Mairian,
I am glad that you are finally willing to concede that this the display
of this remark is an instance of injurious homophobic behaviour. I
should like to draw it to your attention (in case it's slipped your
mind) that I sent the email privately to Mark, Colin, and Dan very early
Thursday morning (just after midnight). As the list knows, I received a
response from Dan that morning about 10:30. I did not receive a
response from Mark or Colin, despite the fact that the latter sent me an
email about something else. At noon that day, I forwarded the post to a
number of individuals (including yourself) in order to draw the matter
to their attention, though I did not necessarily expect them to act upon
that information. At the end of the UK work day, having received no
formal response from the DRU, and noting that the offensive remark was
still on the web page, I informed the list. Thus, I think that your
implication that I dealt with this by "flaming" individuals is
misleading and manipulative.
>From my perspective, you have spent a great deal of time in this
discussion telling us why you didn't take the remark as offensive the
first time you read it, why it is humourous, and why it isn't an
instance of homophobia. You have also spent a considerable amount of
time reassuring us that you (though I guess none of the rest of us) have
been subjected to *direct* homophobia, that you (but I guess none of the
rest of us) know what homophobia looks like, what forms it takes;
furthermore, you (but I guess none of the rest of us) understand and
appreciate how "serious" an allegation of homophobia is.
Does this seem like a flame to you? You might consider that I have felt
personally bashed by you throughout this set of events. I might ask
John's question: why motivates you? I would suggest it is your need to
continuously assert yourself as an authority on this list, in disability
studies, and so on. Your most recent post is, to me, just a
continuation of what I regard as condescending behaviour. For after
spending a few days of denying that this was homophobia, you have now
conferred upon us your recommendations for how to deal with such
occurences of injurious behaviour and practices. GET OVER IT!
This matter is not all about you (or, I might say, this isn't about you
very much at all). The mailbase is not all about Mairian Corker and
disability studies is not all about Mairian Corker. I am absolutely
sick of your grandstanding on this list.
Shelley Lynn Tremain, Ph.D.
Mairian Corker wrote:
>
> on 12/11/00 3:53 pm, John M Davis at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > This topic has been very relevant to this mail base on two counts; it
> > raises an issue we have discussed previously - what is 'disabled'
> > and it rasies the issue of how to deal with injurious remarks and
> > practices.
>
> I agree with John. On the issue of how to deal with 'injurious remarks and
> practices', in the sense of allegations of disablement, homophobia, sexism
> and so on, I'm not sure that we actually have a protocol and I'm also not
> sure if the 'flaming' protocol is the right one to use. The only reason I'm
> concerned with having a protocol is that one of the worrying issues around
> global networks because we have no protection over the emotional and
> material effects of false allegations and one country's laws may not protect
> individuals and groups in other countries. Perhaps it shouldn't need to be
> pointed out, but in the case of a university course, its viability depends
> on the numbers of students recruited and retained. An allegation of
> discrimination, justified or not, can have two effects - it reduces the
> number of students making applications or increases the number of homophobic
> students who put off those students already enrolled.
>
> This is the protocol I follow and am interested to know what others think:
>
> 1. Always check directly off-list with the individual/group about intent
> before putting out a public allegation on-list. (I don't think there's
> anything 'closeted' about doing this because you're addressing the problem).
>
> 2. If you get a retraction/apology from the individual/group, then ask the
> individual/group if they are prepared to insert both the complaint
> (with/without names) and the apology in the offending text, and/or for you
> to highlight the issues publicly on-list.
>
> 3. If they are not prepared to do the first then the individual/group
> clearly doesn't acknowledge that they have offended (which means they
> probably have). If they're not prepared for you to do the second, then you
> have two options:
>
> a. You address the problem in a neutral way by asking the list what they
> think about the wording of the alleged 'offensive' remark without naming
> names.
>
> b. You can name names and risk being publicly accused of libel.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Mairian
>
> --
> Mairian Corker
> Visiting Senior Research Fellow
> Language Group
> School of Education
> Kings College London
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|