[editor's note: "ResNet" is the name for the on-campus student residence Internet access at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan]
There are competing interests around the use of technology. There are competing interests in fostering community life at a residential college such as Calvin College. There are competing interests in choosing to live a Christian life.
The question presented by the decision to install ResNet was, "how do we balance the need for information and the goals for community, taking into account human nature?"
In 1996–1999, Calvin began installing ResNet jacks into the student rooms on campus. All the jacks were unfiltered. Two problems emerged with that trial group of machines. First, 70% of the Web traffic was pornographic in content. Secondly, in the public residence labs, some degrading pictures of women were left on computer screens, which negatively affected the community life in the residence hall. Calvin College believes that pornography is harmful to the spiritual life of all of us. Likewise, other material, such as hate speech, has the potential for negatively affecting community.
So how do we balance the need to access information and the seductive impact of negative sites? Calvin tried to answer both issues. First, Calvin has hundreds of unfiltered machines on campus. At those sites, the need for unfiltered information outweighed the community goals. Second, Internet access became filtered in the residence halls when subscribing to ResNet. There the community goals outweighed the need for unfiltered information given the other available machines.
Calvin also tried to make ResNet advantageous. By subscribing to ResNet, one gets unlimited time, fast service, and the phone line remains available for telephone calls rather then being tied up online, all for $55 a semester (in 2000–2001). An interesting ethical question is: given the goals of ResNet, should a subscriber take the advantages of ResNet and use a proxy or other method to bypass the filter?
You give up some things when subscribing to ResNet. You cannot access pornographic sites, sites with content that is illegal (e.g., bomb making, plagiarism) and sites that are dedicated to gambling, weapons, or hate speech. However, if you have a legitimate reason for viewing sites in these categories, they are available on the unfiltered machines.
Calvin uses a filtering system called Bess by N2H2. It is not perfect—it sometimes blocks sites that are not inappropriate for a college audience. When a student identifies such a site, it can be unblocked for use in the residence hall. However, that can take a week. So, immediate access would require a walk to the library. Some students complain that this is an excessive inconvenience. That’s balancing the tension. Calvin tries to fine-tune the overall system so that it works for all of us.
Does the filter mean that Calvin doesn’t trust it’s students? No. Anytime an institution, whether the family, the church, the YMCA, a restaurant, a library, a college, a sports arena, etc. sets up restrictions, they can appear negative. A restaurant that provides a no-smoking room gives freedom for non-smokers to enjoy their meal smoke-free and for smokers to enjoy their own spot to smoke and eat as they please. A gym that sets up adult basketball gym time restricts the use for others, but gives a benefit to another group for their enjoyment. We have all experienced rules that restrict some activity but may provide freedom in other ways.
The Internet filter at Calvin gives students the freedom from sites that diminish community. Calvin College desires the very best sense of community in the residence halls. It is our hope that students will love God and love their "neighbor", who in this case is their fellow student. We know that pornography, violence, and hate speech are antithetical to community. Yet, with the click of the mouse, you’re there. Paul writes: "that which I would do, I don’t and that which I shouldn’t, I do". But, you say, "I never look at problem sites so why should I live with the filter?" The answer lies in our commitment to community. What might be unnecessary for you is necessary for someone else. Can we give up individual convenience for the good of the whole?
Think about these three statements:
What were your answers? These statements help us think about our ability to make right decisions, the effect of an unwanted habit and the ease or desire to correct peer behavior.
A second freedom the filter provides is that holding my peers accountable is not resting entirely on my shoulders. The filter functions as an impersonal accountability partner. In a perfect world, we could all readily speak the truth in love to our neighbor. For instance, if you saw your roommate spending hours and hours on the computer and becoming isolated, you would want to speak to her. If you saw your suitemate download a paper and use it as her own, you would want to speak with her. If you walked into your floor mate’s room and saw pornographic images on his screen, you would want to say something. But, that can be very difficult. Excuses flood the mind. "Maybe I didn’t really see what I thought I did. Maybe it was a one-time thing. I don’t know her very well, and I might get hassled for saying something. Or, let the RA’s do it. That’s their job." This is not just a student problem. It is a lifelong challenge. When is intervention a caring action and when is it judgmental? What would it take to have the courage and discernment to serve each other as accountability partners in any situation?
How does the filter affect my ability to learn responsible freedom?
Four Biblical passages help define "responsible freedom:" I Corinthians 6:2-20, I Corinthians 10:23-11:1, Romans 14:19; 15:2. In I Corinthians 10 Paul is discussing the tension between the freedoms a believer has in Christ and those who are the "weaker brothers." When Paul says "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial," he is talking about "everything" in the context of community. Personal freedoms are a factor, but not the only one. We must also consider "the good of others." Paul then identifies with the "libertines" and argues that he is not going to allow his newfound freedom from the Jewish law to be unnecessarily curtailed. Paul argues that it is not necessary to abrogate his liberty or his personal judgment because other "weaker" brothers don’t understand the new freedoms. But then he ends with saying that all conduct of a believer should be done to the glory of God. In all cases, whether you eat or don’t eat meat offered to idols, or whether you work on a filtered or non-filtered machine, the aim is to give no offense to those who are weak. The purpose is that many will be saved. Loving one's neighbor is a sure way of showing God’s love for us.
Developing a Godly conscience to help us make right decisions is the definition of responsible freedom. "In dealing with these matters God means for us to use our brains and the powers of judgment with which he endowed us. Form an estimate of what is helpful and constructive and above all seek the good of your neighbor rather than your own good. The greater good of the greater number must never be lost to sight." This is a principle that guided the college in setting up the filter for the ResNet jacks. There is a cost to personal convenience and for many an unnecessary restriction. Is a filter the only way? No. Does it help some? Yes. For those that it helps, the waiver of unfiltered ResNet convenience is a blessing to a brother or a sister we helped from stumbling. That builds community.
Note: This page was written by Shirley V. Hoogstra.