Commercial Notetaking Task Force

Executive Summary

The Commercial Notetaking Task Force reviewed the history and present-day context of both notetaking and the rise of commercial services. The task force identified benefits and concerns associated with commercial notetaking and described some principles the task force used to arrive at its conclusions about commercial notetaking. The task force explored the appropriate role for the University in addressing commercial notetaking and coalesced around a set of recommendations. These investigations and conclusions are described in detail within the report.

Because some University constituents identify benefits from and find value in commercial notetaking, the University should continue not to prohibit all commercial notetaking on campus. However, commercial notetaking has also had some direct deleterious effects on the classroom and the University. Due to the significant number of concerns raised by commercial notetaking (and particularly on-line services), the University should expand its position beyond that established in the Sale of Class Notes Policy enacted in 1995.

The University should take a more assertive gatekeeping role to facilitate the interests of its students, instructors, and staff. To do this, the University should issue a statement (proposed within) that emphasizes University control over the business and educational activities which occur at or in affiliation with the University and that emphasizes faculty authority to decide whether to prohibit commercial notetaking in their classes. The statement should require notetaking services to notify the University of their intent to conduct business in compliance with University policy and require them to get written permission from faculty to conduct business in their classes. The statement should emphasize the highest educational standards; protection for intellectual property; protection for privacy, academic freedom, and freedom of expression; protection for the fruits of the University experience and work product; and the responsible dissemination of information. Notetaking services that do not or cannot comply with the statement or other University policies should be prohibited altogether.

The University give careful thought to the significant student interest in notetaking support by offering resources through existing service units such as the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT) and the Media Union. The University should also offer a variety of resources to the community that will help constituents make the best possible choices about commercial notetaking. In addition, the University should implement preventive and legal strategies to respond to uncooperative commercial notetaking services.

To accomplish these goals the University can do more to disseminate and coordinate University policies in general and its position on commercial notetaking in particular. The actions implemented as result of this report should be reviewed in two years.

Introduction

Commercial notetaking services are here for the foreseeable future and with the ease and economy afforded by the internet, we can expect commercial notetaking (as well as other internet industries) to expand dramatically. Many colleges and universities are finding that commercial notetaking services raise a variety of complex issues for their campuses. As we investigated commercial notetaking, we encountered many of the conundrums and realizations facing other institutions. Commercial notetaking poses significant challenges for the University of Michigan. The University and its constituents may be affected both favorably and adversely by these commercial endeavors. As an institution, we need to consider carefully, not only their impact, but also our responsibilities, choices, and responses. The decisions we make today may influence our future options, as use of the internet expands to complement and compete with the mission, objectives, and "business" of the University.

Our discussions of commercial notetaking this term have raised many more issues than we anticipated and significantly more questions than we could answer. Commercial notetaking arises at the confluence of academic standards, law, policy, business, teaching, learning, academic freedom, public relations, technology, ethics, accuracy, and good taste, among other areas. When we tugged on the commercial notetaking thread, we discovered that it was intricately interlaced among many issues well beyond the scope of our charge.

The charge to the committee was not only a useful starting point but it helped us remain focused throughout our investigation. For several reasons, however, we chose not to structure our final report around the four "specific issues and questions" outlined in the charge, but rather we organized this report around our observations and recommendations. (In Appendix A, however, we do provide brief direct responses to the four specific issues and questions posed in the charge.)

We began our investigation by reviewing the history (Appendix B) and present-day context of both notetaking and the rise of commercial services. We made observations about the benefits and concerns associated with commercial notetaking (Appendix C). We then discussed the University's legal posture and potential avenues of legal enforcement and remedy⁽¹⁾. We identified some fundamental principles (Appendix D) we would use to forge and subsequently shape and support our conclusions. We then explored extensively the appropriate role of the University (Appendix E). Finally, we coalesced around a set of recommendations, the centerpiece of this report.

