Errors of Keller Plan directors surprising
™ d iveuer rian psychology stu
dent, I, along with more than 60C
other students, have been made well
aware of the impact of the recent thef i
of student records. However, I feel
some very important issues have
been neglected, and they are ad
dressed below.
First, Keller Plan psychology rec
ords and retains grades for each stu
dent on separate file folders. These
folders are the extent of the students’
records. The sole means of protection
for all 600-plus records is placement
in a locked room. When asked why
these records were not kept under
lock and key, university officials re
sponded that such records were far
too numerous to be locked up. (All
600-plus records are contained in two
l-by-3-foot boxes.) No regard is
given to the possibility of fire or
water damage destroying the records.
A number of precautions could
have been taken to protect the rec
ords. For example, Political Science
100 Keller Plan retains all of their
records, which are kept on essentially
identical file folders, in a locked file
cabinet. In addition, all student rec
ords are computerized. Also, the
computer system is backed up several
ways. Perhaps the 181 Psychology
department could spare one of its
video cameras used to deter cheating
to monitor the defenseless records.
Secondly, Berman and Heppner
are quick to cite the theft of their
backup system. This backup system
consists of a shelf full of tests from
previous days. They are kept in the
same location as the records and are
equally vulnerable. The mere idea
that Berman and Heppner would la
bel such a system a backup is ludi
crous.
Again, several options are open
for protection. The placement in a
separate location should be the first
step. Officials might consider provid
ing students with a record of their
own progress to retain themselves.
Old tests and progress reports have
proven themselves useful in correct
ing occasional mistakes in grading.
In a letter sent to all 600 Keller
students, Berman and Heppner state
that “as many precautions as pos
sible5 5 have been taken to protect the
records.
Third, Berman and Heppner have
responded to the situation by repeat
edly emphasizing the psychological
pathology of the thieves. Berman and
Heppner need to accept a certain
degree of responsibility for the re
sults of the robbery and respond prop
erly. What is a proper response?
There are two points: One, admitting
the records were not adequately pro
tected, and two, an apology is due to
the students. These individuals who
serve as role models to their students,
have taught us that whenever a mis
take is made, never admit it and al
ways cover your —.
Finally, there is the issue of
grades. Students are now given the
options of taking a test that covers the
entire year, which completely under
mines the fundamentals of a Keller
Plan program, or taking the course
again next year. Berman and
Heppnerclaim such options are “fair
to the greatest number.”
In my opinion, the options serve to
minimize the inconvenience to the
professors and consequently lay the
burden on the students. If nothing
else, they could have admitted their
mistakes and relied on the students’
honesty in reporting their own prog
ress. Such a response may have re
sulted in some grade inflation. How
ever, most students are reasonably
honest and a certain degree of grade
inflation would be harmless overall.
I realize the surprise of such
events as the break-in, but equally
surprising are the gross errors in judg
ment made by those responsible for
the management of the Psychology
181 Keller program.
Tim Dinkclman
pre-dentistry
junior
CRC guidelines should be clearly defined
In the Nov. 29 issue of the Journal
ist, there was an article on the misuse
of computer facilities at UNL.
Though we do not support the actions
of the students involved, we feel that
a few inaccuracies should be cleared
up.
The game in question, as reported,
was running on an off-campus com
puter. The Journalist article implied
that the only way to access the game
was through an account on a UNL
mainframe. This is simply not true.
The game was running on a ma
chine in Finland. Getting access to
the game is as simple as dialing a
phone number and then using an
account on that machine. The ac
count was posted publicly as an invi
tation to play.
Anyone who can get to a computer
terminal on the campus network, or a
home computer and a modem, can
play this game regardless of whether
they have a UNL computer account.
Therefore, there is no reason to be
lieve that the two students with ac
counts ‘ ‘broke another rule by giving
out their (account) numbers,” as
Gerald Kutish, associate director of
the Computing Resource Center,
stated.
Kutish also claims that “the cen
ter’s policy clearly states that games
are off limits,” and states that the
computer rooms have signs that say
“For coursework only.”
i ne only relevant signs we touna
slate: “ATTENTION: Misuse of
computer resources may subject the
student to disciplinary action under
the UNL Student Code of Conduct.”
These signs appeared after -- not
before - the reported incident.
Most students have never been
shown a copy of the document that
Kutish cites, “Ethical Principles for
the Use of UNL Computing Re
sources.” In fact, when we went into
the CRC office to request a copy, it
took 15 minutes for the staff to find
one.
In essence, there are four rules in
the policy statement we obtained.
The first rule states that computer
accounts arc to be used only for the
purpose for which they were issued.
The second rule states that an account
will not be used to violate other users ’
rights (rights to privacy, rights of
ownership, right to access.) Both
rules three and four seem to be special
cases of rule two dealing with what is
essentially vandalism and theft.
The second rule is essential to the
successful sharing of computer re
sources and we fully support it. The
first rule, however, is so vague that
nearly any activity can be con
demned (including the writing of this
letter, which was done on a university
mainframe). For instance, using an
account issued for a computer class to
write an English paper would be a
violation. No one should object to
using the machine tor any educa
tional purpose.
Furthermore, it is ludicrous to
expect students to obey a policy
which has never been shown to them,
and which CRC seems to be only
marginally aware of. If CRC is really
serious about holding students re
sponsible for their actions, they must
start by giving them a tangible and
accessible set of guidelines. Even the
brightest computer user isn’t tele
pathic.
Frankly, we feel that this is a large
fuss over very little. The students
were wrong, were told they were
wrong, they quit playing, and that
should have been the end of it. CRC,
however, seems intent on bringing
serious punishment against these stu
dents, demonstrated by the fact that
their academic records have been
frozen. Given the seriousness of this
aciton, we feel another side of the
situation should be presented.
Paul Kenyon David Rosecrans
graduate student graduate student
computer science computer science
Mike Miller David Ashley
junior graduate student
computer science computer science
Michael Ho
student representative
Computing Facilities and Services
Subcommittee of the Faculty Senate
nflelp
Shape The Future
Of Your Field!
And Win A $5,000* Zenith
Personal Computer Package!
The Masters of Innovation Competition is back... to recognize
and award this year’s innovators with $155,(XX) in Zenith Data
Systems PC packages. And you could be among them!
If you’ve developed or applied DOS-based software and/or
hardware to creatively address a problem within your field of
study, then enter your PC applicauon paper today in Zenith
Data Systems’ MASTERS OF INNOVATION D Competition.
You could win a $5,000* Zenith PC package forypurself
and $5,000* in Zenith computer equip
ment for your school donated in your
name. 1st, 2nd and 3rd-place student
and faculty prizes will be awarded in
each of five academic categories. That’s
30 winners in all... and you could be
one of them!
Enter Zenith Data Systems’
MASTERS
OF
INNOVATION II
COMPETITION
For Your Entry Form,
Call: 1-800-553-0301
Competition Ends January 15,1990.
'TfcitfTM data
systems
THE QUALITY GOES IN BEFORE THE NAME GOES ON*
•Prize values based on Zenith Dau Systems' standard educational pricing in efleci at bmc of award. Void where prohibited.
C I9H9. Zenith Dau Svstems Form No. 1216
iWOFF']
i Any Pizza |
NAME__ •
I ADDRESS_ I
DRIVERS
WANTED
Full & Part-time
days and nights
must have car
with insurance.
$4.OO/hr.
plus mileage
tips & bonuses
