Under the US Constitution, freedom of speech looms large. Exercising it often pisses people off. So be it.
JHN
On Jun 7, 2010, at 5:21 PM, BJ Kitchin wrote:
> What is clear to me (BJ) is that the voices on the list are diverse and the
> opinions shared resemble this. Including those with the opinion of
> "horrified disbelief." Which is fine as far as opinions go I suppose but
> that sentiment certainly seems a but overboard to me. Still, there has been
> breadth of perspective for the students who have stuck with this to
> process. I fear however, that the message the students might take away is
> that they can expect to be treated harshly by members of this list more
> articulate and learned then they. Hammering them and there professor for
> problems with there ideas, means of expression, and so forth. I don't fret
> too much about it because its all feedback and that's what they asked for
> (good and bad)... its worth thinking about though.
>
> How should the student's interpret the "horrified disbelief" they have
> participated in causing? And as James pointed out, the "Offensiveness" and
> "Scarring?" Forgive my sarcasm, I really do think the assignment needs a
> great deal of refinement but some of the reactions here make me think the
> old guard is moaning from their antiquated perspectives on the mountain of
> decency and good manners. I am reminded of a line from the movie the Wizard
> of Oz (Old American Film)... "Lion's, and tigers, and bears... OH MY!" Lets
> be a little more brave, hmmm?
>
> The comments about horrors and institutional review processes is a bit much
> really (IMO). You did qualify why you have that perspective which was great
> but this was not research, even though methods are indeed in question. And,
> should Professors run all there assignments by an institutional review
> board? Is that really what you are suggesting?
>
> Should we "go off" on a class we were instructing when we disagree with
> their approaches and ideas, like some have here? (Not withstanding James
> Overboe's chide that we should receive some of Professor Neuville's
> remuneration/peanuts for co-instruction. That was funny and perfectly
> acceptable IMO :-). That said, we don't have to read or respond. I reject
> the notion that used us to do his work, even if it was mostly offered in
> jest. I do think its fair to say we look to the list to connect with other
> people... and their grace.
>
> I don't think these litany of posts warrant's in anyway whatsoever that the
> list take measures to lock down the possibility of this sort of thing ever
> happening again! Egads! I do think you propose other options that could work
> quite nicely. Perhaps we can self regulate a bit more democratically. After
> all Liz you haven't even read what the students posted so you say. Nor do
> you need to but I don't think the professor really wanted to throw his
> students and their ideas to the scholar sharks of the world... there are
> indeed sharks in the world though and its good to know that.
>
> I would agree as well that the list cannot control or demand the contingency
> of common sense and common courtesy in order to have the right to post,
> particularly given that to some degree such things are relative. That said,
> perhaps we should examine all of the comments regarding the students posts
> as violating common sense and common courtesy; ergo some of the responses
> from the scholars and teachers on the list are offenders too? I'm not sure.
> Though I do not agree with the process of the assignment in whole I
> certainly can appreciate the intent.
>
> What most who have responded seem to agree about is that the public sphere
> is a dangerous place to speak. I agree. Still, its an interesting
> phenomenon of social media, of which a listserve is even if its clunky and
> antiquated, to remove some of the controls around how ideas get talked/typed
> about. In this way social media can denude some of the barriers that
> "normalize" communication. That is risky though. Still, its gaining
> speed! People are connecting to the tune of billions over social media and
> thumbing their noses to some degree at the institutional power to control
> when they want to say something from the top rope. Or in the case of the
> students, just share what they think - (or just complete an assignment and
> get on with summer break). I only mention this because perhaps there is a
> little nostalgia for those mediated controls over how we share our ideas
> going on here. I suggest that perhaps common sense is historically and
> geographically positional... and times and places are-a-changing.
>
> Social media takes away some of the filters installed by institutional
> hegemony (rightly or wrongly installed) ... perhaps there is some good in
> that albeit there is bad too.
>
> One thing is certain... these students have inspired some interesting
> conversation!
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Liz Panton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Another Liz here, who has decided to add her voice of horrified disbelief
>> at
>> the way this exercise has been conducted. I did not read any of the student
>> contributions as I had no idea what the subject line meant. I only looked
>> at
>> the content of the explanation from the tutor when I saw that and
>> explanation was being provided, as I was mildly intrigued to find out what
>> the subject line referred to.
>>
>> I have read some of the responses from list members and accept that some
>> people have been generous enough and felt safe enough to comment publicly
>> on
>> the content of the student assignments and the exercise itself. I cannot
>> comment on the assignments but am astonished that an exercise like this
>> could proceed without being first submitted to the tutor's educational
>> institution for ethical approval. I cannot imagine that it would have been
>> allowed to proceed in this way if that safeguard had been applied.
