Library Rights Are at Stake in New Supreme Court Copyright Case

March 8, 2011, 4:12 pm

Does Congress have the right to restore copyright protection to foreign works that have fallen into the public domain?

That issue is at the heart of a major copyright case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear yesterday. Its resolution could have implications for libraries’ ability to share works online, advocates say.

In dispute are decades-old foreign works that slipped into the public domain in the United States while still copyrighted abroad. Congress in 1994 adopted a bill to place those works back under the shield of copyright protection, in an effort to align U.S. policy with an international copyright treaty called the Berne Convention. The aim of that convention was to ensure that works copyrighted in one country get comparable protection elsewhere, “since there is no such thing as international copyright,” according to SCOTUSblog, which tracks the Supreme Court.

But the Internet Archive argues that the American law poses “a significant threat to the ability of libraries and archives to promote access to knowledge,” according to a brief filed on its behalf by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for civil liberties online.

The problem is that the law has “drastically eroded” libraries’ ability to know what works can be distributed, the brief argues. For example, the Internet Archive currently shares books by Maxim Gorky, music by Prokofiev, and audio recordings of work by the writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn (pictured above). The law creates “fundamental questions” about whether these works remain in the public domain, according to the brief.

And that ambiguity could have a “chilling effect” on libraries worried that they could be sued for copyright violations, says Julie Samuels, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A library might not provide access to certain works if they’re unsure if that work will remain in the public domain,” she tells Wired Campus.

It’s unclear how many works could be affected; Ms. Samuels says the number “could be into the millions.”

The case, Golan v. Holder, was pressed by conductors, performers, educators, and others who say they depend on public domain works for their livelihoods. A federal-appeals panel ruled against the group in July.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the case during the new term that starts in October.

This entry was posted in Legal Troubles, Libraries, Publishing. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

zagros

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution reads, “Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Notice the first clause “To promote the progress of science and useful arts”. Since none of these individuals could have forseen that we would RETROACTIVELY extend copyright, they cannot BY DEFINITION go back and create new works in the past! Even worse is reintroducing copyright to works that have ALREADY LAPSED into the public domain. Once it goes into the public domain, it should STAY THERE.

What if I go and publish a book in good faith that has lapsed into the public domain? Am I then liable to destroy those books if the Supreme Court rules that these works receive copyright protection? Seems to me that this violates the Constitutional right against “takings”:

Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Hmm…. Seems like this violates both sections. Where is the “due process of law”? How about the taking of MY private property for “public use” (specificially, the use designated in the US Constitution to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” and the transfer of said property to a private party [see Kelo v. London]).

It gets even WORSE. Article I, Section 9 of the US Constititution says, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Isn’t this an ex post facto Law? After all, it is a CRIMINAL offense to engage in widespread copyright violations.

From Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), the definition of an ex post facto Law is: “1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.”

The US Supreme Court needs to understand that the Public Domain belongs to all of us and that having material go into the Public Domain ALSO promotes “the progress of science and useful arts”. Indeed, once a particular invention is created, the Public Domain is the ONLY way that “the progress of science and useful arts” is promoted. Copyright and patent protection ONLY serves “the progress of science and useful arts” by providing an A PRIORI known duration of protection. If I KNOW IN ADVANCE that my product will be protected for 20 years, I am more likely to create than if I only know in advance that it will be protected for 10 years. However, if we start with a patent protection period of 10 years and then retroactively extend it to 20 years, how could I ever have known that in the past? How can retroactive protection (or worse, reintroduction of LAPSED protection) help me create more works? The purpose of copyright and patent protection is NOT to make money for private individuals (that is a side benefit), it is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts”!
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.fevens Douglas Fevens

“After all, it is a CRIMINAL offense to engage in widespread copyright violations.”

Didn’t stop Google and the libraries that supplied it with in-copyright works from pillaging the worlds literary heritage.

“by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”

Is four years too long? My work was published in 2004, in 2008 Google and the University of Wisconsin copied it and were exploiting those copies on the internet.