Present Context

At the University of Michigan, local commercial notetaking services have been "covering" large lecture classes for about 20 years. Neither the Michigan Student Assembly nor other student organizations appear to provide organized commercial notetaking, though clearly some student organizations "stock pile" notes, tests, and other course materials. The University does not provide notetaking services, except through the Services for Students with Disabilities. The notable exception is the medical school, which operates a student-developed, internal notetaking service, a common practice in medical schools.

There are several commercial notetaking services around town that cover as few as 30 University courses, and at least two internet-based services that cover approximately 25 courses. As far as we know, all these services hire our own students or GSIs to take notes. None of the commercial services has a formal relationship with the University. However, Versity.com, which was started by four University of Michigan undergraduates (who have since dropped out from the University), received approximately $74,000 (of its 11-plus-million in capital investments) from the University's Wolverine Fund administered through the business school.

There is no consensus about commercial notetaking. In our conversations with students, faculty, and staff—as well as in our own brainstorming—we found that views ran the gamut in both intensity and perspective. We encountered people who were extremely opposed to commercial notetaking of any sort, where others were invigorated by its possibilities, and still others had mild inclinations either way. There are clearly beneficial aspects to notetaking services as well as detriments. (See Appendix C for details.)

In particular, responses to commercial notetaking have been varied. Some faculty are outraged at having notetakers in their classes and have written to companies asking them to desist. Other faculty, have signed "consulting agreements" with commercial notetaking companies giving permission to "cover" their classes in return for services or other compensation. As far as we know, no departments/units have made broad agreements with notetaking companies, but at least one department (Anthropology) has developed its own commercial notetaking policy⁽²⁾.

University executive officers have issued two policies on commercial notetaking. In 1987, President Duderstadt issued the Sale of Class Notes and Student Papers policy. This policy allows commercial notetaking with instructor permission, gives faculty the right to refuse commercial services, offers strategies to prevent commercial notetaking (copyright notice, admonitions to students, etc.), allows the department of public safety to remove non-enrolled notetakers, prohibits faculty from selling notes to students, prohibits teaching assistants from cooperating with commercial notetaking companies without faculty permission, gives academic units permission to create their own policies, and encourages people to contact the Office of the General Counsel with "legal or ethical" questions. Presumably, this policy was superseded in 1995, when Provost Whitaker and General Counsel Cole issued a virtually identical policy called Sale of Class Notes. This policy is still active today. Yet, most people, it seems, are unaware of this policy. The recommendations in this report are meant to complement rather than replace this policy.

Recommendations

After having reviewed the history (Appendix B) and current context of commercial notetaking, we concluded that the practice has been around for many years and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. We gathered various perspectives on commercial notetaking: we spoke directly with our students, our faculty, and our staff; we contacted several commercial notetaking services; we spoke with our colleagues at other institutions; and we reviewed numerous articles and commentary on commercial notetaking. From these sources we concluded that commercial notetaking offers some benefits but also raises serious concerns for the University (Appendix C). We concluded that our recommendations must take into account the fundamental principles of educational primacy (which includes faculty control of the classroom), the privilege of a University of Michigan education, and the maintenance of University-based control (Appendix D). We struggled with a variety of issues—most notably, whether to prohibit commercial notetaking altogether, what the appropriate role for the University should be (Appendix E), and what conditions and criteria are necessary for balanced commercial notetaking. We concluded that some students and faculty value commercial notetaking and that the University should not prohibit it completely. However, in order to address some of the community's concerns, we determined that it was essential for the University to take an active gatekeeping role and to establish standards under which the University would condone commercial notetaking.

We support a role where the University adopts a two-gate system to regulate the incursion of commercial notetaking at the University. First, the University should prohibit commercial notetaking, unless notetaking services meet 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.

With a commitment to the University's educational and research mission and with an eye toward balancing the various needs, desires, and opinions within our community, we proffer the following set of recommendations.

