ANUSA is disappointed by the representations made by the University which imply that genuine student consultation has occurred in the procurement of Proctorio, and the decisions surrounding its use. ANUSA has consistently maintained its opposition to the use of this software, and has continued to call for wider and more genuine consultation with the entirety of the student body regarding concerns raised by our members in all of the discussions we have been privy to.
We recognise the disproportionately negative impact the use of Proctorio will have for access and equity for various groups of students, particularly those belonging to marginalised groups, and do not believe that the measures proposed thus far by the ANU fully address these issues. We reject the assertion that due diligence was undertaken in the process to date, and regret that the responsibility of ensuring it has fallen to student representatives and student advocates.
We will continue to advocate on this issue and encourage students to raise their concerns regarding the use of Proctorio in courses with course convenors directly. If you have any further concerns or questions, please don't hesitate to contact us at sa.president@anu.edu.au or sa.vicepres@anu.edu.au
________________________________________________________________________________
The following motion was passed at Thursday's Ordinary General Meeting:
This OGM opposes all use of Proctorio at ANU, and endorses the following statement from the No Proctorio campaign meeting on April 20th:
'We are against any use of Proctorio, for the following reasons:
-
Use of Proctorio is an incursion on the rights of students, as it films and records us in our homes, analyses our facial, eye and body movements to determine if we are "suspicious", monitors our typing, takes command of aspects of our computers, and requires that our homes and personal computers become subject to the scrutiny of the exam invigilator.
-
Use of Proctorio poses risks to students, we're made to install something which collects very personal information (such as footage of us). Given ANU's history of data breaches, scenarios where the information is being held by ANU or by a third party both risk students' information. We do not want to give access to our computers to Proctorio, it's unreasonable to expect we risk compromising our computers' security in this way.
-
Use of Proctorio is even more unfair to some students - any student without reliable internet or the required hardware, students with disabilities, students with families or sharehouses, will all be disadvantaged by the invasive online proctoring done by Proctorio.
We condemn the failure of ANU to seriously engage with the concerns students have raised regarding accessibility and inclusion. We also reject the "solution" proposed by ANU that students without access to necessary hardware simply apply for emergency financial grants in order to purchase it.
We demand that the university cease any plans for the use of Proctorio, or any similarly invasive method, and instead provide options for students such as open book exams, new assessments, cancellation of exams, etc, all of which should only be adopted with the agreement of the students set to sit these exams.
No university workers should be disadvantaged in this. Some alternate assessment methods will require more work, and the staff members involved should be paid for any extra time required, and if necessary extra staff be retained to assist. Universities Australia have flagged 21,000 job losses in the sector, and severe cuts to conditions. We stand with the workers at ANU against job losses or reductions in conditions. ANU should not use online proctoring to disadvantage staff, and transition to alternative methods should not require that existing staff do unpaid work or be overworked.'
In addition to this, the OGM adds that: ANUSA specifically condemns the use of ANUSA emergency grants to fund any costs borne by students out of the use of Proctorio by the university.