[AAACE-NLA] [NIFL-AALPD:615] Re: A reminder

[George E. Demetrion]

Forwarded message 
(serious and wide discussion requested)

Colleagues:

It's difficult to get a handle on what motivated the latest NIFL
reminder. 
Perhaps it is the impending Senate action this fall to decide on said
(unmentionable) legislation.

At this stage, that's probably not an issue, though no specific
definitions of the parameters of what might be viewed as lobbying based
on what sources of justification have been forthcoming.

More troubling is the broader topic of the politics of literacy as it has
been discussed on the various lists for years to say nothing of the
academic journals and books.  What I have difficulty discerning is NIFL's
position on this broader topic.  The advice is to stay focused on the
mandates of the lists.  That might be fair enough, though (at least) two
issues arise:

a)  On whether the interpretation is to be a  strict or a looser
construction, including whether  NIFL counsel is interpreting those laws
from a loose rather than tight constriction.

b)  The broader issue is (regardless of interpretation) what is
considered legitimate discussion.

Let's look at some of the key lists:

FOB
AAAPLD
POVRACELIT
EFF
ESL
Women's Literacy
Family Literacy

For example,  take FOB.  On that list  discourse is open for
amplification on any of the FOB articles that have been published since
1997.  That includes such natty issues as standards, definitions of
literacy, and policy.

AAAPLD also has a policy focus in one of its three stated purposes.

EFF cannot be understood without elaboration into the areas of research
traditions, the whole controversial areas of standards, and the politics
of literacy broadly speaking since the initial purpose of EFF was to
serve as that consensual framework where a wide variety of conflicting
perspectives could potentially come together.  That EFF has essentially
failed in this broader mandate speaks volumes about the politics of adult
literacy over the past 8 years and in principle, is subject to discussion
on that list.  Also, given that citizenship is one the three EFF roles
and that EFF is still a NIFL project, then said agency should be bending
over backwards to defend free speech, even speech that it might find
intensely troubling.

Then there is POVRACELIT, perhaps the most political of all the lists,
particularly if one is going to look seriously at the relationship
between poverty, racism, and literacy.  How can that not point to issues
of federal budgetary priority such as the social implications of a
massive tax cut in which the wealthy benefit enormously and a massive
growth of the military budget.  That latter area invariably intrudes into
the arena of foreign policy, a topic we are told, that we must enter into
most gingerly, if at al.  If there is a relationship between lobbying as
defined by law and discussion on that topic, including the messages that
have been moved from the archives, that case has not been made.  In any
event, by severely restricting the range of topics that can be discussed,
including those that would not be viewed as lobbing, at least in the more
restricted sense, free speech is being eroded on these lists.

What hasn't taken place is any semblance of a vigorous debate on the
range of issues that have been raised, which might be viewed as
controversial.  May I suggest to my conservative interlocutors that
engaging in such dialogue (even vigorous, open, public debate) is the
more proper role of a vital democracy than exercising various subtle and
not-so subtle pressures to repress dissent on these open? airways.

To those neo-conservative ideologues who are applying pressure behind the
scenes to stifle free speech, why not take the broader view of
responsible political stewardship, and not only defend, but promote the
right of free speech even (no, especially!) through your governmental
venues. 

You hold your authority in trust. The institutions that you serve are not
a sinecure for your political ideology.  Why not take the broader stance?
 Why not exercise a profile in courage.

I do not write this lightly.  I deliberated throughout the week.  The
very act of publishing this message puts me in a position of risk.  Thus,
the internal censor acts in the most deleterious of ways.  It is that
censor that can destroy democracy.

In order to encourage broader commentary, including that of the
moderators and perhaps even NIFL personnel, I will also post this on the
NLA.  My thought was only putting it on the NLA would be an act of bad
faith; that if I were going to stand on my convictions, I also had to
place the message on one of the NIFL lists.

George Demetrion
socrates555 at juno.com
(note the new address)


On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:19:41 -0400 (EDT) "Catherine B. King"
<cb.king at verizon.net> writes:
>Hello Moderator:
>
>Please tell me why these reminders do not
>render these lists inappropriate to an educational 
>or democratic environment.
>
>Catherine King
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: jataylor <jataylor at utk.edu>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd at literacy.nifl.gov>
>Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 7:08 AM
>Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:610] A reminder
>
>
>> Good morning, everyone,
>> NIFL has asked moderators to remind list subscribers of the NIFL 
>list 
>> guidelines.  Please review the following at your leisure:
>> 
>> http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/list_guidelines.html
>> 
>> The more appropriate place to urge others to call or write their 
>> representatives regarding WIA should be on the AAACE-NLA list.
>> 
>> Thanks for your continued patience and understanding,
>> 
>> Jackie Taylor-


________________________________________________________________
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!