As I worked through the topics we discussed in this class, a difficult theme arose. It is a theme that one has to work hard to avoid in this country today: the battle between polar opposites. It is characterized by groups encamped at the two extremes of any issue, both unwilling to budge, both unwilling to hear and consider the other viewpoint. This class forced me to pay attention to the news, something I normally avoid, and I was confronted with this issue once more. I struggled for most of the last five weeks, wondering how we can move away from talking at each other to talking to each other and working together to face our collective challenges. I was therefore encouraged to see this article on CNN about the passage of Proposition 14 in California, which replaces closed partisan primaries with open primaries.
I am hopeful that this new system will allow more choice for voters. Although ultimately there will be only two candidates for governor, they will no longer automatically be one Democrat and one Republican. Those of us who do not belong to a political party will have a voice in the preliminary selection of candidates for office.
We support Intellectual Freedom because learning about various topics allows us to grow as individuals and be more informed citizens. However, in order for that to be effective, the reader or viewer must begin with an open mind. We must be open to change and new ways of doing things. We need to listen to what others have to say. I believe the marketplace of ideas requires an exchange of ideas- a conversation, not a war of words.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
How Do We Talk About Uncomfortable Topics? (Post #4)
I am going to start by saying that this post may make some readers uncomfortable, if not angry. However, this is where “the rubber meets the road” for Intellectual Freedom. The article I chose for this week is Daring to Discuss Women in Science by John Tierney of The New York Times.
Tierney reflects on statements made by Lawrence H. Summers when he was President of Harvard University in 2005. Summers suggested that while men and women’s aptitude for science may be close, and by removing social barriers women can be involved in the scientific community at more proportional rates, men may have slightly more aptitude for science at the highest levels of achievement, and therefore represent a greater percentage of faculty positions at an ivy league institution such as Harvard.
Summers’s statement was responded to by feminist demonstrators. The federal government is also considering a legislative response, requiring federal grant recipients to attend workshops focusing on gender bias attitudes. These workshops will require participants to take before and after surveys, and participants will engage in discussions on these issues.
Can participants really say what they believe without jeopardizing their funding? When the government is subsidizing speech with grants, it is not usually held to as strict standards as when it attempts to restrict other speech. If participants say what they know the government wants to hear, is that compelled speech?
This issue is about political correctness, something near and dear to my heart. Being politically correct is considered polite and it helps avoid conflict. We live in a society where we want to believe everyone is equal and has the same opportunities. However, I think if we can suspend those ideals for a moment, we know that is not true. There is evidence that Lawrence Summers may have been right. However, there is also evidence that women possess greater aptitude at the highest levels of achievement in other areas, such as verbal reasoning and writing ability.
How do we get to the point where we can talk about and maybe accept that there may not be equality for every line item, but overall, all people have something important to offer?
(I know NYT articles have a tendency to disappear quickly, so here is the citation for the article on Proquest: John Tierney. "Daring to Discuss Women in Science. " New York Times 8 Jun 2010, Late Edition (East Coast): ProQuest Central, ProQuest. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.)
Tierney reflects on statements made by Lawrence H. Summers when he was President of Harvard University in 2005. Summers suggested that while men and women’s aptitude for science may be close, and by removing social barriers women can be involved in the scientific community at more proportional rates, men may have slightly more aptitude for science at the highest levels of achievement, and therefore represent a greater percentage of faculty positions at an ivy league institution such as Harvard.
Summers’s statement was responded to by feminist demonstrators. The federal government is also considering a legislative response, requiring federal grant recipients to attend workshops focusing on gender bias attitudes. These workshops will require participants to take before and after surveys, and participants will engage in discussions on these issues.
Can participants really say what they believe without jeopardizing their funding? When the government is subsidizing speech with grants, it is not usually held to as strict standards as when it attempts to restrict other speech. If participants say what they know the government wants to hear, is that compelled speech?
This issue is about political correctness, something near and dear to my heart. Being politically correct is considered polite and it helps avoid conflict. We live in a society where we want to believe everyone is equal and has the same opportunities. However, I think if we can suspend those ideals for a moment, we know that is not true. There is evidence that Lawrence Summers may have been right. However, there is also evidence that women possess greater aptitude at the highest levels of achievement in other areas, such as verbal reasoning and writing ability.