1. The University ought to respond to the overwhelming student interest in notetaking support.
   
   As we investigated these issues, we came to realize that the University has been relatively inattentive to the question of how to help instructors guide student notetaking and use it as an instructional tool. Commercial notetaking has developed in a context where students seek detailed lecture notes and where acquiring commercial notes is an efficacious means of meeting a variety of objectives. There are many reasons why students want commercial notes: they are a (perceived) learning aid for students who take poor notes and feel the need to purchase (or download) better ones; they are a substitute for attending class; they appeal to highly motivated students who will use whatever study aids they can obtain; and so on. The commercial services have filled a student need that our instructors might wish to satisfy in a different way.
   
   We believe that the University should engage this issue directly, initiating a conversation among its faculty concerning how best to direct student notetaking, particularly in large lecture classes. As part of this discussion, the University should consider how to support faculty who wish to create and publish more useful or extensive study materials for students. For example, UM.CourseTools might include features for instructors who wish to capture and "stream" lectures or provide more extensive course notes or workbooks. Also, the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching might provide programs, consultations, and publications for instructors—both faculty and GSIs—on two topics: first, how their notes can be tailored and distributed to students to maximize learning; and second, how they can help their students to take better notes.
   
2. Establish and distribute a statement of conditions and criteria for commercial notetaking.
   
   Through our investigations we came to understand that some commercial notetaking services would be willing to cooperate with University standards when they are aware of them. We recommend that the University continue not to prohibit all commercial notetaking. We suggest, in addition, that the University adopt a Statement that explicitly expresses—to commercial notetaking services and to the University community—the conditions and criteria under which the University will condone commercial notetaking. In concert with the current policy on the Sale of Class Notes, this Statement ought to promote and protect the interests of students, faculty, staff, the institution, and the University mission.
   
   The Statement should address the plethora of observations and issues identified by the task force and the University community. Foremost, the statement must reflect not only the primacy the University places upon its educational mission but the guardianship and the authority over the classroom that the University bestows on its instructors. Instructors must always have the option to prohibit commercial notetaking in their classes. Conditions and criteria identified by the statement should promote the highest quality education and the responsible dissemination of knowledge. The Statement should allow the University to avail itself of the best teaching and learning opportunities for its students, while ensuring that its classrooms, its educational objectives, and the fruits of its work product are not compromised. In addition, the Statement should require that notetaking companies that wish to do business on campus inform the University of their desire to do so and their intent to comply with the Statement. In this way, the University can be a resource to instructors or students who have questions about particular companies.
   
   In the digital age, the Statement must address concerns over the use and distribution of University-based⁽³⁾ intellectual property by third parties, as well as the unauthorized use and affiliation of the University name with external commercial entities. The University must assert standards that protect the privacy, academic freedom, and freedom of expression and inquiry of its students, faculty, and staff. Furthermore, the Statement should maintain University-based control over the educational and business activities that occur at or in affiliation with the University.
   
   We propose the following Statement that sets a threshold consistent with this report:

University of Michigan
Statement on the Conditions and Criteria
for Commercial Notetaking Services

The University of Michigan (University) maintains its right to authorize educational and business activities that occur on property or networks controlled by or in affiliation with the University. Commercial notetaking services that collect, recount, promulgate, or sell materials based on University courses, classes, lectures, or other educational activities and materials will be disregarded without protest or censure by the University, so long as they conform to conditions and criteria enumerated in this Statement.

Commercial notetaking services that conform to the conditions and criteria enumerated in this Statement are not endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with the University nor are they agents of the University. Commercial notetaking services that do not conform to all the conditions and criteria in this statement will be prohibited from conducting educa-tional or business activities(4) on University controlled property or networks.

Commercial notetaking services that conform to the conditions and criteria enumerated in this Statement may under no circumstances conduct business or educational activities in any specific University course, class, lecture, or activity without the prior, express, written permission of the instructor for the University course, class, lecture, or activity.

In the context of both the University mission and the undergirding educational principles of the University, the conditions and criteria enumerated below are designed to balance the interests of those who wish to avail themselves of the benefits of commercial notetaking with the interests of those who do not. Commercial notetaking services must, at all times, conform to the following conditions and criteria in both letter and spirit.