Douglas Fevens,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Polaczek/100000687613004 Thomas Polaczek

Big corporations FIRST
manitoga

Out of curiosity how much do you get in royalties for your book? From what I’ve been told, academics make no money (or negligible money) from publishing academic monographs – the payback comes in name recognition. If this is the case, Google did you a favor. I am not saying that what they did was right; but rather simply pointing out another eventuality.

Having books, in full text, available online and searchable is better for everyone involved. I don’t think that a 2004 book should be free online, but as far as I am concerned our copyright law is too corporation centric. Life of author + 75? give me a break! 10-20 years from date of publication seems more fair to everyone involved.
zagros

Your reply isn’t relevant to my argument.

The statement about criminal penalties for copyright violations is relevant for the ex post facto law invocation (unfortunately, we can’t plead that argument for civil violations).

The shortest copyright term under US law has been 14 years (too short in my opinion). For the longest time it was 28 years with an ability to extend it another 28 years (actually, quite reasonable). Then they extended it . . . for existing works. That was a BIG problem. Now they not only want to extend it but they want to retroactively resurrect works from the public domain. That appears (to this layperson) to be unconstitutional (and morally repugnant but that’s another story entirely).

I own copyrights as well (a LOT of copyrights, actually and, as an author, my lifetime stream of direct income [not counting the income implied from promotions at my university] from my work is well into five and possibly even the low six figures). I don’t have a problem with Congress setting the rules of the game at whatever they want to for future works. What I have an issue with is changing the rules after publication, especially attempting to reclassify what is LEGALLY an item in the public domain.

I have a stake in the Google fight as well. They illegally harvested at least two books of mine that not only were within copyright but which my publishers are actively selling. However, once my copyrights expire (long after I am dead, I might add, due to the new copyright rules), why should my great-grandchildren still enjoy a monopoly over MY work?

Look, let’s not kid ourselves. We all know that this has to do with a certain cheese-loving rodent owned by a major Hollywood studio. That organization seems to think that ‘time-limited’ means ‘forever minus one day’.

You and I don’t have any pull with Congress. Yet, that same Hollywood studio regularly grabs from the public domain for its copyrighted works (Snow White, Cinderella, Mulan, Princess and the Frog, Beauty and the Beast, and, most recently, Rapunzel).

Either stop this unprecedented reclassification of the public domain or else the mouse with the moola better start paying a lot of royalties to the descendants of the Brothers Grimm.
sand6432

“Zagros” needs to understand the law better. The 1994 act that restored copyright in certain foreign works came with various stipulations that protected those who had already relied upon the public-domain status of the works and made provisions for continuing use of those works going forward. Information about it may be obtained here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf. –Sandy Thatcher
wmartin46

For those of us unaware of the Berne Convention, here’s a little background ..

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
todd_v

Wow, the Supreme Court is mired in the outmoded idea of knowledge being a regulated commodity. How funny to watch America stupid itself into irreversible decline–there was such potential. *sigh* Well, while I didn’t think it was possible, education has turned me off to the point that I cannot participate in it any longer–on of many absurdities ruling our lives these days.
fizmath

IP law needs some serious reform. If a book is out of print then I should have the right to copy it and then pay a set fee to the author. Otherwise you have effective censorship for those who can’t afford or find a copy. The owners of film and music copyrights have a lousy track record of preserving their own works. Most films have been lost forever. If we had more widespread ownership then there would be more to leave to posterity.
old nassau’67

Get Ms. Samuels a Xanax. The hyperbole of a lawyer arguing her case to the press. If the SCOTUS decides “Yes, these works are under copyright”, then libraries and copyright holders will get together and figure out rates and charges. For example, postal rates for books mailed to/from a library are far lower than for books (“printed materials) mailed otherwise, whose rates, in turn, are lower than than for parcel post, whose rates, in turn, are lower than for second class… first class…and so on.
zagros

Sandy Thatcher,

I am well aware that there are stipulations, including the ability for safe harbor that allows you to sell off “previously manufactured stock” (so if I have done all of the editing and press work but have not actually manufactured the product, I am stuck) within 12 months once you are made aware of the restoration of the copyright OR notification is published in the Federal Register (so apparently now I am required to read the Federal Register every day…).