How do we get to the point where we can talk about and maybe accept that there may not be equality for every line item, but overall, all people have something important to offer?
(I know NYT articles have a tendency to disappear quickly, so here is the citation for the article on Proquest: John Tierney. "Daring to Discuss Women in Science. " New York Times 8 Jun 2010, Late Edition (East Coast): ProQuest Central, ProQuest. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.)
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Unschooling (Post #3)
If you are unfamiliar with this concept as I was, watch the Nightline clip here. It’s freedom of expression for kids to a whole new level. It’s not only child-centered learning, but child-directed learning. The children decide what they are interested and only have to learn about those things.
In this case, not only do the children decide their academic schedule, but they also make their own decisions as to when and what to eat and when to sleep. Their lives are one long weekend, which I have to admit, sounds amazing, albeit slightly irresponsible.
The woman featured in this story is a leader in the Unschooling movement, has written books on her work, and helps other parents embrace this lifestyle. When asked about her children not knowing classic works of literature or history, her response was that those things are not important for everyone to know.
However, it is important that children grow up to be people who can interact with others in society, and I am not sure the Martin children will pass that test. When they went on their field trip, they were completely out of control and were not listening to their mother as she tried to teach them about the weather.
I think this movement raises two important issues. First, no one’s freedoms can be absolute because they then intrude on other people’s rights and freedoms. Second, this is a great example of an idea floating in the marketplace of ideas, being accepted by some, and discussed by others so that people can look at this and realize our education system, with all its faults, is still achieving something important. Children are better off for going to school.
In this case, not only do the children decide their academic schedule, but they also make their own decisions as to when and what to eat and when to sleep. Their lives are one long weekend, which I have to admit, sounds amazing, albeit slightly irresponsible.
The woman featured in this story is a leader in the Unschooling movement, has written books on her work, and helps other parents embrace this lifestyle. When asked about her children not knowing classic works of literature or history, her response was that those things are not important for everyone to know.
However, it is important that children grow up to be people who can interact with others in society, and I am not sure the Martin children will pass that test. When they went on their field trip, they were completely out of control and were not listening to their mother as she tried to teach them about the weather.
I think this movement raises two important issues. First, no one’s freedoms can be absolute because they then intrude on other people’s rights and freedoms. Second, this is a great example of an idea floating in the marketplace of ideas, being accepted by some, and discussed by others so that people can look at this and realize our education system, with all its faults, is still achieving something important. Children are better off for going to school.
Monday, May 31, 2010
You Gotta Fight For Your Right (Blog Post #2)
The Guardian inspired me to take the blog international this week. This editorial criticizes the EU for not taking a firmer stance against Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who has introduced press gag legislation in an attempt to silence criticism of the Italian government. I chose this topic not to criticize either the EU or Italy, but to reflect on the situation.
As the article states, Prime Minister Berlusconi already controlled approximately 80% of Italian television channels without this law. Criticism of his regime was unlikely to begin with, but now he feels the need to make sure it is impossible.
The article criticizes the EU for characterizing this action as a national issue (and therefore none of the EU’s business), but it is the comments following the article that hold a larger issue. What about the Italian people? How do they feel about their media being at least heavily influenced, if not controlled, by government leaders with great interests in which information reaches the public? If the Italian people do not have all of the relevant political information, they cannot make informed decisions at the polls, but do they care?
Do we care? Or maybe a better question is do a majority of Americans care about having all of the relevant information? One of our responsibilities as librarians is to educate the public about why the freedom of speech is so important. This situation illustrates why very well. If you do not exercise your freedom of speech, and do not act as a watchdog to make sure the government is not trying to chip away at freedoms, you may very well lose them.
As the article states, Prime Minister Berlusconi already controlled approximately 80% of Italian television channels without this law. Criticism of his regime was unlikely to begin with, but now he feels the need to make sure it is impossible.
The article criticizes the EU for characterizing this action as a national issue (and therefore none of the EU’s business), but it is the comments following the article that hold a larger issue. What about the Italian people? How do they feel about their media being at least heavily influenced, if not controlled, by government leaders with great interests in which information reaches the public? If the Italian people do not have all of the relevant political information, they cannot make informed decisions at the polls, but do they care?