1. Prior to each term in which they wish to conduct business or educational activities at the University, commercial notetaking services must notify and receive confirmation from the Office of the Provost of their intent to conduct business or educational activities in compliance with this Statement. Contact the University as follows:
   Attn.: Commercial Notetaking
   Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs
   3074 Fleming Administration Building
   Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340
   (734) 764-9290 Fax: (734) 764-4546
   
2. To collect, recount, promulgate, or sell materials based on University courses, classes, lectures, or other educational activities and materials, commercial notetaking services must obtain prior, express, written permission of the instructor responsi-ble for the course, class, lecture, or other activity or materials. Instructors may determine for themselves (in accordance with this Statement) whether to prohibit commercial notetaking of their courses, classes, lectures, or other educational activities and materials(5).
   
   
3. Instructors must always have the option to:
   1. revoke permission to a commercial notetaking service
   2. view and edit notes prior or subsequent to publication or distribution
   3. prohibit notetakers from recording(6) specific matters, such as class sessions or aspects of a class session
      
      
4. Any commercial notetaking materials based on University courses, classes, lectures, activities, or materials must:
   1. be removed from the internet and/or no longer made available within thirty (30) days of the last day of the semester in which they were collected
   2. not be used, distributed, or archived in any manner by the commercial notetaking service beyond the semester in which they were collected
   3. not be used in any manner other than those specified to the instructor at the time the instructor gave permission
      
      
5. Commercial notetaking services must:
   1. never represent that they are endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with the University, or that they are agents of the University
   2. not infringe on the intellectual property rights of the University, instructors, or students
   3. comply with University policies as well as federal, state, and local law
      not interfere with the mission of the University or the activities of its students, staff, and faculty
   4. not collect data about students users without their knowledge or permission
   5. provide accommodations for people with disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and, where applicable, with the WC3 Web Accessibility Initiative

The University will enforce this Statement by all legal and pragmatic means and will prohibit students and faculty from cooperating with commercial notetaking services that do not conform to the conditions and criteria in this Statement.

3. Assert the University position on commercial notetaking in several public forums.
   
   During our investigation, we discovered that the University's Sale of Class Notes policy is virtually unknown among our students, faculty, and staff. In fact, there is considerable disagreement as to the University's position on commercial notetaking in our community. We recommend that a concerted effort go toward publicizing the University's position and policies on commercial notetaking.
   • Send an e-mail message and letter to each faculty member explaining the University's position on commercial notetaking.
   • Send a cover letter and a copy of the University's Statement on the Conditions and Criteria for Commercial Notetaking to all commercial notetaking services that conduct or are likely to conduct business at the University.
   • Encourage the Michigan Daily and the University Record to write articles on the University's position on commercial notetaking.
     
     
4. The Office of the General Counsel, Special Assistant to the Provost for Media Rights, and the Center for Research for Learning and Teaching should prepare resource materials for students, faculty, and staff.
   
   Because commercial notetaking affects the University at so many levels, University constituents struggle to grasp all the implications of the decisions they make pertaining to commercial notes. Decisions have legal, policy, educational, and ethical ramifications among others. We recommend that the University create resources that anticipate the questions and provide clear guidance. Some units on campus are in a good position to ferret out the most likely problems and their recommended solutions.
   
   CRLT could create resources for instructors, both faculty and GSIs, on the relationship between notetaking and student learning. For example, topics might include:
   • How to organize your course content in order to support student notetaking
   • How to teach your students effective notetaking that will enhance their learning.
   
   The Office of the General Counsel could develop resources that help faculty, staff and students understand their legal options and obligations. Such topics might include:
   • Protecting your intellectual property from commercial distribution.
   • What to look for when contracting with a commercial notetaking service.
     
   
   Other units such as the Special Assistant to the Provost for Media Rights and SACUA may be able to create resources for faculty geared toward maintaining autonomy, academic freedom, and control in the classroom. Such resources may include:
   • Tips for discouraging commercial notetaking in your class.
   • How to work with a commercial notetaking service to get the best results in your class.

