On a related note - academic freedom, IP and the use of the Internet by Universities to redefine the craft of teaching - following the logic of Noble's arguments - unbundle teaching into component parts enabling a return to late capitalist Fordist economies of the production of teaching artifacts (not that they ever left that location) ... I recently participated in a major grievance launched by my Faculty Association against the University (of BC) on the question of the University's claim of IP rights to online courses and their requirement that faculty sign away their IP rights and in so doing, agree to a host of other conditions of course development that also infringe on academic freedom. The grievance was heard by the B.C. Labour Relations Board, and we won on all counts. The major positive outcome of this tortuous process is a really lengthy analysis of the relationships between teaching, course development, online education, IP and academic freedom in the arbitrator's award (which is 97pp). If anyone out "there" is involved in similar activity - negotiating IP/academic freedom as these have been impacted by the particular uses of the Internet by Universities, contact me and I will gladly send you the award. It is a very insightful analysis, and in Canada anyway, until it is successfully appealed (the University has entered an appeal), it also enters into labour case law and sets the bar very high for any college or university attempting to wrest IP from faculty or to redefine online courses as "work product". ------------------------------------ Bits from Arbitrator Dorsey, QC's, award: ³In the university employment context, because of the importance of the expression of ideas to academic freedom and the presumptive first ownership of copyright in faculty, issues related to copyright are part of the core relationship between employer and employee. They are part of the conditions of employment.² ³I conclude that the scope of the union¹s exclusive bargaining authority includes the right to negotiate matters related to the copyright ownership of bargaining unit employees in works made in the course of their employment.² (p.88) Dorsey found the actions of the administration in this matter ³created a limitation on academic freedom² (p.93) and found that they ³negotiated directly with individual members contrary to Article 3 of the Agreement on the Framework for Collective Bargaining.² (p.94) In allowing Dr. Bryson¹s grievance, Mr. Dorsey stated: ³Every bargaining unit member has a right, and perhaps a responsibility, to ensure the University complies with the terms of the collective agreement. This is an activity each bargaining unit member performs on behalf of the bargaining agent². (p.96) He found that Dr. Bryson had been effectively ³fired.from the assignment² in the MET program for her refusal to work under terms different than those in the Collective Agreement. mb