U-M Office of the Provost: Appendix E - Role of the University

Commercial Notetaking Task Force

Appendix E

Role of the University

Passive: In this role, the University would make no changes to the status quo. Although the Sale of Class Notes Policy exists, the University would continue not to actively enforce it. As a whole, the institution would do nothing in response to commercial notetaking activities. So many of the concerns identified by the task force would go unchecked and the benefits of commercial notetaking would be realized only by chance. Some faculty would have notetakers in their classes without their permission and the University would have virtually no influence or negotiation power with the notetaking companies.

Gatekeeping: In this role, the University would prohibit commercial notetaking companies from conducting business without faculty permission. In addition the University would provide other standards for notetaking companies as well as guidelines and support for faculty and students. The University would not endorse the notetaking enterprise or any specific company. Some of the concerns identified by the task force would still go unchecked and some of the benefits would be realized only by chance. It is likely that some faculty would still have notetakers in their classes without permission. The University would have limited influence and negotiation power with notetaking services.

Facilitator: In this role, the University would establish criteria and "condone" notetaking companies that meet them. It would also provide internal guidelines and support for faculty and students. The University would keep a roster of approved notetaking services. So some of the concerns identified by the task force would be addressed and some of the benefits realized. It is possible that only those institutions that meet University criteria would do business on campus and the University would have some influence and negotiation power with the notetaking companies.

Partner: In this role, the University would partner with one company, establishing a partnership agreement up front. In this way the institution can establish practices and guidelines it deems appropriate. Many of the concerns identified by the task force would be addressed and many of the benefits realized. It is likely that the University would have significant influence and negotiation power with its partner notetaking service.

Competitor: In this role, the University would establish institutional notetaking services and exclude external notetaking services completely. The University would tailor its services to the specific needs of the community and address virtually all of the concerns identified by the task force. The University would prohibit external notetaking services from the University. We quickly dismissed the passive role, because it failed to address many of our concerns and because the status quo is unacceptable. The competitor role, while interesting, did not exhibit much promise. We felt that the University, with its educational mission, was not in a position to effectively compete with notetaking services that had millions of dollars in capital. Though we encourage the University to support faculty or departments that wish to develop their own non-commercial notetaking services. Initially, the partner role had a great deal of appeal to some of us. The control this role affords the University is attractive. We considered carefully the possibility of partnering with one company, but had some concerns about the image that this portrays to the public and to the University community. It is possible, however, that the partner role will be a more attractive choice in the future.

We settled on a role that falls somewhere between the facilitator role and the gatekeeper role. We were attracted to gatekeeping aspects of both roles, but we did not want to go so far as to appear to be endorsing commercial notetaking or any specific service. Nonetheless we wanted the University to help faculty and students make good decisions, which includes letting them know which companies are complying with our policies. So in the end, we valued an external gatekeeping role with an internal facilitating role. We support a role where the University will adopt a two-gate system to regulate the incursion of commercial notetaking at the University. First, the University will prohibit all commercial notetaking, unless the notetaking service meets criteria established by the University. Second, those commercial notetaking services, which meet the established criteria, may only participate in classes/courses for which they have received prior written approval from the instructor.

This system is designed to meet a variety of institutional and pedagogical imperatives. The University recognizes considerable instructor autonomy in the classroom. Instructors who wish to teach without the incursion of commercial notetaking services should be free to do so and they will receive the full support of the University. For those instructors who wish to cooperate with notetaking services, the University will condone (though not endorse) commercial notetaking services that meet criteria established to promote the highest quality, least disruptive teaching-learning environment.

The University:

will enact criteria that identify the conditions under which the University will condone a commercial notetaking service (CNS);

will change, enhance, clarify, and amend these criteria as the need arises;

will not interfere with the activities of a condoned CNS to the extent that the CNS complies with the established criteria, University policy, and the law and that it does not disrupt the campus climate or mission;

will prohibit a CNS that does not meet University criteria from conducting its activities on campus and from using University resources;

will always support an instructor's choice not to participate with a CNS;

may create policy that prohibits instructors from cooperating with a CNS that does not meet the criteria;

may create policy that prohibits students from commercializing notes without the permission of the instructor;

will launch a media campaign, which clarifies its position on commercial notetaking (press release, letters to CNSs, pamphlets for faculty and students);

will produce recommended guidelines and provide support materials for instructors and students to use when considering or working with a CNS;

will designate a point-of-contact for a CNS that wishes to seek entree into the University and for students, faculty, and staff who have seek information;

will condone but not endorse the activities/products of a CNS;

will provide support services for those instructors who wish to provide their own notes for their students

will be discouraged from cooperating with a CNS that does not meet the criteria;

will always have the final choice as to whether a condoned CNS will participate in their classes;

will be able to decide for themselves the extent to which they will cooperate with a CNS;

will be able to negotiate some terms with a CNS, to the extent that they comply with current University policies;

will be able to use University guidelines as a resource for interacting with a CNS

will not be permitted to conduct their business at the University unless they meet with University notetaking criteria and unless they comply with an instructor's classroom preferences;

will not be prohibited from conducting their business on campus, if they violate current University policies or guidelines or engage in unlawful or disruptive activity;

may be "condoned" by the University, but will not be "endorsed" by the University

The University will create criteria that establish conditions under which the University will condone a CNS.

The University will create guidelines that inform and support instructors and students who are thinking about cooperating with/using a CNS.

As a general message, the University will assert its intent to protect its policies.

Many of the "concerns" identified by the task force will be addressed.

Many of the possible "opportunities" identified by the task force will be realized.

If the University's bite is as big as its bark, only those institutions that meet University criteria will do business on campus.

If the University's bite is as big as its bark, faculty will be able to decide for themselves whether to let a condoned CNS participate in the classroom.

The University will have some influence and negotiation power.

The University will gatekeep entree into the community and the faculty will gatekeep entree into the classroom.