Linda wrote:
> So my posts have been adolescent?
Linda, why is it whenever I respond to anyone who posts something about
Michael Sylvester you insist on taking it as a personal attack on you?
My comment was directed to a specific poster who stated that permitting
conversations involving Michael Sylvester's posts meant listening to
"adolescent" discussions; i.e., he was specifically stating that
participation in any conversation involving Michael was adolescent
behavior. My response made it clear that it is _just_ as adolescent to
spend time complaining about Michael (not debating him--complaining about
him) as it could possibly be to participate in the threads he has started.
At no time did I refer to your posts (which, until recently, were focused
on the issues, not personalities) as adolescent.
To be honest, I feel you are taking the entire conversation--not just the
parts about Jews or other potentially prejudicial areas, but the entire
discussion of Michael as an individual and free speech as a principle--far
too personally. Back off from it for a while and try to bring the same
objectivity to it that you would demand of your own students. Sure,
Michael has said some things that provoked you--but does that mean that
all his posts are inappropriate? I don't believe that to be the case, and
apparently many others don't feel that way either. Look at his most recent
post about a bipolar student--that post asks a serious question relating
directly to the topic of this list. Would you want _that_ message labeled
as one of Michael Sylvester's "inanities?" Yet, according to the original
author to whom my reply (quoted back in your message) was directed, it
certainly should have been.
> No, as stated by myself and others - it is not about topics.
> It is about the appropriateness of someone on a professional
> discussion list making racist, sexist, homophobic etc.
> statements about individuals whether on or off the list. Is
> hate speech appropriate for this list? Now we don't need to
> rehash this discussion. Folks can just re-read our previous
> exchanges.
If you seriously characterize Michael's posts as "hate speech" you have a
very rigid definition of free expression, Linda. He has not encouraged
violence or discrimination against a group, he has not made threats,
deliberately degraded or ridiculed a minority, or otherwise performed acts
that would constitute "hate speech" in any reasonable sense of the term.
Again, I honestly believe you are letting your personal reactions
completely overcome your natural objectivity and "seeing tigers" where
there are only alley cats.
> This however can have consequences. When misinformation is
> presented (deliberately or non-deliberately) it needs to be
> corrected. When racist, sexist, homophobic etc. statements
> are made which remain unaddressed in can have repercussions
> both in the short and long term.
Then if they need correction, correct them.
But don't encourage their suppression--that only leads to hate and
distrust.
This, as you and others have pointed out, is a professional list.
Presumably, as professionals in the social sciences and as well educated
individuals, we have developed the critical thinking skills necessary to
read statements that may be racist, sexist, or homophobic with an
understanding of the nature of such statements. To assume that such
statements could sway opinion in a forum such as this one is offensive to
every participant in the list. Simply because someone makes a comment that
can be taken to be anti-semetic, I am rather unlikely to change my opinion
of Jews or to suddenly decide that my Jewish friends are in some way no
longer my equals. And just because a message is posted that is homophobic
in nature, I am not about to immediately shut down the support lists I run
for glbt youths. Such messages deserve response, if only to clarify points
that may be raised (i.e., the question of Ethopian Jews and Israel) or to
correct the errors of the poster--but they hardly need to be viewed as in
any way likely to change the views and values of the other members of this
list. Hopefully, you have more respect for our integrity than to believe
that of us.
> A civil list for professionals is not too much to expect (from
> all sides).
I agree. But calls for ridicule of a member, as were present in the
original message I was replying to, are hardly examples of a "civil list
for professionals."
> Should we turn our heads and voices away from racism? Should
> we turn our heads and voices away from sexism? How many problems
> and atrocities have gone unchecked because good people simply
> chose to filter them out?
Linda, this isn't Tibet or Rwanda--it's a discussion list for
professionals. You are treating these threads as though they were likely
to cause the rest of us to go out and "lynch" someone--when in reality the
most likely effect a racist, sexist, or anti-semetic statement will have
on the participants here is to reduce our respect for (and opinion of) the
poster!
> Hmmmm . .. . . . first adolescent; now, regressed down to spoiled child.
Again, you need to stop assuming every post in disagreement with your own
is a direct attack on you personally.
You are _much_ too involved with the topic to view it--or any message
about it--with any objectivity. If your student were to respond as you are
responding you would rather quickly inform him or her that s/he was
reading a great deal more into the message than the poster intended and
that s/he needed to examine the entire conversation from a far more
objective perspective.
Let the topic lay for a while, Linda. When you come back to it you may
find that you, yourself, see how personally you involved you have
become---and you may be uncomfortable with the extreme levels of anger
present in your own messages. You are far to rational and intelligent a
woman to allow your emotions to affect you in this manner.
> When individuals object to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism,
> homophobia etc., I don't think I would describe their behavior
> as that of a spoiled child. To speak out against such concerns
> has been demonstrated by many that I admire from history. I'm
> sure some thought that Rosa Parks was just being childish and
> didn't know her place. After all, if she didn't like the rules,
> she could just take another form of transportation.
Linda, if you are honestly comparing your response to Michael's posts to
the actions of Rosa Parks, you have clearly lost all sense of proportion.
Rosa Parks risked her freedom and, in reality, her life by her actions.
What do you risk by attacking Michael and everyone else who supports his
rights? Rosa Parks was demanding her rights, you--and others who want
limitations placed on message content here on TIPS--are calling for the
_suppression_ of Michael's rights instead.
> No one required her to ride that bus.
No they didn't. And I'm sure that Rosa (who lives about sixty miles from
me, and who is has been a casual aquaintance of mine for over thirty
years--and is a close friend of one of my [non-traditional] students)
would be the first to admit that fact. She wasn't trying to be a hero or a
leader in her cause--she was bone tired and simply didn't feel that the
white man who wanted her seat had any right to demand it of her.
> However, I would describe her objections as courageous.
She doesn't.
She describes them as "being tired and angry."
Linda, I have an enormous amount of respect for you and your work. And I
realize that you feel threatened and angered by the posts that have
appeared here. But, please, let the matter rest for a while and give
yourself time to "cool down" a bit so that you can look at things from a
more objective (and less personal) perspective.
Peace,
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