>>
>> Quite apart from the lack of duty of care displayed to the students, and
>> their families, I feel that there has been an abuse of this email list and
>> its members. All the responses, including mine, are in the public domain
>> and are available for further use, eg. quotation or analysis, subject to
>> copyright http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/copyrightissues.html
>>
>> I appreciate and accept that the tutor has learned from this exercise and
>> has offered his apologies and I do not want to be rude. However, I am
>> finding it difficult to think of a more diplomatic way of suggesting that,
>> since JISCMail cannot reply on members to exercise common sense and common
>> courtesy, that the Policy and Security section needs to be updated in order
>> to avoid a recurrence on this or any other list. (I cannot find any
>> reference to a "list owner" for this list other than the Centre for
>> Disability Studies at Leeds University so have cc'ed to the contact email
>> address on that website - apologies if I have missed this in earlier
>> correspondence).
>>
>> What I would expect as acceptable conduct would be for a tutor to first
>> approach the list owner about using a list in this way. I would NOT expect
>> a
>> list owner to then allow an exercise to be conducted in the way this one
>> has
>> proceeded.
>>
>> I would find it acceptable for list members to be invited to participate in
>> an exercise like this "off list" in a private forum. If "self-selection" is
>> the rule, then some guidance or criteria would be useful, even if only
>> "everyone is welcome". It would also be helpful for there to be clear
>> acknowledgement that the list has a global membership and that students
>> must
>> assume significant cultural and socio-linguistic differences if the
>> discussion is open to anyone interested in participating.
>>
>> Then, that all concerned, students and "reviewers", would be supplied with
>> appropriate guidance on confidentiality, disclosure of personal information
>> and UK data protection law. I have an NHS professional background and
>> personal experience of receiving "disability services" and these facts
>> undoubtedly colour my expectations, which would include a requirement for
>> participants in this type of exercise to explicitly "opt in" by signing a
>> confidentiality and data protection form that explained how data would be
>> processed, stored and ultimately destroyed. I accept that this might be out
>> of step with the expectations of many other list members.
>>
>> My personal experience also includes supervising university students on
>> experience placement in the NHS and, as a part of this, enabling their
>> successful and uncontroversial involvement with another email list (
>> http://www.webwhispers.org) by ensuring careful "introductions" and clear
>> information on the purpose of their participation and how any information
>> shared will be processed. As a member of the Disability Research list, I
>> expect to be treated with the same basic care and consideration by any
>> tutor
>> seeking to use the Disability Research list for the benefit of students.
>>
>> Presumably the students who sent in assignments are still members of this
>> list and will be reading criticisms of the way their involvement was
>> handled. I am very sorry for that in so far as it might affect their
>> relationship with the tutor and institution. I did think about sending my
>> comments only to the tutor but the public response has been very varied so
>> there are positive comments to balance the negative feedback from myself
>> and
>> others. (My very positive comment would be to say that I applaud the tutor
>> for having the imagination to solicit comments/reviews from list members!
>> My
>> problem is with the execution of the exercise.) I also felt that, while
>> others might disagree with my perspective, that it would be helpful to add
>> it to the discussion about the principles that might or should apply to
>> this
>> type of exercise.
>>
>> So, I hope this contribution is helpful and that ways will be found for
>> future involvement of students by means that are wholly constructive and
>> acceptable.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Liz Panton
>>
>> On 7 June 2010 07:33, Liz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I decided at the start of this particular discussion i would not add to
>> it
>>>> as I may feel the urge to speak rather plainly and not articulate myself
>>>> quite as eloquently as others have done on this subject. I shall contain
>> the
>>>> urge to rant.
>>>>
>>>> To say some measure of 'enlightenment' is better than none is rot.
>>>> Particularly when in my opinion, the students 'sympathy' 'admiration'
>> and an
>>>> apparent newfound 'acceptance' and 'understanding' merely shows a
>> naivety
>>>> that could prove as dangerous as ignorance. It was cringe-worthy reading
>>>> (oops - there it is - my plain-speak).
>>>>
>>>> I urge those students to question why some people may get a little
>> ticked
>>>> off with such views and challenge the tutor/lecturer using further
>> debate.
>>>> The responsibility of the tutor/lecturer should not cease on module
>> close.
>>>>
>>>> If i seem a little harsh - i make no apologies : )
>>>>
>>>> ________________End of message________________
>>>>
>>>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
>>>> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (
>>>> www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>>>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> Archives and tools are located at:
>>>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
>> page.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
>> Find out how you can help here: http://www.everyclick.com/lizpanton
>>
>> ________________End of message________________
>>
>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
>> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (
>> www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Archives and tools are located at:
>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
>>
>>
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|