Is SRJC's Emailgate a Case of Legalistic Bullying?

As information about Santa Rosa Junior College's "Emailgate" continues to unfold, it's backstory seems more complicated than originally reported.  Unfortunately, the moral of the story has not changed significantly. 

SRJC allegedly has notified about 100 persons that they need to "remove any reference to Santa Rosa Junior College" from their email usernames in order to "avoid any future legal action."  The incident triggered a front page article in today's Press Democrat, a follow-up article on the PD's web site, and online attention on slashdot.org, usatoday.com, and here at empirereport.org. 

The Press Democrat's original article stated that Ken Fiori, Director of Computing Services at the college, "has not received any complaints about people trying to use the acronym maliciously to trick people."  But today's follow-up article paraphrases SRJC President, Robert Agrella, saying, "The college has long sought to prevent unofficial use of its name, primarily on products, as specified in the California Education Code" and "It is now targeting private e-mail addresses because more are turning up." 

While I do not understand the reason(s) for these mixed messages, if persons have created email usernames in a way which misleadingly suggest any affiliation with SRJC, especially for personal profit, then I applaud the college's attempt to address this problem.  And this is the college's stated intent: "The reason for it," President Agrella told the PD, "is so the college doesn’t get misrepresented in some way or make it look like the college is endorsing a product or issue." 

This has led online blogger, and SRJC Computer Service employee, Mark Linford, to claim the incident is "getting blown out of proportion," noting "I get how people can get upset about this.  But is it really worth the [vitriol] that's being hurled at us?" 

But I believe this misses a moral of "Emailgate," as I now think it can reasonably be called.  For, according to the original email I and my colleagues received on May 5th, 2009, Santa Rosa Junior College did not send these notices merely to persons who, in President Agrella's words, "misrepresented in some way or make it look like the college is endorsing a product or issue."  According to the May 5th email sent to the SRJC community, SRJC notified all students (Though we now know it was students, faculty, and staff) using "Santa Rosa Junior College or SRJC" in their personal e-mail address and/or domain name."  That is, the college notified persons merely for having an email such as "srjcmichael@hotmail.com."  While SRJC may employ a John Yoo-like legal team willing to creatively suggest this, by itself, implies misrepresentation, it's important to remember that reasonable persons will consider this implausible.  As I'll explain later, an email address such as "srjcmichael@hotmail.com" is more likely to be an act of school pride than an act of misrepresentation or personal profiteering. 

Why is this significant?  Santa Rosa Junior College's administration notified its own students, faculty, and staff of its creative legal interpretation in a formal notification threatening "future legal action" unless they cease using email addresses such as srjcmichael@hotmail.com. 

This goes beyond poor communication skills with one's own community.  Such heavy-handedness is the method of a bully.  Bullies employ what reasonable persons would consider an implausibly broad interpretation of a rule, mentioning it only as they threaten you.   

I realize some readers likely are thinking something such as, "This may be true; but in the business world one has to be this way sometimes."  Only that's the problem.  SRJC is an educational institution first and foremost.  And this is why the administration's actions are scandalous.  As faculty attempt to cultivate an environment within which students aspire to learn, a task that often produces student pride in oneself and one's learning community, the SRJC administration is threatening legal actions against the very students, faculty, and staff who express this by identifying with the college.  So I can't help but suspect these actions are, in part, the result of a failing to understand and/or care about education.  But whether or not this is the case, these actions create a hostile environment within which students and faculty are now expected to pursue learning. 

That President Agrella has now told the PD that SRJC "was not threatening to take people to court" is merely backtracking in a way that reinforces my concerns.  For, it seems to me, either he did not adequately consider the implications and consequences of approving these actions until public exposure brought it to his attention or he didn't care about the implications and consequences of approving these actions until public exposure outed them.  Either way, Emailgate seems scandalous.  

For these reasons, I continue to hope for an investigation into "Emailgate."  

Click here to Digg this commentary and help bring attention to these important issues. 

Michael Aparicio teaches philosophy at Santa Rosa Junior College.  He's a regular contributor to, and editor for, Empire Report.  "Rojo Reports" is our collection of his news articles.  "The Gadfly" is our collection of his news commentaries.  Taken together, they are Michael's attempt to provide a balance of newsworthy reporting and thought-provoking questioning.