Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3ULXRU29018; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20030430.173039.6382.1.sophocles5@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George E. Demetrion" <sophocles5@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:297] What's on the table X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 3950 Lines: 74 Colleagues: Just like the US Constitution and religious texts, so it is with listservs, one can take a stricter or looser interpretation of their purposes based upon the overall topic. Whether the list is AAAPD, Assessment, Equipped for the Future, ESOL, Family Literacy, Focus on Basics, POV-RACE LIT, or Women's Lit, to name a few, the range of related topics to the core content area of the particular list can extend quite broadly or also be narrowly focused on a particular subset of a more minute topic, such as the role of sight word memorization in the stimulation of the reading process. In a tolerant world, there would be room and scope for both as listserv members, themselves define the particular areas of concentration in any given time. Some messages will be relevant to some members and not so relevant to others. Anyone who has participated on lists for any significant time knows how important and how easy is the utilization of the delete key. Unlike a book or a magazine space is not a problem in electronic forms of communication. In addition to these issues is the broader matter of conflicting (or merely different) philosophical, political, and educational world views that underlie the specific topics. Thus, depending upon your philosophical, educational, and political world view, the specific topic of professional and staff development is viewed in one way or another. Same thing for definitions of literacy and reading methodologies. There is a wide spectrum of views and the listservs provide an open forum for a full exploration of these perspectives where competing and conflicting (or merely different) views can be examined and discussed on the open airwaves. By saying that these topics (those under question in this afternoon's postings) are not relevant to this list is not simply a neutral observation grounded in the scientific precepts of objective reality, but value laden with particular world views and ideological assumptions. It is, in fact, ideology, political, educational, and epistemological, which this discussion (including efforts to stifle it are about. But there's one more thing, and this is the crux of the matter at this time, the lists are being monitored, censored, and archives selectively expunged by anonymous powers in high places who refuse to subject their actions to the light of day. It is this, the cleansing of the archives and the removal of the NLA list from the NIFL Discussion Board which prompted these messages in the first place. Without that highly political action, this discussion would have never seen the day of light. In terms of the specific topic of this list, professional development, there are many of us in the field who have depended upon the free flowing discourse on the lists and full and easy access to the ERIC data base. Now we know that the current Administration has a different view of education and literacy than many of us who have been in the field for years as practitioners, scholars, and researchers. I have no problem with that world view being expressed and engaging other perspective in the wholesome exchange of views. May 1000 flowers bloom. What I have a big problem with is the not too subtle effort of this administration to colonize the field of public discourse by repressing and marginalizing other views, which many of us believe is happening right before our eyes. At least until the specific issue of the removal of data from the archives (a literal attempt at eradicating history and controlling the public culture), it's going to be very difficult for those of us who are concerned about this issue (and we are many) to let this go. And we have yet to hear from a government official what is going on, why, and by whose authority. I had to write this very quickly as I'm out the door to oversee a start-up program. Feel free to circulate this message widely. George Demetrion Sophocles5@juno.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:15:07 EST