James Hynes

It seems to have worked, anyway. There's a story about the end of L'affair de Open Access on today's Chronicle of Higher Education website. Everything seems to have been handled quickly, through channels, though of course I'd like to think that the e-mails and blogs about it helped nudge Iowa's administration along a little bit.

The tempest over Iowa's policy for open access to graduate theses may be over. Thisbe Nissen (who's been alerting everybody via e-mail about all this for the past week) has forwarded an e-mail from Iowa's provost (who has the wonderful name of Lola Lopes) that should calm the waters. Calms mine, anyway, at least for now. The e-mail includes the following official statement from the provost:

Statement from the Provost Concerning MFA Theses

In recent days a number of people have been upset about what they believed was a plan by our library to publish the creative thesis work of students in our writing programs on the internet without their permission. Let me say as simply and clearly as I can, there is no such plan nor will there be. I regret sincerely that we did not convey this message when students and faculty first voiced their concerns.

For some time now our library, like most major academic research libraries, has been exploring ways to make its collections more accessible by digitizing some materials.  As part of  that process, there has been discussion about the possibility of making graduate student dissertations and theses available in electronic format. But any such process must be preceded by developing policies and procedures that allow authors to decide whether and when to allow distribution.

On Monday, March 17, I will begin pulling together a working group with representatives from the Graduate College, University Libraries, our several writing programs, and all other constituencies who wish to be part of the process. Under the leadership of Carl Seashore in 1922, Iowa became the first university in the United States to award MFA degrees based on creative projects. Although this has been a rocky start, I like to think that Iowa will again lead the way by developing policies and procedures that safeguard intellectual property rights while preserving materials for the use of scholars in generations to come.

Lola L. Lopes

Interim Executive Vice President and Provost
The University of Iowa

Dear President Mason,

My name is Jim Hynes, and I'm a graduate of the Iowa Writers' Workshop ('89), as well as a former visiting professor at the Workshop (winter semester, 2005). I'm writing to you because I'm one of the Iowa grads who will be affected by the University's policy of providing open access to creative graduate theses, and I'm not happy about it.

My objection is both a matter of principle and a matter of my own personal, practical interest. As a matter of principle, it strikes me as outrageous that a university should actively violate the copyright of its own students. I understand the principle of free exchange of scholarship that underlies open access, but surely it must be self-evident that creative works fall under a different interpretation. These are works of art, acts of individual expression, and while I'm not a copyright scholar, I do know how hard it has been for creative writers over the centuries to gain control over their own work. For an institution of higher learning—and one that is branding itself as "the writing university," no less—to disregard that history and make its graduates' work freely available is a betrayal of the trust of every writing student who has ever graduated from one of the university's writing programs.

As a practical matter, I'm sure you're well aware that the Writers' Workshop is no ordinary MFA program. While graduate creative writing programs are not professional programs in the way that most academic disciplines are—you don't need to go to grad school to be a novelist—I know from firsthand experience, as both a student and a teacher at the Workshop, that most people who attend Iowa fully intend to publish the work they do during their time in Iowa City. Within a month of my arriving at the Workshop in 1987, I had an agent, and I sold my first novel a year and a half later, during my final semester. The copy of my thesis in the Iowa Graduate Library—the one that Iowa's director of Information Technology is "not in a position to guarantee" won't be made available to the public in the future—is the final draft of my first published novel, The Wild Colonial Boy. This book is still in print, and still making me money (not a lot, but some). I don't see how anyone can argue that making the text of my thesis (which is 95 percent the same as the published book) does not violate my copyright. The two-year embargo offered by the university is almost as insulting as the open access policy itself; many writers continue to sell books from their backlist for years after first publication.

I'm proud of my association with the Writers' Workshop and the University of Iowa. My experience there helped launch my career as a professional fiction writer, and with the boost I got from Iowa, I have gone on to publish three more books, Publish and Perish, The Lecturer's Tale, and Kings of Infinite Space. My time in Iowa City as a grad student was one of the most exciting periods of my life, and my return as a visiting professor comes a close second. The training I received there has also helped me as a teacher, and I've often found that many of my students over the years have been more impressed with the fact that I went to the Writers' Workshop than they are by the fact that I've published novels. If this policy stands, not only do I run the risk of damage to my career, but I will be profoundly disappointed in my alma mater.

