Faculty Web Site Policies
Prepared for Tarrant County College District
November 2012
In the following report, Hanover Research considers the prevalence and importance of
faculty web sites, as well as the ways in which institutions of higher education have sought
to regulate such web pages. A brief summary of the literature is accompanied by a
discussion of major themes emerging from a review of the web site policies and
procedures in place at a national sample of 15 two-year colleges.
Hanover Research | November 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3
KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................3
Section I: The Importance of Faculty Web Sites................................................................. 5
THE PREVALENCE AND IMPORTANCE OF FACULTY WEB SITES................................................................5
THE USES OF FACULTY WEB SITES ..................................................................................................6
THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FACULTY WEB PAGES ................................................................................7
Section II: Faculty Web Site Policies at Community Colleges .............................................. 9
ATTACHING FACULTY WEB SITES TO THE HOST INSTITUTION WEB SITE...................................................9
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WEB PAGE DESIGN............................................................................9
HOW SELECTED COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPROACH THIS ISSUE ..........................................................10
The Use of Site-Specific Disclaimers ................................................................................11
Prohibiting Faculty Web Sites from Utilizing the Institution’s Brand ..............................15
Specifying Restrictions on the Content of Faculty Web Sites..........................................16
Ability to Review Content of Faculty Web Pages and Modify/Delete Pages ..................18
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
2
Hanover Research | November 2012
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
Hosting or linking to faculty web sites provides a number of benefits for institutions of
higher education, expanding the routes by which students have access to course
information, such as syllabi and assignment summaries, and allowing students to better
understand their professors as individuals, rather than simply authority figures. However,
allowing faculty members to design and publish web sites also presents a myriad of
problems for institutions of higher education. Outdated or inaccurate information found on
faculty web pages reflects poorly not only on the individual faculty member, but on the
institution as well. Allowing faculty members a forum to put forth their thoughts and
opinions may also create conflict. Many institutions have struggled to balance academic
freedom for faculty members with the need to create a safe, welcoming, and inclusive
environment for all. On the internet, as in the classroom, the thoughts and opinions of
faculty members may potentially offend others, especially when of a political or religious
nature. As Caroline Stern notes in her 2000 article titled “Policy and Practice Implications of
Faculty Web Pages,” “Many schools cannot reach agreement on an academic freedom
policy within their own traditional classrooms. It is even more challenging to reach
consensus or compliance in a forum as public, dynamic, and uncharted as the Internet.” 1
In the following report, Hanover Research considers some of the implications of faculty web
pages and details how two-year institutions have dealt with the issue. The first section of
the report discusses the importance of faculty web sites, the different purposes for such
sites, and the recommended elements for faculty web pages. The second section then
delves deeper into the exact policies and procedures in place at a sample of 15 two-year
colleges across the nation.
KEY FINDINGS
The research conducted for this report yielded the following key findings:

1
Various authors have discussed the importance of allowing faculty members to
create and maintain professional faculty web sites and to ensure these sites remain
up-to-date and accurate. Unless institutions provide support for ongoing web site
authoring and revision, web sites will frequently stagnate due to outdated content,
broken links, or other issues, which may reflect negatively on the individual faculty
member and the institution as a whole.
Stern, Caroline M. “Policy and Practice Implications of Faculty Web Pages.” The Journal of Literacy and Technology,
1(1), Fall 2000, p. 1. http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume1/stern.pdf
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
3
Hanover Research | November 2012

Three separate types of faculty web pages are identified in the literature: the
“course delivery and support” web page, in which a faculty member presents
resources designed to supplement classroom or online instruction; the “business
card page,” which includes basic contact information, job title, and occasionally
additional work-related material such as a resume or vitae and list of publications;
and the “idiosyncratic personal page,” with contains personal information. 2

How a faculty web page connects to the hosting institution’s web site has an effect
on “the rights or obligations the sponsoring agency has to set guidelines and
limitations” for the web page. 3 Different relationships may imply different levels of
endorsement. For example, linking to a given web page may imply a lower level of
endorsement than actually hosting a web page.

Institutions have aimed to limit their responsibility and/or liability for faculty web
pages through policies on web site design and content. Stern notes that many
institutions limit their liability by hosting only a standardized, “business card” type of
web page for individual faculty. 4

In an effort to shed light on how community colleges across the country have sought
to regulate faculty web sites, Hanover Research examined the policies and
procedures related to web site content and publishing at 15 colleges. It was found
that college policies regarding faculty web sites vary widely in detail and scope.

Among the relevant policies and procedures reviewed by Hanover, a number of twoyear community colleges require disclaimers to be displayed on faculty web sites,
specifying that these sites are the work of individuals and do not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the institution.

Another way that various community colleges have sought to distinguish the views,
opinions, or information presented on personally-designed faculty web pages from
official college information/publications is by prohibiting faculty web sites from
using the “brand” of the host institution. Such provisions might center on the use of
the college’s logo or other copyrighted material or may extend to the graphics and
navigation on the site, as well.

A number of the policies reviewed by Hanover specify restrictions on web site
content. While these restrictions often seek to ensure that unlawful content is not
presented (such as copyrighted material), some colleges do place additional
restrictions on what faculty may or may not include on their web sites.

