What's in a (domain) name?

Should a University be an academic community – or a business?

Keith S. Taber

surely we want students from underrepresented groups emailing their friends back at school or college using their University of Cambridge email addresses

The University of Cambridge is currently undertaking an internal consultation about a plan to change its email policy relating to emails with the @cam.ac.uk address – a change that would remove such email accounts from many who currently have them.

This has come shortly after the University has moved its email from its own servers and outsourced them to the cloud – or, more precisely, Microsoft's cloud. And that came fairly soon after the University decided (rather abruptly, and without proper notice, in my own view – but that's all current under the bridge) to withdraw the opportunity for each member to have personal webpages on the University servers. However, the potential change in policy is not supposed to be about saving costs, but rather a principled change concerned with the University considering its email domain as part of its corporate identity, where it may be considered to have responsibilities (that raise security considerations) in a similar way to how it has responsibilities on its physical sites. 

The logic seems to be that just as the University has responsibility over information published on any webpages appearing in its domain (e.g., they should not misrepresent; they should not be used to advance scams; they should not be discriminatory or defamatory, etc.) it also has responsibility for communications sent from @cam.ac.uk addresses.

There seem to be two related aspects of what is considered to follow from this:

• cam.ac.uk email addresses should only be used by those who have a current active role in the University
• cam.ac.uk email addresses should primarily be used for University business

I must confess when I first read the proposed policy (which I am not copying verbatim as it is currently not in the public domain, but is accessible to current students and staff) I could see the reasonableness of it. Certainly, when one remembers the political capital that was made out of Hilary Clinton failing to carefully separate her 'work' from 'personal' email activity, and the possibility that that may have been a major factor in the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, nominal leader of the free world, and commander-in-chief of the largest nuclear armed force of any democratic nation, it gives pause for thought.

Yet, the more I have thought about this, the more this seems a very questionable direction of travel. The reason this has raised a lot of concern in the wider Cambridge University community (including those people who see themselves as still members of that community – often after many years of service – despite no longer being in formal roles) is because many retired staff who have Cambridge emails will lose their accounts. This includes a good many who may never have had another email address – and until now did not think they needed multiple accounts. However, I think the bigger issue is the separation of University related communication (you should use cam.ac.uk)  from unrelated communication (you should not). First, however, let's consider the potentially ex-communicated.

To be ex-communicated from the Cambridge domain

To many people who have multiple email accounts, or have moved accounts from time to time, it may seem that the soon-to-be-disqualified account holders, usually former employees of the university or its colleges, are either making a fuss without cause, or at least worrying unduly. It is not difficult to obtain a new email account, and re-direction tools are available that will make sure any email sent to the old account will be forwarded for some time (the University has promised this if the new policy is implemented). Of course, it is a hassle to have to change addresses and let people know – but, even so, many estate agents manage to stay in business. 

The real issue here is more a matter of identity. People who identify as part of the wider University community are being told they no longer quality to be 'in' the system. Now, the University has a separate email system for its former alumni (@cantab.net) which is being offered to (at least most of) those being disqualified – so, that might seem to solve this problem. After all, we are only talking about an email address and @cantab.net can be understood as an indicator of being not currently active in the University, but still part of the wider community.  

Distributed responsibility for denying email accounts

However, some of those threatened with this relegation in their email status may question this: anyone who is a graduate of the University (for example) can have an @cantab.net address even if they have not been in Cambridge, or had any involvement in any activities here, for years – or even decades. Some of those retired staff who still use their @cam.ac.uk addresses consider they are still actively involved in the life of the University. The new policy suggests that in such cases the head of institution (a head of Department/Faculty or House {College}) can sponsor former staff to retain their email address for a limited period if they have a specific role. So, as a hypothetical example, a retired member of staff invited back to sit on some working party because of their special expertise could qualify whilst that group was in operation. 

But what counts as sufficient engagement is left to the appropriate head of institution. If they make a positive judgement, they then need to request the email account being kept active, and the decision has to be revisited periodically. Many retired colleagues who are former employees, fellows, or members, of my own College, Homerton, are members of the Homerton Retired Senior Member's Association. This group has a committee, and volunteers undertaking leadership of various activities, and many members engage (well, as COVID allows) in college activities.

• Would this be counted?
• …only for Committee Members?
• Or does this kind of engagement not count at all?

Presumably it will be for the Principal of the College to decide – and for the heads of other houses to decide (perhaps using quite different criteria) on parallel cases in their own colleges.

Can you be a University Officer if you are not considered actively engaged in the University?