My problem is (1) with the very concept of retroactivity, especially the retroactive restoration of lost copyright; and (2) the interference of the business model of the use of the public domain that was relied upon. You are STILL engaged in takings once you deny my property right to sell in the public domain. Publishers make enormous investments, even on public domain items, that could come to a screeching halt when notified that what they had previously relied upon as not being in copyright now is in copyright.

For example, consider this directly from the cited text you give: “A French short story that was first published without copyright notice in 1935 will be treated as if it had both been published with a proper notice and properly renewed, meaning that its restored copyright will expire on December 31, 2030 (95 years after the U. S. copyright would have come into existence).”

Under the old law, such technical deficiencies meant that copyright was effectively lost forever. Instead, copyright is restored after the fact and anyone who had relied on the basis that once copyright is lost, it is lost forever, may find that their ability to sell this work has effectively vanished.

Even worse is the derivative aspect. “Subsection (d)(3) of the amended section 104a of the
Copyright Act contains special rules for certain derivative works created before December 8, 1994, based on underlying restored works. Examples include the translation of restored work or a motion picture based on a restored book or a play. A reliance party can continue to exploit such derivative works if the reliance party pays the owner of the restored copyright reasonable compensation.” (source: same cited text)

Now if I translate that French short story into English (a derivative work): (1) I have to pay “reasonable compensation” even though before under the law I did not; and (2) it says nothing about if I create the derivative work AFTER December 8, 1994. Thus, if I translate the short story on December 9, 1994, it would appear that I have no ability to be compensated for my work (and yes, translation is a LOT of work)! This essentially is the antithesis of promotion of the “science and useful arts” since it basically bans the translation of anything written in the last 70 years or so without payment to the original author, even if it once was in the public domain.

Indeed, what is even more funny is that creation of the English version of the short story created a copyright that I legitimately held and for which I held clear and absolute title (to the English version). Yet, now with the restoration of copyright to the original French story, I effectively have my own copyright curtailed. How fair is that?

If something is in the public domain, it should stay IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
sand6432

The background here, of course, is that the U.S. law used to have various formalities that resulted in many foreign works going into the public domain before many U.S. works did. Once the U.S. adhered to the Berne Convention, which does not condition copyright protection upon such formalities, U.S. law had to adjust, in the interest of international harmonization of copyright law, which itself is beneficial to everyone. If the U.S. had continued to regard such foreign works as in the public domain, the other Berne states could have retaliated by treating U.S. works similarly. The U.S. government wanted to avoid such consequences for U.S. copyright holders abroad.—Sandy Thatcher
mbelvadi

“Libraries” have organizational mechanisms for getting together among themselves to “figure” something out. However, “copyright holders” do not, especially since a lot of the original authors died without mention of their works in any legal documents like wills. You are apparently utterly unaware of the “orphan works” problem that has plagued not only libraries but researchers and others for decades in the US. It’s insane to have a law which says that it is unacceptable to use a work without permission, but entirely acceptable for there to be no public record at all as to whom to ask permission for that same work. But that’s the current US copyright law.
zagros

Sandy Thatcher,

You are correct in the need for us to correct technical deficiencies under the Berne Convention (although it should be pointed out that there was nothing about US law’s technical requirements that specifically stipulated differential treatment of foreign publishers and that many US publishers ran afoul of the law as well and thus lost their copyrights) but the background is immaterial to the argument and serves as a red herring.

No one is arguing that we shouldn’t have fixed the technical registration and filing requirements. What we are arguing about is whether we should have to alter the law regarding those works that have already entered the public domain. Further, I argue that the US should never have extended copyright for the House of Mouse and its entourage of animated characters. Snow White was originally copyrighted in 1937 and it was renewed in 1965. It was then scheduled to expire in 1993 until the Copyright Act of 1976 extended its copyright (and then it was further extended by the Copyright Act of 1998). This retroactive extension is actually a separate but related problem.

