To: rslight, dmcguire cc: bcc: rslight Subject: Extropians -------- ASA Disciplinary Hearing In the matter of the MIT Extropians August 18, 1997 Representing ASA: Susan Born, Van Chu, Geoffrey Coram, Heather Drake, Edwin Karat, Russell Light Representing the Extropians: Jason Davis, Han Huang The MIT Extropians, a student group seeking ASA recognition, are charged with four violations of MIT policies/rulings related to an unauthorized mailing to the incoming freshman class. For the benefit of members of the community not involved in the hearing or ASA's deliberation, we briefly summarize our judgment on each count. Count 1 (Unauthorized use of mailing list) Count 1 charges the Extropians with violating the MIT policy, appearing on the Registrar's Office mailing label request form, prohibiting unauthorized use of the MIT mailing list and prohibiting mailings not authorized by the Dean's Office. In their defense, they assert that this policy only applies to labels obtained from the Registrar's Office; this is a misunderstanding of the situation. The policy applies equally to all mailings, although an individual who obtains labels from a source other than the Registrar's Office may in good faith be unaware of the policy. In this particular case, however, the Extropians were aware that Dean's Office approval was required for the ASA mailing, and the FSILG from which the labels were obtained was required to sign an agreement with Neal Dorow that the labels would only be used for approved mailings. Any group seeking to legitimately send the mailing in good faith would have at least inquired about whether it was subject to Dean's Office approval. Ignorance of the need for approval on the Extropians' part could only have come as a result of a deliberate effort not to find out. The Board concludes that the Extropians either knew or should have known that Dean's Office approval was required, and they are therefore judged guilty on count 1. Count 2 (Unauthorized use of student data) Count 2 charges the Extropians with violating the MIT policy, appearing in the Residential Life handbook, prohibiting unauthorized use of MIT student data. In their defense, they assert that MIT Policies and Procedures is the sole acceptable basis on which to assert a violation of MIT policy, and that their action is not prohibited by MIT Policies and Procedures. This is a misreading of those guidelines. Section 3.19.2 states, "Providing the [Student] Directory or similar listings to persons outside MIT or using the Directory or similar listings for non-Institute purposes is prohibited. Clearly, the mailing list for the incoming freshman class is a listing "similar" to the MIT Student Directory. The question therefore hinges on whether the unauthorized mailing was for "non-Institute purposes." The Board concludes that a mailing made contrary to explicit direction from the Dean's Office cannot be viewed as anything other than for "non-Institute purposes." In addition, the mailing addresses of the freshman class are not publicly available until the freshmen come to campus, so this information would not fall under the "student directory" exception to the privacy policy in any case. Therefore, the Extropians are judged guilty on count 2. Count 3 (UESA/ASA prohibition on non-ASA mailings) Count 3 charges the Extropians with violating the UESA/ASA policy that no student group is permitted to send a mailing to freshmen other than the general ASA mailing. They assert that no such policy exists, since it cannot be found in writing. This argument is specious. The fact that a policy is not in writing may make it more difficult to find, and may support a claim of ignorance, but it makes the policy no less enforceable. In this particular case, had the Extropians taken any reasonable steps to send out the mailing, such as contacting ASA or the Dean's Office about such a possibility, they would have been informed of the policy. However, the Board believes that it would be excessive to hold the Extropians responsible for this policy, since the Board cannot reasonably conclude that the Extropians made a deliberate effort to avoid finding out about this policy. Therefore, the Extropians are judged not guilty by reason of ignorance on count 3. Count 4 (Kathryn Willmore's ruling) Count 4 charges the Extropians with violating the ruling of Kathryn Willmore (Executive Assistant to the President, Director of Public Relations, and Secretary of the Corporation) that the text of the original Extropians flyer, or any comparable text, was not permitted to be mailed to the incoming freshmen. The Extropians assert ignorance of this ruling; however, this is simply not believable. The Extropians have conceded that they were informed by Margaret Bates that their flyer was not permitted to go in the ASA mailing; whether it was made clear that this was Kathryn Willmore's decision is irrelevant. The Extropians have further conceded that they never went back to Margaret Bates for approval to send out the revised mailing, and they admitted that they thought there was a significant chance that Margaret Bates would not approve them had they requested permission. In addition, the preface on the mailed flyer states that the flyer was sent in spite of administration censorship. The Board concludes that the Extropians knew that the prohibition on their inclusion in the ASA mailing applied also to this mailing, and deliberately avoided requesting permission through the proper channels to avoid being rejected again. Therefore, they are accordingly judged guilty on count 4. Conclusion In summary, the Extropians are found guilty on counts 1, 2, and 4. They are found not guilty by reason of ignorance on count 3. This unauthorized mailing is one of the most severe infractions of MIT policies by a student group in several years. Student groups that followed the rules and participated in the ASA mailing have had their submissions overshadowed by the Extropians' separate mailing. This abuse of the freshmen mailing list also jeopardizes the continued use of the mailing list for legitimate purposes and will lead some in the administration to suggest that students should no longer have access to the mailing list. Strict sanctions must be imposed to match the severity of the infractions, as well as to clearly establish that student groups that do not participate in the ASA mailing may not send separate mailings, in violation of Institute policy and to the detriment of participating student groups. Therefore, ASA has decided to deny recognition to the MIT Extropians, to strip the Extropians of any ASA privileges heretofore obtained, and not to entertain any further petitions for recognition for the Extropians or any substantially similar group until September 1, 1998. Approved unanimously by the ASA Executive Board August 19, 1997