Nathan Newman's "call to action" struck a cord with me. I spent the last evening with my Rwandan graduate student who, after two sleepless nights and no food, finally managed to have a meal between attempts to determine what has become of his family in the capital of Rwanda where, with a pop- ulation smaller than that of Ontario, or New York City, there have been over 20,000 violent deaths in the past week (according to estimates). As one of those for whom praxis ranks with gravity as a fundamental law, and one who believes that there is both reality and power in the virtual workplace, I believe that we have much more scope for all forms of social action, from education and awarness to mobilization, in this virtual work- place. On the flip side of this, none of us has a "right" to this access and as it becomes powerful we have to guard against forces which will not only privatize it for commercial gain, but will muffle it for political purpose. For example, our Ontario link in the Internet (ONet) maintains an "Acceptable Use Policy" for access to the internet and I suspect that each and every one of you not on a commercial account has burried away in the actual terms of your access a similar policy document. This is not a policy which is in any way responsible to democratic process. There are causes for concern here and they go beyond what academics normally do. If things get "political" it is not only possible for "acceptable use" to be redefined, but the very move to redefine it will take away the virtual workspace in which those who would defend their position who normally have operated. To draw a parallel with the material world, when the courts run that unions cannot pass out literature in the company parking lot or the local shopping mall, that is a setback for labour. The loss of internet access would be equal to telling the union that it cannot operate on the planet. Nathan's charge was directed, for the most part, at the moral responsibility of academics. In a world where the mass media make the news according to a largely corporate agenda, the issue of the moral responsibility of academics to preserve pluralism in dialogue (at a minimum), or to speak out, is a real one. It will not doubt "test" the liberal tolerance of those who actually manage and run the network facilities. I am sure that Michael Perelman, with PEN-L, feels as vulnerable as I do with LABOR-L. An administrative decision by a middle ranking university officer and LABOR-L is out of existance. It does give one cause to worry, and to reassess how one exercises one's stake in the process. However one looks at it, there is a time bomb ticking in all of this. Sam Lanfranco, York University, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
