[NLA] but wait, there's more--USDE web site

[Catherine B. King]

Harry and Colleagues:

Harry makes a good point about cheap internet storage
for educational information.

Moreover, eliminating readings from educational document-
holding webpages (referring to the  internal USDE
note) in terms of the administration's policy speaks of
actions that amount to no less than electronic book-
burning,

. . . as well as to de facto censorship where the
censorship has to do with "wing" party policy and nothing
to do with decency, etc. where, in these cases, real
flashpoint questions tend to emerge for lawmakers to
sort out--

. . . always, however, in view of the Constitution and its
Amendments and not divisive political party planks.

  But I am old enough to have begun running into students
who have no clue about who Orwell was or, more
importantly, what he wrote about.

Also remarkable is that the language in the USDE note
didn't seem to try to hide its matches, as it were, or
cloak the meaning of eliminating opposing arguments in
double-speak, and with it dialogue.   Rather, it is quite
plain about directives to clean up the webpages in the
US Department of <Education> in terms of the
administration's policy.

Thus, it seemed to me that whoever wrote the letter either

(1) thought the note was written and circulated in complete
secrecy, and/or

(2) were so naive as to fail to understand its political import--
(and many apparently do understand it, and are able to
resonate with "bookburning" events in real and literary
history and the political milieu they conjure up), or

(3)  they understand its political import, but see <everything>
in terms of "conservative" or "liberal" politics so that what's
on the Webpages now are necessarily "liberal" and left over
from the last administration--and now, like changing the rules
to preserve the environment, it's time for the "conservatives"
to have control of what educators have access to read and
research as the "liberals" have before.   "It's our turn."

This, rather than understanding bi-partisan or trans-partisan
issues as distinctly different and above such distinctions, i.e.,
education; or

(4) The fourth possibility is that the writer clearly understands
the political import of their internal note, but act on the
assumption that they have complete control already, and
so have no interest in either a free and open educational
system or of entertaining arguments from those who give a
not-so-small hoot about the principles this country was
founded on.   The name for that is fascism.

Free speech, <free press>, free assembly, founding principles,
and especially knowledgeable teachers or poets, etc., who will
write freely about "sticky" issues, to wake up people's hearts,
or to speak out from an open educational institution, etc., have
always been thorns in the sides of  either secular fascists or
religious ideologues whose "clean sweep" is usually couched
in the language of convenience, efficiency and what is,
of course, best for us all--without consulting anyone or
answering arguments against their stated positions.

Today on a C-Span forum on history and education (from Oct.1)
chaired by Lynn Cheney,she defended the present
administration's views of standards and testing, which were
the object of alot of critique both good and bad--it was a good
and civilized debate I thought--by claiming that her and the
administration's interests were only in being more "efficient."
This against some very cogent arguments on the part of
several historians from several universities.  At least she
was engaged in the argument.  By the way, one historian
noted that they were finding interesting political bedfellows in
the revisionists who, in other arguments, are often at odds
with the current orthodoxy of generally accepted historical
principles.

I don't know who wrote the USDE note, but personally I am
deeply disturbed by the implications of the note and the
frightening scenarios that this kind of startling language
had to have emerged from or, further, that any one of us
would not immediately understand its political implications
or worse, just brush them off.  As a teacher or a citizen, are
any of us an arm of any political ideology save the
one that is open to questioning and challenging all
political ideologies?  I love my country--but that's one of
the reasons I love it?  And fewer and fewer people are likely
to do raise critical questions when reading material is
systematically "cleaned up" under any rule of "wing" politics
save that of openness to ideas and to what is being said,
and especially from the side that doesn't agree with us.

The administration may legitimately eschew disagreement
on particular issues from the point of view of their political
party; and they may fiercely argue their points on these
matters; but they cannot erase disagreeable information
from the point of view of defending either their party or the
 Constitution which rests on the assumption that "the
people" will decide.   When policy erases information,
policy "hijacks" the people's decision-making.   Call it
power-grabbing, or whatever.  It's not ethical, just,
American or even flattering.

Education is of the people and, as such, its electronic
documents (books) are under the wing of the Constitution,
which all parties claim to defend, and not of any particular
political party, its policy and its mono-party planks.  I am
really appalled at the utter ignorance that the USDE note
infers on its writer.

