Student affairs practitioners often feel inadequate in addressing issues of reported Internet misuse by students. Aside from the complex legal and policy environment that is evolving for the area of student discipline, most campus administrators are intimidated by the effects of rapid changes and advances in technology combined with a growing number of students who are fluent and thrive on networked technologies. This column extends the threads of our earlier articles to examine the strengths readers can bring to our technologically-enhanced college and university environments while fearing they may be discovered at any moment for being technologically "challenged". That is, the educator who applies tenets of good student affairs practice when working with students involved in computing resources misuse provides appropriate levels of challenge and support (Sanford, 1966) to them in their encounters with various psychosocial and cognitive developmental tasks.
We frequently receive reports of university Internet Protocol (IP) addresses making unauthorized contact (worried complainants will use words like "probe," "attack," "intrusion," and promises of legal action are typically included) with systems outside our network. Anecdotally, we believe one of two of the following explains most of these events:
In our experience, it is common for students to resist our invitations to meet in person. This is particularly true with those whose hibernation instincts are strong or for whom Quake (or other Internet games) could be a second major. With the above explanations in mind, it could be easy for the "computer affairs" professional to yield to the temptation to handle what may be a simple matter over the phone, or even by ping-ponging emails back and forth. We discourage such an impersonal approach.
The face-to-face meeting, whatever the etiology of the report, has important potential benefits:
The student might learn a few things about security or privacy in a networked environment, increasing an area of their competence (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). (Some firewall software detects the hostname of the computer associated with the offending IP address. Many of our students use their full names as their hostnames; this could lead an angry complainant more directly to the student, rather than through our office as the ISP.)Issues of moral development may be explored with the individual who acknowledges some experimentation with scanning tools. While a phone call may serve the student’s desire to avoid punishment, the in-person conversation is the milieu in which the value of being a positive and ethical member of the world-wide Internet community could be discussed.
In the case of a student whose Internet use is competing with productivity in other areas of life, a counseling center referral may be appropriate for him/her to examine issues of time management or Internet addiction. Or, perhaps the interaction will serve to identify frustrations the student has with learning, prompting a contact with the learning assistance center.
Our practice of asking the student to provide some type of identification prior to a discussion of the case is a supportive measure intended to communicate our commitment to the nondisclosure of student education records. It also symbolizes the seriousness of authentication and authorization practices for Internet access and serves as a reminder of a fundamental policy principle: users should safeguard access to their computing accounts or network privileges since they may be held responsible for incidents of misuse that result from careless behavior.
The initiation of a residentially-based program at the University of Maryland designed to support upper-class students in the establishment of their own businesses (see http://www.hinmanceos.umd.edu/) has exposed issues of the congruence of university policies with legitimate ecommerce activities. Our acceptable use guidelines prohibit commercial use of computing resources without written authorization. Residence life policies at many institutions forbid operating business enterprises in residence hall facilities. We anticipate situations in which students will pursue unauthorized business uses of computing resources based upon the assumption that there is no distinction between their use and that of our student entrepreneurs who are participating in a sanctioned University program. How will a developmental approach be effective in discussing this reality?
The formal structure and supervision of the University-sponsored program provides a critical framework and justification for promoting student learning opportunities while protecting the University’s interests. Lack of program oversight could result in enterprises reminiscent of the quality of the start-up featured in Garry Trudeau’s "Doonesbury" comic strips in which college roommates (Zipper Harris and Jeff Redfern) dream up the myVULTURE.com business plan. myVULTURE is conceived as a website for selling the discounted merchandise of failed ebusinesses. (See www.doonesbury.com/flashbacks for threads of the story from April, May, June, and July 2000, especially if your institution is considering relaxing its policies on sales or solicitation activities.)
When faced with the student whose insurgent business plan is about to be quashed, keep in mind the following:
Offering a "because we say so" explanation without any rationale in response to what is perceived as a double standard probably underestimates the student’s level of cognitive development.Discussing the contextual nuances of the codified program vs. the fictional myVULTURE.com venture may challenge the multiplistic thinker to move into the more complex stage of relativism (Perry, 1970) or into the contextual knowing pattern identified by Baxter Magolda (1992).
Encouraging the student to explore the potential for policy change through the residence hall association or institutional governance structures, and supporting them in an appropriate manner through the process, is consistent with the "Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs" (http://www.acpa.nche.edu/pgp/principle.htm) notions of active learning; ethical development; setting the learning bar high; forging educational partnerships; and building communities that foster discussion and debate.
The instantaneous ability of the Internet for communication purposes is sometimes problematic. The ease by which the "send" command can be used to instigate conversation (typically in place of a phone call or face-to-face encounter) often results in the launching of messages that the sender immediately wishes were retrievable. The receipt of provocative messages also fuels tempers that result in emotionally-based replies and tirades that are sent to individuals or posted to public newsgroups, listservs and discussion lists.
In several cases of netiquette breaches handled by Project NEThics, much of the reflective work has been done by the student in the time lapsed between our initial contact and the scheduled face-to-face meeting. One student in particular was quite remorseful about his behavior on a newsgroup, pronounced it immature, had spoken with his parents about his actions, and had new insights about Internet communication. He acknowledged he had been trying to "get a rise" out of people and had been insensitive to peoples’ feelings since he considered the Internet a medium which did not require the same civil behavior as person-to-person contact. At least some peer-group influences were consistent with his ill-mannered behavior and consensus-thinking among students that there is no accountability for behavior on the Internet (e.g., his roommate encouraged him to avoid responding to the request to meet with us but he knew he needed to follow-through and accept consequences for his actions.)
These are fruitful moments for exploration of:
Managing emotions&endash;can I manage anger appropriately?Developing mature interpersonal relationships&endash;can I appreciate differences of opinion and life experience?
Establishing identity&endash;what does my communication style and how others perceive me say about who I am?
There is much to learn about students and their on-line culture, and some of it may challenge our own technological competencies. But the educational role we play in this area of their lives can be rich as we bring to it our enthusiasm for the task and our commitment to developmental approaches that promote student learning.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass..
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.