As a writer and a teacher associated with Iowa, I'm often asked by undergraduate writers for advice on where to go to grad school, and many of them ask me for letters of recommendation to the Writers' Workshop. If this policy stands, I'll have to steer them away from Iowa. As good as the program is, I'm not going to recommend that any talented young writers go to a university that means to take away two years of their hard work. And as a midlist writer, I can't afford a lawyer, but I'd be happy to lend my name to a class action suit to overturn the policy, if it comes to that.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. The most frustrating thing for me is that no one seems to be taking responsibility for this mess at the moment—the library folks seem to be saying, "Hey, it's not up to us," and the graduate college folks seem to reply, "Don't look at me, talk to the library." I came to Iowa as a student in 1987, during the first semester that the late, great Frank Conroy took over the Workshop, and I came back as a teacher in 2005, during Frank's final semester. Frank was nothing if not an expert problem solver, and I can't think of any better suggestion for fixing this mess than for you to channel Frank's spirit a little bit, cut through the bullshit (to put it Frankishly), and rescind this ill-advised policy.

No doubt you're getting an earful from a lot of people about this, so thanks for taking the time to hear my contribution.

sincerely yours,

James Hynes

Kembrew McLeod and Loren Glass have sent out updates on the results of their meetings with the administration at Iowa about the open access policy for graduate theses. You can read them in their entirety below.

I take away two unhappy conclusions from their latest messages. The first is that the two parties responsible for this debacle, namely the Iowa Library and the Graduate College, appear to be blaming each other for the mess. Each (through a representative) throws up its hands and says, "Talk to the other guy." The other conclusion is that we appear to be right back where we started: Paul A. Soderdahl, the director of Library Information Technology, writes that he's "not in a position to guarantee" that the theses of past graduates won't be made available in the future. Which makes me wonder, why not? Is open access like the weather or continental drift, beyond the capacity of mere mortals to control? Presumably the decision to put everybody's copyrighted material in the public domain is just that, a decision, by human beings, who can easily decide not to.

Anyway, read the letters below, and by all means, take the time to write to the University of Iowa president, Sally Mason, at president@uiowa.edu, and let her know what you think. Like I said in an earlier post, it's what Frank Conroy would have done—namely, gone right to the top—and since Frank's not around anymore, we'll have to do it ourselves. I plan to write her a message this weekend, and will post it here when I have.

Meantime, here are the latest e-mails from Kembrew McLeod and Loren Glass.

All,

I wish I had better, more definitive news. Given the unclear status of this mess, I think you all should contact University of Iowa President Sally Mason (see below for contact info). In yesterday's meeting, the Graduate College said that it is merely warning -- in the new form graduating students have to sign -- that the library intends to scan dissertations and theses. The College says that it only has the best interests of students in mind, and it basically claims that the UI Library is lying when the Library says that it does not plan to scan and upload theses in the future. The library denies this and says that the Graduate College is being alarmist. (And I might add that the university as a whole is being dysfunctional.)

Paul A. Soderdahl, Director, Library Information Technology, wrote in an email, "I can safely state that we are not presently handling MFA print theses any differently than we had in the past, which I hope provides some reassurance. I’m certainly not in a position to guarantee that that won’t change over time." That last sentence doesn't "reassure" me. Nor was I put at ease by the phrasing of an email by Edward Shreeves, Associate University Librarian & Director, Collections and Scholarly Communication. In his email to a Workshop alum that was forwarded to me, the final sentence reads, "The bottom line is that your thesis is not going to be digitized in the foreseeable future."

What, exactly, is the "foreseeable future"?

Supposedly, there was a meeting yesterday afternoon between the Graduate College and the Library, but no one I've talked to has heard anything about what happened in that meeting, if anything.

I really don't think that institutional disfunction should be steering our university's copyright policies, and you should all write to UI President Sally Mason -- president@uiowa.edu -- to weigh in. Also, if you had previously sent me an email voicing your opinion, you should send it to President Mason as well.

I'm not going to be checking email very often in the next week, so I don't think I'll be able to be much more help right now. Also, if you want to know more details about recent events, here is a report from yesterday's meeting with the Graduate College.


