[AAACE-NLA] "Lobbying'' as euphemism

[George E. Demetrion]

Eileen,

Thanks for sharing that.  You raise an issue that never even crossed my
mind.  Matters of exclusion are always more than a little germane in a
field like ours.  Also, I appreciate the tone in which you raise your
concern.  This does merit a close look, though I hope the main focus of
what I said, getting clarity on exactly what the law does and does not
exclude on the defition of "lobbying" and on what bases.

My response to your message is similar to that of Catherine's with a
little different, but complementary spin.

As you imply, there was certainly a rhetorical connotation to the
descriptor following my name in using the appelation "citizen," but there
was no intent of contributing to targetting non-citizens.  Not that you
were saying that there was "intent," but that the result of such
designation could contribute to such targetting.

The context of my use of the term "citizen" is in a self-professed desire
to embrace the core political philosophy of the United States of America
as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and
the Bill of Rights as a foundational framework to reconstruct the
politics of literacy in this country.  

Publius is the title Madison, Hamilton, and Jay used to designate
themselves as the authors of the Federalist Papers in their stout defense
and detailed explanation of the Constitution that had been written in
Philadelphia in 1787.  It was subject to state ratification when the
Federalist Papers were published.  The title Publius was a rhetorical
devise to associate the Constitution with the ethos of the American
Revolution.  For contemporaries, that was a contestable argument, though
it may seem self-evidence from the perspective of the present.

 I've used Publius before as a descriptor, but that term seems a bit
arcane, where Citizen does not.  In short, my various postings on the
NIFL censorship issue are grounded very much in the rights of citizenship
for free speech and free exchange of and access to information, upon
which, in some small, but not insignificant part, the vitality of the
Republic depends.  In attaching the appelation "citizen," I am
symbolizing the refusal of ceding the issue of patriotism to the
political fundamentalists.  More, in some of my stronger pronouncements
on this issue, I am raising the specter that the Administration and its
allies are bastardizing the term in their hypocritical desire to stifle
free speech and free public access to the various debates that have taken
place on the lists by pulling certain postings off the archives.  This
also has contributed to a  fostering of a more general climate of
intimidation and self-sensorship that violates the spirit if not the
letter of American constitutional democracy.

Though it was in their legal rights to do so, NIFL's  ipso facto removal
the NLA archives from the discussion board in response to the political
pressure that had been enacted against them, is a case demonstration of
the compulsion of the neo-conservative sector to stifle speech which does
not conform to their position.  Though it was in their legal rights to do
so, the political forces acting upon NIFL (those anonymous right-wingers
from on high) were exhibiting a  a mean-spirited politics.  Specifically,
the act of removal was  a reflection of the contempt that the Right has
toward the progressive educational community and of their willingness to
do whatever it takes to make sure that their position becomes the central
voice of the US Department of Education with as little encumbrance as
possible from competing perspectives.  

Call that what you will, but patriotism it is not.  My designation of the
category citizen was meant to challenge their view (their colonization of
the language) of patriotism and to claim that mantle as a legitimate and
necessary political space for the progressive sector to own.  In this
respect, the term citizen was used as a basic political right and a
critical basis by which to challenge the machinations of the political
Right, including the many hypocritical stances of the President of the
United States.

George Demetrion


On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:34:02 +0000 "Eileen Eckert"
<eileeneckert at hotmail.com> writes:
>This is not meant as criticism, but as something to think about. I am 
>bothered by the sudden proliferation of descriptors after people's 
>names: teacher, veteran, citizen, etc. Michael started it on the aalpd 
>yesterday with his description of his qualifcations to speak and others
have 
>picked it up, but please think about it. When you add "citizen" after
your name, 
>the implication is that your citizenship is what gives you the right or 
>authority to speak. The Constitution confers certain rights on every 
>person >on U.S. soil, not only citizens. Given the current assaults on
legal 
>rights and protections of non-citizens in the U.S., I ask people to
consider 
>whether adding the descriptor "citizen" after your name contributes
>to the targeting of non-citizens. Thanks.
>
>Eileen
>


________________________________________________________________
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!