eligible and thinking about applying for one, per your email, you might want to spend a little time over the long holiday weekend putting together your sabbatical application, since they’re due to the suits this week.

And if you don’t know how to think about it (or aren’t yet eligible), you might get some help from THIS article about how to plan a productive (and enjoyable) sabbatical.

And if you don’t know from sabbaticals, read this before filling out this.

A Departmental, Philosophical/Plagiarism Discussion for All

So, on Thursday, a student asked me, “Do you ever have, like, philosophical discussions with people?”

“All the time,” I said, thinking of some of the stuff that goes on here, as well as discussions with colleagues and students and friends, including one that broke out in our department email on Wednesday night. The catalyst, which I have permission to post but with the name withheld by request, was this:

Hi folks,

I’m in a debate right now about self-plagiarism. I believe it’s legit, as students should be expected to produce work original for each semester. I have a student retaking a course that resubmitted one of their papers. The argument I’m hearing is that students (and many others) are not aware of the concept and therefore shouldn’t be held accountable (I think they should, would it matter if you told a cop that you didn’t know you were breaking the law?). What do you all think?

So, rather than tell you what you said, I’ll deflect it unto y’all–what do you think?