Finally, several of the reviewed colleges specify that the institution may monitor
faculty web pages as needed and modify/delete content as deemed appropriate.
Such reviews might occur as part of a regular initiative by the host institution to
ensure compliance with college policies, or on an ad hoc basis in response to
feedback from college stakeholders.
2
Ibid., pp. 2-3.
Ibid., p. 3.
4
Ibid.
3
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
4
Hanover Research | November 2012
SECTION I: T HE IMPORTANCE
SITES
OF
FACULTY WEB
THE PREVALENCE AND IMPORTANCE OF FACULTY WEB SITES
Previous research has sought to determine the prevalence and importance of professional
web sites designed by and for individual faculty members. In a 2009 review titled “The
Currency and Potential Value of Faculty Web Sites,” author Judy Donovan notes that
“[p]revious research indicates 10-12% of faculty have professional web sites accessible from
the department site.” 5 However, in a 2007 study of faculty web sites at a regional state
university, author Lesia Lennex found that, of approximately 303 tenure/tenure track faculty
at the institution, one-third (101) featured an internet-accessible web site. 6 Furthermore,
31 faculty members (10 percent) from the study population had links to their web sites on
departmental web pages.7
Similarly, in a 2007 survey of over 600 students from a public university in a U.S. territory in
the Pacific Rim, Yu-Mei Wang of the University of Alabama at Birmingham found that
relatively few course instructors had their own web sites. In the study, students were asked
to rate a number of statements regarding internet use in their studies based on a five-point
likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). 8 Wang found that over 50 percent of
surveyed students indicated that their course instructors “never” or “rarely” had their own
web sites. Comparatively, 17 percent of surveyed students reported that faculty “often” or
“very often” had their own web sites.9 In summary, then, past surveys have found that
between 10 and 33 percent of faculty members hold professional websites, though these
figures tend to be rooted in data collected five years ago. Given the general increase in
internet usage in recent years, these figures have likely climbed upwards.
While the use of professional websites is certainly not universal (or even the norm) among
faculty members, a sufficient number of faculty members operate such sites so as to cause
concern for higher education institutions striving to balance academic freedom with
unbiased, inclusive environments for student learning. Professional faculty websites open
the door for the potential for poorly designed, out of date, or inaccurate information to
be passed on to students and other community members. In her 2007 study, Lennex found
that, of the 101 faculty member web sites at a regional state university, many were
5
Donovan, Judy. “The Current and Potential Value of Faculty Web Sites.” Journal of Literacy and Technology, 10(3),
2009, p.5. http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume10_3/donovan_jlt_v10_3.pdf
6
Lennex, Lesia. “The Faculty Web Page: Contrivance or Continuation?” TechTrends, September/October 2007, p. 33.
http://search.proquest.com/socialsciences/docview/223116813/fulltextPDF/139FFBAA3D5757BF815/1?accounti
d=132487
7
Ibid., p. 34.
8
Wang, Yu-Mei. “Internet Use in University Courses.” International Journal on E-Learning, 6(2), 2007, p. 285.
http://search.proquest.com/socialsciences/docview/210365025/fulltextPDF/139FFCCCD6738369390/1?accounti
d=132487
9
Ibid., p. 287.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
5
Hanover Research | November 2012
problematic in that they featured broken hyperlinks, dated information, or content
unrelated to the faculty member’s field of expertise. Lennex noted,
Many of the web pages found through this study were so out-of- date or
outrageous that a potential student or colleague would know that they were
misleading. At least one page linked to a golf course and did not provide any
information about faculty or programs. Other pages flashed “under construction,”
giving the illusion that something was actually being done to the page. Even more
had what obviously were training exercises from web workshops long ago. 10
Lennex further found that only 40 pages were free from broken hyperlinks, and that several
faculty web sites listed non-current office hours or non-current course syllabi. 11
Various authors have discussed the importance of maintaining faculty web sites and keeping
the content relevant and up-to-date, though research and policy have not necessarily kept
pace with such recommendations. As Donovan points out, “[a]n outdated website may
reflect negatively on the faculty and the institution, yet little research examines if faculty
web sites are kept up-to-date after their initial posting.” 12 Similarly, Stern notes that, unless
institutions provide support for ongoing web site authoring and revision, web sites will
frequently stagnate due to outdated content, broken links, or other issues. This may
damage viewers’ perceptions of the site, as it “sends the negative message to users that the
web author is an amateur or at least negligent in maintaining his or her web obligation.” 13
THE USES OF FACULTY WEB SITES
Various different purposes for faculty web sites have been put forth in the literature. The
authors of one publication released more than a decade ago (2000) assert that faculty web
sites can be used as “virtual offices.” 14 In such a setting, a professional web site offers
another opportunity for faculty members to “post assignments, syllabi, lecture notes, and
grades.” 15 Furthermore, a virtual office provides another route for students to turn in
assignments and to receive feedback on their work. 16 More recently, however, Blackboard
and other course management systems have been widely adopted to perform these
functions.
Faculty web sites may also be used as a “socializing mechanism,” according to Wang, as