By my reading of the new policy, some University Officers will not automatically retain @cam.ac.uk domain email addresses. That certainly seems to be the case for Emeritus Officers like myself. The University grants the title of Emeritus Professor or Emeritus Reader to its more senior teaching officers on retirement. So, people granted such titles are no longer on the payroll – as they are no longer employed by the University – but are formally recognised as, technically at least, Officers of the University.

I assume this is so (assume? As an Emeritus Officer I've never been given any formal briefing on the status) in part to recognise service, but in part because at least some of these Emeritus Officers are undertaking activities that the University will consider it benefits from being associated with.

Although I am retired, I then still have a formal affiliation as an Emeritus Officer, which is listed on any publications and public talks I produce, and is shown on websites where I have editorial board memberships and the like – thus bringing some kudos to the university without any of that debasing business of having to provide me with a stipend. In a sense, I work for the University for free. (Which is fine by me – as I retired because of health concerns and now I work only 'as and when' I am feeling up to doing so, and as the muse inspires me.)

The proposed list of people to automatically have a cam.ac.uk email address includes Honorary Professors and Readers – but not Emeritus Officers. It also includes members of the University's governing body, the Regent House, of which I am currently a member. But that membership is not automatic for Emeritus Officers, and has to be renewed each year – again at the discretion of a head of institution (on a similar basis as is being proposed to retain email addresses).

At the moment, my own @cam.ac.uk email address is not under threat as I still have some research students yet to complete. Once they are finished, I would need to make a case for retaining my cam email address. At the moment it is suggested I would need to show I actively contribute to the academic life of the University or its Colleges. But if there is a very low bar on this, then heads of institutions are going to be doing a lot of paperwork. And if not, then what counts?

Regarding my College, Homerton College, in the past year I have attended a number of events (albeit virtual events): an on-line talk by a college fellow, a research seminar, and a briefing by a College Fellow to retired members on a potential change in teacher education policy. Do any of these count? Would they collectively count?

I've also been to some meetings in my Faculty where I am still have a profile page on the web as a retired professor (although I understand that strictly I am no longer a 'Member' of the Faculty in terms of being able to attend and vote at the annual meeting of the Faculty). Does going to a few seminars count as active involvement in the life of the University? And does the head of institution consider the broader picture – I have been to a number of on-line talks and seminars in the past year in other departments, so presumably they should count (if this is the kind of thing understood to count). After all, attending seminars and the like are a key part of the academic life of any university.

Indeed, since retirement I've been to more events in HPS (the Department of History and Philosophy of Science) than anywhere else.  I'm listed on the departmental website as an 'affiliate' of the department – but that is a very informal association, so I am not sure if that in itself would count for anything in terms of 'activity'?

The proposed policy talks about self-nomination (to then be considered by the head of institution) of retired staff who consider themselves actively involved in defined activities of the collegiate University. Does 'defined' mean the applicant will be asked to define their involvement, or that there will be a list of defined activities as a guide to the heads of institutions? If the latter, then those defined activities remain very undefined at this point in time. 

What should count as an allowed use of email communication through a University domain?

Leaving aside the question of who is entitled to have a University domain email address, there is the question of what it can be used for. The intention set out in the mooted policy is that those people with such email addresses should use them 'primarily' for their University work.

This seems a little akin to telling anyone who is living in University or College accommodation that they should only use that as their mailing address for academic correspondence, and use a separate postal address for any personal mail. Perhaps, even, that they should not be writing personal letters or addressing greetings cards sitting in their University accommodation.

That may seem a false analogy: after all, when you rent, or are perhaps in certain cases provided with, accommodation, then it is your home in which to live your life. Is anyone going to tell the head of a university house that they should have their family and non-College post sent to a P.O. Box where they can collect it, and only receive their college-related post at home? Of course not. (Indeed, their college related post should be reaching them via their office staff.)

That said, if that head of house was hosting noisy parties with intoxicated guests late into the night during the examination period then that would raise some eyebrows. Indeed, if the head of house was, in her own off-duty time, making and selling porn videos from the accommodation, or decided to decorate the walls with huge pro-Nazi posters of Adolf Hitler, then – even though this was activity in her home not her college office – this would likely be seen as completely inappropriate and unacceptable. That evaluation would not be because such things are private concerns and not academic activity: after all no one would object to her doing yoga, painting landscapes, or playing the clarinet in the college-owned house.