Regards,

Catherine King
Adjunct Instructor
Department of Education
National University
San Diego, CA
5y
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Forster <hforster at strato.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [NLA] but wait, there's more--USDE web site


> In my mind the question is whether it is necessary to remove old
> informative information.  For $200 dollars you can get a 20 gig
> hardrive.  Storage on the internet is so cheap that content decisions
> are made for other reasons.
>
>
> Debbie Yoho wrote:
>
> >Regarding:
> >
> >EDUCATION RESEARCHERS, social scientists, and library
> >
> >
> >>representatives have charged that the Education Department is
> >>preparing to delete information from its Web site, in part,
> >>because the material does not reflect the philosophies of the
> >>Bush administration.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Before I get too excited, does anyone--Jon--know if this is unusual?  I
> >would think that eventually all administrations get around to reshaping
> >public information to "fit philosophies". I'm interested to see what
> >results, as testimony to those philosophies, but I routinely expect
> >anything from the DOE to carry with it the biases of the respective
> >administration.  Debbie
> >
> >
> >Deborah W. Yoho
> >Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv
> >President, SC Adult Literacy Educators
> >Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
> >2728 Devine Street,  Columbia, SC  29205
> >803-765-2555   Fax  803-779-8417   dwyoho at earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>[Original Message]
> >>From: George E. Demetrion <sophocles5 at juno.com>
> >>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> >>Date: 11/25/2002 9:34:02 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [NLA] but wait, there's more--USDE web site
> >>
> >>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 07:55:08 -0500 mev at litwomen.org <mev at litwomen.org>
> >>writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>From the Chronicle of Higher education
> >>>
> >>>*  EDUCATION RESEARCHERS, social scientists, and library
> >>>   representatives have charged that the Education Department is
> >>>   preparing to delete information from its Web site, in part,
> >>>   because the material does not reflect the philosophies of the
> >>>   Bush administration. More than a dozen groups expressed their
> >>>   concerns in a letter sent to the secretary of education last
> >>>   week.
> >>>   --> SEE http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/11/2002112501n.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Thanks for posting this Mev.
> >>
> >>Yesterday I went to the AERA (American Educational Research Association
> >>web site and found two interesting things.  The first is the latest
> >>edition of the AERA journal which has devoted its entire edition to
> >>scientific based educational research.  The articles can be downloaded
at
> >> (http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/eronline.htm)  Currently (today) access to
> >>these articles or the entire AERA website is unavailable.
> >>
> >>More importantly at least in regard to your posting, Mev, is the
> >>following Action Alert about the USDE internal memo that refers to the
> >>Department's web site policy.  Also included in what follows is the
> >>letter to Secretary Paige.  Rather than comment at this time, I'll
simply
> >>post the information which then may evoke commentary from others.
Because
> >>I had to format this data to my juno address, some of the original
> >>formatting of the message has been lost.
> >>
> >>George Demetrion
> >>Sophocles5 at juno.com
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>ACTION ALERT
> >>ED Web Information Disappearing
> >>
> >>Background Information
> >>
> >>The U.S. Department of Education (ED) issued an internal memo, Criteria
> >>and Process for Removing Old Content from www.ed.gov" on May 31, 2002.
> >>The memo established Criteria for Keeping Information on the Web dated
> >>prior to February 2001. One concern cited as reason for removal was that
> >>some content runs counter to current Administration priorities.  Later
in
> >>the memo this reason was reiterated in the section under "Current
> >>Challenges," which states "Content is either outdated or does not
reflect
> >>the priorities, philosophies, or goals of the present administration."
> >>
> >>Items would be removed unless they meet the following criteria: needed
> >>for legal reasons; supports Administration priorities and initiatives;
> >>important for historical perspectives; important for policy reasons
> >>identified by an Assistant Secretary; or useful or valuable to parents,
> >>students, or educators and is consistent with the Administration's
> >>philosophy. There have been estimates that as many as 13,000 documents
of
> >>the more than 50,000 total on the Web site would be in jeopardy due to
> >>their content. In addition, others deemed outdated  would also have no
> >>links under the plan.
> >>
> >>It appears the web information removal activities are occurring
> >>throughout the federal system. On October 21, a group of 12 House
Members
> >>sent a letter to Secretary Tommy Thompson, U.S. Department of Health and
> >>Human Services, identifying a pattern of events at the Department of
> >>Health and Human Services suggesting that scientific decision-making is
> >>being subverted by ideology and that scientific information that does
not
> >>fit the Administration's political agenda is being suppressed &
> >>Scientific information that does not serve the Administration's
> >>ideological agenda is being removed from HHS websites. Health issues
> >>involved include abortion, programs addressing risky behavior in youth,