such sites provide another platform for faculty members to delineate their goals and to
express their beliefs.17 Faculty web sites also provide students with opportunities to get to
know their professors on a more personal basis. Donovan asserts that students “need to
understand why faculty teach in order to promote approachability and foster a personal
10
Lennex, Lesia. Op. Cit., p. 33.
Ibid., p. 34.
12
Donovan, Judy. Op. Cit.
13
Stern, Caroline M. Op. Cit., p. 11.
14
Donovan, Judy. Op. Cit., p. 6.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Wang, Yu-Mei. Op. Cit., p. 284.
11
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
6
Hanover Research | November 2012
relationship with the instructor.” 18 Author Steven Kreis, in a 1998 article, notes, “Although
most online course material includes some details about the instructor, few of these Web
sites go so far as to discuss the professor as a unique individual.” 19 Accordingly, Kreis
opines, “in the interests of student motivation and success, professors ought to be more
willing to let their students partake of at least a glimpse of their private world.” 20 Several
emerging technologies since the publication of Kreis’ article, including Facebook and other
social media platforms, have helped professors share a more personal picture of their
interests and lives than was previously possible. However, with the advent of such
technologies and the accompanying ease with which information is now published online
comes the danger for faculty web sites to blur the line between professional and personal in
terms of the content and opinions published.
Various researchers have set forth the elements that they believe should be present on a
faculty web site. In her 2007 article, Lennex argues that the goals of a faculty web site
should be to present “access to course and program information, links to university
resources, and contact information for the professor.” 21 Through a student survey designed
to identify the elements of faculty web sites linked to “best practice and usability,” Lennex
identified the following elements:
Easily identified hyperlinks with logically oriented information, including: 1)
departmental page, 2) email to the faculty member, 3) current office hours, 4)
HTML-based or downloadable syllabi, 5) area resources, 6) anonymous sender form
for feedback, and 7) departmental links to faculty pages. 22
Other researchers have made similar suggestions for faculty web sites. The authors of a
2003 study focused on psychology faculty home pages found that both students and faculty
members believed the following elements should be accessible on a faculty web site: “an
email address, office hours, telephone number, course syllabi, courses offered, research
interests, educational background, links both within and outside the institution, professional
experience, publications, academic advising information, professional memberships, and a
picture of the faculty member.” 23
THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FACULTY WEB PAGES
Beyond the elements that should be incorporated into faculty web sites, several authors
have further explored the different “types” of faculty web pages commonly found online. In
her 2000 article, Stern identifies three different types of faculty web pages, the first being
the “course delivery and support” web page, in which a faculty member houses resources
designed to supplement classroom or online instruction, such as “syllabi, lecture notes,
supplemental text, bibliographies, multi-media presentations, links to digitized materials,
18
Donovan, Judy. Op. Cit., p. 7.
Kreis, Steven. “Professors are Human: Breaking Down the Barriers Between Instructor and Student.” The
Technology Source, July 1998. http://technologysource.org/article/professors_are_human/
20
Ibid.
21
Lennex, Lesia. Op. Cit., p. 33.
22
Ibid.
23
Donovan, Judy. Op. Cit.
19
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
7
Hanover Research | November 2012
uploads, FAQ’s, practice drills, sample tests, and study strategies.” 24 This type of web page
may offer other features, including “chat rooms, student and teacher profiles, class lists,
grading information, assistance for special needs students, e-mail feedback options, bulletin
boards, media centers, and project forums and platforms.” 25
The second category Stern identifies is the “business card page,” which “typically includes
the person’s title, academic affiliation, phone and voice mail numbers, e-mail and office
addresses, and perhaps even a photo” and can be expanded to include other material, such
as the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, professional affiliations, publications, consulting
and research interests, and information on his or her academic advising role.26
Finally, Stern identifies a third type of faculty web page, the “idiosyncratic personal page.”
A page of this type contains details on more personal activities of faculty, “such as service
work, consulting, and even personal hobbies or advocacies.” 27 The creation of web pages of
this nature can help provide a “face” for an institution, engaging both students and
individuals outside the immediate campus community and promoting interactivity. As Stern
points out,
E-mails from alumni, queries from prospective students, contacts from parents or
friends of students, and prospecting from outside industry and advisory boards for
consulting purposes are all venues opened by the email or other interactive
features of web pages. This function can also exist in telephone directory style
pages, but personal pages prompt a personal response in humans more than a mere
listing of names and numbers might. 28
24
Stern, Caroline M. Op. Cit., p. 2.
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid., p. 3.
28
Ibid., p. 6.
25
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
8
Hanover Research | November 2012
SECTION II: FACULTY WEB SITE P OLICIES
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
AT
ATTACHING FACULTY WEB SITES TO THE HOST INSTITUTION WEB SITE
