Thanks BJ and Liz for your posts.
Ironically when teaching I make myself vulnerable and put myself out there as a means to put a human face on teaching disability. In spite of my somewhat assertive position on these postings and often my introductory remarks that sets the tone of the class by inverting the usual power dynamics involved within the disability/non-disability relationship my major concern has been the students I teach and what are the implications of what i teach them outside the four walls of the classroom. My teaching ossicilates between two poles. First, reflects a space where they can express themselves and find themselves within the subject matter. And in doing so, allow them to risk. In fact one of my favourite mantras for myself is "risk being stupid" borrowed from brian massumi, and I encourage students to do the same. And second and equally important to provide an environment where they can safely do this (and by safety i do not mean coddling students). in my class I actively reiterate the risk of applying this new way of thinking about disability learned in my class to a social world that I feel stills sees disability to varying degrees a social tragedy. And subsequently try to prepare my students as much as possible for a normative backlash.
For me the instructor asking students to post on this list provided the first allowing them to test the waters and risk (and some on the listserve have seen it as a good exercise myself i am still not convinced). Without assigning blame this class seemed to be ill-prepared to venture out on the social terrain of the web where their audience within the context of this listserve membership would suggest have for the most part a (strong) DS background where even some members critique both normalization and the benefits of inclusion (including me). I can understand where BJ gets the sense of lambs being slaughtered although again i do not believe it was mine or anyone else's intent. iI believe even the most aggressive of us were trying to rectify what many of us would call the miseducation of students (again this is not a shot at the instructor within the context of [some] special education theory the course material would be fine (if these student comments reflect the course material). I believe many of us were trying to educate students so they might avoid a confrontation with an "angry cripple" which would be unpleasant for both parties as Jerry's scenario eloquently points out.
Perhaps a better audience would be a special education list serve (although I keep on hearing that community is changing and may be more closely aligning with those of us who saw this exercise as a miseducation. I don't know only time wii tell.
let me be clear i still believe this exercise is wrought negative ramifications for students who are vulnerable whatever the listserve. I agree with Liz and others who point out the ethics of this exercise are at the least questionable. but if the instructor can do it. so be it. if this exercise continues hopefully more consideration will be given to the responsibility of unleashing these reflection into cyberspace and its ramifications for students and audience.
From differing perspectives I know that Liz and B.J and myself as well as others have had students interests at heart which is important. our perspective and interpretations and points of importance may differ but we are all concerned with the vulnerability of students.
BJ I do believe we could have resolved our differences in a fifteen minute face-to-face meeting. Perhaps someday we will have an opportunity to meet face-to-face. :).
be well all (especially you students lurking :) )
James
James Overboe
Assistant Professor
Sociology Department
Cultural Analysis and Social Theory M.A. Program
Wilfrid Laurier University
>>> BJ Kitchin <[log in to unmask]> 06/08/10 3:49 PM >>>
(Liz I know you got this twice - At least I corrected the spelling of your
name :)
Dear Liz,
Thank you very much for the kind and clarifying response. I appreciate it
and your advice is wonderful, thank you for that as well. I couldn't agree
more that email presents many challenges to clear communication. Its a
reminder that is good to get often.
I mixed speaking generally and specifically in my response it which is not
the best way to go about responding. Your words push me to read and ponder
a bit more before responding. I have heard from James Overboe as well and
its clearly difficult to coin a phrase in type that can hold the value of a
complete person, all their thoughts, and all their worth. I could be more
patient. To clarify, my invocation of old guards and missing the boat on
social media were meant to make my sentiment clearer; though admittedly I
put you and other's like James there initially I don't need to keep you
there. I understand better why you offered what you did (Thank you James as
well) and I too appreciated Mr Priestly's note. Im not naive about the
risks of putting information on the net... but I also really value the
sharing of the real self... for my own reasons I see wisdom in it. Liz,
your sharing in your last note expanded my understanding of your position
greatly, thank you.
Perhaps I felt the need to counter what I felt was out of balance. I roll
with undergrads and the teachers who teach them every day. I am one of
their teachers, and not long ago I was an undergrad myself. I am a PhD
candidate now just coming to the end of my course work.
The majority of undergrads from my view are young, 18 to 22 and still
looking to us as the "grown-ups" in large part for the answers. At least in
my neck of the woods. Its a right of passage to be an undergrad and figure
out that you really don't know much. I could feel them, at least some, even
one cringing at some of the comments rolling out in the aftermath of this
assignment. Some really trying to give of their heart and not really
understanding what on earth just happened.
I teach in the DIS unit here. Our first course is DIS
300<http://www.ccids.umaine.edu/interedu/ids/idscoursedesc.htm#DIS_300>Disability:
Interaction of Human Diversity and Global Environments. Our
students come from all the major disciplines on campus. Their minds get
flipped to reconsider everything they had previously thought about people,
diversity, environments (all kinds), and how the interaction of these ideas
converge to define and inform us about how we consider disability and thus
respond to it. I grade their work and I see them struggle to figure out
what it all means, and at my stage in the game I struggle along with them
really.
If I had invited someone to guest speak and they had barked in the way I
have interpreted some (not all) of the responses on the list to have barked
I would take issue even if I knew full well the point they were trying to
make was an important one. I did't like the "heart" of some of the messages
I read. I come from the perspective that its not fair to ask someone to
know what they do not yet know. Having grown up in foster care I have grown
bully hairs on the back of my neck, and when they bristle I have learned to
attend to them.
