ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ July/August 2002 / 499 College & Research Libraries news The library takes the lead Wichita State University Library proposes a university-wide Internet policy by Beth A. Smith W hat happens w hen the library takes the lead in creating the university’s Internet policy? At Wichita State University ( Ruth Jackson, dean of libraries, took the ini­ tiative to find this out. In spring 2000, she form ed the “Ad Hoc Committee to D evelop a Policy on Internet Access and Pornogra­ p h y .” The charge was to review existing li- brary policy and recom m end a policy that w ould be uniformly applicable to the cam­ pus community. This article will discuss some of the processes w e used to get through the rigorous process of drafting a university-wide Internet policy. From earlier discussions among the library faculty, two com m on goals em erged regard­ ing Internet use, which becam e the working values for our committee: to preserve aca­ dem ic and intellectual freedom and to p ro ­ tect patro n s’ right to privacy. By taking the lead, the libraries w ere able to create Internet policies and procedures from a proactive stance, rather than a reactive one, guaran­ teeing o p e n access. Jackson m ade a vital decision to include representatives from key technology service points, as well as representatives from the student body and faculty, on the committee. The 12-member committee included 8 library m em bers, representing staff, faculty, techni­ W cal services, reference, circulation, and in­ terlibrary loan. In addition. University Com­ SUp), uting, Media Resource Center, Student Gov­ ernm ent Association, and Faculty Senate each sent a representative. It was important, if the policy w as to be accepted, that representa­ tives from areas outside the library have a voice. As the chair of the “p o rn ” committee, as w e cam e to be know n, I decided to conduct informal m eetings with the goal of creating an environm ent conducive to o p en sharing of experiences and opinions. G e ttin g started Each m em b e r left o u r first m eeting in Ju n e 2000 w ith an inform ation-gathering assign­ m ent. T he areas w e lo o k e d at inclu d ed legal cases involving th e In te rn et a n d li­ braries, p e n d in g legislation, library litera­ ture, Intern et policies from o th e r institu­ tio n s n a tio n a lly a n d lo c a lly (in c lu d in g academ ic a n d public), university policies, a n d te c h n o lo g ic a l o p tio n s (i.e., privacy screens). A central read in g file w as c re ­ ate d that c o n tin u e d to e x p a n d th ro u g h the co u rse of o u r com m ittee w ork. We also m onitored legislation being con­ sidered at the time (including CIPA, COPA, and the McCain am endm ent) and court cases About the author Beth A. Smith is engineering librarian a t Wichita State University, e-mail: beth.smi th@wichi ta.edu mailto:beth.smith@wichita.edu 500 / C&RL News ■ July/August 2002 By ta k in g th e le a d , th e lib ra rie s w e r e a b le t o c re a te In te r n e t p o lic ie s a n d p ro c e d u re s fr o m a p ro a c tiv e stan ce, r a th e r th a n a re a c tiv e o n e , g u a r a n te e in g o p e n access. involving Internet access a n d libraries. I c o n ­ tin u e d to m onitor relevant cases a n d legisla­ tion to m aintain a current aw areness as the issues surro u n d in g In ternet access in public spaces co n tin u e d to evolve. T hrough o u r literature search, w e found an article by Janis DybdahP that p ro v id ed a list of elem ents that libraries in h er study inclu d ed in their Internet policies. We u se d this as a checklist to guide discussions abo u t th e types of things w e w a n te d to include in o u r Intern et policy. S h a rin g p e rs p e c tiv e s The w id e range o f experiences of th e g roup gave o u r com m ittee a b ro a d e r perspective of th e issues th a n if any single g ro u p h ad w ritten th e In te rn e t policy. For exam ple, w h e n researching the cost of placing privacy screens o n ea ch o f th e public term inals, one of our m em bers rec o u n ted th e experience o f a n o th e r library in the state that h a d tried this. The reference librarians at that institu­ tio n c o m p la in e d th at th e privacy screen s m ade it difficult to assist patrons w ith their work. T herefore, in o u r final recom m endations to the dean regarding library procedures, w e suggested placing privacy screens on a small b a n k of com puters. Patrons cou ld use these com puters to en su re their privacy or they could b e asked to m ove to th o se com puters if there w ere com plaints regarding th e m a­ terial they are viewing. O ur Com puting C enter m em ber h a d e x ­ perience w ith filters at a small private col­ lege. The filters lasted 13 hours before the cry of “Academic Freedom !” w as h e a rd and legal action threatened. Ironically, the day after our first m eeting, a p a tro n a p p ro a c h e d m e at the reference desk to inform m e that a n o th e r patron was view ing child p o rn o g ra ­ phy. At our seco n d m eeting, I w as arm ed w ith this inform ation a n d able to share my ex p erien ce w ith th e com m ittee. M a in ta in in g fo cu s A clear charge w as necessary to k e e p discus­ sion o n track, as w e fo u n d ourselves bogged d o w n in trying to consider procedures for the library. It w as im portant for the com m it­ tee to review its charge to focus the discus­ sion. O u r role w as to recom m end policy. We d ecided, as a com m ittee, that p ro ce d u re s should be the responsibility of the individual departm ents. The library m em bers o n the com m ittee did m ake som e recom m endations to the dean of libraries regarding procedures after the final draft of the policy h ad b e e n com pleted. In looking at WSU’s existing policies, the committee discovered that the library and Uni­ versity Computing each had a policy, and that the campus