From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:00:04 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 06:55:20 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>No. However, any institution that claims to respect academic freedom
>(as most universities, colleges, and larger institutes of technolgy
>do), should respect it everywhere; computers should not be exempt.

No -- that assumes that the definition that you hold to regarding
what specifically is or isn't a threat to academic freedom is the
only decision that can be reasonably taken. As in: "Lets be reason-
able and do it *my* way."

I must also say that "should" and "ought" are two of the most dangerous
words in the English language. They typically announce some piece of
authoritative nonsense that rarely holds up under even the mildest
examination.

>[...]
>>I might also add that this looks remarkably like an "Enemies List",
>>which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
>>moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
>>peculiar sensibilities.
>[...]

>You mean they don't mind lists when they are:
>   open
>   documented (reasonably well)
>   critical of violations of academic freedom

A circular argument. You return again to your own standards of which
kinds of conduct do or do not constitute violations of "academic
freedom". It is *precisely* this brand of self-fullfilling "logic"
that motivates the objections being raised. And you clearly don't
get it.

First of all, there is no basis in constitutional law for "academic
freedom" that I am aware of. It is a "freedom" that has been conferred
by the academic community upon itself: legislature, executive, judge,
and jury. And many believe it sometimes applies far more generously in
favor of those political persuasions which tend to cast Karl Marx as
a "moderate". This is an undue alarm, however, since whatever silliness
may be imposed upon the student by such persons will rarely survive
his first two weeks out in the real world. Of course, for those who
never leave.......but I digress.

I am not aware that the rest of the citizenry have ratified the acts
of this cozy group by direct vote or even public consultation. At
least I cannot recall its having been submitted to a referendum in
*this* state. "Academic freedom" is hardly on the lips of your fellow
countrymen as a pressing and important concern. But then, most are
knaves in any case, I'm sure.

>But then do mind them when they are:
>   secret
>   based on hearsay
>   promote violations of academic freedom
>    (e.g "she's a known Republican, don't hire")

>Gee, you are right, they are hypocritical :-)

Yep. You have defined what you choose to allow as the sole key 
criteria for judging whether an Enemies List is now in existence.
Anything that doesn't agree with your (rather deficient) criteria
would thus be barred from criticism. Including -- surprise! -- your
very own list that just happens to be the object of this debate.

No sale.

I hate to drag these guys out, but the Nazis were *such* good
practitioners of propoganda that it is hard to pass them by. And,
boy, did they know about lists of enemies!

To take your criteria in order:

Secret: was there ever any doubt about who was on the Nazis' lists?
Hell, these were *really* efficient bastards -- they passed a law
requiring Jews to identify *themselves*. All the "List" did was
prioritize who was going to get transported first. But no one had
any real doubts about who was on the list. Indeed, constant beating
of the drum about who was on the list tended to divert attention
away from the uncomfortable questions about *why* they were on it.
So no secrecy there.

Hearsay: the people named by the Nazis to ship out for Auschwitz
and Dachau were, in fact, Jews (as well as members of other named
groups). The lists were factual, "more or less", as to names, ages,
addresses, etc. So no heresay there.

Promote violations of academic freedom: well, there you've got me,
I suppose. I cannot recall hearing of one single instance where any
person was named as having violated someone else's adademic freedom.
Indeed, I cannot recall anyone having even raised it as a subject.
And in Germany, too, that bastion of academic freedom. One would
have thought.....hmmmmmmmm, very odd, indeed.

Guess these folks really weren't on an "Enemies Lists", huh? And
should not, therefore, have had any basis for concern. Right?
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk