You sort of have a point; the letter explicitly calls out that they're reconsidering providing this data at all.

But... given an adversary's policy of "we will provide this data if and only if it goes unused", there's no reason to give that policy any weight in deciding whether to use the data. If you decide to use it, the policy will kick in and you can't. If you decide not to use it, it's not relevant that it remains technically "available" for other people to also not use. That's not a reason to consider what Yale wants, it's a reason to slam them for being weasels.

If the university no longer provides the data this seems like a good opportunity for the application developers to manage that data themselves. They already have the students' course information so they could email them at the end of term and get their own evaluations -- removing Yale from the equation entirely.

Also worth pointing out that it's in Yale's interest to collect and provide the data. If they collect it, they can ensure a more representative sample size, even if they can't ensure how that data is ultimately presented. If students start using a third party service, not only does Yale still not have control over presentation, the data collected will probably make the faculty look worse by virtue of the fact that disgruntled students are more likely to respond than happy students.

As a wise man once said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

> sometimes it's best not to collect it, just because you don't know how it'll be [mis-]used

An example where this has happened: Some (many?) U.S. public libraries have stopped storing historic checkout data for patrons, in order to avoid having to turn the data over to a govt. agency. I recall being able to get a list of every book I had ever checked out. Not any more.

That's why, if you can, you don't let hierarchical authorities generate the data in the first place. It would be much better if students generated the reviews on a trusted third party website with liberal copyrights. That would remove from the authorities the power to control the student-generated data in ways that are detrimental to the students. It would probably be helpful if Yale did stop generating this data so as to increase the incentive to generate the data outside the official channels.

Except that this kind of data is already being generated outside official channels.

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/SelectTeacher.jsp?the_dept=A...

The problem with ratemyprofessor (and virtually any 3rd-party "review" platform) is the potential for participation bias. Students only participate when they 1. Know about the platform and 2. Have strong enough opinions that they feel a need to share. This means that the ratings are biased in favor of the exceptionally good and exceptionally bad. (throw in a little human psychology, and the bias moves towards bad reviews appearing proportionally more often than they should).

The advantage of having the data come from Yale is that they can mandate that every faculty member must take class time to conduct the student evaluation. This ensures that [nearly] every student's experience in every class will be considered in the final results, which gives much more legitimacy to the results.

Widespread distribution of the data can also affect the process that the data are supposed to measure.

When I taught a college course several years ago, it was conventional wisdom that student evaluations were primarily driven by grades, thus encouraging grade inflation. A popular website called "rate my professors" included ratings for "easyness" and "hotness."

Female teachers were advised to anticipate receiving one or two rape threats in each batch of anonymous comments.

To me, it's not so much an issue of "information wants to be free" as it is "information wants to be put to productive use." In this case, the university had data that some enterprising students found they could use to make students' lives easier. They didn't just appropriate information; they added value to information. They organized it, and channeled it toward a useful purpose. They built a better Bluebook.

Yale can decide how the information is used. But if someone within the Yale community comes up with a Yale-beneficial use for the information, Yale should embrace that use.

I don't think this was a free-speech issue, so much as a missing-the-boat issue. Yale should be nurturing its hackers. Yale has an excellent CS program (I say this as a Yale alumnus), but in recent decades, it's not been much of a countercultural or hackerish place to be. Yale is top-notch at producing lawyers and investment bankers. It needs to get better at producing hackers. (By many recent accounts, it's starting to get considerably better. Maybe this episode will inspire a rethinking of sorts.)

Yale sponsorship?

To collect this data, Yale hands out surveys and students generate the content.

Yale needs the students to gather this data but the students do not need Yale. They could just as easily aggregate this data on an external website. It seems that they even have the ability to auth against Yale servers.

This content is generated by students and is supposed to be used to improve the University for the students. If Yale doesnt trust its own students with their own data it opens up the question of what the relationship between Yale and its students is and whether Yale is the kind of place for kids who understand how technology is shaping democracy, privacy, and our culture in general.