"We must chill messages which chill messages"

[asnider@moose.uvm.edu (Alfred C. Snider)]

Another post, however, prompts this response. I have been waiting for the
trumpets to sound to announce the arrival of Tuna the censorious!

Mike Korcok writes:

>now, i think that Tuna is mistaken in telling folks that he will make
>employment decisions based on ceda-l posts:  i have 2 reasons.
>it is clearly Tuna's right to do so, and i have no doubts that reading
>ceda-l posts could be an invaluable source of information about persons.
>however,
>i think that this sort of "threat" serves to "chill" unpleasant posts
>and it is clearly Tuna's intent to do so.  i have above argued why i
>don't think we should squelch posts which offend us:  it is healthy
>communication of feelings which it is important to communicate.

I clearly phrased this as a warning -- people need to be aware of who their
audience is, and not just the audience NOW, but the audience LATER. Time is
so often the neglected variable. I see an opportunity to warn people of
what might happen to them in the future, and once they know the possible
consequences, they can make their own decision. I should think that
informed choice would be better.

Jamey's note about the upcoming archiving of CEDA-L into a searchable
database makes this very germane. I doubt that I censor by making people
aware of this.

Mike's notion that I am going to hire people based on CEDA-L posts is
ridiculous. For example, at NDI I have had on staff David Berube, Matt
Roskoski, Mike Bryant, John Meany, myself, and even once Mike Korcok. Each
in his own separate way is extremely provocative on this listserv. They say
outlandish things (in the eyes of some). I tend to enjoy them all, though I
have troubles with the stylistic preferences of each on the L, and I
respect and hire them.

I might, however, be concerned about hiring any of them at NDI if I thought
that they commonly used CEDA-L for the expression of such emotions as those
mentioned by Mike, "anger, envy, hate, the need for revenge, and the
impulse to hurt."

I did indicate that other people will look later at what has been written
now. The hiring community will use this resource. They may not be as
understanding as you. It's sort of like judge adaptation, except the round
is going on every time you post. Be aware of your total audience is my
message.

Others will use it. Especially to meet someone they do not know.

Would I use it to gather information? If I had an excellent job applicant
from an NPDA school, I would certainly use a Parli-L database to find some
of her postings so I could get to know her.

MIKE WOULD USE THAT DATA RESOURCE.
Mike writes: "i have no doubts that reading  ceda-l posts could be an
invaluable source of information about persons." I guess if they posted a
lot of sophomoric, sexist, fecal word-trash it would be information I would
use.

WOULD YOU NOT USE THAT DATA RESOURCE IN LEARNING ABOUT PEOPLE TO HIRE?
Hiring decisions are important. I know of too many instances where coaches
who are bad for students (sexual harassment, stealing from budgets, etc.)
have been allowed to continue in jobs [getting fired -- or forced to resign
more commonly -- from one job for such heinous activity, then drifting to
another job] because information did not flow freely.

Students deserve faculty who are good communicative role models. They don't
have to be all the same, but they ought to be responsible communicators. I
would have my doubts about someone who stood in front of a group of 500
people (which is what you do on CEDA-L) and make remarks about the perverse
sexual habits of innocent individuals for no apparent reason other than
those Mike seems to think are fine -- hate, anger, envy, the desire to hurt
others.

If you refuse to look at all the available data when making hiring
decisions I do not think you are doing a good job in serving the students.
The success of the program often depends on the coach, thus coach hiring
decisions are important.

A couple of other important points:

1. THE NEED TO WORK THROUGH DIFFICULT EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS.
I do not think the L is a good spot for that. It is not suited for that,
you don't get good counseling, and it is not usually the source of warmth
and comforting which might help people. If people need a place to work
through their personal problems, there are many and better fora for that.
This is not a therapeutic environment. Thus, I disagree with mike when he
indicates that "anger, envy, hate, the need for revenge, and the impulse to
hurt" have a place on our listserv. Save that for your interpersonal
communications with those who really care about you, not for a public forum
full of strangers.

2. THE CHILLING EFFECT OF CRITICAL EVALUATION
It is no surprise that if I say "stupid" things over and over again people
start to think I am "stupid." It is no surprise that when I say "stupid"
things I get criticized for that. I don't call this "chilling," I call it
learning. I see nothing wrong with anyone saying they don't like certain
kinds of postings. I do oppose efforts to engage in formal content
censorship (like having the list owner approve of everything before it is
posted). My response and yours are the same -- the answer to bad speech is
more speech. Well, that is what I am doing, but for some reason that is
seen as "chilling" others. Do you wish to censor speech which might chill?
How does your post not commit the fallacy you are indicating? Are you
saying, "We should chill messages which might chill messages?" This sounds
a lot like the "all generalizations are false" argument. To encourage the
participants in this list to reject the opportunity to critically evaluate
the communications of others contradicts your free expression position and
the basic undergirding of our activity -- that reasoned disagreement can be
productive.

To me free speech works like this: You can say whatever you want, but don't
be upset if I try and persuade you to shut up on certain issues, as long as
I don't coerce you. However, ultimately when I make an idiot out of myself
it does hurt me in some ways, and it probably should. It is not coercion
when someone tells me I am an idiot so they don't want me to teach at their
university.

We need more critical evaluation of the idiots in the academy, not less.

At the foundation, some may want to make CEDA-L their social world (thus
necessitating the inclusion of "anger, envy, hate, the need for revenge,
and the impulse to hurt" ) while I wish to see CEDA-L as an extension of my
professional and educational life.

I will never act to stop these messages from being posted, but I will
continue to criticize some and delete others if I can detect a pattern.


Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: Box 54225, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/dc.html
gopher://beluga.uvm.edu
LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ldu.html

---

• Prev by Date: NCAA
• Next by Date: Tuna the censor
• Prev by thread: NCAA
• Next by thread: Tuna the censor
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page