The point is that there are some things which can bring the University into disrepute, and they should not be done in a context that would be seen to be associated with the university (on its campuses, through its webpages, using its email domain) – even when they are things that are legal and which it is acknowledged members of the university community, as individuals, are free to chose to do even if others do not approve.

What about the students?

This seems especially an issue for student members of the university. They are given an email address and told it will be used for official communication, so they should check it regularly. But (under the proposed policy) they should not really be using that address to write home to parents or to arrange a group outing to the University's botanical garden. (Would it be a different matter if students on the natural science tripos arranged a trip to the botanic garden – or would they be able to use the address only as long as they were sure that most of the conversation at the garden would be plant-related?)

Getting a place at Cambridge is a pretty big thing for many students, so surely they should be proud of this aspect of their identity, and proud to use and give their @cam.ac.uk email address. What about those students from underrepresented groups – do we not want them emailing their friends back at school or college using their Cambridge email addresses?

Making a judgement

I thought it would be interesting to consider some of the email communication I have received via cam.ac.uk to consider what should still be allowed under the proposed policy. Of rather, what I would be expected to 'primarily' reserve my use of this email address for.

I will leave aside all those requests received for romantic relationships (from very attractive women who are happy to send me a photograph on request), bequests of millions, offers of drugs for sale, invoices and payment orders from organisations I have never heard of, and so forth, as clearly I would be very happy not to have this correspondence via any account.  (What about those convincing-looking requests I sometimes get to reset my cam.ac.uk password? That seems to be University-related business?)

Emails with family are not university-related, and nor are messages about my household energy supply, or reminders to book an appointment at my dentist. I am on circulation lists from a number of outlets selling CDs, so I should be changing my registered email address there as well. And there are the discount book sellers – except that most of the books I buy are at least potentially related to areas I might write about. So, does that make them legit?

Emails with my current students would presumably be allowed – certainly when they ask for advice or I send them feedback on their writing. What about just general chit-chat with them, such as checking they are okay during the pandemic? That might be seen as part of a teacher's pastoral role – but officially in Cambridge that is meant to be the job of the college tutor not the supervisor. Officially, but surely all teachers have a level of pastoral responsibility, and you do not supervise someone's work for several years without having a concern for them as a whole person. And checking on their welfare or well-being surely contributes to their chances of successful completion, which is what the University wants? So, perhaps I can make a case for a blanket allowance there?

I am on a whole range of email lists related more-or-less directly to science teaching or to disciplines and activities linked to science education. Is it appropriate to use my Cambridge email for such discussion lists if they are linked to my work, even if much of the actual traffic on these lists turns out to be peripheral to my scholarship?

The academic life of the University – or of Academia?

This policy also raises issues the University might be best advised not to delve too deeply into.  The work of an academic obviously usually includes teaching, associated administration and scholarship. But there is also the notion of 'service' to the wider community. This often concerns work undertaken for free, or for nominal payment, for other institutions. The University needs its academics to do this work, as it also relies on these kinds of contributions from academics elsewhere.

So, I get asked to referee work submitted for publication or grant applications. (Since I have retired, I feel empowered to decline most of this.) This is usually done for free, and without this type of activity the University would suffer as its own academics would not get their work reviewed. So, invitations of this kind should presumably(?) be considered as using email for academic and administrative work 'for' the University and the Colleges, even though the work is actually undertaken for journals and publishers and funding bodies.

The same applies to those requests to examine students (or programmes) at other universities, to evaluate proposals for tenure or promotion for other universities, to be involved in appointments panels for other institutions, to engage in external reviews or as external members of review panels (for courses, programmes, departments, etc.). Then there are requests to be members of committees, working parties, and the like for various professional and academic organisations like teaching associations and learned societies.

In all these cases, and many others like them, a person is approached to engage in some kind of activity for the good of the wider discipline/profession/society and they are invited because of their association with the University and/or because of their reputation related to their academic standing. In such cases the organisation making the approach would feel it reasonable to contact the person (and expect to receive a reply from them) as a member of the  'Cambridge' scholarly community, whether still in post or retired, and so would naturally expect to use a University email address. Such activities are considered positively – indeed expected – in cases for senior academic promotions in the University. Yet, strictly, none of this is academic or administrative work 'for' the University. 

Another attack on academic standards?

As I mentioned above, when I first read the new proposed policy, it did not seem unreasonable. An @cam.ac.uk email address suggests an official affiliation and so acts as an assurance of a genuine link with the University. A university email is provided for business use and should not be used for private use.