   Still other units such as the Comprehensive Studies Program, the Office of Academic and Multicultural Affairs, the Sweetland Writing Center, the Lloyd Hall Scholars Program and the Residential College may be able to develop resources specifically geared toward students. The possibilities include:

   • The elements of notetaking.
   • Using your notes to get the most out of your classes.
   • Alternatives to commercial notetaking.
   • A student guide to using commercial notes.
     
     
   These offices can also provide services as a resource. For instance, we recommend that the Office of the General Counsel should assist faculty with contracts related to commercial notetaking, at least until the University can develop guidelines or clear recommendations for faculty. CRLT can offer workshops for GSIs and faculty on how to provide notes to their students and how to best use them as a teaching aid. These and other types of programs and resources, if actively developed or implemented, will empower members of the University community to make the best choices for themselves.
   
   These offices can also provide services as a resource. For instance, we recommend that the Office of the General Counsel should assist faculty with contracts related to commercial notetaking, at least until the University can develop guidelines for faculty. CRLT can offer workshops for GSIs and faculty on how to provide notes to their students and how to best use them as a teaching aid. These and other types of resources, if actively developed or implemented, will empower members of the University community to make the best choices for themselves.
   
   

5. Incorporate preventive strategies and take legal action against any commercial notetaking service that does not comply with the statement of conditions and criteria.
   
   Many postsecondary institutions have implemented strategies to prevent unwanted commercial notetaking. These strategies include providing tape recorders, staff support, and form letters to assist faculty in responding to or preventing undesired activities by commercial notetaking services. Several schools have used the courts—some successfully, some not—to respond to uncooperative commercial notetaking services. We recommend the Office of the General Counsel be prepared to assist as incidents arise. We also recommend that the Office of the Provost make funding available should it be necessary to implement preventive or responsive strategies (e.g. providing tape recorders, etc.). According to Mathieu Deflem, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Purdue University, these small responses can go a long way.
   
   
6. Review these recommendations in May 2002 and make changes accordingly.
   
   We recommend that the Office of the Provost and the Office of the General Counsel review notetaking conditions on campus after two years under these recommendations. Specifically, consider the responses of University constituents and of the commercial notetaking services. Assess whether the recommendations enabled the University community to meet the objectives outlined in this report. Furthermore, consider whether the objectives in this report ought to be updated.
   
   It is likely that the University will need to make some changes, for several reasons. New practices and policies inevitably need to be implemented before all the infelicities, inconsistencies, and omissions can be identified. The behavior and choices of University constituents and commercial notetaking services are likely to change as a result of the new practices and policies. Moreover, new circumstances (similar to the rise of internet distribution of notes) may arise again, and the University may need to adjust its approach. If there are merely small changes to make, implement them. If the circumstances warrant significant or controversial changes, reassemble the Commercial Notetaking Task Force.
   
   We can envision several possible significant changes that we are not recommending at this time, but that may be appropriate in the future. For instance, the University may find it advantageous to take a more partnership-oriented role by entering into an exclusive contract with one commercial notetaking company to provide services to the University. The University may also wish to regulate the commercialization of notes, as many other institutions have, through the Code of Student Conduct. It is also possible that the University may wish to amend the Faculty Handbook, the Standard Practice Guide, or the GEO Agreement in order to address other concerns raised by commercial notetaking.
   
   
7. Consider items beyond the scope of our charge for future investigation.
   
   In the course of investigating commercial notetaking we had to circumvent many issues beyond the scope of our charge. Several of these in particular warrant additional attention from the University.
   