While faculty web sites differ based on the content they offer, they are further distinguished
by the degree to which they are connected to the host institution. As Stern points out, a
faculty web site’s “relationship to the college or university is key in determining what rights
or obligations the sponsoring agency has to set guidelines and limitations for the pages and
what liabilities are incurred by the sponsoring agency by associating itself with the personal
web page either by hosting or linking to that page.” 29 In her article, Stern focuses on two
different relationships a faculty web site might have with a broader institutional web site—
“hosting” and “linking.” While both hosting and linking do suggest an institution’s
endorsement of a given faculty web site, linking may suggest a lower level of support and/or
approval. As Stern notes, many institutions have sought to limit their liability “by hosting
only a standardized version … for a professional business card type of page.” 30 It is then up
to the institution to decide whether faculty will be able to link their “business card” page to
a separate personal page not located on the institution’s server.
Institutions of higher education may also seek to clearly elucidate the distinction between
official sites and faculty web pages by featuring “an identifying and unique page design that
clearly announces whether a site is an official page within the college or university’s domain
or whether the user has outlinked to a site outside the school’s web site domain.” 31 While a
web page’s URL forms one decisive indicator of a web page’s location, other indicators, such
as a “graphics standard or template” or “icons and other signage” can also help establish
the relationship to an institution’s home site. 32
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WEB PAGE DESIGN
Regardless, Stern holds that web pages associated “in any way” with a higher education
institution’s web site should be professional in nature, following “legal and ethical standards
as well as the best practices of academics.”33 To this end, Stern notes the importance of
setting up guidelines that “reflect professional standards and practices.” 34 Stern proposes a
number of values which, if adopted, can be used to guide web content and design: 35
1) operating in the institution’s (including other faculty, administration, staff and
students’) best interests in terms of its mission and goals;
29
Ibid., p. 3.
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid., p. 5.
34
Ibid.
35
Points verbatim from: Ibid., pp. 5-6.
30
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
9
Hanover Research | November 2012
2) exercising the highest standards of honesty and integrity;
3) giving respect to the fair, civil, accurate, ethical presentation of information;
4) insuring that there is no conflict of interests between the sponsoring institution and
other entities represented on the personal web pages;
5) observing the prohibition to use the personal web page for personal gain in any
area that is commercial, political, religious, or otherwise non-academic, unless prior
approval has been granted in writing by the sponsoring institution;
6) safeguarding the various rights to privacy held by individuals and institutions,
including copyright law;
7) not intentionally and unfairly harming the reputation or safety of another individual
or institution.
At the same time, however, standards for web page design and content must also allow an
individual a sufficient amount of academic freedom, a thorny issue which Stern notes has
been hotly contested.
Institutions of higher education should also ensure that they have in place policies regarding
the content that can be published on institutional web pages, which should be agreed upon
by all parties involved in the issue. Institutions should consider what content is compatible
with the purpose of the institution’s web site, and should also consider the purpose and
goal of offering access to faculty web sites in the first place. 36
In addition to establishing policies to govern the creation and content of faculty web pages,
institutions may consider developing standards or guidelines to ensure a minimum
amount of consistency in web page design across different pages. Stern notes, however,
that creating some level of consistency across different web pages should not be seen as an
attack on individual creativity, as consistency and creativity can both exist. In efforts to
promote such consistency, a variety of resources may be used—e.g., templates specifying
design standards, and resources demonstrating best practices. Another method
recommended by Stern is to give individuals “the option to have a ‘cover page’ or business
card style front page that would be consistent in design” and which could itself act as “the
gateway to the more idiosyncratic pages that would follow this front page.” 37
HOW SELECTED COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPROACH THIS ISSUE
In an effort to establish how various two-year institutions across the United States have
approached the issue of faculty web sites, Hanover Research examined institutional policies
related to web site content and publishing at a number of colleges in different states. In the
pages to follow, we present selected findings gleaned from the policies and procedures at
the following 15 colleges (fall 2011 enrollments in parentheses): 38,39
36
Ibid., p. 7.
Ibid., p. 9.
38
Enrollment data hail from the College Navigator tool provided by the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES). See: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
39
The locations and enrollment counts set forth for each institution (unless otherwise noted) hail from the National
Center for Education Statistics. These locations are not meant to encompass all branch or satellite campuses that
the institutions may feature.
37
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
10
Hanover Research | November 2012















