1. Case of the Cornell Four
Write an analysis of the episode labelled "Cornell University Disciplinary Charges" and documented at the Justice On Campus website ( href=http://joc.mit.edu/cornell.html). Arrive at a conclusion as to how this affair should have been treated by Cornell administrators applying Cornell University policies. Take into careful consideration the arguments that were made and that could be made for applying disciplinary sanctions to the authors of the offending letter; pay no less attention to arguments that were and that could be made for finding them innocent of infractions of Cornell policy. In your essay, try to resolve the more general question: what, if any, "speech codes" or regulations on expression through electronic media (or through other University media, or in the public or private space of the campus) should institutions like Cornell maintain and enforce? (If, for example, you find that Cornell was right to seek to punish the four authors of the letter but lacked adequate policies, propose changes. If you believe that some forms of expression should be regulated on campus -- only not in this case -- identify them.)
Here are some (strong) recommendations for addressing this topic if you choose to do so.
2. Avoid extravagant rhetoric. As you can see at the joc site, most parties to this controversy (commentators at Cornell and at other schools, the media, writers of official and not-so-official editorials, etc.) had a ripping good time exercising their own right to free speech, often at the cost of simplifying the issues and injecting irrelevant concerns into the discussion.
3. Review and show your awareness of relevant portions of Cornell policies. Treat the document "Information Technologies Rights and Responsibilities" (at http://www.cornell.edu/Computer/responsible-use/Index.html ) not only as a source of information on policies but as a gateway to more explicit and detailed statements of those policies. You should be familiar with the Campus Code of Conduct, especially Title III section II, and the University's Sexual Harrassment policy ( http://www.univco.cornell.edu/policy/SH.html), which applies to students at as well as employees of the University.
4. Try to resolve the "more general question" mentioned in the assignment above in a principled way. The best way to do this is by thinking through alternative scenarios: what should a University's policy have to say about potentially offensive expression that is • targeted on groups defined by racial or religious identity or sexual orientation; • addressed to individuals who belong to the targeted group; • published through another medium than email, e.g. on a Web site or by voice or in print; • motivated by sincerely held religious or ethical beliefs; • disseminated in the course of academic instruction or by on-campus employers; • disruptive of university functions; • discriminatory in intent or in effect; • intended or likely to incite to violence; • obscene under US law; etc. (You don't have to deal with all these instances in writing, but you should think about them as a way of arriving at principled response to the "m.g.q.")
More particularly, do not make your essay a polemic against "political correctness," "feminazis," "man-haters," "woman-haters," "fraternity boys," or the long Western tradition of oppression of women, minorities, and of course college students - or anybody else: stick to the substantive and procedural issues and avoid ad hominem/feminam judgments. (You are permitted to bash Cornell's administration: that's what administrations are for.)
Mitchell Kapor (in L,T,S) and Andrew Shapro (in the CS) offer differing - but not necessarily incompatible - approaches to preserving "civil liberties in cyberspace" and particularly individuals' right of access to and enjoyment of freedom of expression. Each recommends modification of existing laws and public policies to maximize the benefits of free expression and to minimize constraints on it by governments and other entities. Write a critical comparison of these two sets of proposals. (You can write critically of one or of both, but your essay should commit itself to a reasoned judgment as its thesis, offering consistent and cogent reasons for that thesis.)
2. Try to identify the reasoning behind each proposal, even when it is implicit. Here Laurence Tribe's article may provide useful ideas: his axioms #1 and #3 seem particularly relevant to assessing these two proposals.
3. Electronic bill of rights?
As Jeffrey Rosen reports ("Is Nothing Private?"The New Yorker. 1 June 1998: 40-41), Al Gore has proposed an "Electronic Bill of Rights" in speeches given in the last two years. Another, much more radical proposal for such a document is made by Electronic Frontiers Florida ( http://www.efflorida.org/Ebr/Ebr_fset.html ). Write an essay addressing the question: to what extent can the provisions of this Bill be thought of as outgrowths of the US Constitution (including the original Bill of Rights); what key provisions of the Constitution would need re-interpetation and extension to accomodate these newly formulated "Rights"? (This is an issue we will talk about Tuesday, Nov. 17; everyone should have read EFFlorida's document online by that point.)
A general proviso: in this as in other essays, be sure you make specific reference to all your sources of information, ideas, and words, online or print-based. The assignment for Essay #1 gives a model for listing an online source in a "Works Cited" list; much more information is available online in Diana Hacker's (yes, that's her name) Research and Documentation in the Electronic Age at http://www.bedfordbooks.com/rd/index.html.