e-mail policy was an entirely sepa­ rate docum ent from those. However, the li­ brary policy w as o u td a te d a n d University Com puting’s policy had never been discussed with the library during its creation. (The Uni­ versity Com puting representative admitted to sending students viewing “objectionable” m a­ terial to the library on occasion.) In addition to assessing technology poli­ c ie s a c ro s s c a m p u s , w e r e v i e w e d th e university’s sexual h arassm en t policy a n d talked to cam pus police regarding their poli­ cies a n d procedures. Although the libraries’ form er Internet-use policy w as to o vague for th e current envi­ ronm ent, w e felt th e basic prem ise could be m aintained. O u r goal w as to create a policy that gave m ore detail a n d exam ples o f w h at w as n o t “acceptable u s e .” W r itin g th e p o lic y W e lo o k ed at a w ide range o f Internet poli­ cies from academ ic libraries, public librar­ ies, a n d institutions. Many w ere to o restric­ t iv e o r c o n t a i n e d l a n g u a g e t h a t w e considered vague, such as banning the view ­ ing o f “objectionable” m aterial. W e consid­ e re d this as to o subjective a n d som ething that w o u ld place librarians in th e role of the Internet police. R utgers U n iv e rs ity ’s “A c c e p ta b le U se Policy for Com puting a n d Inform ation Tech­ nology R esources”2 h a d th e kind of detail (c o n tin u e d o n p a g e 5 0 9 ) C&RL News ■ July/A ugust 2002 / 501 C&RL News ■ July/August 2002 / 509 fairly low num ber given the proportion of undergraduates to either faculty or graduate students. The other 7.5 percent of circulations are interlibrary loan and staff. C onclusion The circulation data for this collection shows that these types of materials achieve high cir­ culation figures and certainly break out of the traditional 80/20 m odel of library circula­ tion. There is definitely a n e e d for third-party m anuals, particular for highly technical soft­ w are that d o e sn ’t tend to com e w ith m anu­ als. U nfortunately those w h o n e e d the help the most, undergraduates, appear to b e the least likely to use the collection. It w ould be interesting to look further at usage to deter­ ( “The library takes the le a d ” c o n tin u e d fr o m p a g e 5 0 0 ) o u r p o lic y w a s la c k in g , a n d , w ith th e a u th o r ’s p e rm iss io n , w e u s e d it as o u r m odel. R ather th a n listing a v a g u e s ta te ­ m en t that illegal activity is p ro h ib ite d , s p e ­ cific actions are listed in the R utgers’ policy as b e in g illegal by fed e ra l a n d state sta t­ utes, e.g., “to m ak e m o re c o p ie s o f so ft­ w a re th a n a llo w e d by licen se or to view , d o w n lo a d , distribute, or p o ssess child p o r­ n o g rap h y . . . . ” A su b c o m m itte e of th re e librarians w as sele c te d to actually w rite WSU’s policy. The first draft w as c o m p le te d in A ugust 2000 a n d w as se n t to all m em bers. T he full com ­ m ittee m et to d iscuss c h a n g es a n d s u b s e ­ q u e n t drafts w e re sen t as e-m ail a tta c h ­ m ents. I k e p t m eetin g s at a m inim um until th e final w ra p -u p session. After eight drafts, th e final d o c u m e n t w as c o m p le te d a n d u n a n im o u sly a p p ro v e d by th e full com m it­ tee in N o v e m b e r 2000. By fall 2001, all levels of the university administration h ad accepted the policy. It has m ade its w ay through the Faculty Senate Li­ brary Committee, university counsel, several vice presidents, a n d the president of the uni­ versity. In line with the com m ittee’s recom ­ m e n d a tio n to c o n s o lid a te all u n iv e rsity Internet and information policies, Jackson has b e e n appo in ted chair of the University Tech­ nology Subcom mittee to Review WSU Tech­ nology Policies. m ine how the usage of the various catego­ ries of materials reflects the user type. N o tes 1. Third-party computer manuals are defined as those published by organizations other than the manufacturer or distributor of the software. 2. S ee h t t p : / / w w w . s o u t h e r n c t . e d u / ~klassen/web41ibsurvey.html for a summ ary of the results of this informal survey. 3. So far, losses have b e e n negligible. 4. Statistics w ere gathered from our SIRSI Webcat in spring 2001 and w ere analyzed by hand. They should not be considered rigor­ ous statistics as som e data w as unavailable and it is not the p urpose of this article to be a rigorous accounting of ho w these books w ere used. ■ The creation of the university-wide Internet policy was a lengthy process, especially for the library representatives involved. Three key elements helped us to succeed: involving all the technology centers on campus, the thor­ oughness of our research, and maintaining a relaxed team atmosphere with a common goal. W hat happens w hen the library takes the lead in creating the university’s Internet policy? At Wichita State University the result is a uni­ form Internet-use policy that preserves intel­ lectual freedom and protects individuals’ right to privacy.3 N o tes 1. Janis Dybdahl, “Internet use policy: som e features to consider.” Colorado Librar­ ies (1999) 25:43-7. 2. “Acceptable use policy.” Rutgers Uni­ versity, available at http://rucs.rutgers.edu/ acceptable-use.htm l; accessed 2002, Ju n e 10. See also, “Acceptable use guidelines.” Rutgers University, available at http://rucs.rutgers.edu/ acceptable-use-guide.htm l; accessed 2002, Ju n e 10. 3. The author thanks the m embers of the Ad Hoc Committee to Develop a Policy on Internet Access and Pornography for all of their hard work. Thanks to David Duncan, Ted Naylor, and Sandy MacGill for drafting the policy. Special thanks to Janet Brown, Ted Naylor, and Kristen Sen for their roles in pre­ senting th e policy for the Kansas Library Association. ■ http://www.southernct.edu/ http://rucs.rutgers.edu/ http://rucs.rutgers.edu/