The first point is fallacious. Any first year undergraduate could use their cam.ac.uk email address to pretend to be authorised to invite an external examiner, a visiting professor, to set up a research centre, or to order supplies of uranium. If they did, this would be fraudulent and a disciplinary matter. Anyone who took leave from their post elsewhere and arrived in Cambridge to spend a term as a visiting professor on the say-so of an invitation simply because it came from an @cam.ac.uk email would perhaps be entitled to feel cheated, but no court is going to consider the University responsible given the visitor's lack of due diligence.

So, removing cam.ac.uk emails from retired staff just in case they do something naughty that appears to be in an official capacity is a flawed argument. Given that most people with university email addresses in most universities are students, someone would have to be very stupid to trust that some approach was valid and authorised just because it came from such an email address. Indeed, even when you know the email address belongs to someone in a position of authority, that is no assurance that the account has not been hacked. (I've had those scam emails that seem to come from within the University. I imagine if I had responded on the basis the message seemed to be from the @cam.ac.uk domain I would quite rightly be considered foolish by the University.) Anyone who does anything of high significance on the basis of any unverified email message is naïve in the extreme.

Some people will do foolish or immoral and perhaps illegal things with whatever resources they have available to them – to therefore withdraw abusable resources from innocent members of the wider community just in case they do wrong is not a sensible approach to risk management. Certainly, it makes sense not to leave unattended and accessible things that are inherently dangerous – high explosive, concentrated sulphuric acid, loaded firearms… But a creative person looking to cause trouble could drown someone in a fire bucket, break windows and damage artworks with a fire extinguisher, and suffocate someone with a fire blanket. Even so, on balance, it makes sense to make these resources available to those members of a community using a University building.

The argument about only using the email domain for academic or administrative work for the University is also flawed. A member of the University should certainly not be running a commercial business through the @cam.ac.uk domain. But what is the problem if university students or staff (or retired staff) use their Cambridge email for social or personal emails as well as 'work'? The email domain is about identity – the person's identify as a member of the Cambridge University community. Sending a message via the email is no more claiming to be acting for the University than is writing a personal letter in a University flat, or an academic telephoning to arrange a plumber's visit on their office phone. The plumber would not assume that because the message came from a University telephone number the University will be paying for any work done at the academic's home.

"The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence."

https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/the-universitys-mission-and-core-values

A university is not primarily a business

The problem with the 'only for work' argument is it reduces the University to a business. It is not. (There may need to be a sense in which it is, as it needs to manage its financial affairs carefully, certainly, but it is not its purpose or prime nature.) Students are not employees, but matriculated members of the community. Teaching officers may be referred to by management as employees, but we need to remember who they work for: the University is a corporation of the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars. The university is a network of scholars who come together to live and work in academic communities to share in a particular 'form of life'. Otherwise, how would it justify its charitable status?

"the opportunities for broadening the experience of students and staff through participation in sport, music, drama, the visual arts, and other cultural activities"

https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/the-universitys-mission-and-core-values

Universities encourage a 'form of life' that looks to develop the whole person – making it difficult to know what counts as the university's 'business'

For most scholars (student, teachers, retired) there is no sharp dividing line between the academic life and life more generally. Most social events involve talking shop because the academic community offers a form of life where people consider that they are doing something more than just earning a crust or boosting their c.v. Certainly, there is a consequent danger that people's work-life balance can go awry, but that is best avoided by us treating each other as members of the community and looking out for each other.

Otherwise, we surrender what is special about organisations like the University. What makes the community worth being a member of is the values that are (largely) shared – such as honesty, open-mindedness, fairness, enquiry, justice, the search for truth and authenticity, inclusivity, academic standards…

If we lose sight of that and just see the University as a(nother) business we are in danger of becoming no different to those organisations undermining scholarly norms (often criticised here) who will publish any nonsense for the right fee; who are happy to use false praise to entice contributions; who think lying in their communications is justified if it brings results. The University of Cambridge is a community of scholars (or perhaps a metacommunity of many entangled and overlapping communities of scholars), and it loses something very special if it starts to see itself as primarily a business, as transactional rather than relational.

A relational organisation says you have an email address in our domain because you have developed a relationship with us, and that identify remains when you retire as long as you wish to continue in, and properly respect, that relationship.

A transactional organisation says we gave you an email address in our domain when you worked for us, but now you are no longer contributing our cost-benefit analysis tells us we should withdraw it.

I think I know which impression the University should look to give.

Members of the University can read about the proposed policy and contribute to the consultation (till 18th Feb. 2022) here: https://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/newemailpolicy