To All English Faculty and Graduate Students:

This morning at 10 AM I had a meeting with Dean Dale Wurster concerning the new First Deposit Checklist form (http://www.grad.uiowa.edu/pubs/forms/FirstDepositChecklist.pdf) that has generated considerable concern amongst the graduating NFW students, but which involves issues that will affect us all.  For those of you who haven’t been reading the news, the new form includes two paragraphs indicating that the University Library has adopted a new “open access” policy regarding electronic theses and dissertations, and that it eventually plans to scan all theses and dissertations and put them online.  The GC is also offering a one to two-year “embargo” for those students who don’t wish to have their theses made available online.  This embargo form has to be signed by both the student and the faculty advisor, and must include a supporting letter from the advisor.  There are numerous entirely legitimate concerns about this policy, all of which I raised with Wurster.

Let me start by saying that, as far as Wurster is concerned, he is responding to a unilateral move by the library and is solely trying to protect the rights of the graduate students.  I saw no reason to doubt his sincerity in this regard.

Here is his timeline of events.  Last September the GC started to get complaints from recent graduates that their electronically submitted dissertations were available in downloadable fully searchable format online through the library website.  The GC notified the library, who apparently refused to take them down, and additionally indicated that they had eventual plans to put all theses and dissertations online, though they would specify no timeline for this.  In response, the GC put together the new First Deposit Checklist form in order to inform students of this new policy and to provide them with the option to temporarily opt out of it.  The library has denied changing its policy, but it is worth noting that they have also indicated that they need a way to make electronically submitted theses available to the public.  It is also worth noting that the CIC has recently signed a cooperative agreement with Google to begin scanning their holdings.

At this point, the GC has decided to take the signature lines off the new First Deposit Checklist form, but they are leaving the paragraphs about open access on the form, both in order to inform students and to protect themselves from being blamed for the library’s policies or actions.  Wurster assured me that students may deface, revise, or cross-out this language in any way and, as long as they check everything else, their thesis will be accepted and deposited.  However, he strongly encouraged students to consider the embargo option, and assured me that, at least at this point, virtually all embargo requests would be honored and hard copies of those theses would be stored in the Graduate College for the entirety of the embargo period.

As I’m sure you’re all aware, there are a number of very serious issues tangled up here in what appears to be a bureaucratic miscommunication between the GC and the library.  These include not only the clash between a student’s copyright and the university’s mandate to make theses available to the public, but also the differences between creative and scholarly theses.  I would by happy to answer any questions folks have about these issues, but I’m no expert and my sense is that the law is murky on these points, since the situation is unprecedented.

Wurster is meeting with Dean Keller and Nancy Baker, the head librarian, at 3:30 today.  It is possible that some sort of announcement will issue from that meeting.

Cheers,

lg

Loren Glass
Associate Professor of English
University of Iowa

The Thrilla in Manila about the University of Iowa's open access policy continues in the blogosphere, and there's even a bit of backlash against those of us who think it's a bad idea, at least for creative theses. Some folks are using it to beat the usual dead horses, namely that real writers don't come out of the Iowa Writers' Workshop—real writers, apparently, write their books on the dole or while working as a night watchman or when they're not running with the bulls at Pamplona—or that since the majority of poets and even most fiction writers make very little money, if any, off their work, they should be grateful somebody wants to distribute it for free. You can read both of these arguments here, profferred by, of all people, an MFA grad and English professor at Eastern Michigan University. (Solidarity forever, dude!)

A more subtle and well-reasoned, if slightly scary response comes from Peter Suber,  a philosophy professor and an advocate for scholarly open access. Astonishingly, he concedes that "I've never thought about OA [open access] for works of fiction and creative writing submitted for degree requirements in an MFA (Master of Fine Arts) program like the Iowa Writer's Workshop," and even though it's clear to him now that creative writers aren't too happy about it, he still doesn't seem to understand what all the fuss is about. In the same list of bulleted comments, he makes the following, rather mandarin observation:

The fear that OA will disqualify a thesis or dissertation for future publication has been well-studied and laid to rest, at least for non-fiction works of scholarship.  See for example, Gail McMillan, Do ETDs Deter Publishers? [ETD stands for "electronically transmitted dissertation] College and Research Libraries News, June 2001.  But I don't know any studies of the same question for works of fiction and creative writing.  If the student fears are justified, that would be a good reason to modify the Iowa policy:  either to exempt MFA students from the OA requirement, or to require deposit in the Iowa repository with delayed OA.  (In the absence of a study, the two-year delay already available to Iowa students on request seems more than adequate to me.) 

