[symesc]

Sometimes decisions like this are just about wanting to maintain control (read: job security).

The CIO and his people want to run mail and calendaring systems. Nothing wrong with that, other than the fact that it likely costs them more to do it themselves than they would pay Google to do so.

In 2010, managing your own email and calendaring systems seems to me to be the IT equivalent of generating your own electricity.

These systems are utilities like power and water.

But that's just my opinion, based on using Gmail, Talk, Google Calendar, etc, for my personal life and Microsoft Exchange and BlackBerry in my work life.

[viraptor]

Yes - they are about maintaining control, but not about job security. Every university will have a number of documents defining the level of privacy and security provided by each involved entity. If exporting the information to google means that some rule is broken -- for example if bulk transfers of personal information are forbidden and people start using gmail as a basic tool of document exchange, something has to change. And sometimes it's easier to change the technology provider than people... Even if no local regulations stop them, there might be some law about personal data processing that completely prevents gmail usage for some specific organisation.

You'll also find that serious tech. universities do have their own power generators for emergencies.

[derwiki]

I've seen more major breaches of privacy (not to mention system failures) with university run services than GMail. I think it's more that when it breaks, they want to be able to do something to fix it versus waiting on Google to fix it.