kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) (06/07/91)
In <TED.91Jun5143855@kythera.nmsu.edu> ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: [...] >the use of the word `against' is symptomatic of very deep structural >problems in the organization. once it gets to the point where system >administrators consider users to be trouble to be avoided, and users >consider system administrators to be obstacles to be bypassed, then >there is essentially no hope for constructive action. In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students). This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest (to use an expression from poker). User participation in the formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes. It may seem counterintuitive, but a overly strict policy may encourage the very problems it tries to solve. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes... >In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation >rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement >on Rights and Freedoms of Students). >This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for >supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a >nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest >(to use an expression from poker). User participation in the >formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of >legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes. No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee. Even among large groups of students (student governments), problems have arisen recently with the imposition of political correctness doctrines.
cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun8.035801.11343@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes: In article <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes... >In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation >rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement >on Rights and Freedoms of Students). >This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for >supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a >nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest >(to use an expression from poker). User participation in the >formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of >legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes. No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee. Even among large groups of students (student governments), problems have arisen recently with the imposition of political correctness doctrines. You say that "only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee." I don't think this is true, especially where the students have any say in who represents them on the policy committee. And if the general body of students (or users) has no say, then it cannot be said that they really participate, or are represented. I honestly don't think that comments on the wonderful subject of "political correctness" (the topic amuses me...) are relevant to this discussion - in some things, such as academics, and funding situations, arguments can probably be made in favor of PC or against. However, in the world of computers, i've yet to see an opinion biased by race, creed, color, etc - it simply is not relevant. If you will attempt to argue that students who *ARE* *REPRESENTED* by peers on a policy-making committe (or whatever) are not better off (in most cases) than if they were not represented, well, let's just say that i'll be very amused. cgd UCB OCF Staff - Though these are my words, and mine alone... -- < Chris G. Demetriou | "Everybody's playing the game, > < cgd@ocf.berkeley.edu | But nobody's rules are the same. > < ...!ucbvax!ocf!cgd | Nobody's on nobody's side." - Chess > <=============================================================================> < Annoyance for hire. Name a time. Name a place. Name a target. I'm there.>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) (06/08/91)
> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes: [...] > No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the > setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy > committee. [...] cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) writes: [...] >I don't think this is true, especially where the students have any say in >who represents them on the policy committee. And if the general body >of students (or users) has no say, then it cannot be said that they >really participate, or are represented. [...] >UCB OCF Staff - Though these are my words, and mine alone... I would note that (unlike most of us) Chris Demetriou knows of what he speaks. The University of California at Berkeley's Open Computer Facility is an organization that democratically manages computer resources for thousands of users. (It's consititution and bylaws are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as files academic/ocf.contitution and academic/ocf/bylaws.) As to the issue of censorship under the guise of political correctness. I can't imagine the situation being any worse than it is under university administrators. When a unit of Stanford cut off the rec.humor.funny newsgroup because some people found some of its jokes offensive, "Donald Kennedy, Stanford's President, told the Academic Senate that he supported the suppression but would defer to the Senate." [see file academic/stanford.statements]. Boston University's computer policy (among others) forbits "... making accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material." [see file academic/widener/bostonu] - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (06/11/91)
cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) writes: >You say that "only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee." I didn't, but I have observed this to be true. >I don't think this is true, especially where the students have any say in >who represents them on the policy committee. And if the general body >of students (or users) has no say, then it cannot be said that they >really participate, or are represented. How is this different from other examples of such committees...like, let's say...Congress? >I honestly don't think that comments on the wonderful subject of >"political correctness" (the topic amuses me...) are relevant to this >discussion - in some things, such as academics, and funding situations, >arguments can probably be made in favor of PC or against. A politically correct statement if I ever heard one. 8) Actually, I'd have to disagree with you. There is a clear cut foray into "due process" and the fundamental tenet of American justice "innocent until proven guilty" in this entire discussion. >However, in the world of computers, i've yet to see an opinion biased >by race, creed, color, etc - it simply is not relevant. I can cite a few examples. E-mail me if you like. -- Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh If your own vice happens to be the search for virtue, recognize that it is so.