Despite all of this, legislative intent at the time of the US signing the Convention suggests that resurrecting copyrights that had lapsed was not something that was originally contemplated (contra Article 18 of the Berne Convention). In the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (Section 12), we clearly stated that we would NOT provide copyright protection to works that were in the public domain in the US: “Title 17, United States Code, as amended by this Act, does not provide copyright protection for any work that is in the public domain in the United States.” It was not until the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 that we allowed restoring copyright. I still believe that this that this provision is unconstitutional.

When you combine retroactive extension of copyright with the restoration principle in Article 18 (which says that “This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection.”), one country could unilaterally set copyright policy for its works for the entire world by simply extending copyright for all works within the country to “forever less a day” (the forever clause would definitely be struck down even by this Court since it clearly and absolutely conflicts with the “limited time” doctrine) and then every signatory country would have to agree to this for at least for those works. Notice that Article 18 does not state anything about what might happen if the term is extended nor does it specify the critical term that is needed to blunt this instrument, “based on the law at the time of its creation or publication”).

Indeed, the rule also says nothing about works that are actually IN the public domain but never “fell into the public domain.” That makes for some interesting possibilities that the Government of Egypt tried to exploit in 2007 or 2008 by copyrighting the pyramids (I don’t know if that law passed). What would be next? England copyrighting Shakespeare (after all, Shakespeare was never the beneficiary of a copyright and thus, his works never “fell into the public domain”?

Once copyright expires or is lost based on the law at the time the work was created, it should expire. The sole public purpose of copyright is to secure for a limited time a monopoly to the creators of content for the purposes of ensuring such content will be created. I ask you and anyone who argues for retroactive extension, how is this principle served by extending copyright protection retroactively? How many new works in 1950 were created because of the copyright extension in 1994 (for example)?

Finally, we might address the fact that the United States still has not adopted the moral rights provisions of the Berne Convention. We really did not have to adopt everything and we must remember that the Convention cannot trump the US Constitution.

I have no problem with the US government setting whatever copyright rules that it likes to for works created now and in the future but I have a serious problem with changing the rules for works that have already been created. it is this tampering with the past that is ill-advised and if the Supreme Court make the right decision, it will say “no” to retroactive copyright restoration. Although given that this Supreme Court made the wrong decision on retroactive copyright term extension, I have my doubts…
http://twitter.com/psitutor4psych Char Paul

What my life as a student in higher ed in Australia, is Not like, at all.
dochalladay

I served on a search committee while in grad school, and received a thank-you note from one of the candidates who came on a campus visit (the one we soon decided to hire.) When I went on a campus visit last year (for a job that I later landed) I sent notes to the members of the committee, the chair, and the dean. For me it was both about being courteous and also about putting my name back in front of the relevant people a few days after my visit. I knew that I was the first candidate to visit campus, so I wanted to just ring a little bell with my name while they were also considering others.
totoro

I’ve never sent or received one. At least not a hard copy one. I have thanked my referees for writing letters for me.
mbelvadi

There was an earlier column in these forums about errors in resumes/cover letters and whether candidates should be judged negatively. I was one among many who thinks they should, and I see a connection to the issue of Thank You’s. Both reflect on the awareness of professional academic standards and expectations, and a willingness to take the time to follow the “rules of the game” (the hiring game).

A failure to follow those rules is a warning flag that this is a person who might not be properly socialized into the standards of academic comportment. Such lack could lead to minor problems like uncomfortable behavior in staff meetings, or major things like lawsuits when the person behaves illegally inappropriately one way or another towards students or other staff (sexual harassment, racial discrimination, etc.).
denisebauer

We had a candidate send typed thank you notes! There are so many variations on this theme. I can say, however the absence of any thank you – hand written, typed, emailed or spoken – does not reflect well and should be avoided.
simplesimon

We now live in a world where most candidates apply for positions and they never get so much as an acknowledgement email (nevermind a card) that says their materials were received. Even when candidates fly across country for a campus interview search committees often reject them without so much as a, “no thanks” leaving many candidates wondering . . .

And now these same search committees are going to judge someone because they did not send a perfunctory thank you note? Do as I say, not as I do, eh?
Brian Abel Ragen

Even students I interview now send me thank-you notes. I makes me vaguely ill every time I get one. But the students at least have an excuse. Since I’m an alumni volunteer, I am doing them a favor.

