Correction: Due to a reporting error, this editorial incorrectly stated that Elliot Cramer, the professor emeritus planning to sue the University, is still seeking access to scholarly electronic journals and downloadable programs. After initially being taken away, those resources were returned. The Daily Tar Heel apologizes for the error.
The First Amendment is a sacred right that should not be taken lightly, regardless of whether it’s used as a defense or a weapon. In a lawsuit he’s planning against the University, Professor Emeritus Elliot Cramer seems to have lost sight of this, using his right to free speech to preserve his privilege of UNC network access. While the University’s grace, or lack thereof, in handling his network use might have left him with an axe to grind, Cramer should take care not to be blinded by frustration and drop a case that would prove frivolous.
Last year, Cramer used his UNC email address in a personal dispute with an individual named Joseph Villarosa, who eventually filed a complaint to UNC claiming Cramer had violated the University’s network policies. The complaint triggered an investigation into his account which included reading his emails without his knowledge. During this time, Cramer took his dispute with Villarosa to his personal email, which has always been an option for his free speech.
Neither Cramer nor the University was necessarily in the right. But Cramer needs to look past UNC’s handling of his case and see it only through a legal lens. After doing so, he would realize that network access is not a right but a privilege that all faculty enjoy, even after they retire from the University as Cramer did in 1994.
Cramer wants his access returned so that he can continue his scholarly work by accessing electronic journals and downloadable programs. Until recently, he was allowed to retain access so long as he followed the University’s personal use policy, which asks that the costs to the University be negligible, that the access not undermine use of University resources on official matters or interfere with anyone’s duties, among other stipulations.
Cramer violated this policy, making it within the University’s rights to strip him of his network privileges. While the University could have handled the situation better, Cramer’s privacy was not invaded, as his account was under UNC’s purview.
While it would be forgiving of UNC to return access to electronic journals and programs, Cramer should realize that the University has no obligation to do so. Rather than wasting his and the University’s time and money, he should take a punishment he deserved and avoid being a distraction.
