NTU Policy Updates

Just seen an email sent earlier today from HR about updated staff policies. Amongst the other stuff I found this statement:

Staff should avoid activity that might adversely affect the reputation of the University or bring the University into disrepute.

Would this include Blogger and Twitter postings? YouTube videos? What I might say down the pub? Comments on the websites of the BBC, Guardian, Times Higher or whoever? Given there is an approaching general election would this include staff who legitimately stood for election but who put forward controversial issues - whatever they might be and however democratic?

I know this is a constant theme of mine but I think employers interfering in employees private lives (with the possible exception of where they break the law) is all rather feudal. What you can say... What work you can do outside of your "main" work... Surprised too that the European Union does not have a view on this - Human rights anyone?

Data Protection Protection?

Do we need protection from the Data Protection act?
Or from how universities interpret the implementation of it?

The Times Higher Education (15 May 2008) reports the case of an academic (an Economist) who got into trouble for confirming the details of a student's timetable to the student's mother. This seems a bit harsh especially as the general pattern of attendance for first year students (who rarely take optional modules) can often be inferred from publicly available information on web sites, which advertise the core and optional modules available for each year of study. Would the university had rather he was economical with the truth? At what point does all the private data (individual marks, attendance and other relevant information) leap into the public arena when students obtain final degree classifications, seek references and so forth and that data must to some extent be verifiable if it is to have value?


http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/