What the Canvas hack tells us about education
Are universities overly dependent on technology?
By YUENJO FAN — yafan@ucdavis.edu
On May 7, Canvas experienced a comprehensive cyberattack that subsequently shut down the website for over 48 hours, prompting a nationwide pause in education. With many universities on the cusp of finals and others nearing midterms, students found themselves unable to access classroom materials to prepare for exams. This recent Canvas fiasco exposes our education system’s alarming dependence on technology and the vulnerabilities students face when technology operates inconsistently.
It’s common amongst students and professors to rely heavily on technology to complete and assign their assignments. After all, the convenience it brings is unparalleled. Technology allows us to have an entire digital classroom at the click of a mouse, with no need to haul around textbooks or piles of physical notes. In tandem, today’s educational environment also demands that technology be used at the core of learning, whether through Canvas, Google Mail or university portals, thus reinforcing digital education.
However, when it becomes apparent that this convenience comes at a price — where malicious forces such as cybercriminals can leverage this against us — we must reconsider how we as students rely on technology in our education. This month’s Canvas hack is not the first and it likely will not be the last, as Instructure, Canvas’ parent company, paid an undisclosed ransom fee to the hackers, signalling to other cybercriminals that there is potential profit to be made in this venture. Student concerns will range from potent to dismissive, depending on who you ask, but it is undeniable that the recent hack signals a continued trend of unpredictability with technology and education.
Furthermore, where schooling once revolved around simple materials such as pens and paper, it now requires students to own hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of technology to access necessary resources. Not having a computer means restriction to Canvas access, which bars a student from engaging academically. This even pertains to WiFi access, where a choppy on-campus connection or a citywide power outage can completely halt your duties as a student.
Around half of universities nationwide use Canvas, and an expectation exists that all university students must have laptop access, including here at UC Davis. Yet, I struggle to find a dogma of education that dictates the Internet or technological devices as objective necessities for knowledge. Imagine if tomorrow you decided to attend university using the traditional, physical tools of pen and paper. Is your inherent educational capacity suddenly less than that of someone with a computer, or is it the system that dictates so?
This is not to label technology in education as evil nor to advocate for its demise — I myself use technology for classwork just as much as any of my peers do. Yet it seems inappropriate for an education system to force its students to solely use digital-centered learning tools without providing any serious alternative, especially when these tools have proven to harbor cybersecurity deficiencies. A student should have the right to choose whether they approach their education without depending as much on technology, but the academic system’s Canvas-dominated framework says otherwise.
The UC Davis administration should consider changes in allowing students more autonomy in how they are permitted to approach their academic experience, and to also avoid a repeat panic of an ill-timed technical outage. It would be incredibly beneficial for the university to instill a mandated contingency policy, where professors are required to reschedule course assignments in the event of another disruptive outage. This may help alleviate worries that students may have regarding technological failures and prevent students from being punished for issues out of their control. If technologies like Canvas are to be a mainstay in modern education, there must be procedures in place with suitable responses in the event of another hacking instance or similar outages.
Further, if in the future, issues of online safety emerge as a concern, it would be appropriate for the university to engage in dialogue with Canvas in curtailing student data collection and ensuring airtight cybersecurity. Though Canvas acts as a crucial method of digital classroom configuration, convenience should not take precedence over the digital security of students. Holding these third-party vendors accountable is also important to ensure that the educational monopoly conducts its due diligence.
As for students, the university should consider greater student autonomy, where an option exists to either accept or decline the services of a third party such as Canvas. This will allow students to have a say in determining how much we interact with this centralized educational infrastructure. Simply put, refusal of a company’s terms and services should not be grounds to deny a student their college education. Yes, Canvas makes education more organized and most students will still opt to use Canvas, but offering a choice will show greater respect for students’ liberty in the matter. Keeping this communication and possibility open will prove valuable for both the school and students in the future.
Written by: Yuenjo Fan — yafan@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.