And so the blog begins, taking up where the discussion on GBC-ALL left off. We are destined, though, to take off in a number of different directions, as issues at the great college require.
When last we read the exciting discussion of current events, DL was rebuking SS, making comments along the way about the nature of e-mail. The folks at Penn State disagree with DL's assessment regarding college e-mail as a business communication. They state, simply, that "e-mail is a public forum." They are most certainly right, for e-mail in general is by no means secure. Furthermore, a discussion group of any kind (be it a listserve, bulletin board, or chat room) serves as a public forum for what is best labeled "the free exchange of ideas." At any college, open discussion through public forums ought to be strongly encouraged, and every citizen of the collegiate community should participate in it.
The founders of freeexchangeoncampus.org are a coalition of faculty and students -- themselves comprising both liberals and conservatives. Their view of college campuses as a place where anything may be said agrees with the historical concept of a college atmosphere as a place where the free exchange of ideas must take place.
The struggle to get ideas heard was what prompted David Horowitz to consider (and later promote) an Academic Bill of Rights. In that bill, several things are written about freedom of speech within a college atmosphere. One of these runs as follows: "Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of [a college's] goals."
The bill further asserts that "an environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas" is essential in any college. Since the college community nicknamed GBC holds no unstructured public forums across its wide service area, the sole venue available and open to every citizen of the community equally was the discussion forum known as "GBC-ALL." It was there that the free exchange of ideas should have taken place and needed to take place. That forum has now been dismantled by well-intentioned administrators.
An exchange of ideas ought to include all matters relevant to members of the college community. Certainly relevant are:news of college-wide events; news of happenings within the community that affect the community's members; and public discussion and debate about all such things.
In the discussion that has been playing out online, an administrator opened the door for discussion by (prematurely) announcing the departure of one faculty member. Since faculty are required to complete one year's service at the college after finishing their sabbatical work, since the announcement deliberately omitted mention of any motivation regarding the faculty member's departure, and since the announcement indicated that the faculty member would leave without completing the required time, intellectual inquiry was stimulated. People with knowledge of the matter felt obliged to comment on or explain the departure -- without bringing up any individual's personnel issues. This inquiry is their duty as citizens of the community. Larger issues of the responsibilities of administrators, the nature of collegial relationships, and whether some faculty and staff departures are connected to one another in some way, were also broached. In my opinion these larger issues should all be debated in the same forum as the one where original public statement was made.
GBC-ALL was the closest equivalent to a free press that the college had, and now it no longer exists. Quoting the AAUP's statement about Electronic Communications, "Academic freedom, free inquiry, and freedom of expression within the academic community may be limited to no greater extent in electronic format than they are in print...."
The principle of self-government, affirmed by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, further promotes the right of every citizen to publicly express his honest opinion. This opinion may
be a statement about illegal immigration (an issue of national interest), or it may be an assertion about the perceived competence of a specific administrator (a matter of community interest), or -- in this case, it may involve an inquiry into the sudden and untimely departure of a respected faculty member.
Therefore, I disagree with what DL said in the public forum. Certainly he is entitled to hold an opinion, and he ought to write it; I disagree with that opinion. If we perceive problems within the community, an online forum is our means of discussing those perceptions. As John Bland once said, "The truth has nothing to fear from discussion." It is indeed true that several community members have left the system angrily over the past few years. Should we not ask why this is so? Should we not try to change the community so that this does not occur in the future? What if the faculty member in question is leaving because her political views are not appreciated by her department? Or by administrators? What if she feels pushed out because our community does not accept her?
Finally, DL's words surprise me. Having read his article to the local newspaper, I perceive him to be a conservative. Historically, true conservatives have always encouraged free discussion.
A leading presidential candidate claims to have an open weblog ("blog") but has removed from it the opinions of those who disagree with her. Our local college officials have now made it more difficult to express opinions on issues relevant to the community. I do not believe this is where we want to go, and I am persuaded that stifling free communication on the college's only free forum would lead us in exactly that direction. Therefore, this blog now exists, and I hope that others will open their own weblogs to share their ideas. I may be wrong. These are only my opinions. Yet I do want the freedom to say them.
By the way: DL's statement in the paper about radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh was inaccurate. The host did not say that soldiers who oppose the war are "phony." He was talking specifically about people who have pretended to be soldiers against the war, but who were (in fact) not members of any branch of military service. It was Harry Reid who asserted that Rush had been talking about servicemen who oppose the war.
Sincerely and with malice toward none...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I guess it was only a matter of time before GBC extended the stranglehold they have on our first amendment rights to everyone’s email. The fascism that is happening at GBC is disgusting. How can an institute that treats their employees and students the way GBC does even begin to defend itself to anyone, let alone the people it has been (and still is) betraying? The worst part of all the strife the employees and students are enduring is, nobody thinks anything can be done about it (and the ones who do, and have tried, have already been through the ringer so many times for trying they have no stamina left to carry on). Of course we know administration doesn’t care about the increasing deterioration of the environment at the college, the board of regents will not step in to investigate the problems at GBC or bother to enforce their own policies, and there doesn’t seem to be enough employees and students who will stand up and speak their mind because when one tries to go at it alone, they are defamed, Ostracized, and expulsed. Then again, not all the employees were fired, were they? No, some of them were intimidated and threatened until they left of their own accord; one might call it strong-armed into resigning their positions. I won’t name names for the sake of their own anonymity, but those of you who are following and participating in this blog will know of whom I speak.
In the end it all comes down to loyalty and trust. Loyalty and trust will get you farther than you can imagine, and it is a two way street my friends. You would not place your trust where you know it will be betrayed, nor would any rational person expect to be trusted if they were the betrayer. How the administration of GBC expects anyone to trust or endorse the decisions they make or the actions they take is beyond me, given the actions taken against employees and students who were once fiercely loyal to GBC.
If the nazi regime had been given the chance to be reincarnated, I imagine the conversation would have gone something like, “Reincarnated? Great! Hey Adolf, what do you say we find a nice quiet community somewhere to settle down and plot our plans for world domination, and continue to build our fascist regime there?” “Sounds great, and you know I’ve always wanted to be the president of something. Maybe a college, but nothing too big for now.”
Hope is not lost until it is forsaken. Keep your chin up.
Post a Comment