I am not doing a favor for a perspective colleague or employee. We both need something and are getting together to talk about whether we can provide it for each other. There is no need for thank- you notes. When I get one I think, “What a brown-nosing git,” which tells me I have been interviewing too long and watching to much British TV.
janesdaughter

I once sent a note after an interview in which I expressed that my excitement about the job had only increased after meeting and talking with the committee, and then offered a solution for a budgetary dilemma that had come up in the conversation (not one that had been posed to me as an interview question). Got me nowhere, not even an acknowledgment of receipt. Perhaps it was not as well written or well conceived as I imagined. Or perhaps I violated an unknown rule of protocol for that hiring process. I still wonder about it, though.

I also wonder if the people who like to send notes are the ones who like to receive them? And those who do not send them find it slightly odd to get them? That would be me (the non-sender) but I hasten to say that my mother always insisted that notes had to be sent for any present received for any occasion throughout my childhood, and I still do that.
robjenkins

Interestingly, George, my Februrary “Two-Year Track” column is about this very thing. It’s aimed specifically at people applying at community colleges, but you may find some carry over. Don’t know exactly when it will run, but keep an eye out for it in the next few weeks.

Best wishes on your interviews, and welcome to “On Hiring.”

Rob Jenkins
a_vaillancourt

In my book, asking about tenure too early in the process is as bad as asking how many sick and vacation days you will get. That is a topic best addressed AFTER you have an offer in hand. So…what to ask? Questions that make you seem like you have done your homework are good. “I read that the University recently formed a partnership with several charter schools. Is the English Department involved in any way?” “The department has several faculty members who specialize in X field of study currently. As you look toward the future, do you think that programmatic focus will continue?”

If you do nothing else, PLEASE do not ask questions that can easily be answered by looking at the institutional or department website or say things like, “When I’m here.”
mkt42

“In my book, asking about tenure too early in the process is as bad as asking how many sick and vacation days you will get.”

Asking about the tenure process is to me one of the most important things for a candidate to know. Perhaps not at the extremes: if you’re applying to a premier research university, you know their publication expectations are the highest. And at a purely teaching college, the opposite. Those are things you know before you even apply.

But for a lot of schools in the middle – comprehensive universities, lower tier doctoral institutions, higher tier liberal arts colleges — there’s a real range of what they might expect in terms of publication, and in teaching.

If a department isn’t willing to discuss “what does it take to get tenure here?” or “what are the characteristics of recently tenured professors”, that’s a lot like a grad program that’s not willing to disclose the hiring experiences of its recent PhDs. I’d be wary of such a department. This is a critical thing to know going into a job: what is the employer looking for, and what does the employee need to do to succeed? “Be a good teacher and scholar” is not a sufficiently detailed response.
dochalladay

I agree wholeheartedly mkt42. I also think asking about tenure demonstrates to the hiring committee that you are interested in the school for the long haul.
a_vaillancourt

I didn’t mean to suggest that questions about tenure aren’t important or appropriate, I was just cautioning about making that a focus of inquiry too early in the process might not be helpful.
3doglady

As a veteran of too many searches to count, I have been struck by how seldom candidates in on-campus interviews show significant interest in their prospective colleagues’ ideas, teaching specialties, research interests. You may be spending the next 40 years with these people. Find out who they are before its too late. Do some research in advance. This is also a defensive strategy. It may keep you from treading on sensitive toes by, for example, awkwardly staking claims to someone’s cherished teaching area.

I’m not suggesting you do this to ingratiate yourself. Rather this is a way of securing important information that may help you make informed decisions should you be lucky enough to get multiple offers.

Interviews are such artificial experience where you are, of course, supposed to strut your stuff in a way that won’t happen again with your colleagues if you are hired. And it is important to do that, but it can be hazardous too.
aeonelpis

A short thank-you email after a first interview (telephone, Skype, short conference) to the group, thanking the committee for the time/consideration, reiterating interest in the position, and offering additional information can prove useful. Sometimes we need additional materials to compare the candidates who pull to the front of the pack, and that extra note makes it easier to open that conversation back up. It also makes it clear that the candidate is still interested — something that is not always clear after these brief conversations.