Houston Community College, Houston, Texas (63,015)
Sheridan College, Sheridan, Wyoming (4,296)
Jackson State Community College, Jackson, Tennessee (4,930)
San Diego Mesa College, San Diego, California (25,504)
Middlesex Community College, Bedford, Massachusetts (9,840)
Moraine Valley Community College, Palos Hills, Illinois (18,169)
Salt Lake Community College, Salt Lake City, Utah (33,420)
Union County College, Cranford, New Jersey (12,416)
Waycross College, Waycross, Georgia (964)
Glendale Community College, Glendale, California (16,518)
Roane State Community College, Harriman, Tennessee (6,801)
South Seattle Community College, Seattle, Washington (5,439)
Bellevue College, Bellevue, Washington, (14,156) 40
Rochester Community and Technical College, Rochester, Minnesota (6,055)
South Plains College, Levelland, Texas (10,482)
It should be noted that the policy review presented in this section is not designed or
intended to be comprehensive. Instead, it relies on a sample of policies at two-year
institutions, with the focus being the identification of major themes across the sample, not
the details of all the ways in which the above-cited colleges regulate faculty web sites.
Indeed, community college policies regarding faculty web sites vary widely in detail and
scope. Some of the above community colleges feature robust policies and procedures
related to faculty web site design and publishing, while others appear to provide only
limited regulations and guidance. A review of these policies, however, uncovered several
major themes in faculty web site policies, which are detailed in the pages to follow.
THE USE OF SITE-SPECIFIC DISCLAIMERS
A number of the two-year community colleges analyzed for this report require disclaimers
to be displayed on faculty/staff web sites, specifying that these sites are the work of
individuals and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the larger
institution. The language and precise messages of these disclaimers vary widely, though
many do share certain similarities. Figure 1 presents examples from the colleges reviewed.
40
Bellevue College is a four year and above public institution that grants primarily associate’s degrees and is classified
under the Carnegie Classification “Associate's-Public 4-year Primarily Associate's.” Formerly Bellevue Community
College, Bellevue College become Bellevue College in 2009 as the institution began to offer four-year degrees.
However, Bellevue College remains part of the state’s community and technical college system. See: “Name
Change to Bellevue College.” Bellevue College. http://bellevuecollege.edu/about/college/collegename/
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
11
Hanover Research | November 2012
Figure 1: Examples of Site-Specific Disclaimers, Selected Two-Year Institutions
INSTITUTION
Houston
Community
College 41
HOW THE DISCLAIMER IS
PRESENTED AND THE SITE(S) IT
APPLIES TO
DISCLAIMER LANGUAGE
“The personal home pages of HCCS faculty, students, and
Each unofficial (personal)
staff do not in any way constitute official college content.
web page must feature the
The views and opinions expressed in the individual home
following disclaimer on the
pages are strictly those of the page authors, and comments
first page:
on the content should be addressed to the authors.” 42
“NWCCD, through the World Wide Web, offers members of
the campus community a creative outlet for their ideas and
interests, with all the rights of constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of speech and within the limits of state and federal
law and college policies.
Sheridan College 43
Jackson State
Community
College 45
Faculty and staff web pages
and blogs must contain a NWCCD assumes no responsibility for the content of
link to the following material uploaded or linked to the site. The college does not
disclaimer:
censor, police, nor endorse the contents of unofficial and
personal pages created by faculty, staff, students, or
associated links. Individual authors are solely responsible for
the content of their pages. The college, however, retains the
right to delete content it deems may violate copyright or
trademark laws, and/or which may be defamatory.” 44
All unofficial web pages,
which include "faculty
websites,
personal
professional websites, or
student
organization
46
websites" must contain a
link to the following
disclaimer:
“The views and opinions expressed in this page are not
those of Jackson State Community College. The contents
have not been reviewed or approved by Jackson State. If you
feel this page contains obscene or offensive material,
incorrect data, or infringes on your copyrights, trademarks,
etc., please contact the Web Administrator.” 47
41
“Privacy Policy.” Houston Community College System.
http://www.hccs.edu/portal/site/hccs/menuitem.a12520d901466b1f3227a2ced07401ca/?vgnextoid=e083ed2cd
3195110VgnVCM100000054710acRCRD&vgnextchannel=9bef4cc6a366f110VgnVCM2000001b4710acRCRD&vgne
xtfmt=archive
42
Ibid.
43
“NWCCD Faculty & Staff Web Pages and Blogs.” Northern Wyoming Community College District.
http://www.sheridan.edu/site/about-nwccd/marketing-public-information-office/nwccd-faculty-staff-web-pagesblogs/
44
Ibid.
45
“Jackson State Community College Web Policy.” Jackson State Community College.
http://www.jscc.edu/uploads/OIT/web-policy-5-2.pdf
46
Ibid., p. 2.
47
Ibid., p. 7.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
12
Hanover Research | November 2012
INSTITUTION
HOW THE DISCLAIMER IS
PRESENTED AND THE SITE(S) IT
APPLIES TO
DISCLAIMER LANGUAGE
San Diego Mesa
College 48
Individuals employed by
the College can construct
an "unofficial website"
hosted on the College's
servers, but the first page
of any such web site must
contain
the
following
49
disclaimer:
“This unofficial website or page is maintained and owned by
(enter employee name here). Content provided does not
reflect the views or opinions of the San Diego Community
College District or San Diego Mesa College. Comments about
the content on this site should be directed to the website