As for John's reference to the fist amendment in saying "it pisses some
people off" I wasn't sure how to take it or how it was directed. I actually
thought it might be directed at me. As an American myself I have heard that
very phrase many times. It reminds me of the values here for independence
and respect for divergent opinion (second part of that gets the shaft
sometimes)... I cringe a little though when I hear it put like that (bully
hairs again) but I am very glad for our first amendment, the freedom of
speech is potent.
I know we didn't sign up for the list to teach students half way around the
world and I certainly do not think any one is obliged to do so... but even
though boarders and cultures are draped around us differently I believe we
are all connected. I will also say I am glad that I am not the professor
who gave them this assignment. I have little doubt the lesson has not been
lost on them!
Again, thank you for your kind and articulate words.
Best
BJ
PS,
James Overboe: I did read your response and could have said the same to you
as I say to Liz above... thank you for your frank and assertive words even
if I don't agree entirely or didn't understand you completely.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Liz Panton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear BJ,
>
> I like your reply to my comments - truly - though I am also truly sorry if
> I came over as a "shark". Perhaps another aspect of cultural difference at
> work?
>
> I decided not to read the assignments when I saw comments that they
> included disclosures about family members. I would not want to read private
> and personal information that might have been shared by students without the
> permission of their
> families, even if there is not the remotest possibility that I could ever
> know the people concerned.
>
> Your reply made me remember another occasion when I also reacted with
> "horrified disbelief" - but also laughed a lot - at a local radio station.
> One of my favourite programmes is created and presented entirely by
> children. One evening the main
> presenter primed his regular "sidekick" with a very stilted prompt that was
> clearly being read out,
>
> "So, has-anything-interesting-happened-this-week?"
>
> "No".
>
> "Isn't your mam in hospital?" (with more than a hint of exasperation)
>
> "Oh yes!!" (followed by a gob-smackingly detailed expose of his mother's
> medical history, bodily functions and emotional responses, broadcast to the
> whole city).
>
> His mum might have been roaring with laughter in her hospital bed but I
> could just picture the poor woman hiding her head under the sheets in
> mortification as her son rambled on. I sat transfixed in the car with
> handbrake half-released, listening
> with a mixture of amusement and "horrified disbelief". I still listen to
> the program but am ready now to hit the off-button in case there are any
> further revelations!
>
> As with other very varied comments on the process carried out with the
> students on this list, the responses say rather more about us as individuals
> and perhaps our "cultural baggage" than the student exercise itself, which
> is what you would expect.
> For my part, I would rather not be privy to information that those
> concerned might have wished to be kept private, so I chose not to read any
> of the assignments. I am not trying to adopt any sort of moral high-ground,
> it is just that it would make
> me feel uncomfortable and there is no need for me to read the assignments,
> as many others had already offered a range of comments. I also find the
> comments, in all their diversity, quite interesting enough in their own
> right.
>
> Something else I find interesting is the perception (BJ) that some comments
> about the process represent an "old guard" attitude and, if I have read
> rightly, that you have placed me in that camp and have aligned yourself with
> a more modern/current
> viewpoint. From my perspective, I feel the opposite is true, which just
> goes to show what shifting sands we all move on :-)
>
> Of course, I welcome the positive reply from Mark Priestly. I have not
> suggested that any content from the assignments should be deleted from the
> public archive. I have not read the assignments and, for the reasons given
> above, do not wish to do
> so. If there is any content that anyone feels ought to be deleted because
> it apparently breaches the privacy of non-list members, perhaps the person
> who posted the content could be contacted "off-list" (by the tutor?) to ask
> if this possible
> problem is actually real one? My assumption has been that family members
> were not aware that their personal circumstances were being made public -
> perhaps they were aware and perhaps they were happy about it? Perhaps they
> were not aware previously
> but might be OK about it if asked now?
>
> I am not sure if the references to "Freedom of Speech" (John Noble) relate
> to possible breaches of privacy or to comments about some of the terminology
> used by some of the students? Or something else? I don't know anything
> about "internet law" and
> have assumed that, since JISCMail is hosted in the UK, that UK law applies.
> I think that there are legal and cultural differences between the UK and the
> USA in terms of the relative priority (emphasis?) in law given to "Freedom
> of Speech" vs
> "privacy of the private individual". (Maybe someone else here can confirm
> or clarify?) I am not suggesting that one position is "better" than the
> other, just that these differences might explain some individual differences
> of perspective and opinion.
>
> From the comments that I have read about the assignments, nobody seems to
> be suggesting that any of the students set out to cause any offence by their
> use of terminology that some (many? most?) but not all on this list find
> offensive. Unless I have
> missed something, at least none of the students referred either casually or
> derogatively to "loonies", "cripples", "retards", "dements", etc. (The
> persistence of the term "mental retardation" in "scholarly" texts is
> something that always gets my
> hackles up!)
>
> I agree with others who have commented that the student exercise has
> generated a very interesting discussion. I like finding out what others
> think about these issues, perhaps especially when their views are very
> different to my own.
>
> It is so hard to be sure that forms of words in email discussions express
> the intended "tone". When I first read something and "hear" harshness,
> aggression, sarcasm, etc. I try again and see if there is another "reading".
> There usually is. So, if I
> have not managed to avoid a "bad tone" on first reading, my apologies in
> hope that the rough edges will rub off with a second reading :-)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Liz P
>
>
> On 7 June 2010 23:21, BJ Kitchin <[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
> [log in to unmask]> 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 <[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
> [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 ]
> 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 ]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 <[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
> [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 (
> >> [ http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies ]
> www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> >> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
> >> [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
> [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >> Archives and tools are located at:
> >> [ http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html ]
> 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 ]
> 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 ([
> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies ]
> www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [ mailto:
> [log in to unmask] ]
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> [ http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html ]
> 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 ]
> 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.
|