> >>and contraception. Other federal government Web sites are reported to be
> >>facing similar problems.
> >>
> >>Action Taken
> >>AERA has joined with the American Library Association to lead an effort
> >>to retain documents on the ED Web site. A letter, signed by 14 national
> >>organizations, has been sent to Education Secretary Rod Paige requesting
> >>all ED materials retain the level of accessibility now available and
> >>advocating the inclusion of stakeholders in the web revamping process.
> >>Following is the letter sent to Secretary Paige:
> >>
> >>The Honorable Rod Paige
> >>Secretary of Education
> >>U.S. Department of Education
> >>400 Maryland Avenue, SW
> >>Washington, DC 20202
> >>
> >>Dear Secretary Paige:
> >>
> >>We are writing to express the concerns of our organizations about the
> >>recently reported initiative within the U. S. Department of Education
> >>(ED) to remove from public access information that "does not reflect the
> >>priorities, philosophies, or goals of the present administration." While
> >>the Department is aware of the problems such a move would create, the
> >>steps it has recently suggested to address these problems still fall
> >>short because archived material would clearly not be as accessible.
> >>
> >>We recognize that the Department may reorganize its Web site, and we
> >>applaud your attempts to improve the transparency of this site so that
> >>the public can find information more easily. However, the Department's
> >>announced initiative to remove documents has raised significant concerns
> >>and questions among the library, educational research, and related
social
> >>science communities, and we would value and appreciate a response.
> >>
> >>One of our primary concerns centers on the fate of information scheduled
> >>to be removed from your publicly accessible Web site. As you are aware,
> >>information created or collected by the government, whether in tangible
> >>or electronic form, is a federal record. Therefore, we would like to
know
> >>what steps the Department is taking to preserve information and provide
> >>the easiest possible permanent public access to any materials that are
> >>removed? Because the Internet has become by far the method of choice for
> >>disseminating information and research data widely and efficiently, we
> >>are concerned about efforts that would diminish access and use of these
> >>records.
> >>.
> >>Secondly, we are equally concerned with any actions that would remove
> >>from access research, data, and other digests of information that
> >>otherwise have been publicly available, irrespective of administrations,
> >>by the Department of Education. Such materials are essential to
advancing
> >>scientifically-based research and need to remain accessible to the
> >>library, educational research, and related scholarly communities. For
> >>example, we are uncertain about ongoing access to materials in the
> >>Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) on the Department of
> >>Education Web site. Will a link to the ERIC site be established and
> >>maintained on the Department's site? Will it be visible to experienced
> >>and new researchers who can add knowledge and insights analyzing such
> >>information?
> >>
> >>Finally, we are concerned about the role of educational researchers,
> >>related social and behavioral scientists, librarians, those with
> >>expertise in data dissemination and preservation, and other public
> >>stakeholders in the development of any plan to access materials on the
> >>Department Web site. Information available through the U. S. Department
> >>of Education Web site is used by a wide variety of professionals,
> >>including educators, scholars, public decision makers, and the public
> >>more broadly, and they should be consulted throughout this process. We
> >>urge you to hold meetings with them and listen to their concerns and
> >>ideas.
> >>
> >>Members of our associations appreciate your attention to this important
> >>matter. We, as well as the general public, need Internet access to the
> >>research, data, reports, and other digests and information that may be
> >>removed from the Department's Web site. We would appreciate hearing what
> >>steps the Department intends to take to ensure ongoing access to
> >>documents scheduled to be removed.
> >>
> >>Action Requested
> >>If you wish to support AERA in its effort to retain ED Web site
documents
> >>in the most accessible form, please write to Secretary Rod Paige and
send
> >>copies of your letter to members of Congress in your state and AERA.
> >>
> >>Letters may be addressed to:
> >>The Honorable Rod Paige
> >>Secretary of Education
> >>U.S. Department of Education
> >>400 Maryland Ave., SW, Room 7W301
> >>Washington DC 20202
> >>
> >>If you have questions or would like additional information, please feel
> >>free to contact Felice J. Levine, AERA Executive Director, (202)
> >>223-9485, ext. 122, flevine at aera.net or Sandi Wurtz, Government
Relations
> >>Associate at AERA, (202) 223-9485, ext. 103, swurtz at aera.net .
> >>To read the related news release, go to
http://www.aera.net/communication
> >>s/news/021121.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>________________________________________________________________
> >>Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> >>Only $9.95 per month!
> >>Visit www.juno.com
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> >>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> >>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> >>http://literacytent.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> >http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> >LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> >http://literacytent.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org