owner at: (employee email address).” 50
Middlesex
Community
College 51
All unofficial college web
pages, which are defined as
"websites or webpages
created and maintained by
anyone
other
than
Middlesex
Community
College campuses, Web
coordinators or website
masters" must feature the
following disclaimer: 52
“The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this page
are those of the author or organization and not necessarily
those of Middlesex Community College or its officers and
trustees. The content of this page has not been reviewed or
approved by Middlesex Community College and the author
or organization is solely responsible for its content.” 53
Moraine Valley
Community
College 54
Faculty web pages linked to
“The content, views and opinions on this web site are strictly
the MVCC web site must
those of the author. The contents have not been reviewed
display
the
following
or approved by Moraine Valley Community College.” 55
disclaimer:
Salt Lake
Community
College 56
Personal faculty web pages “Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this page
must display the following are strictly those of the page author. The contents on this
disclaimer:
page have not been reviewed by SLCC.” 57
48
“Procedure: Unofficial and Official Web Sites.” San Diego Mesa College. http://www.sdmesa.edu/rules/webprocedure.cfm
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
“World Wide Web Guidelines.” Middlesex Community College.
https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/webpolicy/wwwguide.aspx
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
54
“Website Manual.” Moraine Valley Community College.
http://www.morainevalley.edu/resources/web_manual.htm
55
Ibid.
56
“SLCC Web Publishing Guidelines and Procedures.” Salt Lake Community College.
http://www.slcc.edu/webresources/docs/SLCC_Web_Publishing_Guidelines.pdf
57
Ibid., p. 4.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
13
Hanover Research | November 2012
INSTITUTION
Union County
College 58
HOW THE DISCLAIMER IS
PRESENTED AND THE SITE(S) IT
APPLIES TO
DISCLAIMER LANGUAGE
“All Personal Web Pages of
individuals
(faculty,
administrators, staff and
students) must have a link
to
the
following
59
disclaimer:”
"Information on Personal Web Page(s) represents the
thoughts and opinions expressed by the author and not that
of Union County College. The author takes full responsibility
for the information presented. By using the information
contained herein, the user willingly assumes all risks in
connection with such use. Neither the author nor Union
County College shall be held liable or responsible for
content, errors, and/or omissions in information herein or
information contained on any Web Page to which it is
linked. Furthermore, neither the author nor Union County
College shall be liable for any special, consequential, or
exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from any
user(s) use of, or reliance upon, this material or material set
forth on any Web Page to which it is linked." 60
“Waycross College, through its World Wide Web Site, offers
members of the campus community a creative outlet for
their ideas and interests, with all the rights of
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and within
the limits of state and federal law and College policies.
Waycross
College 61
Glendale
Community
College 63
Faculty and staff web pages
must contain a link to the Waycross College assumes no responsibility for the content
of material uploaded or linked to the site. The College does
following disclaimer:
not censor, police, nor endorse the contents of unofficial
and personal home pages created by faculty, staff, students,
or associated links. Individual authors are solely responsible
for the content of their pages. The College, however, retains
the right to delete content it deems may violate copyright or
trademark laws, and/or which may be defamatory.” 62
The following disclaimer “The views and opinions expressed in these pages are
must be posted on all strictly those of [the page author]. The content of these
personal web sites:
pages has not been reviewed or approved by GCC.” 64
Source: Hanover Research
58
“Policy and Use Guidelines for the World Wide Web.” Union County College.
http://www.ucc.edu/worldwidewebpubpol.aspx
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
“Faculty and Staff Web Pages.” Waycross College. http://www.waycross.edu/faculty.htm
62
Ibid.
63
“Administrative Regulations: College Website.” Glendale Community College District. P. 8.
http://www.glendale.edu/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9801
64
Ibid., p. 8.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
14
Hanover Research | November 2012
As seen in Figure 1, the exact disclaimer language used by colleges varies. While some
disclaimers are short and simple, and seek only to note that the college is not responsible
for the content on a faculty web site, other disclaimers provide more information about the
relationship of the larger institution to individual faculty web pages. In some cases,
institutional policies merely note that faculty web pages must feature a disclaimer noting
that the web page does not necessarily reflect the views of the college without stipulating
the exact disclaimer language. For example, Bellevue College stipulates that personal web
sites must feature “[a] content disclaimer explaining the website does not represent the
views of the college,” such as: “This is a personal website and does not necessarily reflect
the opinions or views of Bellevue Community College.” However, the policy does not
mandate any single disclaimer statement. 65
PROHIBITING FACULTY WEB SITES FROM UTILIZING THE INSTITUTION’S BRAND
Another way that various community colleges have sought to distinguish the views,
opinions, or information presented on personally-designed faculty web pages from official
college information/publications is by prohibiting faculty web sites from using the
“brand” of the host institution. The exact policies vary, though such stipulations often