Do we care? Or maybe a better question is do a majority of Americans care about having all of the relevant information? One of our responsibilities as librarians is to educate the public about why the freedom of speech is so important. This situation illustrates why very well. If you do not exercise your freedom of speech, and do not act as a watchdog to make sure the government is not trying to chip away at freedoms, you may very well lose them.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Deadly Expression (Blog Post #1)
CNN has featured a couple of stories (I recommend watching “Man Accused of Aiding Suicides Online” before “Suicide Chat Rooms Raise Legal Questions”) on a male nurse in Minnesota who has encouraged individuals to commit suicide. Initially posing as a female in suicide chat rooms, he has entered ten or eleven suicide pacts with individuals online. At least two suicides have been linked to him.
Although the main issue legal experts are focused on is whether someone can be prosecuted for assisted suicide simply by telling someone how to commit suicide (as opposed to physically assisting them), there is also an expression issue. The nurse could claim he did not realize people were taking him seriously or that he was role-playing. Role-playing chat rooms can be found relatively easily on the Internet.
First Amendment absolutists would say the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This situation poses the question whether life is more important than free speech.
I remember when I took Reference, my professor gave us an ethics hypothetical where a teen girl came into the library and wanted to check out a book on how to commit suicide. Even if you knew she was lonely or depressed, you should not do anything, even if you knew her parents. I realize that librarians are not supposed to prevent access to materials, but if you check out the book to the girl, say nothing to anyone, and she kills herself, how are you supposed to live with yourself, knowing you might have been able to prevent that tragedy?
Although the main issue legal experts are focused on is whether someone can be prosecuted for assisted suicide simply by telling someone how to commit suicide (as opposed to physically assisting them), there is also an expression issue. The nurse could claim he did not realize people were taking him seriously or that he was role-playing. Role-playing chat rooms can be found relatively easily on the Internet.
First Amendment absolutists would say the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This situation poses the question whether life is more important than free speech.
I remember when I took Reference, my professor gave us an ethics hypothetical where a teen girl came into the library and wanted to check out a book on how to commit suicide. Even if you knew she was lonely or depressed, you should not do anything, even if you knew her parents. I realize that librarians are not supposed to prevent access to materials, but if you check out the book to the girl, say nothing to anyone, and she kills herself, how are you supposed to live with yourself, knowing you might have been able to prevent that tragedy?
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Freedom to express your disrespect towards police officers
I have seen a couple of news stories on this now. This is another example of the classic battle between public order and personal freedoms.
The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of individuals who were issued tickets for swearing, either at police officers or other motorists. See the entire article here.
The Colbert Report also recently featured Robert Ekas, an individual who gives police officers the middle finger whenever he sees them, and is suing the sheriff's department to protect this right.
But is this a right? The ACLU argues swearing is not a crime and distinguishes profanity from obscenity. In order for speech to be unprotected under the obscenity exception, it must appeal to a "prurient interest" in sex, as established by Miller v. California. Cases such as Cohen v. California, where an individual wore a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" inside the lobby of a courthouse, also support the idea that profanity is protected speech. In Cohen, however, the United States Supreme Court noted that individuals could avert their eyes. Police officers cannot necessarily avoid the expression if it is obscenities being yelled at them. Of course, there are also public safety concerns associated with this behavior as well.
The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of individuals who were issued tickets for swearing, either at police officers or other motorists. See the entire article here.
The Colbert Report also recently featured Robert Ekas, an individual who gives police officers the middle finger whenever he sees them, and is suing the sheriff's department to protect this right.
But is this a right? The ACLU argues swearing is not a crime and distinguishes profanity from obscenity. In order for speech to be unprotected under the obscenity exception, it must appeal to a "prurient interest" in sex, as established by Miller v. California. Cases such as Cohen v. California, where an individual wore a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" inside the lobby of a courthouse, also support the idea that profanity is protected speech. In Cohen, however, the United States Supreme Court noted that individuals could avert their eyes. Police officers cannot necessarily avoid the expression if it is obscenities being yelled at them. Of course, there are also public safety concerns associated with this behavior as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
