Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6VFBGf27210; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <34.18ae4012.289823d0@aol.com> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1542] Re: ethical question X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Status: O Content-Length: 2615 Lines: 26 Hi Daphne. Did the Southern Church for the New and Pure America, the Confederate Association of Northern Georgia, or the White Georgians for a Better America asked you to do some literacy training for them?(note: the above are fictitious names). I think that my previous response applies to this question too. In facilitating training to providers, the trainer can make the argument that literacy should open spaces for contestation of difference. The presenter can demonstrate how this is done by subtly introducing controversial topics and exploring different perspectives. The group asking you to do the training may get offended and never ask you to do this again. At the same time, some of the participants may get enlightened about new perspectives and begin to embrace a more progressive ideology (wishful thinking). I think overall, one needs to decide how to participate in a certain context to undermine an agenda that may be too repulsive. You may choose to not participate since what you do may be used to cause more harm than good. You can also choose to participate and introduce elements that may undermine their agenda. Andres In a message dated Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:01:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Daphne Greenberg" <ALCDGG@langate.gsu.edu> writes: > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> Thanks for all of your answers. I agree- for adult learners, literacy opens doors to the possibility of reading and understanding different views and therefore one can perhaps ease one's own moral conflicts by hoping that the new skills that are shared with someone of opposing beliefs enablehim/her to perhaps have the opportunity to be exposed to other views. However, what about literacy providers? Would you provideinservices to literacy providers who share and practice different morals thatplay out in their interactions with their students? On the one hand, the above argument could be used-by training literacy providers, they will be providing literacy skills to individuals who will now have greater tools to help them make their own moral decisions. However, it could also be argued that by training the providers, you are helping them get across their message (with which you morall! y disagree) through print, kno wing fully well that alternative views will not be presented. Any thoughts? Daphne Daphne Greenberg > Associate Director > Center for the Study of Adult Literacy > Georgia State University > University Plaza > Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 > phone: 404-651-0127 > fax:404-651-4901 > dgreenberg@gsu.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:32:17 EST