An on-campus visit demands hand-written notes. It’s polite, it shows political savvy, and, again, it tells us the candidate likes what s/he sees. At our institution, if our first choice declines, we don’t get to make another offer. Knowing the candidate is still pursuing the application matters.
http://twitter.com/Meldenius J Matthew Melton

Questions from interviewees that I rate highly: 1) something that shows they’ve done their homework–about recent events on campus, about campus life, about the university mission, about faculty who have been in the news (as others have said below); and 2) questions about the community at large — schools, arts, institutions, etc. The important thing, however, is to have such questions ready to go. Froth questions on the one end and presumptuous questions on the other (“Do you fully understand how much better off you will be with me on your team? What are you going to do to make me want to be here?”) don’t wash.
wdackson

Interesting, as I’ve got a Skype interview next week. I know who the search committee are, including (hooray!) a December graduate. This is for an ecumenical divinity school with a new program for my denomination. The graduate is probably a candidate for ordination in the local adjudicatory–as I know they have had some problems in the last few years, I might probe him a little about the current climate, and how this program might help with the goals (the position is largely endowed by the church). I will also ask a few questions about what ‘success’ for this program will look like, how it will be measured, and what are the interim goals for the first, fifth, and tenth year of its existence (that conveys an ‘I’m here for the long haul’ attitude as much as questions about tenure). And my standard? ‘Who besides the committee do I need to know to make this position work, and how will you help me establish those relationships?’
judithryan43

I actually wouldn’t ask that last question, wdackson, at least not in a first interview. You don’t want to come across as a person who believes that you can achieve your goals by knowing the right people (I realize that this is not what you mean by your question at all, but it could be taken that way). If you get an on-campus interview and have a chance to speak one-on-one with a fairly new faculty member, you might ask that person about whether there is a mentoring system in place or how they found out how to navigate the place.
wdackson

Thanks, judithryan43. I hadn’t thought it would come across that way–not, at least, in the very relationship-driven environment of ministry education, where faculties are VERY small (20-25 for an entire institution is quite large) and ‘outside’ people (church leaders especially) are involved in all sorts of ways. But that is something to keep in mind, so I appreciate your input.
socialpsychprofessor

When I was going through the phone interview process last spring, one question I found to be both informative and well recieved (in my two phone interviews) was asking about the mentorship processes or programs that were in place. I stressed how I was very dedicated to making sure that my teaching and scholarship fit with the expectations and goals of the department and the school at large. I think that indicated my desire to integrate into the university, as opposed to wanting to impose my perspectices on the exisiting department, and also demonstrated that I seek out and am open to feedback. I was interviewing with two smaller liberal arts schools with smaller faculties, and so being able to work with everyone is important. There is no way to avoid someone if the department is only 10 people.

At the two on campus interviews (I was fortunate enough to get on campus interviews from both of the schools I did phone interviews for) I asked about the social environment, such as whether it was acceptable for faculty to work out at the campus gym, go to the events (plays, sports, etc) and movie nights. I wanted a school that had a sense of community, and I know that there are different expectations about the lines between faculty and students.

And it seems to have gone well. I got wonderful feedback from both interviews, and offer from one of them. I am now in a faculty position, and am benefitting from wonderful mentorship and support. I enjoy singing in the community choir that is made up of faculty, administration, and students, and have attended a number of the plays and such. It is exactly the kind of environment I was hoping for, and I am glad I asked about it.

One other note. At the catholic institution I also asked, in a one-on-one meeting, about the acceptance of sexual diversity and services/support for GLBT students, as there wasn’t really any info on the website. I do reasearch on sex education and teach human sexuality, and could not be comfortable teaching at a school that did not accept sexual minorities. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that there were faculty members who put “safe space” stickers on their doors, and that there was a GLBT student group. I think if you have an ideological issue that matters to you it is important to ask about it in the interview, instead of having to try to figure it out once you have an offer.
http://profile.yahoo.com/6VVY3EGB2PNWL7C74R6M3GYHZI Ailce

Burberry Bags
Burberry