There are two questionable assertions here, one of them a jawdropper. The first, non-jawdropping one is the assertion about the effect of open access on scholarly writing, when Suber says that open access publication doesn't disqualify a scholarly work from future publication. This is manifestly true, but it's also manifestly true that spending the night with a high-priced call girl doesn't technically disqualify you from being, say, the governor of New York. It's just a hell of a disincentive. The fact is, most young academics at least try to publish their dissertations, to make themselves marketable and tenurable, and I'd like to hear what some of them (and not just statistically) think about open access publication helping or hurting their careers. And I'm not even getting into the whole subject of scientific or medical research that may have commercial potential. I may be misremembering this, but didn't the two guys who founded Google come up with the idea for their search engine as grad students? Would they have been happy about publishing their secret formula, or whatever it was, via open access? My guess is that one of their first hires when they started their company was an intellectual property lawyer with the killer instincts of a ninja.

But Suber's jawdropper is his mild, parenthetical remark that, absent a study that proves harm from open access, "the two-year delay already available to Iowa students on request seems more than adequate to me." Really. To use another, admittedly hyperbolic metaphor, this is like saying that until we get the results of a study back proving harm, we can't be absolutely certain that slavery is a bad thing. My point being that an author's copyright is not just a legal one, it's a moral one, it's an—oh, what's the word?--inalienable one. The moment an author commits words to paper, that work is hers, until and unless she says otherwise. Suber's touching respect for statistical studies about the creative rights of authors (and for the life of the mind in general) obscures this fact, and ignores the long, vexing, frustrating history of authors struggling to control their own work.

But to repeat an argument I've already made in an earlier post, let's take my early experience as a published novelist as an example. I wrote the last draft of my first novel, The Wild Colonial Boy, during my first year and a half at the Writers' Workshop, and I sold it during my final semester. Which means that by time I submitted my "thesis" in 1989, that same text was already in production as a novel, which was released the following year. Which, I hear you saying, would have gotten me in under the two-year embargo, if the open access policy had been in effect. But aha, sez I, the paperback of my novel didn't come out until two years after the hardcover, which means that by time my paperback finally came out, the embargo would have expired and my book would have already been available for free on the Internet. No study is going to convince me that open access in that situation wouldn't have done me any harm. And, as I mentioned before, the book remains in print—doesn't sell a lot anymore, I'll confess—and those few remaining new copies already have pretty stiff competition from used and library copies. (Purely parenthetically—and not to open another can of worms—Suber and I would probably agree that copyright ought to end with an author's death, not 75 years after, as it does now.)

But all this brouhaha could be fixed so easily that I'm surprised we're even arguing about it: make the policy voluntary. It's as simple as that. Not only make it voluntary, but make it flexible, so that people could opt in or out as circumstances permit, by which I mean that writers could rescind permission for open access at any time (though as a practical matter, once it's out there on the web, of course, it's probably always going to be out there), or that writers could opt in, years later, if they wanted to, after their books had gone out of print. No one's done a study that I know of (ho ho), but the Writers' Workshop mythology has always been that two-thirds of the folks who go through the program never publish anything. Which means that two thirds of the bound, onion-skin copies of novels, poetry collections, and volumes of short stories weighing down the shelves of Iowa's grad library have only ever been read by the authors, their family and friends, and their thesis advisors (and I wouldn't be too sure about the advisors). Presumably a lot of those people would be perfectly happy to make their work available.

I'd make one other suggestion: include everyone at Iowa, not just the creative writers, in this policy of opting in or out. For the reasons I already mentioned, a scholarly writer may possibly have as much reason to want to deny open access as a creative writer. At any rate, a grad student in microbiology or Russian history obviously has the same rights to his or her work as I do, and forcing them to make it openly accessible is no less objectionable than forcing creative writers to do it. But if they want to, by all means. (Another can'o'worms parenthesis: the idea of open access has a viscerally utopian appeal—who wouldn't want free access to knowledge?—but like most utopians, there's something a little, um, militant about its proponents' advocacy.)

I'll leave the last word to Peter Suber, from his definition of open access (as quoted in the Millions), with italics added by me: "Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it possible is the internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder."

Amen, brother.