   We found it difficult to determine which behaviors violate the University's conflict of interest policy (SPG 201.65-01). The language in the Standard Practice Guide is vague. When unanticipated opportunities for faculty to consult, contract, participate, etc. arise in the future (arise they will), the University may have difficulty deciding what is appropriate and what is not. For instance, how would the University of Michigan respond to a faculty member (like Arthur Miller at Harvard University Law School) who sells a course she developed as part of her teaching responsibilities to a virtual college without the University's authorization? Some more specificity or guidance here could help to alleviate a future conflict and make choices more predictable for members of the community. Aside from conflict of interest, does the University have any policies pertaining to conflict of commitment? Should it?
   
   Who owns lectures and other course materials at the University of Michigan? The Revised Policy on Intellectual Property and Regents Bylaw 3.10 are not clear on this point. When the need arose we assumed that some amalgam of University, instructor, student, technical assistant, etc. owned/controlled the lectures and course materials. We were able to address the most salient aspects of commercial notetaking without knowing who owns these materials. However, with increased opportunities for distance teaching and coordinated classroom activities with external institutions and businesses, we expect that the University will have to come to some decisions about this matter shortly.
   
   Finally, we encountered some confusion about University policy. Should policies that emerge from the Offices of the Provost and/or President (such as policy on the Sale of Class Notes) be a part of the Standard Practice Guide? Or should they at least be located somewhere accessible so that faculty, staff, and students can make use of them? Do policies issued by academic units or executive offices carry different weight than those within the SPG? We recommend that some additional attention be given to coordinating the extant policy system and that all policies not part of the SPG should be available on a searchable, web-based archive.
   

Concluding Comments

We have tried to take a balanced approach to meeting the charge to the task force. Our recommendations come with much deliberation and leave in their trail many questions unanswered.

We encourage the active monitoring of commercial notetaking, for this will not be the last time the University has to formally engage its effects. It is a dynamic, hungry, commercial industry, and where there are millions of students there are millions of dollars. Other industries too are looking to capitalize on the same population, and as task forces are assigned to address the latest commercial incursions into the University, they will look to our extant policies for guidance. Our decisions about commercial notetaking may influence other similar areas.

Footnotes

1. We do not include the University's legal posture or possible avenues of enforcement and remedy in this report.
   
   
2. Collective Statement on Unauthorized Use of Class notes:
   
   We the faculty of the Department of Anthropology at the Univeristy of Michigan are deeply concerned about the rapid development through the internet of commercial note-taking services that target university campuses. Although companies promoting these services may justify them as a free-market practive, we find them an unwarranted infringement of our rights as educators to present our ideas under our own names, to protect our ideas from appropriation by others, and to craft our pedagogy to the classroom setting—wholly different from its consumption by potentially limitless virtual publics.
   
   Therefore, we hereby declare that we oppose as a matter of policy any distribution of course lecture notes unauthorized by the faculty member of that course. Any member of our departmental faculty may elect to cooperate with note-taking services (thereby rendering them "authorized"). In all other circumstances, however, individuals who take notes for sale or free distribution to such enterprises should regard themselves as subject to legal action or other punitive measures. We further declare that students and others who make use of notes taken under such circumstances do so at their own risk.
   
   
3. Because University policy is unclear about who owns classroom/course content (lectures, notes, etc.) and because the task force was asked not to try to resolve this lack of clarity, the term "University-based" means some University affiliated entity whether it is the instructor, the Regents of the University, students, etc., or some combination thereof.
   
   
4. This includes sending a student enrolled at the Univesity to take notes. Any student who provides (or intends to provide) nontes to a commercial notetaking service in exchange for money, goods, services, or consideration of any kind will be deemed an agent of that company.
   
   
5. This criterion, in itself, is not a contract with the instructor or the University. Rather it is an acknowledgment of permission, which the instructor may revoke at any time.
   
   
6. This includes any form of preservation for commercial notetaking purposes: writing notes, audio recording, video recording, etc.

Appendices

Appendix A: Four Questions in the Charge and Brief Answers
Appendix B: History
Appendix C: Benefits and Concerns
Appendix D: Undergirding Principles
Appendix E: Role of the University
Appendix F: Task Force Membership

Statement on the Conditions and Criteria for Commercial Notetaking Services