[AAACE-NLA]NIFL lists & archives

[George E. Demetrion]

Leslie,

Thanks for your message.  I would much rather be working on my book, but
what's a feller to do in times like this.

Your first sentence is well taken, "NIFL was forced to block messages
containing advocacy initiated by the literacy field on NIFL listservs,
and to block access
to archived listserv postings containing such advocacy messages." 
"Forced" is the operative word.  If at all possible, we need to begin
identifying who the specific powers that be are and the equally important
issue of on whose and on what authority, and for what purposes.  Only the
real reasons need apply.  Sounds like a task for serious investigative
journalism, for something pernicious is certainly going on.  With you I'm
getting a variety of behind the scenes messages (which I never do),
saying, in various ways, essentially  the same thing your source.  The
short of it is, people are being told not to speak publicly of various
matters critical to government on the listservs, while the government
goes rampant in institutionalizing its neo-conservative educational
agenda, not on truth, but on power.  

And then we have the stupidity of the overt cleansing and blocking of the
archives, as if that wasn't going to stir a reaction.  Tthe recent
fireworks on the NIFL-AALPD, on ERIC, and the cleansing of the lists
cannot be understood outside of this context.  Rather than spending so
much time challenging one another about this fine point and that, that
discussion would have been much better served with a much clearer focus
on the central issue at hand; the cleansing of the lists and  the
blocking of the entire NLA archives, in addition to the consequences of
the restructuring of ERIC, in its potential impact  for the field of
professional development.  Given this egregious action in the attempt to
blot out the historical record, I believe that NIFL listserv subscribers
should protest this violation en mass.  Anything else is merely side
commentary at this stage, at this time.  Such action would require, the
vigorous exercise of free speech and a climate that supports it.  Are the
powers which are forcing NIFL's hand willing to allow that?  Are they
willing to come out of the shadows into the light of day?

This act of intellectual cleansing may or may not be due to the specific
reasons that your source indicates. I know that I have written more than
a few reviews of DC-based documents that I pulled from the web and I have
named names. O ne thing is sure, the administration of George W. Bush is
no friend to the field of adult literacy education as we have known it in
our time.  Does anyone seriously doyubt this?  This is not a rhetorical
question.

Critical scrutiny, Mr. Bush, is one thing.  If your social science
researchers want to raise critical issues related to the field's practice
or the field's scholarship, let them do so in the light of day in the
open marketplace of ideas.  They may even win many arguments, but let
them do so fairly, and also be open to different points of view.  The one
thing that will not stand are trite cliches about fads and ideology that
supposedly engross the educational establishment, that need the surer
knowledge of scientific-based educational research to be validated. 
Whatever legitimacy there may be in the claims of scientific-based
educational research,  as that term is being bandied aboui by the current
Department of Education and its colleagues, the actual result, that is,
the formation of a world view, is a manifestation more of ideology than
rigorous science.   Substantive discussion and critical scrutiny from
divergent perspcetives are called for sir, and that can only take place
through a rich exchange of views and the free flowing of information.  Do
you really believe, sir, that your act (for you, sir, are ultimately
responsible) of intellectual cleansing will get us nearer to the truth?

Mr. President, I would like to propose a challenge.  You believe you are
called by God to lead the United States at this time, and as I understand
it, you pray and meditate on spiritual literature daily.  I know
something about this and I take you at your word, that, at least you
believe, you were so called.  Though even on that score, Mr. President,
keep in mind that even Lincoln could not make a similar claim.  

Still, if you are so called, sir, then I admonish you in the name of the
religious principles for which you do stand, to repudiate this repressive
action of those who are acting in your name, and restore the archives
intact.  Administrative personnel may be highly incensed by what was
written on the lists,.  Such outrage is  within theirperfect  rights. 
Yet, to go from there to the actual suppression of archival data is to
repudiate the truth itself; not the truth of what is stated in the
repressed materials, but the truth of its existence.  Whatever temporary
gain there may be for your administration in repressing these materials,
the violation it is causing in terms of imparing national democratic
discourse and in the integrity of truth itself, for which you stake your
very identity, is not worth it, I submit.

So, Mr. President, be bold.   Give an executive order to restore the
archives intact and this will be the end of the matter.  And on my word,
sir, if you do act so magnanimously, I promise not gloat and will quitely
walk away from this matter.

George Demetrion
A simple citizen


As you may know, NIFL was forced to block messages containing advocacy
initiated by the literacy field on NIFL listservs, and to block access
to archived listserv postings containing such advocacy messages. While
it is true that federal resources may not be used for lobbying, a friend
on Capitol Hill suggested that it is no coincidence that this scrutiny
of NIFL listservs comes just as H.R 1261 nears a vote on the House
floor. Indeed, I heard that the chief architect of this bill is doing
everything he can to stifle the voice of the field regarding this
blatantly partisan legislation. 

At the COABE conference earlier this week, I heard that the Institute
also MAY be forced to block messages criticizing Administration policy
on its listservs! Again, my Hill friend said this may have been inspired
in part, by their over-zealous colleague having taken offense to a
discussion on one of the listservs about an article he wrote. This is
the same individual who is rumored to aspire to be the next permanent
director of an institute he has revamped to suit himself. If true, isn't
there an ethics problem here?
 


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!