center on the use of a college’s logo or other copyrighted media. For example, the Houston
Community College System allows unofficial (personal) web pages, enabling faculty, staff,
and students to create personal web pages using HCCS equipment. However, the HCCS
system further notes that, while these unofficial web pages do not require college approval,
“unofficial (personal) web pages may not include the system logo or any reference to the
Houston Community College System which would mislead the user into believing that the
information presented is official information or part of the system web page.” 66
Similar regulations have been put in place at a number of other community colleges. Roane
State Community College, for example, encourages faculty and staff to publish personal web
pages, but notes that the institution is not responsible for the content of these personal
pages and does not allow such pages to use “official Roane State Community College
logos.”67 In a similar policy, Salt Lake Community College does not allow the SLCC logo to be
present on personal faculty pages. 68
Some colleges prohibit personal faculty web pages from displaying not only logos, but also
other distinctive graphics, seals, and/or other symbols of the college. For example, at
South Seattle Community College, faculty pages hosted on the institution’s web server
“[m]ust have their own look and feel” and “[m]ay not copy/duplicate images and navigation
from the official college site.” 69 Similarly, at Bellevue College, personal web sites are
65
“Web Publishing Guide.” Bellevue College.
http://bellevuecollege.edu/webpublishing/standards/webspace/C_content_reqs.asp
66
“Privacy Policy.” Op. Cit.
67
“Web Publishing Policy.” Roane State Community College. http://www.roanestate.edu/policies/GA-18-04.pdf
68
“SLCC Web Publishing Guidelines and Procedures.” Op. Cit.
69
“South Seattle Community College Web Standards.” South Seattle Community College. P. 4.
http://www.southseattle.edu/documents/pio/websitestandards09jan.pdf
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
15
Hanover Research | November 2012
prohibited from featuring the institution’s logo “or other symbols or marks of the college.”70
Union County College likewise prohibits “[p]ersonal Web Pages published by students,
faculty, administrators or staff” from using “the College logo, nameplate or seal” anywhere
on the page. 71
One unique approach to distinguishing between “official” institutional web pages and
unofficial faculty/staff web pages comes from Rochester Community and Technical College
(RCTC), located in Rochester, Minnesota. Rochester Community and Technical College’s web
policies distinguish between seven different “levels” of web sites. In this “level” system,
faculty and staff members’ course and personal web sites are classified as either “level VI”
(course and instructional web pages) or “level VII” (personal web pages). 72 While many
RCTC web sites must utilize RCTC branding (including logos, tag lines, and colors) and
feature a link to the RCTC home page, course-related and personal web sites (level VI and
VII sites) are prohibited from using the RCTC “official” site templates “unless the page is part
of an existing department site and the information highlights that person's services in
relation to the respective department or contains contact information.” 73 Furthermore, the
College specifies that course and personal web sites (level VI and VII sites) “should not
contain RCTC graphics or images that are already in use on the RCTC web site or contained
in an official RCTC template, nor should graphics on personal web sites be made to mimic
existing RCTC graphics and logos, thereby misleading people into thinking [the] personal
site may pertain to official college business or services.” 74
SPECIFYING RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONTENT OF FACULTY WEB SITES
A number of the community college policies and procedures reviewed for this report
specify restrictions on the content that can be presented on all institutional web pages
and/or on faculty web pages, in particular. While these restrictions often seek to ensure
that unlawful content is not presented (such as copyrighted material), some colleges do
place additional content restrictions on faculty web sites.
For example, Jackson Community College’s web policy specifies that “[a]ll web sites hosted
by Jackson State must adhere to all applicable local, state, and federal laws. In addition, any
link to external sites that violates local, state, or federal laws would be in direct violation of
this policy.” The policy further notes that web sites must adhere to applicable copyright
laws.75 Jackson State Community College further notes that “[s]tate law and state policy
prohibit the use of state owned property for any personal for-profit activities” (e.g., using a
state-maintained web site to post commercial material), and specifies that “information
technology resources” cannot be used “for solicitation of religious or political causes.” 76 In
70
“Web Publishing Guide.” Op. Cit.
“Policy and Use Guidelines for the World Wide Web.” Op. Cit.
72
“Rochester Community and Technical College World Wide Web Policies.” Rochester Community and Technical
College. http://www.rctc.edu/technology/it/webtopics/RCTC_Web_Site_Policies.html
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
“Jackson State Community College Web Policy.” Op. Cit., p. 6.
76
Ibid.
71
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
16
Hanover Research | November 2012
a broader statement, the College web policy also notes that both official college web pages
and unofficial (personal) web pages must conform to “the purpose, goals, and mission of
Jackson State.” 77
At Waycross College, faculty and staff web pages must conform to Waycross College
Computer Use Policies. Additionally, the College notes that faculty and staff web pages
must be “academically oriented.” 78 Similarly, at Rochester Community and Technical
College, faculty and staff personal web pages must:


