Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h530XQC07700; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <e5a7ae5fa3.e5fa3e5a7a@georgetown.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: ayw@georgetown.edu To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1133] Re: NIFL listservs , free expression, X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Netscape Webmail Status: O Content-Length: 4430 Lines: 112 The following website is a pretty good resource for information about the guidelines regarding lobbying and advocacy for nonprofits. I'm not sure if NIFL fits into their definition of nonprofits, though. http://www.clpi.org/ - Albert Wat DC Schools Project Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service Georgetown University Washington, DC ----- Original Message ----- From: Gail Spangenberg <gspangenberg@caalusa.org> Date: Friday, May 16, 2003 12:39 pm Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1127] NIFL listservs , free expression, and nonprofit organizations > Janet, Hal, and other Colleagues -- > > I have done a fair amount of investigating on the matter of > listserv > "purging," notably the government-sponsored NIFL listservs. I > hope > that this posting will contribute to a better understanding. > > By now, we all know that messages deemed to contain political > advocacy have been removed from archives of the NIFL listservs, > and > that messages containing certain words and phrases are being > automatically blocked. I do not want to cause problems for people > who have been working hard behind the scenes to try and solve this > problem but I think I can share enough information without > betraying > confidences to shed some light on why this has happened and enable > you to form your own judgments. > > Apparently, according to what a number of people have told me, > Robert > Sweet, an influential Hill staffer, has challenged both NIFL and > the > Department of Education on what he sees as excessive "political > advocacy" on the NIFL listservs. That challenge has been made > with > sufficient vigor that lawyers are presently attempting to sort out > the issues. (For those of you who don't know, Mr. Sweet was a > key > person in the drafting of the No Child Left Behind legislation. > He > was president and founder of the phonics/reading advocacy > organization, The National Right to Read Foundation. He was, by > many > accounts, a principal force in the attempts to radically change > the > mission of NIFL from a focus on adult basic skills in the WIA > reauthorization to a focus exclusively on reading, primarily aimed > at > children. He is said to be an active aspirant to the permanent > directorship of NIFL.) > > Many of us would take issue with Mr. Sweet's philosophy, operating > style, and his work in the House. But there is a central point in > all of this that we need to keep in mind. Government-sponsored > programs are not permitted under the law to be used as > communications > devices for political advocacy. It is unclear, even to many > lawyers, > exactly how this prohibition should be interpreted in particular > cases. > > I don't think that the legal issues regarding what should be > permitted on NIFL listservs will be resolved very soon. But here > are > a few practical thoughts about the current situation. Perhaps > NIFL > listserv moderators can ask for very clear guidelines on what is > presently permissible on the government listservs and what isn't. > These guidelines might be made openly available to the field and > to > listserv subscribers, and the moderators themselves might take > responsibility for applying the rules that everyone will hold in > common. That way, we would at least know who is doing what and > why, > and we would all be playing by the same set of rules (or choosing > not > to play) on the basis of clear and open communications. > > Another thought: The NLA listserv has protected its archives and > open posting by shifting over to AAACE, and the Coalition for > Literacy listserv did this by being taken in temporarily by > ProLiteracy, both achieved with the cooperation and active help of > NIFL. I think that the operation of listservs is an important > NIFLservice, and ought to be retained as such, but it occurs to me > there may be forms and homes for a different listserv that can be > set > up elsewhere and operate with complete independence from > government. > > In the meantime, let's hope that the legal issues raised by Mr. > Sweet > regarding the NIFL listservs will be resolved by competent > authorities as soon as possible. > > -- > Gail Spangenberg > President > Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy > 1221 Avenue of the Americas - 50th Floor > New York, NY 10020 > 212-512-2362, fax 212-512-2610 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:18:07 EST