[AAACE-NLA] Re: AAACE-NLA Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18

[George E. Demetrion]

Mary Ann,

I really do appreciate your message and the struggles you (and the other
moderators) have been experiencing in the effort to work with NIFL---as
well as that of the NIFL staff in continuing with their efforts in a
difficult political climate.

In terms of viable responses, I hope others will weigh in.  There are no
easy answers, but perhaps as a field we can put our collective minds
together and begin to work through these issues.

The first point, which your message clearly confirms, is that there is a
problem emanating out of D.C. politics in terms of what can and cannot be
said on the NIFL lists.  Perhaps now we have a consensus that there is a
problem, that the problem has been duly noted, and that the political
pressure being placed on NIFL to "reign the lists in" is simply
unacceptable.

On this, I think it is important that sharp distinctions be made between
legal and political issues.  If there are specific laws related to
lobbying which applies to NIFL postings those should be clearly
delineated and parameters specifically defined in terms of what is and
what isn't lobbying.  Without that, general statements about lobbying
only remain, in effect, hearsay.  

Now, in terms of politics, first, it's important to get a handle on where
the pressure sources are coming from that seek to diminish political
discussion on the NIFL lists.  Is that pressure coming from the
Administration through higher officials in the Department of Education,
or is that pressure coming from congressional sources, particularly from
one or two legislative aides, perhaps from the far west?  Or perhaps
pressure is coming from the Executive Branch funneled through
congressional sources.  Identifying specifically where the pressure
sources are coming from may be difficult to track down, but regardless of
where they are coming from, the field (including the moderators and NIFL)
will have to think pretty hard on what its (our collective?) response
might be.

Perhaps first we might get a better handle on exactly what the nature of
the threat is.  Not that I know from where I sit, to be sure, but as I'm
a pretty perceptive guy, let me venture a guess.

Without going into a long analysis (no energy tonight) the short of it
is, the powers that be, whether in the executive or legislative branches,
seek greater control over all aspects of federally funded educational
institutions and networks.  That obviously includes NIFL and the lists. 
What particularly galls this conservative power block is that uppity
progressives are using "their" channels of communication to disseminate
anti-administrative messages in the guise of critical discourse.  From
their various seats of power,  that cannot stand, though these power
sources may or may not have the direct capacity to stop the undesirable
messages. 

 What they can do is apply pressure on NIFL for NIFL to do the direct
policing in terms of enforcing what these conservative watchdogs want. 
Part of the pressure is to threaten to abolish NIFL or at least to
abolish or fundamentally change the listservs and other key NIFL programs
(like EFF?--just asking here).  Those on the firing line at NIFL keenly
feel the pressure and feel compelled, therefore to put pressure on the
moderators and on the list members to tone controversial statements down.

Let's say I'm in the ballpark on this one.  While if there are legitimate
laws about lobbying and if those laws and their parameters are clearly
delineated, theyt obviously  need to be respected.  If the greater
pressure on NIFL is coming from these political pressures, then that
requires another kind of response.  On this, there's no need to wait for
things to settle because there's nothing to be settled.  Perhaps what
does need to take place, then, issomething like  the following:

a)  A clear statement issued by NIFL or the Department of Education on
the lobbying issue.

b)  A decision by NIFL, perhaps in collaboration with the moderators on
what their response to the political pressures should be.

c)  The articulation by NIFL, perhaps in collaboration with the
moderators to the field through the lists on the nature of the pressure,
accompanied by a public statement on how they would like to respond and
how they would like the field  to respond to said pressure.

d)  A somewhat thorough field response (especially, but not exclusively
on this list) exploring ways through which the field could (and should?)
respond.

Basically, what I'm getting at is a need for more disclosure and a
sharper articulation of exactly what the issues are as a reasonable next
step.

That's enough for now.  

Someone else please.

George Demetrion


________________________________________________________________
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!