Be work related and contain work related information.

Contain information above and beyond the course descriptions contained in the
catalog.


Contain date of last revision.
Adhere to MnSCU [Minnesota State Colleges and Universities] acceptable use of
technology policies.
[Contain] contact information of the author of the course or personal web site. 79
Rochester Community and Technical College is far from the only institution to regulate the
content included on faculty web sites. South Seattle Community College has set forth
various regulations related to the content of faculty web pages hosted on the College’s web
server. While faculty members “are responsible for creating and maintaining their own web
page[s],” faculty web sites hosted on the College’s server are subject to several regulations.
As noted above, these web pages “must have their own look and feel” and cannot feature
images or navigation from the main college web site. 80 Additionally, faculty web pages:

Should not contain duplicate information that can be found on an official
college page

Should be kept current by faculty. Content that has been identified as outdated is
subject to removal

May not be used for personal use 81
At South Seattle Community College, then, faculty web sites hosted on the institution’s web
server should be professional, not personal, web sites. Notably, it is not the only community
college that has mandated that hosted faculty web pages not be used for personal use. For
example, South Plains College specifies that “[h]ome pages for personal use by employees
or students will not be allowed on the SPC web server,” and that “[l]inks from faculty or
staff web pages to personal home pages are not permitted.” 82
77
Ibid., p. 7.
“Faculty and Staff Web Pages.” Op. Cit.
79
Points From: “Rochester Community and Technical College World Wide Web Policies.” Op. Cit.
80
“South Seattle Community College Web Standards.” Op. Cit.
81
Ibid.
82
“College Website Policy.” South Plains College. http://www.southplainscollege.edu/informationfor/employees/manualshandbooks/policyproceduresmanual/toc/sech/hn.php
78
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
17
Hanover Research | November 2012
ABILITY TO REVIEW CONTENT OF FACULTY WEB PAGES AND MODIFY/DELETE PAGES
A number of community colleges have further sought to regulate faculty web pages by
implementing policies giving the institution authority to review pages as needed and
modify/delete pages as deemed appropriate. Such reviews of faculty web sites may occur
as part of a regular initiative by the host institution to ensure compliance with college
policies and procedures, or on an ad hoc basis in response to feedback from college
stakeholders.
Community Colleges across the United States have taken different approaches to reviewing
and modifying faculty web sites. For example, Middlesex Community College notes that,
while the institution will not pre-approve or review content of unofficial college web sites
(defined as web sites “created and maintained by anyone other than Middlesex Community
College campuses, Web coordinators or website masters”), the College reserves the right to
immediately remove unofficial web pages from the Middlesex Community College servers
should they violate the College’s “web policy and publishing guidelines.” 83
Houston Community College features a similar policy. In the College’s Privacy Policy, the
institution notes that unofficial, personal web pages do not require college approval, and
that Houston Community College will not “actively police individual web pages.” 84
However, the College does state that it “will deal with problem situations as they become
apparent,” with disagreements concerning page content being resolved through the
College’s existing grievance policies. 85 Similarly, Moraine Valley Community College notes
that, while “faculty pages do not require formal approval, content that is outdated,
incorrect, of a questionable nature, or reflects poorly on the college’s image will require
attention of the appropriate faculty and staff, dean or vice president.” 86 Likewise,
Rochester Community and Technical College notes that, while faculty and staff must assume
responsibility for their personal web sites being accurate and up-to-date, the College
reserves the right to remove a site from the web site if that site is “egregiously out of date
or out of use … until compliance is agreed upon and achieved.” 87
Other community college web policies reviewed for this report also grant the college the
power to modify and/or remove individual pages. For example, as noted above in the
Sheridan College web site disclaimer, while individual authors are solely responsible for the
content of faculty, staff, and student web pages at Sheridan College, the College “retains the
right to delete content it deems may violate copyright or trademark laws, and/or which may
be defamatory.” 88 The web site disclaimer that must be linked to faculty/staff web sites at
Waycross College contains a similar clause, as Waycross College reserves the right to
remove defamatory or trademarked/copyrighted content. In the same way, Roane State
83
“World Wide Web Guidelines.” Op. Cit.
“Privacy Policy.” Op. Cit.
85
Ibid.
86
“Website Manual.” Op. Cit.
87
“Rochester Community and Technical College World Wide Web Policies.” Op. Cit.
88
“NWCCD Faculty & Staff Web Pages and Blogs.” Op. Cit.
84
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
18
Hanover Research | November 2012
Community College notes that it “reserves the right to revoke the privilege of web
publishing from anyone at anytime,” an action that “would generally occur only when a
person publishes content that would be considered offensive, a copyright violation or
contrary to the nature and vision of Roane State Community College.” 89
Several college web policies set forth formal procedures for reviewing web sites that may
violate college policy. Jackson State Community College sets forth a detailed procedure for
dealing with web sites that violate college policy, both official and unofficial. If the College
determines that a web policy has been violated, and the violation in question violates any
applicable law, the content (or web page) “will be removed without prior notification,” with
written notification being sent after the content or page is removed. 90 Otherwise, a written
notification will be sent to the College’s Web Administrator “and, if applicable, the Site
Publisher.” 91 This notification will contain information on the violation, “request that the
violation be corrected, and provide instructions on how to appeal the initial determination if
the party so chooses.” 92 If an individual does not desire to appeal the initial determination
of the policy violation, the Jackson State web administrator will remove the content in
question. However, a site publisher or site supervisor may decide to appeal the initial
determination, in which case the appealing party will present his or her case in person at a
meeting involving the Jackson State Community College Web Steering Committee. After
this meeting, the Committee will vote and the Chair of the Committee will present the
Committee’s recommendation to the College President, as well as the College’s OIT (Office
of Information Technology) Director. The OIT Director will, in turn, make a recommendation
to the College President, who will consider the recommendations of the Steering
Committee and the OIT Director and will make the final determination. 93
A similar procedure exists at Glendale Community College. The College features
administrative regulations identifying five different categories of Glendale Community
College-affiliated web sites: 94
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Course Websites
Department Websites
Faculty or Personal Websites
Student Clubs/Organizations
Non-conforming Websites (e.g., third-party application sites such as Blackboard)
At Glendale Community College, “[a]ll college Websites/pages are subject to review by the
Web Oversight Committee.” 95 The College states that it “reserves the right to reject or
remove from any GCC Web server materials that are outdated, erroneous or misleading,
89
“Web Publishing Policy.” Op. Cit.
“Jackson State Community College Web Policy.” Op. Cit., p. 8.
91
Ibid.
92
Ibid.
93
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
94
“Administrative Regulations: College Website.” Op. Cit., p. 2.
95
Ibid., p. 7.
90
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
19
Hanover Research | November 2012
illegal, unethical, or detrimental to the mission and operations of the college.” 96 While the
College has the authority to request a correction of site contents or to remove site contents
altogether, it also features an appeals process for individuals who wish to appeal such
decisions. Under this appeals process, individuals submit their appeals to the College’s
Associate Vice President of Information Technology, who then refers these appeals to the
Web Oversight Committee. This Committee is responsible for returning a decision, “which
may include instructions for modification of the site.” 97 The decision of the Web Oversight
Committee may be appealed to the College President, who holds the final authority to make
a determination regarding the appeal.
96
97
Ibid., pp. 5-6.
Ibid., p. 8.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
20
Hanover Research | November 2012
PROJECT EVALUATION FORM
Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds member
expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our
reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we
tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this
report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.
http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php
CAVEAT
The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher
and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the
descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by
representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and
completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not
guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for every member. Neither the publisher nor the
authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but
not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover
Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
21
Hanover Research | November 2012
1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20006
P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585
www.hanoverresearch.com
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
22