[AAACE-NLA]free and open discussion

[Catherine B. King]

David, George and others:

Like George and others, I am also very interested in knowing the
history of these changes and who exactly is responsible.
George says:

Along with others. I hope that:

 a)  NIFL will exercise the courage and sensibility to restore those
        messages intact

b)  That if an investigation is warranted as to the political forces that
      led to the archival deletions, that that investigation should take
place.

This kind of investigation is a normal and expected manifestation of
the transparency that goes hand in hand with any free and democratic
order.  It is also an expression of the goal of "accountability" that
has been so impressed on education and educators over the past
several years.  There is little in human affairs that isn't motivated by
some responsible or irresponsible person with a name.

Catherine King

----- Original Message -----
From: George E. Demetrion <sophocles5 at juno.com>
To: <aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA]free and open discussion


> David and others,
>
> That is good news indeed.  The NLA archives are the repository to one of
> the more important qualitative data bases in the field.  Thanks to you,
> others, and also to the NIFL staff who persisted in making this transfer
> of information possible.  I don't think I'm alone in having had the
> apprehension that this entire documentary resources could have been
> destroyed  with just a little bit less critical spotlight on this issue
> and the exercise of courageous activity among some.
>
> With you, I hope that NIFL puts back the archives on the NIFL discussion
> board.  Issues of public accessibility even of views contrary to the
> administration's on their own airwaves, which are owned by the people
> rather than any current administration? (that's not a rhetorical
> question) are at stake.
>
> On the latter issue of deleting messages from the other lists over HR
> 1261, ERIC, and matters of war and peace, on the latter, I, as well as
> others, placed various messages on the POVRACELIT list.  I did so with
> thought and intentionality in the sense that that list has as part of its
> descriptor, the topic of social justice as one of its important
> purposes.  A broad array of historical and political science studies
> points to the close relationship between domestic and foreign policy, and
> that matters of budgetary priorities as well as the broader issues of
> national priorities and values were invariably linked to the Iraqi-US
> conflict.  I concluded that any comprehensive understanding of the
> dynamics of the politics of adult literacy had to be grasped within the
> broader issues shaping US political culture.
>
> Even then, I didn't simply begin writing substantive commentary about the
> administration's foreign policy.  I led with a procedural question,
> encouraging list members to examine whether a discussion about foreign
> policy was relevant to this list.  A few comments ensued, where those who
> wrote thought the topic was relevant.  No contrary views were expressed,
> which I hoped would be posted, which would have served as a means of
> discussing the procedural issue, which I maintained was as every bit
> substantive as the actual issue of war and peace.
>
> As it did not seem that the procedural issue was going to take place on
> the public airwaves, I felt it was appropriate to begin the substantive
> discussion.  Accordingly, several others and I posted substantive
> commentary about US foreign policy.  Even at that late point, I raised
> the procedural issue again, hoping that someone would respond.  I closed
> that message by saying that, if someone raises it I will address it, but
> if not, I'm going to continue spending my time focusing on the substance
> of the war and peace issue.
>
> What I find interesting, was at the time that I raised it, there was no
> official commentary addressing the issue of what was and what was not
> appropriate.  What I find disturbing is that those messages (and those on
> ERIC, etc) were simply arbitrarily removed, along with the substantial
> under the table anecdotal information that the source pressuring NIFL
> staff was an influential congressional staff member.
>
> Along with others. I hope that:
>
> a)  NIFL will exercise the courage and sensibility to restore those
> messages intact
> b)  That if an investigation is warranted as to the political forces that
> led to the archival deletions, that that investigation should take place.
>
>
> George Demetrion
>
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 08:09:53 -0400 "David J. Rosen"
> <DJRosen at theworld.com> writes:
>
> >
> >AAACE-NLA is housed on the literacytent.org.  Its archives are housed
> >there, too. The archives are complete, unexpurgated. They have never
> >been touched.
> >
> >Beginning today the NLA archives which were hosued on NIFL LINCS (and
> >may, I hope return there) are available -- unexpurgated -- at
> >http://lists.literacytent.org/ (bottom of the page.)  The NIFL staff
> >were very helpful in making these archives available to be posted on
> >the >literacytent.
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
> _______________________________________________
> AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org
>